However, under Article 48, said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a
singlea ggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of
the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant. Upon the other hand, said Article 48 was
enacted for the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than
that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished separately.
People vs Geronimo
100 Phil. 90
G.R. No. L-8936
October 23, 1956
Facts:
In an information filed on June 24, 1954 by the provincial Fiscal in the Court of First Instance of
Camarines Sur, Appellant Federico Geronimo, together with Mariano P. Balgos alias Bakal alias Tony,
alias Tony Collante alias Taoic, alias Mang Pacio, alias Bonny Abundio Romagosa alias David, Jesus
Polita alias Rex, Jesus Lava alias Jessie alias NMT, alias Balbas, alias Noli, alias Noli Metangere, alias
NKVD, Juan Ocompo alias Cmdr. Bundalian, alias Tagle, Rosendo Manuel alias Cmdr. Sendong, alias
Ruiz, Ernesto Herrero alias Cmdr. Ed, alias Rene, alias Eddy, Santiago Rotas alias Cmdr. Jessie,
Fernando Principe alias Cmdr. Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias Godo, alias Terry, alias Terpy, Andres
Diapera alias Maclang, alias Berto, alias Teny, Lorenzo Saniel alias Wenny, Silvestre Sisno alias Tomo,
alias Albert, Teodoro Primavera alias Nestor, Lorenzo Roxas alias Argos, Vivencio Pineda alias
Marquez, Pedro Anino alias Fernandez, Mauro Llorera alias Justo, Richard Doe alias Cmdr. Danny and
John Doe alias Cmdr.
Cmdr. Berion, alias
alias Mayo, alias
alias Cmdr.
Cmdr. Paulito and
and many others,
others, were charged
charged with
with the
complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnapping committed.
In Camarines Sur, the above-named accused being then ranking officers and/or members of, or
otherwise affiliated with the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the Hukbong Mapagpalaya
Ng Bayan (HMB) or otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (HUKS) the latter being the armed force of
said Communist Party of the Philippines (CCP) having come to an agreement and decide to commit
the crime of Rebellion, and therefore, conspiring together and confederating among themselves with
all of the thirty-one accused.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellants committed the crime of rebellion?
Held:
Accused Federico Geronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the information. When the case was
called for trial on October 12, 1954, however, he asked the permission of the court to substitute his
original plea with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea. On the basis of the plea of guilty,
the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed upon the accused, his
voluntary plea of guilty being considered as a mitigating circumstance. Geronimo’s counsel, on the
other hand, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused was only prision mayor, for the
reason that in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as rebellion with murders, robberies, and
kidnapping, because the crimes of murders robberies, and kidnapping being the natural
consequences of the crime of rebellion, the crime charged against the accused should be considered
only as simple rebellion. On October 18, 1954, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused
guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and kidnappings; and giving him the
benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of P10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various persons killed, as
listed in the information, in the sum of P6,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the
proceedings. From this judgment, accused Federico Geronimo appealed, raising the sole question of
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
21
whether the crime committed by him is the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and
kidnappings, or simple rebellion.
However, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the simple (noncomplex) crime of rebellion under article 135 of the Revised Penal Code, and also for the crime of
murder; and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, the accused-Appellant Federico
Geronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer 8 years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of P10,000,
(without subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 38 of the Penal Code) for the rebellion; and, as
above explained, for the murder, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to not less than 10 years
and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 18 years of reclusion temporal; to indemnify the heirs
of Policarpio Tibay in the sum of P6,000; and to pay the costs.
PEOPLE vs. CRUZ
3 SCRA 217
G.R. No. L-11870. October 16, 1961.
Concepcion, J.
FACTS:
- The said accused, being then ranking officers and/or members of, or otherwise affiliated with the
Communist Party of the Philippines and the 'Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan' (HUK), have all come
together and agreed to commit the crime of rebellion (i.e. rising publicly and taking up arms against
the Government of the Republic of the Phiippines by making armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and
attacks against Phil Constabulary, Civilian Guards, Police, Army patrols, as well as civilians). In
furtherance thereof, they have committed the acts of murders, pillages lootings, plunders, arsons,
and planned destructions of private and public property to create disorder
- March 20, 1951; 830 AM: Benito Cruz, and other Huk members, entered the house of John Hardie,
with violence and intimidation, then took and carried away therefrom personal properties of material
values consisting of a typewriter, a radio, several pieces of jewelry, books, clothings and other articles
belonging to the latter amounting to Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) After ransacking the place, the
raiders tied the hands of John D. Hardie and his foreman Donald Capuano and shot them to death,
together with Mrs. Hardie. Late the month, a combat patrol led by Capt. Conrado M. Cabagui of the
14th BCT, with the assistance of one Tomas Timbresa, as guide, located a Huk camp in the Sierra
Madre Mountains.
- March 21, 1951: Some 70 armed members of FC #32 of the "Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan" led
by Comdr. Robert, fought the members of Co "D" of the 14th BCT, Armed Forces of the Philippines
under Capt. Conrado Cabague.
- April 21, 1951: Accused Fermin Tolentino, as the Commanding Officer of FC 25 of the 'Hukbong
Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan', leading some 70 armed members of the said organization, attacked, fired at
and
engaged15,
into
a fight
the officers
and dela
menTorre
of a detachment
of other
the Armed
of the
Philippines.
- November
1952:
Accused
Domingo
and about 12
armedForces
men, all
members
of
Huk, in support of and/or in furtherance of the movement of the said organization to overthrow the
established government of the Phil, while soliciting food from civilians thereat, fought elements of the
7th BCT, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Civilian Commando Unit of Montalban, Rizal.
- April 5, 1951: Elements of the AFP had an encounter with 50 Huks under commander Silang at Sitio
Malabayas, Sampaloc, Tanay, Rizal, resulting in the death of one (1) Huk, two (2) EM and wounding of
another enlisted man.
- December 11, 1951: Elements of the AFP had an encounter with about fourteen (14) armed Huks
under Commander Aladdin at Sitio Kaulanog, Tanay, Rizal, resulting in the wounding of one (1)
enlisted man.
- April 28, 1949: An undetermined number of Huks jointly led by Commanders Viernes, Marzan, Lupo
and Mulong, treacherously ambushed, assaulted, attacked and fire upon the party of Mrs. Aurora A.
Quezon and her PC escort, whom they considered as their enemies, resulting in the death of Mrs.
Aurora A. Quezon, Baby Quezon, Mayor Bernardo of Quezon City, Maj. P. San Agustin, Lt. Lasam,
Philip Buencamino III and several soldiers, and injuries to General Jalandoni and Capt. Manalang.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
22
- August 25, 1950: An undetermined number of armed Huks raided, assaulted and attacked Camp
Makabulos and set fire on the buildings and installations therein killing Maj. E. D. Orlino, Capt. E. D.
Cruz, Lts. Manacias, N. C. Tan, Eusebio Cabute, and several enlisted men, including Rosario Sotto, a
Red Cross Nurse.
- August 26, 1950: About 100 armed Huks, with intent of gain and for the purpose of procuring
supplies and other materials for the support and maintenance of the HMB organization, forcibly
brought the cashier of the Provincial Treasury, Vicente Reventar, from his house to the Provincial
Capitol and at the point of guns, forced him to open the treasury, and from which took money
amounting to Php 80,000.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the appellants committed the crime of rebellion.
HELD:
Yes. As stated
stated in the
the brief for
for the Government,
Government, appellants
appellants herein are guilty of simple rebellion,
rebellion,
inasmuch as the information alleges, and the records show that the acts imputed to them were
performed as a means to commit the crime of rebellion and in furtherance thereof, although as Huk
Commanders, appellants Benito Cruz and Fermin Tolentino fall under the first paragraph of Article
135 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not
exceeding P20,000, whereas appellant Paterno Cruz comes under the second paragraph of said
article, which prescribes the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. Accordingly, the penalty
meted out to appellants Benito Cruz and Fermin Tolentino should be reduced to ten (10) years of
prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay each a fine of P10,000, and
appellant Paterno Cruz should be sentenced to six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of
prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law.
The decision
decision appealed
appealed from is hereby affirmed
affirmed in all
all other respects,
respects, with
with the proportionat
proportionate
e part of the
the
costs against said appellants.
Carino v People
FRANCISCO R. CARIÑO
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS
April 30, 1963 En Banc Labrador, J.
DOCTRINE: In rebellion or insurrection, the RPC expressly declares that there must be a public
uprising and the taking up of arms. The act of giving aid and comfort is not criminal in rebellion unlike
in treason.
FACTS:
- Accused was charged with rebellion for allegedly being in conspiracy with the other members of the
Communist Party, between the period from May 6, 1946 to September 12, 1950 for acts committed:
1) The ambush on May 6, 1946 of the 10th MPC Company in Barrio Sta. Monica, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija;
resulting in the death of 10 enlisted men; 2) The raid on August 6, 1946 of the Municipal Building of
Majayjay, Laguna; 3) The ambush on April 10, 1947 of 14 enlisted men in Barrio San Miguel na Munti,
Talavera, Nueva
Nueva Ecija, during
during which
which Lt. Pablo
Pablo Cruz and
and Pvt. Santiago
Santiago Mercado
Mercado were killed;
killed; 4) The raid
on the poblacion of Laur, Nueva Ecija of May 9, 1947; 5) The ambush on August 19, 1947 of a
detachment of the 155th Company, in San Miguel, Bulacan, killing two officers thereof; 6) The raid on
Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija of June 1946; 7) The ambush on April 25, 1947 of Mrs. Aurora Aragon
Quezon and party at Barrio Salubsob, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, resulting in the death of said Mrs.
Quezon and other members of her party; 8) The raid on Camp Macabulos, Tarlac, Tarlac, on August
25, 1950; 9) The raid on Sta. Cruz, Laguna, of August 26, 1950; 10) The raid on Arayat, Pampanga,
of August 25, 1950; 11) The seizure of September 12, 1950 of an army scout car in Barrio Mapalad,
Arayat, Pampanga and the murder of two TPs on the said occasion; 12) The attack on the
headquarters of a PC detachment of March 28, 1950, at Montalban, Rizal; and 13) The raid on San
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
23
Pablo, Laguna, of March 29, 1950, resulting in the death of Major Alikbusan of the government armed
forces.
- He admitted the truthfulness of the said events but denied any participation.
- Accused is a good friend and a former high school classmate of Dr. Lava, a well-known Communist
leader. The latter has treated the family of the accused successfully and free of charge and is the
godfather of one of the children.
- 1946, nighttime: Lava arrived at their home and asked for shelter as he was being pursued by
politicians upon suspicion of his involvement in the killing of Mayor Roxas of Bulacan. He left early the
morning after.
- May 1949: A note from the Lava arrived asking for some cigarettes, powdered milk and canned
goods. The note was brought by a boy of 12 or 15 years, named Totoy, and through him the accused
sent the needed supplies. He was instructed to sign "Turko" all notes to be sent by him to Lava and to
address them to "Pinang" in order to conceal their respective identities.
- 1949 - April 1952: This exchange of notes between them and the furnishing of supplies and
foodstuffs by appellant to Dr. Lava lasted until the accused was arrested and detained.
- He also allegedly provided assistance to the Communist party as a ranking employee of the National
City Bank of New York when he was approached by a prominent member of a special unit of the
Communist Party, and delivered the amount of $6,000 to the treasurer of the communists. He also
assisted two top-level communists in opening current accounts in the National City Bank of New York
although their initial deposit was below P2,000, the minimum required by the bank. (However it was
not shown that the persons helped were known by appellant to be communist and the funds intended
to carry out the rebellion.)
- 1949: A spy, Florentino Diolata, heard him state that he was at the command of his comrades for
any assistance for the advancement and promotion of their common purpose at a banquet given by
the Communists in honor of Amado V. Hernandez
INFORMATION: Crime of rebellion with murders, arson, robberies and kidnappings, for
having, as a high ranking officer and/or member of the Communist Party of the Philippines and of the
Hukbong Mapagpalaya Ng Bayan otherwise known as the Hukbalahaps (Huks), agreed in conspiracy
with 31 other who were charged with the same crime in other criminal cases then pending in the
Court of First Instance of Manila, for the purpose of overthrowing the Government and disrupting its
activities.
CFI Manila: Guilty as accomplice in the crime of rebellion, and sentencing him to suffer two (2)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional
correccional and to pay a fine in the sum of P2,000
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
CA: Affirmed CFI decision and convicted the accused of the crime of rebellion as the acts done by him
constitute acts of cooperation with the communists in their primordial purpose of overthrowing the
government and such acts naturally have contributed to some extent in the advancement and
promotion of their purpose.
ISSUE:
Whether the acts committed by the petitioner were enough to render him guilty as an accomplice in
the crime of rebellion
HELD: No.
●
●
There are two
two elements
elements required in order that
that a person
person may be considered
considered an accomplice
accomplice to a
criminal act, namely; 1) that he take part in the execution of the crime by previous and
simultaneous acts and; 2) that he intend by said acts to commit or take part in the execution
of the crime. The acts of the appellant do not prove any criminal intent of helping the Huks in
committing the crime of insurrection or rebellion. Good faith is presumed, and there is no
presumption of criminal intent or aiding the communists in their unlawful designs to overthrow
the Government.
Even if he had intent, he is still not liable as his assistance was not efficacious enough to help
in
the success
crime so in
as the
to make
him an
Appellant's the
actsgovernment.
did not
constitute
acts of
of the
cooperation
execution
of accomplice.
the act of overthrowing
Appellant was not a member of the Hukbalahap organization. He did not take up arms against
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
24
●
the Government, nor did he openly take part in the commission of the crime of rebellion or
insurrection as defined in article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, without which said crime
would not have been committed. The only acts he was shown to have performed were the
sending or furnishing of cigarettes and food supplies to a Huk leader, the changing of dollars
into pesos for a top-level communists and the helping of Huks in opening accounts with the
bank of which he was an official.
Even if considered an indirect help or aid in the rebellion, they cannot constitute previous or
simultaneous acts or uprising or rebellion, for, unlike in the crime of treason, the acts giving
comfort of moral did is not criminal in the case of rebellion or insurrection, where the Revised
Penal Code expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the taking up of arms.
DISPOSITION:
The judgment
judg
ment
appealed
appealed from is
is hereby REVERSED
REVERSED and the
the appellant
appellant ABSOLVED
ABSOLVED from
the charge contained
in the
information.
Buscayno v Military Commission
In the Matter of the Application for a writ of habeas corpus
Bernabe Buscayno, Jose Ma. Sison, Juliet Sison v. Mil. Comm. 1, 2, 6, 25
109 SCRA 273
Original Decision: Military Commission - Buscayno convicted of subversion, death by firing squad
SC Decision: No illegal detention. No bail. No double jeopardy.
Buscayno’s cases
-Buscayno and Benigno S. Aquino, Jr. charged before Mil. Comm. 2 with subversion
-staged NPA-sponsored demonstration in Manila
-Aquino gave Buscayno several .45 caliber pistols, two armored vests and walkie-talkies, and
ammunition.
-Aquino provided shelter and medical treatment for members of the HMB and NPA
-Aquino, Buscayno, as conspirators, charged with murder before Mil. Comm. 2
-took Cecilio Sumat, barrio captain, and killed him
-Buscayno, with 91 others charged with rebellion before Mil. Comm. 1
-Feb 4, 1972. rose publicly and took up arms against the government in Navotas, Rizal by
organizing the Karagatan Fishing Corporation to procure firearms
-Aug, 1973 - Feb, 1974. rebellion in Manila, Baguio, La Union, Pangasinan, Bulacan by
acquiring vessels, houses, lots to distribute firearms
-Buscayno arrested on Aug 26, 1976 in Pampanga
-At trial and arraignment, he waived his right to be present and to have counsel
-Pleaded not guilty
-Did not want to present evidence
-July 18, 1977 - Juan T. David entered his appearance as counsel for Buscayno and filed a
petition for habeas corpus and prohibition
-Commission found accused guilty and sentenced to death by firing squad
-May 4, 1981 - Commission reaffirmed original decision
Sison cases
-charged with rebellion before Special Mil Comm 1
-charged with subversion before Mil. Comm. 6
-alleged that accused became and have remained officers of CPP and NPA
-engaged in indoctrination, promotion of communist pattern of subversion
Rebellion case
-Sison
and Buscayno
assailed
jurisdiction
of the
military tribunal
-filed petition
for habeas
corpus,
prohibition,
mandamus.
denied to try civilians like them
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
25
Instant case
-prayed that the decision of Mil. Comm. 2 be declared void because he was denied his
constitutional right to present evidence and that he be released from detention; charges for rebellion
and subversion be dismissed for being in contravention of the rule on double jeopardy
Issue: W/N they are legally detained. No, not illegally detained and no justification for their release
Held:
Proclamation No. 2045 sanctions continued confinement: persons under detention for rebellion and
subversion cannot enjoy the privilege of the write of habeas corpus
On the issue of the Anti-Subversion Law
Contention of Juliet de Lima-Sison: criminal liability for subversion extinguished when PD 885
repealed RA 1700. SC: No.
-Anti-Subversion Law expressly provides: acts committed in violation of the former law shall be
prosecuted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the former act and nothing in the
decree shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for violation of RA 1700
On the issue of double jeopardy
For an accused to be in jeopardy, required:
valid complaint or information filed against him
1
2 that the charge is filed in a court of competent jurisdiction
3 after pleading to the charge, accused is convicted, acquitted, case dismissed or terminated
Petitioners were all charged with rebellion. Only Buscayno’s subversion case was decided but the
decision is subject to review. No case against petitioners has been terminated thus, the rule on
double jeopardy cannot be invoked.
On the issue of rebellion being an element of subversion
Subversion does not necessarily include rebellion. Subversion is a crime against national security.
Rebellion is a crime against public order.
Petitioners were accused of rebellion for having undertaken a public uprising to overthrow the
government. As for having been accused of subversion, they were allegedly officers and ranking
members of the Communist party. Overt acts of resisting armed forces were incidental to the main
charge of being leaders of subversive organizations.
Rebellion may be committed by noncommunists without collaborating with the agents of an alien
power. On the other hand subversion came into existence when the communists sought to dominate
the world in order to establish a new political order.
Enrile v Salazar
In the Matter of Petition for Habeas Corpus, Juan Ponce Enrile v. RTC QC Judge Jaime
Salazar
G.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990
186 SCRA 216
Ponente: Justice Narvasa
Facts:
In the afternoon of 2/27/1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader JPE, and spouses Panlilio, was arrested by
law enforcement officers
officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the NBI on the strength of a warrant issued by
respondent judge earlier that day, for rebellion and multiple murder during the period of the failed
coup attempt from 11/29 to 12/10/1990. JPE was taken and held overnight at the NBI headquarters
headquarters in
Taft
Avenue,
bail,
none having
been
recommended
recommend
ed in
the information
and day,
noneJPE,
fixed
in the
warrant.
The without
following
morning,
he was
brought
to Camp
Karingal
in QC. That
through
counsel, filed a petitione for habeas corpus, alleging he was deprived of his constitutional rights in
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
26
being held to answer for a criminal offense nonexistent in statute books and charged with a crime in
an information for which no complaint was initially filed or no preliminary investigation was conducted
(thus no due process), granted. The Solicitor General argued that petitioners’ case does not fall within
the Hern
Hernande
andez
z ruli
ruling
ng because
because the informatio
information
n in Hernandez charged murders and other common
crimes as a necessary means for the commission of rebellion, whereas the information against Sen.
Enri
rille et al.
charged
d murde
murderr and frustra
frustrated
ted murder
murder commi
committe
tted
d on the
al. charge
the oc
occa
casi
sion
on,, but not
not in
furtherance, of rebellion. The court granted JPE and the Panlilio spouses provisional liberty on bail.
Petitioners
Petition
ers pray for the abandonment of the Hernandez ruling, rule that rebellion cannot absorb more
serio
ser
ious
us crimes
crimes and
and that
that Hernandez applie
applies
s only
only to of
offen
fenses
ses committ
committed
ed in furth
furthera
erance
nce,, or as a
necessary means, to commit rebellion, but not to acts committed in the course of a rebellion which
also constitute "common" crimes of grave or less grave character.
Issue:
Whether or not rebellion can be complexed with murder.
Held:
No. Hernandez stands. Murder is absorbed in rebellion. If murder were punished separately from
No.
rebellion, and the two crimes were separately punished, then 2 penalties would be imposed, and so
the extreme penalty could not be imposed, which would be unfavorable. The purpose of RPC48 is to
favor the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than that which would be proper if
the several acts performed by him were punished separately. If one act constitutes two or more
offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of
said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case,
imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a
penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. When two
or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he
commits
com
mits said crimes
crimes thru separate
separate and distinc
distinctt acts.
acts. Instead
Instead of sentenci
sentencing
ng him for each crime
independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one,
on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties for each offense.
Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other
offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. Also, since the information does not charge
an offense
offense,, and disregardi
disregarding
ng phrasing
phrasing that rebellio
rebellion
n be comp
complexe
lexed,
d, indictme
indictment
nt is to be read as
charging only simple rebellion. Hence, entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right.
People V Lava
23 SCRA 72
Zaldivar J.; May 16, 1969
§FACTS:
Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz y Adriano, Rosario C.
Viuda de Santos, Angel Baking, Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor Razon, Sr., Esteban Gonzales y la Torre,
Marcos Medina, Cesario Torres, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, Arturo Baking y Calma, Simeon Gutierrez y
Rodriguez, Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Victorina Rodriguez y Gutierrez, Marciano de Leon, Honofre D.
Mangila, Cenon Bungay y Bagtas, Magno Pontillera Bueno, Nicanor Capalad, Rosalina Quizon, Pedro
Vicencio, Julia Mesina, Felipe Engreso, Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina Adelan y Abusejo, Conrado
Domingo, Aurora Garcia, and Naty Cruz were all arrested and charged with the complex crime of
rebellion with murders and arsons under an identical information that:
- On May 6, 1946, these people intended to overthrow the seat of the Gov’t of the Philippine
Republic in the City of Manila.
- And the accused, being high officials of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), of which the
Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan (HMB) is its armed forces, decided to commit rebellion and did so by
making armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attacks against police, constabulary and army
detachments
and committing
murder,
spoilage, looting, arson, planned destruction of
private and public
buildings, towanton
create acts
and of
spread
terrorism.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
27
§ Of the 31, five were acquitted, namely: Julia Mesina, Rosenda Canlas Reyes, Victorina Rodriguez y
Gutierrez, Nicanor Capalad and Aurora Garcia.
§ Of the 26 who were convicted, all appealed to this Court except defendant Esteban Gonzales la
Torre. And later on, Rosalina
Rosalina Quizon,
Quizon, Elpidio
Elpidio Acuño Adime, Josefina
Josefina Adelan
Adelan Abusejo,
Abusejo, Conrado Domingo
and Naty Cruz withdrew their appeal.
§ During the pendency of the appeal, defendants Julita Rodriguez y Gutierrez and Magno Pontillera
Bueno died.
§ 18 defendants were left
left to the appeal, namely: Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang,
Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Rosario Vda. de Santos, Angel Baking, Lamberto Magboo, Nicanor
Razon, Marcos Medina, Cesareo Torres, Arturo Baking, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Marciano de Leon,
Honofre Mangila, Cenon Bungay, Pedro Vicencio, and Felipe Engreso.
Issues:
§ Whether or not the accused are guilty
guilty of rebellion.
§ Whether or not a person may be prosecuted and held guilty of the crime of rebellion complexed
with murder, arson, robbery and/or other common crimes.
Held:
§ Nicanor Razon, Sr. and Felipe Engreso were acquitted.
§ Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Angel Baking,
Cesario Torres, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Honofre Mangila and Simeon Bungay are found guilty as
principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion.
§ Rosario C. Vda. de Santos, Lamberto Magboo and Arturo Baking, Marciano de Leon and Pedro T.
Vicencio is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion.
§ Marcos Medina is found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion
§ NO!!
§ Petition PARTIALLY GRANTED. Decision is MODIFIED.
Ratio:
§ Nicanor Razon, Sr.: No sufficient evidence to show that he had performed any act, which would
constitute a cooperation in promoting the rebellion jointly undertaken by the CPP and the HMB. He is
only a member of the CCP, as secretary and treasurer.
§ Felipe Engreso: Was simply a houseboy of Federico Maclang. He did not know that he was dealing
with communists and was only following orders of his master.
§ Jose Lava, Federico Bautista, Federico Maclang, Ramon Espiritu, Salome Cruz, Angel Baking,
Cesario Torres, Simeon G. Rodriguez, Honofre Mangila and Simeon Bungay are ALL high ranking
officers of either CPP and HMB. They all performed their duties and role in fulfilling the goals of the
organization and sought for rebellion against the Philippine gov’t. They were all LEADERS of the
rebellion.
§ Rosario C. Vda. de Santos: only a staff member of the National Courier (or Communication) Division
of the CPP, and that she checked and made reports on the arrival and dispatch of couriers. She was
merely executing the orders or commands of others who are superior to her in the organizational setup of the CPP. And since all this she did while CPP went underground and HMB was already doing
armed operations, she is still liable as a participant.
§ Lamberto Magboo: He is only a courier from the headquarters of the National Courier Division of
the CPP in Manila and was actually working and cooperating with the armed operations to overthrow
the government. So still liable as a participant.
§ Arturo Baking: He is a confirmed communist, and was in full sympathy with the armed struggle
struggle
being promoted by the leaders of the CPP and the HMB in order to overthrow the existing government
of the Philippines. BUT he was only the assistant of appellant Cesario Torres, who was entrusted with
the publication and distribution of the official organs of the CPP and the HMB, as well as of the
printing
and distribution
of the documents
of these of
two
Beingand
an assistant
of appellant
Cesario Tores
who is a principal
in the commission
theorganizations.
crime of rebellion,
not proven
to have
committed acts of rebellion himself, he is only a participant.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
28
§ Marciano de Leon: He also took part in the conspiracy to overthrow the government by armed
struggle and did his bit by furnishing Federico Bautista with information and records regarding the
HMB activities obtainable from the PC Headquarters by virtue of his position in the Personnel Section
of the Philippine Constabulary. BUT he is a mere participant in the commission of rebellion since he
only cooperated or helped in the prosecution of the armed rebellion.
§ Pedro T. Vicencio: It was not proven that he
he actually took part in the armed operations of the HMB.
BUT, his having delivered foodstuffs, medicines and other supplies which were intended for the HMB,
and his having delivered packages to Rosario Vda. de Santos who was in charge of the outpost where
couriers go to deliver, or to get, letters or articles intended for RECOS in the field, clearly indicate that
this appellant was actively cooperating in the efforts of those promoting the rebellion. Being 20 years
of
age and a and
college
communists
the student,
Huks. it can be expected that he knew that he was doing something for the
IMPORTANT RE Rebellion
Rebellion cannot be complexed with other crimes.
§ The crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes
expressed in Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code, and the overt acts of violence described in the
first paragraph of Article 135. That both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one
crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist.
US v Ravidas
DOCTRINE: No crime of misprision of rebellion” (US vs. Ravidas) *Misprision is only to treason
RAPE DIGESTS
c/o Hipolito
1. PEOPLE vs RICKY ALFREDO y NORMAN
G.
G.R.
R. No
No.. 18
1885
8560
60
De
Dece
cemb
mber
er 15
15,, 20
2010
10
VE
VELA
LASC
SCO,
O, JR
JR.,
., J.:
Facts:
•
•
Accused-appellant was charged in two (2) separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which
Accused-appellant
read:
From April 28-29, 2001, at Cadian, Topdac, Municipality of Atok, Province of Benguet,
o
Phili
Phi
lippi
ppines
nes,, accus
accused,
ed, by mea
means
ns of for
force,
ce, int
intimi
imidat
dation
ion and thre
threats
ats,, hav
have
e car
carnal
nal
knowledge with one [AAA], a thirty six (36) year old woman, against her will and consent
From April 28-29, 2001, at Cadian, Topdac, Municipality of Atok, Province of Benguet,
o
Philippines,
Philippin
es, by means of force, intimidation and threats, did commit an act of sexual
assault by inserting a flashlight into the vagina of one [AAA], a thirty six (36) year old
woman, against her will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
Pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Prosecution’s Version:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Oral testimonies of the victim, AAA; her 10-year old son, BBB; Ernesto dela Cruz; Police Officer 3
James Ruadap;
Ruadap; and Dr. Alma Ged-ang.
Ged-ang.
In March 2001, AAA, who was six months pregnant, went home to Butiyao, Benguet, along with
her family, to harvest the peppers planted in their garden.
On April 27, 2001, AAA and her son, BBB, returned to their sayote plantation in Cadian, Topdac,
Atok, Benguet to harvest sayote.
April 28, 2001, AAA had the harvested sayote transported to Baguio City. Later that night, she and
her son stayed at their rented shack and retired early to bed.
In the middle of the night, AAA was awakened by a beam of light coming from the gaps in the
walls of the shack directly illuminating her face.
She then inquired who the person was, but nobody answered. Instead, the light was switched off.
After a few, minutes,
the light
was switched
again.
Thereafter
Thereafter,
a male voice
shouted,
"Rumwaron
kayo
ditta no saan kayo nga rumwar
rumwar paletpeten kayo
iti bala!" ("You better come out if you will not come out I will riddle you with bullets.")
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
29
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
AAA remained seated. Then, the male voice uttered, "Lukatam daytoy no saan mo nga lukatan
bilangan ka, maysa, duwa…" ("You better get out or else I will count, one, two…")
AAA immediately woke BBB up. Just then, the male voice said, "Pabitaken kayo iti bala." ("I will
explode the bullet."). AAA cried out of fear.
Anxious that the person outside
outside would kill her and her son, AAA lit the gas lamp placed on top of
the table, and opened the door while her son stood beside it. As the door opened, she saw
accused-appellant directly in front of her holding a flashlight.
AAA did not immediately recognize accused-appellant, as his hair was long and was covering his
face.
She invited him to come inside the shack, but the latter immediately held her hair and ordered
her to walk uphill.
Helpless and terrified, AAA obeyed him. All the while, accused-appellant was behind her.
Upon reaching a sloping ground, accused-appellant ordered AAA to stop.
Thereafter,, accused-appellant
Thereafter
accused-appellant placed the lit flashlight
flashlight in his pocket and ordered AAA to remove
her clothes.
When she refused, accused-appellant
accused-appellant boxed her left eye and removed her clothes. When she also
attempted to stop accused-appellant, the latter angrily slapped her face. Completely naked, AAA
was again ordered to walk uphill.
Upon reaching a grassy portion and a stump about one foot high, accused-appellant ordered AAA
to stop and lie on top of the stump, after accused-appellant boxed her thighs. Accused-appellant
then bent down and spread open AAA’s legs.
After directing the beam of the flashlight on AAA’s naked body, accused-appellant removed his
pants, lowered his brief to his knees, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
Accused-appellant
box her
she moves.
Accused-appellant
alsotoheld
AAA’swhile
breast,
as well as the otherthreatened
parts of hertobody.
He if
shifted
the flashl
flashlight
ight from one hand
another
he
moved his buttocks up and down.
AAA cried as she felt severe pain in her lower abdomen. Accused-appellant stood up and directed
the beam of the flashlight on her after he was satisfied.
Ten minutes later, accused-appellant
accused-appellant went on top of AAA again and inserted his penis into her
vagina and moved his buttocks up and down. After being satisfied, accused-appellant stood up
and lit a cigarette.
Afterwards, accused-appellan
accused-appellantt went on top of AAA again and tried to insert his penis in the latter’s
vagina. His penis, however, has already softened.
Frustrated, accused-appellant knelt and inserted his fingers in her vagina. After removing his
fingers, accused-appellant held a twig about 10 inches long and the size of a small finger in
diameter which he used to pierce her vagina. Dissatisfied, accused-appellant removed the twig
and inserted the flashlight in her vagina.
After accused-appellant removed the flashlight from AAA’s vagina, he went on top of her again,
pressing his elbows on her upper breasts and boxing her shoulders and thighs. Subsequently,
accus
acc
useded-ap
appel
pellan
lantt st
stood
ood up and warne
warned
d her not to report
report the in
incid
cident
ent to the author
authorit
ities
ies..
Immediately after, he left her at the scene.
Since she was too weak to walk, AAA rested for about 15 minutes before she got up and went
back to the shack where she immediately woke her son up. Thereafter, they proceeded to the
highway and boarded a jeep to Camp 30, Atok, Benguet. She also went to Sayangan, Atok,
Benguet the following day to report the incident to the police authorities.
MEDICAL EXAMINATION: AAA had a subconjunctival hemorrhage on the right eye and multiple
head injuries, which may have been caused by force such as a blow, a punch, or a hard object
hitting the eye. There was also tenderness
tenderness on the upper part of the back of AAA, as well as on her
left infraclavicular area below the left clavicle, left flank area or at the left side of the waist, and
medial aspect on the inner part of the thigh. Moreover, there were also multiple linear abrasions,
or minor straight open wounds on the skin of her forearms and legs caused by sharp objects with
rough surface.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
30
•
INTERNAL EXAMINATION: Confluent abrasion on the left and medial aspects of her labi
labia
a mino
minora
ra
about five centimeters long and a confluent circular abrasion caused by a blunt, rough object that
has been forcibly introduced into the genitalia.
Defense’ Version
•
•
•
Witnesses accused-appellant himself; his mother, Remina; his sister, Margaret; Hover Cotdi; Jona
Canuto; and Pina Mendoza
In the morning of April 28, 2001, accused-appellant was allegedly working in the sayote plantation
near his house. At noontime, he went home to eat his lunch. After having lunch, his mother told
him to bring the pile of sayote she harvested to the edge of the road.
Accused-appellant went to the place where the pile of harvested sayote was placed. However,
when he reached that place, he claimed that he saw AAA gathering the sayote harvested by his
mother and placing them in a sack.
Upon seeing what AAA was doing, accused-appellant shouted at her, prompting AAA to run away
with her son and leave the sack of sayote. When they left, accused-appellant started placing the
harvested sayote in the sack. He was able to fill eight sacks.
Remembering that his mother told him that he would be able to fill 10 sacks all in all, accusedappellant went to the shack of AAA after bringing the eight sacks near the road. He suspected that
she and her son were the ones who took the two missing sacks of sayote.
When he arrived at the place where AAA and her son were staying, accused-appellant allegedly
saw them packing sayote, and he also supposedly saw a sack of sayote with the name of his
father printed on it.
For this reason, accused-appellant
accused-appellant got mad and told AAA to go away and leave the place because
what they were doing was wrong. AAA replied by saying that she would wait for Hover Cotdi, the
owner of the sayote plantation and the shack, to ask for permission to leave.
All this time, accused-appellant was allegedly speaking in an angry but non-threatening voice.
Nonetheless, while he was confronting AAA, her son ran into the shack and stayed there.
Before leaving the place, accused-appellant told AAA that the sacks of sayote belonged to his
family, although he decided not to take them back anymore. He supposedly left after five o’clock
in the afternoon and arrived at their house at around seven o’clock in the evening.
During this time, all his family members were watching television on Channel 3. Accused-appellant
joined them in watching
watching a Tagalog movie. He then allegedly went to bed at 10 o’clock in the
evening, while his parents continued to watch television until 11 o’clock in the evening.
The following
following morning,
morning, on April 29,
29, 2001, accused-appella
accused-appellant
nt woke up between
between six to seven
seven o’clock
in the morning. After having breakfast, he helped his mother clean the sayote farm. At around
eight o’clock in the morning, he saw AAA by the road waiting for a ride with a baggage placed
placed in a
carton box. His mother then went down the road and talked to AAA, leaving accused-appellant
behind. He claimed to pity AAA upon seeing her but could not do anything.
RTC: Gave credence to the version of the prosecution and found appellant GUILTY OF TWO COUNTS
OF RAPE; suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua including all the accessory penalties imposed by
law for 1st count; suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonmen
imprisonmentt of three (3) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional
correccional, as minimum, and eight (8) years, two (2) months and one (1)
day of prision mayor
mayor, as maximum for 2nd count.
For each count of rape, he shall pay [AAA] the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (Php50,000.
(Php50,000.00)
00) by
way of civil indemnity and the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) by way of moral
damages.
Pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 4-92-A of the Court Administrator, accused transferred
to Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa
Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila after the expiration of fifteen (15) days
from date of promulgation
cases in which
which the penal
penalty
ty impos
imposed
ed by th
the
e tri
trial
al co
court
urt is deat
death,
h, reclusion
Peop
Pe
ople
le v. Mate
Mateo:
o: For cases
perpetua, or life imprisonment, the case was transferred, for appropriate action and disposition, to
the CA.
CA: Affirmed RTC; GUILTY of two counts of rape.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Issues:
(1) Whether material
material inconsistencies
inconsistencies in claims of witnesses vs. his alibi warrant his acquittal
acquittal (NO)
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
31
(2) Whether the court committed
committed error in relying on the demeanor of prosecu
prosecution
tion witness
witnesses
es when
it did not have opportunity to hear witnesses
(3) Whether conduct
conduct of accuse is unlikely
unlikely to yield guilty verdict (NO)
(4) Whether award
award of damages
damages is correct
correct (NO)
HELD: Accused-appellant’s conviction SUSTAINED
1. a. Alibi is an inherently weak defense
•
•
•
He cont
conten
ends
ds that
that alth
althou
ough
gh deni
denial
al and
and alib
alibii are
are the
the weak
weakes
estt defe
defens
nses
es in cr
crim
imin
inal
al case
cases,
s,
consideration should also be given to the fact that denial becomes the most plausible line of
defen
def
ense
se consid
consideri
ering
ng th
the
e nature
nature of th
the
e crime
crime of rape
rape where
where normal
normally
ly only
only two perso
persons
ns are
involved.
It
should place
be noted
thatthe
forcrime
alibi towas
prosper,
it is notHe
enough
the accused
prove
that physically
he was in
another
when
committed.
mustfor
likewise
proveto
that
it was
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission.
commissio
n. A review of the records in the instant case would reveal that accused-appell
accused-appellant
ant failed
to present convincing evidence that he did not leave his house, which is only about 150 meters
away from the shack of AAA, in the evening of April 28, 2001. Significantly, it was also not
physically impossible for accused-appellant to be present on the mountain where he allegedly
raped AAA at the time it was said to have been committed.
