Title 8 - Persons 2007

Title Eight
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

Chapter One. DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
Section One Parricide, murder, homicide
Artice !"#. Parricide
Artice !"$. Death or ph%&ica in'urie& under
e(ceptiona circum&tance&
Artice !"). *urder
Artice !"+. ,omicide
Artice !-.. Penat% /or /ru&trated parricide,
murder or homicide
Artice !-0. Death cau&ed in a tumutuou&
a1ra%
Artice !-!. Ph%&ica in'urie& in2icted in a
tumutuou& a1ra%
Artice !-3. 4i5in6 a&&i&tance to &uicide
Artice !-". Di&char6e o/ 7rearm&
Section T8o In/anticide and A9ortion
Artice !--. In/anticide
Artice !-#. Intentiona A9ortion
Artice !-$. Unintentiona A9ortion
Artice !-). A9ortion practiced 9% the 8oman
her&e/ or 9% her parent&
Artice !-+. A9ortion practiced 9% a ph%&ician or
mid8i/e and di&pen&in6 o/ a9orti5e&
Section Three Due
Artice !#.. Re&pon&i9iit% o/ participant& in a
due
Artice !#0. Chaen6in6 to a due
Chapter T8o P,:SICAL IN;URIES
Artice !#!. *utiation
Artice !#3. Seriou& ph%&ica in'urie&
Artice !#". Admini&terin6 in'uriou& &u9&tance&
or 9e5era6e&
Artice !#-. Le&& &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie&
Artice !##. Si6ht ph%&ica in'urie& and
matreatment
Chapter Three RAPE
Artice !##<A. Rape, =hen and ,o8 committed
Artice !##<>. Penatie&
Artice !##<C. E1ect o/ pardon
Artice !##<D. Pre&umption&
Article 246. Parricide
Eement&?
0. A per&on i& @iedA
!. The decea&ed i& @ied 9% the accu&edA
3. The decea&ed i& the /ather, mother, or
chid, 8hether e6itimate or ie6itimateA or
a e6itimate other a&cendant or other
de&cendant, or the e6itimate &pou&e, o/
the accu&ed.
Reation&hip o/ the o1ender 8ith the
5ictim i& an e&&entia eement o/ thi& crime.
4ENERAL RULE? on% reati5e& 9% 9ood
and in the direct ine are con&idered in
parricide. EBCEPTION? &pou&e
The /ather, mother or chid ma% 9e
e6itimate or ie6itimate. ,o8e5er, the
other a&cendant& or de&cendant& mu&t 9e
e6itimate.
The &pou&e mu&t 9e e6itimate. The
9e&t proo/ o/ the reation&hip i& the
marria6e certi7cate.
Reation&hip mu&t 9e ae6ed in order
that the accu&ed ma% 9e con5icted o/
parricide. I/ not ae6ed, reation&hip mu&t
9e con&idered a& an a66ra5atin6
circum&tance.
I/ a per&on 8anted to @i a &tran6er 9ut
@ied hi& o8n /ather 9% mi&ta@e, i& thi&
parricideC :ES, 9ut Art. "+ appie& a&
re6ard& the proper penat% to 9e impo&ed.
I/ a per&on @ied another, not @no8in6
that the atter 8a& hi& &on, 8i he 9e 6uit%
o/ parricideC :ES, 9ecau&e the a8 doe&
not reDuire @no8ed6e o/ reation&hip
9et8een them.
A &tran6er 8ho cooperate& and ta@e&
part in the commi&&ion o/ the crime o/
parricide i& not 6uit% o/ parricide, 9ut on%
homicide or murder, a& the ca&e ma% 9e.
People vs. Jumawan
Presentacion Jumawan, her father and two brothers
conspired to kill Presentacions husband Rodolfo in a store
near the public market. The fiscal filed an information for
murder against the four accused and they were
subsequently convicted for such crime.
!"#$ %ince Presentacions relationship to the victim is not
alleged in the information, she can be convicted of murder
only. Relationship can be appreciated as generic
aggravating circumstance only.

People vs. Tomotorgo
Julian Tomotorgo hit his wife with a piece of wood, after
the latter tried to leave their con&ugal home. 'lthough
Julian stopped the beating when his wife complained of
chest pains, the wife succumbed to the serious in&uries.
Julian was convicted of parricide but he claims that he
should be sentenced to the penalty corresponding to
serious physical in&uires only, the offense which he
intended to commit.
!"#$ The fact that the accused intended to maltreat the
victim or inflict physical in&uries #(!% )(T e*empt him
from liability for the resulting and more serious crime
committed. e is only entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
People vs. Malabago (1996)
C2005 Criminal aw 2 !eviewer
"0
'fter an argument, Pedro +alabago fatally hacked and
struck his wife with a bolo. e was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of P'RR,-,#!.
!"#$ Parricide is committed when$ ./0 a person is killed1
.20 the deceased is killed by the accused1 .30 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.
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the
offender with the victim. ,n the case of parricide of a
spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the
accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. ,n
the absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of marriage
may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not
ob&ected to.
People vs. #gna$io (199%)
'ccused wife here was accused of parricide for the killing
of her husband by hitting the latter on the nape with a
piece of wood. 'ccused was convicted of parricide. %he
however appeals saying that the crime she committed is
not parricide but only homicide since there was no proof of
marriage between her and the victim.
!"#$ 4uilty of parricide. The phrase 5whether legitimate
or illegitimate6 in the law &ust refers to children and not to
spouses who must therefore be legitimate.
,n -'7, accused declared in open court that they were
husband and wife. 'nd even without this, there is a
presumption in law that persons deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful marriage
without proof to the contrary.
People vs. &enosa
'ccused wife here was convicted parricide for the killing
her husband and was sentenced to death. 'ccused asks for
a reopening of the case in order to prove her state of mind
during the killing in as she says that she is a battered wife
.battered wife syndrome0.
!"#$ -ase should be remanded for the psychological
e*amination. ,f accused can prove that she indeed was a
battered wife, this may be raised as a valid defense as a
species of self8defense. aving been proven to be a victim
of domestic violence of the husband. This can be self
defense because since the wife already always assumes,
and correctly that the husband will beat her up again, she
may be &ustified in taking steps to protect herself. 'nd
since there is the fear of an impending beating again in the
mind of the wife, she would have no opportunity
beforehand to choose means to protect herself other than
to in&ure and9 or kill the husband.
The psychological e*amination can prove how the accused
perceived danger and how, in her honest belief, she
believed that danger to herself was imminent .as one of
the elements of self8defense0.
Article 247. Death or ph!ical i"#$rie!
i"%icted $"der e&ceptio"al circ$'!ta"ce!
ReDui&ite& /or appication?
0. That a e6a% married per&on or a
parent &urpri&e& hi& &pou&e or hi&
dau6hter, the atter under 0) %ear& o/ a6e
and i5in6 8ith him, in the act o/
committin6 &e(ua intercour&e 8ith another
per&on.
!. That he or &he @i& an% or 9oth o/ them
or in2ict& upon an% or 9oth o/ them an%
&eriou& ph%&ica in'ur%, in the act or
immediate% therea/ter.
3. That he ha& not promoted or /aciitated
the pro&titution o/ hi& 8i/e or dau6hter, or
that he or &he ha& not con&ented to the
in7deit% o/ the other &pou&e.
;u&ti7cation /or thi& artice? The
a8 con&ider& the &pou&e or parent a&
actin6 in a 'u&ti7ed 9ur&t o/ pa&&ion.
In the ca&e o/ an accu&ed
@iin6 hi& &pou&e or hi& &pou&eE& paramour,
the accu&ed mu&t 9e a e6a% married
per&on.
,o8e5er, in the ca&e o/ a
parent @iin6 hi&Fher dau6hter andFor the
man 8ith 8hom &he i& ha5in6 &e(ua
intercour&e, the parent& need not 9e
e6itimate.
Doe& thi& artice app% e5en i/
the dau6hter i& marriedC Athou6h the
artice doe& not u&e the 8ord GunmarriedE,
thi& artice appie& on% 8hen the dau6hter
i& &in6e 9ecau&e 8hie under 0) and
&in6e, &he i& &ti under parenta authorit%.
I/ &he i& married, her hu&9and aone can
caim the 9ene7t& o/ thi& artice.
HSurpri&eI to come upon
&udden% and une(pected%
The accu&ed mu&t ha5e &een
hi& &pou&e or dau6hter in the act& o/ &e(ua
intercour&e 8ith another. Jnot 9e/ore, or
a/ter &e(ua intercour&eK
The @iin6 or in2ictin6 o/
&eriou& ph%&ica in'urie& mu&t 9e in the act
o/ &e(ua intercour&e, or immediate%
therea/ter.
The @iin6 mu&t 9e the direct
9%<product o/ the accu&edE& ra6e.
The artice doe& not app%
8here the 8i/e 8a& not &urpri&ed in
2a6rant aduter% 9ut 8a& 9ein6 a9u&ed
JrapedK 9% a man. An attac@ upon the man
9% the hu&9and 8i 9e con&idered a
de/en&e o/ reati5e under Artice 00 par. !.
