TITLE EIGHT: CRIMES AGAINTS PERSONS ARTICLE 246PARRICIDE People v Jumawan Sept 23, 1982; P: Abad Santos; ~by

Diana Relationship must be alleged for murder to become PARRICIDE FACTS: 1. On January 1974, Rodolfo Magnaye married PresentacionJumawan (1 of the accused) 2. They separated. Each left the conjugal abode. 3. Presentacions mother tried (a lot of times) to get Rodolfo to sign an agreement that would let each of them remarry but failed 4. On June 19, 1976, Rodolfo went to meet Presentacion at the Sariaya public market to talk about their lives 5. The meeting turned out to be their last one because he was killed at that day. 6. According to a witness, Rodolfo was killed inside a store at the public market by Presentacion, her 2 brothers, and her father. At Presentacions order he was stabbed to death by one of the brother while the other brother and father were preventing him from moving. 7. The next day, Rodolfos mother, who was looking for him, found his dead body by the waters. 8. The trial court found the 4 accused guilty of the crime of murder under Art 248 of the RPC ISSUE: Since Presentacion is the victims wife, should she be held guilty for parricide instead? HELD: No. She stands convicted of MURDER. - For her to be guilty of parricide, her relationship to the deceased should have been alleged in the information. - However, the aggravating circumstance of relationship may still be assigned against the other accused. But, their penalty has been reduced to reclusion perpetua for lack in number of votes. *Their alibis are not credible because the places where they said they were at the time of the crime are not that far from the scene of the crime. DECISION: Judgment Affirmed

PEOPLE VS TOMOTORGO BEL FACTS: 1. Accused Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon is married to Magdalena de los Santos. 2. Magdalena persistently asked the accused to sell their conjugal home located in SitioDinalungan Barangay Cabugai Cam Sur. She also asked him that they transfer to the house of her husbands in-law which is located in the town of Tinamabac. 3. The accused refused to abide by her wifes request because he does not like to abandon theri home and he has many plants and improvements on the land which he farms. 4. On June 23, 1977, at 7 am, the accused left home to go to farm and upon return at 9 am he found his wife and three-month old baby already gone 5. He proceeded to look for them and on a trail of about 200 meters from their home, he saw his wife with the infants together with a bundle of clothes. 6. He asked and pleaded for their return but she adamantly refused to do so 7. When accused sought to take child from his wife, the latter threw the baby on the grassy portion of the trail and the baby started to cry. 8. This caused the accused to get furious and with anger beyond his control, he picked up a piece of wood and started hitting his wife until she fell to the ground and complained that shes experiencing severe chest pains. 9. Realizing what he has done, picked up the wife and brought to home then came back for the baby on the grass. 10. Magdalena died despite her husbands effort to alleviate her pains. 11. Accused changed the dress of wife and reported incident to the Barangay Captain who brought him to Policeman Arellosa to whom accused surrendered. He also brought the piece of wood he used to beat his wife. 12. Charged of parricide. He first pleaded not guilty but changed it to guilty upon being re-arraigned. He was permitted to establish the mitigating circumstances which were invoked. A. voluntary surrender B. plea of guilty c.he acted upon impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion and obfuscation. 13. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetual 14. On appeal, the accused contends: o Theres lack of intent to kill o Art 49 proper applicable penalty when crime committed different from that intended. o The court erred in on following mandatory sequence of procedures for the correct applicable penalty o It also erred in denying the accused of the benefits of the ISLAW. 15. He avers that the penalty for physical injuries only and not parricide should be imposed on him

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused is guilty of physical injuries only and not parricide since there was no intent to kill on his part and that the result of the crime is different from that intended RULING: The Court in complete accord with and sustained the ruling of the lower court and that the accused is not entitled to the benefits of the ISLAW. y Art. 49 does not apply to cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act because under art. 4, par 1 of the same Code, he is liable for all the direct and natural consequences of his unlawful act. His lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong is, at best, mitigating. y The fact that appellant intended to maltreat the victim only or inflict physical injuries does not exempt him from liability for the resulting more serious crime. y The RTC added a recommendation that executive clemency be extended to the accused after his service of the minimum of the medium penalty of prision mayor. y The SolGen prays in the Peoples Brief that in view of the circumstances, recommends for the commutation of the penalty. y The SC expresses hope that absolute or conditional pardon by President or that there be a commutation of his sentence so that he may qualify and be eligible for parole. y There is a manifest repentant attitude of the accused and his remorse for his act which the RTC made particular mention and the recommendation of the SOL GEN as well as the number of years that the accused had been imprisoned. y The SC said that its recommendation should be promptly brought to the attention of the President by the proper authority in whose custody the accused has been placed. PEOPLE vs PEDRO MALABAGO y VILLAESPIN December 2, 1996; niLo Proof of spouse relationship in parricide: marriage certificate or in its absence, oral testimony of the accused. Facts: 1. On January 5, 1994, at about 7:00 in the evening, Guillerma Romano was tending her sari-sari store in Barangay Gulayon, Dipolog City. 2. Guillerma's daughter, Letecia Romano Malabago, arrived and sat on one of the benches outside the store and was also joined by Allandel, Letecia's fourteen-year old son.

3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

A few minutes later, accused-appellant came and interrupted his wife and mother-in-law's conversation. He and Letecia began arguing. Guillerma turned away but heard the couple's altercation over money and appellant's jealousy of someone. Guillerma heard Letecia cried out "Agay! She saw Letecia's face bloodied with a slash along her right ear. Appellant was facing Letecia, and with a bolo in his hand, struck her again, this time hitting the lower left side of her face, from the lips down to the neck. Letecia fell to the ground. Guillerma rushed towards her daughter and shouted for help. She was lifeless. Appellant fled to DodongOpulentisima's house. DodongOpulentisima later called the police. They came, fetched appellant and brought him to their station. The trial court upheld the prosecution and on May 10, 1994 convicted accused-appellant of parricide and sentenced him to death pursuant to Republic Act No. 7659.

ISSUE: WON the accused should be convicted of parricide? RULING: YES! Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; KEY ELEMENT- relationship: (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. y In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the absence of it, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered by the court if such proof is not objected to. - The testimony of the accused that he was married to the deceased is an admission against his penal interest. It is a confirmation of presumption that they are husband and wife. The essential elements of the crime of parricide like appellant's marriage to Letecia, the cause of Letecia's death and appellant's participation therein were facts already established by the prosecution to qualify the offense as parricide. No aggravating circumstance of treachery because the appellant hacked his wife in the midst of a sudden, unscripted heated argument and the appellant was not carrying his bolo at that time. Mitigating circumstance: Appellant testified that he voluntarily surrendered to the police when they fetched him at DodongOpulentisima's house.