Alibi, as a defense, is inherently weak and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful
witnesses. It is evidence negative in nature and self-serving and cannot attain more credibility
than the testimo
testimonies
nies of prosecut
prosecution
ion witnesses
witnesses who testify
testify on clear and positive
positive evidence
evidence.. In
addition, alibi becomes more unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused
himself and his or her relatives, friends, and comrades-in-arms, and not by credible persons.
1.b.
betw
between
een the stat
statemen
ementt made in an affid
affidavit
avit and th
that
at give
given
n in open court
court,, the
latter As
is superior
•
•
•
•
•
Material inconsistencies in the testimonies and affidavits: (1) whether accused-appellant’s penis
was erect or not; and (2) whether AAA indeed recognized accused-appellant when they were
already on the mountain or while they were still in the shack.
AAA testified in open court that accused-appellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina several
times but was unable to do so since his penis has already softened. On the other hand, AAA stated
in her affidavit that "the suspect ordered me to lay [sic] flatly on the ground and there he started
to light and view my whole naked body while removing his pant
pant [sic] and tried to insert his pennis
[sic] on [sic] my vagina but I wonder it does not erect [sic]."
There
Ther
e is no inco
incons
nsis
iste
tenc
ncy
y be
betw
twee
een
n AA
AAA’
A’s
s te
test
stim
imon
ony
y and he
herr affi
affida
davi
vit.
t. The
The on
only
ly
difference is that she failed to state in her affidavit that before accused-appellant
unsuccessfully tried to insert his penis into AAA’s vagina, he had already succeeded
twice in penetrating her private organ.
There is likewise no
between
stating
that
she came
to knowhis
of
accused-appellant
as incompatibility
the culprit when they
were AAA’s
on theaffidavit
mountain
and his
flashlight
illuminated
face as he lay on top of her, and her testimony that while they were still in the shack, AAA was
"not then sure" but already suspected
suspected that her rapist was accused-appellant
accused-appellant "because of his hair."
In other words, AAA was not yet sure whether accused-appellant was the culprit while they were
still in the shack, as she only became positively certain that it was him when the flashlight
illuminated his face while they were on the mountain.
Nevertheless, discrepancies do not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, for affidavits,
being
bein
g taken ex parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for lack of searching
inquiri
inq
uiries
es by the investigat
investigating
ing officer or due to partial
partial suggestions
suggestions,, and are, thus,
thus, generall
generally
y
considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court.
2. The validity of conviction is not adversely affected by the fact that the judge who
rendered judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses
•
The
fact the
thatdemeanor
the trial judge
rendered
judgment
was
not the
oneonwho
the of
occasion
to
observe
of the who
witnesses
during
trial, but
merely
relied
the had
records
the case,
does not render the judgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
32
support its conclusion. As this Court held in People v. Competente: The circumstance that the
Judge who rendered the judgment was not the one who heard the witnesses, does not
detract from the validity of the verdict of conviction. Even a cursory perusal of the Decision
would show that it was based on the evidence presented during trial and that it was carefully
studied, with testimonies on direct and cross examination as well as questions from the Court
carefully passed upon. Further, the transcripts of stenographic notes taken during the trial were
extant and complete. Hence, there was no impediment for the judge to decide the case.
3. The guilt of accused-appellant has been established beyond reasonable doubt
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following considerations should be made: (1) an
accusation
for rape
can be
made with
difficult
tonature
prove of
but
more
difficult
the
person, though
innocent,
innocent,
to disprove;
(2)facility,
in view it
of is
the
intrinsic
the
crime
of rapefor
where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
Nonetheless, it is also worth noting that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or
secrecy; thus, it is most often only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced
coitus.
In the instant case, accused-appellant is charged with two counts of rape¾one under paragraph
1(a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code and the other under par. 2 of Art. 266-A.
Elemen
Ele
ments
ts of rape
rape unde
underr par. 1(a) of Art. 266-A of the Code are the following: (1) that the
offender is a man; (2) that the offender had carnal knowle
knowledge
dge of a woman; and (3) that such act is
accomplished by using force or intimidation.
On the other hand, the elements of rape under par. 2 of Art. 266-A of the Code are as follows:
(1) that the offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) that the act of sexual assault is
committed by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice or by inserting any
instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and that the act of sexual
assault is accomplished by using force or intimidation, among others.
When AAA was called to the witness stand, she gave a detailed narration of the incident that
transpired in the evening of April 28, 2001 and early morning of April 29, 2001. AAA categorically
asserted that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her and even sexually assaulted her
against her will with the use of force, threat, or intimidation.
Particularly,
Particular
ly, AAA testified
testified that accused-appellant
accused-appellant threatened to riddle her and her son with bullets
if they do not open the door of their shack. Accused-appellant thereafter forcibly pulled her hair
and dragged her to the mountains. AAA pleaded for her life. Nonetheless, accused-appellant
boxed her every time she did not yield to his demands. He boxed her thighs forcing AAA to sit,
and he threatened to box her if she moves while he carried out his bestial desires.
AAA testified further that after accused-appellant satisfied his lust, he sexually assaulted her. He
inse
insert
rted
ed hi
his
s fi
fing
nger
ers
s in
into
to her
her vagi
vagina
na and
and then
then he tr
trie
ied
d to pier
pierce
ce the
the same
same wi
with
th a twig
twig..
Subsequently, he inserted his flashlight into her vagina. AAA was too weak to stop him. She had
struggled to free herself from accused-appellant from the moment she was dragged from the
shack until they reached the mountains. However, accused-appellant still prevailed over her.
Notably, AAA was six months pregnant at that time. She was frightened and hopeless.
Also, it should be noted that the findings in the medical examination of Dr. Ged-ang corroborated
the testimony of AAA. While a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in the
prosec
pro
secut
ution
ion of a rape
rape case,
case, and
and no law
law requir
requires
es a medica
medicall examin
examinati
ation
on fo
forr th
the
e succe
successf
ssful
ul
prosecution of the case, the medical examination conducted and the medical certificate issued are
veritable corroborative pieces of evidence, which strongly bolster AAA’s testimony.
Moreover, the police found the red t-shirt and blue shorts of AAA in the place where accusedappellant was said to have removed her clothes. In addition, AAA’s son, BBB, testified as to how
accused-appellant threatened them in the evening of April 28, 2001, how he was able to identify
accused-appellant
accused-ap
pellant as the perpetrator, and what his mother looked like when she returned home in
the
early
morning
of wearing.
April 29, He
2001.
to BBB,
his mother
was naked
a dirty
white
jacket
she was
alsoAccording
noticed that
his mother
had wounds
and except
blood allfor
over
her
body. All these are consistent with the testimony of AAA.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
33
4. Award of Damages must be modified. For rape under Art. 266-A, par. 1(d) of the Revised Penal
Code, the CA was correct in awarding PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity
indemnity and PhP 50,00
50,000
0 as moral
damages. Howe
However,
ver, for rape through
through sexual
sexual assault
assault under Ar
Art.
t. 266
266-A
-A,, pa
par.
r. 2 of the Code, the
awar
aw
ard
d of dama
damage
ges
s shou
should
ld be Ph
PhP
P 30
30,0
,000
00 as civi
civill in
inde
demn
mnit
ity
y an
and
d Ph
PhP
P 30
30,0
,000
00 as mo
mora
rall
damages.
•
•
•
People v. Cristobal that "for sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman, the accused has
shown moral corruption, perversity, and wickedness. He has grievously wronged the institution
institution of
marriage. The imposition then of exemplary damages by way of example to deter others from
committing similar acts or for correction for the public good is warranted."
Notably,
there were
instances wherein exemplary damages were awarded despite the absence of
an aggravating
circumstance.
Prior
Pri
or to th
the
e effec
effectiv
tivit
ity
y of th
the
e Revis
Revised
ed Rules
Rules of Crimi
Criminal
nal Proced
Procedure
ure,, co
court
urts
s award
award exemplary
damages in crimi
crimina
nall ca
case
ses
s when
when an aggra
aggravatin
vating
g circu
circumstanc
mstance,
e, whet
whether
her ordi
ordinary
nary or
qualifying, had been proven to have attended the commission of the crime, even if the same
was
wa
s not
not al
alle
lege
ged
d in the
the in
info
form
rmat
atio
ion
n in acco
accord
rdan
ance
ce wi
with
th Art
Articl
icle
e 223
2230
0. Howe
Howeve
ver,
r, wi
with
th the
the
promulgation of the Revised Rules, courts no longer consider the aggravating circumstances not
alleged and proven in the determination
determination of the penalty and in the award of damages. Thus, even
if an aggravating circumstance has been proven, but was not alleged, courts will not
award exemplary damages. x x x
•
•
•
•
•
•
However, Article 2230 must not only be ground for granting exemplary damages because it simply
takes into account the attendance of aggravating circumstance and not the very reason why
exemplary damages are awarded.
Also known as "punitive" or "vindictive" damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended
to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an injured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct.
These terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably.
interchangeably. In common law, there is
preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for injury to feelings
and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an injury that has
been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for
the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant — associated with such
circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or recklessness, oppression,
insult or fraud or gross fraud — that intensifies the injury.
The terms punitive
punitive or vindictive
vindictive damages
damages are often used to refer
refer to those species
species of damages
damages that
may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct. In either case, these
damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others like him from similar
conduct in the future.
Being
Bein
g correcti
corrective
ve in nature,
nature, exemplary
exemplary damages
damages,, therefor
therefore,
e, can be awarded
awarded,, not only in the
presence of an aggravating circumstance,
circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the
highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.
In much the same way as Article 2230 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be
awarded, Article 2229, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award. Court used as
basis Article 2229, rather than Article 2230, to justify the award of exemplary damages. T he
application of Article 2230 of the Civil Code strictissimi juris in such cases, as in the
presen
pre
sentt one
one,, def
defeat
eats
s the und
underl
erlyin
ying
g pub
publi
lic
c pol
policy
icy beh
behind
ind the awa
award
rd of exe
exempl
mplary
ary
damages — to set a public example or correction for the public good ."
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision dated September 30, 2008 in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02135 finding accused-appellant Ricky Alfredo guilty of rape is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. As thus modified, accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 01-CR-4213 is ordered to
pay PhP 50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary
damages. In Criminal Case No. 01-CR-4214, accused-appellant is likewise ordered to pay PhP 30,000
as civil indemnity, PhP 30,000 as moral damages, and PhP 30,000 as exemplary damages.
2. People v Alejandro Rellota -> Rape vis a vis Acts of Lasciviousness
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
34
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
AAA the complainant, native of Eastern Samar, was 12 years old when the incidents allegedly
happened. Together with her siblings, AAA lived with her aunt, DDD and the latter’s second
husband, appellant in Antipolo City, Rizal from September 1992 to January 1994. 2 cousins also
live with them. DDD was working overseas then.
According to AAA, appellant had been kissing her and touching her private parts since September
1993 and raped her several times between Sept. 1993 and Jan. 1994.
She narrated that appellant would
would usually rape her at night when the other members of the family
were either out of the house or asleep. AAA stated that she resisted the advances of appellant,
but was
was not
not su
succe
ccessf
ssful.
ul. Appell
Appellan
ant,
t, accord
accordin
ing
g to her would
would usua
usually
lly pl
place
ace a bolo
bolo besid
beside
e hi
him
m
whenever she would rape her. She added that appellant would
would threaten AAA by telling her that he
would kill her brother and sister and that he would stop sending her to school.
December 20, 1993: after AAA took a bath at an artesian well near their house, she wrapped her
body w/ towel before going inside the house when she was followed by appellant and raped AAA
twice in the latter’s bedroom. He tied her hands with a rope before forcibly inserting his penis
inside her vagina while AAA was kicking and scratching. Then, he left so AAA slipped on her T-shirt
and shorts but then accused returned and raped her again.
The same incident happened
happened on January 31, 1994 when AAA was inside their room. Appellant laid
her down on th
the
e so
sofa,
fa, kissed
kissed her
her and touched
touched her privat
private
e part,
part, whil
while
e AAA kicked
kicked him and
scratched his arms. She was able to push him and after which appellant ran out the door.
AAA, told her older sister after in which the latter accompanied AAA to police station. Three
separate complaints for rape were filed against appellant.
Prosecution’s Arguments
•
Testimony and medical exam that there is a healed laceration
laceration in the hymen of more than a
month. Laceration in the hymen could have been caused by forcible entry of a hard object. Penis
may be blunt hard object.
Defense’ Version
•
•
•
Impossible for him to have raped AAA in September 1993 because his wife only left for Jeddah on
October 21, 1993.
He points out that AAA herself testified that he only kissed her, touched her breast and private
parts, but failed to mention that he inserted his penis to her vagina.
He also denied raping
raping AAA on January 31, 1994
1994 and December 20,
20, 1993. He further claims
claims that
the filing of the criminal charges were instigated by AAA's aunt for his refusal to lend her money.
OSG Comment
appellant used his moral ascendancy over the victim in having carnal knowledge of her against
her will.
medical report bolsters the victim's claim that she was repeatedly raped by appellant
appellant and that the
latter's defense of denial is weak and deserves scant consideration
HOWE
HO
WEVE
VER,
R, agre
agrees
es wi
with
th CA that
that Ja
Jan
n 31 ra
rape
pe was
was not
not suff
suffic
icie
ient
ntly
ly pr
prov
oven
en to have
have actu
actual
ally
ly
consummated and is merely attempted rape
RTC: GUILTY of 3 counts of Rape as alleged and suffer Reclusion Perpetua for each count. Indemnity
of P50, 000 for each
Not death
death penalt
penalty
y becau
because
se AAA was
was above
above 12 and
and altho
although
ugh below
below 18,
18, relat
relation
ionshi
ship
p with
with
o
appellant not established as marriage between AAA’s aunt and appellant not supported with
evidence
In accordance with People v Mateo: Case imposing reclusion perpetua so transferred to CA upon
appeal
CA: ruled that appellant is guilty of 2 counts of consummated rape and 1 count of attempted rape
June 31 incident
incident when
when he was
was able to push
push him is
is ATTEMPTED
o
Reclusion perpetua for first two counts and prision correccional for 3rd
o
•
•
•
•
ISSUE:
1. Whether accused should be acquitted as AAA’s testimony is inconsistent and full of falsehoods?
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
35
2. Whether or not the actions of appellant on January 31, 1994 constitute acts of lasciviousness and
not attempted rape?
HELD:
1. No. The claim of appellant that he could not have raped AAA because his wife was still in the
country during the alleged period when the rape was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve
even the slightest consideration from this Court .
It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the crampness of the
o
room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held
sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape. There have been too many
o
o
o
instances
when
rape was
committed
under
circumstances
as indiscreet
and can
audacious
a room
full of family
members
sleeping
side by
side.
There is no rule
that a woman
only beasraped
in
seclusion.
As to the contention of appellant that the testimony of AAA was barren of any statement that the
former's penis was inserted in the latter's vagina is not quite accurate. AAA categ
categorica
orically
lly
stated
stat
ed dur
during
ing her tes
testim
timony
ony that she was rap
raped.
ed. In her testimony, she stated that “He
forced me and inserted his penis inside my vagina” and “he repeated his acts”.
As to inconsistency that she was merely wearing a towel and then she stated that she wore a Tshirt and shorts,
shorts, these were not inconsistent
inconsistent as there was a lapse of time between the
the first and
the second
second rape. Likewise
Likewise,, when AAA testified
testified that she put on her t-shirt
t-shirt and panty,
panty, she was
referring to the first time of the rape where, after ravishing her, appellant untied her hands and
left only to return to rape her
her once more. There was enough time for AAA to dress up.
Inconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which do not affect the credibility of AAA
nor erase the fact that the latter was raped. The inconsistencies
inconsistencies are trivial and forgivable,
forgivable, since a
victim
of rape
give an exacting
detail and
for each
of the previous
incidents,
since
these may
justcannot
be but possibly
mere fragments
of a prolonged
continuing
nightmare,
a calvary
she
might even be struggling to forget. Moreover, a rape victim testifying in the presence of strangers,
face to face with her tormentor and being cross-examined by his hostile and intimidating lawyer
would
wou
ld be benu
benumbe
mbed
d with
with tensio
tension
n and
and nervo
nervous
usnes
ness
s and
and th
this
is can affect
affect the
the ac
accur
curacy
acy of her
her
testimony. However, considering her youth and her traumatic experience, ample margin of error
and understanding should be accorded to a young victim of a vicious crime like rape.
In the disposition and review of rape cases, the Court is guided by these principles:
o
first, the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable
o
doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction;
second, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot
o
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense;
third, unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the
o
credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal;
fourth, an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more
o
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; and,
fifth, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
o
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution.
2. Yes, crime is not attempted rape but acts of lasciviousness as defined in RPC as elements are
absent.
Attempted rape requires that:
The offender
offender commences
commences the commission
commission of
of the felony
felony directly
directly by overt acts;
acts;
o
He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony;
o
The offender’s
offender’s act be
be not stopped
stopped by his
his own spontaneou
spontaneous
s desistance;
desistance;
o
The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
o
spontaneous desistance
Appellant’s act of removing the towel wrapped in the body of AAA, laying her on the sofa and
kissing and touching her private parts does not exactly demonstrate the intent of appellant to
•
•
have carnal knowledge on AAA on that particular date.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
36
•
•
•
•
Even so, the said acts should not be left unpunished as the elements of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness as defined in RPC in relation to RA 7610, AAA being a minor when the incident
happened, are present:
That the offender
offender commits
commits any act of lasciviousne
lasciviousness
ss or lewdness
lewdness
o
That is done (a) By using
using force and intimidation
intimidation;; (b) When the offended party
party is deprived of
o
reason or otherwise unconscious; (c) When the offended party is under 12 years of age
That the offended
offended party is another
another person
person of either
either sex.
o
As defined in IRR of RA 7610: [T]he intentional
intentional touching,
touching, either directly or through
through clothing,
o
of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any
object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite
sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic
area of a person.
The actions
actions of appellant
appellant on January
January 31, 1994, by
by definition,
definition, lascivious
lascivious or lewd, and
and based on AAA’s
AAA’s
testimony, the intimidation from appellant was in existence and apparent.
Sec 5 of RA No7610 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit, but also
one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation. As case
law has it, intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some compulsion
equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party
Accused can still be guilty of acts of lasciviousness even if not charged because it is necessarily
included in rape. Under Section 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, when
there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and the offense
as charg
charged
ed is in
inclu
clude
ded
d in or necess
necessari
arily
ly in
inclu
cludes
des th
the
e of
offen
fense
se proved
proved,, the ac
accus
cused
ed shall
shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense
charged which is included in the offense proved.
DISPOSITIVE: CA Decision finding accused GUILTY of the crime of two (2) counts rape is AFFIRMED
with the MODIFICATION that the same appellant
appellant is also GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of acts of lasciviousness as defined
defined in the Revised
Revised Penal Code,
Code, in relation
relation to Section
Section 5,
Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum to seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months and (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; (+reclusion perpetua for first
2 counts) and per previous ruling of this Court, must also indemnify the victim in the amount of
P15,000.00 as moral damages and pay a fine in the same amount.
3. People v Juanito Apattad G.R. No. 193188 August 10, 2011
FACTS:
•
Accused was charged in four (4) separate informations, the accusatory portions of which read:
2001 and 2002, in the evening, in the Municipality of Peñablanca, Province of Cagayan,
o
, ascendancy
father
father of theover
offende
offethe
nded
d party,
party, [AAAwith
] a minor
JUANITO
below
12by
years
of
age, thus APATTAD
have moral
complainant,
lewd design
and
the use
•
•
of force, have sexual intercourse with his own daughter, against her will.
That on or about June 10 and 11 2003, in the Municipality
Municipality of Peñablanca,
Peñablanca, Province of
o
Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, JUANITO
APATTAD, father of the offended party, [AAA], a minor below 12 years of age, thus
have moral ascendancy over the complainant, with lewd design and by the use of force,
did, have sexual intercourse with his own daughter, the herein offended party, against her
will.
June 1, 2004, the
the accused, wit
with
h the assistance
assistance of his counsel
counsel , pleaded not guilty to all the charges
against him
Subsequently, on June 8, 2004, pre-trial conference was held and was terminated on the same
day, with the parties stipulating on the following:
(a) The identities of the accused and AAA;
(b) AAA
AAA is
thea daughter
of the
accused;
(c)
was
minor, being
born
on October 14, 1994, and was only ten (10) years old
during the commission of the crime;
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
37
(d) The existence of the Certificate of Live Birth of AAA; and
(e
(e)) The
The exis
existe
tenc
nce
e of the
the Medi
Medico
co Le
Lega
gall Repo
Report
rt of AAA
AAA is
issu
sued
ed by Dr
Dr.. Mi
Mila
la Ling
Lingan
an-Simangan, Health Officer of Peñablanca, Cagayan.
Version of the Prosecution
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Offered the oral testimonies of AAA and Dr. Mila Lingan-Simangan
2001, while she was sleeping with her sisters, the accused pulled and positioned her just below
the feet of her siblings, and right then and there, succeeded in molesting her. AAA was just seven
(7) years old then.
June 10, 2003, the accused sexually abused AAA again. While she was sleeping beside her
younger sister in their room, accused carried her from the bed through the window and placed her
on the floor. Afterwards, accused removed his own shirt and used it to cover the mouth of AAA.
Accused then removed his underwear and AAA’s underwear, and inserted his penis inside AAA’s
vagina, while telling her not to report the incident to her mother. When the accused was finished
in satisfying his lust, he put AAA’s clothes back on, carried her back to bed, and untied the shirt
covering AAA’s mouth.
The same incident
incident happen
happened
ed on June 11, 2003,
2003, when accused
accused carried AAA once again
again through the
the
window, placed her on the floor, covered her mouth, undressed her, and inserted his penis into
her vagina. The accused also threatened to kill her if she reports the incident to her mother.
When AAA finally told her mother on June 13, 2003 that she was being abused by her own father,
her mother whipped her for not telling her about it immediately. Her reason for not telling
immediately was because she was afraid that her father would kill them. AAA also confirmed that
her parents often quarrel and shout at each other. She even admitted that she had seen her
father slap her mother and that because of this, she sympathized and took pity on her. When
asked whether she would do anything that her mother would tell her to do, AAA answered in the
affirmative.
affirmat
ive. However, on re-direct examination,
examination, AAA clarified that her mother did not teach her to
claim that she was raped and that she was only telling the truth.
Thereafter,, they went to the Department
Thereafter
Department of Social Welfare and Development
Development (DSWD) office in
Peñablanca, Cagayan, where AAA was interviewed by a certain Ms. Abrena, a DSWD personnel.
Afterwards, they proceeded to the police station where AAA executed a sworn statement narrating
what happened.
Dr. Mila Lingan-Simangan
Lingan-Simangan (Dr. Simangan) also subsequently conducted a physical examination on
AAA on June 16, 2003, she conducted a physical examination on AAA and discovered that the
latter had a healed hymen laceration at 4 and 7 o’clock positions, and that her vagina admitted
the tip of the fifth finger easily. She stated that the laceration could have been caused by a blunt
object. She also testified that after conducting
conducting the physical examination, she interviewed AAA and
the latter gave her the name of the person who raped her. However, Dr. Simangan admitted that
she can no longer remember the name that was mentioned by AAA .
Version of the Defense
•
•
•
•
Presented as its witnesses the accused himself and Louie Calimag
The accused denied the accusation
accusation of rape hurled against him and claimed that his wife
was the one who initiated the criminal complaint against him because she thinks that he
has a mistress.
Louie Calimag (Calimag), testified that from June 3, 2003 until July 8, 2003, he employed
the services of the accused to help him in the operation of the chainsaw. As part of their
routine, he and the accused would saw logs in the forest from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., go
back to his house, and sleep there at night. Calimag further testified that when the accused
was arrested by the police in the forest on July 8, 2003, he was also with him. Thus, when
he found out that the accused was arrested for rape allegedly committed on June 10 and
11, 2003, Calimag claimed that he did not believe this because the accused stayed in his
house on those days.
Calimag likewise added that after the accused was arrested, he saw AAA, who admitted to
him that she was not raped by the accused and that it was her mother who instructed her
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
38
to give false information. AAA allegedly told him that her parents had a fight due to her
father’s illicit relationship with another woman.
On cross-examination, Calimag admitted that the house of the accused was only three (3)
kilometers away from his house and that the accused’s house may be reached by jeepney
in an hour and by foot in four (4) hours.
RTC: Gave credence to the version of the prosecution and found accused GUILTY of three (3) counts
of rape. PENALTY: RECLUSION PERPETUA for each case and pay P150,000.00
P150,000.00 Pesos as civil indemnity.
Accused is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 10173 (2002 Rape) for lack of sufficient evidence.
CA: Affirmed RTC with MODIFICATION that the civil indemnity awarded should be P75,000.00
for each count of rape. In addition, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amounts of
•
P75,000.00 and Php25,000.00 respectively, for each count of rape are hereby awarded.
ISSUES: Whether accused should be convicted of statutory rape (YES)
HELD: Yes. CONVICTED.
Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses
•
Jurisprudential rules
Jurisprudential
rules and precepts
precepts guide
guide this Court
Court in assessing
assessing the
the proffered
proffered defense.
defense.
o
One, alibis and denials are generally disfavored by the courts for being weak.
they
ey ca
canno
nnott preva
prevail
il over
over th
the
e posit
positive
ive identi
identific
ficati
ation
on of th
the
e accus
accused
ed as th
the
e
Two, th
o
perpetrators of the crime.
forr al
alib
ibii to pros
prospe
per,
r, the
the accu
accuse
sed
d mu
must
st pr
prov
ove
e not
not only
only that
that they
they were
were
o
Three, fo
somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically
impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.
o
o
•
•
•
•
•
Fourth
, alibi
significance
or strength only when it is amply corroborated by
credible
and assumes
disinterested
witnesses.
Fifth , alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses, and the
assessment made by the trial court — unless patently and clearly inconsistent —
must be accepted
In the present case, AAA positively identified accused-appellant in her testimony as the
very
ver
y perpet
perpetrat
rator
or of th
the
e crime
crime of rape
rape commit
committed
ted again
against
st her when she
she id
ident
entifi
ified
ed her
“father” as the one who carried her.
For alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place
when the crime was committed as he must likewise prove that it was physically impossible
for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. A distance of three (3) kilometers does not make it physically impossible for
accused-appellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Calimag
himself admitted during cross-examination that the house of accused-appellant may be
reached
jeepney
in an
hour.
Significantly,
even
if accused-appellant
indeedimpossible
stayed in
Calimag’s
Calimag
’sby
house
on the
dates
that
he committed
rape,
it was still not physically
for accused-appellant to go home and commit the said crime at the time it was said to have
been committed.
Also, alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible
and disinterested
disinterested witnesses. In this regard, it should be noted that alibi becomes unworthy
of merit not only because accused-appellant was positively identified by AAA but also in
cases where it is established mainly by the accused himself, his relatives, friends and
comrades-in-arms and not by credible persons.
Finally,
Fina
lly, as mention
mentioned
ed in Estoya, alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of
witnesses, and that the assessment made by the trial court must be accepted unless it is
patently and clearly inconsistent.
When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great weight,
and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight
reason is obvious.
of
fact or circumstance
ofdirectly
weight and
influence. The
Having
thesome
full opportunity
to observe
the witnesses’
deportment
and manner
of
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
39
testifying, the trial court is in a better position than the appellate court to
evaluate testimonial evidence properly
The guilt of accused-appellant has been established beyond reasonable doubt
•
In reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following considerations should be made:
an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for
o
the person, though innocent, to disprove;
n view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
o
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
Nonetheless, it also bears stressing that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation
o
or secrecy; thus, it is most often only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of
forced coitus.
Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the crime of rape is committed by a
man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
through force, threat or intimidation;
o
when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
o
by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
o
when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
o
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present
People v. Orillosa: Incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed
where the overpowering moral influence
influence of the father would suffice. Thus, in order for the accused
to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape in this jurisdiction, only two (2) elements must
concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that the victim is below
twelve (12) years old.
AGE ESTABLISHED: AAA, was below twelve (12) years old when the crime was committed. A copy
of AAA’s birth certificate to prove her age was duly presented in evidence by the prosecution,
indicating that she was indeed born on October 14, 1994. Concomitantly, AAA was only seven (7)
years old when the crime of rape was first committed against her in 2001, and was only nine (9)
years old when the accused once again succeeded in committing the same crime in 2003.
RELATIONSHIP ESTABLISHED:
ESTABLISHED: Also, it is undisputed that accused-appellant
accused-appellant is the father of AAA, as
stipulated by the parties during the pre-trial conference and as also indicated in AAA’s birth
certificate.
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE ESTABLISHED: When AAA was called to the witness stand, she gave a
detailed narration of how she was sexually molested by her father, which narration is difficult, if
not improbable, for a 10-year-old girl to concoct. As aptly observed by the CA, “[AAA] was able to
describe in detail how her father carried her through the window, laid her down the floor, tied her
mouth, removed her clothes and inserted his penis inside her vagina. She even described that she
felt pain while her father was performing the carnal act against her
Pertinently,
Pertinentl
y, “it is settled jurisprudence
jurisprudence that the testimony of a child-victim
child-victim is given full weight and
credence, considering that when a woman, specially a minor, says that she has been raped, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity.”
Moreover, the fact that AAA’s testimony was able to withstand scrutiny during cross-examination
bolsters her credibility and makes her statements more credible. Further, it should be noted that
the findings in the medical examination
examination of Dr. Simangan
Simangan corroborate the testimony of AAA. In this
regard, wh
whil
ile
e a me
medi
dica
call ex
exam
amin
inat
atio
ion
n of the
the vi
vict
ctim
im is no
nott in
indi
disp
spen
ensa
sabl
ble
e in th
the
e
prosecution of a rape case, and no law requires a medical examination for its successful
prosecut
pros
ecution,
ion, the medical examination conducted and the medical certificate issued are
veritable corroborative evidence, which strongly bolster AAA’s testimony.
In addition, this Court is not convinced that a child of a tender age would concoct a story as sordid
as in the instant case due to her mother’s alleged ill motive. In People v. Padilla, We held that
accused-appellant’s imputation of ill motive on the victim’s mother for being jealous of another
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
40
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
woman is clearly unmeritorious, for no mother in her right mind would possibly wish to stamp her
child with the stigma that follows the crime of rape only because she is consumed with hatred and
revenge
Award of Damages. The CA decision as to the damages awarded must be modified. In rape cases,
when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse
of the paren
parentt of the victim,
victim, the imposable penalty is death . However, with the enactment of
Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,
the imposition of death penalty is now prohibited. In lieu of the penalty of death, the penalty of
reclusion
perpetua
penalties of
the RPC.shall be imposed when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the
•
•
•
•
Nonetheless, the principal consideration for the award of damages is “the penalty provided by law
Nonetheless,
or imposable for the off se because of its heinousness,
heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed
imposed on
the offender.”
When the circumstances surrounding the crime would justify the imposition of the penalty of
death were it not for RA 9346, the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape should be PhP
75,000, racionating that “[t]his is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the
penal law and the financial fluctuations
fluctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the
Court over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity.”
Likewise, the award of moral damages in the amount of PhP 75,000 is warranted without need of
pleading or proving them. In rape cases, it is recognized that the victim’s injury is concomitant
with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral
damages.
Further,
the Court also
awards exemplary
damages
in thecommitting
amount of similar
PhP 30,000,
despite
the lack
of any aggravating
circumstances,
to deter
others from
acts or
for correction
for the public good.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision dated August 28, 2009 in CAG.R. CR-H.C. No. 03173 finding accused-appellant Juanito Apattad guilty of rape is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS. As thus modified,
modified, accused-appellant
accused-appellant is ordered to pay AAA for each count of rape,
PhP
Ph
P 75,000
75,000 as civil
civil in
indem
demnit
nity,
y, PhP
PhP 75,000
75,000 as moral
moral dama
damages
ges,, and PhP 30,00
30,000
0 as exempl
exemplary
ary
damages.
4. Peopl
People
e v Sixt
Sixto
o Padua G.R. No. 19282
192821
1
March 21, 2011
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
•
June 20, 2001: the appellant
appellant was charged with rape before the QC RTC committed against his 6yeartrial
old that
niece
AAA sometime
in April
The appellant
pleaded not guilty on arraignment. In
the
followed,
AAA testified
on 1991.
the details
of the crime.
Sometime in April 1991, between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m., AAA, then six years old, was playing at the
balcony
balc
ony of their house
house in Barangay Payatas, Quezon City. BBB (AAA’s mother) was downstairs
cleaning the house, while AAA’s sisters were outside the house.
The appellant
appellant (BBB’s brother) or the victims’ uncle was watching TV. The appellant called AAA and
told her to lie beside him. He then asked her to remove her shorts and underwear. He also
removed his shorts, laid her down, and inserted his penis inside her vagina. AAA felt pain but she
did not cry out. Thereafter, the appellant told her not to report the incident to her mother or to
anyone else.
AAA did not tell anyone about the incident since she did not know that what had been done to her
was wrong. AAA only realized that her sexual experience with her uncle was wrong when she was
already 12 or 13 years old, or at about the time she was in Grade VI. She did not disclose the
incident to anyone then as she was afraid.
It was
untilolder
aftersister
herergraduation
fromalso
elementary
sheincident
finally disclosed
disclose
d the incident
to
CCCnot
(AAA’s
). CCC, in turn,
revealedschool
that athat
similar
had happened
to her
sist
when she was at about the same age as AAA when the latter’s experience happened.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
41
AAA and CCC never before told their father about their experience because they feared for his
health, but subsequently, the incident came to their father’s knowledge after CCC had a bitter
confrontation with him. Thereafter, AAA and her father went to the police station where she
executed her sworn statement and underwent a medical examination that confirmed that she was
no longer a virgin
DEFENSE: The appellant, interposing denial and alibi, claimed that he was in San Vicente, Bicol,
sometime in April 1991
RTC
TC:: Guilty of rape (statutory). Qualified by minority (victim 6 years old when it happened) so
penalty must be DEATH but with the abolition of the death penalty under Republic Act No. 9346, the
RTC
RT
C se
sent
ntenc
enced
ed th
the
e appell
appellan
antt to reclus
reclusion
ion perpe
perpetu
tua.
a. It also
also ordere
ordered
d the appel
appella
lant
nt to pay AAA
•
•
P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as exemplary damages
It relied on AAA’s clear, direct and positive testimony, and rejected the appellant’s alibi for his
failure to show that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the rape.
It noted that AAA’s delay in reporting the rape was not indicative of a fabricated charge,
considering
consideri
ng her young age and her family ties with the appellant; AAA only came to know that
the sexual incident was wrong when she was in Grade VI, and she feared for her father’s
health should the latter learn of the incident.
•
•
CA: Convicte
Convicted
d the appellant
appellant of simple rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, but reduced to P50,000.00 the civil indemnity to AAA
AAA’s minority cannot be appreciated as the prosecution failed to present the certificate of live
birth or any other authentic document to prove the age of AAA at the time of the commission of
the offense.
It noted further that the appellant
appellant did not expressly admit AAA’s age. Instead, the appellate court
•
•
appreciated
apprecia
ted force
force and intimid
intimidati
ation,
on, noting
noting that the appella
appellant’
nt’s
s relation
relationship
ship to AAA had been
proven by his own admission. It stressed that in incestuous rape, the moral ascendancy of the
accused over the victim takes the place of force and intimidation.
ISSUE:
1. Whether statutory rape or simple rape because of lack of document to prove age (simple rape)
2. What is the applicable law? (RPC Art. 335 and not RPC 266-A)
HELD: CONVICTIO
CONVICTION
N AFFIRMED
1. CA properly convicted the
the appellant
appellant for simple
simple rape whose
whose penalty
penalty is reclusion
reclusion perpetua.
perpetua.
An appellant can justifiably be convicted of rape based solely on the credible testimony of the
victim. Nothing in the records indicates to us that the RTC and the CA overlooked or failed to
appreciate facts that, if considered, would change the outcome of the case.
Agree with the CA that the appellant canno
cannott be held liable for qualified, much less statutory,
statutory, rape;
the prosecution failed
failed to prove by independent
independent evidence the age of AAA, much less the allegation
that she was under the age of 12 when she was raped.
•
•
The appellate court properly appreciated
appreciated force and intimidation . In rape committed by a close
kin, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is
not necessary that actual force or intimidation
intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy
ascendancy takes
the place of violence or intimidation
2. Art 335 of RPC on simple
simple rape
rape must be applie
applied.
d. The CA held that
that the appella
appellant
nt was guilty
guilty of
simple rape under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the crime was committed
in 1991, i.e., prior to the passage of the law imposing the death penalty for rape cases
(Republic Act No. 7659: 1993) and prior to the new rape law (Republic Act No. 8353 or the AntiRape Law of 1997: 1997). The law then in place – Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code – should
apply. Under this law, simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua. To conform with existing
jurisprudence,
jurisprud
ence, we reduce
reduce the amount
amount of exemplary
exemplary damages
damages from P50,000.00
P50,000.00 to
to P30,000.00.
P30,000.00.
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the September 10, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR
HC No. 03023 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellant Sixto Padua y Felomina is found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Simple Rape under Article 335 of the Revised
•
reclusion
, 00
andassentenced
to suffer
the
penalty
also
toplary
pay
PenalP50,000.
Code
AAA
P50,
000.00
civil
civil indemni
indemnity
ty, P50,000.
P50,
000.00
00 as of
moral
mora
l damages,
damaperpetua.
ges, and He
P30,000.
P30,is000.00
00ordered
as exemplar
exem
y
damages.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
42
5. People v Manuel Pruna or Erman Pruna G.R. No. 138471
October 10, 2002
FACTS:
Nature: Automatic review of RTC Bataan decision
Jan. 3, 1995: while 3-yr old Lizette Arabelle
Arabelle Gonzales was defecat
defecating
ing at their neighbor’s
neighbor’s backyard,
a certain Manuel “Boy” Pruna called him & placed her on his lap. Boy was then under the bridge,
sniffing rugby & drinking alcohol w/some friends. Boy later on brought her to a grassy area &
raped her. Boy was later on arrested.