"1
=hen e&& &eriou& or &i6ht
ph%&ica in'urie& are committed, there i& no
crimina ia9iit%. It i& an a9&outor% cau&e.
The penat% o/ de&tierro i&
rea% not intended a& a penat% 9ut to
remo5e the @ier &pou&e /rom the 5icinit%
and to protect himFher /rom act& o/ repri&a
principa% 9% reati5e& o/ the decea&ed
&pou&e.
Ca&e& 8here a per&on 8ho
committed parricide i& not puni&hed 8ith
recu&ion perpetua to death?
o =hen parricide i&
committed throu6h ne6i6ence JArt.
3#-K
o =hen parricide i&
committed 9% mi&ta@e JArt. !"+K
o =hen parricide i&
committed under e(ceptiona
circum&tance& JArt. !"$K
People vs. 'bar$a
'barca caught his wife in the act of se*ual intercourse with
:oh. 'n hour later, 'barca fired several shots at :oh during
a mah&ongg session. :oh was killed and two others were
seriously wounded. 'barca was convicted of +urder and
#ouble ;rustrated +urder.
!"#$ Though quite a length of time, about an hour, had
passed between the time 'barca caught his wife in se*ual
intercourse with :oh and the time the latter was actually
shot, the shooting must be understood to be the
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by 'barca. The
RP-, in requiring that the accused 5shall kill any of them or
both of them<immediately6 after surprising his spouse in
the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit
the killing instantly thereafter. ,t only requires that the
death caused be the pro*imate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing upon the spouse
in the basest act of infidelity.
Article 24(. M$rder
Eement&?
0. A per&on 8a& @iedA
!. The accu&ed @ied himA
3. The @iin6 8a& attended 9% an% o/ the
/oo8in6 Duai/%in6 circum&tance&
a. =ith treacher%, ta@in6 ad5anta6e o/
&uperior &tren6th, 8ith the aid or
armed men, or empo%in6 mean& to
8ea@en the de/en&e, or o/ mean& or
per&on& to in&ure or a1ord impunit%A
9. In con&ideration o/ a price, re8ard or
promi&eA
c. >% mean& o/ inundation, 7re, poi&on,
e(po&ion, &hip8rec@, &trandin6 o/ a
5e&&e, deraiment or a&&aut upon a
rairoad, /a o/ an air&hip, 9% mean& o/
motor 5ehice&, or 8ith the u&e o/ an%
other mean& in5o5in6 6reat 8a&te and
ruinA
d. On occa&ion o/ an% o/ the caamitie&
enumerated in the precedin6
para6raph, or o/ an earthDua@e,
eruption o/ a 5ocano, de&tructi5e
c%cone, epidemic, or an% other pu9ic
caamit%A
e. =ith e5ident premeditationA
/. =ith cruet%, 9% dei9erate% and
inhuman% au6mentin6 the &u1erin6 o/
the 5ictim, or outra6in6 or &coLn6 at
hi& per&on or corp&e.
". The @iin6 i& not parricide or
in/anticide.
*urder i& the una8/u @iin6 o/
an% per&on 8hich i& not parricide or
in/anticide, pro5ided an% o/ the Duai/%in6
circum&tance& are pre&ent.
*urder 8i e(i&t 8ith on% one
o/ the circum&tance& de&cri9ed in thi&
artice. =hen more than one o/ the
circum&tance& i& pre&ent, the other& mu&t
9e con&idered a& 6eneric a66ra5atin6.
,o8e5er, 8hen the other
circum&tance& are a9&or9ed or incuded in
one Duai/%in6 circum&tance, the% cannot
9e con&idered a& 6eneric a66ra5atin6.
Je(ampe? a9u&e o/ &uperior &tren6th i&
a9&or9ed 9% treacher%K
The Duai/%in6 circum&tance
mu&t 9e ae6ed, in order to Duai/% the
@iin6 to murder. I/ not ae6ed, it i& on% a
6eneric a66ra5atin6 circum&tance.
The o1ender mu&t ha5e intent
to @i to 9e ia9e /or murder committed 9%
mean& o/ 7re, poi&on, e(po&ion etc.
"2
Cruet% 8hen other in'urie& or
8ound& are in2icted dei9erate% 9% he
o1ender, 8hich are not nece&&ar% /or the
@iin6 o/ the 5ictim. The 5ictim mu&t 9e
ai5e 8hen the other in'urie& or 8ound& are
in2icted.
GOutra6in6 or &coLn6 at hi&
per&on or corp&eE the on% Duai/%in6
circum&tance 8hich i& not mentioned in
Artice 0" a& an a66ra5atin6 circum&tance.
outra6in6 to commit an e(treme%
5iciou& or deep% in&utin6 act
&coLn6 to 'eer, and impie& a
&ho8in6 o/ irre5erence
People v. Mallari( )0) *C!' 1%0
;'-T%$ Joseph admonished Rufino and his
brothers ,no and ;eli* +allari not to drive fast while passing
by Joseph=s house. Rufino and his brothers, who were then
hot8tempered, challenged Joseph to a fight. The latter &ust
ignored the challenge1 and, instead he and his own
brothers Radi and +anny asked apology from Rufino. "ater
that afternoon, while Joseph and "i>a were watching a
basketball game at the barangay basketball court, Rufino
and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed weapons,
arrived and attempted to stab Joseph1 but Joseph was able
to run away. ?hen they were not able to catch up with
him, Rufino boarded and drove the truck parked near the
basketball court and continued chasing Joseph until the
truck ran over the latter, which caused his instantaneous
death. The trial court found Rufino guilty of murder. ,t
ruled that the crime was committed by means of a motor
vehicle as a qualifying circumstance.
!"#$ The -ourt affirmed the trial court=s finding
that Rufino deliberately bumped Joseph with the truck he
was driving. The evidence shows that Rufino deliberately
used his truck in pursuing Joseph. @pon catching up with
him, Rufino hit him with the truck, as a result of which
Joseph died instantly. ,t is therefore clear that the truck
was the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the killing of
Joseph.
The case of People v. +uAo> cited by Rufino finds
no application to the present case. ,n the said case, the
police patrol &eep was merely used by the accused therein
in looking for the victim and in carrying the body of the
victim to the place where it was dumped. The accused
therein shot the victim, which caused the latter=s death. ,n
the present case, the truck itself was used to kill the victim
by running over him.
@nder 'rticle 2BC of the Revised Penal -ode, a
person who kills another Dby means of a motor vehicleD is
guilty of murder. Thus, the use of motor vehicle qualifies
the killing to murder.
People v. Pas$ual (2006)
't any rate, the doctrinal rule is that where the wound
inflicted on the victim is not life threatening, the accused
not having performed all the acts of e*ecution that would
have brought about death, the crime committed is only
attempted murder.
People v. +,isen,unt( -"6 *C!' 5"6
;'-T%$ ?hisenhunt and the deceased, !lsa
%antos8-astillo, were lovers. They met at the 'pe* +otor
-orporation where accused was the +anager while !lsa was
the 'ssistant Personnel +anager. 7oth accused and !lsa
were married, but they were estranged from their
respective spouses. ,nside his condominium unit, accused
?hisenhunt killed !lsa by stabbing her with a knife. e
then beheaded her and mutilated her body parts.
Thereafter, with the help of Ravelo, the dismembered parts
of !lsas body were wrapped in three separate black
garbage bags. ?hisenhunt and Ravelo packed all the
garbage bags in another bag with >ipper and rollers. The
two then drove in ?hisenhunts car and the garbage bags
were eventually thrown on the roadside1 and into a river.
The trial court found ?hisenhun guilty of murder qualified
by outraging and scoffing at the victim=s person or corpse.
!"#$ The mere decapitation of the victim=s head
constitute outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim,
thus qualifying the killing to murder. ,n this case, accused8
appellant not only beheaded !lsa. e further cut up her
body like pieces of meat. Then, he strewed dismembered
parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside,
leaving them to rot on the ground. The sight of !lsa=s
severed body parts on the ground, vividly depicted in the
photographs offered in evidence, is both revolting and
horrifying. 't the same time, the viewer cannot help but
feel utter pity for the sub8human manner of disposing of
her remains. ence, the trial court was correct in
convicting accused8appellant of the crime of murder,
qualified by outraging and scoffing at the victim=s person or
corpse.
*abang v. People (200%)
The distance from which a shot is fired affects the nature
and e*tent of the in&ury caused on the victim. ,n close
range fire, the in&ury is not only due to the missile but also
due to the pressure of the e*panded gases, flame and
other solid products of combustion. ,n contrast, distant
fire usually produces the characteristic effect of the bullet
alone. ' shot fired from a distance of more than EF cm or
about two .20 feet does not produce the burning, smudging
or tattooing typically present in loose contact or near fire,
short range fire and medium range fire.
Powder burns is a term commonly used by physicians
whenever there is blackening of the margin at the
entrance of the gunshot wound. The blackening is due to
smoke smudging, gunpowder tattooing and, to a certain
e*tent, burning of the wound margin.
T,e .a$t t,at t,ere were no pow/er burns on 0uta/1s
bo/2 in/i$ates t,at t,e s,ots were .ire/ at a /istan$e o.
more t,an two (2) .eet an/ not at $lose range as t,e
/e.ense suggests. +oreover, 7utad sustained four .B0
gunshot wounds, three .30 of which were in the chest area,
circumstances which are inconsistent with the defenses
theory of accidental firing
Article 24). *o'icide
Eement&?