The penalty imposable to appellant is reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE v IGNACIOI March 26 1997; Vitug J. Facts: 1. 2. y

Rosaria Igancio,44 yrs old, lived with her husband Juan Ignacio, 67 yrs old Living with them is Rosarias daughter , Milagros V. Cabanilla by previous marriage 3. On the night of Feb 9 1992, Rosaria and Juan had a heated argument and Milagros entreated them to stop but the argument still continued 4. Feb 10 1992- another quarrel took place and this time Milagros grudgingly went upstairs and tried instead to put her child to sleep. 5. While Milagros was upstairs, she could hear that the quarrel had become violent. As she peeped, she saw by the gas lamp that both are pulling a piece of lawanti and each tried to take possession of it. 6. As Juan released the lawanti to get his bolo, Rosario picked up a palo-palo and hit juan on the nape. 7. Rosaria then left straggling juan and surrendered to the police and voluntarily disclose what happen before Rolando ( son of Juan by his 1st wife). The following day, Juan died 8. In TC, she was convicted with parricide and on appeal she prayed that he she be acquitted on the basis of self-defense or in alternative that she be held guilty only for homicide rather than of parricide. Issue: 1. WON she should be acquitted ? 2. Is she guilty of parricide? Held/ Rationale: 1. No, she should not be acquitted because there was no unlawful aggression y The burden of proof in self defense is on the accused who must show by strong, clear and convincing evidence that the killing is justified and that therefore there is no criminal liability. y Art 11 of the RPC provides the elements of self defense :(1) unlawful aggression ( which is the condition sine qua non) (2) reasonable necessity of means employed by the accused to prevent or repeal it (3) and lastly is the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. y By her own admission, the petitioner only thought that her husband would strike her. In fact her own daughter Milagros belied Rosarias testimony who declared that even before the victim could get his bolo, the petitioner already picked up her palo-palo and hit him 2. Article 246 of the RPC defines and penalizes the crime of parricide. y any person who shall kill his father , mother or child, legitimate or illegitimate and or any of his ascendants or descendants or his spouse

shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. The phrase whether legitimate or illegitimate refers the relationship between the accused and his victim. They may be his father ,mother or child but not the spouse th In this case, Rosaria declared in court that the victim was her 4 husband. Even Milagros testified that it was her mothers husband. Rolando on the other hand testified that indeed they are husband and wife. Semper praesumiturmatrimonion the presumption that a man and a woman deporting them as husband and wife had verily entered into a lawful contract of marriage. People v. Genosa September 29, 2000; J.Panganiban Parricide (Bon)

Facts: 0 This is a case as a resolution of an earlier case which involves MarivicGenosa who was found Guilty of parricide aggravated by treachery sentencing her of death. It was noted that Marivic killed Ben Genosa, her legitimate husband, with hard use of deadly weapon. The Court did not accept the defense theory of Marivic. In this case, Marivic claims that she did not lie in the manner of killing her husband (by shooting him rather than smashing him) and that she suffered abuse in the hands her husband. She also argues that under the surrounding circumstances, her act of killing her husband was equivalent to self defense. Thus she prays for the following: a. Exhumation of the body of the victim and the re-examination of the cause of death of the husband b. Submit the accused appellant for examination by qualified psychologists and psychiatrist to determine the state of mind at the time of killing the spouse and allowing the report of such experts to be of the record of the case for purposes of automatic review and allowing partial re-opening of the case to admit the testimonies of the experts.

1 2 3

Issues: 1. 2. Should there be exhumation and re-examination of the victims body? Should the appellant be submitted to psychologists or psychiatrists to determine her state of mind at the time of killing?

Held: 1. 2.

No. The prayer for exhumation is immaterial since the act of proving of manner of killing the victim should have been done in the trial court. Yes. The court cannot deny the appellant of her opportunity to offer defense for criminal conviction must be based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is facing the possibility of death. The counsel of this case (Atty. Katrina Legarda) raised the Battered wife syndrome as a viable plea within the concept of self defense. Finding that there is legal and jurisprudential lacuna with respect to this, it could be a possible modifying circumstance that could affect the criminal liability or the penalty of the accused.

6. 7. 8. Issues:

Francisco returned home and did not find anyone Francisco went to Khingsmajong hangout and shot him but accidentally shot Lina and Arnold too (Khingsneighbors) RTC: Guilty of murder and double frustrated murder

WON the court erred in making its decision. Held: Yes, the crime Francisco committed falls under Art. 247 of the revised penal code. y ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. Any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro. Article 247 prescribes the following elements: o that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and o that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case. The trial court, in convicting the accused-appellant of murder, therefore erred. Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage. Since the killing was without intent the court cannot decide that it was murder and the shooting of Lina and Arnold should be understood as to have no intent as well but is still punishable by physical injures via negligence.

Decision: The case was remanded to the Trial court fot the reception of expert psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the battered wife syndrome Note: -

This case is under parricide (Art.246) because the relationship of Marivic and Ben comes within the purview of the said article. In the subsequent case, Genosasdefense was not given merit because there was failure to show the cycle of battered wife syndrome. Battered Wife Syndrome is described through its three phases namely: tension building phase, acute battering incident and tranquil loving phase. In the first stage, minor battery occurs and the woman tries to pacify the batterer. However, she remains to allow herself to be abused in order not to perpetuate the violence. On the second stage, brutal and at times fatal battery occurs. The batterer takes domination and the woman only thinks that she cannot reason with him and cannot resist him. On last stage, there is already a profound relief from the husband and wife after the acute battery. The man realizes his cruelty and tries to make up for it and asks forgiveness. The woman on the other hand, convinces herself that such battery will not happen anymore and that his partner changed. Note that these three phases should occur at least twice. People v. Abarca September 14, 1987 <You can kill your unfaithful wife if you see her do it infront of you>

y y

Facts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. July 15, 1984 Francisco Abarka shot and killed Khingsley Paul Koh, and shot Lina and Arnold Amparado. Francisco got home after fetching his daughter from school Found his wife and Khing in the act of love when he returned The Khing got a gun and pointed it at Francisco. Francisco ran away and got himself a gun aswell

PEOPLE v BUENSUCESO September 28, 1984 FACTS: 1. April 21, 1967between 5-6pm,witness Apolonio Salvador saw Patrolman Rodolfo Aguilar &PariseoTayag conversing as they were walking side by side, each resting his hand on the shoulder of the other, going towards the municipal building. 2. Pat. Aguilar was trying to take the fan knife of Tayag, but could not take it because Tayag prevented him from taking it. He didnt want to the give knife because he was not making any trouble. 3. Aguilar told Tayag to go to the office of the chief of police.Tayag agreed 4. Inside,a heated argument took place between Pat. Aguilar &Tayag when the latter still refused to give his fan knife. 5. Pat. Fidel de la Cruz came too, but when Tayag was about to leave the office, Chief of Police Adriano Canlas arrived & asked what was going on. 6. Aguilar said that the two of them (Aguilar &Canlas) had been cursed by Tayag. But Tayag denied cursing the 2 & informed the chief that Aguilar was forcing him to give up his knife. 7. Tayag hurriedly left the office but he was followed by Pat. Aguilar,Mallari& De la Cruz. Since Mallari& Aguilar were holding guns, the latter fired his upward. 8. Hearing the shot, Tayag turned about, retreated backwards until he reached the fence of the plaza, but whenTayag was near the wooden fence about a knee high, Aguilar shot him above the knee. 9. So,Tayag ran towards his house but was followed by de la Cruz without a gun. However, Mallari& Aguilar went to the waiting shed to intercept Tayag& took opposite sides of the road.Then there were several successive gun shots, more or less nine in number. 10. After the commotion, Tayag was seen lying prostrate near the back of a jeep parked about 60 meters away from the municipal building. 11. De la Cruz took the knife from Tayag&gave it to Pat. Jose Buensuceso, Pat. Izon& Pat. Joson were there too. 12. Finding out that some police officers were involved, Sgt.Romualdo-Espiritu proceeded to the municipal building and investigated on the crime. 13. The 4 police officers were charged of Murder, under Art 248 of the RPC. ISSUE: 1. 2. Was the conviction of Izon&Joson as co-principals in the crime of Murder correct? Was the court correct in holding that although there was no conspiracy between the 4 police officers, they are guilty of Murder under Art. 248 of RPC? Though he claimed to have acted independently, Was there treachery on the part of Aguilar when he killed Tayag?