•
•
Boy’s counsel filed a motion to put him under psychiatric/mental exam claiming that he couldn’t
get a cohere
coherent
nt answe
answerr from
from the accused
accused.. But
But the
the Nat’l
Nat’l Cente
Centerr fo
forr Menta
Mentall Heal
Health
th iss
issued
ued a
certification that he was in fair condition.
Prosecution witnesses:
•
•
•
•
•
Jacqueline Gonzales – Lizette’s mom who claims that she was fetching
fetching water from the artesian
well when incident happened. She claims she saw Lizette crying & the girl then narrated to her
what happened & pulled her to Boy’s house however accused was not home.
Lizette testified that she knew the accused & that he inserted his penis into her vagina as she was
laid down in a grassy area. She likewise testified that she knew that it was sin to tell a lie.
Dr. Emelita Quiroz – OG-Gyne who examined Lizette testified that girl’s vagina was positive for
sperm cells w/c signified that sexual intercourse took place.
Teresita Magtanob,
Magtanob, med
med tech, corroborated
corroborated Quiroz’
Quiroz’ findings
findings re sperm
sperm cells
SPO2 Romeo Bunsoy, PNP member on duty when Lizette reported incident. He conducted an
ocular inspection
inspection of the alleged place of incident & discovered that grasses were flattened. People
in nearby areas likewise testified that they saw Boy bring Lizette in that area.
Defense witnesses:
Carlito Bondoc – testified that Boy was at home during the time the incident occurred because he
& Carlito were having coffee.
Boy – denied having raped the girl. Alibi: he was in his house preparing coffee for Carlito.
RTC: convicted of qualified rape sentenced to death, thus automatic review.
•
•
Issues & Ratio:
1. WON Lizette is a competent & credible witness considering that she was only 3 when raped & 5
during trial (YES)
Gen rule: when a witness takes a stand is to presume that he’s competent.
Burden: upon party objecting to competency to establish ground of incompetency.
Sec. 21, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence (ROE): kids whose mental maturity renders them incapable
of perceiving the facts respecting w/c they’re examined & relating them truthfully are disqualified
disqualified
to be witnesses. No precise minimum age is fixed.
Test of competency:
competency: Intelligence
Intelligence not age. As long as child can perceive & make known his
perception to other & that he’s capable of relating truthfully facts for w/c he’s examined. Consider
child’s capacity : to receive correct impressions during incident; to comprehend obligation of an
oath; relate to those facts truthfully to the court at the time he’s offered as a witness. Kid should
understand the punishment w/c may result fr false swearing.
Determined by sound discretion of the court & such is respected unless found erroneous. In this
case, Boy failed to discharge burden of proving Lizette’s mental immatur
immaturity.
ity. RTC held that kid had
capacity of observation, recollection & communication & that she could discern the consequence
of telling a lie. Two years lapse since time of incident is immaterial considering that it’s a most
nat.. reacti
nat
reaction
on for victims
victims of crim’
crim’ll violen
violence
ce to have
have a la
lasti
sting
ng impre
impressi
ssion
on of how
how crime
crime was
committed & identity of aggressor.
2. WON Jacqueline’s testimony is hearsay? (NO)
Not covered by hearsay rule, Sec. 36, Rule 130, ROE w/c provides that a witness can testify only
to those facts w/c he knows of his personal knowledge except as otherwise provided by the ROC.
Hearsay: evidence not founded upon personal knowledge of witness but rather on facts learned
from a 3rd person not sworn as a witness to those facts, w/c testimony is inadmissible. Excluded
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
43
because
becaus
e th
there
ere’s
’s no chanc
chance
e for
for Court
Court to crosscross-exa
examin
mine
e al
alleg
leged
ed source
source of in
info
fo & to te
test
st hi
his
s
credibility.
Not applicable in this case considering that source of info (Lizette) was actually sworn in & crossexamined
exam
ined.. Court
Court had the chance
chance to observe
observe her manner
manner of testifyi
testifying.
ng. Besides,
Besides, Jacqueline
Jacqueline’s
’s
testimony merely corroborated Lizette’s testimony. Kid’s testimony is sufficient to convict Boy.
3. WON Gloria Tolentino should still be presented as a witness? (NO)
Tolentino listed
listed as witness who saw accused carrying & bringing kid to grassy area at the back of
her house.
No need because she already moved out, besides, her testimony would only be corroborative of
kid’s testimony.
4. WON prosecution’s evidence was sufficient to convict accused? (YES)
Victim spontaneously identified accused as rapist.
Kid’s immediate revelation to her mom of the crime.
Kid led her mom to accused’s house right after the incident
Prompt filing of complaint before the authorities
Victim’s submission to medical examination
Hyperemia in kid’s private part
Presence of sperm cells in kid’s vaginal canal & urine.
Alibi not accepted considering that his alleged location did not make it physically impossible for
him to be at the crime scene during the time crime was committed. Alibi cannot prevail over the
positive identification of victim. Esp since alibi was only corroborated by accused’s friend.
5. WON Lizette’s minority was properly established & imposition of death penalty is proper ? (YES)
RPC Art. 335, par. 7, no. 4, amended by RA No. 7659: death penalty shall be imposed if crime of
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
rape’s
committed
to a to
kidprove
belowsuch
7 yrs
old. Minority
must be
w/equal
as crime
itself. Failure
would
bar conviction
for proved
qualified
rape. certainty & clearance
Best proof of age would be the birth certificate. But Court has conflicting pronouncements as to
WON such is a condition sine qua non to prove one’s age to appreciate minority as an element of
the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. Some cases wherein no birth certificate was presented
ruled that the victim’s age was not proven. (see pp. 599-603 for list of cases cited) In some
instances, mere pronouncement of age was considered as hearsay. On the other hand SC held in
some cases that age was sufficiently established despite failure of prosecution to present the birth
certificate.
Court no
Court
now
w se
sets
ts gu
guid
idel
elin
ines
es in ap
appr
prec
ecia
iati
ting
ng ag
age
e eith
either
er as an elem
elemen
entt of crim
crime
e or a
qualifying circumstance:
1. Best evidence: original/certi
original/certified
fied true copy of the certificate of live birth of part.
2. Absence of such:
such: similar authentic
authentic records such as baptismal
baptismal cert & school record
records
s showing date
of birth would be sufficient.
3.
If documents
document
s were lost,
des
or unavailable,
unavailable, clear
& credible
creto
dible
testimony
testire
mony
of victim’s
victim
’s as
mom
or
other
family members
eitherdestroyed
bytroyed
affinity/consanguinity
qualified
testify
pedigree
such
exact
age/date of birth of victim pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130, ROE shall be sufficient under ff conditions:
a. victim’s alleged to be below 3 & seek to prove that she’s below 7.
b. victim’s alleged to be below 7 & seek to prove that she’s below18.
c. victim’s alleged to be below 12 & seek to prove that she’s below 18.
4. Absence of aforementio
aforementioned,
ned, victim’s
victim’s testimony
testimony will suffice
suffice as long as
as such is clearly
clearly & expressly
expressly
admitted.
5.
Prosecut
Prosecution
ion has
has burden
burden of proof
proof of proving
proving victim
victim’s
’s age. Accus
Accused’s
ed’s failur
failure
e to object
object to the
testimonial evidence shall not be taken against him.
6. Trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the victim’s age.
In this case, RTC based its decision on medico-legal findings & fact that defense did not contest
kid’s age & even questioned her tender age. Former does not establish child’s age. It doesn’t even
mention child’s age. Only testimonial evidence presented to establish child’s age was Mom’s
testimony.. Victim’s testimony was conflicting for although she claimed to be 5 yrs old at the time,
testimony
she also testified that she was already 5 during the time she was raped. Note that 2 years have
lapsed between the time of the incident & the hearing.
•
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
44
In convicting accused of qualified rape & sentencing him to death, impt to establish that Lizette
was indeed below
below 7 yrs old at the time of the
the commission of
of crime. However, due
due to uncertainty
uncertainty
of her age, corroborative evidence (pertinent documents) should be presented to appreciate the
qualifying circumstance of rape. Lack of objection from defense as to victim’s age does not
discharge prosecution of its burden.
Testimony of Lizette’s mom: sufficient
sufficient to hold accused liable for statutory rape/rape of girl below
12. RPC Art. 335 amended by RA 7659 provides that such is punishable w/RP, thus sentence is
lowered from death to RP. P50k indemnity + P50k moral damages.
Held: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. RTC modified.
•
•
6. People v Heracleo Abello -> edit pa
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
•
The victim in these cases is twenty-one
twenty-one (21) year old AAA. She contracted polio when she was
seven (7) months old. She was not able to study on account of her difficulty in walking. Hence, she
could only read and write her name including that of her friends
On June 30, 1998 at around 4:00 o’clock (sic) in the early morning, AAA was sleeping in their
house in Kalyeng Impiyerno, Navotas, Metro Manila along with her sister-in-law and nephew. She
was suddenly awakened when Abello … mashed her breast.
Come July 2, 1999 at around 3:00 a.m. Abello again mashed the breast of AAA practically under
the same previous situation
situation while the latter was sleeping. In these two occasions AAA was able to
recognize Abello because of the light coming from outside which illuminated the house.
Then on July 8, 1998, at around 2:00 a.m., Abello this time placed his soft penis inside the mouth
of AAA. The latter got awaken when Abello accidentally kneeled on her right hand. AAA exclaimed
“Aray” forcing the accused to hurriedly enter his room. He was nevertheless seen by AAA. The
victim on the same date reported the incident to her sister-in-law and mother.
Amidst the accusation of raping and twice sexually abusing AAA, Abello interposed the defense of
denial. In all of the instances, Abello claimed that he merely stepped on the victim at the sala on
his way to his room after retiring home..
3 INFORMATIONS:
•
•
•
on or about the 8th day of July 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a step-father (sic) of victim AAA with lewd
design
des
ign and
and by means
means of force
force and intim
intimida
idatio
tion,
n, did th
then
en and
and th
there
ere willf
willfull
ully,
y, unla
unlawfu
wfully
lly and
and
feloniously putting his penis inside the mouth of said AAA, against her will and without her
consent.
That on or about the 30th day of June 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a step-father (sic) of victim AAA, a (sic)
years old, and Polio Striken (sic), with lewd design by means of violence and intimidation,
intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully
unlawfully and feloniously mashing her breast, against her will and without her
consent.
That on or about the 2nd day of July 1998, in Navotas, Metro Manila, and within the jurisdiction
jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named
above-named accused, being a step-father (sic) of victim AAA, a (sic) 21
years old, and Polio Striken (sic), with lewd design by means of violence and intimidation,
intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully
unlawfully and feloniously mashing her breast, against her will and without her
consent.
RTC: 1. Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Paragraph 2, Article
and
d hereby
hereby se
sente
ntenc
nces
es hi
him
m to suffer
suffer an
22622
6-A,
A, Re
Repu
publ
blic
ic Ac
Actt [N
[No.
o.]] 83
8353
53 (A
(Ant
ntii Ra
Rape
pe La
Law)
w) an
indeterminate penalty of Seven (7) Years of prision mayor, as minimum, to Thirteen (13) Years of
reclusion temporal, as maximum
2. Guilty bey
beyond
ond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of V
Violation
iolation of Section 5, Article III of
Republic Act [No.] 7610 (Child Abuse Act) and hereby sentences
sentences him in each of the two cases to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of Four (4) Years of prision correctional (sic), as minimum, to Twelve
(12) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor, as maximum.
CA: affirmed Abello’s conviction on appeal but modified the penalties imposed.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
45
1.In Crimi
Criminal
nal Case
Case No. 1962
19623-M
3-MN,
N, appell
appellan
antt is hereb
hereby
y senten
sentenced
ced to suffe
sufferr an inde
indeterm
terminate
inate
penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to twenty (20) years of
reclusion
recl
usion tempor
temporal,
al, as maxim
maximum;
um; Appellant is further ordered to pay complainant, AAA, moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00
2. In Criminal Case Nos. 19624-MN and 19625-MN, appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua in each of the two cases
Issue: Whether or not, the court a quo erred in not absolving the accused-appellant of the crime.
Held: We note that both the RTC and CA found AAAs testimony to be positive, direct, and categorical,
while the RTC found the defenses version too strained to be believed for being contrary to human
experience. A material point we noted is that Abello could not say why AAA would falsely accuse him.
The
substan
ce and tenorcategorical
of the testimony
testimon
y and the
element
motivation
motivatio
n are critical
pointsiffor
sincesubstance
a straightforward,
and candid
narration
byof
the
victim deserves
credence
no us
ill
motive can be shown driving her to falsely testify against the accused. Our consideration
consideration of Abello’s
defense of denial and his other arguments lead us to reject them for the following reasons:
First
First,, th
the
e issue
issue of hi
his
s credib
credibili
ility
ty is redu
reduced
ced to a ch
choic
oice
e betw
between
een the
the offen
offended
ded party
party’s
’s positi
positive
ve
testimony
testimon
y and the denial of the accused. Settled
Settled jurisprudence tells us that the mere denial of one’s
involvement in a crime cannot take precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party.
Second, we flatly reject Abello’s argument that his relationship with AAA insulates him from the
crimes charged. Our judicial experience tells us that in handling these types of cases, the relationship
between the offender and the offended party has never been an obstacle to the commission of the
crime against chastity.
Third, we find the claim that AAA could have just dreamed of the incidents
incidents complained
complained of, to be
preposterous. In the normal course, a woman will not expose herself to these risks unless she is
certain of what happened and she seeks to obtain justice against the perpetrator. Based on these
considerations
considera
tions and in the absence of clear indications of errors in giving credence to AAAs testimony,
testimony,
we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the RTC and the CA
Rape by sexual assault
Both the RTC and the CA failed to notice the variance between the allegations in the Information
for rape and that proven at the trial on the mode of committing the offense. The Information
alleges “force and intimidation” as the mode of commission, while AAA testified during the trial
that she was asleep at the time it happened and only awoke to find Abello’s male organ inside
her mouth.
This variance is not fatal to Abello’s conviction
conviction for rape by sexual assault. In People v. Corpuz, we
ruled that a variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he
fails to object to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a different manner than what
was alleged. In the present case, Abello did not object to the presentation of evidence showing
thatt th
tha
the
e crime
crime charg
charged
ed was
was co
commi
mmitt
tted
ed in a differ
different
ent manner
manner th
than
an what
what was stated
stated in th
the
e
Informat
Info
rmation.
ion. Thus,
Thus, the variance
variance is not a bar to Abello’s
Abello’s convicti
conviction
on of the crime charged
charged in the
Information.
R.A. No. 8353 which took effect on October 22, 1997 introduced into the Philippine legal system
the concept of rape by sexual assault. This amendment not only reclassified rape as a crime
against persons, but also expanded the definition of rape from the traditional concept of a sexual
intercourse committed by a man against an unwilling woman.
The second paragraph of Article 266-A of the RPC, as amended defines rape by sexual assault as
committed by any person who, under any of the circumstance mentioned
mentioned in paragraph 1 … shall
commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orific
orifice,
e,
or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
The elements
elements of rape
rape by sexual assault are:
are:
(1)That the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
(2)That the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
(a) By inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
(3) That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
(a) By using force or intimidation;
(b) When a woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
•
•
•
•
•
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
46
Acts of lasciviousness
lasciviousness
Abello was convicted of two (2) counts of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No.
7610, which defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness committed against a child:
The essential
essential elements
elements of this
this provision
provision are:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse.
3. The child whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Paragraph (h), Section 2 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 7610 ( implementing
rules) defines lascivious conduct as a crime committed through the intentional touching, either
directly or through
through the clothin
clothing
g of the genitalia,
genitalia, anus, groin, breast,
breast, inner thigh or
or buttocks with
the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person, among others.
FIRST ELEMENT: Records show that AAA duly established this element when she positively
testified that Abello fondled her breasts on two separate occasions while she slept.
SECOND
SECON
D ELEME
ELEMENT
NT ABSEN
ABSENT:
T: Not a child
child.. The
The se
secon
cond
d elemen
elementt requir
requires
es that
that the lascivio
lascivious
us
conduct be committed on a child who is either exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse. This second element requires evidence
evidence proving that: (a) AAA was either exploited in
prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse and (b) she is a child as defined under R.A. No. 7610.
In Olivarez v. Court of Appeals , we explained that the phrase, “other sexual abuse” in the above
provision covers
covers not only a child
child who is abused
abused for profit,
profit, but also one who
who engages
engages in lascivious
lascivious
conduct through the coercion or intimidation by an adult. In the latter case, there must be
some form of compulsi
compulsion
on equivale
equivalent
nt to intimida
intimidation
tion which subdues
subdues the free exercise
exercise of the
offended party’s will.
In the present case, the prosecution
prosecution failed to present any evidence showing
showing that force or coercion
attended Abello’s sexual abuse on AAA; the evidence reveals that she was asleep at the time
these crimes happened and only awoke when she felt her breasts being fondled.
Hence, she could have not resisted Abello’s advances as she was unconscious at the time it
happened. In the same manner, there was also no evidence showing that Abello compelled her, or
cowed her into silence to bear his sexual assault, after being roused from sleep. Neither is there
evidence that she had the time to manifest conscious lack of consent or resistance to Abello’s
assault.
More importantl
importantly,
y, AAA cannot be considered
considered a child
child under
under S
Section
ection 3(a) of
of R.A. No.
No. 7610.
7610. The
The
implementing rules elaborated on this definition when it defined a “child” as one who is below 18
years of age or over said age who, upon evaluation of a qualified physician, psychologist
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
or psychiatrist, is found to be incapable of taking care of herself fully because of a
physical or mental disability or condition or of protecting herself from abuse.
•
While the records show that the RTC, the CA and the investigating prosecutor who filed the
corresponding
correspond
ing Informations, considered
considered AAA’s polio as a physical disability that rendered
her incapable of normal function, no evidence was in fact presented showing the
prosecution’s compliance with the implementing rules. Specifically, the prosecution did not
present any evidence, testimonial or documentary, of any medical evaluation or medical finding
from a qualified physician, psychologist or psychiatrist attesting that AAA’s physical condition
rendered her incapable of fully taking care of herself or of protecting herself against sexual abuse.
Under the circumstances, we cannot consider AAA a child under Section 3(a) of R.A. No.
•
•
7610.
We cannot hold Abello liable under R.A. No. 7610. However, we sti
still
ll find him liable for
acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC , as amended.
In the present case, although the two Informations wrongly designated R.A. No. 7610 as the law
violated; the allegations therein sufficiently constitute acts punishable under Article 336 of the
RPC whose elements are:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness;
2. That the offended party is another person of either sex; and
3. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
47
•
•
•
•
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented
The presence of the first and second elements of the offense has been earlier discussed, albeit in
the consideration
consideration of a charge under
under R.A. No. 7610. The prosecution
prosecution established
established these elements
elements
through AAA’s testimony that her breasts were fondled while she was asleep.
While she did not actually see Abello fondling her (as the fondling was done while she was asleep
and stopped when she awakened), she related that she identified Abello because she saw him
enter her mother’s room immediately after she felt her breasts fondled and after he stepped with
his knees on her hand
AAA also testified that Abello
Abello was illuminated by a light comi
coming
ng from outside their
their house. Further,
the perpetrator could only be Abello as the only other occupants of the house at the time were her
mother, her sister-in-law and her young nephew who were all asleep. The third element was
proven
pro
ven by her testi
testimon
mony
y th
that
at,, on two oc
occas
casio
ions,
ns, Abello
Abello mash
mashed
ed her breast
breasts
s while
while she
she was
sleeping.
As we discussed above, the Informations alleged the element of violence and intimidation as the
mode of committing
committing the sexual abuses, contrary to what the prosecution
prosecution established
established during
during the
trial that AAA was asleep on the two occasions when the offenses were committed.
The Penalty
Penalty
The three Information
Informations
s all alleged the
the stepfather-stepdaughter relationship between AAA and
Abello.
Abel
lo. Relationship as an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the RPC, as amended,
and is an aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity and in rape.
This modifying circumstance, however, was not duly proven in the present case due to the
prosecution’s failure to present the marriage contract between Abello and AAA’s mother. If the
fact of marriage came out in the evidence at all, it was via an admission by Abello of his marriage
to AAA’s mother.
This admission, however, is inconclusive
inconclusive evidence to prove the marriage to AAA’s mother as the
marr
ma
rria
iage
ge cont
contra
ract
ct st
stil
illl re
rema
main
ins
s the
the best
best evid
eviden
ence
ce to pr
prov
ove
e the
the fa
fact
ct of marr
marria
iage
ge stri
strict
cter
er
requirement is only proper as relationship is an aggravating circumstance that increases the
imposable penalty, and hence must be proven by competent evidence.
Rape by sexual assault is penalized by prision mayor
mayor which has a range of six (6) years and one
(1) day to twelve
twelve (12) years. Applying
Applying the Indeterm
Indeterminat
inate
e Sentence
Sentence Law, the minimum
minimum of the
indeterminate penalty shall be within the full range of the penalty that is one degree lower than
prision mayor, in this case, prision correccional which has a range of penalty from six (6) months
and one (1) day to six (6) years.
years. In the absence
absence of any mitigating
mitigating or aggravating
aggravating circumstance,
circumstance,
the maximum
maximum of the indeterm
indetermina
inate
te penalty shall be taken
taken within
within the medium
medium period of prision
mayor, or eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hence,
Henc
e, Abello
Abello may be
be sentence
sentenced
d to suffer
suffer an inde
indetermi
terminate
nate pe
penalty
nalty ra
ranging
nging from six (6)
months and one (1) day to six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight
(8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years, as maximum, for the crime of rape.
The imposable
imposable penalty for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, as amended,
is prision correccional
correccional. Under Scale No. 1 of Article 71 of this law, one degree lower from prision
correccional is arresto mayor which has a range of penalty from one (1) month and one (1) day to
•
six (6) months. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate
penalty shall be taken from the full range of arresto mayor. Absent any mitigating
mitigating or aggravating
aggravating
circumstance in the case, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the
medium period of prision correccional
correccional or two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4)
years and two (2) months.
According
Accor
dingly,
ly, Abello may be mete
meted
d an indeterminate penalty ranging from one (1) month
and one (1) day to six (6) months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to two (2) years, four
(4)
(4) mon
ontths and one (1)
(1) day to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum, for each count of acts of lasciviousness.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
48
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, premises considered,
considered, the decision dated January 3, 2002 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 23746 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATION
MODIFICATIONS
S in that:
(1) In Criminal
Criminal Case
Case No. 19623, we find
find appellant
appellant Heracleo Abello y Fortada GUILTY of rape by
sexual assault defined and penalized under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
amended. We sentence
sentence him to suffer
suffer an indetermin
indeterminate
ate prison
prison term of six (6) years of
prision correccional,
correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum. He is ORDERED to
pay AAA P30,000.00 as civil liability; P30,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as exemplary
damages;
(2) In Crim
Criminal
inal Case
Case Nos. 1962419624-MN
MN and 19625
19625-MN,
-MN, we find
find appellan
appellantt Heracleo
Heracleo Abello
Abello y Fortada
Fortada
GUILTY of 2 counts of acts of lasciviousness, defined and penalized under Article 336 of
, as amended.
Forminimum,
each count,
he is(4)
sentenced
an indeterminate
prison
the
Code
termRevised
of six (6)Penal
months
of arresto
mayor, as
to four
years andtotwo
(2) months of prision
correccional, as maximum. He is further ORDERED to pay AAA the amounts of P20,000.00 as civil
indemnity; P30,000.00 as moral damages and P2,000.00 as exemplary damages, in each case.
7. People v Romulo Garcia
DOCTRINE: Accused contend that AAA was never sexually abused because the medico-legal findi
findings
ngs
showed that there were no signs of swelling on her vagina when she was examined. However, the
Court stated that the lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken
hymen is not an essential element of rape. Even the fact that the hymen of the victim is still intact
does not rule out rape since research show that the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus.
In any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. It suffices that there is
proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ.
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
On March 27, 2000, an Information
Information for rape was filed against appellant
appellant which reads as follows: 6 th
day of January 2000, in the City of Mandaluyong,
Mandaluyong, Philippines,
Philippines, have carnal knowledge of one [AAA],
five (5) years of age and his
his grandniece
grandniece by affinity
affinity thus sexual abuse
abuse prejudicial
prejudicial to the child’s
child’s
development
On June 20, 2000, both parties stipulated during pre-trial that the victim AAA was a minor, being
born on June 22, 1994
In the afternoon of January 6, 2000, AAA, then five (5) years old, was playing with her friends on
the street outside their house in Sto. Rosario Street, Mandaluyong City.
Appellant called
called AAA and brought her
her to his house, which
which was right next to
to AAA’s house. At the
time,, the house was unoccupied
time
unoccupied.. They went up to the second floor
floor where appellant
appellant’s
’s room is
located. Inside his room,
room, appellant
appellant began removing AAA’s dress,
dress, shorts
shorts and
and panty.
panty. Appellant
then removed his
his own clothes.
clothes. He told AAA to lie on
on the bed, and wasting
wasting no time,
time, inserted
inserted his
penis into her
her vagina. AAA felt pain, but she
she was unable
unable to cry for help because
because appellant warned
warned
her
not to
tellp.m.
anyone.
Thereafter,
AAA to dress
and
go preparing
home
Around
6:00
of the
same day,appellant
BBB, thetold
grandmother
of up
AAA,
was
to take a bath
when the latter
latter arrived. AAA asked her grandmother
grandmother to give
give her a bath, but when
when BBB was a
about
bout
to wash AAA’s genital
genital area, she refused. BBB noticed
noticed that her granddaughter
granddaughter was trembling
trembling and
covering her private
private part with her hands.
hands. BBB became suspicious
suspicious and asked
asked her to explain what
what
happened.. AAA replied that
happened
that it was
was painful
painful because
because it was pierced
pierced by a stick. They went
went upstairs
upstairs
and BBB told
told her granddaug
granddaughter
hter to lie down.
down. BBB looked
looked at AAA’s vagina
vagina and saw that it was
swollen and reddish. Hence, she suspected that AAA had been abuse
The following
following day, January 7, 2000, BBB brought AAA to the house of her sister-in-law,
sister-in-law, CCC, in
Makati City, to inform
inform her of AAA’s condition.
condition. AAA requested BBB to
to go out of the room because
because
she was embarras
embarrassed.
sed. It was on this occasion
occasion that AAA revealed
revealed to CCC that it was appellan
appellant,
t,
whom she calls “Lolo
“Lolo Boyet,” who
who abused her in th
the
e afternoon of January
January 6, 2000. BBB explained
explained
that AAA is appellant’s grandniece because his wife, DDD, is her sister
Consequently,
Conseque
ntly, BBB reported
reported the incident
incident to the PNP Mandaluyong
Mandaluyong City Police
Police Station. The case
was
referred
to PO1the
Josefi
Josefina
na L.
Abenojar of
the Women
an
and
dand
Children’s
Desk
Desk to
forthe
investigation.
investigati
Abenojar
prepared
sworn
statements
executed
by BBB
AAA relative
incidenton. PO1
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
49
SPO4 Julieta SI Espiritu, Chief of the Women and Children’s Desk, corroborated the testimony of
PO1 Abenojar. SPO4 Espirit
Espiritu
u testified that
that she tried to familiarize
familiarize AAA with the surroundings
surroundings in
the police
police station
station because
because she was hesitant
hesitant to talk at first.
first. She also noticed
noticed that
that AAA looked
looked
seriou
ser
ious
s about
about what she was saying
saying and observe
observed
d AAA to be a bit afraid
afraid and asham
ashamed.
ed. She
She
attested that she issued a referral letter to the City Prosecutor’s Office
Dr. Daniel testified that she conducted physical and medico-genital examination on AAA
No evident signs of extragenital physical injury was noted on the body of the subject at the
o
time of examination.
Hyme
Hy
men,
n, inta
intact
ct and
and it
its
s orif
orific
ice
e smal
smalll (0
(0.3
.3 cm.
cm. in diam
diamet
eter
er)) as to pr
prec
eclu
lude
de comp
comple
lete
te
o
penetration
penetratio
n by an average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full erection without producin
producing
g
genital injury.
According to Dr. Daniel, the phrase “to preclude complete penetration by an average-sized
o
adult Filipino male organ” means that the hymen was not penetrated by an erect penis, but
explained that in rape cases, a normal finding will not disprove that there was no sexual
intercourse
intercours
e or abuse
DEFENSE: Alibi.
Testifying for appellant,
appellant, DDD, appellant’s
appellant’s common-law-wife,
common-law-wife, testified that on January 6, 2000, she
woke up at 7:00 a.m. and cooked
cooked breakfast for
for her children and hus
husband.
band. Appellant was
was allegedly
already downstairs,
downstairs, outside
outside their house, fixing
fixing the motor pump when
when she cooked breakfast.
breakfast. She
testified that appellant fixed the water pump the whole day, but admitted that she did not actually
see her husband the whole time because every now and then her husband would go outside to
test the pump.
pump. She was not able to monitor
monitor the movements
movements of appellant
appellant as he was sometimes
out of her sight.
DDD admitted
admitted that
that the victim
victim is her niece
niece while the latter’s
latter’s guardia
guardian,
n, BBB, is her sister.
sister. She
further said that she had disagreements with BBB regarding the house where she resides, and
that the house was given to her by BBB and their other sister
appellant, for his part, testified that on January 6, 2000, he was at the house of Marvin Tara in St.
Ignacio
Igna
cio Street,
Street, Mandaluyo
Mandaluyong
ng City, installi
installing
ng a water
water pump. He started
started at 8:00 a.m. and came
back around
around 12:00
12:00 noon.
noon. From 1:00
1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
p.m., he was at the said house
house with Mario
Mario
Odtuhan, his helper; Cora Reyes; a nephew of Marvin, whose name he does not know; and a
certain Carding.
Carding. He further testified
testified that DDD is his live-in partner,
partner, and admitted
admitted that he did not
have a harmonious relationship with DDD’s father and sister, BBB
RTC: Moral
Morally
ly convin
convinced
ced that th
the
e accus
accused
ed GUILT
GUILTY
Y of th
the
e crime
crime of RAPE,
RAPE, as defin
defined
ed and
and
penalized under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659, in relation to R.A. 7160.
Finding the victim, [AAA], to have been under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of
rape on January 6, 2000 and finding the offend
offender
er to be a relative by affinity within
within the third
civil degree, in addition to the fact that said victim is below seven (7) years old, this Court
impose
imp
oses
s th
the
e su
supr
preme
eme penalt
penalty
y of Death through Lethal Injection , as provided for in
Republ
Rep
ublic
ic Act,
Act, 8177,
8177, amend
amending
ing sectio
section
n 24 of R.A.
R.A. 7659,
7659, in the
the manner
manner and
and pr
proce
ocedu
dure
re
therein provided.
Indemnify the offended party the amount of Seventy Five Thousand (Php 75,000.00) Pesos,
the crime of Rape being effectively qualified by the circumstances under which the Death
Penalty is authorized by the applicable amendatory lawsIndemnify the victim in the amount
of Fifty Thousand (Php 50,000.00) Pesos, by way of moral damages.
Automatic review to SC but referred to CA
CA: Reduced
Reduced the penalty
penalty of death
death imposed by the trial court to reclusion perpetua in view of the
abolition of the Death Penalty by Republic Act No.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ISSUE: Whether the crime of rape has been sufficiently proven.
HELD: YES.
•
He contends that the trial court hastily disregarded his defense of denial, which was sufficient to
absolve
abso
lve him in light of the evidence
evidence on record. He emphasize
emphasizes
s that the medico-leg
medico-legal
al officer
officer
testified that there were no signs of swelling on the victim’s vagina when she was examined.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
50
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appellant further claims that the victim was coached to make false accusations against him,
considering that he was not in good terms with the victim’s grandmother
To determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three
well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the
accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to
disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the
crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3)
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense
In the present case, AAA categorically testified that appellant directly inserted his penis into her
vagina, causing
causing her to feel pain. AAA’s testimony specified
specified the acts committed
committed by appellant
appellant when
he violated her on January 6, 2000,
Both
Bo
th th
the
e RTC
RTC and
and th
the
e Cour
Courtt of Appe
Appeal
als
s ar
are
e in agre
agreem
emen
entt th
that
at AAA was cat
categ
egori
orical
cal,,
straightforward, spontaneous, convincing, clear and candid in her testimony. A rape
victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward,
straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains
consistent, is a credible witness
In resol
resolvin
ving
g rape
rape cases,
cases, primo
primordi
rdial
al co
consi
nside
derat
ration
ion is gi
given
ven to the
the credib
credibili
ility
ty of the
the victi
victim’s
m’s
testimony.. The settled rule
testimony
rule is that the trial court’s conclusions
conclusions on the
the credibility of witnesses
witnesses in
rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless
there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower
court overlooked or misappreciated
misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the
case
Having seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of
testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the question of credibility
Here, we note that no such facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked,
misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial and appellate courts.
Appellant’s claim that the criminal complaint was filed against him because he was not in good
terms with AAA’s grandmother
grandmother deserves
deserves scant consideration.
consideration. The Court finds
finds it incredible for AAA
and her grandmother to trump up charges of rape against appellant for the simple reason that
they did not have
have a harmonious
harmonious relationsh
relationship.
ip. Well-settled
Well-settled is the rule that
that testimonies of young
victims of rape deserve full credence and should not be so easily dismissed as a mere
fabrication.
•
Moreover, it is highly improbable that BBB would allow her granddaughter to be exposed to the
ridicule of a public trial, if the charges were not true. We note that AAA has been in the custody of
BBB since she was
was an infant, and who
who treated her as if sh
she
e were her own daughter.
daughter. It was thus
very unlikely that she would sacrifice her own granddaughter, a child of tender years,
and subject her to the rigors and humiliation of a public trial for rape, if she were not
•
•
•
motivated by an honest desire to have her daughter’s transgressor punished accordingly
AAA was never sexually abused because the medico-legal findings showed that there were no
signs of swelling on the victim’s vagina when she was examined. Lack of lacerated wounds does
not negate sexual intercourse.
intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape.
Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape.
Research in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen
may not be torn despite repeated coitus
any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile
Penile invasion
invasion
necessarily
necess
arily entails
entails contact
contact with the labia.
labia. It suffices
suffices that there
there is proof of the entrance of the
male organ into the labia of the pudendum
pudendum of the female organ. Penetration of the penis by entry
into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a
conviction for rape
As to the penalty, Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides:
o
o
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with
any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent,, ascen
parent
ascendant,
dant, step
step-pare
-parent,
nt, guard
guardian,
ian, relat
relative
ive by consan
consanguini
guinity
ty or affi
affinity
nity
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
51
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim;
xxx
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
•
•
Xxx
Under Article 266-B, paragraph 6, subsection 1, the death penalty shall be imposed if the
crime
crim
e of rape is committe
committed
d when the victim
victim is under
under 18 years old and the offender is a
“parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.”
The circumstances
circumstances that qualify a crime should be alleged and proved beyond reasonable
doubt as the crime itself, as these attendant circumstances
circumstances alter the nature of the crime of
rape and increase the penalty. They are in the nature of qualifying circumstances. The age
of the victim and her relationship with the offender must, therefore, be both
alleged in the information and proven during the trial; otherwise, the death
penalty cannot be imposed
•
•
Here, the Information alleged that
that AAA is appellant’s
appellant’s gran
grandniece
dniece by affinity.
affinity. It should be
be
pointed out, however, that this relationship does not make the appellant a relative
of the victim by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. Hence, the
provision in Article 266-B, paragraph 6, subsection 1, is not applicable in this case.
Nevertheless,, it is provided under Article 266-B, paragraph 6, subsection 5, that the death
Nevertheless
penalty shall also be imposed
imposed if the crime
crime of rape is committed
committed when
when the victim is a
child below seven (7) years old .
Testimonies,
Testimoni
es, birth certificate establis
establish
h that the victim was only five (5) years old
o
when the rape was committed.
Thus, appellant was, at that time, correctly sentenced
sentenced to death by the trial court. In view
of the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9346 on June 24, 2006, repealing the Death Penalty Law,
the Court of Appeals also correctly modified the death penalty imposed upon appellant to
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated July 26, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. No. 02170 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that appellant is further ordered to
indemnify the victim P75,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary
exe mplary damages.
•
8. People v Ernesto Uyboco
DOCTRINE:
•
•
•
If the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration
of his detention is immaterial.
In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers
officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within
the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous
weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The
phrase “within the area of his immediate control” means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. Therefore, it is only but expected and legally so
for the police to search his car as he was driving it when he was arrested.
Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty
gui
lty of commit
committi
ting
ng th
the
e offen
offense
se is based
based on actual
actual fa
facts
cts,, i.
i.e.,
e., suppo
supporte
rted
d by circum
circumsta
stanc
nces
es
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested.
A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on
the part of the peace officers making the arrest. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure does not require the arresting officers to personally witness the commission of the
offense with their own eyes.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
52
•
•
•
Requisite
Requis
ites
s before
before a warran
warrantle
tless
ss arrest
arrest can be effect
effected
ed under
under th
the
e se
secon
cond
d in
insta
stanc
nce
e of lawfu
lawfull
warrantless
warrantles
s arrest (1) an offense has
has just been committed;
committed; and (2) the p
person
erson making the
the arrest
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
As a rule, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best
undertaken by the trial court, which had a unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand
and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude.
Court has invariably viewed the defense of frame-up with disfavor. Like the defense of alibi, it can
be just as easily concocted.
FACTS:
On 20 December 1993, Nimfa and her wards, siblings Jeson Kevin and Jeson Kirby Dichaves were
abduc
abd
ucted
ted and
and broug
brought
ht to a hous
house
e in Mervil
Merville
le Subdi
Subdivis
vision
ion,, Parañ
Parañaqu
aque.
e. Nimfa
Nimfa was
was able
able to
recognized one of the kidnappers as appellant,
appellant, because she had seen the latter in her employer’s
employer’s
office.
The kidnappers called Jepson and demanded for ransom of P26 Million. In one of the calls of the
kidnappers, Jepson was able to recognize the voice of appellant because he had several business
transactions.
After numerous times of negotiation, the parties finally agreed to a ransom of P1.5 Million, some in
cash and the balance to be paid in kind, such as jewelry and a pistol. Appellant asked Jepson to
bring the ransom alone at Pancake House in Magallanes Commercial Center and ordered him to
put the bag in the trunk, leave the trunk unlocked, and walk away for ten (10) minutes without
turning back.