"-
0. A per&on 8a& @iedA
!. The accu&ed @ied him 8ithout an%
'u&ti/%in6 circum&tanceA
3. The accu&ed had the intention to @i,
8hich i& pre&umedA
". The @iin6 8a& not attended 9% an% o/
the Duai/%in6 circum&tance& o/ murder, or
9% that o/ parricide or in/anticide.
Intent to @i i& concu&i5e%
pre&umed 8hen death re&uted. Jcrime i&
con&ummatedK
E5idence o/ intent to @i i&
important on% in attempted or /ru&trated
homicide Jto di1erentiate it /rom ph%&ica
in'urie&K. In &uch ca&e&, intent to @i mu&t
9e pro5ed 9e%ond rea&ona9e dou9t.
There i& no o1en&e o/
/ru&trated homicide throu6h imprudence
9ecau&e the eement o/ intent to @i in
/ru&trated homicide i& incompati9e 8ith
ne6i6ence or imprudence.
Accidenta homicide the
death o/ a per&on 9rou6ht a9out 9% a
a8/u act per/ormed 8ith proper care and
&@i, and 8ithout homicida intent.
Je(ampe? the death o/ a 9o(er /oo8in6 a
&eriou& 9o8 in a 9o(in6 9out, pro5ided
that the rue& o/ 9o(in6 had 9een /oo8edK
Corpu& deicti the actua
commi&&ion o/ the crime char6ed, mean&
that the crime 8a& actua% committed. In
crime& a6ain&t per&on& in 8hich death o/
the 5ictim i& an eement o/ the o1en&e,
there mu&t 9e &ati&/actor% proo/ o/ the /act
o/ death, and the identit% o/ the 5ictim.
=hen the 5ictim i& under 0!
%ear& o/ a6e, penat% /or homicide &ha 9e
one de6ree hi6her than that impo&ed 9%
a8.
People vs. 0uensu$eso
%everal police officers fired shots at a knife8wielding guy,
who later died from the gunshot wounds. The investigation
showed that all the four officers actually fired their service
pistols but it was not established as to which wound was
inflicted by each policeman.
!"#$ ?here several personas acting independently of
each other inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be
determined which wound was inflicted by each person, all
the assailants are liable for the victims death.
People vs. Puga2
Pugay poured gasoline on a 2G8year old mental retardate
while %amson set the poor guy on fire, killing him in the
process. They were both convicted of murder.
!"#$ Pugay can only be convicted of omicide thru
reckless imprudence because of his failure to e*ercise all
the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable
consequence arising from any act committed by his
companions. %amson is guilty of omicide although it was
not his intention to kill the guy, but he shall be credited
with the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit
so grave a wrong.
People vs. 0asa2 (199-)
The two accused here were charged with +ultiple +urder
and ;rustrated +urder with 'rson in one information. They
were charged with having stabbed people, and to conceal
the crime, they burned down the house. The burning of the
house then led to the death of another and 3
rd
degree burns
on the lone survivor.
!"#$ ,t was not proper to have consolidated all the
charges against the accused in one single complaint. ,t was
proven that 3 victims were hacked and stabbed before the
house was burned down. 'nd then when the house was
burned down, this led to the death of another person and
serious burns on another.
%everal separate informations must be filed where the
victims were killed by separate acts. B crimes were
committed here, 3 separate murders under the RP- and
arson as punished under secG P#/E/3 .if by reason9 on
occasion of the arson, death results, penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death imposed0. Therefore the information was
vulnerable to a motion to quash for being duplicitous.
People vs. !ivera (2006)
'n essential element of murder and homicide, whether in
their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is
intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately
before or simultaneously with the infliction of in&uries.
,ntent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must
prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general
criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a
felony by dolo.
Article 2+,. Pe"alt -or -r$!trated
parricide. '$rder or ho'icide
For /ru&trated parricide, homicide or
murder, the court&, in 5ie8 o/ the /act& o/
the ca&e, ma% impo&e a penat% o8er 9%
one de6ree than that impo&ed under Artice
-..
Artice -. pro5ide& that the penat%
ne(t o8er in de6ree than that pre&cri9ed
9% a8 /or the con&ummated /eon% &ha 9e
impo&ed upon the principa in a /ru&trated
/eon%. Thu&, under Artice !-., the court
can impo&e a penat% o/ T=O DE4REES
LO=ER /or /ru&trated parricide, murder or
homicide.
For attempted parricide, homicide or
murder, the court&, in 5ie8 o/ the /act& o/
")
the ca&e, ma% impo&e a penat% o8er 9%
one de6ree than that impo&ed under Artice
-0.
Artice -0 pro5ide& that the penat%
o8er 9% t8o de6ree& than that pre&cri9ed
9% a8 /or the con&ummated /eon% &ha 9e
impo&ed upon the principa in a attempted
/eon%. Thu&, under Artice !-., the court
can impo&e a penat% o/ T,REE DE4REES
LO=ER /or attempted parricide, murder or
homicide.
Note ho8e5er that an% attempt on, or
con&pire a6ain&t, the i/e o/ the Chie/
E(ecuti5e o/ the Phiippine& or that o/ an%
mem9er o/ hi& /ami%, or a6ain&t the i/e o/
an% mem9er o/ hi& ca9inet or that o/ an%
mem9er o/ the atterE& /ami%, &ha &u1er
the penat% o/ DEAT,.
Article 2+/. Death ca$!ed i" a
t$'$lt$o$! a0ra
Eement&?
0. There are &e5era per&on&A
!. The% do not compo&e 6roup&
or6aniMed /or the common purpo&e o/
a&&autin6 and attac@in6 each other
reciproca%A
3. The&e &e5era per&on&
Duarreed and a&&auted one another in a
con/u&ed and tumutuou& mannerA
". Someone 8a& @ied in the
cour&e o/ the a1ra%A
-. It can not 9e a&certained 8ho
actua% @ied the decea&edA
#. The per&on or per&on& 8ho
in2icted &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie& or 8ho
u&ed 5ioence can 9e identi7ed.
Tumutuou& a1ra%
e(i&t& 8hen at ea&t /our per&on& ta@e part.
The 8ord Gtumutuou&E a& u&ed in Artice
0-3 mean& that the di&tur9ance i& cau&ed
9% more than three per&on& 8ho are armed
or are pro5ided 8ith mean& o/ 5ioence.
=hen there are t8o
identi7ed 6roup& o/ men 8ho a&&auted
each other, then there i& no tumutuou&
a1ra%.
The per&on @ied in
the cour&e o/ the a1ra% need not 9e one o/
the participant& in the a1ra%.
=ho are ia9eC
a. the per&on or
per&on& 8ho in2icted the &eriou&
ph%&ica in'urie&
9. i/ it i& not @no8n 8ho
in2icted the &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie& on
the decea&ed, a the per&on& 8ho u&ed
5ioence upon the per&on o/ the 5ictim
are ia9e, 9ut 8ith e&&er ia9iit%.
People v. 3nlaga/a( -"9 *C!' 22)
;'-T%$ 't around H$FF o=clock in the evening
"aurel left his house together with his visitor, %elda, to
attend a public dance. Two hours later, #anilo asked !dwin
to take a short break from dancing to attend to their
personal necessities outside the dance hall. (nce outside,
they decided to have a drink and bought 2 bottles of beer
at a nearby store. )ot long after, #aniloleft to look for a
place to relieve himself. ?hile #anilo was relieving
himself, @nlagada approached #anilo and stabbed him at
the side. #anilo retaliated by striking his assailant with a
half8filled bottle of beer. 'lmost simultaneously, a group of
men numbering about seven I, ganged up on #anilo and hit
him with assorted weapons, i.e., bamboo poles, stones and
pieces of wood. #anilo died before he could be given any
medical assistance. @nlagada was convicted by the RT-. e
claims the trial court erred in convicting him of murder and
not Ddeath in a tumultuous affray.D under 'rt. 2G/ of The
Revised Penal -ode.
!"#$ ' tumultuous affray takes place when a
quarrel occurs between several persons who engage in a
confused and tumultuous manner, in the course of which a
person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot
be ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case is between
a distinct group of individuals, one of whom was
sufficiently identified as the principal author of the killing,
as against a common, particular victim. ,t is not, as the
defense suggests, a Dtumultuous affrayD within the meaning
of 'rt. 2G/ of The RP-, that is, a melee or free8for8all,
where several persons not comprising definite or
identifiable groups attack one another in a confused and
disorgani>ed manner, resulting in the death or in&ury of one
or some of them.
Article 2+2. Ph!ical i"#$rie! i"%icted i" a
t$'$lt$o$! a0ra
Eement&?
0. There i& a tumutuou& a1ra%A
!. A participant or &ome participant&
thereo/ &u1ered &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie& or
ph%&ica in'urie& o/ a e&& &eriou& nature
ONL:A
3. The per&on re&pon&i9e thereo/ cannot
9e identi7edA
". A tho&e 8ho appear to ha5e u&ed
5ioence upon the per&on o/ the o1ended
part% are @no8n.
