Rivera vs.

People
January 3, 2013 by Lagangang Butas
Rivera vs. People
G.R. No. 166326. January 25, 2006
Petitioners: Esmeraldo Rivera, Ismael Rivera, and Edgardo Rivera
Respondent: People of the Philippines
Ponente: J. Callejo, Sr.

Photo courtesy of Google Images
FACTS:
As the victim, Ruben Rodil, went to a nearby store to buy food, accused Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being
jobless and dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a heated exchange of
words ensued. In the evening of the following day, when Ruben and his three-year-old daughter went to the
store to buy food, Edgardo, together with his brother Esmeraldo Rivera and Ismael Rivera, emerged from their
house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the
ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo
fled to their house only when the policemen arrived. Ruben sustained injuries and was brought to the hospital.
The doctor declared that the wounds were slight and superficial, though the victim could have been killed had
the police not promptly intervened. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of frustrated murder.
An appeal was made by the accused, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision with
modification, changing the crime to attempted murder and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 2 years of
prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as maximum.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not there was intent to kill.
2) Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted
murder.
3) Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of treachery was properly applied.
4) Whether or not the correct penalty was imposed.
HELD:
1) Yes. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter
alia, in the means used by the malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim,
the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim, the
circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. In the present case,
Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow
block. Even though the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced
his death, intent to kill was presumed.
2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that 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. Although
the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, it does not
negate criminal liability of the accused for attempted murder. The intent to kill was already presumed based on
the overt acts of the accused. In fact, victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.
3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, which gives no opportunity for the
victim to repel it or defend himself. In the present case, the accused attacked the victim in a sudden and
unexpected manner as he was walking with his three-year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent peril to
his life. He was overwhelmed with the assault of the accused and had no chance to defend himself and
retaliate. Thus, there was treachery.
4) No. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, the penalty for
murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Since the accused were guilty only of attempted murder, the penalty
should be reduced by two degrees, in accordance to Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, under Article
61 (2), in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty should be prision mayor. In the absence
of any modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime other than the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken from the medium period of prision mayor
which has a range of from eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. To determine the minimum of the
indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision mayor should be reduced by one degree, prision correccional,
which has a range of six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the accused were sentenced to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of from two (2) years of prision correccional in its minimum period, as
minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.










PEREZ V CA ATTEMPTED RAPE

FACTS:
March 25, 1988: Julita Tria was in the kitchen doing the dishes when Adelmo Perez Y Agustin
appeared at her back with unzipped shorts and bare torso, embraced her and warned not to make a
sound or hell kill her
April 14, 1988 morning: After Julita was through with washing the dishes, she proceeded to
the bed roomto store away their, beddings. Suddenly Adelmo appeared pulling her by the hand,
embraced her from behind and held her breasts. He pulled her to the bamboo bed, positioned
himself on top of her and placed her hands behind her as he kissed her lips and neck. She tried to
avoid his kisses by moving her head from side to side. As she was pinned, he managed to insert his
right hand inside her t-shirt and bra and squeezed nipples. Then, he tried to raise her balloon-like
skirt with his right hand, inserted it inside her panty and while making up and down motions. Adelm
said: Sige na, pagbigyan mo na ako. She then cried out Inay.
Eufemia Tria: She peeped into their window which was just a few meters from where she was
and there saw her daughter Julita lying flat on a bamboo bed with her skirt raised and Adelmo on top
of Julita as her hands pinned down. She then rushed to the room and found Adelmo hiding under
the bamboo bed. She thought of hacking him with a bolo but realized she couldnt so she brought
him to his parents house to tell them what happened.
Dr. Emmanuel Cortez-Asuncion: extent of injuries sustained by her and that the slight physical
injuries could have been caused by attempted rape
Adelmo: He invited Julita as they were already becoming intimate to the room where they could
not be seen by her mother. But, her mother called her and went into the room. Sensing this, he
stood up and hid under the bed.
RTC: Attempted rape
CA: Affirmed

ISSUE: W/N there is attempted rape

HELD: NO. MODIFIED acts of lasciviousness
Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, 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.
In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony. Thus, for
there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual
organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed.
There is no showing in this case that petitioners sexual organ had even touched complainants
vagina nor any part of her body.
acts constitute acts of lasciviousness. The elements of said crime are: (1) that the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using force and 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; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either
sex.