P/Insp. Escandor and P/Supt. Chan were assigned to proceed to Magallanes Commercial Center
and brought a camera to take photo and video coverage of the supposed pay-off. He identified
Macias together with appellant and the latter as the one who took the ransom.
Later, appellant checked on his trunk and the bag was already gone. Appellant then apprised him
that his sons and helper were already at the Shell Gasoline Station along South Luzon Expressway.
He immediately went to the place and found his sons and helper seated at the corner of the gas
station. P/Supt. Cruz and his group was assigned at Fort Bonifacio then heard on their radio that
the suspect’s vehicle, a red Nissan Sentra was heading in their direction.
A few minutes later, they saw the red car and tailed it until it reached Dasmariñas Village in
Makati. When said car slowed down, they blocked it and immediately approached the vehicle.
They introduced
introduced themselves as police officers and accosted the suspect,
suspect, who turned out to be
appellant.. Appellant suddenly pulled a .38caliber revolver and a scuffle took place. They managed
appellant
to subdue appellant and handcuffed him. Appellant was requested to open the compartment and
a gray bag was found inside. P/Supt. Cruz saw money, jewelry and a gun inside the bag
ISSUES: Whether or not there was a valid arrest and search without warrant?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
HELD:
The arrest was validly executed pursuant to Section 5, paragraph (b) of Rule 113 of the Rules of
Court, which provides: “A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person: x x x; (b)
( b) When an offense has in fact been committed and he has persona
personall knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and, (c) x x x.”
A search incident to a lawful arrest is also valid under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
which states: “ A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant.”
The instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph
paragraph (b) cited above necessitates
necessitates two
stringent requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected: (1) an offense has just been
committed; and (2) the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it.
Records show that both requirements are present in the instant case. The police officers present
in Magallanes Commercial
Commercial Center were able to witness the pay-off which effectively
effectively consummates
the crime of kidnapping. Such knowledge
knowledge was then relayed to the other police officers statione
stationed
d in
Fort Bonifacio where appellant was expected to pass by.
Personal knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion. Section 5, Rule 113 does not require the arresting officers to
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
53
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
•
•
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. It is sufficient for the
arresting team that they were monitoring the pay-off for a number of hours long enough for them
to be informed that it was indeed appellant, who was the kidnappe
kidnapper.
r. This is equivalent to personal
knowledge based on probable cause.
Likewise, the search conducted inside the car of appellant
appellant was legal because the latter consented
to such. Even assuming that appellant did not give his consent for the police to search the car,
they can still validly do so by virtue of a search incident to a lawful arrest under Section 13, Rule
126.
In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers
officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within
the latter's reach. Therefore, it is only but expected and legally so for the police to search his car
as he was driving it when he was arrested
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from are AFFIRMED
•
•
9. People v Dima Montanir
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Josie Herrera,
Herrera, Robert Uy, Alicia
Alicia “a.k.a. Alice”
Alice” Buenaflor,
Buenaflor, together
together with appellants
appellants Ronald Norva and
and
Eduardo Chua,
Eduardo
Chua, on December
December 17, 1997,
1997, conc
concocte
octed
d a plan to kidnap
kidnap Rafael Mendoza,
Mendoza, and after
after
several days of conducting surveillance on their intended victim, on January 5, 1998, they decided
to kidnap Rafael
Rafael in Ali Mall, Cubao,
Cubao, Quezon City.
City. However,
However, the intended
intended kidnappi
kidnapping
ng failed,
failed,
because Rafael did not show up at the said place.
On February 5, 1998, a second attempt was made, but they encount
encountered
ered an accident before they
could even execute their original plan.
Around 5:30 a.m. of February 17, 1998, Alicia called
called up Rosalina Reyes, a partner of Rafael, to tell
her that she wanted to meet her and Rafael at Jollibee, BBB, Valenzuela City to settle the former's
loan of P350,000
P350,000.00.
.00. She requeste
requested
d Rosalina
Rosalina to bring
bring the land title which
which she was given as
collateral for the said loan.
Rosalina and Rafael
Rafael arrived at Jollibee
Jollibee ahead of Alicia.
Alicia. Eventually,
Eventually, around 9:15 a.m.
a.m. of the same
date,, Alicia showed
date
showed up outside
outside the store aboard
aboard a car. She was with appella
appellant
nt Ronald
Ronald Norva.
Alicia motioned
motioned Rosalina and Rafael
Rafael to approach
approach the car, which the two
two did as requested.
requested. While
inside
insi
de the vehicle,
vehicle, Alicia
Alicia introduced
introduced appella
appellant
nt Ronald as her cousin.
cousin. Later
Later on, Alicia
Alicia informed
informed
Rosalina and Rafael that she would pay them at her place.
When the car passed by the street where Alicia's house was located, Rosalina asked the former
where they were going.
going. Alicia answered
answered that they had to drop by the
the house of her financier
financier who
agreed to redeem her title and substitute
substitute as her creditor.
creditor. Trusting
Trusting Alicia, Rosalina and Rafael
Rafael did
not protest. They finally reached a house in Ciudad Grande, Valenzuela City.
Thereafter,, appellant
Thereafter
appellant Ronald alighted from the vehicle and talked to a man inside a store, later
identified as Jonard Mangelin. The gate of the house was then opened by appellant Dima. The car
proceeded to the garage and
and Rosalina and
and Rafael were asked
asked to go inside
inside the house.
house. Rosalina
followed Alicia,
Alicia, while Rafael trailed
trailed Rosalina as they
they entered throug
through
h a kitchen door. They passed
by a man (Jessie Doe) who was washing his hands in the sink.
While Rosalina was walking behind Alicia, she suddenly heard a dull moan coupled with the sound
of stomping feet.
feet. She looked back at the direction
direction where the sounds
sounds came from and saw Rafael
Rafael
being
bein
g forcibly
forcibly dragged
dragged inside
inside a room.
room. She decided
decided to look for Rafael
Rafael and on her way, she saw
“Jessie
“Jes
sie Doe” place
place his hand on Rafael's mouth
mouth and poke a gun at him. Rafael
Rafael struggled
struggled to get
free. Rosalina
Rosalina pleaded
pleaded with “Jessie
“Jessie Doe” to have pity on Rafael
Rafael because
because of his existing
existing heart
ailment.
Appellant Ronald rushed towards her, poked a gun at her mouth, tied her to a bed and warned her
not to make any noise. He told her that all they want is her money, upon which, Rosalina said that
if they really wanted money, they should untie Rafael, who then appeared to be on the verge of
having
havi
ng a heart
heart attack. Rosalina
Rosalina was untied
untied and she immedia
immediately
tely rushed
rushed to Rafael
Rafael and began
pumping his
his chest. She asked Jonard, who
who had just entered the
the room, to help her pump Rafael's
chest while
while she applied
applied CPR on the latter.
latter. Jonard did
did as told.
told. While CPR
CPR was being
being administered,
administered,
appellant Dima started removing all of Rafael's personal belongings, which include his ring, wallet,
watch and other items inside his pocket, and passed them on to appellant Ronald.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
54
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Afterwards, appellant Ronald instructed Jonard to take Rosalina to another room. While inside the
room where she was brought,
brought, Rosali
Rosalina
na begged Jonard to help
help her escape. Jonard was moved
moved by
Rosalina's plea
plea and agreed to help her.
her. During their
their conversation,
conversation, Jonard told Rosalina
Rosalina that two
women had tipped
tipped them off as the kidnap
kidnap victims. When asked who they
they were, Jonard refused
refused to
reveal their identities.
Rosalina was transferred to the master's bedroom around 12:00 noon because certain female
visit
vis
itors
ors arrived
arrived.. After
After th
the
e visito
visitors
rs left, Rosalin
Rosalina
a was
was return
returned
ed to th
the
e room
room where
where she was
was
previously taken.
taken. Rosalina asked
asked Jonard about Rafael's
Rafael's condition,
condition, to which he replied
replied that Rafael
would be brought
brought to the hospital
hospital.. A little later, at around 1 p.m., Jon
Jonard
ard went to check on Rafael
and confirmed that he was still alive.
Around 2:00 p.m., Rosalina
Rosalina heard the sound
sound of someone being pu
pummelled.
mmelled. Feeling nervous,
nervous, she
asked Jonard the
the whereabouts
whereabouts of Rafael and was
was told that he was
was brought to the
the hospital
hospital.. But
unknown to Rosalina, Rafael had just died and his body was placed inside the trunk of a car.
Around 6:30 p.m., Rosalina
Rosalina was informed that she
she will be brought to another saf
safe
e house. She was
taken to a car and placed at the back seat, together with Jonard and three other men, later
identified
identifi
ed as Larry, Jack and
and Boy. The driver of the
the car was appellant
appellant Ronald.
Ronald. Appellant
Appellant Ronald
instructed
instructe
d Jonard to cover Rosalina's
Rosalina's head
head with a jacket which
which Jonard did.
did. As they were about
about to
leave,
leav
e, the man seated beside
beside Ronald start
started
ed to talk. Rosalina
Rosalina recogni
recognized
zed the voice of Robert
Robert..
She then lifted the jacket covering her head and was able to confirm that the one talking was
Robert. Rosalina cried,
cried, “Robert, Robert,
Robert, why did you do this,
this, we did not do anything
anything to you” and
and
Robert responded, “ Pasensiyaha
Pasensiyahan
n na lang tayo.”
By 10:00 p.m., they arrived at a certain house in Pandi, Bulacan where there was no electricity.
Thus, they
they lit candles
candles for illuminatio
illumination.
n. Rosalina found
found the
the house familiar
familiar and concluded
concluded that it was
Alicia's. Rosalina was brought
brought to a room on the
the second floor
floor and while inside
inside the room, she was
told by one of the men guarding
guarding her that one of the leaders wan
wanted
ted to talk to her. Per the leader's
instruction,
instructi
on, the guard put out the candle light.
light. The man then seated himsel
himselff beside Rosalina and
warned
warn
ed her against
against escaping
escaping as they were a large
large and armed group.
group. Rosalina
Rosalina recogniz
recognized
ed the
voice
voic
e as that of Robert's.
Robert's. Before
Before he left the room, Robert gave
gave instruc
instruction
tions
s to Jonard
Jonard and the
other men inside.
inside. Meanwhile, the
the group started digging
digging a pit at the back of the
the same house near
the swimming pool.
Around 3:00 a.m. of the following day (February 18), the group buried Rafael's body in the pit.
Thereafter,, Robert instructed
Thereafter
instructed appellant
appellant Ronald to tell Jonard that the latter should kill Rosalina,
Rosalina,
which
whic
h Jonard refused
refused to do. Nonethel
Nonetheless,
ess, Robert
Robert instruct
instructed
ed Jonard and the others
others to guard
Rosalina well, as he himself would deal with her upon his return.
Rosal
Ros
alina
ina heard
heard the
the car leave aroun
around
d 5:00
5:00 a.m.
a.m. of th
the
e sa
same
me day.
day. Sensi
Sensing
ng th
that
at Jonard
Jonard was
sympathetic to her, Rosalina begged him again to help her escape for the sake of her children.
When electricity was restored around 8 p.m., one of the men guarding Rosalina turned off the
light
light insi
inside
de the room.
room. The
The room
room was
was only
only illumin
illuminat
ated
ed by a light
light coming
coming from
from th
the
e hallw
hallway.
ay.
Rosalina saw a person
person wearing a wig and sunglasses
sunglasses enter
enter the room. Rosalina recognized
recognized him as
Robert.
Trying to mimic a woman by modulating his voice, Robert told her that Rafael was in the hospital
and that he could
could still sign a check. He asked Rosalina
Rosalina the whereabouts
whereabouts of the other land
land titles
and the identit
identities
ies of the other financiers
financiers whom
whom she knew. Rosa
Rosalina
lina replied
replied in the negative
negative..
Robert angrily
angrily poked a gun at her and shouted,
shouted, “That's
“That's impossible,”
impossible,” and then left the
the room. He
gave instructions to his members and left.
At 9:00 p.m., Jonard went to Rosalina and told her about Robert's order to kill her, which caused
the latter
latter to panic
panic and cry.
cry. She then
then implore
implored
d the help of
of Jonard
Jonard for her escape
escape.. Afterwar
Afterwards,
ds,
Jonard went to his companions
companions Larry, Jack and Boy and told them that he would help Rosalina
escape. His companions immediately cocked their guns and an argument ensued. Rosalina talked
to them and begged
begged them all to spare
spare her life. One of Jonard's
Jonard's companions
companions told Rosalina
Rosalina that if
they
the
y would
would allow
allow her to escape,
escape, they too would
would get in
into
to trouble
trouble.. Ta
Takin
king
g advant
advantage
age of the
the
situation,
situatio
n, Rosalina suggested
suggested that all of them should
should escape. They all agreed to escape
escape in the
early morning.
Around 5:00 a.m.,
a.m., Rosalina, Jonard,
Jonard, Larry, Jack and Boy left the
the safe house. They walked through
through
a rice field for about 30 minutes
minutes and then
then boarded a jeepney
jeepney bound for Balagtas,
Balagtas, Bulacan
Bulacan.. From
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
55
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
Balagtas,, they took a bus going to Cubao and arrived
Balagtas
arrived at 7:30 a.m. Rosalina pawned
pawned her pieces of
jewelry for P1,500.00
P1,500.00 and
and gave the P1,000.00
P1,000.00 to Larry,
Larry, Jack and Boy. The three told
told Jonard to stay
with Rosalina so that she would have a witness and, in case Rosalina would further need their
help, left their address with Jonard.
When the three left, Rosalina immediately called Rafael's brother Tito, and related what happened
to her and his brother.
brother. When
When Tito asked Jonard
Jonard which hospital
hospital Rafael
Rafael was brought
brought to, Jonard
reveal
rev
ealed
ed to Rosal
Rosalina
ina that
that Rafael
Rafael died
died at th
the
e safe
safe hous
house
e in Ci
Ciud
udad
ad Grand
Grande,
e, Valen
Valenzue
zuela
la Ci
City.
ty.
Rosalina called her lawyer, Atty. Teresita Agbi and asked her to meet them at Farmer's, Cubao.
When
Wh
en Atty.
Atty. Agbi
Agbi arrive
arrived,
d, sh
she
e accomp
accompan
anied
ied th
them
em to the
the Depar
Departme
tment
nt of Interi
Interior
or and
and Lo
Local
cal
Government (DILG) where an investigation was conducted.
The following day, at 4:00 a.m., two groups from the DILG were formed to arrest Alicia, Josie, the
appellan
appe
llants,
ts, and Robert.
Robert. Alicia
Alicia and Josie were not at their
their homes, while
while appellants
appellants Ronald
Ronald and
Dima were
were arrested
arrested at the
the residenc
residence
e of Robert.
Robert. While
While at the DILG
DILG office,
office, Rosalin
Rosalina
a positive
positively
ly
identified
identifi
ed appellants
appellants Ronald and Dima
Dima as her kidnappers.
kidnappers. Meanwhile, Jonard
Jonard accompanied
accompanied the
police authorities to the safe house in Pandi, Bulacan and showed them where the body of Rafael
was buried. The remains of Rafael was later on exhumed.
Two Informations were filed with the RTC of Valenzuela City (Branch 171:
17th day of February 1998 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, conspiring together and mutually
o
helping one another, being then private person, did then and kidnap one ROSALINA REYES
against her will and detained her, thereby depriving her of her liberty for a period of two
days.
17th day of February 1998 in Valenzuela, Metro Manila, accused, conspiring together and
o
mutual
mut
ually
ly helpi
helping
ng one
one anoth
another,
er, being
being th
then
en a privat
private
e perso
person,
n, did th
then
en and
and kidna
kidnap
p one
RAFAEL MENDOZA against his will and detained him, thereby depriving him of his liberty
and on the occasion thereof, the death of the victim resulted (Kidnapping resulting to
homicide?)
Upon arraignmen
arraignment,
t, with the assistan
assistance
ce of counsel,
counsel, Jonard and appella
appellants
nts Ronald, Dima and
Eduardo, pleaded
pleaded “not guilty”
guilty” to the crime charged.
charged. Robert Uy, Alice Buenaflor
Buenaflor and Jessie
Jessie Doe
remained at-large
at-large during the trial of the
the case. Jonard was later on discharged
discharged as a state witness.
witness.
Afterwards, the trial on the merits ensued.
RTC: DIMA MONTANIR, RONALD NORVA, and EDUARDO CHUA are hereby found GUILTY, crime of
kidnappi
kidn
apping
ng (SPECIAL
(SPECIAL COMPLEX
COMPLEX CRIME
CRIME OF KIDNAPPIN
KIDNAPPING
G WITH HOMICIDE)
HOMICIDE) and in accordan
accordance
ce with
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.
Penalty
Pena
lty of DEATH on accused
accused NORVA and MONTANIR.
MONTANIR. As regards
regards accused
accused CHUA, this Court
Court
hereby imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Further, accused Montanir, Norva and Chua are hereby held jointly and severally liable to pay
the heirs of Mendoza the amount of Php 71,000.00 in actual damages and Php 50,000.00 as
moral damages.
•
-
As
for accused
JOSIE HERRERA, the Court hereby ACQUITS her on reasonable doubt of the
charge
of kidnapping.
MISSING: With regard to accused ALICE BUENAFLOR, ROBERT UY and one JESSIE DOE, let the
cases against
against them be ARCHIVED pending
pending their apprehension.
apprehension. Meantime, let an alias
alias warrant
issue for their apprehension.
CA: On automatic review, Affirmed the conviction with modification on the penalty imposed, thus:
Penalty of death imposed on accused Montanir and Norva is hereby modified to reclusion perpetua
to conform to and in accordance
accordance with Republic
Republic Act No. 9346. Appellants Montanir,
Montanir, Norva and Chua
Chua
are ordered to pay jointly and severally the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity to the heirs of
the victims.
ISSUES:
DIMA MONTANIR: Not beyond reasonable
reasonable doubt
EDUARDO CHUA: Not a conspirator
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
56
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
RONALD NORVA: Beyond reasonable doubt
HELD:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
After the amendment of the Revised Penal Code on December 31, 1993 by Republic Act
No. 7659, Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, now provides:
individual who shall kidnap or detain
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
o
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
o
o
3. If any
any seri
seriou
ous
s phys
physic
ical
al in
inju
juri
ries
es shal
shalll have
have been
been infl
inflic
icte
ted
d upon
upon the
the pers
person
on
kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made
4. If the person kidnapped
kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is
o
any of the parents, female or a public officer;
kidnapping or detention was committed for the
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the
circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped,
or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
This amendment
amendment introduced in our criminal
criminal statutes the concept of 'special comp
complex
lex crime'
of kidnapping with murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by
the courts between those cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely
sought by the accused, and those where the killing of the victim was not deliberately
resorted to but was merely an afterthought.
Consequently,
Consequ
ently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of
the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was
merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be
comp
co
mple
lexe
xed
d un
unde
derr Ar
Art.
t. 48
48,, no
norr be tr
trea
eate
ted
d as se
sepa
parat
rate
e crim
crimes
es,, but
but sh
shal
alll be
punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as
amended by RA No. 7659.
A disc
discuss
ussio
ion
n on th
the
e natu
nature
re of sp
speci
ecial
al compl
complex
ex crime
crime is imper
imperati
ative.
ve. Whe
Where
re the law
provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses, the resulting
crime is called a special complex crime.
As earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659 amended Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code by
adding thereto this provision: "When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed; and that this provision gives rise to a special complex crime.
It appearing from the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that there is a "direct
relation, and intimate connection” between the kidnapping, killing and raping of Marijoy,
rape cannot be considered merely as an aggravating circumstance but as a component
offense forming part of the herein special complex crime
"Where the person killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing
was purpo
purposel
sely
y sough
soughtt or was
was merely
merely an after
afterth
thoug
ought
ht,, th
the
e kidna
kidnappi
pping
ng and murde
murderr or
homicide can no longer be complexed under Article 48, nor be treated as separate crimes,
but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Article 267."
The same principle
principle applies
applies here. The kidnapping
kidnapping and serious illegal
illegal detention
detention can no longer
be complexed under Article 48, nor be treated as separate crime but shall be punished as a
special complex crime.
At any rate, the technical designation of the crime is of no consequence in the
impo
im
posi
siti
tion
on of th
the
e pe
penal
nalty
ty co
cons
nsid
ider
erin
ing
g th
that
at kidn
kidnap
appi
ping
ng an
and
d se
seri
riou
ous
s ille
illega
gall
detention if complexed with either homicide or rape, still, the maximum penalty
of death shall be imposed .
In this
this particul
particular
ar case,
case, the Informat
Information
ion specifi
specificall
cally
y alleges
alleges that the appellan
appellants
ts wilfully
wilfully,,
unlawfully and feloniously kidnapped Rafael Mendoza against his will and detained him,
thereby depriving him of his liberty and on the occasion thereof, the death of the
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
57
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
victim resulted. The trial court,
court, in its decision
decision,, particularl
particularly
y in the dispositi
dispositive
ve portion,
portion,
merely stated that the appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of kidnapping,
kidnapping, however, its mention of the phrase, in accordance
accordance with Article
Article 267 of the
Revised
Revi
sed Penal Code, as amended,
amended, this Court
Court hereby imposes
imposes the penalty
penalty of DEAT
DEATH
H on
accused Norva and Montanir , clearly refers to the crime committed as that of the special
complex crime of Kidnapping with Homicide.
•
•
•
The appellants, therefore, were correctly punished
punished under the last paragraph
paragraph of Article 267
as the evidence presented during the trial, in its entirety, undoubtedly proves that the
death of Rafael Mendoza, although of natural causes, occurred on the occasion of the
kidnapping.
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT:
DOUBT: The trial court's assessment
assessment of the credibility of a witness is
entitled to great weight. It is conclusive and binding unless shown to be tainted with
arbitr
arb
itrar
arine
iness
ss or unles
unless,
s, th
throu
rough
gh oversi
oversight
ght,, some
some fa
fact
ct or circum
circumsta
stanc
nce
e of weight
weight and
influence has not been considered
Absent any showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, or that the judge
acted arbitrarily, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves high respect by
appellate courts
Inconsistencies
•
•
•
Appellants claim that Jonard, a witness for the prosecution, stated in his Sinumpaang Salaysay
Appellants
that he was the one who whispered to appellant Ronald to transfer Rosalina to another room so
that the latter would have no idea that Rafael was in a critical condition, but during trial, Jonard
testified that it was Ronald who instructed him to transfer Rosalina to a different room.
Appellants also point out that in the same sworn statement, Jonard averred that he resided in
Taguig since October,
October, 1987, which is contrary to what he testified in court that he resided in that
same place
place since 1997. In addition,
addition, appellan
appellants
ts further
further argue that in her testimony
testimony,, Rosalina
Rosalina
declared that she was with four men seated at the back of the car when she was brought to
Pandi, Bulacan, however, Jonard, in his own testimony, stated that there were four of them
including Rosalina seated at the back of the car.
A close reading of the above inconsistencies asserted by the appellants show that the same refer
only to minor details
details and collateral m
matters
atters and do not affect the veracity and we
weight
ight
of the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution. What really prevails is the consistency
•
of the testimonies of the witnesses in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification
of the appellants
appellants.. Sli
Slight
ght contradi
contradictio
ctions
ns in fact even serve to strengthe
strengthen
n the credibil
credibility
ity of the
witnesses and prove that their testimonies are not rehearsed. They are thus safeguards against
memorized perjury.
Testimonies
Testimon
ies in court are given more weight than affidavits,
affidavits, thus: Affidavits
Affidavits are not entirely
reliab
rel
iable
le ev
evide
idence
nce in court
court due
due to th
their
eir in
incom
comple
plete
tenes
ness
s and th
the
e in
inacc
accura
uracie
cies
s that
that may have
have
attended their formulationIn general, such affidavits are not prepared by the affiants themselves
but by another person ( i.e., investigator) who may have used his own language in writing the
statement or misunderstood the affiant or omitted material facts in the hurry and impatience that
usually attend the preparation of such affidavits.
•
•
•
An affidavit, “being taken ex-parte, is almost always incomplete and often inaccurate,
someti
som
etime
mes
s fro
from
m par
partia
tiall sug
sugge
gesti
stion,
on, and som
someti
etime
mes
s from wan
wantt of sug
sugges
gestio
tion
n and
inquiries, without the aid of which the witness may be unable to recall the connected
collateral circumstances necessary for the correction of the first suggestion of his
memory and for his accurate recollection of all that belongs to the subject
affidavits have generally been considered inferior to testimony given in open
court
Incidentally, the CA was correct in stating that Jonard was able to explain and reconcile the
Incidentally,
minor discrepancies in his testimony by saying that he whispered to appellant Ronald that
Rafael was in a bad condition and afterwards, it was appellant Ronald who instructed him
to transfer Rosalina to another room, thus: “A: The two are true, ma'am, because
when I whispered to him that the old man was in a bad condition he gave me
instruction to transfer Mrs. Reyes to another room. ”
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
58
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
The same is
is true with
with his inconsisten
inconsistentt statements
statements regarding
regarding his time
time of residence
residence in Taguig,
Taguig,
thus: “The truth is 1997”
Prosecution was not able to establish his participation in the commission of the crime
because he was merely the house helper of the safe house in Ciudad Grande, Valenzuela,
when the kidnappers and the victims arrived. In the
the same vein,
vein, appel
appellant
lant Ronal
Ronald
d
asserts that there was no convinci
convincing
ng evidence presented by the prosecution that will point
to his
his clear participation in the crime because he was just the driver of the car
that brought
brought the victims to the
the place where the latter
latter were kept. Appellant
Appellant Eduardo also
insists that he was not a participant in the offense charged in the Information .
Basically, the appellants deny any participation in the kidnapping.
Conspiracy exists
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it.
Verily, when conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not
individu
indi
vidual,
al, that render all of them equally
equally liable
liable regardle
regardless
ss of the extent of their
their respecti
respective
ve
participations, the act of one being deemed to be the act of the other or the others, in the
commission of the felony
Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates
confederates which follows incidentally
in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and natural consequences even
though it
it was not intended as part of the original
original design.
design. Responsibility
Responsibility of a conspirator
conspirator is not
confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral
acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended
Conspirators
Conspira
tors are held to have intended the consequences
consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging
in cons
conspi
pira
racy
cy whic
which
h nece
necess
ssar
aril
ily
y and
and dire
direct
ctly
ly pr
prod
oduc
uces
es a pr
proh
ohib
ibit
ited
ed re
resu
sult
lt,, they
they are,
are, in
contemplation of law, chargeable with intending that result
Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless such act differs
radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit
As Judge Learned Hand put it in United States v. Andolscheck “when a conspirator embarks upon a
criminal venture of indefinite outline, he takes his chances as to its content and membership, so
be it that they fall within the common purposes as he understands them.”
EVIDENCE: The trial court correctly found the denial of appellant Dima that he had knowledge of
the kidnapping,
kidnapping, unbelievable.
unbelievable. The appellant’s
appellant’s bare denial
denial is a weak defense that becomes
becomes even
weaker in the face of the prosecution witnesses’ positive identification of him.
As for accused Montanir, again, this Court finds the testimonies of prosecution witnesses more
credible than his testimony applying the same principle that evidence to be believed must not
only proceed from a mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such that the
co
comm
mmon
on expe
experi
rien
ence
ce and
and obse
observ
rvat
atio
ion
n of mank
mankin
ind
d ca
can
n sh
show
ow it as prob
probab
able
le unde
underr th
the
e
circumstances.
Certainly, this Court is not convinced by accused Montanir's claim that he was at Ciudad Grande
because he was a house boy of accused Chua after he admitted the circumstances under which
he has to live there a few days before the victims were brought there.
To begin with,
with, this Court does
does not buy accused
accused Montanir's explanation
explanation that
that he transferred
transferred to Chua
because he was looking for a permanent job is hardly credible because he himself admitted that
when he was brought by accused Uy to the residence of accused Chua at Ciudad Grande, it was
the understa
understandin
nding
g that it would be accused
accused Uy who would be paying
paying his salary.
salary. Why would
would
accused Uy pay the salary of accused Montanir if he was to work as a house boy of accused Chua?
Evidently, the only plausible reason why accused Uy would pay the salary of accused Montanir is
because he was actually working for the former and only posted in the house of accused Chua at
Ciudad
Ciud
ad Grande
Grande to play his part in the executi
execution
on of the planned
planned kidnappi
kidnapping.
ng. This
This conclusion
conclusion is
bolstered by accused Montanir's admission that he never even spoke with accused Chua during all
those times that he stayed at accused Chua's residence as in fact, he took orders from accused
Uy.
Moreover, this Court finds it rather perplexing that accused Montanir would suddenly go back to
the house of accused Uy on 19 February 1998 on the shallow reason that he had no companion at
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
59
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ciudad Grande when precisely he said he was hired as a caretaker thereat while the regular boy
was on vacation.
The above conclusion
conclusion was bolstered by the positive
positive identification
identification of the same appellant
appellant and his
exact participation in the execution of the crime, by the witnesses for the prosecution, thus:
WITN
WI
TNES
ESS
S JONA
JONARD
RD:: I saw Jess and Dems poking a gun to (sic) Mr. Mendoza . WITNES
WITNESS
S
ROSALINA: While we were pumping Mr. Mendoza's chest, Dima Montanir was busy
removing the things of Mr. Mendoza. Who was there? Dima Montanir.
In like manner, appellant Eduardo's denial that he participated in the offense charged does not
outweigh the testimonies of the witnesses positively identifying him as one of the culprits, thus:
WITNESS JONARD Q Whe
When
n you said the
they
y are my Boss
Boss,, to whom, Mr. Wit
Witnes
ness,
s, are you
refe
referr
rrin
ing
g to
to?
? A Rona
Ronald
ld Norv
Norva,
a, Rob
Rober
ertt Uy, Ed
Eduar
uardo
do Ch
Chua
ua,, Ali
Alice
ce Bue
Buena
nafl
flor
or and Jo
Josi
sie
e
Herrera.
Q You also me
mentione
ntioned
d the name of Edu
Eduardo
ardo Chua as one of yo
your
ur bosse
bosses,
s, why do you
say so that he was one of
of your bosse
bosses?
s? A Becau
Because
se they we
were
re the ones pl
planning
anning ho
how
w
they could get Mr. Mendoza.
Q Who we
were
re the
these
se pe
people
ople iin
n the g
group,
roup, M
Mr.
r. Wit
Witness?
ness? A Alic
Alice
e Buen
Buenaflor,
aflor, R
Robert
obert Uy,
Ronald Norva, Eduardo Chua and Josie Herrera.
Q And who par
partic
ticipa
ipated
ted in the pla
plan,
n, Mr. Wit
Witnes
ness?
s? A
Ed
Eduard
uardo
o Chu
Chua,
a, Rob
Robert
ert Uy,
Ronald, Alice Buenaflor and Josie Herrera.
It must always be remembered that between positive and categorical testimony which has a ring
of truth to it on the one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails.
It is also not disputed that the safe house in Ciudad Grande, Valenzuela, where the victims were
brought was owned by appellant Eduardo.
The trial court was also correct in dismissing
dismissing the claim of appellant Eduardo that he merely lent
his car to Robert
Robert and allow
allowed
ed the latter
latter to occup
occupy
y his house
house becau
because
se Robert
Robert had been
been so
accom
acc
ommo
modat
dating
ing to him and had facil
facilita
itated
ted his loan,
loan, thus:
thus: Regard
Regardin
ing
g th
the
e crimin
criminal
al lia
liabil
bility
ity of
accused Chua, while it is conceded that the said accused was nowhere in the actual scene of
the incident, this Court nonetheless finds the said accused guilty of kidnapping as one of the
conspirators to the commission of the felony who participated by furnishing the vehicle used in
abducting the victims and the house where they were held captive and where Mendoza died.
It is also bewildering to this Court why immediately after receiving the money he borrowed, he
would spend it in going to Davao with his daughter on 18 February 1988, without any previous
plan whatsoever and suspiciously,
suspiciously, upon invitation of accused Uy who had known by then that one
of the victims, Mendoza, had died in the course of the kidnapping.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated
dated April 22, 2008
2008 of the Court Appeals,
Appeals, affirming
affirming
with modification
modification the Decision dated October 28, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela
City, Branch 171 is hereby AFFIRMED, with further MODIFICATION that all the appellants herein
are equally found GUILTY of the special complex crime of Kidnapping with Homicide .
10. People v Joel Baluya
FACTS:
o
o
In an Information dated September 4, 2003, appellant was indicted before RTC of Manila for the
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about August 31, 2003, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being
o
then a private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap, take,
detain and carry away one GLODIL CASTILLON Y MAAMBONG, a minor, nine (9) years
old, son of Gloria Castillon y Maambong, while the latter was playing outside of their residence
along Laon Laan St., Sampaloc, this City, by poking a knife on his back, twisting his hands and
forcibly
forc
ibly bringing
bringing him to Novalich
Novaliches,
es, Quezon
Quezon City, thus
thus detainin
detaining
g and depriving
depriving him of his
liberty under restraint and against his will and consent.
Around 10:30 a.m. of August 31, 2003, the victim, Glodil Castillon (Glodil), who at that time was
nine
nin
e (9) years old, was playing
playing in front of their
their house
house located along Laon Laan St., Sampaloc,
Sampaloc,
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
60
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
o
o
o
o
o
Manila. While in the midst of play, he saw herein appellant. Appellant then called Glodil's attention
and summoned him to come forth.
Immediately
Immediatel
y thereafter, appellant seized him by twisting his right arm, pointed a knife at him and
told him that if appellant's wife, Marissa, would not show up Glodil's mother would not see him
anymore. Appellant and Glodil then boarded a jeepney and went to Blumentritt. When they were
in Blumentritt, appellant called up Glodil's mother, Gloria, telling her to show him his wife so that
she will also be able to see Glodil.
Gloria
Glo
ria then asked appellant
appellant to all
allow
ow her to talk to her son as proof
proof that
that Glodil
Glodil was indeed
indeed with
him. Appellant then passed the telephone to Glodil, but the latter was only able to momentarily
talk with his mother because appellant immediately grabbed the telephone from him.
Thereafter,, Glodil's mother reported the incident
Thereafter
incident to the police. Meanwhile,
Meanwhile, appellant and Glodil
again boarded a jeepney and went to Novaliches. It was Glodil's first time to reach Novaliches.
Upon reaching
reaching Novaliche
Novaliches
s “Bayan,
“Bayan,”” they headed straight
straight to a barbersh
barbershop
op where
where they fetched
fetched
appellant's three minor children.
They then proceeded to a church where appellant
appellant left his children and Glodil in the playground
playground
within
wit
hin the church
church pr
premi
emises
ses.. Glodi
Glodill playe
played,
d, ate and
and sl
slept
ept with
with appel
appella
lant'
nt's
s child
children
ren until
until the
afternoon of the same day. During that period, appellant returned from time to time to check on
them and bring them food.
At 3:30 p.m. of the same day, appellant again called up Gloria and, while shouting, asked if his
wife was already there. He then threatened Gloria by saying that “kapag hindi mo ipakita sa akin
si Marissa, hindi mo na makikita ang anak mo.” Subsequently, Gloria was able to talk to Marissa
and convince her to meet with appellant at the Novaliches public market.
Unknown to appellant, the police already had a plan to arrest him, which they did when he
showed up to meet with his wife. In the meantime, around 4:00 p.m. of August 31, 2003, Glodil
was able to seize an opportunity to escape while appellant was away. He walked from the place
where appellant left him in Novaliches until he reached their house and it took him around four
hours to do so. He was able to trace back their house by reading the signboard of the jeepneys
and following the route of those that pass by his place of residence.
DEFENSE:
o
o
o
o
o
On the other hand, the defense interposed the defense of denial alleging that on August 31, 2003,
appellant went to the house of his common-law-wife's aunt, Gloria, at Laon Laan St. in Sampaloc,
Manila for the purpose of asking the latter if his wife, with whom he has been separated, has been
there.
Gloria told him that his wife went to their house once but has not seen her since then. After an
hour of talking with Gloria, appellant bid her goodbye. It was then that Glodil approached him and
asked
aske
d if he could
could go with him to Novalich
Novaliches.
es. Since Glodil
Glodil already went with him to Novalich
Novaliches
es
several times in the past, appellant acceded to the child's request on the condition
condition that he ask his
mother for permission, which the latter readily gave.
Appellan
Appe
llantt and Glodil
Glodil then proceeded
proceeded to the former's house in Novalich
Novaliches.
es. After
After taking
taking lunc
lunch,
h,
appellant took his children and Glodil to the playground and left them there. When he returned
around 4:30 p.m., Glodil was no longer there. His children told him that Glodil's aunt, by the name
of Rosaly, fetched him.
Appellant then brought home his children. Around 6:00 p.m. of the same day, the police, together
with Gloria and his wife, arrived at his house wherein he was apprehended and brought to a police
station in Novaliches. After having been subjected to a medical examination, he was turned over
to Police Station 4 in Balic-Balic, Manila, where he was subsequently charged with kidnapping.
Appellant alleges that his wife and her aunt came up with the scheme of accusing him with
kidnapping so that his wife would be able to take their children from him. Appellant also claims
that Gloria is angry with “warays” and because he is a “waray” she is also angry with him.
RTC: GUILTY of the crime of Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention and sentences him to suffer
the
the pen
penalt
alty
y of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the
costs.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
61
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
CA: AFFIRMED, subject to the modification
modification that accused JOEL BALUYA y NOTARTE is ordered to pay to
victim Glodil M. Castillon the amounts of P30,000.00 as moral damages and of P15,000.00 as nominal
damages.
ISSUES:
1. Whether
Whether tHE COURT A QUO GRAVELY
GRAVELY ERRED
ERRED IN FINDING
FINDING THE ACCUSED
ACCUSED GUILTY
GUILTY BEYOND
BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
2. THE COURT
COURT A QUO GRAVELY
GRAVELY ERRED
ERRED IN GIVING
GIVING CREDENC
CREDENCE
E TO THE TESTI
TESTIMO
MONY
NY OF THE
PROSECUTION WITNESSES THAT THE VICTIM WAS FORCIBLY TAKEN AND DEPRIVED OF HIS
LIBERTY UNDER RESTRAINT AND AGAINST HIS WILL AND CONSENT.