"5
Uni@e in Artice !-0, the
in'ured part% in thi& artice mu&t 9e one or
&ome o/ the participant& in the a1ra%.
A tho&e 8ho appear to ha5e
u&ed 5ioence &ha &u1er the penat% ne(t
o8er in de6ree than that pro5ided /or the
&eriou& ph%&ica in'urie& in2icted. For e&&
&eriou& ph%&ica in'urie&, the penat% i&
arre&to ma%or /rom 75e to 7/teen da%&.
Thi& artice doe& not incude
&i6ht ph%&ica in'urie& in2icted in a
tumutuou& a1ra%.
Article 2+1. Gi2i"g a!!i!ta"ce to !$icide
Act& puni&ha9e?
0. A&&i&tin6 another to commit &uicide,
8hether the &uicide i& con&ummated or
notA
!. Lendin6 hi& a&&i&tance to another to
commit &uicide to the e(tent o/ doin6 the
@iin6 him&e/.
The reation o/ the o1ender to
the per&on committin6 &uicide i& not
materia, the a8 doe& not di&tin6ui&h.
,ence, penat% 8oud 9e the &ame i/ the
o1ender i& the /ather, mother or chid.
A per&on 8ho attempt& to
commit &uicide i& not crimina% ia9e
9ecau&e &ociet% con&ider& &uch per&on to
9e an un/ortunate 9ein6, a 8retched
per&on more de&er5in6 o/ pit% rather than
o/ penat%.
I/ a pre6nant 8oman trie& to
commit &uicide 9ut in&tead @i& the 9a9% in
her 8om9, i& &he ia9e /or a9ortionC NO.
In order to incur crimina ia9iit% /or a
re&ut not intended, one mu&t 9e
committin6 a /eon%. An attempt to commit
&uicide i& not an act puni&ha9e 9% a8.
Euthana&ia Jmerc% @iin6K
practice o/ paine&&% puttin6 to death a
per&on &u1erin6 /rom &ome incura9e
di&ea&e. Thi& i& not endin6 a&&i&tance to
&uicide 9ecau&e in euthana&ia, the per&on
@ied doe& not 8ant to die. A doctor 8ho
re&ort& to merc% @iin6 ma% 9e ia9e /or
murder.
Article 2+4. Di!charge o- 3rear'!
Eement&?
0. The o1ender di&char6e& a 7rearm
a6ain&t or at another per&onA
!. The o1ender had no intention to @i
that per&on.
I/ the 7rearm i& not di&char6ed
AT A PERSON, there i& no crime o/
di&char6e o/ 7rearm&. For e(ampe, 7rin6 a
6un at a hou&e at random, not @no8in6
8here the peope in&ide 8ere, i& not
di&char6e o/ 7rearm&. The crime ma% 9e
aarm& and &canda& under Artice 0--.
There mu&t 9e no intention to
@i, other8i&e the crime i& attempted or
/ru&trated murderFhomicideFparricide, a&
the ca&e ma% 9e.
The purpo&e o/ the o1ender i&
on% to intimidate or /ri6hten the o1ended
part%.
I/ ph%&ica in'urie& re&uted
/rom di&char6e, the crime committed i& the
compe( crime o/ di&char6e o/ 7rearm 8ith
ph%&ica in'urie&, 8hen the ph%&ica in'urie&
are &eriou& or e&& &eriou&.
The crime i& di&char6e o/
7rearm, e5en i/ the 6un 8a& not pointed at
the o1ended part% 8hen it 7red, a& on6 a&
it 8a& initia% aimed 9% the accu&ed at or
a6ain&t the o1ended part%.
4a/o v. People( -92 *C!' )6
;'-T%$ The !speran>a, %ultan :udarat Police
%tation formed 3 teams to intercept cattle rustlers. The
team, composed of petitioner %P(B #ado and -';4@
members !raso, 7alinas, and 'lga, waited behind a large
dike. 7alinas and 'lga, who were both armed with +/B
armalite rifles, positioned themselves between #ado, who
was armed with a caliber .BG pistol, and accused !raso,
who was carrying an +/E armalite rifle. They were all
facing southwards in a half8kneeling position and were
about 2 arms length away from each other. Thereafter, the
team saw somebody approaching at a distance of GF
meters. Though it was a moonless night, they noticed that
he was half8naked. ?hen he was about G meters away from
the team, 7alinas noticed that !raso, who was on his right
side, was making some movements. 7alinas told !raso to
wait, but before 7alinas could beam his flash light, !raso
fired his +/E armalite rifle at the approaching man.
,mmediately thereafter, #ado, fired a single shot from his .
BG caliber pistol. The victim shouted, DTay #olfo, ako ini,D
.DTay #olfo, Jthis isK meD0 as he fell on the ground. The
victim turned out to be %ilvestre D7utsoyD 7alinas, the
nephew of 7alinas and not the cattle rustler the team were
ordered to intercept. %ilvestre 7alinas died as a result of
the gunshot wounds he sustained. The RT- convicted #ado
of the crime of omicide.
!"#$ #ado is guilty of the crime of illegal
discharge of firearm. 'bsent an intent to kill in firing the
gun towards the victim, petitioner should be held liable for
the crime of illegal discharge of firearm under 'rticle 2GB
of the RP-. The elements of this crime are$ ./0 that the
offender discharges a firearm against or at another person1
and .20 that the offender has no intention to kill that
person. Though the information charged the petitioner with
murder, he could be validly convicted of illegal discharge of
firearm, an offense which is necessarily included in the
crime of unlawful killing of a person. @nder Rule /2F,
"6
%ection B, of the Revised Rules on -riminal Procedure,
when there is a variance between the offense charged in
the complaint or information and that proved, and the
offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the
offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or
the offense charged which is included in the offense
proved.
Article 2++. I"-a"ticide
Eement&?
0. A chid 8a& @ied
!. The accu&ed @ied the &aid chidA
3. The decea&ed chid 8a& e&& than
three da%& J$! hour&K o/ a6e.
The penat% pre&cri9ed i& the
&ame /or parricide or murder, a& the ca&e
ma% 9e.
Conceament o/ di&honor i& not
an eement o/ in/anticide. I/ the crime i&
committed 9% the mother o/ the chid to
concea her di&honor, or 9% the materna
6randparent& /or the &ame purpo&e, the
penat% /or in/anticide i& miti6ated.
DeinDuent mother mu&t 9e o/
6ood reputation and 6ood mora&, in order
that conceain6 di&honor ma% miti6ate her
ia9iit%.
No crime o/ in/anticide i&
committed 8hen the chid 8a& 9orn dead,
or athou6h 9orn ai5e, it coud not &u&tain
an independent i/e 8hen it 8a& @ied.
Article 2+6. I"te"tio"al A4ortio"
=a%& o/ committin6 intentiona a9ortion?
0. U&in6 an% 5ioence upon the per&on o/
the pre6nant 8omanA
!. Actin6, 9ut 8ithout u&in6 5ioence,
8ithout the con&ent o/ the 8oman. J>%
admini&terin6 dru6& or 9e5era6e& upon
&uch pre6nant 8oman 8ithout her
con&ent.K
3. Actin6 J9% admini&terin6 dru6& or
9e5era6e&K, 8ith the con&ent o/ the
pre6nant 8oman.
Eement&?
0. There i& a pre6nant 8omanA
!. Nioence i& e(erted, or dru6& or
9e5era6e& admini&tered, or that the
accu&ed other8i&e act& upon &uch
pre6nant 8omanA
3. A& a re&ut o/ the u&e o/ 5ioence or
dru6& or 9e5era6e& upon her, or an% other
act o/ the accu&ed, the /etu& die&, either in
the 8om9 or a/ter ha5in6 9een e(peed
there/romA
". The a9ortion i& intended.
A9ortion i& the 8i/u @iin6 o/
the /etu& in the uteru&, or the 5ioent
e(pu&ion o/ the /etu& /rom the materna
8om9 8hich re&ut& in the death o/ the
/etu&.
The per&on 8ho intentiona%
cau&ed the a9ortion i& ia9e under thi&
artice. The pre6nant 8oman, i/ &he
con&ented to the a9ortion, &ha 9e ia9e
under Artice !-). I/ &he did not con&ent,
&he i& not crimina% ia9e.
A9ortion di&tin6ui&hed /rom
in/anticide? i/ the /etu& coud &u&tain an
independent i/e a/ter it& &eparation /rom
the materna 8om9A and it i& @ied, the
crime i& in/anticide.
Article 2+7. 5"i"te"tio"al a4ortio"
Eement&?
0. There i& a pre6nant 8omanA
!. Nioence i& u&ed upon &uch pre6nant
8oman 8ithout intendin6 an a9ortionA
3. The 5ioence i& intentiona% e(ertedA
". A& a re&ut o/ the 5ioence, the /etu&
die&, either in the 8om9 or a/ter ha5in6
9een e(peed there/rom.
Unintentiona a9ortion i&
committed on% 9% 5ioence, 8hich mu&t 9e
intentiona% e(erted.