SUPREME COURT: YES TO ALL. THE COURT FOUND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BACKED UP BY THE CREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS. 1. 2. All 4 of the police officers were seen by the witness Salvador to have been present at the crime scene at armed with .38 calibre service revolvers. The autopsy showed that Tayag died as a result of 4 gunshot wounds inflicted by .38 cal. Revolvers. Specifically that the slug found from the knee of Tayag was from the Revolver of Buensuceco. The on-the-spot inspection by Sgt.Espiritu right after the incident, he found that the service pistol of Aguilar had been fired & had 3 empty shells & 3 live ammunitions left, and that of Buensucesos had been fired as well & had 4 empty shells & 2 live ammunitions left. The Ballistic examination proved that the empty shells of ammunition were from the guns of BUENSUCESO & AGUILAR. The Chemistry Reports on the paraffin tests of IZON and JOSON showed positive results. Therefore confirming Salvadors declaration that they were in the vicinity of the crime at the time it happened. AGUILAR's plea of self-defense is evidently unmeritorious. AGUILAR followed the victim right after the latter hurriedly left the office of the Chief of Police. If, as contended, the victim had thrust his knife at AGUILAR inside the Municipal Building malting the former the unlawful aggressor, to be sure, the incident would have happened there and then and not some 60 meters away from the building. There is ample evidence establishing that AGUILAR, BUENSUCESO, IZON, and JOSON had fired their guns at the victim hitting him on different parts of his body. Although it has not been established as to which wound was inflicted by each accused theCourt held that where the victim died as a result of wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other, but it has not been shown which wound was inflicted by each assailant, all of the assailants are liable for the death of the victim. The crime was qualified by TREACHERY hence its MURDER.Because: a. The victim was already retreating backwards until he reached the fence of the town plaza when AGUILAR fired his revolver at the former hitting him above the right knee. b. Despite the fact that he was already hit& wounded, &possibly immobilized, he was still subjected to successive shots as shown by the wounds that he had received, even at his back. c. Evidently the means employed by the police tended directly & specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising from any defense which the victim might have made.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

3.

10. Also, Tayags killing was aggravated by abuse of superior strength as shown by the number of assailants, which was however, absorbed by treachery. No other circumstances modify the commission of the crime. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

People v. Pugay November 17, 1988; J.Medialdea Homicide through reckless imprudence (Bon) Facts: 1. 2. Miranda (deceased) was a retardate and is a friend of the accused Pugay (accused). During a town fiesta in a public plaza, Samson (another accused) and Pugay saw Gabion (a friend) in the ferris wheel. The two with their companions were drunk. When they saw Miranda walking nearby, they made fun of him by making him dance. Not contented of what they were doing, Pugay grabbed a can of gasoline and poured such to Miranda. Gabion tried to stop Pugay but the latter was already pouring the gasoline. Later, Samson lit Miranda making a human torch out of him. Miranda died although he was rushed to the hospital. Pugay in his statement admitted that he poured the gasoline believing it was water and then Samson set him on fire. Samson on the other hand argued that Pugay did pour the gasoline but he did not see who set Miranda on fire. The trial court rendered that Pugay and Samson were guilty of the crime of murder and availing Pugay a mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.

Pugays argument is untenable. The stench of gasoline could have not skipped his notice which shows his negligence on his actions. For Samson: o He just committed homicide since no qualifying circumstance was proven. The act was mearly for purpose of making fun and thus treachery cannot be deduced from such. Giving him benefit of the doubt, Samson merely intended to burn the clothes. However, although it was not what was intended, Article 4 applies where criminal liability is still incurred although the wrongful act is different from what was intended for. Also, note that burning clothes may cause physical injuries, a felony defined in the RPC. o Mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong may be given in his favour. Gabion testified that the two (Pugay and Samson) were stunned when they saw the deceased burning. Likewise, there was an absence of proof that accused has reason to kill the deceased before the incident. o

3.

Decision:Pugay is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence sentenced a range of 4 mo. of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 y. and 2 mo. of prisioncorreccional as maximum. Samson is guilty of Homicide sentenced of 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

4.

5.

People v. Pugay November 17, 1988; J.Medialdea Homicide through reckless imprudence (Bon) Facts: 6. Miranda (deceased) was a retardate and is a friend of the accused Pugay (accused). During a town fiesta in a public plaza, Samson (another accused) and Pugay saw Gabion (a friend) in the ferris wheel. The two with their companions were drunk. When they saw Miranda walking nearby, they made fun of him by making him dance. Not contented of what they were doing, Pugay grabbed a can of gasoline and poured such to Miranda. Gabion tried to stop Pugay but the latter was already pouring the gasoline. Later, Samson lit Miranda making a human torch out of him. Miranda died although he was rushed to the hospital. Pugay in his statement admitted that he poured the gasoline believing it was water and then Samson set him on fire. Samson on the other hand argued that Pugay did pour the gasoline but he did not see who set Miranda on fire.

Issue: Did the trial Court erred in their decision? Held: Yes. The proper offense are Homicide through reckless imprudence for Pugay and Homicide for Samson. - Elements of Murder is that any person not falling in Art. 246 who kills another person through the enumerated circumstances in Art. 248 (just see Art.248 for the 6 circumstances). On the other hand, homicide is committed by a person who is not falling under the provision of Art.246, kills another without the attendance of the circumstances enumerated in Art.249 - For Pugay o He just committed homicide through reckless imprudence. First there was no attendant qualifying circumstance found.

7.

8.

9.

10. The trial court rendered that Pugay and Samson were guilty of the crime of murder and availing Pugay a mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong. Issue: Did the trial Court erred in their decision? Held: Yes. The proper offense are Homicide through reckless imprudence for Pugay and Homicide for Samson. - Elements of Murder is that any person not falling in Art. 246 who kills another person through the enumerated circumstances in Art. 248 (just see Art.248 for the 6 circumstances). On the other hand, homicide is committed by a person who is not falling under the provision of Art.246, kills another without the attendance of the circumstances enumerated in Art.249 - For Pugay o He just committed homicide through reckless imprudence. First there was no attendant qualifying circumstance found. o Pugays argument is untenable. The stench of gasoline could have not skipped his notice which shows his negligence on his actions. - For Samson: o He just committed homicide since no qualifying circumstance was proven. The act was mearly for purpose of making fun and thus treachery cannot be deduced from such. Giving him benefit of the doubt, Samson merely intended to burn the clothes. However, although it was not what was intended, Article 4 applies where criminal liability is still incurred although the wrongful act is different from what was intended for. Also, note that burning clothes may cause physical injuries, a felony defined in the RPC. o Mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong may be given in his favour. Gabion testified that the two (Pugay and Samson) were stunned when they saw the deceased burning. Likewise, there was an absence of proof that accused has reason to kill the deceased before the incident. Decision:Pugay is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence sentenced a range of 4 mo. of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 y. and 2 mo. of prisioncorreccional as maximum. Samson is guilty of Homicide sentenced of 8 years of prision mayor as minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

PEOPLE VS SALUFRANIA BEL FACTS: 1. 2. 3. FilomenoSalufrania was charged with the crime of parricide with intentional abortion Pedro Salufrania, the son of the accused testified that at about 6pm off December 3, 1974, his father and his mother MarcianaAbuyo had a quarrel During the said quarrel the accused box his pregnant wife on the stomache and strangled her to death. Pedro saw blood ooze from the eyes and nose of his mother. Pedro testified that after killing his mother, the accused used a hammock to cover the body of the deceased. He further allege that the accused threatened to kill him and his sibling should he reveal the true cause of his mothers death On the other hand, accused FilomenoSalufrania contends that his wife died of stomach pain and that he tried native treatments to alleviate the pain. The accused was convicted of the said crime and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. He contends that the trial court failed to determine Pedros incompetence because he was only 13 years old when he testified and only 11 years old when the offense was charged. He further questions the competence of Dr.Dyquiangco as an expert witness since it was his first time to conduct an autopsy on a cadaver which had been buried for about a week.

4.

5. 6. 7.

8.