3. Whether
Whether COURT
COURT A QUO GRAVELY
GRAVELY ERRED IN FAILING
FAILING TO DETERMINE
DETERMINE THE ALLEGATI
ALLEGATION
ON OF
MINORITY OF THE VICTIM.
o
Appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of all the elements of the crime
charged. In particular, the defense contends
contends that there is no evidence to show that the victim was
deprived of his liberty.
HELD: AFFIRM CONVICTION
o
The elements of kidnapping
kidnapping and serious
Penal Code (RPC) are:
illegal detention
detention under Article 267of the Revised
1.
2.
the offender is a private individual;
he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
3.
4.
the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and
in the commission
commission of the offense, any of the following
following circumstan
circumstances
ces are present: (a) the
the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating
public authority;
authority; or (c) any serious physical
physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped
or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer.
FIRST: The presence of the first element is not in issue as there is no dispute that appellant is a
private individual.
SECOND: As to the second element of the crime, the deprivation required by Article 267 of the RPC
means
me
ans not only the imprisonment of a person, but also the deprivation of his liberty in
whatever form and for whatever length of time.
o
o
o
o
It involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or
is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. If the victim is a child, it also includes the intention
intention
of the accused
to actual
deprivedeprivation
the parentsofofthe
thevictim's
custody
of the coupled
child. In with
otherindubitable
words, theproof
essence
of
kidnapping
is the
liberty,
of the
intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.
In the present case, Glodil was in the control of appellant as he was kept in a place strange and
unfamiliar to him. Because of his tender age and the fact that he did not know the way back
home, he was then and there deprived of his liberty. The intention to deprive Glodil's parents of
his custody is also indicated by appellant's actual taking of the child without the permission or
knowledge of his parents, of subsequently calling up the victim’s mother to inform her that the
child is in his custody and of threatening her that she will no longer see her son if she failed to
show his wife to him.
Appellant's arguments that the victim is free to go home if he wanted to because he was not
confine
conf
ined,
d, detained
detained or deprived
deprived of his liberty and that there is no evidence
evidence to show that
that Glodil
Glodil
sustained any injury, cannot hold water.
The CA is correct in holding that for kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offender
the forcibly
victim inrestrained
a kidnapping
kept is
the
victimitinbecomes
an enclosure
or treated
himwhether
harshly.
case
a minor,
even more
irrelevant
theWhere
offender
the
victim.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
62
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
o
As discussed above, leaving
leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if
he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still amount to deprivation of
liberty. For under such a situation, the child’s freedom remains at the mercy and control of the
abductor. It remains undisputed that it was his first time to reach Novaliches and that he did not
know his way home from the place where he was left. It just so happened that the victim had the
presence of mind that, when he saw an opportunity to escape, he ran away from the place where
appellant left him. Moreover, he is intelligent enough to read the signboards of the passenger
jeepneys he
he saw and follow
follow the
the route of the ones going
going to his place of residence.
residence.
Appellant alleges that Glodil was not forcibly taken, but instead voluntarily went with appellant to
Novaliches. The general rule is that the prosecution is burdened to prove lack of consent
on the part of the victim. However, where the victim is a minor, lack of consent is
presumed. Aside from his self-serving
self-serving testimony, appellant failed to present competent evidence
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
to overcome
overcome such
such presumpt
presumption.
ion. Thus, the presumpt
presumption
ion stands that Glo
Glodil,
dil, being only nine (9)
years old on August 31, 2003, is incapable of giving consent and is incompetent to assent to his
seizure and illegal detention.
The defense further
further argues that
that appellant
appellant had no intention
intention to detain Glodil and that
that his purpose
purpose is
to merely use him as “a leverage
leverage against
against Glodil's
Glodil's mother,
mother, who refused
refused to produce
produce Marissa,
Marissa, his
live-in
live
-in partner.
partner.”
” The Court, however, cannot
cannot fathom
fathom how appella
appellant
nt could
could have used Glodil
Glodil as
leverage or bargaining tool to force Marissa to meet with him without depriving him of his liberty.
In any case, appellant's motive is not relevant, because it is not an element of the crime.
THIRD ELEMENT: Act of detaining the victim was without lawful cause.
FOURTH ELEMENT: Victim's minority was alleged by the prosecution in the information and was
not disputed. During his direct examination, the victim testified as to his minority claiming that, at
the time that he was presented at the witness stand, he was only 10 years old. This fact was
affirmed by his mother who also testified
testified as to his minority at the time that he was abducted. As
correctly contended
contended by the OSG, appellant did not raise any issue as to the victim's minority when
the victim's and his mother's testimonies were offered.
However, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of Glodil and his mother finding them to
be trustw
trustwort
orthy
hy and believa
believable
ble.. The age-o
age-old
ld rule
rule is that
that the task
task of as
assi
signi
gning
ng va
value
lues
s to th
the
e
testimonies
testimoni
es of witnesses and weighing their credibili
credibility
ty is best left to the trial court which forms its
first-hand impressions as witnesses testify before it.
It is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses
enjoy
enj
oy,, as a rule,
rule, a badg
badge
e of respec
respect,
t, for trial
trial co
court
urts
s have
have the
the advan
advantag
tage
e of obser
observin
ving
g th
the
e
demeanor of witnesses as they testify.
Further, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnesses' credibility
are entitled to great weight and respect by this Court, particularly when the CA affirms the said
findings,, and will not be disturbed absent any showing
findings
showing that the trial court overlooked certain facts
and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case.
Also, against the categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant can only offer the
defense
defe
nse of denial.
denial. However,
However, denial is a self-serv
self-serving
ing negative
negative evidence
evidence,, which
which cannot
cannot be given
given
greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative
matters.
Like
Lik
e ali
alibi,
bi, denia
deniall is an in
inher
herent
ently
ly weak
weak defen
defense,
se, which
which ca
canno
nnott pr
preva
evail
il over
over th
the
e posit
positive
ive and
and
credi
cre
dible
ble te
testi
stimon
monies
ies of the pr
prose
osecu
cuti
tion
on witne
witnesse
sses.
s. Denial
Denial canno
cannott preva
prevail
il ov
over
er th
the
e posit
positive
ive
testimonies of prosecution witnesses who, as in this case, were not shown to have any ill motive
to testify against petitioner.
DISPOSITVE: CA Decision AFFIRMED finding Baluya guilty beyond reasonable doubt of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention
11. People v Alberto Anticamara
FACTS:
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
63
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
Lando, Al, Dick Tañedo
Lando,
Tañedo (Dick), Roberto
Roberto Tañedo
Tañedo (Bet), Marvin Lim (Marvin),
(Marvin), Necitas
Necitas OrdeñizaOrdeñizaTañedo (Cita), and Fred Doe are charged with the crimes of Murder and of Kidnapping/Seriou
Kidnapping/Serious
s
Illegal Detention in two separate Informations, which read:
For Murder:
Murder: That on or about
about the ea
early
rly morning
morning of May 7, 2002,
2002, in Sitio
Sitio Rosali
Rosalia,
a, Brgy.
Brgy. San
Bartolome, Municipality of Rosales, Province of Pangasinan, accused, being then armed with a
hand gun, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to kill, with
treachery, evident premeditation and superior strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously take Sulpacio Abad, driver of the Estrellas, hog tied (sic) him, brought (sic) to a
secluded place, shoot and bury in a shallow grave, to the damage and prejudice of the heirs
of the victim.
For Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention: That on or about the 7 th day of May 2002, more or less
3:00 o'clock in the early morning, at the Estrella Compound, Brgy. Carmen East, Municipality of
Rosales, Province
Province of Pangasinan, and within
within the jurisdiction
jurisdiction of this Honorable
Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, who are private persons, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another,
anot
her, armed
armed with firearms,
firearms, did then
then and there
there willfull
willfully,
y, unlawfu
unlawfully
lly and feloniou
feloniously
sly kidnap
kidnap
Sulpacio Abad and AAA both employees of the Estrellas, thereby depriving them of their liberty, all
agai
ag
ains
nstt thei
theirr wi
will
ll fo
forr a peri
period
od of twen
twenty
ty-s
-sev
even
en (2
(27)
7) days
days.. Th
That
at in the
the co
cour
urse
se of th
the
e
kidnapping, Sulpacio Abad was killed and buried in Brgy. Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan
Pangasinan and
AAA was raped for several times by her abductors.
When arraigned of the aforementioned crimes, Lando, Al and Cita all pleaded not guilty, while
Dick, Bet, Marvin and Fred Doe remained at-large. Thereafter, a joint trial ensued.
About 3 o'clock in the early morning of May 7, 2002, househelper AAA and driver Abad Sulpacio
were sleeping in their
their employers' house located
located in Barangay Carmen
Carmen East, Rosales, Pangasinan.
Pangasinan.
Their employers,
employers, Conrado
Conrado Estrella and his wife,
wife, were out
out of the
the house at that time
time
Momentarily, AAA was jolted from sleep when she heard voices saying, “We will kill her, kill her
now” and another
another voice saying,
saying, “Not yet!” Hiding under
under her blanket,
blanket, AAA later heard som
someone
eone
saying, “We only need
need money, we only need money.”
money.” Thereafter,
Thereafter, she heard someone talking
talking in
Ilocano which she could not understand.
Then she heard somebody say, “Cebuana yan, Cebuana yan, kararating lang galing Cebu.” AAA
heard the persons conversing which she estimated about four to five meters away
Thereafter,, AAA observed about six (6) persons enter the house, who she later identified
Thereafter
identified as
accused Dick Tañedo, Marvin Lim, Bert Tañedo, a certain Fred and appellants Alberto Anticamara
ali
alias
as “Al Camara,
Camara,”
” and
and Ferna
Fernando
ndo Fern
Fernand
andez
ez alias
alias “Lando
“Lando Cala
Calagua
guas.”
s.” One
One of the
the intru
intruder
ders
s
approached her and told her not to move
Later, when AAA thought that the intruders were already gone, she attempted to run but to her
surprise, someone wearing a bonnet was watching her. Someone, whom she later recognized as
Dick Tañedo, tapped her shoulder. AAA asked Tañedo, “Why Kuya?” Tañedo replied, “Somebody
will die.” After a brief commotion, appellant alias “Lando Calaguas” asked the group saying,
“What shall we do now?” They then decided to tie AAA. Later, AAA was untied and led her outside
the house. Outside, AAA saw Abad, who was also tied and blindfolded, seated inside a vehicle
The group later brought AAA and Abad to the fishpond
fishpond owned by their employers. AAA saw Cita
Tañedo there.
there. The group
group brought
brought Abad outside the
the vehicle and
and led him
him away
Later, alias “Fred” returned telling the group, “Make the decision now, Abad has already four
bullets in his body, and the one left is for this girl.” When Cita Tañedo made a motion of cutting
her neck, appellant alias “Lando Calaguas” and “Fred” boarded the vehicle taking along with them
AAA. They later
later proceede
proceeded
d towards
towards San Miguel
Miguel Tarlac,
Tarlac, where
where Lando
Lando Calagua
Calaguas
s resided.
resided. They
stayed in Lando's house where they kept AAA from May 7 to May 9, 2002
On May 9, 2002, appellant Lando Calaguas told AAA that Fred and Bert Tañedo would kill her.
Lando then brought AAA to a hotel in Tarlac, telling AAA that he would leave her there as soon as
Fred and Bert Tañedo leave the place. However, once inside the hotel room, appellant Lando
Calaguas sexually molested AAA. Lando told AAA to follow what he wanted, threatening her that
he would turn her over to Fred and Bert Tañedo. After Lando raped AAA, he brought her back to
his house. Later, Fred, Bert Tañedo and Lando Calaguas transferred AAA to Riles, Tarlac (
AAA was brought to the residence of Fred's niece, a certain Minda, where Fred kept AAA as his
wife. At nighttime, Fred would repeatedly ravish AAA, threatening her that he would give her back
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
64
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
•
•
to appellant Lando Calaguas who, AAA knew, killed Abad Sulpacio. She was afraid Lando might
also kill her
On May 22, 2002, Fred brought AAA to Carnaga (should be Kananga), Leyte, together with his wife
Marsha and their children. AAA stayed in the house of Marsha's brother Sito, where she was made
as a house helper
On June 4, 2002, AAA escaped from the house of Sito. She proceeded to Isabel, Leyte and sought
the help of her friend Susana Ilagan. After hearing AAA's plight, Susana called AAA's brother in
Cebu, who later fetched AAA in Isabel, Leyte and brought her to Mandaue City. When they arrived
in Mandaue City, they immediately reported the incident to the police authorities.
Dr. Bandonil prepared Autopsy Report
o
x Remains placed in a sealed metal coffin, wrapped in two (2) layers of black, plastic
garbage bags, and covered in (sic) a red-stripped cotton blanker. A thick layer of lime
embeds the whole torso.
Remains in a far advanced state of decomposition,
decomposition, with the head completely devoid of soft
o
tissue. A cloth is wrapped around the eyesockets
eyesockets and tied to the back of the skull. The skull
does not show any signs of dents, chips nor fractures. The other recognizable body part is
the chest area which retained a few soft tissues and skin, but generally far advanced in
decomposition. The whole gamut of internal organs have undergone liquefaction necrosis
and have been turned into grayish-black pultaceous masses. Worn on top of the remaining
chest is a sando shirt with observable holes at the left side, both front and back. A large
hole is seen at the area of the left nipple, with traces of burning at its edges and inward in
direction. A tied cloth is also observable at the remnants of the left wrist.
At the upper chest, which is the most recognizable, remaining and intact part of the torso,
o
a hole, 1.0 cm. x 2.0 cms., with signs of burning, edges inverted
inverted,, is seen at the left anterior
axillary line just below the left nipple. Another hole is seen 1.5 cms. x 2.5 cms. in diameter,
edged averted (sic) at the right chest, along the right anterior axillary line, 5.0 cms. below
the right nipple. A 3rd hole, almost unrecognizable is seen at the left groin area.
The other parts of the cadaver are too far advanced in decomposition to have remarkable
o
findings
CAUSE OF DEATH: GUNSHOT WOUNDS, TRUNK
o
DEFENSE: Alibi as a defense. He claims that at the time of the incident on May 7, 2002, he was in
Barangay Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac, with his family. He denied ever going to the Estrella farm
in Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan.
Al claimed that he acted as a lookout and was tasked to report to his companions
companions if any person or
vehicle would
would approach
approach the house
house of the Estrellas.
Estrellas. He said that
that he was forced
forced to follow
follow what was
ordered of him and did not report the matter to the police because he was threatened
threatened to be killed,
including the members of his family who were in Cebu.
RTC:
o
For Murde
Murder:
r: Accused Nicetas
Nicetas “Cita
“Cita”
” Tañed
Tañedo
o is hereb
hereby
y acqui
acquitted
tted of the crime charged for
insufficiency of evidence;; Accused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez (alyas Lando Calaguas) and
Alberto Anticamara (alyas Al Camara) are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as
principal, of the crime of Murder qualified by treachery, defined and penalized under
Arti
Ar
ticl
cle
e 24
248
8 of the
the Re
Revi
vise
sed
d Pe
Pena
nall Co
Code
de.. Consi
onside
deri
ring
ng th
the
e pres
presen
ence
ce of aggravating
circumstance of pre-meditation, with no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the
penalty of DEATH is hereby imposed upon the two (2) accused Fernando Calaguas Fernandez
(Lando Calaguas)
Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara
Anticamara (Al Camara). They are also ordered jointly and severally
[to] pay the heirs of the victim Abad Sulpacio the following:
1) Fift
Fifty
y Thou
Thousa
sand
nd Peso
Pesos
s (P50,
(P50,00
000.
0.00
00)) as mora
morall dama
damage
ges;
s; 2) Seve
Sevent
ntyy-Fi
Five
ve Thou
Thousa
sand
nd Peso
Pesos
s
(P75,000.00)
(P75,000.
00) as indemnity
indemnity for the death of the victim; 3) Fifty-Seven Thousand One Hundred TwentyTwo Pesos and Thirty
Thirty Centavos
Centavos (P57,122.30)
(P57,122.30) as actual
actual damages; and 4) The
The cost of suit.
For
Kid
Kidnap
nappi
ping/
ng/Ser
Seriou
ious
s
Illega
Ill
egal
l
Det
Detent
ention
ion:
:
Accu
Ac
cuse
sed
d
Niceta
Nic
etas
s
“Ci
“Cita”
ta” Tañ
Tañedo
edo is her
hereb
eby
y
o
acquitted of the crime
charged for insufficiency
insufficiency of evidence; Accused Fernando Calaguas
Fernandez (alyas Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (alyas Al Camara) are hereby found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Kidnapping/Serious Illegal
Detention of the
the victim
victim AAA as
as charged,
charged, defined
defined and
and penalized
penalized under Article 267 of the Revised
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
65
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659. Considering that the victim AAA was raped during her
detention, the maximum penalty of DEATH is hereby imposed upon the two accused, Fernando
Fernando
Calaguas Fernandez (Lando Calaguas) and Alberto Anticamara (Al Camara). The two accused are
also ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the victim AAA the amount of:
1) One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) as moral damages; 2) Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000.00) as exemplary damages; and 3) Cost of suit.
CA: Affirmed RTC; however, in view of the abolition of the death penalty pursuant to Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9346, which was approved on June 24, 2006, the appellants were sentenced to
reclusion perpetua.
ISSUES:
For Lando
1. Whether CONSPIRACY EXISTED BETWEEN AND AMONG THE ALLEGED PERPETRATORS OF THE
CRIME.
2. Whether accused should be convicted of homicide instead of murder
3. Whether the penalty of death should be imposed for THE CRIME OF KIDNAPPING/SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION, AGGRAVATED
AGGRAVATED BY RAPE, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE CRIME OF RAPE WAS NOT DULY
PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
For AI
1. Whether there was conspiracy
2. Whether death should be applied as he did not participate in aggravating RAPE
In Criminal Case No. 4498-R for Murder:
Circumstantial Evidence
o
o
o
o
o
o
The trial court found that
that although there was no direct eyewi
eyewitness
tness in the killing of Sulp
Sulpacio
acio in the
early morning of May 7, 2002 at Sitio Rosalia, Barangay San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan, the
prosecut
pros
ecution
ion adduced
adduced suffici
sufficient
ent circumst
circumstanti
antial
al evidence
evidence to establis
establish
h with
with moral
moral certaint
certainty
y the
identities and guilt of the perpetrators of the crime.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the
existe
exi
stence
nce of th
the
e main
main fact
fact may be inferr
inferred
ed accord
accordin
ing
g to reason
reason and
and commo
common
n experi
experienc
ence.
e.
Circu
Circumst
mstan
antia
tiall eviden
evidence
ce is suffi
sufficie
cient
nt to su
susta
stain
in convic
convictio
tion
n if
if:: (a) there
there is more
more than
than one
circumstance;
circumstan
ce; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination
of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
A judg
judgme
ment
nt of conv
convic
icti
tion
on base
based
d on circ
circum
umst
stan
anti
tial
al evid
eviden
ence
ce can
can be sust
sustai
aine
ned
d wh
when
en the
the
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator.]
Testimony of witnesses. In addition to these circumstances,
circumstances, the trial court further found that AAA
heard
hear
d Fred utter “Usapan natin pare, kung sino ang masagasaan, sagasaan. ” (Our agreement
agreement is
Moreover, NBI Agent
Agent Gerald
Gerald V. Geralde
Geralde
that whoever comes our way should be eliminated ). Moreover,
testified that on June 23, 2002, appellant Al admitted his participation as lookout and naming his
companions Dick, Lando, Fred, Marvin and Bet as the ones who took AAA and Sulpacio from the
house of the Estrellas and brought them to the fishpond.
Al al
also
so point
pointed
ed and led th
the
e author
authoriti
ities
es to a shallo
shallow
w grave
grave in Sitio
Sitio Rosali
Rosalia,
a, Baran
Barangay
gay San
San
Bartolom
Bart
olome,
e, Rosales,
Rosales, Pangasinan,
Pangasinan, where
where the remains
remains of Sulpacio
Sulpacio were buried.
buried. The autopsy
autopsy
conducted on the body, prepared by the Medico Legal Officer Dr. Bandonil, shows that several
holes were found on various parts of the body of the victim and Dr. Bandonil concluded that the
cause of the victim's death was the gunshot wounds. The report also indicates that a piece of
cloth was found wrapped around the eye sockets and tied at the back of the skull, and another
cloth was also found tied at the remnants of the left wrist.
In the case at bar, although no one directly saw the actual killing of Sulpacio, the prosecution was
able to paint a clear picture that the appellants took Sulpacio away from the house of the
Estrellas, tied and blindfolded him, and brought him to another place where he was repeatedly
shot and buried.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
66
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
Conspiracy EXISTS
o
o
o
o
Prior to the commission of the crime, the group met at the landing field in Carmen, Pangasinan
and discussed their plan to rob the house of the Estrellas with the agreement that whoever comes
their way will be eliminated
Appellant Al served as a lookout by posting himself across the house
house of the Estrellas with the task
of reporting any movements outside. Fred then climbed the old unserviceable gate of the Estrella
compound and then opened the small door and the rest of the group entered the house of the
Estrellas through that opening
After almost an hour inside the house, they left on board a vehicle with AAA and Sulpacio. AAA
and Sulpacio
Sulpacio were brought to Sitio
Sitio Rosalia, Brgy. San Ba
Bartolome,
rtolome, Rosales,
Rosales, Pangasinan.
Pangasinan. In that
place, Sulpacio was killed and AAA was brought to another place and deprived of her liberty.
These
Thes
e ci
circ
rcum
umst
stan
ance
ces
s es
esta
tabl
blis
ish
h a co
comm
mmun
unit
ity
y of crim
crimin
inal
al de
desi
sign
gn be
betw
twee
een
n the
the
malefactor
male
factors
s in committi
committing
ng the crime
crime.. Clea
Clearly,
rly, the group
group conspir
conspired
ed to rob the house
house of the
Estrellas
Estrella
s and kill any person who comes
comes their way. The killing
killing of Sulpacio
Sulpacio was part of their
conspira
cons
piracy.
cy. Further,
Further, Dick's
Dick's act of arming himself
himself with a gun constitut
constitutes
es direct evid
evidence
ence of a
deliberate plan to kill should the need arise.
o
Appellant Al attempts to evade criminal liability by alleging that he was only forced to
participate in the commission of the crime because he and his family were threatened
to be killed. NO IRRESISTIBLE FORCE NOR UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR OF EQUAL OR GREATER
INJURY. To avail of this exempting circumstance,
circumstance, the evidence must establish:
establish: (1) the existence of
an uncontrollable
uncontrollable fear; (2) that the fear must be real and imminent; and (3) the fear of an injury is
greater than, or at least equal to, that committed. For such defense to prosper, the duress, force,
fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a
well-gro
well
-ground
unded
ed apprehe
apprehensi
nsion
on of death
death or serious bodily
bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of
future injury is not enough.
o
o
o
o
o
There is nothing in the records to substantiate
substantiate appellant Al's insistence that he was under duress
from his co-accused while participating in the crime that would suffice to exempt him from
incurring criminal
criminal liability. The evidence shows that Al was tasked to act as a lookout and directed
to station
station himself across
across the house
house of the
the Estrellas.
Estrellas. Al was there
there from 7:30 p.m. to 1:00
1:00 a.m of
the following day, while the rest of the group was waiting in the landing field.
Thus, while all alone, Al had every opportunity to escape since he was no longer
subjected to a real, imminent or reasonable fear. However, he opted to stay across the
house of the Estrellas for almost six (6) hours and thereafter returned to the landing field where
the group was waiting for his report. Subsequently, the group proceeded to the Estrellas’ house.
When the group entered the house, Al stayed for almost one (1) hour outside to wait for his
companions. Later, when the group left the
the house aboard a vehicle, Al rode with them in going to
Sitio
Rosalia,
Brgy. Al
San
Bartolome,
Rosales, Pangasinan,
withto,
them
Clearly,
appellant
had
ample opportunity
to escape ifbringing
he wished
butSulpacio
he neverand
did.AAA
Neither
did he request for assistance from the authorities or any person passing by the house of the
Estrellas during the period he was stationed there.
Clearly, Al did not make any effort to perform an overt act to dissociate
dissociate or detach himself from the
conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof that would exempt himself
from criminal
Alibi and Denial WEAK DEFENSES
LANDO.
He claims that at the time of the incident he was in his house at Tarlac, together with his family.
o
On the other hand, the appellants were positively identified by AAA, as two (2) of the six (6)
malefactors who forcibly took her and Sulpacio from the Estrella house in the early morning of
May
2002.
Both
thealibi.
trial court
thethe
CAtestimony
foundony
the of
testimony
ofLando
AAA credible.
As to7,the
defen
defense
se of
Asideand
from
testim
appellant
appellant
that
that he was in Tarlac
Tarlac at
the time of the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible
for Lando
Lando to be at the scen
scene
e of the cri
crime.
me. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
67
o
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.
o
o
Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant
was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the
facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to
be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. During the trial of the case, Lando
testified that the distance between his house in Brgy. Maligaya, San Miguel, Tarlac to the town of
Rosales, Pangasinan is only around forty (40) kilometers. Such distance can be traversed in less
than 30 minutes using a private car and when the travel is continuous.
Thus, it was not physically
physically impossible
impossible for the appellant
appellant Lando to be at the locus criminis at the
time of the incident. In addition, positive identification
identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it
impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical
Quali
Qua
lifyi
fying
ng and Ag
Aggra
gravat
vating
ing Cir
Circum
cumsta
stance
nces:
s: Treacher
Treachery,
y, premedit
premeditatio
ation///
n/// superior
superior strengt
strength
h
absorbed
TREACHERY EXISTS:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its
execut
exe
cution
ion witho
without
ut risk
risk to himse
himself
lf arisin
arising
g from
from th
the
e defen
defense
se that
that th
the
e of
offe
fend
nded
ed party
party might
might
make.Two conditions
conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely, (a) the employment of means of
execution gave the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (b) the
means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted
In the case at bar, it was proven that when AAA boarded the vehicle, she saw Sulpacio tied and
blindfolded. Later, when they reached the fishpond, Sulpacio, still tied and blindfolded, was led out
of the vehicle by the group. When the remains of Sulpacio was thereafter found by the authorities,
the autopsy report indicated that a piece of cloth was found wrapped around the eye sockets and
tied at the back of the skull and another cloth was also found
found tied at the left wrist of the victim.
There is no question therefore, that the victim's body, when found, still had his hands tied and
blindfolded.
blindfold
ed. This situation
situation of the victim when found shows without
without doubt that he was killed whi
while
le
tied and blindfolded; hence, the qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present in
the commission of the crime.
Means used by the accused-appellants to insure the execution of the killing of the victims, so as to
afford the victims no opportunity to defend themselves, was the act of tying the hands of the
victims.
The aggravating circumstance of superior strength cannot be separately appreciated
because it is absorbed by treachery.
EVIDENT
EVIDEN
T PREM
PREMEDITAT
EDITATION
ION EXIS
EXISTS:
TS: The circumstance
circumstance of evident premeditation requires proof
showing:
theth
time
when
determined
tonation
commit
the
crime;
(2)
an
manifestly
indica
ind
icatin
ting
g(1)
that
that
the
e accus
acc
used
edthe
hasaccused
clung
clung to
his deter
determi
minat
ion;; and
an
d (3)
suffi
sufficie
cient
nt act
lapse
lapse
of time
time
between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his
act
The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to
arrive at a calm judgment
From the time the group met at the landing field at around 6:30 p.m. of May 6, 2002, and
discussed the possibility of killing anyone who stands on their way, up to the time they took
Sulpacio away from the Estrellas’ house and eventually killed him thereafter at around past 3:00
a.m.
a.m.,, more
more than
than eigh
eightt hour
hours
s had
had elap
elapse
sed
d – suff
suffic
icie
ient
nt fo
forr the
the appe
appell
llan
ants
ts to re
refl
flec
ectt on the
the
consequences of their actions and desist from carrying out their evil scheme, if they wished to.
Instead, appellants evidently clung to their determination and went ahead with their nefarious
plan.
In Criminal Case No. 4481-R for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
68
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
The Court finds appellant
appellant Lando guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape, defined in and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code.
The elements of kidnapping
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code are: (1) the offender is a private individual;
individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public
authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained
or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a
public officer.
The crime of kidnapping
kidnapping was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
prosecution. Appellants
Appellants
Lando and Al, both private individuals, forcibly took AAA, a female, away from the house of the
Estrellas and held her captive against her will.
Thereafter,, appellant Lando brought AAA to his house in San Miguel Tarlac, whereby she was
Thereafter
depriv
dep
rived
ed of her
her lib
libert
erty
y for almost
almost one month.
month. It is settl
settled
ed th
that
at the crime of serious illegal
detention consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure, but also in detaining
him or depriving him in any manner of his liberty
For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going home
Its essence is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the
intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.
Although AAA was not confined in an enclosure, she was restrained and deprived of her liberty,
because every time appellant Lando and his wife went out of the house, they brought AAA with
them. The foregoing only shows that AAA was constantly guarded by appellant Lando and his
family.
o
o
o
The crime of rape was also established by the prosecution . Appellant Lando succeeded in
having carnal knowledge of AAA through the use of threat and intimidation. AAA testified that on
May 9, 2002, appellant Lando brought
brought her to a hotel to hide her from Fred and Bert, who intended
to kill her. Appellant Lando told
told her to follow
follow his orders, otherwise,
otherwise, he will
will give her to
to Fred and
Bert. While in the hotel, appellant Lando raped her
Clearly, for fear
fear of being delivered
delivered to Fred and Bert
Bert and of losing
losing her life, AAA had no
no choice but
to give
give in to appell
appellan
antt Lando
Lando's
's lu
lustf
stful
ul assaul
assault.
t. In rape
rape cases
cases,, the credib
credibili
ility
ty of th
the
e victim
victim's
's
testimon
test
imony
y is almost
almost always
always the single most importan
importantt factor.
factor. When
When the victim's
victim's testimon
testimony
y is
credible, it may be the sole basis for the accused's conviction.This is so because owing to the
nature of the offense, in many cases, the only evidence that can be given regarding the matter is
the testimony of the offended party
The last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides that if the victim is killed
or dies
dies as a con
conseq
sequen
uence
ce of the dete
detenti
ntion,
on, or is rap
raped
ed or sub
subje
jecte
cted
d to tor
torture
ture or
o
. This provision gives rise to a
dehumanizing
acts,
the
maximum
penalty
shall be
imposed
special
complex
crime
. Thus,
We hold
that
that appellant
appellan
t Lando
is guilty
guilty beyond reasonable
reasonable doubt
doubt
of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape
AI NOT LIABLE FOR RAPE. Although, Court ruled that once conspiracy is established between
several accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be equally culpable for
the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of them
proves that he endeavored to prevent the others from committing rape
o
o
Also, even if with conspiracy, it also as convincingly suggests that the agreement was to commit
kidnapping only; and there is no evidence that the other members were aware of Canturia's lustful
intent and his consummation thereof so that they could have attempted to prevent the same.
There is no evidence to prove that appellant
appellant Al was aware of the subsequent
subsequent events that
transpired after the killing of Sulpacio and the kidnapping of AAA. Appellant Al could not have
prevented appellant Lando from raping AAA, because at the time of rape, he was no longer
associated with appellant Lando.
AAA
even Al
testified
and appellant
Lando
her to She
Tarlac
and
she
never saw
appellant
again that
afteronly
MayFred
7, 2002,
the day she
wasbrought
held captive.
only
saw
appellant
Al
once more during the trial of the case Thus, appellant Al cannot be held liable for the subsequent
rape of AAA.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
69
o
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
The Penalties
o
o
o
Murder case, the attendant circumstance of treachery qualified the killing to murder. The penalty
for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua to death. Since
the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation
premeditation was alleged and proven, the imposable
penalty upon the appellants is death, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal
Code. In view, however, of the passage of R.A. No. 9346 prohibiting the imposition
imposition of the death
penalty, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole
Kidnapping case, the penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detent
det
ention
ion with
with rape
rape is death. In view of R.A. No. 9346, the penalty of death is reduced to
reclusion perpetua wit
withou
houtt eli
eligib
gibili
ility
ty for parol
parole.
e. Accordingly, the imposable penalty for
appellant Lando is reclusion perpetua.
As to appellant
appellant Al, the prescribed
prescribed penalty
penalty for serious illegal
illegal detentio
detention
n under
under Article
Article 267 of the
Revi
Re
vis
sed Pena
Penall Code
Code is reclu
reclusion
sion perpetua
perpetua to death.
death. Ther
ere
e bei
ein
ng no agg
aggrav
ravati
ating
ng or
mitigating circumstance in the commission of the offense, the proper penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code.
The Damages
MURDER:
Civil indemnity: Award of civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without
need of proof other than the commission of the crime.Even if the penalty of death is not to be
imposed because of the prohibition in R.A. 9346, the civil indemnity of P75,000.00 is proper, because
it is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying
circumst
circ
umstanc
ances
es warranti
warranting
ng the imposition
imposition of the death
death penalty
penalty attende
attended
d the commissi
commission
on of the
offense.
Moral damages, the same are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof
other than the death of the victim. However, consistent with recent jurisprudence on heinous crimes
where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. No. 9346,
the award of moral damages should be increased from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00
Exemplary damages is in order, because of the presence of the aggravating circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation in the commission of the crime. The Court awards the
amount of P30,000.00, as exemplary damages, in line with current jurisprudence on the matter
Actual damages is also warranted. Modesta
Modesta Abad, the spouse
spouse of victim Sulpacio,
Sulpacio, incurred expenses
expenses
in the amount of P57,122.30, which was duly supported by receipts
KIDNAPPING:
Civil indemnity in line with prevailing jurisprudence
jurisprudence that civil indemnification
indemnification is mandatory upon the
finding damages
of rape. Applying
prevailing
jurisprudence,
AAA
is entitled
to P75,000.00
as civil indemnity.
Moral
pursuant
to Article
2219 of the
Civil
Code without
the necessity
of additional
pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape. Moral damages is granted in recognitio
pleadings
recognition
n of the victim's
injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape. Such award is separate and distinct from
the civil indemnity. However, the amount of P100,000.00 awarded as moral damages is reduced to
P75,000.00, in line with current jurisprudence
Exemplary
Exem
plary damag
damages
es to AAA
AAA in the amount of P50
50,0
,000
00 is here
hereby
by re
redu
duce
ced
d to P30,
30,000.
000.00
00 in
accordance with recent jurisprudence.
As to appellant Al. In the absen
absence
ce of consp
conspiracy
iracy,, the liability of the accused is individual
and not collective. Since appellant Al is liable only for the crime of serious illegal detention , he
is jointly and severally liable only to pay the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity . For serious
illegal detention, the award of civil indemnity is in the amount of P50,000.00, in line with prevailing
jurisprudence.
jurispru
dence. Along that line, appellant
appellant Al's liability for moral damages is limited only to the
50,0
,000
00.0
.00.
0. Pur
Pursu
suant
ant to Articl
Article
e 2219
2219 of th
the
e Ci
Civil
vil Code,
Code, moral
moral dama
damages
ges may be
amou
am
ount
nt of P50
recovered in cases of illegal detention. This is predicated on AAA's having suffered serious anxiety
and fright when she was detained for almost one (1) month
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
70
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
DISPOSITIVE: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00556 is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS as follows:
(a) MURDER:, appellants
appellants Fernando Calaguas Fernandez alias “Lando” and Alberto Cabillo Anticamara
alias “Al” are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility
eligibility of parole, and to pay, jointly and severally,
the
the he
heirs
irs of Sulp
Sulpaci
acio
o Abad
Abad th
the
e amount
amounts
s of P75,00
P75,000.0
0.00
0 as civil
civil in
indem
demnit
nity,
y, P75,0
P75,000.
00.00
00 as moral
moral
damages, P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P57,122.30 as actual damages.
(b) LANDO: Special
Special complex crime of kidnapp
kidnapping
ing and serious
serious illegal detention
detention with rape and is
sentenc
sen
tenced
ed to suffer
suffer the penalty
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole, and to pay the
offended party AAA, the amounts of P75,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages and
P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
Al: Crime
Crime of kidnap
kidnappi
ping
ng and
and seriou
serious
s illega
illegall detent
detentio
ion
n and
and is senten
sentenced
ced to suffer
suffer the
the pena
penalty
lty of
also direct
directed
ed to pay,
pay, joint
jointly
ly and
and se
sever
veral
ally,
ly, with
with appel
appellan
lantt Ferna
Fernand
ndo
o
Reclus
Rec
lusion
ion Perpet
Perpetua.
ua. He is also
Calaguas Fernandez alias “Lando,” the victim AAA the amounts of P 50,000.00 as civil indemnity and
P50,000.00 as moral damages.
12. People v Felipe Mirandilla
FACTS:
AAA narrated her 39-day ordeal in the hands of Mirandilla.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
It was 2 December 2000, eve of the fiesta in Barangay San Francisco, Legazpi City. At the plaza,
AAA was dancing with her elder sister, BBB
AAA went out of the dancing hall to buy candies in a nearby store. While making her way back
through
a man
grabbed
her hand,
histhe
armman’s
wrapped
heratshoulders,
a knife’s
thrust atthe
hercrowd,
right side.
She
will come
to know
name
the policewith
station,
afterpoint
her
escape, to be Felipe Mirandilla, Jr
He told her not to move or ask for help. Another man joined and went beside her, while two others
stayed at her back, one of whom had a gun. They slipped through the unsuspecting crowd, walked
farther as the deafening music faded into soft sounds. After a four-hour walk through the grassy
fields, they reached the Mayon International Hotel, where they boarded a waiting tricycle.
Upon passing the Albay Cathedral, the others alighted, leaving AAA alone with Mirandilla who after
receiving a gun from a companion, drove the tricycle farther away and into the darkness. Minutes
later, they reached the Gallera de Legazpi in Rawis
Mirandilla dragged
dragged AAA out of the tricycle and pushed her inside a concrete house. At gunpoint he
ordered her to remove her pants. When she defied him, he slapped her and hit her arms with a
gun, forced his hands inside her pants, into her panty, and reaching her vagina, slipped his three
fingers and rotated them inside. The pain weakened her. He forcibly pulled her pants down and
lifting
her legs, pushed
and exhaustion.
pulled his penis inside. “ Sayang ka,” she heard him whisper at her as
she succumbed
to pain and
When AAA woke up the following morning, she found herself alone. She cried for help, shouting
until her throat dried. But no one heard her. No rescue came.