Unintentiona a9ortion ma% 9e
committed throu6h imprudence Je(ampe?
ne6i6ent dri5er 6et& into a car cra&h,
cau&in6 pre6nant pa&&en6er to 6et thro8n
o1 the car, @iin6 /etu& in&ide herK
I& the accu&ed ia9e /or
a9ortion e5en i/ he did not @no8 that the
8oman 8a& pre6nantC NO. For the crime
o/ a9ortion, e5en i/ unintentiona, to 9e
hed committed, the accu&ed mu&t ha5e
@no8n o/ the pre6nanc%.
People vs. *alu.rania
'fter quarrelling with his pregnant wife, %alufrania bo*ed
her on the stomach and strangled her to death. e was
convicted of the comple* crime of parricide with
,)T!)T,()'" '7(RT,().
eld$ There is no evidence to show that the accused had
the intention to commit an abortion. +ere bo*ing on the
stomach, taken together with the immediate strangling of
the victim is not sufficient to show an intent to cause an
"%
abortion. Thus, %alufrania should be convicted of the
crime of parricide with @),)T!)T,()'" '7(RT,().
Article 2+(. A4ortio" practiced 4 the
6o'a" her!el- or 4 her pare"t!
Eement&?
0. There i& a pre6nant 8oman 8ho ha&
&u1ered an a9ortionA
!. The a9ortion i& intendedA
3. A9ortion i& cau&ed 9% <
a. The pre6nant 8oman her&e/A
9. An% other per&on, 8ith her
con&entA or
c. An% o/ her parent&, 8ith her
con&ent /or the purpo&e o/ conceain6
her di&honor.
The pre6nant 8oman
i& ia9e under thi& artice, i/ &he doe& the
a9ortion her&e/ or &he con&ent& to another
per&on doin6 the a9ortion.
Lia9iit% o/ the
pre6nant 8oman i& miti6ated i/ purpo&e i&
to concea di&honor.
No miti6ation /or
parent& o/ pre6nant 8oman e5en i/ the
purpo&e i& to concea di&honor. The
penat% /or the parent& in thi& ca&e i& the
&ame a& the penat% /or a pre6nant 8oman
committin6 a9ortion, 8ithout the purpo&e
o/ conceain6 di&honor.
Article 2+). A4ortio" practiced 4 a
ph!icia" or 'id6i-e a"d di!pe"!i"g o-
a4orti2e!
Eement& J/or ph%&ician& and mid8i5e&K?
0. There i& a pre6nant 8oman 8ho ha&
&u1ered an a9ortionA
!. The a9ortion i& intendedA
3. O1ender, 8ho mu&t 9e a ph%&ician or
mid8i/e, cau&ed or a&&i&ted in cau&in6 the
a9ortionA
". Said ph%&ician or mid8i/e too@
ad5anta6e o/ hi& or her &cienti7c
@no8ed6e or &@i.
The penatie& pro5ided /or
intentiona a9ortion &ha 9e impo&ed in the
ma(imum period /or ph%&ician& and
mid8i5e& 5ioatin6 thi& artice.
Rea&on? hea5ier 6uit in
ma@in6 u&e o/ their @no8ed6e /or the
de&truction o/ human i/e, 8hen it &houd
9e u&ed on% /or it& pre&er5ation.
Eement& J/or pharmaci&t&K?
0. The o1ender i& a pharmaci&tA
!. There i& no proper pre&cription /rom a
ph%&icianA
3. The o1ender di&pen&e& an% a9orti5e.
It i& not nece&&ar% that the
pharmaci&t @no8& that the a9orti5e 8oud
9e u&ed to cau&e an a9ortion. =hat i&
puni&hed i& the di&pen&in6 o/ the a9orti5e
8ithout the proper pre&cription.
Not nece&&ar% that the a9orti5e
9e actua% u&ed either.
I/ the pharmaci&t @ne8 that the
dru6 8oud 9e u&ed to cau&e an a9ortion,
he ma% 9e ia9e a& an accompice in the
crime o/ a9ortion.
Article 26,. Re!po"!i4ilit o- the
participa"t! i" a d$el
Act& puni&ha9e?
0. Oiin6 oneE& ad5er&ar% in a dueA
!. In2ictin6 upon &uch ad5er&ar% ph%&ica
in'urie&A
3. *a@in6 a com9at athou6h no ph%&ica
in'urie& ha5e 9een in2icted.
Per&on& ia9e?
0. The per&on 8ho @ied or in2icted
ph%&ica in'urie& upon hi& ad5er&ar%, or
9oth com9atant& in an% other ca&e, a&
principa&.
!. The &econd&, a& accompice&.
Due i& a /orma or re6uar
com9at pre5iou&% concerted 9et8een t8o
partie& in the pre&ence o/ t8o or more
&econd& o/ a8/u a6e on each &ide, 8ho
ma@e the &eection o/ arm& and 7( a the
other condition& o/ the 76ht.
I/ death re&ut&, the penat% i&
the &ame a& that /or homicide.
Article 26/. Challe"gi"g to a d$el
Act& puni&ha9e?
0. Chaen6in6 another to a dueA
!. Incitin6 another to 6i5e or accept a
chaen6e to a dueA
3. ScoLn6 at or decr%in6 another pu9ic%
/or ha5in6 re/u&ed to accept a chaen6e to
76ht a due.
""
A chaen6e to a 76ht, 8ithout
contempatin6 a due, i& not chaen6in6 to
a due. The per&on ma@in6 the chaen6e
mu&t ha5e in mind a /orma com9at to 9e
concerted 9et8een him and the one
chaen6ed in the pre&ence o/ t8o or more
&econd&.
Article 262. M$tilatio"
Act& puni&ha9e?
0. Intentiona% mutiatin6 another 9%
depri5in6 him, either tota% or partia%, o/
&ome e&&entia or6an /or reproductionA
Jca&trationK
Eement&?
a. There 9e a ca&tration, that i&,
mutiation o/ or6an& nece&&ar% /or
6eneration, &uch a& the peni& or
o5ariumA
9. The mutiation i& cau&ed purpo&e% and
dei9erate%, that i&, to depri5e the
o1ended part% o/ &ome e&&entia or6an
/or reproduction.
!. Intentiona% ma@in6 other mutiation,
that i&, 9% oppin6 or cippin6 o1 an% part
o/ the 9od% o/ the o1ended part%, other
than the e&&entia or6an /or reproduction,
to depri5e him o/ that part o/ hi& 9od%.
Jother intentiona mutiationK
*utiation i& the oppin6 or
cippin6 o1 o/ &ome part o/ the 9od%.
The &econd t%pe o/ mutiation
i& a&o caed Gma%hemE.
For other intentiona mutiation,
i/ the 5ictim i& under 0! %ear& o/ a6e, the
penat% &ha 9e one de6ree hi6her than
that impo&ed 9% a8.
The o1ender mu&t ha5e the
intention to depri5e the o1ended part% o/ a
part o/ hi& 9od%. I/ there i& no &uch
intention, the crime 8i 9e &eriou& ph%&ica
in'urie&.
Article 261. Serio$! ph!ical i"#$rie!
,o8 committed?
0. >% 8oundin6A
!. >% 9eatin6A
3. >% a&&autin6A or
". >% admini&terin6 in'uriou& &u9&tance.
T%pe& o/ &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie&?
0. =hen the in'ured per&on 9ecome&
in&ane, im9ecie, impotent or 9ind in
con&eDuence o/ the ph%&ica in'urie&
in2ictedA
!. =hen the in'ured per&on
a. Lo&e& the u&e o/ &peech or the po8er
to hear or to &me, or o&e& an e%e, a
hand, a /oot, an arm, or a e6A
9. Lo&e& the u&e o/ an% &uch mem9erA or
c. >ecome& incapacitated /or the 8or@ in
8hich he 8a& thereto/ore ha9itua%
en6a6ed, in con&eDuence o/ the
ph%&ica in'urie& in2ictedA
3. =hen the per&on in'ured
a. >ecome& de/ormedA or
9. Lo&e& an% other mem9er o/ hi& 9od%A or
c. Lo&e& the u&e thereo/A or
d. >ecome& i or incapacitated /or the
per/ormance o/ the 8or@ in 8hich he
8a& ha9itua% en6a6ed /or more than
+. da%& in con&eDuence o/ the ph%&ica
in'urie& in2ictedA
". =hen the in'ured per&on 9ecome& i or
incapacitated /or a9or /or more than 3.
da%& J9ut mu&t not 9e more than +. da%&K,
a& a re&ut o/ the ph%&ica in'urie& in2icted.
In ph%&ica in'urie&, there mu&t
not 9e intent to @i, other8i&e the crime i&
/ru&tratedFattempted murder or homicide
a& the ca&e ma% 9e.
Impotence under 7r&t t%pe
mean& an ina9iit% to copuate. It i& u&ed
&%non%mou&% 8ith G&teriit%E.
Penat% under the 7r&t t%pe i&
one de6ree hi6her 8hen the 5ictim i& under
0! %ear& o/ a6e.
>indne&& under the &econd
t%pe mu&t 9e o/ t8o e%e&. I/ there i& o&& o/
one e%e on%, the &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie&
i& o/ the &econd t%pe.
Lo&& o/ po8er to hear under
the &econd t%pe mu&t 9e o/ 9oth ear&. I/
hearin6 in on% one ear i& o&t, it /a& under
the third t%pe.