ISSUE: Did the trial court erred in its decision? RULING Yes. He should instead be convicted of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion On Pedros competency as a witness: y The trial court determined Pedros competency before he was allowed to testify under oath y He has a strong sense of moral duty to tell the truth even though it should lead to his fathers conviction, this shows that he fully appreciate the meaning of an oath

As to Pedros change of answer when asked whether he was threatened by his uncle to testify against his father, it only shows that Pedro was confused with the question. Later on the affirmed his answer that he wasnt threatened at all. His testimony remains unruffled. Even if there were some discrepancies, such are just minors and didnt affect his credibility as a witness.

4.

5. On Dr.Dyquiangcos competence y Although this was his first time to examine a cadaver that was buried for a week, he had, however, conducted similar post-mortem examinations on 10 other occasions. 6. On Abortion: There must be intent to cause the abortion to be guilty of intentional abortion; it cannot be merely incidental to a killing y Accused intent to cause abortion has not been sufficiently established. y Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not sufficient proof to show an intent to cause abortion. y The accused must have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily to cause the abortion. y The accused is liable for the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion PEOPLE vs CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito," April 3, 1990; niLo <No frustrated crime of rape> Facts: 1.

ibid). When they reached the second floor, he commanded her to look for a room. 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. Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. In this position, only a small part again of his penis was inserted into her vagina. At this stage, appellant had both his hands flat on the floor she escaped by dashing out to the next room and locked herself in. She fled to another room and jumped out through a window, she darted to the municipal building and went to the policemen. The trial court convicted the accused of frustrated rape since there was no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the victim.

Issue: Is the trial court correct of convicting the accused of frustrated rape? RULING: Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code defines and enumerates the elements of the crime of rape: 1. By using force or intimidation; 2. When the 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. The Supreme Court was convinced that there was rape because: - the victim's testimony from the time she knocked on the door of the municipal building up to the time she was brought to the hospital was corroborated by Pat. Donceras. - Interpreting the findings as indicated in the medical certificate which is a conclusive proof that there was struggle against force and violence exerted on the victim. NO FRUSTRATED RAPE: The requisites of a frustrated felony are: - that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony and - that the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator's will. a) Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that

2.

3.

Complainant 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. March 20, 1983, complainant arrived at her boarding house. Her classmates had just brought her home from a party. After her classmates had left, she knocked at the door of her boarding house. 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. 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,

moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing 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. b) We have set the uniform rule that 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. Was there penetration of genital organ of the victim? y it is stated in the medical certificate that the vulva was erythematous (which means marked by abnormal redness of the skin due to capillary congestion, 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.

Accused found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000.00.

People v Campuhan March 30 2000; Bellosillo J Facts: 1. 2.

3.

4.

Primo Campuhan was found guilty of guitlty of statutory rape and was sentenced to extreme penalty of death. On April 25 1996, around 4pm, Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan went down from nd the 2 floor of their house to prepare Milo for her two children where one is Crysthel ( 4yrs old) . At the ground floor, she saw Primo Campuhan, helper of Conrado Plata Jr.( Corazons brother) who was then busy filling small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice As she was busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of her daughters crying and when she heard Ayoko,ayoko! she rush upstairs and saw Primo Campuhan inside her childrens room kneeling before Crysthelwhose

pajamas and panty were already removed, while Primos short pants were down to his knees. 5. According to Corazan, Primo was trying to insert his penis into Crysthels vagina. Horrified she cursed him. 6. Primo then push aside Corazon and ran while corazan called for help 7. Seconds later, Primo was apprehended by those who answered Corazons call fro help 8. Primo now contends that Corazans testimony should not be given weight or credence since it was punctured with implausible statements and improbabilities so inconsistent with human nature and experience. He also contends that it was impossible for him to commit rape as the sister of Crysthel was with them playing and that the place was within the family compound enough for him to deter from committing such act. 9. Lastly, Primo contends that it was impossible for Corazon to give vivid description of the alleged sexual contact from where she stood during that time and that the absence of any external signs of physical injuries or of penetration of Crysthels private parts strengthen his innocents Issue: is he guilty of rape? Held: NO, he is guilty only of attempted rape as the prosecutor utterly failed to prove that Primos penis was able to penetrate not matter how slight it is Rationale: y In concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary y The mere touching of the external genetalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. y However the act of touchng should be understood here as inherently part of the enrty of the penis into the labia of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum. y Pudendum is a collective term for the female genital organs that are visible in the perineal area. Mons pubis is the rounded eminence that becomes hairy after puberty and is instantly visible within the surface. The next layer is the labia majora or the outer lips of the female organ composed of the outer convex surface and inner surface. Directly beneath the Labia majora is labia minora. y Jurisprudence provides that in order for rape to be consummated the penis must have entered the labia majora and not the mere stroke or touching of the mons pubis of the pudendeum. In the absence of any showing that there was touching the crime could be attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness. y The prosecution utterly failed to prove that Primos penis was able to penetrate not matter how slight it is.

Crysthel testimony is in doubt because he was not able to explain her position during the time of the commission of the crime that enabled her to see clearly and sufficiently that there was indeed a contact and that from her narration , it can easily be drawn that Primos kneeling position rendered an unbridled observation impossible as Primos right hand was blocking Corazons view. Corazon insist that the Primo did not restrain himself from pursuing his wicked intention despite her timely appearance however the court is not persuaded because it is inconsistent with mans instinct of self-preservation to remain where he is and persist in satisfying his lust even when he knows well that his dastardly acts have already been discovered or witnesses by no less than the mother herself The possibility of Primos penis entering the vagina is negated by the childs owen assertion that she resisted it by putting both her legs close together, she did not feel any pain but just felt unhappy, she shouted ayoko,ayoko instead of arayko, arayko Under art 6 in relation to art 335 of the RPC, rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. All the elements of attempted is present.

her vagina and then forcibly and repeatedly introduced his penis into her vagina, but failed. 6. Michael, Marichelles 4 yr. old cousin, called out to her to fetch her. 7. When Marichelle heard Michael calling, she put on her garments, and on the way home noticed that her jogging pants were wet. She narrated what happened to her to Bernardine. 8. Bernardine had Marichelle undergo a physical exam. NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Roberto V. Garcia certified that there Marichelle had no hymeneal lacerations but there was genital trauma and it was caused by an accident. 9. Semion was charged with statutory rape and convicted of reclusion perpetua. 10. Semion appealed that it was impossible for him to rape Marichelle because it was broad daylight and many people were in the ground floor when the alleged rape happened. Issue: Is the conviction of Semion by the trial court correct? Held: Yes, the conviction of Semion by the trial court is correct. 1. Under Article 335 (3) Revised Penal Code, Statutory Rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Proof of intimidation or force used on the woman, or lack of it, is immaterial. 2. While the penetration of Semions penis can only go as deep as Marichelles labia because of her age, Rape was still consummated because It is enough that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ. 3. The medical examination proves that the trauma on Marichelles vagina cannot be caused by an accident. 4. The absence of hymeneal laceration adequately explains why Marichelle did not feel any pain during the attempted sexual intercourse 5. The argument that Marichelle should have cried out or struggled is untenable. She was not aware of the wrongfulness of what was being done to her was rape. 6. Chess requires concentration. Ramil and Armando were engrossed with their game that it was possible for Semion to rape Marichelle. 7. It is possible for an experienced man like Semion in just one minute, without attracting the attention of the people inside the apartment, to rape Marichelle. Marichelle's complete innocence may have facilitated the perpetration of the clime, and the divider, although "butas-butas," was sufficient to conceal the commission of the bestial act. Conviction affirmed, damages decreased to P20,000 from P50,000. People v. Villapana Facts:

People vs. Mangalino 15 February 1990; J. Sarmiento In Statutory Rape, Proof of intimidation or force used on the woman, or lack of it, is immaterial Facts: 1. SemionMangalino was a 53 yr. old security guard, and residing at 1597-D Honradez Street, Sampaloc, Manila. He was the neighbor of Tomas and Bernardine Carlos. 2. Tomas and Bernardine had a 6 yr. old daughter, Marichelle. 2. 07 March 1984 - At 10 or 11 a.m., Marichelle was playing "takbuhan" alone at the ground floor of the two-story apartment of Semion. His wife was in Batangas at the time and his grandson, RamillasDulce and his wifes nephew, Armando Ayroso were playing chess in the sala of the apartment. 3. Semion called out to Marichelle to go inside his bedroom or "sleeping quarters" at one end of the sala of the ground floor. 4. Once inside the bedroom, Semion handed Marichelle a P2 bill and told her not to tell anybody about his calling her to his bedroom. She agreed. 5. Semion then laid Marichelle down, removed her jogging pants, and placed them beside her feet. He kissed her and fondled her breasts. He inserted his finger into the

1. 2. 3.