At around midnight, Mirandilla arrived together with his gang. Pointing a gun at AAA, he ordered
her to open her mouth; she sheepishly obeyed. He forced his penis inside her mouth, pulling
through her hair with his left hand and slapping her with his right. After satisfying his lust, he
dragged her into the tricycle and drove to Bogtong, Legazpi. At the road’s side, Mirandilla push
pushed
ed
her against a reclining tree, gagged her mouth with cloth, punched her arm, thigh, and lap, and
pulled up her over-sized shirt. Her underwear was gone. Then she felt Mirandilla’s penis inside her
vagina. A little while, a companion warned Mirandilla to move out. And they drove away
They reached a nipa hut and AAA was thrown inside. Her mouth was again covered with cloth.
Mirandilla,, with a gun aimed at her point blank, grabbed her shirt, forced her legs open, and again
Mirandilla
inserted his penis into her vagina
o
The following
follow
evening,
evenin
g, Mirandilla
Mirandil
la and her
his
his gang
broughtmoved
AAA toher
Guinobatan,
wherefrom
she one
suffered
same
fate.ing
They
repeatedly
detained
at daytime,
back and forth
placethe
to
another on the following nights, first to Bonga, then back to Guinobatan,
Guinobatan, where she was locked up
in a cell-type house and was raped repeatedly on the grassy field right outside her cell, then to
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
71
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Camalig, where they caged her in a small house in the middle of a rice field. She was allegedly
raped 27 times]
One afternoon, in Guinobatan, AAA succeeded in opening the door of her cell. Seeing that
Mirandilla and his companions were busy playing cards, she rushed outside and ran, crossed a
river, got drenched, and continued running. She rested for awhile, hiding behind a rock; she
walked through the fields and stayed out of people’s sight for two nights.
Finally, she found a road and followed its path, leading her to the house of Evelyn Guevarra who
brought her to the police station. It was 11 January 2001. AAA was in foul smell, starving and
sleepless. Evelyn Guevarra gave her a bath and the police gave her food. When the police
presented to her pictures of suspected criminals,
criminals, she recognized the man’s face – she was certain
it was him. He was Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., the police told her
The following
following morning,
morning, accompanied
accompanied by the police, AAA submitted herself to Dr. Sarah Vasquez,
Legazpi City’s Health Officer for medical examination.
examination. The doctor discovered hymenal lacerations
in different positions of her hymen, indicative of sexual intercourse. Foul smelling pus also oozed
from her vagina - AAA had contracted gonorrhoea]
Mirandilla denied the charges against him. This is his version.
Mirandilla first met AAA on 3 October 2000. By stroke of fate, they bumped into each other at the
Albay Park where AAA, wearing a school uniform, approached him. They had a short chat. They
were neighb
neighbors
ors in Barangay San Francisco until Mirandilla left his wife and daughter there for
good
Two days later, Mirandilla and AAA met again at the park. He started courting her and, after five
days, as AAA celebrated her 18th birthday, they became lovers. Mirandilla was then 33 years old.
Immediately, Mirandilla and AAA had sex nightly in their friends’ houses and in cheap motels. On
24 October 2000, after Mirandilla went to his mother’s house in Kilikao, they met again at the
park, at their usual meeting place, in front of the park’s comfort room, near Arlene Moret, a
cigarette vendor who also served as the CR’s guard
They decided to elope
elope and live as a couple.
couple. They found
found an abandoned
abandoned house in Rawis,
Rawis, at the back
of Gal
Emilio
io Mendoza
Mendoza who owned
owned the house, rented
rented it to them
them for P1,500.
P1,500.00.
00.
Gallera
lera de Legazpi.
Legazpi. Emil
They lived there from 28 October until 11 December 2000. From 12 December 2000 until 11
January 2001,
2001, Mirandilla and
and AAA stayed in Rogelio
Rogelio Marcellana’s
Marcellana’s house, at
at the resettlement
resettlement Site in
Banquerohan, Legazpi City.
Mirandil
Mira
ndilla
la and AAA’s nightly
nightly sexual intimacy
intimacy continu
continued,
ed, with
with abstenti
abstentions
ons only during
during AAA’s
menstrual periods, the last of which she had on 7 December 2000. In late December, however,
Mirandilla, who just arrived home after visiting his mother in Kilikao, saw AAA soaked in blood,
moaning in excruciating stomach pain. AAA had abortion – an inference he drew upon seeing the
cover of pills lying beside AAA. Mirandilla claimed that AAA bled for days until she left him in
January 2001
2001 after quarrelling
quarrelling for days
Mirandilla, however, had a second version of this crucial event. He claimed that AAA missed her
menstruation in December 2001 and that he would not have known she had an abortion had she
not confessed it to him.
Information: Mirandill
Mirandilla
a was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 5,
with kidnapping with rape, four counts of rape , and rape through sexual assault.
RTC: Convicted Mirandilla of kidnapping, four counts of rape, and one count of rape through sexual
assault with this finding:
This Court has arrived at the factual conclusion that Felipe Mirandilla,
Mirandilla, Jr., in the company of three
o
others
othe
rs [conferrers]
[conferrers],, kidnapp
kidnapped
ed AAA in Barangay xxx, City of xxx, on or on about midnight of
December 2, 2000 or early morning of December 3, 2000, held her in detention for thirty-nine
days in separate cells situated in the City of xxx; xxx; and xxx.
Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., carnally abused her while holding a gun and/or a knife for twenty seven
o
times, employing force and intimidation.
The twenty seven sexual intercourses
intercourses were eventually
eventually perpetrated
perpetrated between the City of xxx and
o
the towns of xxx and xxx. At least once, Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., put his penis inside the mouth of
against
hermodification
will whileon
employing
intimidation,
threats,
and la.
force.
CA:AAA
Affirmed
with
modificati
the RTC ruling,
convicting
Mirandilla.
Mirandil
GUILTY of the special complex
crime of kidnapping with rape (instead of kidnapping as the RTC ruled), four counts of
rape, and one count of rape by sexual assault .
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
72
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
o
It rej
reject
ected
ed Miran
Mirandil
dilla’
la’s
s defen
defense
se that
that he and
and AAA were
were li
liveve-in
in partn
partners
ers and
and th
that
at their
their sexua
sexuall
encounters were consensual.
It noted that Mirandilla failed to adduce any evidence or any credible witness to sustain his
defense.
HELD: Mirandill
Mirandilla
a guilty
guilty of the special
special complex
complex crime
crime of kidnapping
kidnapping and illegal
illegal detention
detention
with rape.
o
o
Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had sexual intercourse with AAA, which happened
almost nightly during their cohabitation. He contended that they were live-in partners, entangled
in a whirlwind romance, which intimacy they expressed in countless passionate sex, which headed
ironically to separation mainly because of AAA’s intentional abortion of their first child to be – a
betrayal in its gravest form which he found hard to forgive.
In stark contrast to Mirandilla’s tale of a love affair, is AAA’s claim of her horrific ordeal and her
flight to freedom after 39 days in captivity during which Mirandilla raped her 27 times.
Jurisprudenc
dence
e is consist
consistent
ent that
that for testimo
testimonial
nial evidence
evidence to be
Credibility of Prosecution Witness: Jurispru
believed, it must not only come from a credible witness but must be credible in itself – tested by
human experience, observation,
observation, common knowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through
the years. Evidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but
it must be credible in itself – such as the common experience and observation of mankind can
approve
app
rove as probable
probable under the circu
circumsta
mstances
nces.. We have no test of the truth of human testimony
testimony,,
except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience.
1. First, the trial judge, who had the opportunity of observing AAA’s manner and demeanour on the
witness stand, was convinced of her credibility: “AAA appeared to be a simple and truthful woman,
whose testimony was consistent, steady and firm, free from any material and serious contradictions.
No ill motive. When AAA testified in court, she was sobbing. While she was facing Felipe Mirandilla, Jr.,
to positively identify him in open court, she was crying. Felipe Mirandilla Jr.’s response was to smile.
AAA was a picture of a woman who was gravely harmed, craving for justice.
2. AAA’
AAA’s
s testimony to be credible in itself . AAA’s ordeal was entered into the police blotter
immediately after her escape negating opportunity for concoction. While in Mirandilla’s company,
none of her parents, brothers, sisters, relatives,
relatives, classmates, or anyone who knew her, visited, saw, or
talked to her. None of them knew her whereabouts. AAA’s testimony was corroborated by Dr. Sarah
Vasquez, Legazpi City’s Health Officer, who discovered the presence not only of hymenal lacerations
but also gonorrhoea, a sexually transmitted disease.
3. CA Affirmed. We emphasize that a trial court’s assessment of a witness’ credibility, when affirmed
by the CA, is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance
circumsta
nce of weight or influenc
influence.
e. This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are
in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and
having
observed issues
firsthand
their deportment
and manner
under
In resolving
pertaining
to the credibility
of of
thetestifying
witnesses,
thisgruelling
Court isexamination.
guided by the
o
following
followin
g principles: (1) the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower courts, unless
there is a showing that it overlooked or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and
substance that may affect the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine
their demeanour when they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testifies in a
clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness.
Second Issue: “Sweetheart Theory” not Proven
o
o
Accused’s bare invocation of sweetheart theory cannot alone, stand. To be credible, it must be
corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence. Usually, these are letters, notes,
photos, mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers.
The sweetheart
sweetheart theory as a defense, however, necessarily
necessarily admits carnal knowledge,
knowledge, the first
element
elem
ent of rape.
rape. Effectiv
Effectively,
ely, it leaves the prosecution the burden to prove only force or
intimidation, the coupling element of rape. Love, is not a license for lust.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
73
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
o
o
73
This admission
admission makes the sweetheart
sweetheart theory more difficult
difficult to defend, for it is not only an
affirmative defense that needs convincing proof after the prosecution has successfully established
a prima facie case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce evidence
that the intercourse was consensual
A prima facie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has produced evidence
sufficient to support a finding and adjudication for him of the issue in litigation
Burden of evidence is “that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during
the trial to create a prima facie case in his favour or to overthrow one when created against
him.”
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Mirandilla with his version of facts as narrated above attempted to meet the prosecution’s prima
facie case. To corroborate it, he presented his mother, Alicia Mirandilla; his relatives, Rogelio
Marcellana and Emilio Mendoza; and, his friend Arlene Moret.
Arlene Moret, the cigarette vendor who also served as the CR’s guard, testified that on 30 October
2000, AAA and Mirandilla arrived together at the park. They approached her and chatted with her.
On cross examination, she claimed otherwise: Mirandilla arrived alone two hours earlier, chatting
with her first, before AAA finally came. She also claimed meeting the couple for the first time on
30 October 2000, only to contradict herself on cross examination with the version that she met
them previously
previously,, three
three times
times at least,
least, in the previous
previous month.
month. On the other hand, Mirandilla
Mirandilla
claimed first meeting AAA on 3 October 2000 at the park.
The accused’s mother, Alicia Mirandilla,
Mirandilla, testified meeting her son only once, and living in Kilikao
only after his imprisonment. This contradicted
contradicted Mirandilla’s claim that he visited his mother several
times in Kilikao, from October 2000 until January 2001.
Even Mirandilla contradicted himself. His claim that he saw AAA soaked in blood, agonizing in
pain, with the abortifacient
abortifacient pills’ cover lying nearby, cannot be reconciled with his other claim that
he came to know AAA’s abortion only through the latter’s admission.
Taken individually
individually and as a whole, the defense witnesses’
witnesses’ testimonies
testimonies contradicted
contradicted each other
and flip-flopped on materials facts, constraining
constraining this Court to infer that they concocted stories in a
desperate attempt to exonerate the accused.
As a rule, self-contradictions and contradictory statement of witnesses should be reconciled, it
being true that such is possible since a witness is not expected to give error-free testimony
considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory
But, this principle, learned from lessons of human experience, applies only to minor or trivial
matter
mat
ters
s – in
innoc
nocent
ent laps
lapses
es th
that
at do not
not affect
affect witnes
witness’
s’ credi
credibil
bility
ity.. They
They do not apply
apply to selfselfcontradictions on material facts
Where these contradictions cannot be reconciled, the Court has to reject the testimonies and
apply the maxim, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. Thus, to completely disregard
disregard all the testimony
of a witness based on the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, testimony must have been false
as to a material point, and the witness must have a conscious and deliberate intention
intention to falsify a
material point. In other words, its requirements, which must concur,
concur, are the following:
following: (1) that the
false testimony
testimony is as to one or more material points; and (2) that there should be a conscious and
deliberate intention to falsity.
Crimes and Punishment
o
o
An appeal in criminal case opens the entire case for review on any question, including one not
raised by the parties as embodied in Section 11, Rule 124 of the Rules of Court:
SEC 11.
11. Scop
The Court
Court of Appeal
Appeals
s may
may revers
reverse,
e, af
affir
firm,
m, or modif
modify
y th
the
e
o
Scope
e of Judgment
Judgment.. – The
judgment and increase or reduce the penalty imposed by the trial court, remand the
case to the Regional Trial Court for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case.
The reason behind this rule is that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court,
he waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy and throws the whole case open
to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such judgment as law and
justice dictate,
dictate, whether
whether favorable
favorable or unfavorable
unfavorable to the appellant.
appellant.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
74
To reiterate, the six informations
informations charged Mirandilla with kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with rape (Crim. Case No. 9278), four counts of rape (Crim. Case Nos. 9274-75-76-77), and one
count of rape through sexual assault (Crim. Case No. 9279).
The accusatory
accusatory portion of the information
information in Criminal Case No. 9278 alleged that Mirandilla
o
kidnapped AAA and seriously and illegally detained her for more than three days during which
time he had carnal knowledge of her, against her will
The Court agrees with the CA in finding Mirandilla guilty of the special complex crime of
o
kidnapping with rape, instead of simple kidnapping as the RTC ruled. It was the RTC, no
less, which found that Mirandilla kidnapped AAA, held her in detention for 39 days and carnally
abused her while holding a gun and/or a knife
o
Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code states that:
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –
o
1.
By a man
man who
who sh
shal
alll have
have ca
carn
rnal
al knowl
knowled
edg
ge of a woma
woman
n under
nder any
any of the fo
foll
llow
owin
ing
g
circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or intimidation; xxx.
2. By any person
person who,
who, under any
any of the circumst
circumstance
ances
s mentione
mentioned
d in paragraph
paragraph 1 hereof,
hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
AAA was able to prove each element of rape committed under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the
o
Revised Penal Code, that (1) Mirandilla had carnal knowledge of her; (2) through force, threat,
or intimidation.
She was also able to prove each element of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, par. 2
o
of the Revised Penal Code : (1) Mirandilla inserted his penis into her mouth; (2) through force,
threat, or intimidation.
o
Likewise, kidnapping and serious illegal detention is provided for under Article 267 of
o
the Revised Penal Code:
Arti
Ar
ticl
cle
e 26
267.
7. Kidna
Kidnappi
pping
ng and serious
serious illegal
illegal detentio
detention.
n. – Any private
private individ
individual
ual who shall
o
kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death;
If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days. Xxx
An imminent Spanish commentator
commentator explained: deprivation
deprivation of liberty of a person, in any form or by
any means or for any time under which proves interrupted the free exercise of their activity.
Emphatically,
Emphatica
lly, the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
7659 states that when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped,
or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. This
provision gives rise to a special complex crime.
Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex

o
o
o
crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape
o
o
o
o
This is because these composite
composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact R.A.
No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659 depreciated the
seriousness of rape because no matter how many times the victim was raped, like in
the present case, there is only one crime committed – the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape.
However,
Howe
ver, for the crime of kidnapping with rape , as in this case,
case, the offender
offender should not
have taken the victim with lewd designs , otherwise, it would be complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape.
The taking was by forcible abduction
abduction and the woman was raped several times, the crimes
committed is one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, in as much as the forcible
abduction was only necessary for the first rape; and each of the other counts of rape constitutes
distinct and separate count of rape
Mirandilla’s act was kidnapping and serious illegal detention (not forcible abduction) and on the
occasion thereof, he raped AAA several times, We hold that Mirandilla is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape ,
warranting
warrantin
g the penalty of death. However, in view of R.A. No. 9346 entitled, An Act Prohibiting the
the
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
75
Imposition
Impositi
on of Death Penalty
Penalty in the Philippines
Philippines,, the penalty of death is hereby reduced to
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole
o
We, therefore, modify the CA Decision. We hold that the separate informations of rape cannot
be considered as separate and distinct crimes in view of the above discussion.
o
o
As to the award of damages, upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil damages ex
delicto is mandatory. Thus, we held that the civil liability ex delicto provided by the Revised Penal
Code
Co
de,, that
that is
is,, re
rest
stit
itut
utio
ion,
n, re
repa
para
rati
tion
on,, and
and in
inde
demn
mnif
ific
icat
atio
ion,
n, al
alll corr
corres
espo
pond
nd to actu
actual
al or
compensatory damages in the Civil Code
Court enunciated that if, in the crime of rape, the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex
delicto for the victim shall be in the increased amount of NOT less than P75,000.00. To
reiterate the words of the Court: “this is not only a reaction to the apathetic
apathetic societal perception of
the
the pena
penall la
law
w and
and the
the fina
financ
ncia
iall fluc
fluctu
tuat
atio
ion
n over
over ti
time
me,, bu
butt also
also an ex
expr
pres
essi
sion
on of the
the
displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes
o
o
o
o
Even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity ex
P75,000.
00.00
00 still
still appli
applies
es becau
because
se this
this in
indem
demnit
nity
y is not dependent on the actual
delicto of P75,0
impositio
impo
sition
n of deat
death,
h, but on the fac
factt tha
thatt qua
qualif
lifyi
ying
ng cir
circum
cumsta
stance
nces
s war
warran
rantin
ting
g the
penalty of death attended the commission of the offense
the fact remains that the penalty provided for by the law for a heinous offense is still death,
and the offense is still heinous
h einous
AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art. 2219 of the Civil Code without the necessity of
additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape. Indeed, the conventional requirement of
allegata et probata in civil procedure and for essentially civil cases should be dispensed with in
crimi
cri
minal
nal prosec
prosecut
ution
ions
s for rape
rape with
with th
the
e civil
civil as
aspec
pectt in
inclu
cluded
ded th
there
erein,
in, si
since
nce no approp
appropria
riate
te
pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made.
AAA is also entitled to exemplary damages of P30,000.00, pursuant to the present jurisprudence.
DISPOSITIVE:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CAG.R. CR-HC No. 00271 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused Felipe Mirandilla,
Mirandilla, Jr., is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with rape under the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, by R.A. No. 7659, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
without eligibility for parole, and to pay the offended party AAA, the amounts of P75,000.00 as
civil indemnity ex delicto, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages.
13. PEOPLE vs. CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
The accus
accused,
ed, Ceilito
Ceilito Orita alias Lito, was charged with the crime of rape Borongan, Eastern Samar.
March 20, 1983, at about 1:30 o'clock in the morning inside a boarding house at Victoria
o
St., Poblacio
Poblacion,
n, Boronga
Borongan,
n, Eastern
Eastern Samar,
Samar, Philipp
Philippines
ines,, above
above named
named accused
accused with lewd
designs and by the use of a Batangas knife he conveniently provided himself for the
purpose and with threats and intimidation, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously lay with and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Cristina S. Abayan
against her will and without her consent.
Complainant
Complai
nant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old freshman student at the St. Joseph's College at
Borongan, Eastern Samar. Appellant was a Philippine Constabulary (PC) soldier.
In th
the
e early
early mornin
morning
g of March
March 20, 1983,
1983, compla
complain
inant
ant arrive
arrived
d at her boardi
boarding
ng ho
house
use.. Her
Her
classmates had just brought her home from a party (p. 44, tsn, May 23, 1984). Shortly after her
classmates had left, she knocked at the door of her boarding house (p. 5, ibid). All of a sudden,
somebody held her and poked a knife to her neck. She then recognized appellant who was a
frequent visitor of another boarder (pp. 8-9, ibid).
She pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered her to go upstairs with him. Since the door
which led to the first floor was locked from the inside, appellant forced complainant to use the
back door leading to the second floor (p. 77, ibid). With his left arm wrapped around her neck and
his right hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, appellant dragged complainant up the stairs (p. 14,
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
76
ibid). When they reached the second floor, he commanded her to look for a room. With the
•
•
•
•
•
•
Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they entered complainant's room.
Upon entering the room, appellant pushed complainant who hit her head on the wall. With one
hand holding the knife, appellant undressed himself. He then ordered complainant to take off her
clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt. Then he pulled off her bra, pants and panty (p. 20, ibid).
He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He made her hold his penis and
insert it in her vagina. She followed his order as he continued to poke the knife to her. At said
position, however, appellant could not fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her
as she kept on moving (p. 23, ibid).
Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. In this position, only a
smalll part again of his penis was inserted
smal
inserted into her vagina. At this stage,
stage, appella
appellant
nt had both
both his
hands flat on the floor. Complainant thought of escaping (p. 20, ibid).
She dashed out to the next room and locked herself in. Appellant pursued her and climbed the
partition. When she saw him inside the room, she ran to another room. Appellant again chased
her. She fled to another room and jumped out through a window (p. 27, ibid).
Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, which was about eighteen meters in front of the
boarding house, and knocked on the door. When there was no answer, she ran around the
building and knocked on the back door.
When the policemen who were inside the building opened the door, they found complainant naked
sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras, the first policeman to see her, took off his jacket and
wrapped it around her. When they discovered what happened, Pat. Donceras and two other
policemen rushed to the boarding house. They heard a sound at the second floor and saw
somebody running away. Due to darkness, they failed to apprehend appellant.
•
Meanwhile,
the policemen
brought complainant to the Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital where
she was physically
examined.
Medical Certificate (Exhibit "A") which states:
o
came in with loose clothing with no under-clothes; appears in state of shock, per
unambulatory.
Neck- — Circumscribed hematoma at Ant. neck.; Breast —linear abrasions below (L)
breast.
Back — Multiple pinpoint marks; Extremities — Abrasions at (R) and (L) knees.
Vulva — No visible abrasions or marks at the perineal area or over the vulva,
errythematous (sic) areas noted surrounding vaginal orifice, tender, hymen intact;
no lacera
laceratio
tion
n fresh
fresh and
and old
old noted
noted;; exami
examinin
ning
g fi
fing
nger
er can barely
barely ente
enterr and
and with
with
difficulty; vaginal canal tight; no discharges noted.
Upon being arraigned, the accused entered the plea of not guilty to the offense charged.
After the witnesses for the People testified and the exhibits were formally offered and admitted,




•
•
•
•
•
•
the prosecution rested its case.
Thereafter, the defense opted not to present any exculpatory
Thereafter,
exculpatory evidence and instead filed a Motion
to Dismiss.
RTC: Crime of Frustrated Rape (Art. 335, RPC), beyond reasonable doubt, with the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and nightime ( sic) with no mitigating circumstance to offset the same,
PENALTY: ISL imprisonment of TEN (10) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, PRISION MAYOR, as
o
minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS PRISION MAYOR, maximum; to indemnify CRISTINA S.
ABAYAN, the amount of Four Thousand (P4,000.00)
(P4,000.00) Pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay costs.
no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the victim and thus convicted
o
the accused of frustrated rape only.
CA: GUILTY of rape, and consequently, sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000.00.
Court of Appeals issued a resolution setting aside its December 29, 1988 decision and forwarded
the case to this Court, considering the provision of Section 9, paragraph 3 of Batas Pambansa Blg.
129 in conjunction with Section 17, paragraph 3, subparagraph 1 of the Judiciary Act of 1948.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
77
Accused assails the testimonies of the victim and Pat. Donceras because they "show remarkable
and vital inconsistencies and its incredibility amounting to fabrication and therefore casted doubt
to its candor, truth and validity
ISSUES:
•
Whether or not the crime of frustrated rape was committed (NO, consummated)
HELD:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A close scrutiny of the alleged inconsistencies
inconsistencies revealed that they refer to trivial inconsistencies
inconsistencies
which are not sufficient to blur or cast doubt on the witnesses' straightforward attestations
Far from being badges of fabrication, the inconsistencies in their testimonies may in fact be
justifia
justifiably
considered
consid
ered asalso
manifestat
manifestations
ions
of truthfulnes
tru
s es
on had
material
material
points
These bly
little
deviations
confirm
that
thethfulness
witnesses
witness
not points.
been .rehearsed. The most
candid witnesses may make mistakes sometimes but such honest lapses do not necessarily
impair their intrinsic credibility (People v. Cabato)
Rather than discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, discrepancies on minor
details must be viewed as adding credence and veracity to such spontaneous testimonies
(Aportadera et al. v. Court of Appeals)
As a matt
matter
er of fact
fact,, comp
comple
lete
te unif
unifor
ormi
mity
ty in deta
detail
ils
s woul
would
d be a stro
strong
ng indi
indica
cati
tion
on of
untruthfulness and lack of spontaneity (People v. Bazar, )
However, one of the alleged inconsistencies deserves a little discussion which is, the testimony
of the victim
victim that the accused
accused asked her to hold and guide his penis in order to have carnal
knowledge of her. According to the accused, this is strange because "this is the only case
where an aggressor's advances is being helped-out by the victim in order that there will be a
consummation of the act." (p. 34, Rollo).
The
allegation
have
meritorious
the testimony
of knife
the victim
there. The
victim
testifiedwould
further
thatbeen
the accused
washad
holding
a Batangas
duringended
the aggression.
This is a material part
part of the victim's testimony
testimony which
which the accused
accused convenientl
conveniently
y deleted.
We find no cogent reason to depart from the well-settled rule that the findings of fact of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses should be accorded the highest respect because it has
the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses and can discern if a witness is telling
the truth (People v. Samson)
To the Court she
she was a picture
picture of supplication
supplication hungry
hungry and thirsty
thirsty for the immediate
immediate vindication
vindication
of the affront to her honor. It is inculcated into the mind of the Court that the accused had
wronged her; had traversed illegally her honor.
When a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape was committed provided her testimony is clear and free from contradiction and
her sincerity and candor, free from suspicion (People v Alfonso).
The victim in this case did not only state that she was raped but she testified convincingly
convincingly on
how the rape was committed. The victim's testimony from the time she knocked on the door of
the municipal building
building up to the time she was brought to the hospital was corroborated
corroborated by Pat.
Donceras.
Interpreting the findings as indicated in the medical certificate, Dr. Reinerio Zamora (who was
presented in view of the unavailability
unavailability of Dr. Abude) declared that the abrasions in the left and
right knees, linear abrasions below the left breast, multiple pinpoint marks, circumscribed
hematoma at the anterior neck, erythematous
erythematous area surrounding the vaginal orifice and tender
vulva, are conclusive proof of struggle against force and violence exerted on the victim
The trial court even inspected the boarding house and was fully satisfied that the narration of
the scene of the incident and the conditions therein is true (p. 54, Rollo):
The staircase leading
leading to the first floor is in such a condition safe eno
enough
ugh to carry the weight of
both
bo
th accuse
accused
d and offe
offend
nded
ed party
party witho
without
ut th
the
e sli
slight
ghtest
est di
diffi
fficul
culty,
ty, even
even in th
the
e mann
manner
er as
narrated. The partitions of every room were of strong materials, securedly nailed, and would
not give way even by hastily scaling the same.
A little insight into human nature is of utmost value in judging rape complaints (People v.
Torio, ). . . And the jump executed by the offended party from that balcony (opening)
(opening) to the
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
78
ground which was correctly estimated to be less than eight (8) meters, will perhaps occasion
no injury to a frightened individual being pursued.
Common experience will tell us that in occasion of conflagration especially occuring ( sic) in
high buildings, many have been saved by jumping from some considerable heights without
being injured. How much more for a frightened barrio girl, like the offended party to whom
honor appears to be more valuable than her life or limbs?
Besides, the exposure of her private parts when she sought assistance from authorities, as
corroborated, is enough indication that something not ordinary happened to her unless she is
mentally deranged. Sadly, nothing was adduced to show that she was out of her mind.
What particularly
particularly imprints the badge of truth on her story is her having been rendered entirely
naked by appellant and that even in her nudity, she had to run away from the latter and
managed to gain sanctuary in a house owned by spouses hardly known to her. All these acts
sh
she
e woul
would
d not
not have
have done
done nor
nor would
would these
these facts
facts hav
have
e occurr
occurred
ed unle
unless
ss she
she was sexuall
sexually
y
assaulted in the manner she narrated.
As for the non-presentation of the medico-legal officer who actually examined the victim, the
trial court stated that it was by agreement of the parties that another physician testified
inasmuch as the medico-legal officer was no longer available. The accused did not bother to
contradict this statement.
Whether or not the accused's
acc used's conviction
convi ction for frustrated rape is proper.
The accused
accused contends
contends that there
there is no crime of frustrated
frustrated rape
rape
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code defines and enumerates the elements of the crime of rape:
Ar
Art.
t. 335.
335. Whe
When
n and how rape
rape is commit
committed
ted. — Rape
Rape is commi
committe
tted
d by havi
having
ng carna
carnall
o
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1.
using
or intimidation;
2. By
When
theforce
woman
is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances
mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.
Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man in having sexual bodily connections with a
woman (Black's Law Dictionary. Fifth Edition, p. 193).
On the other hand, Article 6 of the same Code provides:
Art.. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. — Consummated felonies as
Art
well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable.
A felon
felony
y is co
consu
nsumm
mmat
ated
ed when
when all
all th
the
e el
eleme
ement
nts
s neces
necessar
sary
y fo
forr it
its
s execut
executio
ion
n and
and
accomplishment are present; and it is frustrated when the offender performs all
the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but
which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
•
•
•
There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Correlating
Correlatin
g these two provisions,
provisions, there is no debate that the attempted and consummated
consummated stages
apply to the crime of rape.
The requisites
requisites of a frustrated felony are: (1) that the offender has performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony and (2) that the felony is not produced due to causes
independent of the perpetrator's will.
In the leading case of United States v. Eduave, 36 Phil. 209, 212, Justice Moreland set a distinction
between attempted and frustrated felonies which is readily understood even by law students:
The essential element which distingu
distinguishes
ishes attempted from frustrated
frustrated felony is that, in the
o
latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the
beginning of the commission of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been
performed which should result in the consummated crime; while in the former there is such
intervention
the offender
does
arrive atshort
the point
ofpoint
performing
allcause
of theapart
acts
which
shouldand
produce
the crime.
Henot
is stopped
of that
by some
from his voluntary desistance.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
79
moment the offend
offender
er has carnal
carnal knowledge
knowledge of his
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment
victim
vict
im he actually
actually attains
attains his purpose
purpose and, from that mome
moment
nt also all the essential
essential
elements of the offense have been accomplished . Nothing more
more is left to be done by the
offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime . Thus, the felony
is consummated.
For the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female
organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ because not all acts
of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts.
Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and
jurisprudence
jurisprud
ence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated
frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed.
People v. Eriña [1927] is STRAY DECISION where offender guilty of frustrated rape there being no
conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the offended party. It has not been
reiterated in subsequent decisions.
Likewise, We are aware of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Republic Act No.
2632 (dated September 12, 1960) and Republic Act No. 4111 (dated March 29, 1965) which
provides, in its penultimate paragraph, for the penalty of death when the rape is attempted or
frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. We are of the
opinion
opin
ion that this particul
particular
ar provisio
provision
n on frustrated
frustrated rape is a dead provision. The Eriña case,
supra, might have prompted the law-making body to include the crime of frustrated rape in the
amendments introduced by said laws.
In concluding that there is no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the
victim, the trial court relied on the testimony of Dr. Zamora when he "categorically declared that
the findings in the vulva does not give a concrete disclosure of penetration.
penetration. As a matter of fact, he
toss
tossed
ed back
back to the
the offe
offend
nded
ed part
party
y the
the answ
answer
er as to whet
whethe
herr or not
not ther
there
e actu
actual
ally
ly was
was
penetration."
The alleged variance between the testimony
testimony of the victim and the medical certificate
certificate does not
exist. On the contrary, it is stated in the medical certificate that the vulva was erythematous
(whic
(wh
ich
h means
means marked
marked by abnorm
abnormal
al redne
redness
ss of the skin due
due to ca
capil
pillar
lary
y co
cong
ngest
estio
ion,
n, as in
inflammation) and tender.
It bears emphasis that Dr. Zamora did not rule out penetration of the genital organ of the victim.
He merely testified that there was uncertainty whether or not there was penetration. Anent this
testimony, the victim positively testified that there was penetration, even if only partially
The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted even on the sole basis of
the
victim'sDr.
testimony
if testimony
credible ( is merely corroborative and is not an indispensable element in
Moreover,
Zamora's
the prosecution of this case (People v. Alfonso, supra).
Article 335, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code provides that whenever the crime of rape is
commit
com
mitted
ted with the use of a deadly weapon , the penalt
penalty
y shall
shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.
•
•
•
The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime. Thus,
the proper imposable penalty is death.
In view, however, of Article 111, Section 19(1) of the 1987 Constitution
Constitution and Our ruling in People v.
Millora, et al., G.R. Nos. L-38968-70, February 9, 1989, that the cited Constitutional provision did
not declare
declare the
the abolit
abolitio
ion
n of th
the
e death
death penal
penalty
ty but
but merely
merely prohibits the imposition of the
death penalty, the Court has since February 2, 1987 not imposed the death penal
penalty
ty whenever it
was called for under the Revised Penal Code but instead reduced the same to reclusion perpetua
Reclusion perpetua, being a single indivisible penalty under Article 335, paragraph 3, is imposed
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances (
DISPOSITIVE: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of CONSUMMATED rape and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000.00.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
80
GRAVE COERCION
c/o HIPOLITO
Alejandro v Bernas
JOSEPH ANTHONY M. ALEJANDRO, FIRDAUSI I.Y
I.Y.. ABBAS, CARMINA A. ABBAS and MA. ELENA GO
FRANCISCO
vs.
ATTY. JOSE A. BERNAS, ATTY. MARIE LOURDES
LOURDES SIA-BERNAS,
SIA-BERNAS, FERNANDO AMOR, EDUARDO AGUILAR,
JOHN DOE and
and PETER DOE
DOE
[G.R. No. 179243.
179243. September 7, 2011.]
PERALTA, J p:
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Alejandro is the lessee-purchaser of condominium unit No. 2402 (the Unit), 4th Floor, Discovery
Center Condominium in Pasig City under the Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase with the
lessor-seller Oakridge Properties, Inc. (OPI).
On October 15, 2000,
2000, Alejandr
Alejandro
o sub-leased the Unit to the other petitioners Firdausi I.Y. Abbas
(Firdausi), Carmina M. Alejandro-Abbas (Carmina) and Ma. Elena Go Francisco (Ma. Elena) to be
used as a law office.
Howev
Ho
wever,
er, a defect in the air-conditioning unit prompted
prompted petitioners to suspend payments
until the problem is fixed by the management.
Inst
Instea
ead
d of addr
addres
essi
sing
ng the
the defe
defect
ct,, OP
OPII in
inst
stit
itut
uted
ed an ac
acti
tion
on fo
forr ejec
ejectm
tmen
entt bef
before
ore the
Metropo
Metr
opolita
litan
n Trial Court (MeTC)
(MeTC) of Pasig
Pasig City,
City, against
against Alejandr
Alejandro
o for the latter's
latter's failure
failure to pay
rentals.
Alejandro, for his part, interposed the defense of justified suspension of payments
payments.
In the meantime,
meantime, the Discover
Discovery
y Center
Center Condomi
Condominiu
nium
m Corporat
Corporation
ion (DCCC)
(DCCC) was organized
organized to
administer the Discovery Center Condominium independent of OPI. Respondent Fernando Amor
(Amor) was appointed as the Property Manager of DCCC.
Duri
Du
ring
ng the
the pend
penden
ency
cy of the
the ejec
ejectm
tmen
entt case
case,, or on Ju
June
ne 10,
10, 2004
2004,, OPI, allegedl
allegedly
y throug
through
h
respondent Atty. Marie Lourdes Sia-Bernas (Sia-Bernas), ordered that the Unit be padlocked.
In an Order 8 dated June 11, 2004, the MeTC directed OPI to remove the padlock of the Unit
and discontinue the inventory of the properties. The order was reiterated when the MeTC
issued a Temporary Restraining Order in favor of Alejandro.
However, on August 11, 2004, at 8:00 in the evening, OPI, allegedly through respondent Atty. Jose
Bernas, again padlocked the Unit. The padlocking was allegedly executed by Amor, as property
manager, and respondent Eduardo Aguilar (Aguilar) as head of the security unit, together with
security officers John Doe and Peter Doe.
Resp
Respondents,
2004.ondents, likewise, cut off the electricity, water and telephone facilities on August 16,
On August 17, 2004, the MeTC rendered a Decision in the ejectment case in favor of Alejandro
and against OPI. The court found Alejandro's suspension of payment justified.
The decision was, however, reversed and set aside by the Regional Trial Court , whose
decision was in turn affirmed by the CA.
On October
October 27, 2004,
2004, petitioners filed a criminal complaint for grave coercion against
respondents
respond
ents Bernas, Sia-Bernas,
Sia-Bernas, Amor, Aguilar, Peter Doe and John Doe with the Office of the City
Prosecutor (OCP) of Pasig.
Petit
etitio
ione
ners
rs clai
claime
med
d that
that the
the pa
padl
dloc
ocki
king
ng of th
the
e Un
Unit
it wa
was
s ille
illega
gal,
l, felo
feloni
niou
ous
s an
and
d
o
unlawful which prevented them from entering the premises.
Petitio
Pet
itioners
ners also alleged
alleged that said padlocking and the cutting off of facilities had
o
unduly prejudiced them and thus constituted grave coercion.