Lo&& o/ the u&e o/ hand, or
incapacit% /or 8or@ under the &econd t%pe,
mu&t 9e permanent.
A the 9od% part& mentioned in
the &econd t%pe are principa mem9er& o/
the 9od% Je%e, hand, /oot etc.K
The third t%pe co5er& an% other
part o/ the 9od% 8hich i& not a principa
mem9er o/ the 9od%.
De/ormit% ph%&ica u6ine&&,
permanent and de7nite a9normait%. It
mu&t 9e con&picuou& and 5i&i9e.
Eement& o/ de/ormit%? JaK
ph%&ica u6ine&&, J9K permanent and
de7nite a9normait%, and JcK it mu&t 9e
"9
con&picuou& and 5i&i9e. A the&e
eement& mu&t concur.
De/ormit% 9% o&& o/ teeth
re/er& to in'ur% 8hich cannot 9e repaired 9%
the action o/ nature.
Lo&& o/ 9oth outer ear& i& a
de/ormit%.
Lo&& o/ the o9ue o/ the ear i&
a de/ormit%.
Lo&& o/ inde( and midde
7n6er& on% i& either de/ormit% or o&& o/ a
mem9er, not a principa one, o/ hi& 9od% or
u&e o/ the &ame.
Lo&& o/ po8er to hear o/ ri6ht
ear on% i& o&& o/ u&e o/ other part o/ 9od%.
Ine&& 8hen the 8ound
in2icted did not hea 8ith a certain period
o/ time.
Note that under &eriou&
ph%&ica in'urie& o/ the /ourth t%pe, ine&&
or incapacit% i& reDuired, NOT medica
attendance.
Para6raph& ! and 3 re/er& to
the H8or@ in 8hich he 8a& thereto/ore
ha9itua% en6a6edIPmu&t the in'ured
part% ha5e an a5ocation at the time at the
time o/ the in'ur%C :ES, in&o/ar a& the&e
t8o para6raph& are concerned. Incapacit%
there/ore mu&t reated to a certain @ind o/
8or@ on%. ,o8e5er, in para6raph ",
incapacit% /or an% @ind o/ 8or@ i&
accepta9e, 9ecau&e the phra&e Hincapacit%
/or a9orI i& u&ed.
In'ur% reDuirin6 ho&pitaiMation
/or more than thirt% da%& i& &eriou&
ph%&ica in'urie& under para6raph ".
=hen the cate6or% o/ the
o1en&e o/ &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie& depend&
on the period o/ ine&& or incapacit% /or
a9or, there mu&t 9e e5idence o/ the en6th
o/ that periodA other8i&e, the o1en&e i&
on% &i6ht ph%&ica in'urie&.
Le&&enin6 o/ eLcienc% due to
in'ur% i& NOT incapacit%.
Di&tin6ui&hed /rom mutiation?
In mutiation, the 9od% part& &houd ha5e
9een purpo&e% and dei9erate% opped or
cipped o1. Thi& intention i& not pre&ent in
&eriou& ph%&ica in'urie&.
Quai7ed &eriou& ph%&ica
in'urie& i/ the o1en&e i& committed
a6ain&t an% o/ the per&on& enumerated in
the crime o/ parricide, or 8ith the
attendance o/ an% o/ the circum&tance in
murder, the a8 pro5ide& /or hi6her
penatie&.
Article 264. Ad'i"i!teri"g i"#$rio$!
!$4!ta"ce! or 4e2erage!
Eement&?
0. O1ender in2icted upon another an%
&eriou& ph%&ica in'ur%A
!. It 8a& done 9% @no8in6% admini&terin6
to him an% in'uriou& &u9&tance or
9e5era6e& or 9% ta@in6 ad5anta6e o/ hi&
8ea@ne&& o/ mind or creduit%A
3. ,e had no intent to @i.
It i& /ru&trated murder 8hen
there i& intent to @i, the in'uriou&
&u9&tance to 9e con&idered a& poi&on.
I/ the accu&ed did not @no8 o/
the in'uriou& nature o/ the &u9&tance&
admini&tered, he i& not ia9e under thi&
artice.
Admini&terin6 in'uriou&
&u9&tance mean& introducin6 into the 9od%
the &u9&tance. Thu&, thro8in6 mordant
chemica& or poi&on& on the /ace i& not
contempated in thi& artice.
Thi& artice doe& not app% i/
the ph%&ica in'urie& that re&ut are e&&
&eriou& or &i6ht.
Ta@in6 ad5anta6e o/ 8ea@ne&&
o/ mind or creduit%? /or e(ampe, u&in6
8itchcra/t, ma6neti&m, phiter& etc.
Article 26+. 7e!! !erio$! ph!ical i"#$rie!
*atter& to 9e noted in thi& crime?
0. O1ended part% i& incapacitated /or
a9or /or 0. da%& or more J9ut not more
than 3. da%&K, or need& medica
attendance /or the &ame period o/ timeA
!. The ph%&ica in'urie& mu&t not 9e tho&e
de&cri9ed in the precedin6 artice&.
Quai7ed a& to penat%?
0. A 7ne not e(ceedin6 P -....., in
addition to arre&to ma%or, &ha 9e impo&ed
/or e&& &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie& 8hen
a. There i& a mani/e&t intent to in&ut
or o1end the in'ured per&onA or
9. There are circum&tance& addin6
i6nomin% to the o1en&e.
!. A hi6her penat% i& impo&ed 8hen the
5ictim i& either <
a. The o1enderE& parent&,
a&cendant&, 6uardian&, curator& or
teacher&A or
90
9. Per&on& o/ ran@ or per&on in
authorit%, pro5ided the crime i& not
direct a&&aut.
*edica attendance
OR incapacit% /or a9or i& reDuired in e&&
&eriou& ph%&ica in'urie&.
It i& on% &i6ht
ph%&ica in'ur% 8hen there i& no medica
attendance or incapacit% /or a9or.
The phra&e H&ha
reDuire medica attendanceI re/er& to
ACTUAL medica attendance, not to the
nature o/ the 8ound or in'ur% in2icted.
Article 266. Slight ph!ical i"#$rie! a"d
'altreat'e"t
Act& puni&hed?
0. Ph%&ica in'urie& incapacitated the
o1ended part% /or a9or /rom one to nine
da%&, or reDuired medica attendance
durin6 the &ame periodA
!. Ph%&ica in'urie& 8hich did not pre5ent
the o1ended part% /rom en6a6in6 in hi&
ha9itua 8or@ or 8hich did not reDuire
medica attendanceA
3. I<treatment o/ another 9% deed
8ithout cau&in6 an% in'ur%.
=hen there i& no e5idence o/
actua in'ur%, it i& on% &i6ht ph%&ica
in'urie&.
Super5enin6 e5ent con5ertin6
the crime into &eriou& ph%&ica in'urie& a/ter
the 7in6 o/ the in/ormation /or &i6ht
ph%&ica in'urie& can &ti 9e the &u9'ect o/ a
ne8 char6e. In/ormation ma% 9e amended.
i v. People( )2% *C!' 21%
;acts$ 7ecause of an altercation between 'rugay
and "i, the latter armed himself with a baseball bat and
used the same to hit 'rugay on the arm. 'rugay armed with
a bolo, retaliated by hacking "i on the head causing the bat
to fall from his hand and leaving him unconscious or semi8
unconsious. 't this point in time, %angalang, who was also
present stabbed 'rugay several times which resulted to
the latters death. The RT- found "i guilty on the tenuous
determination that a conspiracy between "i and %angalang
e*isted.
eld$ The only in&ury attributable to "i is the contusion on
the victims right arm that resulted from "i striking 'rugay
with a baseball bat. ,n view of the victims supervening
death from in&uries which cannot be attributed to "i
beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion
caused by "i are not mortal or at least lie entirely in the
realm of speculation. ?hen there is no evidence of actual
incapacity of the offended party for labor or of the
required medical attendance, the offense is only slight
R.A. (,4)
A" Act Reg$lati"g *a8i"g
a"d Other 9or'! o- I"itiatio" Rite!
i" 9rater"itie!. Sororitie! a"d other
Orga"i8atio"!
:hat i! *a8i"g;
,aMin6 i& an initiation rite or practice a& a
prereDui&ite /or admi&&ion into mem9er&hip in a
/raternit%, &ororit% or or6aniMation 9% pacin6 the
recruit neoph%te or appicant in &ome em9arra&&in6
or humiiatin6 &ituation& &uch a& /orcin6 him to do
menia, &i%, /ooi&h and &imiar ta&@& or acti5itie& or
other8i&e &u9'ectin6 him to ph%&ica or p&%choo6ica
&u1erin6 or in'ur%. JR0K
The term Hor6aniMationI &ha incude an%
cu9 or the Ar'ed 9orce! o- the Philippi"e!.