4.

5. 6.

Eduardo (20+) and Maria (middle aged widow with four children) lived in the same building Eduardo was convicted of the crime of raping Maria Maria alleges that on April 16, 1976 a. While she was sleeping with her 7 year old daughter when she noticed someone trying to enter the room, so she sat down and Eduardo entered the room and poked a knife on to her. b. Eduardo then brought her to the kitchen and threatened her and she was able to utter tulungnanmokonanayko while Eduardo was raping her c. After Eduardo left she stayed and rested then went to Eduardos aunt to report it that same night Eduardo alleges that a. He and Maria were sweethearts b. Maria initiated the intercourse infact she invited me! c. They had sex but it was with consent RTC: guilty of rape Eduardo says a. The judge made a mistake because there were different judges who looked took charge of the case. One on the evidence and one on the decision. b. During trial Marias testimonies were inconsistent hence should not be believed.

complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and iii. 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. b. "While we have frequently held that the uncorroborated testimony of the offended party in cases of this kind may be sufficient under certain circumstances to warrant conviction, yet from the very nature of the charge and the ease with which it may be made and the difficulty which surrounds the accused in disproving it where the point is as to whether the cohabitation was with or without the use of force or threats, it is imperative that such testimony should be scrutinized with the greatest caution." c. "in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured woman should not be received with precipitate incredulity; and when the conviction depends at any vital point upon her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from suspicion," d. In the case at bar numerous circumstances detract from the credibility of Maria's version of what happened on the night of April 16, 1976. Thus, the Court has no option but to declare that the prosecution has failed to meet the exacting test of moral certainty and proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A reversal of the trial court's guilty verdict is inevitable. i. Sleeping with her seven-year old daughter, she was awakened when a person was trying to pry open her window. That person failed in his attempt to open the window, so he forced open the door to her room, which is one of three, small rooms on the ground floor of a two-storey apartment. 1. The normal reaction of any person under such circumstances would have been to call for help or make an outcry to awaken her neighbors and/or call their attention, or do something to repel the intruder, and protect her home, herself and her daughter from any harm. ii. The accused covered her mouth with his own lips so that she could not shout, and yet she was able to shout, "Araykopo, nanaykopo, tulunganponinyoako." 1. Covering the mouth of another with one's own lips is certainly not an effective way of preventing the former from shouting

Issues: WON the change of the judge matters? WON the presumption that when a woman says she was raped is true may be over turned? Held: 1. 2. 3. No. The court in this case should just exert extra effort in hearing the case and looking at the evidences. Yes. a. (3) settled principles to guide an appellate court in reviewing the evidence in rape cases: i. An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove it but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; ii. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the

e.

"a woman's most precious asset is the purity of her womanhood. She will resist to the last ounce of her strength any attempt to defile it." b. It seems more likely that, as appellant claims, they were kissing each other as they were engaged in the sexual act. iii. ComadreMiling testified that when complainant went to her room at 2 'clock in the morning of April 17, 1976, she confessed that they "lost control of themselves iv. That accused went to bed after the sexual intercourse. 1. Unlikely that someone who rapes a person returns to his own room in the sae house The prosecution was not able to prove properly that the intercourse happened without consent

a.

10. The accused denied the allegations & gave their alibis. They said they were in different places doing different things. They also contended that she was a Tomboy & that she hated Torres for telling his cousin not to maintain their same sex relationship. 11. August 6, 1976both were found guilty of Rape sentenced to Reclusion Perpetua. ISSUE: WON the Balbuena & Torres committed the said rape despite the fact that the Medical examination showed no injuries, her clothes were not torn & that she only complained after one month. SUPREME COURT: YES. the court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. 1. Its not easy for a Filipina to come out in the open in a situation where public contempt & ridicule would possibly result in the prosecution of the Rape case. So the very fact that she came forward is enough persuasion. 2. The court considered the innate womanhood of the accused 7 the inherent reluctance of the Filipino family to be exposed to the trial scandalizing the Familys name. 3. Elvira stands to gain nothing with her revelation & the consequent punishment of the accused. 4. Elviras delay on the filing of the complaint may result from the fact that she was afraid of the threats done by the rapists and shes worried about her on going classes. The fear & shock she felt was more than sufficient to restrain her from filing a case right away. 5. Elvira is also no an incredible witness considering that shes a tomboy. That fact does not make it improbable for the two drunken appellants to violate her. Its improbable to say that physical appearance of the woman would not bar these persons from committing the rape. 6. The absence of injury nor the dress no being torn does not prove that the rape was not committed. Aside from the fact that the test was conducted one month after the incident, there was not enough struggle on her part for she was too weak to do so considering she was also intoxicated. 7. The testimony of Elvira was credible enough to prove that she was violated, she relayed the information in a straight and convincing manner despite the lengthy investigation. 8. Theres nothing in the defense evidence that would point out convincingly why Elivira should lie & jeopardize the 2 accused. 9. The court found that the essential elements constitutive of the crime rape had been duly established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The defense of the accused is relatively weak against the complainant for the evidence is clear that the two rapists employed force in consummating the crime of rape, when they took turns in violating her & each participated in holding her hands & covering her mouth. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

PEOPLE v BALBUENA April 27, 1984 FACTS: 1. August 28, 1975; 10pmElvira Polintan was in an apartment with friend Juanito Torres. Torres friends agreed to drink & invited Elvira. 2. They held the drinking party at the apartment of Abelardo Balbuena, which was a former billiard hall & they drank Gin with other persons. 3. After drinking a half glass of Gin, Elvira felt dizzy & so she asked permission from the group to rest, then she laid down in the bench inside the billiard hall. 4. Balbuena undressed Elvira while Torres is holding her hand, and despite her resistance, he was able to rape her on the Billiard table. Balbuena also kept on threatening her life & her family. 5. After Balbuena, Torres also raped Elvira, while Balbuena was covering her mouth. After she was raped, Elvira sat down in the corner & cried. Balbuena threatened her not to tell or shell be killed. 6. Elvira was able to escape and ran away home. 7. October 19, 1975Elvira finally told her mother about what happened. 8. October 20, 1975Elivira together with her mother reported the incident & filed a complaint. 9. Elvira was subjected to medical examination & the results concluded that there were no signs of extragenital physical injury but she could have had sexual intercourse with a man on the alleged date.