In their Counter-Affidavit, Bernas and Sia-Bernas averred that the elements of grave coercion were
not alleged and proven by petitioners. They also claimed that nowhere in petitioners' complaint
was it all
alleg
eged
ed that respondents employed violence which is an essential element of grave
coercion.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
81
In addition to the above defenses, Amor and Aguilar maintained that petitioners did not
allege that the former actually prevented the latter to enter the Unit . They added
that pet
petiti
itione
oners
rs in fac
factt gai
gained
ned acc
access
ess to the Uni
Unitt by for
forcib
cibly
ly des
destro
troyin
ying
g the
padlock.
•
•
•
•
On March 22, 2005, the OCP issued a Resolution, respondents Fernando Amor and Eduardo Aguilar
are charged with unjust vexation and the attached information be filed with the Metropolitan
Trial
Trial Court of Pasig
Pasig City. Bail is not
not necessary
necessary unless
unless required
required by the
the Court.
The charges
charges against respondents
respondents Jose Bernas and Marie Lourdes
Lourdes Sia-Bernas
Sia-Bernas is dismissed
dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence.
The OCP held that respondents
respondents could not be charged with grave coercion as no violence
o
padlocki
cking
ng the leased
leased premi
premises
ses and
and cuttin
cutting
g of
offf of
was employed by the latter. In padlo
facilities, respondents Amor and Aguilar were found to be probably guilty of the crime of
unjust vexation
Appealed to the Secretary of the Department of Justice (DOJ), but the appeal was dismissed for
their failure to comply with Section 12, paragraph (b) of Department Circular No. 70.
The DOJ Secretary,
Secretary, acting through
through Undersecretary
Undersecretary Ernesto L. Pineda, explained
explained that
o
petition
peti
tioners
ers failed to submit a legible true copy of the joint counter-affidavit of
some of the respondents.
Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was likewise denied in a Resolution 24 dated April 3,
o
2006.
Notwithstanding the DOJ's conclusion that respondents cannot be charged with grave coercion, it
ordered the filing of information for unjust vexation against Amor, the Property Manager of
DCCC and Aguilar as head of the security division
•
Elevated
matter or
to the
thatwas
rendered
the assailed
Decision
25 onofMay
23, coercion,
2007.
Onthe
whether
not CA
there
probable
cause for
the crime
grave
the CA
o
answered in the negative.
It held
held that
that the mere presence of the security guards was insufficient to cause
o
intimidation.
•
•
Petitioners claim that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the fact of padlocking and
cutting off of facilities thereat.
They insist that the allegations
allegations and evidence presented in the Joint Affidavit-Complai
Affidavit-Complaint
nt are
o
sufficient
suffi
cient to sustain a findi
finding
ng of prob
probable
able cause for grave coercion irres
irrespective
pective of
any defense that may be put up by respondents.
Although violence was not present during the commission of the acts complained of, there
o
was sufficient intimidation by the mere presence of the security guards.
Respondents do not agree with petitioners that the mere presence of security guards constituted
intimidation amounting to grave coercion and insist that there is no legal impediment to cause the
padl
padlocki
ocking
ng
and reposs
repossessi
ession
on of the Unit as a valid exercise of proprietary right under the
contract
of lease.
ISSUES:
WHETHER OR NOT GRAVE COERCION CAN BE COMMITTED THROUGH INTIMIDATION ALONE BY MERE
PRESENCE WITHOUT VIOLENCE? NO. BUT UNJUST VEXATION
HELD:
For grave coercion to lie, the following elements must be present:
1.
that a perso
erson
n is preven
eventted by another
ther from doi
doing som
someth
ething not prohibit
bited by law, or
compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong;
2.
that
that the
the pre
preven
ventio
tion
n or com
compul
pulsio
sion
n is eff
effect
ected
ed by
by viole
violence
nce,, thre
threats
ats or inti
intimid
midati
ation
on;; and
and
3.
that
that the
the perso
person
n who
who rest
restra
rain
ins
s the
the will
will and
and liber
liberty
ty of ano
anoth
ther
er ha
has
s no righ
rightt to do s
so,
o, or
or in othe
otherr
words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
•
•
•
Adm
Admitte
ittedly,
dly,
respondent
respondents
s padlock
pad
ed the Unit
cut g
off
the
electric
elec
tricity,
ity, water
andpurpose
telephone
telephofor
ne
facilities.
facilities
. Petitioners
were
thuslocked
prevented
from and
occupying
occupyin
the
Unit
and
using
it for the
which it was intended, that is, to be used as a law office.
At the time of the padlocking and cutting off of facilities, there was already a case for the
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
82
determination of the rights and obligations of both Alejandro, as lessee and OPI as lessor, pending
determination
before the MeTC. There was in fact an order for the respondents to remove the padlock.
Thus, in performing the acts complained of
of,, Amor and Aguilar h
had
ad no right to do so.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NO VIOLENCE. The problem, however, lies on the second element. A perusal of petitioners' Joint
Affidavit-Compl
Affid
avit-Complaint
aint shows that petitioners merely alleged the fact of padlocking
padlocking and cutting off of
facilities to prevent the petitioners from entering the Unit. For petitioners, the commission of these
acts is sufficient to indict respondents of grave coercion. It was never alleged that the acts were
effect
eff
ected
ed by violen
violence,
ce, th
thre
reat
at or intim
intimida
idatio
tion.
n. Petiti
etitione
oners
rs belate
belatedly
dly al
alleg
leged
ed that
that th
they
ey were
were
intimidated by the presence of security guards during the questioned incident.
We find
find th
that
at the
the me
mere
re pres
presen
ence
ce of th
the
e se
secu
curi
rity
ty gu
guar
ards
ds is insu
insuff
ffic
icie
ient
nt to ca
caus
use
e
intimidation to the petitioners.
There is intimidation when
when one
one of the
the part
partie
ies
s is compelled by a reasonable and wellgrounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person or property, or upon the
person or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his consent.
Material violence is not indispensable for there to be intimidation. Intense fear produced in the
mind of the victim which restricts or hinders the exercise of the will is sufficient.
In this case, petitioners claim that respondents padlocked the Unit and cut off the facilities in the
presence of security guardsIt was not alleged that the security guards committed anything to
intimidate
intimida
te petitioners, nor was it alleged that the guards were not customarily stationed there and
that they produced fear on the part of petitioners.
To determine the degree of the intimidation, the age, sex and condition of the person
shall be borne in mind.
Here, the petitioners, who were allegedly intimidated by the guards, are all lawyers who
The to
prese
presence
nce ofitthe
in fact
fac
t was not found by What
petitioners
petitiothey
ners
presumably
know
their rights.
to
be significant
because
they failed
mention
in guards
their Joint
Affidavit-Complaint.
insist is that, the mere padlocking of the Unit prevented them from using it for the purpose for
which
whi
ch it was
was intend
intended
ed.. This
This,, ac
accor
cordin
ding
g to th
the
e petiti
petition
oners
ers,, is grave
grave co
coer
ercio
cion
n on th
the
e part
part of
respondents
In Sy, the respondents therein, together with several men, armed with hammers, ropes, axes,
crowbars and other tools, arrived at the complainants' residence and ordered them to vacate the
building because
because they were going to demolish it. Intimidated
Intimidated by respondents
respondents and their demolition
team, complainants were prevented from peacefully occupying their residence and were
compe
com
pelle
lled
d to lea
leave
ve aga
agains
instt the
their
ir wil
will.
l. Thus, respondents
respondents succeeded in implementing
implementing the
demolition, while complainants watched helplessly as their building was torn down. The Court thus
found that there was prima facie showing that complainants were intimidated and that there was
probable cause for the crime of grave coercion.
Barbasa v.
v. Tuquero
Tuquero applies.
applies. In Barbasa, the lessor, together with the head of security and several
armed guards,
disconnected
the
electricity
the stalls
occupied
the
complainants-lessees
because
of the latter's
failure to
pay
the back in
rentals.
The Court
heldby
that
there
was no violence,
force or the display of it as would produce intimidation upon the lessees' employees
when the cutting off of electricity was effected . On the contrary, the Court found that it was
•
•
•
done
don
e peacef
peacefull
ully
y and
and th
that
at th
the
e guar
guards
ds were
were th
ther
ere
e not to in
intim
timida
idate
te them
them but
but to pr
preve
event
nt any
untoward or violent event from occurring in the exercise of the lessor's right under the contract.
In the crime of grave coercion, violence through material force or such a display of it as
would produce intimidation and, consequently, control over the will of the offended
party is an essential ingredient.
Probab
Pro
bable
le cau
cause
se dem
demand
ands
s mor
more
e than susp
suspici
icion;
on; it requir
requires
es less
less than ev
evide
idence
nce tha
thatt
would justify conviction.
UNJUST VEXATION.
o
The second paragraph of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code which defines and provides
for the penal
penalty
ty of unju
unjust
st vexat
vexation
ion is broad enough to include any human conduct
wh
whic
ich,
h, al
alth
thou
ough
gh no
not
pr
prod
oduc
ucti
tive
ve of person
so
some
me .ph
phys
ysic
ical
al or ma
mate
teri
rial
al har
harm,
m, co
coul
uld
d
unjustifiably
annoy
ort vex
an
innocent
o
Nevertheless, Amor and Aguilar may disprove petitioners' charges but such matters may
only be determined in a full-blown trial on the merits where
where the presence or absence of the
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
83
elements of the crime may be thoroughly passed upon
The court's duty in an appropriate
appropriate case is confined
confined to the determination of whether the assailed
executive
execu
tive or judicial determination of probable
probable cause was done without or in excess of jurisdiction
jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of jurisdiction.
Proba
Probable
ble cause
cause for purpo
purposes
ses of filin
filing
g a crimi
criminal
nal infor
informat
mation
ion is defin
defined
ed as such
such facts
facts as ar
are
e
sufficie
suff
icient
nt to engender
engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and the
respondent is probably guilty thereof , and should be held for trial.
[Probable
[Proba
ble cause] is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of
ordinary
ordinar
y caution and prudence
prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion
suspicion that a thing is
does not mean "actual or positive cause
so.
term
"; nor does it import absolute certainty.
certainty.
It isThe
merely
based on opinion and reasonable belief.
Thus, a finding of probable
probable cause does not require
require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient
sufficient
evide
evi
dence
nce to pr
procu
ocure
re a convic
convictio
tion.
n. It is enou
enough
gh th
that
at it is believ
believed
ed that
that th
the
e ac
actt or omiss
omission
ion
complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of
evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge
HELD: Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
•
Barbasa v Tuquero
ROBERTO BARBASA
vs.
HON. ARTEMIO G. TUQUERO, DOJ Sec, GRACE GUARIN, NESTOR SANGALANG
[G.R. No. 163898.
163898. December 23, 2008.]
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Petitioner avers that he is the president of Push-Thru Marketing, Inc., which leases commercial
stalls CS-PL 05, 19 and 30 in Tutuban Center, owned by Tutuban Properties,
On June 30, 1999, Angelina Hipolito, merchandising officer of Push-Thru Marketing, received a
notice of disconnection of utilities from private respondent Grace Guarin, the Credit and
Collec
Col
lecti
tion
on Manag
Manager
er of TPI,
TPI, for failure of Push-Thru Marketing to settle its outstanding
obligations for Common Usage and Service Area (CUSA) charges, utilities, electricity and rentals.
Petitioner settled the charges for CUSA, utilities and electricity, which payment was accepted
by private respondent Guarin, but petitioner failed to pay the back rentals.
July 1, 1999, private respondents
respondents Guarin, Nestor Sangalang,
Sangalang, engineering
engineering manager of TPI, and
Victor
Vict
or Calluen
Callueng,
g, TPI head
head of security
security,, togethe
togetherr with several
several armed
armed guards
guards,, disconnected the
electricity in the stalls occupied by Push-Thru Marketing.
Aggrie
Agg
rieved
ved,, petiti
petition
oner
er filed
filed a crimi
criminal
nal comp
complaint
laint for Grave Coercio
Coercion
n against
against TPI and its
offi
office
cers
rs,, Davi
David
d Go,
Go, Rober
obertt Cast
Castan
anar
ares
es,, Budd
Buddy
y Mari
Marian
ano,
o, Art
Art Br
Bron
ondi
dial
al,, and
and here
herein
in pr
priv
ivat
ate
e
respondents before the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila.
The complaint
complainstalls
t dated"in
July
13, 1999
alleged
that TPI and
its officers
off the electricity
in
petitioner's
a violent
and
intimidating
manner"
and bycut
unnecessarily
employing
"sever
"se
veral
al arm
armed
ed gua
guards
rds to int
intim
imida
idate
te and fri
fright
ghten
en" petit
petition
ioner
er and his
his employe
employees
es and
agents.
Defense: that the July 1, 1999 cutting off of electrical supply was done peacefully;
thatt it was an act performed in the lawful performance of their assigned duties ,
tha
o
and in accorda
accordance
nce with
with the covenants
covenants set forth in the written agreement
agreements
s previou
previously
sly
executed between petitioner and TPI;
that petitioner was not present when the alleged acts were committed;
o
petition
peti
tioner
er had outstanding accumulated unpaid rentals , CUSA billings, electrical and
o
water bills, unpaid interest and penalty charges (from June 1998 to May 1999) in the
amount
amou
nt of P267,513
P267,513.39
.39 for all his rented
rented stalls, as reflect
reflected
ed in three
three Interes
Interest-P
t-Penal
enalty
ty
Reports 8 duly sent to him.
Petitioner
Petitio
ner was likewise given demand letter-notices in writing at least three times
o
o
wherein
it was
stateddue
thatfrom
if hehim,
did not
settle his
arrears
full, electricity
would
be cut.
9
Of the total
amount
petitioner
paid
only in
P127,272.18
after
receipt
of the
third notice.
Accordingly, private respondents proceeded with the power cut-off, but only after sending
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
84
a "Notice of Disconnection of Utilities " to petit
petition
ioner'
er's
s stall
stalls
s infor
informin
ming
g hi
him
m of the
the
o
o
impending act.
Private respondents also pointed out that aside from the above arrears, petitioner has
outstanding accountabilities with respect to "Priority Premium Fees" in the amount
of P5,907,013.10.
They likewise
likewise stressed
stressed that their Agreement
Agreement with petitioner
petitioner contains the following
stipulations:
PRIORITY PREMIUM
: P 2,367,750.00
RENT PER MONTH
: P 378.00 per sq. m



Plus P 37.80
OTHER
FEES 10%
AND VAT)
EXPENSES CHARGEABLE TO THE LESSEE:
(CUSA) CHARGES: Minimum rate of P190.00/sq. m./mo.
EL
ELEC
ECTR
TRIC
IC CONS
CONSUM
UMPT
PTIO
ION
N
: mete
meterred + reaso
easona
nabl
ble
e se
serv
rvic
ice
e
In ca
case
ses
s wher
where
e paym
paymen
ents
ts made
made by th
the
e LESS
LESSEE
EE fo
forr any
any give
given
n mont
month
h is not
sufficient to cover all outstanding obligations for said period, the order of priority
in the application of the payments made is as follows:
Penalties, Interests, Insurance, CUSA Charges, Rent, Priority Premium
PENA
PE
NAL
LTY CLAU
CLAUSE
SE::
It is
is also
also exp
exprres
essl
sly
y agr
agreed
eed that
that in
in case
case the
the LES
LESSE
SEE
E fa
fail
ils
s to
pay at any time the LESSOR is hereby granted the option to cut off power and
other utility services to the LESSEE until full payment of said charges, expenses,
penalty and interest is made,
Petitioner filed his Reply Affidavit:
Go, Castanares, Mariano, Brondial, Guarin and Sangalang, while not personally present at
o




•

•
•
•
the scene at the time, were to be held liable as the authors of the criminal design
since they were the ones who ordered the cutting off of petitioner's electricity.
Petitioner admitted that none of the armed personnel drew his gun , much more aimed
o
or fired it, but insisted that he was unduly prevented
prevented from using electricity
electricity to the detriment
of his business and his person.
He claimed that the officers of TPI were unable to show the amount and extent of his
o
unpaid bills; that as to the electric bills, the same were paid;
Ongoing negotiation with respect to the matter of rentals and for reformation of the lease
o
agreements.
Prosecutor: Dismissed the complaint against David Go, Roberto Castanares, Buddy Mariano and
Art Brondial but found probable cause against private respondents Grace Guarin, Nestor
Sangalang and Victor Callueng.
On January 13, 2000, an Inform
Information
ation for grave coercion was file
filed
d in court, but proceedings
therein were deferred when the private respondents filed an appeal to the Secretary of Justice.
On August 23, 2000, the Secretary of Justice reversed the City Prosecutor's Resolution , as
follows: Move for the dismissal
Petitioner
Petiti
oner assailed the Resolution of the Secretary of Justice before the Court of Appeals through
through a
petition for certiorari, which was, however, dismissed by the appellate court for lack of merit. The
appellate court likewise denied his motion for reconsideration.
ISSUES: Whether private respondents' act of disconnecting the supply of electricity to petitioner's
stalls and the manner by which it was carried out constitute grave coercion? (NO)
•
•
HELD: NO.
o
o
The crime of grave coercion has three elements: (a) that a person is prevented
prevented by another from
doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his or her will, be it
right or wrong; (b) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, either by material
force or such a display of it as would produce
produce intimidation and, consequently,
consequently, control over the will
of the offended party; and (c) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no
right to do so; in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the
exercise of any lawful right.
The records
records show that there was no violence, force or the display of it as would produce
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
85
intimidation
intimida
tion upon
upon petition
petitioner's
er's employee
employees
s when
when the cutting
cutting off of petition
petitioner's
er's electric
electricity
ity was
effected.
On the contrary, it was done peacefully and after written notice to petitioner was sent.
o
The guards
guards were there to prevent any untoward
untoward or violent event from occurring
occurring in the
o
exercise of TPI's rights under the lease agreements. If the respondents desired a violent
result, they would have gone there unannounced or cut petitioner's electricity through less
desirable and conspicuous means
There could be no grave coercion in the private respondents' act of exercising in behalf
o
of TPI a right afforded to TPI under the solemn and unequivocal covenants of a contract to
which petitioner had agreed and which he did execute and sign.
o
Penalty clause in the Contracts of Lease entered into by the parties that TPI is given the
option to cut off power and other utility services in petitioner's stall
stalls
s in case petitioner fails
to pay at any time
Contracts constitute the law between the parties . They must be read together and
o
interpr
inte
rpreted
eted in a manner
manner that reconciles
reconciles and gives life to all of them.
them. The intent of the
parties, as shown by the clear language used, prevails over post facto explanations that
find no support from the words employed by the parties or from their contemporary and
subsequent acts showing their understanding of such contracts.
We could not see how the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, through Prosecutor Venus D.
o
Marzan, could have made a finding of probable cause to file a criminal case for grave coercion
against private respondents, in light of the evidence then and now prevailing, which will show that
ther
there
e was a mutual agreement, in a contract of lease, that provided for the cutting off of
electricity as an acceptable penalty for failure to abide faithfully with what has been covenanted.
Although the propriety of its exercise may be the subject of controversy, mere resort to it may not
o
so readily expose the lessor TPI to a charge of grave coercion. Considering that petitioner owed
TPI the total amount of more
more than P5 million, which
which was undisputed,
undisputed, we find that the resort
resort to the
penalty clause under the lease agreements was justified.
A penal clause is "an accessory obligation which the parties attach to a principal obligation
obligation for
o
the purpose of insuring the performance thereof by imposing on the debtor a special prestation
(generally consisting
consisting in the payment of a sum of money) in case the obligation
obligation is not fulfilled or is
irregularly or inadequately fulfilled."
Quite common in lease contracts, this clause functions to strengthen the coercive force of the
o
obligation and to provide, in effect, for what could be the liquidated damages resulting from a
breach. There is nothing immoral or illegal in such indemnity/penalty clause, absent any showing
that it was forced upon or fraudulently foisted on the obligor.
DISPOSITIVE:
DISPOSIT
IVE: DENIED.
Sy v Secretary of Justice
ALFREDO SY for himself and as Attorney-in-Fact of GONZALO SY, VERONICA SY, ROSARIO SY, MANUEL
SY and JOSE SEE
vs.
HON. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE, LEON MARIA MAGSAYSAY and ENG'R. EMMANUEL LALIN
[G.R. No. 166315.
166315. December 14, 2006.]
FACTS:
•
•
•
•
1985, Dolores F. Posadas, through respondent, Leon Maria F. Magsaysay, as her attorney-in-fact,
filed an ejectment case against them to recover a parcel of land in Paco, Manila consisting of
approximately 8,295 sq.m.
Several structures stand on the land including their post-war built building which has served as
their family residence with a small sari-sari store. The trial court thereafter ruled in favor of
Dolores F. Posadas.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court affirmed the trial court's decision. On appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the latter court set aside the decision of the Regional Trial Court and dismissed the
complaint.
However, during the pendency of the appeal in the Court of Appeals, respondent Leon Maria F.
Magsaysay obtained
obtained from the office of the Building
Building Official of Manila a Notice of Condemnation
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
86
dated February 8, 1996.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In respo
response
nse,, th
the
e [petit
[petition
ioners
ers]] caused
caused th
the
e as
asses
sessm
sment
ent of the
the struc
structu
tural
ral soundn
soundnes
ess
s of th
their
eir
residence. Consequently, on February 20, 1996, a Certificate of Structural Inspection was issued
by a licensed engineer, certifying to the general integrity of the structure which merely needed
minor repairs.
In Octob
October,
er, 1997,
1997, th
the
e [peti
[petitio
tioner
ners]
s] recei
receive
ved
d a letter
letter fr
from
om the Offi
Office
ce of th
the
e Build
Buildin
ing
g Offic
Official
ial
informing
informin
g them that respondent Leon Maria F. Magsaysay had requested for the condemnation
condemnation of
certain structures, including the structure owned by [petitioners]. The [petitioners] were directed
to submit their Answer/Comment and supporting papers.
A schedule
scheduled
d ocular
ocular inspect
inspection
ion of the property
property was deferr
deferred
ed at the instance
instance of [petition
[petitioners']
ers']
counsel. Subsequently,
Subsequently, an order of demolition dated February 3, 1998 was issued by Manila
Building Official Hermogenes B. Garcia, on the basis of a Resolution dated February 3, 1998 issued
by a committee created to act on the letter dated October 13, 1997 of respondent Leon Maria
Guerrero.
The [petitioners]
[petitioners] filed a Motion for Reconsiderat
Reconsideration
ion of the order with the Secretary
Secretary of the
Depart
Dep
artme
ment
nt of Publi
Public
c Works
orks and
and Highw
Highways
ays (DPWH)
(DPWH).. The
The compla
complaina
inant
nts
s also
also obtai
obtaine
ned
d a TRO
TRO
enjoining the enforcement of the order of demolition.
In the morn
morning
ing of Aug
August
ust 28, 199
1998,
8, res
respon
ponde
dent
nt Emm
Emmanu
anuel
el T. Lal
Lalin,
in, tog
togeth
ether
er wit
with
h
several men with hammers, ropes, axes and crowbars, arrived at the complainants'
residence and over their protests, demolished the building which served
served as their family
residence and sari-sari store.
The [petitioners]
[petitioners] contend that the responden
respondents'
ts' act of demolishing
demolishing their building
building without any legal
legal
authority to do so is an act of grave coercion , punishable under Article 286 of the Revised Penal
Code.
On the other hand, respondent Leon Ma. Magsaysay, in his counter affidavit, avers that he is one
of the co-owners of the land located at the corner of Pedro Gil and A. Isip Sts., Paco, Manila as
evide
evi
dence
nced
d by TCT Nos.
Nos. 21632
216323
3 and
and 21632
216327.
7. He furth
further
er avers
avers that
that th
the
e demo
demolit
lition
ion of the
the
[petitioners']
[petitioner
s'] structure
structure was based on the lawful order of the City Building
Building Official of Manila and
affirmed by the DPWH.
Respondent Civil Engineer Emmanuel T. La[l]in, for his part, also avers that the demolition was
unde
un
dert
rtak
aken
en purs
pursua
uant
nt to a duly
duly-issue
-issued
d demo
demolitio
lition
n order and
and that
that he was only
only hi
hire
red
d by
respondent Leon Maria Magsaysay to implement the same.
The City Prosecut
Prosecutor
or of Manila
Manila dismissed the complaint for grave coercion for lack of merit.
Hence, petitioners appealed to the Secretary of Justice but same was denied, finding that the
demolition was carried out pursuant to a duly issued demolition order.
Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which denied the petition
for lack of merit.
•
•
Petitioners alleged that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause for the
filing of an information for grave coercion against respondents and that the Secretary of Justice
gravely abused his discretion in holding otherwise.
Respondents argued that the determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is
an executive function, the correctness of which is a matter that the courts may not be compelled
to pass upon. At any rate, they claim that the Secretary of Justice did not abuse his discretion in
finding that the complaint for grave coercion is without merit.
ISSU
IS
SUES
ES:: Whe
Wheth
ther
er th
ther
ere
e is pr
proba
obabl
ble
e ca
cause
use for
for th
the
e fil
filin
ing
g of an infor
informa
matio
tion
n again
against
st resp
respond
ondent
ents
s
Magsaysay and Lalin for the offense of grave coercion? YES.
HELD:
•
The elements
elements of grave coercion
coercion under Article
Article 286 of the Revised
Revised Penal
Penal Code are
are as follows: 1) that
that
a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited
prohibited by law, or compelled to do
something against his will, be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by
something
violence, threats or intimidation; and 3) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of
another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of
law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
•
87
It is undisputed that on August 28, 1998, respondents, together with several men armed with
hammers, ropes, axes, crowbars and other tools arrived at the petitioners' residence and ordered
them to vacate the building because they were going to demolish it.
Petiti
Petitioner
oners
s tried to stop respondents from proceeding with the demolition but their
pleas went unheeded. Intimidated by respondents and their demolition team, petitioners were
prevented from peacefully occupying their residence and were compelled to leave against their
will.
Thus, respondents succeeded in implementing the demolition while petitioners watched
helplessly as their building was torn down .
From
facts alleged
in the complaint,
as well as did
the not
evidence
presented
in support
thereof,
there the
is prima
facie showing
that respondents
act under
authority
of law
or in
the exercise of any lawful right.
•
•
Respondent Magsaysay claimed that the demolition was carried out by the Office of the Building
Official, which is tasked to implement the National Building Code.
We note, however, that respondent Lalin admitted in his Counter-Affidavit that he was hired by
Mags
Ma
gsa
ays
ysa
ay to im
impl
plem
emen
entt the
the De
Demo
moli
liti
tion
on Or
Orde
derr. T
Th
he bu
buil
ildi
ding
ng of
offi
fici
cial
als
s made
made
manifestations before the trial court in Civil Case No. 98-87513 that they were not
aware of the demolition and that respondent Lalin is not connected with their office.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
They also denied
denied conspiring
conspiring with
with respondent
respondent Magsaysay in
in effecting
effecting the demolition.
demolition.
Likewise, the Office of the Building Official issued an Order 13 dated August 28, 1998 directing
respondent Magsaysay to desist from proceeding with the demolition . On the same date, it
also
also issue
issued
d a Notice advising respondent Lalin to stop the demolition for failing to
comply with the 5-day prior notice requirement and considering that the demolition was
being
effected
within
theSeptember
15-day reglementary
period
for of
appeal.
In another
Order
dated
10, 1998, the
Office
the Building Official declared that the
demolition was hastily done and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Demolition
Order.
Inde
Indeed
ed,, whil
while
e res
respon
ponde
dents
nts cla
claim
im to hav
have
e act
acted
ed und
under
er aut
author
hority
ity of law in compelling
compelling
petiti
pet
itione
oners
rs to vacate
vacate th
the
e su
subje
bject
ct pr
prop
opert
erty
y and effect
effectin
ing
g th
the
e demol
demoliti
ition,
on, the
the documentary
evidence show otherwise.
From the records, it is clear that a prima facie case for grave coercion exists and that there is
sufficient ground to sustain a finding of probable cause which needs only to rest on evidence
showing that, more likely
likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the
accused.
Neverthel
Never
theless,
ess, respon
respondent
dents
s may disprov
disprove
e petitio
petitioners
ners'' charges
charges but such matters
matters may only be
determined in a full-blown trial on the merits where the presence or absence of the elements of
the crime may be thoroughly passed upon.
Probable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are
sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent
is probably guilty
guilty thereof.
thereof. It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor
prosecutor as would lead a
person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that
a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause;" nor does it import absolute
certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause
does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is
enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged.
charged.
Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge.
While it is this Court's general policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations,
leaving the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause, courts are
nevertheless
nevertheles
s empowered to substitute their judgment for that of the Secretary of Justice when the
same was rendered without or in excess of authority.
DISPOSITIVE: Petition is GRANTED.
ESTAFA DIGESTS
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
88
c/o HIPOLITO
1. PEOPLE vs. TOMAS MANANSALA ET AL., defendants.
GALICANO ALON and RICARDO CABRALES, appellants.
VICKERS
VICK
ERS,, J p:
p: [G.R. No. 38948.
38948. Novembe
Novemberr 18,
18, 1933.]
1933.]
FACTS:
The appellants Galicano Alon (alias Grego), and Ricardo Cabrales (alias Maning), together with Tomas Manansala,
Generoso Jacinto, and Isidro Mendoza, were prosecuted in the Court of First Instance of Manila for the crime of estafa.
A week prior to February 19, 1932, 'Grego' (Alon) and 'Maning' (Cabrales) in company with another person whom they
called 'Pepe' offered to sell Attorney Perfecto Abordo 17,000 tins of opium at P1.50 each telling him that he could sell
them for P10 a tin.
For profit, Abordo agreed to buy the merchandise, and the accused agreed to sell it to him in lots of 1,000 tins at P600
lot. Delivery of 1,000 tins would take place at 5.30 p. m., at the corner of Taft Avenue Extension and Vito Cruz.
February 19, 1932: Abordo
Abordo went to the place indicated with the money, and there wa
waited
ited for them. Alon arrived alone in
an automobile and invited Abordo to go with him to the place where the 1,000 tins of opium were kept.
Trusting Alon, who always called Abordo 'brother' because he claimed to be a Mason like Mr. Abordo, the latter went
with him in his automobile
automobile to the rotunda
rotunda of Rizal Avenue
Avenue Extension. Cha
Chauffeur
uffeur Jose Jonsay was at the
the wheel.
It was already twilight when they arrived at the rotunda, and there they met Maning (Cabrales), who, in company with
others, was waiting for Abordo in another automobile. The accused Cabrales alighted and
and shortly thereafter appeared
Pepe who was ordered by Cabrales to get the tins of opium.
Pepe got from a lot nearby, the can, the top of which was opened by Cabrales in order to show Abordo the 6 tins of
opium contained in a wooden box which Abordo saw when the top of said can was opened.
Finding that said tins really contained opium,
opium, Abordo believed that the rest of the contents of the can also consisted of
tins of opium. He handed the P600 to Maning, who, after receiving the money, immediately went to the automobile
where his companions
companions were waiting.
waiting.
At the same time Abordo returned to his car with the accused Alon and the person named Pepe, carrying the can.
While proceedin
proceedingg towards
towards Taft Avenue
Avenue Extension,
Extension, Abordo
Abordo noticed that the accused Cabrales
Cabrales was following
following in his
automobile, and that when they were nearing the corner of Taft Avenue Extension and Vito Cruz the car in which
Cabrales was riding attempted to block Abordo's way, while Alon told Abordo that those in the other automobile were
constabulary men and it would be better to get rid of the can.
Cabrales, whom Abordo was able to recognize very well, and the companions of the former whom Abordo was not able
to identify because it was already dark, approached his car saying that they were constabulary agents and told Abordo
Abordo
that he was under arrest.
Knowing that they were not constabulary
constabulary agents and that their purpose was to get possession of the can, Abordo drew
his revolver and ordered his chauffeur to proceed.
Cabral
Cab
rales
es and his compa
companio
nions
ns again
again follow
followed
ed him in their
their car an
andd for the second
second time tried
tried to hea
headd off Abor
Abordo
do
somewhere before the intersection of F. B. Harrison and Vito Cruz streets, but Abordo proceeded until he arrived at his
house. There he opened the can and inside he found the wooden box, but the rest of the contents of the can was sand.
He bore a hole in one of the tins and found that it only contained molasses.
Defense (Testimony of accused and Miguel Rosales-> convicted 12x for estafa):
Abordo engaged Cabrales,
Cabrales, through the intervention of Rosales, to prepare 1,000 tins of molasses resembling
o
tins of opium,
opium, and that on the afternoo
afternoonn agreed upon for the payment,
payment, Abordo
Abordo refused to deliver the money
because purchaser of said tins had not arrived, and invited the accused to his house in Pasay in order to make
the payment
o
Before arriving in Pasay, Cabrales stopped Abordo's automobile and required the latter to hand over the
money, at the same time placing at the side of Abordo's automobile a sack which he said contained the 1,000
tins of molasses asked for by Abordo.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
89
Information:
Informatio
n: In the municipalit
municipalities
ies of Pasay
Pasay and Caloocan,
Caloocan, Province
Province of Rizal,
Rizal, within two and a half miles from the city
limits, the said accused conspiring together defraud Perfecto Abordo:
o
by means of false and fraudulent representations to Abordo that they had for sale six hundred (600) tins of
opium,, a prohibited drug, and that they would deliver the same to him upon paying them P600 in advance
opium
and by means of other similar deceit, induced the said Perfecto Abordo to give and deliver to them, as in fact he
o
gave and delivered to them, the said sum of P600,
o
in consideration of which the accused gave him a gasoline can which they represented to contain the 600 tins
of opium, when in truth, as the said accused well knew, the said can containe
containedd only six small tin cans
containing a black substance which was not opium,
opium ,
Tomas Manansala and Galicano Alon have each once been convicted of the crime of estafa
Habitual Delinquents: Ricardo Cabrales (1x convicted for robbery, theft 1x, 3x for estafa, last sentence: Feb. 4,
o
1927) and Isidro Mendoza (1x estafa and 1x robbery, last sentence: October 30, 1922)
Information was dismissed as to Tomas Manansala, Generoso Jacinto, and Isidro Mendoza for lack of evidence
RTC: Galicano Alon and Ricardo Cabrales guilty of estafa , in accordance with the provisions of article 354. No. 2, of
the Penal Code, as amended by Act No. 3244
o
PENALTY: four months
months and one day of arresto mayor, with the accessory penalties + ind
indemnify
emnify P600
ISSUES: Whether or not estafa was committed even though there was illegal consideration? Yes.
HELD:
Estafa as defined in article 315, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal
Penal Code, which provides that any person who shall
defraud
defra
ud another
another through unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence by altering the substance, quantity, or quality of
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
anything
anyth
ing
which
whicor
h the
offender
offen
der shall deliver
delive
obligation to do so, even though such obligation
obligation be
anvalue
immoral
illegal
consideration
consideration.
based
onof
. r by virtue of an obligation
PENALTY: The amount of the fraud being P600, the penalty applicable is arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period.
period .
ALON: Recidivist as he had already been convicted of estafa -> PENALTY:
PENALTY: maximum period (one year,
year, eight months,
and one day of prision correccional)
CABRALES: Habitual
Habitual delinquent, but his prior convictions cannot be taken into consideration also as an aggravating
circumstance for the purpose of increasing the principal penalty. PENALTY:
PENALTY: medium (one year and one day of prision
correccional + additional penalty of eleven years, six months, and twenty-one days of prision mayor bec. Habitual
delinquent)
SolGen mistaken that medium degree of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods based upon the idea that
only the prior convictions of this appellant for estafa are to be taken into account.
•
All
priorisconvictions
anyone
of the
crimescrimes
of theft,
or falsification
sho
taken intoa person
accountmight
whe
whennbe
a
person
convicted ofofany
of these
androbbery,
of beingestafa,
a habitual
delinquent. should
delinquent.
To uld
holdbe
otherwise,
twice convicted of each of these four crimes,
c rimes, and still not be a habitual delinquent.
2. 2. UNITED STATES vs. JOSE ABAD
CARSON,
CARS
ON, J p:
p: [G.R. No. 7520.
7520. November
November 23, 1912.]
1912.]
FACTS:
Information: Charged with the crime of estafa :
o
December 10, 1910, in Cavite
o
Accused entered the bicycle renting establishment, named 'Ligaya," located in Plaza Soledad in Cavite,
pretended that his name was Jose de los Santos and that he lived at No. 111 Calle Paseo, and rented from
Pangilinan, an Iver Johnson bicycle,
bicycle , No. 169787, with
the proprietor of said establishment, named Leoncio Pangilinan,
the private marks No. 10 and the initials L. P.,
•
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
90
hour, and to return it after one hour;
hour; but having taken away said
Agreeing to the sum of 50 centavos an hour,
bicycle he did not return it at the time agreed or pay the rental thereof,
o
Against the will of its owner take possession of it for himself and for the sake of gain, keeping it in his
possession until January 29, 1911,
1911 , when the said bicycle was found in the possession of the said accused in
the town of Imus, Province of Cavite, P. I."
During trial, evidence put forth that tricycle was valued at P75 or 375 pesetas
TC: Guilty of Estafa as charged and defined and pena
penalized
lized in section 5 of article 535 of the Penal Code, read together
with section 1 of article 534.
534 . Convicted the defendant of the misappropriation or conversion of property of the value of
o
•
•
more than 250 and less than 6,000 pesetas.
Defense:
value ,
o
Since the information fails expressly to allege that the bicycle in question had a specific definite value,
and to set forth just what that value was, a judgment of conviction upon this information should not be
sustained.
Erred in convicting the defendant of the misappropriation or conversion of property of the value of more than
o
250 and less than 6,000 pesetas. (No value alleged)
ISSUES:
1. Whether Abad
Abad should be convicted of estafa even though
though the specific value
value of the object was not
not alleged in the
information? (YES)
2. Whether the TC erred in convicting the defendant of
of the misappropriation
misappropriation or conversion of property
property of the value of mo
more
re
than 250 and less than 6,000 pesetas? (YES)
•
HELD:
1. Yes. Mere omission of an allegation of the specific value of the bicycle mentioned in the information did not render it
fatally defective, because the facts alleged in the complaint, when proven, establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the
bicycle had some value.
o
It is true that a conviction of the crime of estafa cannot be sustained in the absence of proof that the subject matter of
the fraud perpetrated by the accused had some value, and while iinn good practice a complaint or information charging
the commission of the crime of estafa should specifically allege the monetary value of the subject matter of the fraud
where that is possible.
possible. However, specific value is not necessary, it is necessary that the facts allege that it has
some value.