Philippi"e Natio"al Police. Philippi"e Militar
Acade'. or o<cer a"d cadet corp o- the
Citi8e"=! Militar Trai"i"g. or Citi8e"=! Ar'
Trai"i"g. >ut the ph%&ica, menta and
p&%choo6ica te&tin6 and trainin6 procedure and
practice& to determine and enhance the ph%&ica,
menta and p&%choo6ica 7tne&& o/ pro&pecti5e
re6uar mem9er& o/ the Armed Force& o/ the
Phiippine& and the Phiippine Nationa Poice a&
appro5ed 9% the Secretar% o/ Nationa De/en&e and
the Nationa Poice Commi&&ion du% recommended
9% the Chie/ o/ Sta1, Armed Force& o/ the Phiippine&
and the Director 4enera o/ the Phiippine Nationa
Poice &ha not 9e con&idered a& haMin6 /or the
purpo&e o/ thi& Act. JR0K
Re>$ire'e"t! 4e-ore ha8i"g 'a 4e co"d$cted
0. No haMin6 or initiation rite& in an% /orm or
manner 9% a /raternit%, &ororit% or or6aniMation
&ha 9e ao8ed 8ithout prior 6ritte" "otice
to the &choo authoritie& or head o/ or6aniMation
!e2e" ?7@ da! 9e/ore the conduct o/ &uch
initiation. The 8ritten notice &ha indicate the 1?
period o/ the initiation acti5itie&
8hich &ha not e(ceed three J3K da%&,
the name& o/ tho&e to 9e &u9'ected
to &uch acti5itie&
an underta@in6 that "o ph!ical
2iole"ce 4e e'ploed 4 a"4od
d$ri"g !$ch i"itiatio" rite!. JR!K
!. The head o/ the &choo or or6aniMation or
their repre&entati5e& mu&t a&&i6n at lea!t t6o
?2@ repre!e"tati2e! o- the !chool or
orga"i8atio" a& the ca&e ma% 9e, to 9e pre&ent
durin6 the initiation. It i& the dut% o/ &uch
repre&entati5e to &ee to it that no ph%&ica harm
o/ an% @ind &ha 9e in2icted upon a recruit,
neoph%te or appicant. JR3K
:ho are p$"i!ha4le;
I/ the per&on &u9'ected to haMin6 or other /orm& o/
initiation rite& &u1er& an% ph!ical i"#$r or die!
91
a! a re!$lt thereo-, the /oo8in6 are puni&hed
under the a8?
AS PRINCIPALS?
0. The oLcer and mem9er& o/ the /raternit%,
&ororit% or or6aniMation 6ho act$all
participated i" the i"%ictio" o/ ph%&ica harm
!. I/ the haMin6 i& hed in the home o/ one o/
the oLcer& or mem9er& o/ the /raternit%, 6roup,
or or6aniMation, the pare"t! &ha 9e hed ia9e
a& pri"cipal! 8hen the% ha5e actua @no8ed6e
o/ the haMin6 conducted therein 9ut /aied to
ta@e an% action to pre5ent the &ame /rom
occurrin6.
3. The o<cer!. -or'er o<cer!. or al$'"i
o- the orga"i8atio". gro$p. -rater"it. or
!ororit 8ho act$all pla""ed the ha8i"g
altho$gh "ot pre!e"t 8hen the act&
con&titutin6 the haMin6 8ere committed
". O<cer! or 'e'4er! o/ an or6aniMation,
6roup, /raternit%, or &ororit% 8ho @no8in6%
cooperated in carr%in6 out the haMin6 9%
i"d$ci"g the 2icti' to 4e pre!e"t thereat
-. A -rater"it or !ororit=! ad2i!er 8ho i&
pre&ent 8hen the act& con&titutin6 the haMin6
8ere committed and /aied to ta@e an% action to
pre5ent the &ame /rom occurrin6
AS ACCO*PLICES?
#. The o6"er o- the place 6here ha8i"g i!
co"d$cted &ha 9e ia9e a& an acco'plice.
8hen he ha& actua @no8ed6e o/ the haMin6
conducted therein 9ut /aied to ta@e an% action
to pre5ent the &ame /rom occurrin6.
$. The !chool a$thoritie! incudin6 /acut%
mem9er& 8ho con&ent to the haMin6 or 8ho
ha5e actua @no8ed6e thereo/ 9ut /aied to ta@e
an% action to pre5ent the &ame /rom occurrin6
&ha 9e puni&hed a& acco'plice! /or the act&
o/ haMin6 committed 9% the perpetrator&.
The pre&ence o/ an% per&on durin6 the haMin6 i&
pri'e -acie e2ide"ce o/ participation therein a& a
principa une&& he pre5ented the commi&&ion o/ the
act& puni&ha9e herein.
An% per&on char6ed under thi& pro5i&ion !hall "ot
4e e"titled to the miti6atin6 circum&tance that
there 6a! "o i"te"tio" to co''it !o gra2e a
6ro"g.
Thi& &ection &ha app% to the pre&ident, mana6er,
director or other re&pon&i9e oLcer o/ a corporation
en6a6ed in haMin6 a& a reDuirement /or empo%ment
in the manner pro5ided herein. JR"K
Pe"altie! i'po!ed
The penatie& impo&ed &ha 5ar% dependin6
on the in'ur% &u1ered 9% the 5ictim. I/ the 5ictim
die&, i& raped, &odomiMed or mutiated, the penat% i&
recu&ion perpetua to death.
The ma(imum penat% &ha 9e impo&ed in an% o/ the
/oo8in6 in&tance&?
aK 8hen the recr$it'e"t i! acco'pa"ied 4
-orce. 2iole"ce. threat. i"ti'idatio" or
deceit on the per&on o/ the recruit 8ho re/u&e&
to 'oinA
9K 8hen the recruit, neoph%te or appicant initia%
con&ent& to 'oin 9ut upon earnin6 that haMin6
8i 9e committed on hi& per&on, i! pre2e"ted
-ro' >$itti"g.
cK 8hen the recruit neoph%te or appicant ha5in6
under6one haMin6 i& pre2e"ted -ro'
reporti"g the $"la6-$l act to hi& parent& or
6uardian&, to the proper &choo authoritie&, or to
the poice authoritie& throu6h /orce, 5ioence ,
threat or intimidationA
dK 8hen the haMin6 i& committed o$t!ide o- the
!chool or i"!tit$tio"? or
eK 8hen the 5ictim i& 4elo6 t6el2e ?/2@ ear! o/
a6e at the time o/ the haMin6.
The re&pon&i9e oLcia& o/ the &choo or o/
the poice, miitar% or citiMenS& arm% trainin6
or6aniMation, 'a i'po!e the appropriate
ad'i"i!trati2e !a"ctio"! on the per&on or per&on&
char6ed under thi& a8 e2e" 4e-ore their
co"2ictio".
Article 266AA. Rape. :he" a"d *o6
Co''itted
Eement& under para6raph 0?
0. O1ender i& a manA
!. O1ender had carna @no8ed6e o/ a
8omanA
3. Such act i& accompi&hed under
an% o/ the /oo8in6 circum&tance&?
a. >% u&in6 /orce or
intimidationA
9. =hen the 8oman i&
depri5ed o/ rea&on or other8i&e
uncon&ciou&A
c. >% mean& o/ /rauduent
machination or 6ra5e a9u&e o/
authorit%A or
d. =hen the 8oman i& under
0! %ear& o/ a6e or demented.
Eement& under para6raph !?
0. O1ender commit& an act o/ &e(ua
a&&autA
!. The act o/ &e(ua a&&aut i&
committed 9% an% o/ the /oo8in6 mean&?
92
a. >% in&ertin6 hi& peni& into
another per&onS& mouth or ana ori7ceA
or
9. >% in&ertin6 an% in&trument or
o9'ect into the 6enita or ana ori7ce o/
another per&onA
3. The act o/ &e(ua a&&aut i&
accompi&hed under an% o/ the /oo8in6
circum&tance&?
a. >% u&in6 /orce or intimidationA
or
9. =hen the 8oman i& depri5ed o/
rea&on or other8i&e uncon&ciou&A or
c. >% mean& o/ /rauduent
machination or 6ra5e a9u&e o/
authorit%A or
d. =hen the 8oman i& under 0!
%ear& o/ a6e or demented.
Rape can no8 9e
committed 9% a mae or a /emae.
On% one o/ the /our
circum&tance& mentioned i& &uLcient.
Force empo%ed
a6ain&t the 5ictim o/ the rape need not 9e
o/ &uch character a& coud 9e re&i&ted. It i&
enou6h that the /orce u&ed i& &uLcient to
con&ummate the purpo&e o/ copuatin6
8ith the o1ended 8oman.
=hen the o1ender in
rape ha& an a&cendanc% or in2uence o5er
the 6ir, it i& not nece&&ar% that &he put up
a determined re&i&tance.
Rape ma% 9e pro5ed
9% the uncorro9orated te&timon% o/ the
o1ended 8oman.
There i& no crime o/
/ru&trated rape J&ee Orita ca&eK.
Character o/ the
o1ended 8oman i& immateria in rape.
=hen &e5era
per&on& con&pired to rape a &in6e 5ictim,
each &ha 9e ia9e /or the rape committed
per&ona% 9% him, a& 8e a& tho&e
committed 9% the other&
Article 266AB. Pe"altie!
=hen rape i& puni&hed 9% death?