People v. Villapana Facts: Eduardo (20+) and Maria (middle aged widow with four children) lived in the same building 8. Eduardo was convicted of the crime of raping Maria 9. Maria alleges that on April 16, 1976 a. While she was sleeping with her 7 year old daughter when she noticed someone trying to enter the room, so she sat down and Eduardo entered the room and poked a knife on to her. b. Eduardo then brought her to the kitchen and threatened her and she was able to utter tulungnanmokonanayko while Eduardo was raping her c. After Eduardo left she stayed and rested then went to Eduardos aunt to report it that same night 10. Eduardo alleges that a. He and Maria were sweethearts b. Maria initiated the intercourse infact she invited me! c. They had sex but it was with consent 11. RTC: guilty of rape 12. Eduardo says a. The judge made a mistake because there were different judges who looked took charge of the case. One on the evidence and one on the decision. b. During trial Marias testimonies were inconsistent hence should not be believed. Issues: WON the change of the judge matters? WON the presumption that when a woman says she was raped is true may be over turned? Held: 4. 5. 6. No. The court in this case should just exert extra effort in hearing the case and looking at the evidences. Yes. a. (3) settled principles to guide an appellate court in reviewing the evidence in rape cases: 7.

i. An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove it but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove it; ii. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and iii. 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. b. "While we have frequently held that the uncorroborated testimony of the offended party in cases of this kind may be sufficient under certain circumstances to warrant conviction, yet from the very nature of the charge and the ease with which it may be made and the difficulty which surrounds the accused in disproving it where the point is as to whether the cohabitation was with or without the use of force or threats, it is imperative that such testimony should be scrutinized with the greatest caution." c. "in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured woman should not be received with precipitate incredulity; and when the conviction depends at any vital point upon her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and candor are free from suspicion," d. In the case at bar numerous circumstances detract from the credibility of Maria's version of what happened on the night of April 16, 1976. Thus, the Court has no option but to declare that the prosecution has failed to meet the exacting test of moral certainty and proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. A reversal of the trial court's guilty verdict is inevitable. i. Sleeping with her seven-year old daughter, she was awakened when a person was trying to pry open her window. That person failed in his attempt to open the window, so he forced open the door to her room, which is one of three, small rooms on the ground floor of a two-storey apartment. 1. The normal reaction of any person under such circumstances would have been to call for help or make an outcry to awaken her neighbors and/or call their attention, or do something to repel the intruder, and protect her home, herself and her daughter from any harm.

e.

ii. The accused covered her mouth with his own lips so that she could not shout, and yet she was able to shout, "Araykopo, nanaykopo, tulunganponinyoako." 1. Covering the mouth of another with one's own lips is certainly not an effective way of preventing the former from shouting a. "a woman's most precious asset is the purity of her womanhood. She will resist to the last ounce of her strength any attempt to defile it." b. It seems more likely that, as appellant claims, they were kissing each other as they were engaged in the sexual act. iii. ComadreMiling testified that when complainant went to her room at 2 'clock in the morning of April 17, 1976, she confessed that they "lost control of themselves iv. That accused went to bed after the sexual intercourse. 1. Unlikely that someone who rapes a person returns to his own room in the sae house The prosecution was not able to prove properly that the intercourse happened without consent

7.

The trial court found Cesar to be guilty of the crime of rape under p3 of Art 355. Glenda is considered to have the mentality of a 9-12 year old, so there is rape. (P-v-Asturias)

ISSUE: In this case, Glenda willingly let Cesar deflower her. Did the TC made the right decision of convicting him of rape? HELD: YES. This is because the elements of rape can still be found in the said instance, regardless of whether it falls under p2 or p3 of Art 355. 1. Art 335, RPC: Rape can be committed under any of the ff circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation b. When woman is deprived of reason OR is otherwise unconscious c. When woman is under 12 years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present 2. Glenda was founded to have a mentally defective intellectual functioning p She has the intellectual capacity of a child between 9 to 12 years old o She prefers playing with small children p SHE IS CAPABLE OF TELLING THE TRUTH Application: 1. Cesar is guilty of the crime of rape under Art. 335, p2 (deprived of reason) a. P-v-Atutubo: Its not required for the offender to be the one who deprive the victim of reason before committing the crime b. P-v-Palma: . Copulation with a woman known to be mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect consent is rape c. Chief Justice Tolentino: The absence of will determines the existence of rape. Lack of will may exist under the ff conditions where woman is: i. Unconscious ii. Totally deprived of reason iii. Suffering mental deficiency *Carnal knowledge of a woman so weak in intellect as to be incapable of legal consent constitutes rape. * The deprivation of reason need not be complete. Mental abnormality or deficiency is enough.g1 DECISION: Decision Affirmed PEOPLE VS DELA CUESTA

People v Atento April 26, 1991; P: Cruz; ~by Diana Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mentally retarded and have the mentality of a 12 year old IS RAPE FACTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Glenda Aringo(victim) is a 16 year old mental retardate Cesar Atento (accused) is a 39 year old store-keeper, with wife and 8 children Sometime in April 1986, Cesar was able to persuade her to come to his house and succeeded in deflowering her. Afterwards, she was given P5.00 Glenda said that there were 4 other succeeding occasions were similar incidents occurred i. There was a later incident where she described the said incident to be masarap or ticklish 5 months later into her pregnancy, she confessed that it was Cesar who is the father of her baby On December 1987, she gave birth to a child

5. 6.

BEL FACTS: 1. 2. MermaBasabas, a 9 year old girl lived with her mother Mercedes in one of 3 rooms for rent on the 2nd floor of a house located in Makati. The accused Jovendela Cuesta is a 64-year old man who has been staying at the room rented by Mercedes for about 2 months because his house was being renovated. When Mercedes left for Davao, she left her child in the care of her niece and the accused. When alone in a room, the accused started to kiss Merma and sucked her mouth and tongue. He touched her breast and inserted his finger inside her vagina. The accused even asked the child to touch his penis and later on, he inserted it for about an inch deep inside Mermas vagina. After the said incident, floor 5 consecutive nights, from January 12 to 23 1996, the accused repeatedly did the same act. He threatened the child not to report anything to her mother and gave her 20pesos. The accused denied the charges and contend that he looked after the child as his own granddaughter. He also contends that it was just revenge on the part of the owner of the house because he warned Merma that the owner has a pending rape case. He also contends that he was just framed-up Mercedes niece because she was indebted to him. He avers that he rarely gets erections and that based on the medico-legal findings, there was no laceration of the hymen. Also he said that there was a delay in the submission of the child to a medical examination. It was unusual for family members to wait for 3 days since the usual reaction is to subject a victim to a medical examination immediately. The trial court found the accused guilty of 6 counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer death for raping a girl under 18 and the offender is her guardian.

y y y

The rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is not an essential element of rape. Mere knocking of the pudenda by the accuseds penis suffices to constitute rape. The frame-up allegation was too shallow to be believed. The niece was not the type of woman to concoct a rape charge against an old man and neighbour for a flimsy reason.

3. 4.

Regarding the physical incapacity due to old age. y y There was no evidence presented to substantiate his alleged dysfunction. Old age does not mean that sexual intercourse is no longer possible, as age is not a criterion taken alone in determining sexual interest and capability of middle-aged and older people.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Regarding the 3-day delay in considering the medical examination. y A medical examination is not an indispensible requirement and an absence of such does not affect the verdict of conviction of sufficient evidence is presented.

THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS WRONG y The mere fact that the mother asked the accused to look after her child while she was away did not constitute relationship of guardian-ward as contemplated by the law. The restrictive definition of a guardian, that of a legal or judicial guardian, should be used in construing the term guardian for the purpose of imposing death penalty. The accused was just a mere custodian or caretaker of the child over whom he exercised a limited authority for a temporary period. Even assuming that he is a guardian, he still may not be sentenced to death because the information filed against him does not specify qualifying circumstance. PEOPLE vs. JIMMY SABREDO y GARBO

13.

y y

ISSUE: Is the ruling of the trial court correct? The ruling was partly correct.