Estafa: Bicycle was personal property of some value is sufficient to sustain a conviction under the provisions of
o
subsection 1 of article 534,
534 , which prescribes the penalty to be imposed where the value of the subject matter of
the fraud is not shown to be in excess of 250 pesetas
Bicycle in question had some value (agreed to rent it for 50 cents/hr)
It was the personal property of the complaining witness (in use in Pangilinan’s bicycle renting establishment)
establishment)
o
Bicycle had been converted or misappropriated
misappropriated by the defendant
o
U.S. vs. De la Cruz: Defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery
robbery of a watch, the specific value of which was not set
out expressly in the complaint.
"Since the crime of robbery is complete when all the other requisites set out in the definition of the code concur,
o
if the property taken has even the smallest value, we think we would be justified in holding that the watch taken
had sufficient value to sustain a conviction of robbery, unless it affirmatively appeared that it was absolutely
worthless,, for without testimony to the contrary a watch, which the owner valued enough to carry, may fairly
worthless
be presumed to have some value, however insignificant that value may be."
be. "
2. Yes. Trial court erred in convicting
c onvicting the defendant of the misappropriation
misappropriation or conversion of property of the value of more
than 250 and less than 6,000 pesetas.
Information does not charge that the value of the property taken was more than 250 and less than 6,000 pesetas
o
although its allegations amount to a charge that a bicycle of some value was taken. No case can a conviction be
sustained for a higher offense than that charged in the information, nor for a different offense, unless it is necessarily
o
o
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
o
91
included in the offense charged.
charged . It is manifest therefore that the conviction in this case for the higher offense must be
reversed.
It is true that the witnesses testified that the bicycle in question was worth some P75 (or 375 pesetas), and that, if this
testimony could be taken into consideration for the purpose of classifying the estafa committed by the defendant with
those penalized under the provisions of subsection 2 of article 534, the judgment of conviction should not be disturbed.
However, the testimony cannot cure its not being alleged in the information because:
o
It is in direct conflict with the general rule convictions were not sustained for higher offenses than those charged
in the information, which has its foundation in the constitutional right of the accused to be advised at the outset
of the proceedings
asmade
to theto
precise
nature of the
charge
against
Timely
objection was
the introduction
of the
evidence
as him;
to the specific value of the bicycle, and under
elementary rules of evidence, the testimony in this connection should have been excluded, at least in so far as
it was offered for the purpose of establishing a higher or a different offense from that charged in the complaint.
Dispositive: TC Reversed. Still GUILTY OF ESTAFA but that defined and penalized in section 5 of article 535 of the Penal
Code, read together with section 1 of article 534, and there being no evidence as to the existence of aggravating or
extenuating circumstances,
circumstances, we sentence him to the prescribed penalty in its medium degree, that is to say, to two months
and one day of arresto mayor
o
3. UNITED STATES, vs. NIEVES DE VERA Y GAYTE
VILLAMOR, J.: G.R. No. L-16961 September 19, 1921
Facts:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
February 20, 1920: three Igorots named Jose II, Balatan, and Pepe were on the Escolta, of this city, trying to dispose of
a bar of gold when an Ilocano invited them to go to his house, stating that there was a woman there who would buy the
precious metal.
They accompanied
accompanied the Ilocano
Ilocano to the house
house indicate
indicatedd by him where
where they met a woman,
woman, the accus
accused
ed herein, who
apparently, was desirous of buying the gold and requested them to hand it to her so that she might take it to a
silversmith and have it examined, stating that she would return within a short time to report the result.
The Igorot Pepe, who was the owner of the bar of gold, handed it to her, together with P200 in bank notes which he
requested to her to have changed into silver coins as they were more desirable in the Mountain Province.
The woman then left the house at about 12 o'clock on that day, asking the Igorots to wait there. But the woman did not
return. They waited in vain for hours for her and at nightfall they agreed that one of them should remain on watch while
the other two went to the Meisic police station to report the matter.
The police acted promptly and effectively. The policeman Jose Gonzales, assigned to take charge of the case, soon
identified the woman who had taken away the bar of gold, by the description which the Igorots had given him, and at a
few minutes
minutes after
after 11 o'clock
o'clock he already
already wa
wass in a house
house on Ca
Calle
lle Barcelo
Barcelona,
na, examini
examining
ng the accu
accused
sed as to the
whereabouts
whereabou
ts of the bar of gold and
and the bank notes of the
the Igorots.
As the woman gave evasive answers, it became necessary to ask for assistance from the office of the police, and
shortly thereafter, two other policemen, Mr. Abbot and one Ronas, arrived, who took the woman to the house at No.
541 Calle Regidor,
Regidor, followed by Gonzales and the three Igorots. There the bar of gold divided into three pieces was
foundd wrapped
foun
wrapped in a handkerchief
handkerchief and placed inside the water tank of a water-clo
water-closet.
set. The accused requested
requested one
Mamerta de la Rosa to let her have P150 which she in turn handed to the policeman.
A certificate
certificate issued
issued by the Bureau of Science
Science show that the bar of gold delivered
delivered to the accused
accused weighed
weighed 559.7
grammes and was worth
P587.68
.68 at the rate of P1.05 per gramme; whereas, the three bars found by the police
worth P587
grammes, and were therefore, 143.7 grammes short. Of the P200 bank notes delivered to the
weighed only 416 grammes,
P150.
accused, she returned only P150.
•
Information:
o
Nieves de Vera and John Doe (the latter name is fictitious, his true name being unknown) of the crime of theft
committed as follows:
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
92
February 20, 1920, in the city of Manila, the said accused conspiring and through craft, take and carry away,
with intent of gain and without the consent of the owner, a gold bar weighing 559.7 grams and worth
P587.68, and P200 in bank notes of different denominations, to the damage and prejudice of Pepe (Igorot),
P787.68,, Philippine currency, equivalent to
owner of the bar and money aforementioned, in the total sum of P787.68
3,938.4 pesetas
pesetas..
TC: Guilty of the crime of theft punished
punished in article
article 518, paragraph
paragraph 2, of the Pena
Penall Code,
Code, without
without any circum
circumstanc
stancee
modifying the liability, and sentenced her to eight months and twenty-one days of prison correccional, to indemnify the
offended party in the sum of P201,20, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay costs.
o
•
•
Defense:
theft , the crime charged in the information, but those
o
Evidence does not establish the essential elements of theft,
of the crime of estafa
estafa..
She cannot be convicted for this crime for the reason that the information upon which she was arraigned was
o
for the crime of theft, the essential elements of which are different from those of estafa , he recommends
the remanding of the case to the court of origin for proper proceeding in accordance with law.
o
Goods appropriated were not taken by the accused without the consent of the owner who had delivered
them to her voluntarily,
voluntarily, and this element being lacking, it cannot be the crime
cr ime of theft.
When the things were received and then appropriated or converted to one's own use without the consent of the
o
owner, the crime committed is not that of theft
ISSUE: Whether the crime committed by the accused falls under theft or estafa? (Theft)
HELD:
Essential elements of the crime of theft:
o
Taking of personal property
o
Property belongs to another
o
Taking away be done with intent of gain
o
Taking away be done without consent of the owner
o
o
Taking away be accomplished without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things.
o
Viada: Getting possession, laying hold of the thing, so that if the things were not taken away, but received and then
appropriated
appropri
ated or converted
converted without the consent of the owner, it may be any other crime, that of estafa for instance,
but in no way that of theft, which consists in the taking away of the thing,
thing , that is, in removing it from the place where
it is kept by the legal owner, without the latter's consent, of the legitimate owner.
o
GEN RULE: Purchase
Purchase and sale perfect upon agreemen
agreementt on goo
goods
ds to be sold and price and title trans
transfers
fers to
purchaser
o
EXCEPTION: If goods sold are the kind which are usually tried, measured, or weighed.
As the goods are not sold in bulk, but by the weight or measurement, the sale is not perfected, since
the risk or deterioration of the goods is not shifted to the buyer until it is measured or weighed;
o
In leaving the risk of the goods sold to the vendor until said operation is completed, applying the maxim res
perit domino,
domino, it was evidently the intention of the legislator that until then the transfer of the ownership was not
effected:
effec
ted: it is true that there exists
exists a promise whic
whichh binds the vendor, and which,
which, if broken,
broken, would give the
purchaser the right to demand delivery of the goods upon payment of its price, after the same had been
measured or weighed, or to claim indemnity for damages;
delivered, no definite change of ownership
ownership takes place, and
o
But it also true that until the goods sold are delivered,
the sale is not so to speak finally perfected;
weighing , the purchaser takes away fraudulently, that is,
Where after the sale, but prior to the measuring or weighing,
o
with intent of gain, a part of the goods covered by the contract, this, is evidently , theft, with all its essential
elements,, as it cannot be reasonably argued that the purchaser has taken what is his own.
elements

o
Groizard: Buyer guilty of theft if converts the whole or part of the thing sold before ownership passes to her or before
delivery
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
o
o
o
o
o
o
93
There is necessity of investigating in whom the ownership is vested to determine whether or not the crime of
theft has been committed.
The contract of purchase and sale is perfected as between the vendor and the vendee and is binding on both of
price . But the ownership passes from the
them, when they come to an agreement as to the thing and the price.
vendor to the vendee only when the thing is delivered.
If before this takes place the purchaser converts the whole or a part of the thing sold, he must be dealt with as
guilty of theft,
theft, notwithstanding his undeniable right to demand and obtain the carrying out of the contract.
On the other hand, if the owner of a thing
thing in the lawful
lawful possession
possession of another,
another, take it away with or without
employingresponsible
violence, intimidation
force,
will commit
neither robbery
nor theft,
he
criminally
for anotheror
kind
of offense
" Rei nostrae
"Rei
furtum facere
non although
possumus
possumus."
." may, and must be
Viada Question answered by SC:
o
Is the shepherd, who takes away and converts
converts to his own use several head of the cattle under his care, guilty of
the crime of estafa, or of theft? THEFT
Takes away personal
personal property
property of another
another without
without the owner's
owner's consent as accused,
accused, with intent of gain,
gain, took
o
away two bucks and a female goat, against the will of his master, the owner of the said cattle, which were under
his care as shepherd
o
SC ANSWER: There was
was voluntarily delivery of the sheep but there was no conse
consent
nt from the owner when he
took away some of the cattle and converted them to his own use? Crime committed THEFT notwithsta
notwithstanding
nding the
fact that the thing was misappropriated had been delivered voluntarily by the owner to the supposed he, who
disposes of it without the owner's consent.
o
Delivery of the cattle to the shepherd does not have the effect of transferring the judicial possession of, or
title to, the cattle thus delivered,
delivered, just as the delivery of the rice does not have such effect,
effect, the possession
of, and title to, the thing to be presumed to remain in the vendor, until the sale is completely
consummated.
LARCENCY: American
American crime which has the same characteristics as those of theft
The intention of the owner to part with his property is the gist and essence of the offense of theft (larceny),
o
and the vital point on which the crime hinges and is to be determined. Generally a felonious taking is necessary
and a taking which is done with the consent or acquiescence of the owner of the property is not felonious.
But if the owner parts with the possession for a particular purpose,
purpose, and the person who receives the possession
possession
o
avowedly for that purpose has the fraudulent intention to make use of it as the means of converting it to his
own use, and does so convert it, this is larceny.
Fraud supplies the place of the trespass in the taking,
taking , or, as otherwise stated, the subsequent
felonious conversion of the property by the alleged thief will relate back and make the taking and

conversion larceny.
Act goes farther than the consent, and may be fairly said to be against it. If money is given to a person
to be applied to a particular purpose, it is larceny for the receiver to appropriate it to his own use which
was not the purpose contemplated
contemplated by the owner. This is so for the reason that the delivery of money to
another for the sole purpose of getting it changed is a parting with the custody only and not the
amount does not relieve him from liability for the larceny of the entire amount given him.
Where the parties are engaged in a cash sale the whole transaction is incomplete until the payment is
o
completed; and the possession of the goods remains in the seller and that of the money in the buyer, until they
are simultaneously exchanged.
o
If, in such case, the buyer gets control of the goods and makes off with them without paying for them, he
is guilty of larceny. And conversely if the seller gets the money and refuses to give up the goods, it is larceny.
Theft proven in the cause to have been committed by the appellant by appropriating the gold bar delivered to her for

o
examination,
by converting
to hercoins
own use, without the consent of the owner, the bank notes which had been
handed
her to and
be exchanged
for silver
Dispositive: TC Decision AFFIRMED. THEFT not Estafa
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
94
4. PEOPLE vs. MIGUEL G. CONCEPCION
In other case: People v TEODORO ANGELES, ABELARDO CRISOLOGO, RICARDO PAREDES
STREET, J.: G.R. No. L-19192 February 28, 1923
Facts:
Es
Esta
tafa
fa by means of falsification of mercantile documents -> Information included 3 other persons, Teodorico
Angeles,
Ange
les, Abelardo
Abelardo Crisologo
Crisologo,, and Ricardo
Ricardo Paredes,
Paredes, who were named
named as codefend
codefendants
ants with this accused;
accused; but a
severance was had, and the trial of the present appellant occurred at a different time than that of his co-accused, so
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
considered
hereles
is Miguel
Concepcion’s
alone
Teodorico
Teod
orico Angeles
Ange
was manager
manage
r of a Aparri
Apar
ri branch of PNB, in Cagaya
Cagayan.
n. At the same time Miguel Conc
Concepcio
epcionn is a
resident and representative of Cagayan in the Philippine Assembly and was manager of a limited partnership engaged
Concepcion."
in the business of buying and selling tobacco in the Cagayan Valley, known as "Puno
" Puno y Concepcion."
o
The mercantile operations of this firm were for a time carried on upon an extensive scale, and Miguel
Concepcio
Conce
pcionn was naturally
naturally therefore
therefore frequently
frequently brought
brought into contact with Teodori
Teodorico
co Angeles
Angeles as manager
manager of
Aparri branch of the PNB.
o
Moreover, it appears that Miguel Concepcion is a son of Venancio Concepcion at that time president of PNB
Manila ; and by reason of both his social and business relations Miguel Concepcion evidently acquired an
undue influence over Teodorico
Teodorico Angeles, with the result that the latter in a great measure surrendered his
discretion as manager of the bank to the will of the former.
October, 1919: Miguel Concepcion
Concepcion had need of funds, which could only be had from PNB and as he apparently had no
bankable security available, recourse was had to the expedient of getting the money upon loans from the bank upon
fictitious warehouse receipts ((quedans
quedans),
), with the knowledge and connivance of Teodorico Angeles.
Testimony by Abelardo Crisologo and Ricardo Paredes of how loans were obtained (Paredes is Crisologo’s father-inlaw)
o
Charge
Cha
rgedd in the infor
informat
mation
ion as joint principals in the offense of esta
estafa
fa by means of falsification of
mercantile documents but who, as we believe, were rather victims of the artifices of their coaccused than
designing participants in crime.
Abelardo Crisologo had long been an intimate friend of Miguel G. Concepcion; and, as Crisologo lived in
o
Tuguegar
Tugu
egarao,
ao, it had been the custom of Concepcion
Concepcion on visits to that place in the past to stay in Crisologo
Crisologo's
's
hospitable home. Paredes was the father-in-law of Crisologo and at the same time an employee of the firm of
"Puno y Concepcion," though prior to September, 1919, he had been employed
employed by the branch of the Philippine
National Bank in Aparri as an inspector.
October 1919: Teodorico Angeles
Angeles and Miguel G. Concepcion were in Tuguegarao
Tuguegarao,, and they were invited to dine at the
house of Crisologo, Paredes being also present.
After the meals was over, and the appropriate time had arrived for the exchange of confidences, the subject of the
tobacco trade was broached, and Miguel G. Concepcion, directing himself to Angeles, said: "Manager, I have three
thousand quintals of tobacco in the pueblos of Enrile, Peñablanca, and Baggao, and I should like to pledge them to
the bank but I should not like for my name to appear on the documents. I mean that I should not like to make the pledge
myself."
To this Teodorico Angeles replied: "Whose name then would you like to have appear?"
Thereupon Concepcion indicated Crisologo as a person who would perhaps be obliging enough to figure as borrower
in the loan.
loan. To this Crisologo at first hesitated to give his assent, but the matter was managed with such diplomatic skill
by the two principal interlocutors that Crisologo yielded, not before Concepcion, however, had pointed out that in
making the pledge Crisologo would not have to appear as owner of the tobacco but merely as depositary.
Explanation given to Crisologo
Crisologo by Concepcion for the necessity of the intervention of someone else than himself
himself was, in
effect, that Concepcion wanted to use the money for the purchase of tobacco in competition with the firm of
"Puno y Concepcion," of which Concepcion was manager, and he thought it would look ugly for his name to appear
in connection with the loan.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
•
95
Bank lends sum of P55,000 secured by warehouse receipts for 3,000 quintals of tobacco
Three principals met again the next day in the house where Concepcion was then staying in Tuguegara
Tuguegarao;
o; and it was
purported security of a quedan to be signed
determined that a loan of P35,000 should forthwith be made on the purported
by Crisologo for 2,000 quintals of tobacco,
tobacco , leaving a loan of P20,000 to be effected later upon the security of another
quedan for the remaining thousand quintals of tobacco.
Angeles assured Crisologo that he had personally inspected the warehouse where that part of the tobacco supposed
to be then in Tuguegarao
Tuguegarao was deposited and found it to be there as Concepcion had claimed.
Upon this Crisologo indicated his readiness to proceed, and the necessary documents were accordingly prepared.
Four promissory notes, amounting
amounting altogether
altogether to the sum of P35,000,
P35,000, signed by Abelardo Crisologo,
Crisologo, payable to
the Philippine National Bank and purporting to be secured by the deposit of a quedan for 2,000 quintals of
tobacco.
o
Warehouse receipt for said tobacco, in the usual commercial form, signed by Crisologo and purporting to show
that 2,000 quintals of tobacco had been deposited in his bodegas
bodegas.. This quedan was reduced to typewritten from
by Concepcion
Concepcion himself just before the documents
documents was signed by Crisologo
Crisologo,, its contents being
being dicta
dictated
ted by
Teodorico Angeles.
October 24, 1919: In Aparri, Angeles discounted the four notes and place the proceeds nominally to the credit of an
individual account then opened in the name of Abelardo Crisologo . Of the account thus placed to the credit of
Crisologo, the sum of P30,000 was forthwith remitted to Concepcion in Tuguegarao by telegraph through the provincial
treasurer and was by the latter paid to Concepcion in due course. The amount of P5,000 remaining
remaining to Crisologo's credit
was used either to pay
pay the charges incidental
incidental to the making of
of the loan or to defray
defray interest upon the loan.
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
portion
the sum of P55,000,
P55,000
Three
or four
later the
upon asby
theCrisologo,
total amountand
of
advanced
by remaining
the bank upon
twoofpromissory
notes of, originally
P10,000 agreed
each, signed
the loan,
wasweeks
purporting to be secured by a quedan for the other thousand quintals of tobacco, supposedly in Baggao, likewise signed
by Crisologo.
About this time the firm of "Puno y Concepcion,"
Concepcion," for which Paredes was acting as buyer, had nee
needd of money, and of this
fact Paredes had duly informed Concepcion.
Concepcion. The latter therefore instructed Angeles to pay Paredes the proceeds of the
second loan; and accordingly when Angeles discounted
discounted the two notes of Abelardo Crisologo for P20,000, on November
19, 1919, he delivered to Paredes the sum of P500 in currency and a draft for P18,000, making P18,500 in all, which
was charged to Crisologo's
Crisologo's account.
After the first notes executed by Crisologo had been in the bank for some time, Paredes, acting for Crisologo and others
concerned, made a payment of interest due or to become due upon said notes, using upon this occasion about P1,600,
believed to have been derived from the resources of Concepcion
Paredes acting as attorney in fact to his son-in-law, Abelardo Crisolo
Crisologo,
go, went through the form of executing in favor of
the bank a pledge of the same non-existing tobacco that had been included in original quedans signed by Crisologo
The remainder of the proceeds
proceeds of the notes was consumed in the payment of charges incidental to the loan an
andd in the
payment of interest. From this it will be seen, and it is an undeniable fact, that although Crisologo signed the notes and
quedans, as above stated, he in no wise profited by the transaction and never so much as saw the gleam of a
single copper proceeding from the loan.
At the time the quedans referred to were signed and delivered to the bank neither Crisologo nor Concepcion
Concepcion possessed
the tobacco which was purported to be on deposits with Abelardo
Abelardo Crisologo; and, although the evidence
evidence on this point is
purely
pure
ly circumstant
circumstantial,
ial, it is certain that Angeles knew that the tobacco
tobacco was non-exist
non-existent
ent as he assured Crisol
Crisologo
ogo that
Concepcion had the tobacco and that the signing of the documents by Crisologo was a matter of pure form.
The notes have not been paid by Abelardo Crisologo; the tobacco has been found to be non-existent, as Angeles and
Concepcion all along knew; Concepcion denies all responsibility for the transaction, as if he were a total stranger
thereto; and since December 23, 1921, Angeles occupies the grave of a suicide.
After all the notes had long been overdue, and the bank desired to get its credits consolidated. Paredes, also acting
under a power of attorney from Crisologo, went through the form of consolidating the original notes and quedans into
one note and one quedan.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
96
CFI: Miguel G. Concepcion, GUILTY of the offense of estafa by means of falsification of mercantile documents
o
PENALTY: Five years, four months and twenty days, prision correccional , with the accessories prescribed by
law; to pay a fine of P1,500; to indemnify the branch of the Philippine National Bank in Aparri in the sum of
P55,000, with subsidiary imprisonment (not to exceed one year) in case of insolvency; and to pay the onefourth part of the costs of prosecution.
CFI: Ricardo Paredes and Alberto Crisologo, guilty of the offense of falsification of a commercial document
o
PENALTY: six years and one day, presidio mayor,
mayor, with the accessories provided by law, to pay a fine of P250,
and jointly and severally to indemnify the Aparri branch of the Philippine National Bank in the amount of
P55,000, and each to pay one-fourth part of the costs
ISSUES:
1. Whether
Whether Concepcio
Concepcionn is guilty
guilty of estafa?
estafa? (YES)
(YES)
2. Whether Ricardo Paredes and Alberto
Alberto Crisologo
Crisologo are
are guilty of falsification of commercial
commercial document?
document? (NO)
(NO)
HELD:
1. Concepcion, guilty of the complex offense of estafa by means of the falsification of mercantile documents.
The estafa here involved consists in the fact that Teodorico Angeles, as manager of the Aparri branch of the Philippin
Philippinee
o
National Bank, and as such having charge of the funds of said institution, converted, misappropriated,
misappropriated, and misapplied
the sum of about
about P55,000 of the bank's money,
money, upon security that was known to him to be wholly fictit
fictitious,
ious, for the
benefits of the appellant Concepcion and to the prejudice of the bank
Induced the falsification of two warehouse receipts as a necessary requisite to accomplish estafa the was a necessary
o
prerequisi
prere
quisite;
te; and is also the mechanical
mechanical author of at least the first receipt,
receipt, having himself reduced
reduced the document
document to
proper from upon his own typewriting machine at the dictation of Teodorico Angeles.
o
This appellant
appellant is therefore
therefore subject
subject to punishment
punishment under article 301 of the Penal Code, as amended,
amended, in relation with
article 89 of the same Code. The trial judge was therefore not in error in sentencing him to imprisonmen
imprisonmentt for a period
within the limits of maximum degree of prision correccional; but a precise estimate of the penalty to be imposed shows
that the period fixed by his Honor falls short of the true legal requirement by one day.
o
Informatio
Infor
mationn charges
charges an estafa founded upon deceit by means of false representation (estafa subsection 1) but it is
actually, estafa under subsection 5 or fraudulent misapplication of the funds of the bank by its manager as Angeles, the
manager of the bank, who let the money out, knew that the tobacco was non-existent, the estafa committed cannot be
considered to have been of the precise form alleged.
2. Miguel G. Concepcion and Teodorico Angeles are principals of this crime, while Ricardo Paredes and Abelardo Crisologo
were rather victims of the articles of the two than ddesigning
esigning participants
participants in crime
o
PAREDES:
No complicity on part of Ricardo Paredes in the original estafa and falsification. His intervention in behalf of
Crisologo, in doing certain acts as attorney in fact of the latter, is explainable by the fact that Crisologo was his
son-in-law and lived in Tuguegarao, while the acts which Paredes did in behalf of Crisologo were done at the
bank in Aparri upon occasions when Crisologo was at home in Tuguegara
Tuguegaraoo and was not or could not
conveniently be present.
o
What he did later by executing a pledge done at the instance of the bank can assume the fact that he knew that
the tobacco referred to in the pledge and quedans was non-existing, but no estafa was then committed and
the only offense charged in the present information has reference to the original estafa and falsification
committed when the money was obtained.
CRISOLOGO: No criminal intent and no misrepresentation to anyone
o
He signed the promissory notes and the quedans for the tobacco which supposedly justified the loan. In signing
maker; and he
these notes Crisologo was, civilly speaking, substantially in the position of an accommodation maker;
of course made himself personally liable to the bank upon those notes for the benefit of Conception.
o
The act of affixing his signature to the quedans was done in a spirit of blind complaisance explainable only in
the light of his friendly
fri endly personal relations with Conceptio
Conceptionn and his deference to the joint wishes of Conception
and the bank’s manager.
o
o
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
97
It must be remembered also that this act was done in response to the representation of Teodorico Angeles that
Conception had the tobacco and that the signing of the quedans by Crisologo was all a matter of mere
formality. Crisologo therefore misrepresented nothing to anyone; and we are of the opinion that criminal
responsibility cannot be predicated of his acts, for want of the essential element of criminal intent. He
was a mere tool in the
the hands of others and
and is sufficiently punished by the ruin that must
must follow from making
himself civilly liable for so large a sum of money.
Dispositive as to Miguel Concepcion:
Concepcion : AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION by adding one day to the penalty within the
maximum of the maximum degree of prision correcional
o
Dispositive as to Paredes and Crisologo:
Crisologo : ACQUITTED.
5. ELVIRA
ELVIRA LATEO,
LATEO, FRANCIS
FRANCISCO
CO ELCA,
ELCA, and BARTOLO
BARTOLOME
ME BALDEMOR
BALDEMOR vs.
vs. PEOPLE
PEOPLE
NACHURA, J p: [G.R.
[G.R. No. 161651.
161651. June 8, 2011.]
Facts:
Prosecution's
Prosecutio
n's version
1994:: Lateo and Elca proposed
1994
proposed that Lucero
Lucero finance the titling of the 122 hecta
hectares
res of land loca
located
ted in Muntinlupa
allegedly owned by Elca as the sole heir of Gregorio Elca. Title to the property had not been transferred to Elca's name
because of a certain discrepancy between the Deed of Sale and TCT No. 77730. Elca offered to assign to Lucero 70
hectares of said land. She was then introduced to Baldemor, Orlando Lalota and Nolasco de Guzman.
Lucero released to petitioners about P4.7 million in staggered amounts.
Elca told Lucero that certain portions of the property will first be put in the name of Lateo and would later be assigned to
her. Lucero was given a Deed of Sale dated March 27, 1987. Elca likewise executed an irrevocable Special Power of
Attorney in favor of Lucero.
Later, she was presented certified true copies
copies of three (3) titles, issued by the Register of Deeds of Makati City in the
name of Lateo
Lateo covering
covering approximate
approximately
ly twenty-seve
twenty-sevenn (27) hectares
hectares of Plan A-7 of the Muntinl
Muntinlupa
upa Estate, situated
situated in
Barrio Magdaong, Poblacion, Muntinlupa.
December
Dece
mber 1994: Lucero
Lucero verified
verified with the Registry
Registry of Deeds of Makati,
Makati, she discovere
discoveredd that the afor
aforesaid
esaid titles of the
property were actually registered in the names of Marc Oliver R. Singson, Mary Jeanne S. Go and Feliza C. Torrigoza.
Lucero confronted petitioners and demanded
demanded from them return of the money. She was told that they did not have any
money to return. They instead offered a five (5) hectare property identified as Lot 10140
10140 of Plan Sgs 04213-0004
04213-000441
41
located at Bacoor, Cavite allegedly owned by Elca. Elca, however, demanded an additional P2 million for the transfer
of title. Through a letter, he said that the current valuation of the property is P450.00 per square meter and hence, the
property will be more than sufficient to cover obligates
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As it turned
turned out, Elca did not own 14 hectares in Bacoor, Cavite.
Cavite. He mere
merely
ly had an inchoate
inchoate right over the Bacoor
property, derived from his Application to Purchase Friar Lands, which covered
covered only 7 hectares. Elca's application was
later amended to cover only 4 hectares, in view of the protest by Alfredo Salenga (Salenga).
Lucero verified this with the Land Management Bureau (LMB), she discovered that Elca only had a pending application
for the sales patent over a four 4-hectare area of the subject land. These misrepresentations prompted her to file a
complaint with the Task Force Kamagong, PACC, Manila.
April 26, 1995:
1995: the task force conducted
conducted an entrapment at Furosato Restaurant. Petitioners were apprehended in
possession of marked 100-peso bills amounting to P100,000.00, supposedly in exchange for the Deed of Assignment
prepared by Lucero for their transaction.
Petitioners' version
1994: Lucero, Lateo, Oscar Lalota met with Elca in Muntinlupa to discuss the proposal of Lucero to finance the titling of
•
•
Elca's land.
June 28, 1994: in a meeting called by Lucero, she laid down the terms and conditions regarding her plans to finance the
titling of Elca's land.
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
98
22 out of the 122 hectares of the land would be given to the old tenants of the property, the 30 hectares would
be titled in the name of Elca as his retained share and the other 70 hectares would be her profit as financier of
the transaction.
Lucero would also pay P10.00 for every square meter of the 70 hectares or a total amount of P7 million. All the
o
expenses for the titling and management of the land would be deducted from P7 million. The remaining balance
would then be given to petitioners
petitioners
Lucero assigned Oscar Lalota to work for the titling of the land and to prepare all documents necessary thereto.
Baldemor
Bald
emor would act as overseer of the transaction
transaction as Lucero's
Lucero's attorney-in-fa
attorney-in-fact.
ct. Lateo would serve as secretary and
o
•
•
•
•
•
assistant
assist
ant of Lucero. Elca would guard
guard the property
property to keep off squatters.
squatters. He and his wife were instructed
instructed to sign all
documents prepared by Oscar Lalota.
December 1994:
1994: Lucero told Elca that upon verification from the Registry of Deeds
Deeds of Makati City, she found out that all
the documents submitted by Oscar Lalota pertaining to their transaction were falsified. Oscar Lalota disappeared after
getting the money.
In order to recover her losses from the anomalous transaction, Lucero offered to purchase Elca's property in Cavite.
Elca agreed to sell 2 hectares of his property at a price of P100.00 per square meter. Elca informed Lucero that the land
was not yet titled although the documents
documents had already
already been completed. Lu
Lucero
cero agreed to pay in advance
advance the amount of
P200,000.00 for the immediate titling of the land.
December 21, 1994: Lucero gave no advance
advance payment. Elca was made to return in January 1995. On that date still
Lucero made no payment.
Aprilil 25, 19
Apr
1995:
95: Lu
Lucer
ceroo promis
promised
ed to give
give the P200,
P200,000
000.00
.00 advanc
advancee pa
payme
yment
nt at Fu
Furos
rosato
ato Res
Restau
tauran
rantt on Ro
Roxas
xas
Boulevard,
City. Having
failed
to contact
his lawyer,
on Aprilto26,
1995,
Elca went alone to Furosato Restaurant.
Because
of Pasay
the absence
of Lateo,
Lucero
postponed
their meeting
April
27, 1995.
Elca arrived at Furosato Restaurant on April 27, 1995, Lucero and her lawyer Atty. Velasquez, Lateo
Lateo and Baldemor and
Atty. Ambrosio were already there.
Atty. Velasquez, upon the order of Lucero, produced a document entitled "Contract to Sell" outlining their agreement
over the 2 hectares of land in Bacoor,
Bacoor, Cavite. Atty. Ambrosio examined the contract to find out if it contains the terms
and conditions agreed upon. Attys. Velasquez and Ambrosio made their own handwritten
handwritten corrections in the contract
including the change of the title from "Contract to Sell" to "Deed of Assignment," after which, both of them signed the
document. Elca and Lucero signed the document as parties while Lateo and Baldemor signed as witnesses.
After the signing of the Deed of Assignment, Lucero brought out the P200,000.0
P200,000.000 as the promised payment for the land.
While Baldemor was counting the money, Atty. Velasquez and Lucero went to the comfort room. Thereafter, several
agents of the PACC approached them. They were arrested and brought to the NBI Headquarters
Information: On April 28, 1995, Lateo, Elca, and Baldemor, along with Orlando Lalota and Nolasco de Guzman, were
charged with estafa:
Aprilil 27
Apr
27,, 19
1995:
95: Pasay
Pasay City
City ,accus
,accused
ed ELVIRA
ELVIRA LATEO
LATEO y ELEAZA
ELEAZAR,
R, con
conspi
spirin
ringg an
andd confed
confedera
eratin
tingg with
with
o
FRANCISCO ELCA y ARCAS, BARTOLOME BALDEMOR y MADRIGAL, ORLANDO LALOTA
LALOTA and NOLASCO
DE GUZMA
GUZMAN,
N, an
andd mutual
mutually
ly he
helpi
lping
ng on
onee an
anoth
other,
er, by means
means of deceit
deceit,, tha
thatt is, by falsely representing
themselves to be the true and [lawful] owner of a piece of land located in the province of Cavite, and
possessing power, influence, qualification,
qualification, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions and by
means of other similar deceits, did then and there, induce ELEONOR LUCERO to part with he
herr money in the
PESOS,, as indeed she parted only with the amount of Two
amount of TWO MILLION (P2,000,000.00) PESOS,,
Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) PESO,
PESO , which
Philippine
which said accuse
accusedd act
actual
ually
ly receiv
received
ed in marked Philippine
Currency,, to the damage and prejudice of said ELEONOR LUCERO
Currency
May 31, 1995: Petitioners pleaded not guilty. Accused Lalota and De Guzman remained at large.
RTC:
RT
C: Francisco Elca, Elvira Lateo and Bartolome Baldemor guilty ATTEMPTED ESTAFA and is hereby sentenced to
•
•
•
•
•
imprisonment of Ten (10) years and One (1) Day to Twelve (12) Years.
Transaction over the Cavite property was a continuation of and is somehow related to their first transaction. The
same was offered to Lucero
Lucero in lieu of the Muntinlupa
Muntinlupa property.
property. The second transaction
transaction which covers the Baco
Bacoor
or
•
Criminal Law II. D2016 Digests.
Compiled by: HIPOLITO
•
•
•
•
99
property was again an attempt to defraud Lucero when Francisco Elca again represented himself as the owner of
the said property when he merely has an application to purchase Friar Lands hence accused has no right and/or
authority to deliver or transfer the ownership over said parcel of land to [Lucero].
Celino vs. CA: "Estafa under Art. 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal
Penal Code is committed by means of using fictitious
name or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transaction or by means of other similar deceits.
Villaflor vs. CA: SC held that what is material is the fact that appellant was guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation
when knowing that the car was then owned by the Northern Motors, Inc., still he told the private complainant that
the car was actually owned by him for purposes of and at the time he obtained the loan from the latter.
ATTEMPTED NOT CONSUMMATED: The attempt to defraud the complainant did not materialize due to the timely
intervention of the Task Force Kamagong operatives.
Art. 6, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides
provides that "there is an attempt when the offender convinces the
o
commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance."
The entrapment thus prevented the consummation of the transaction over the Cavite property
o
Koh Tieck Heng vs. People: "Although one of the essential elements of Estafa is damage or prejudice to
o
the offended party,
party, in the absence of proof thereof, the offender would be guilty of attempted estafa."
o
Since only the intent to cause damage and not the damage itself has been shown respondent court
correctly convicted appellant of attempted estafa.
INTENTION TO DEFRAUD SHOWN. The culpability of the accused is strengthened by the transfer of his rights
over the
same subject
land
in Cavite
Cavit
e inhisfavor
LeticiatoRamirez
Ramire
z thus
clea
clearly
rly
influencing
influen
cing his to
intention
intentio
n to defraud
defraud
herein
complainant
as the
same
shows
lack of
of intent
transfer
his rights
and/or
ownership
complainant.
The representations
representations made by Francisco Elca that he owns the property in Bacoor, Cavite, his having offered the
same again to the complainant in lieu of the aborted deal in the Muntinlupa property their constant follow-up of
complainant's decision over the matter convincing the complainant to accept the offer and their persona[l] presence
at the place of entrapment and their receipt of the P100,000.00 marked money which they even counted one after
powder .
the other, thus making all of them positive of the presence of fluorescent powder.
CA: AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the penalty imposed. Elvira E. Lateo, Francisco A. Elca and Bartolome M.
Baldemor are hereby
hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty
penalty of six (6) months of arresto mayor as minimum, to four
(4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional, as maximum.
•
Petitioners’ Arguments:
•
•
•
Transaction involving the Bacoor property do not show that it was an attempt to defraud Eleonor Lucero
Petitioners deny that they deceived Lucero. They claim that Lucero was aware
aware that the Bacoor property is not yet titled
in the name of Elca; and that they went to Furosato restaurant upon Lucero's invitation and on Lucero's representation
that she would hand to them the P200,000.00 needed to facilitate the issuance of title in Elca's name.
Assail the penalty imposed by
by the CA for being erroneous.
erroneous. OSG asks for modification of penalty
penalty to six (6) months of
arresto mayor.
ISSUE:
1. Whether
Whether there was
was attempted
attempted estafa not
not consummated
consummated?? YES. ATTEMPTED
ATTEMPTED ESTAFA
ESTAFA (not consumma
consummated
ted because
because as
yet no damage to Lucero)
2. What
What pena
penaltltyy to im
impo
pose
se??
HELD:
Elements of estafa Art. 315 (2) (a): 2.By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior
to or simultaneously
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud: (a) By using fictitious name,
name, or falsely pretending
pretending to possess
•