May 11, 2000; niLo Complex crime of forcible abduction with rape: prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. FACTS: 1) Appellant is the uncle of complainant. He is the younger brother of her father. He stayed with Judeliza's family in Cebu for more than a year. 2) On June 27, 1994, Judeliza went to the well near their house, to take a bath. There, Jimmy grabbed and forcibly dragged her at knife's point, to the highway where he made her board a truck for Bogo, Cebu. 3) He brought her to Masbate, where they stayed at the house of Conchita, Jimmy's sister then they moved to his nephew in Cagba, Masbate where stayed from June 29 to July 5, 1994, with Jimmy closely guarding Judeliza. 4) On July 4, 1994, at around midnight, Jimmy, armed with a blade, sexually assaulted Judeliza. Jimmy inserted three fingers into her vaginal orifice and cruelly pinched it. Then, he brought her to the house of his sister, Nilda. 5) On July 8, 1994, Nilda brought her to the police where Judeliza reported her ordeal. 6) Prosecutor filed an information and Jimmy admitted having sexual relations with Judeliza, but insisted that: - it was consensual or that they were lovers. - Judeliza had revealed to him that she was not really her father's daughter but boxed and kicked her when she confided that she really was his niece. - He pinched the victim's vagina, but only to punish her for deceiving him about their kinship. 7) Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under Article 48 in relation to Article[s] 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code and is meted the extreme penalty of death. ISSUE: WON the accused should be convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape? RULING: NO, the elements of rape and sexual assault were not all proven. General Rule: When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic that the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. Her sworn affidavit and her testimony in open court establish the basic elements of rape. These are: the commission of sexual intercourse, by the accused against

complainant, with the use of force and intimidation, without her consent and against her will. The elements of forcible abduction are: - that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of age, civil status, or reputation; - that the abduction is against her will; - that the abduction is with lewd designs. Application: The prosecution's evidence clearly shows that the victim was forcibly taken at knifepoint from Borbon, Cebu by appellant and through threats and intimidation brought to various towns in Masbate, where he passed her off as his "wife". That appellant was moved by lewd designs was shown in regard to rape by his having carnal knowledge of private complainant, against her will, on July 4, 1994 at Cagba, Tugbo, Masbate. In this case, there was no complex crime of forcible abduction with rape: - While it may appear at first blush that forcible abduction, as defined and penalized by Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code was also committed, we are not totally disposed to convict appellant for the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. We note that while the information sufficiently alleges the forcible taking of complainant from Cebu to Masbate, the victims fails to allege "lewd designs" of the accused. When appellant, using a blade, forcibly took away complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction. Hence, the crime committed by appellant is simple rape only. R.A. No. 7659 which imposes the death penalty cannot be made to apply in the instant case for two reasons: at the time the rape was committed, private complainant was already more than eighteen years of age. - the information did not allege that offender and offended party were relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. The accused is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape only as defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty imposed on him is reclusion perpetua.

People v Arillas June 19 2000; Puno J. Facts:

Two cases were consolidated. In the morning of Dec. 23 1995, Amor Arillas was sweeping their backyard, then her father called to prepare for breakfast. At that time her brothers were grazing their carabao in the mountains, her sisters were washing clothers in the creek about 300-400 meters away from their house and her mother was selling soft drink and bread in the rice field. 3. While doing Amor was doing her chore, her father embraced her and forcibly kissing her. Amor resisted but her father kick her on the right buttocks and successfully had carnal knowledge with her. It was Amors 1st time. 4. The appellant then threatened not tell anyone or something bad would happen. She was afraid of her father and did not want her family broken so she didnt tell anyone and hope that the bestial act will not happen. 5. However on Feb 10 1996, while preparing for lunch her father again forcibly rape her despite the resistance of Amor. nd 6. After the 2 incident, the father again threaten her not to tell anyone. 7. On April 1 1996, she finally found the courage to report the incident. Amor then underwent medical examination and it was learned from Dr Mylene Chavez Milla that she has 5 old lacerations. She even testified that Amors hymen admits two fingers with ease which indicates that penetration was made more than once. 8. Romeo Decena, Assistant Local Civil Registrar, testified that Amor was under 18 yrs old. 9. In defense, Romeo Arillas said that on Dec 23 1995 he was in the farm and that on Feb 10 1996 he was repairing an irrigation pump in San Jose, Minalabac, Camarines Sur. He also reason the it was due to the ill-motive of his in-laws because he left his brother-in-law drunk during a fiesta in Bula 10. The trial court found Romeo Arillas guilty 11. On appeal, Romeo contends that even if his defense is merely denial and alibi,reasonable doubt exist as to his guilt Issue: Is he guilty of rape? Held: yes, Romeo Arillas was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the commission of the crime as he was just in the rice field. The positive assertions of his daughter that he raped her are given a greater weight. Rationale: y The contention of Romeo that the case filed against him were out of illfeeling will not stand. Aside from the fact that he failed to prove this, it is highly unbelievable for Amor to falsely accused his father just to advance the ill-feeling of her uncle. y The Trial Court is correct in convicting him but they were wrong on sentencing him to death. y TC imposed the penalty of death because Amor was under 18 yrs old at the time of the commission of the crime. However, in people v Garcia ,it was held that for age as a special qualifying circumstances it must be alleged in

1. 2.

y y

the information and if it is not alleged but proven it will be considered as an aggravating circumstances since the latter may be proven even if not alleged . It is the fundamental rule that every element of an offense must be alleged in the complaint. The purpose of the rule is ti enable the accused to prepare his defense. The penalty should be reclusion perpetua. The TC was also wrong on awarding P 100 000 as actual damage and moral damages because the prosecution failed to present any evidence regarding actual damages. However Amor is entitled to P50K moral damages as it requires no proof of mental and physical suffering , P25k as exemplary damages for each raped and P50k as civil indemnity for each count of rape. People v Arillas June 19 2000; Puno J.

Facts: 12. Two cases were consolidated. 13. In the morning of Dec. 23 1995, Amor Arillas was sweeping their backyard, then her father called to prepare for breakfast. At that time her brothers were grazing their carabao in the mountains, her sisters were washing clothers in the creek about 300-400 meters away from their house and her mother was selling soft drink and bread in the rice field. 14. While doing Amor was doing her chore, her father embraced her and forcibly kissing her. Amor resisted but her father kick her on the right buttocks and successfully had carnal knowledge with her. It was Amors 1st time. 15. The appellant then threatened not tell anyone or something bad would happen. She was afraid of her father and did not want her family broken so she didnt tell anyone and hope that the bestial act will not happen. 16. However on Feb 10 1996, while preparing for lunch her father again forcibly rape her despite the resistance of Amor. 17. After the 2nd incident, the father again threaten her not to tell anyone. 18. On April 1 1996, she finally found the courage to report the incident. Amor then underwent medical examination and it was learned from Dr Mylene Chavez Milla that she has 5 old lacerations. She even testified that Amors hymen admits two fingers with ease which indicates that penetration was made more than once. 19. Romeo Decena, Assistant Local Civil Registrar, testified that Amor was under 18 yrs old. 20. In defense, Romeo Arillas said that on Dec 23 1995 he was in the farm and that on Feb 10 1996 he was repairing an irrigation pump in San Jose,

Minalabac, Camarines Sur. He also reason the it was due to the ill-motive of his in-laws because he left his brother-in-law drunk during a fiesta in Bula 21. The trial court found Romeo Arillas guilty 22. On appeal, Romeo contends that even if his defense is merely denial and alibi,reasonable doubt exist as to his guilt Issue: Is he guilty of rape? Held: yes, Romeo Arillas was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the commission of the crime as he was just in the rice field. The positive assertions of his daughter that he raped her are given a greater weight. Rationale: y The contention of Romeo that the case filed against him were out of illfeeling will not stand. Aside from the fact that he failed to prove this, it is highly unbelievable for Amor to falsely accused his father just to advance the ill-feeling of her uncle. y The Trial Court is correct in convicting him but they were wrong on sentencing him to death. y TC imposed the penalty of death because Amor was under 18 yrs old at the time of the commission of the crime. However, in people v Garcia ,it was held that for age as a special qualifying circumstances it must be alleged in the information and if it is not alleged but proven it will be considered as an aggravating circumstances since the latter may be proven even if not alleged . y It is the fundamental rule that every element of an offense must be alleged in the complaint. The purpose of the rule is ti enable the accused to prepare his defense. y The penalty should be reclusion perpetua. y The TC was also wrong on awarding P 100 000 as actual damage and moral damages because the prosecution failed to present any evidence regarding actual damages. However Amor is entitled to P50K moral damages as it requires no proof of mental and physical suffering , P25k as exemplary damages for each raped and P50k as civil indemnity for each count of rape.

Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela , Metro Manila. But he stayed and slept in an apartment also owned by Isip, located 10 meters away from the unfinished house. 2. Ma. Victoria Chan was 12 year old girl who was Isipsneighbor. 3. 25 June 1995 - at 8 a.m., Mahinay joined Gregorio Rivera in a drinking spree. Around 10 a.m., Mahinay, who was already drunk, left Rivera and asked permission from Isip to go out with his friends. 4. 25 June 1995 Elvira Chan, Victorias mother, noticed her daughter was missing 5. 26 June 1995 a certain Boy found Victorias body inside a septic tank in the compound. 6. It was found that Victoria died of asphyxiation by manual strangulation. It was also found that she had traumatic head injury and lacerations on her hymen. 7. Isip informed SPO1 ArsenioNacis and SPO1 Arnold Alabastro were by that Larry Mahinay was missing. She said that it was unlikely for Mahinay to just disappear from the apartment since whenever he would go out, he would normally return on the same day or early morning of the following day. 8. At the second floor of the house under construction, Victorias clothes were retrieved. 9. Mahinays underwear, leather wallet, pair of dirty long pants and pliers were found in the yard three arms length away from the septic tank. 10. SPO1 VirgilioVillano retrieved the Victoria's underwear from the septic tank. 11. Mahinay was arrested in Barangay ObarioMatala, Ibaan, Batangas. 12. 07 July 1995 Mahinay, with the assistance of Atty. RestitutoViernes, executed an extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and killed the victim. 13. 10 July 1995 - Mahinay was charged with rape with homicide. 14. Mahinay was convicted and sentenced to death. 15. Upon automatic appeal to the Supreme Court, Mahinay argues that the circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt are insufficient to prove his guilt and his confession was acquired because he was threatened that he would be salvaged. Issue: Is the conviction of Mahinay by the trial court correct? Held: Yes, the conviction of Mahinay by the trial court is correct. 1. conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence provided that the following requisites concur: a. there is more than one circumstance b. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven c. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt 2. Circumstantial evidence: a. Testimony of Norgina Rivera, sister-in-law of Isip, that Mahinay was uneasy, worried, drunk, in deep thought and walking in a zigzag manner when he came to her store at 9:00 p.m. on 25 June 1995 to buy lugaw.

People vs.Mahinay 01 February 1999; Per Curiam If a woman over 12 years old was raped, she has to prove there was sexual intercourse and it was done through force, violence, intimidation or threat Facts: 1. 20 November 1993 Larry Mahinay started working as a houseboy to Maria Isip. He was in charge of taking care of Isips house which was under construction adjacent to her old residence situated inside a compound at No. 4165 Dian Street,

b. Testimony of Sgt. Roberto G. Suni that he met Mahinay between 6-7 p.m. on 25 June 1995 while walking to his in-laws which is about 50 to 75 meters away to the unfinished big house of Isip and that he saw Maria Victoria Chan standing at the gate of the unfinished big house of Maria Isip between 8:00 and 9:00 in the same evening c. Testimony of Isip that Mahinay left on the morning of 25 June 1995 and did not come back until he was arrested. d. Testimony of Fernando Trinidad, a passenger jeepney driver, that Mahinay was one of his passengers on June 26, 1995 at 2:00 early morning and alighted on top of the overpass of the North Expressway e. Victorias personal belongings were found in the unfinished big house of Isip where Mahinay slept on the night of the incident f. Mahinay gave his confession willingly. There was no evidence of maltreatment and he was apprised of his rights by the assisting counsel in Tagalog. g. Mahinays testimony in court is incredible. He testified that he was sleeping in the second floor of the unfinished house when Zaldy, a co-worker and Boyet arrived in his house carrying the corpse of Victoria and that they threatened him with a knife to rape the dead body of Victoria but he refused. h. Mahinay would have professed his innocence to Col. Maganto, a high ranking police officer or the lady reporter who interviewed him if he was truly not guilty. 3. If a woman over 12 years old was raped, she has to prove: a. there was sexual intercourse b. the rape was done through force, violence, intimidation or threat 4. If a woman under 12 years old was raped, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial because: a. force is not an element of statutory rape b. the absence of a free consent is presumed when the woman is below such age 5. Sexual intercourse was proven by the examination of the doctor and extra-judicial confession of Mahinay. 6. Force and violence was proven by the wounds, contusions and abrasions found on the victims body and Mahinays account that he pushed Victoria, causing her to hit her head on the table and become unconscious after which he raped her. 7. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death (Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. 7659) Conviction affirmed, indemnity increased from P50,000 to P75,000 plus P50,000 moral damages.

Facts: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. May 5, 1994 (10pm) Catalina (15) and her two friends (male) went to a dance party 11pm they were going home On the way home they stopped to rest on a shed beside the school AgapitoQuinanola (member of the PNP) and Eduardo Escudero suddenly appeared with a gun Agapito forcibly took Catalina pointing the gun at her Eduardo took the 2 boys, but the two boys were able to escape Agapito and Eduardo tricked Catalina into going at the back of the school Agapito with the aid of Eduardo raped Catalina a. Eduardo held Catalinas legs b. Agapito inserted his penis in Catalinas organ c. They took turns in raping her Catalina felt the penis in her organ Agapito and Eduardo left and Catalina ran home Catalinas mom and sister found out and told told Guillermo (Catalinas brother-in-law) They reported the incident to the police Catalina was examined by the doctor a. But the doctor said that the hymen was not broken and that the diameter of her orifice was too small to preclude complete penetration of an average-size adult penis in erection without producing laceration Agapito claims that he was in Naga with his wife fixing the house Eduardo contends that a. Catalina made up the story due to her in-laws grudges against him b. He went fishing that day and then went on a drinking spree till midnight RTC: Guilty of Frustrated Rape

9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15.

16. Issue: 1. 2. Held: 1.

WON the Catalinas Credibility is doubtful? WON the court erred in declaring them guilty of frustrated rape?

NO. a. It is unbelievable that a young barrio lass would concoct a tale of defloration publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted allow the examination of her private parts, and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience not to mention the trauma and

People v. Quinanola May 5, 1999 < Partial penetration is as good as full penetration > <Presumption is barrio lass wont lie about being raped>

b. 2. Yes a.

scandal of a public trial had she not in fact been raped and truly moved to protect and preserve her honor as well as to obtain justice, for the wicked acts committed against her. The court finds no reason for Catalina to lie. As declared in People v. Orita there is no such crime of frustrated rape. The medical examination merely stated that the smallness of the vaginal orifice only precludes COMPLETE penetration. This does not mean that rape has not been committed. Carnal knowledge need not require the vagina be penetrated or the hymen to rupture. The crime of rape is consummated the moment the penis enters the labia or the lips of the female organ or merely touching of the external genetalia by the penis. A broken hymen is not a requirement in fact sometimes women get pregnant without it getting broken. Partial penetration is as good as full penetration.

b.

c. d.

e. f.