0. =here the 5ictim i& under 0) %ear& o/
a6e and the o1ender i& her a&cendant,
&tep/ather, 6uardian, or reati5e 9% aLnit%
or con&an6uinit% 8ithin the 3rd ci5i
de6ree, or the common a8 hu&9and o/ the
5ictimE& motherA or
!. =here the 5ictim 8a& $"der the
c$!tod o- the police or 'ilitar
a$thoritie!, or other a8 en/orcement
a6enc%A
3. =here the rape i& committed i" -$ll
2ie6 o/ the 5ictimE& hu&9and, the parent&,
an% o/ the chidren or reati5e& 9%
con&an6uinit% 8ithin the 3rd ci5i de6reeA
". =here the 2icti' i! a religio$!, that
i&, a mem9er o/ a e6itimate rei6iou&
5ocation and the o1ender @no8& the 5ictim
a& &uch 9e/ore or at the time o/ the
commi&&ion o/ the o1en&eA
-. =here the 5ictim i& a chid $"der 7
r! o/ a6eA
#. =here the o0e"der i! a 'e'4er o-
the A9P, it& paramiitar% arm, the PNP, or
an% a8 en/orcement a6enc% and the
o1ender too@ ad5anta6e o/ hi& po&itionA
$. =here the o0e"der i! aCicted 6ith
AIDS or other &e(ua% tran&mi&&i9e
di&ea&e&, and he i& a8are thereo/ 8hen he
committed the rape, and the di&ea&e 8a&
tran&mittedA
). =here the 5ictim ha& &u1ered
per'a"e"t ph!ical '$tilatio"D
+. =here the preg"a"c o- the
o0e"ded part i& @no8n to the rapi&t at
the time o/ the rapeA or
0.. =here the rapi&t i& a6are o- the
2icti'E! 'e"tal di!a4ilit. emotiona
di&tur9ance or ph%&ica handicap.
Rape under the 7r&t
t%pe i& puni&hed 9% recu&ion perpetua.
Rape under the &econd t%pe i& puni&hed 9%
recu&ion tempora. Penatie& are increa&ed
in the&e in&tance&?
o =hen it i&
committed 8ith the u&e o/ a dead%
8eapon or 9% t8o or more per&on&
o =hen the
5ictim 9ecome& in&ane
o =hen there i&
attempted rape and homicide i&
committed 9% rea&on or on the
occa&ion thereo/
o =hen homicide
i& committed 9% rea&on or on the
occa&ion o/ rape
o =hen rape i&
committed 8ith an% o/ the enumerated
Duai/%in6 or a66ra5atin6
circum&tance& Jdeath penat% i&
impo&edK
Rape 8ith
homicide i& no8 a &pecia compe( crime,
puni&ha9e 9% death J7r&t t%peK or
recu&ion perpetua J&econd t%peK.
266AC. E0ect o- pardo"
9-
Su9&eDuent
5aid marria6e 9et8een the o1ender and
the o1ended part% &ha e(tin6ui&h the
crimina action or the penat% impo&ed.
In ca&e it i& the
e6a hu&9and 8ho i& the o1ender, the
&u9&eDuent /or6i5ene&& 9% the 8i/e a& the
o1ended part% &ha e(tin6ui&h the crimina
action or the penat%, pro5ided that their
marria6e i& not 5oid a9 initio.
266AD. Pre!$'ptio"!
E5idence 8hich ma% 9e accepted in the
pro&ecution o/ rape?
0. an% ph%&ica o5ert act
mani/e&tin6 re&i&tance a6ain&t the act o/
rape in an% de6ree /rom the o1ended part%.
!. 8here the o1ended part%
i& &o &ituated a& to render himFher
incapa9e o/ 6i5in6 con&ent.
Old rape la6 Ne6 rape la6
Crime a6ain&t cha&tit% Crime a6ain&t per&on&
*a% 9e committed 9% a
man a6ain&t a 8oman
ONL:
Under the &econd t%pe,
&e(ua a&&aut ma% 9e
committed 9% AN:
PERSON
PRINATE CRI*E
Compaint mu&t 9e 7ed
9% the 8oman or her
parent&, 6randparent& or
6uardian i/ the 8oman
8a& a minor or
incapacitated
*a% 9e pro&ecuted e5en
i/ the 8oman doe& not
7e a compaint
*arria6e o/ the 5ictim
8ith one o/ the o1ender&
9ene7t& not on% the
principa 9ut a&o the
accompice& and
acce&&orie&
*arria6e e(tin6ui&he&
the pena action on% a&
to the principa Jthe
per&on 8ho married the
5ictimK
*arita rape NOT
reco6niMed
*arita rape reco6niMed
People vs. 5rita
' P- soldier raped a /H8year old student while poking a
knife on her neck. owever, only a portion of his penis
entered her vagina because the victim kept on struggling
until she was finally able to escape. The soldier was
convicted of ;R@%TR'T!# R'P!.
!"#$ There is )( crime of frustrated rape because L ,n
rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge
of the victim, he actually attains his purpose, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the offense have
been accomplished. )othing more is left to be done by the
offender because he has performed the last act necessary
to produce the crime.
People vs. Mangalino
' GG8year old man lured a E8year old to his bedroom by
giving her two pesos. e then tried to force his penis in to
her vagina but he was not able to completely do so,
because of the little girls undeveloped genitalia .only /
cm. in diameter0.
!"#$ Rape was committed even though the penetration
could only go as deep as the labia. The court has
consistently held that for rape to be committed, full
penetration is not required. !ven the slightest penetration
is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape.
People vs. 0albuena
' tomboy went on a drinking spree with her male friends.
Two of her companions raped her on top of a billiard table.
?hile one guy was raping her, the other pinned her arms
down.
!"#$ ,n the crime of rape, when a woman testifies that
she had been raped, she says all that need to be said to
signify that this crime has been committed. )ote that each
accused was sentenced to two counts of rape 8 one for
actually raping the girl and another for helping the other
rape the girl.
People vs. Castro
-astro brought a E8year old girl inside the bathroom. e
made the girl stand on the toilet bowl and tried to insert
his penis into her vagina. +edical findings showed that the
victims hymen was not lacerated.
!"#$ Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina are not essential for the offense of
consummated rape. !ntry to the e*tent of the labia or lips
of the female organ is sufficient. The victims remaining a
virgin does not negate rape.
People vs. 'tento
' /E8year old mental retardate was repeatedly raped by
her neighbor, and she later on gave birth to their child.
%he described the se*ual e*perience as pleasurable
.+asarapM0
!"#$ !ven though force and intimidation has not been
established, rape was still committed because the victim is
deprived of reason. @nder paragraph 2 of 'rticle 33G, it is
not necessary that the culprit actually deprives the victim
of reason prior to the rape, as by administration of drugs or
some other method. This provision also applies to cases
where the woman has been earlier deprived of reason by
other causes, as when she is congenitally retarded.
People vs. 4ela Cuesta
The RT- of +akati found #e "a -uesta guilty of E counts of
rape against H8year8old +erma 7inasbas. 't the time of the
alleged incidents of rape, #e "a -uesta, then EB years old,
was boarding with +erma and her mom. #e "a -uesta
threatened the girl and gave her P2F after each encounter.
#e "a -uesta claims it was error for the lower court to find
that he was +ermas guardian, and that he could have
9)
committed the rape in view of his age .he claims his last
erection was 3 years ago0.
!"#$ The trial court erred in imposing the supreme
penalty of death. R.'. IEGH provides that the death penalty
shall be imposed when the victim is under /C years old and
the offender is a guardian. ,n People v. Garcia .2C/ %-R'
BE30, we held that the restrictive definition of a guardian,
that of a legal or &udicial guardian, should be used in
construing the term 5guardian6 for the purpose of imposing
the death penalty under R.'. IEGH.
The mere fact that the mother asked #e "a -uesta to look
after her child while she was away did not constitute the
relationship of guardian8ward as contemplated by the law.
e watched over the girl as a favor to mother for letting
him stay while his place was being renovated.
#e "a -uestas contention that he was incapable of
committing rape due to his age, physical condition and lack
of earthly desires is self8serving. There is no evidence
presented to substantiate his alleged dysfunction. ,n one
case, we re&ected the defense even after a doctor had
e*amined the accused by stimulating his organ with a wisp
of cotton for three minutes and there was no erection.
.People v. Palma, /BB %-R' 23E0. 't any rate, advanced age
does not mean that se*ual intercourse is no longer possible,
as age is not a criterion taken alone in determining se*ual
interest and capability of middle8aged and older people.
.People v. Bahuyan, 23C %-R' 33F0.
People vs. *abre/o (2000)
Jimmy %abredo, uncle of victim Judeli>a, lived with their
family in -ebu for more than a year. e forcibly dragged
her at knife=s point, and brought her to +asbate. 'rmed
with a blade, he se*ually assaulted Judeli>a. 'fter
satisfying his lust, Jimmy inserted three fingers into her
vaginal orifice and cruelly pinched it. "ater, Jimmy struck
Judeli>a with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious.
T- sentenced him to death for the comple* crime of
abduction with rape.
!"#$ ?hen a comple* crime under 'rticle BC of the RP- is
charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is
a*iomatic 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. Prosecution failed
to allege the 3
rd
element of forcible abduction which is that
the abduction is with lewd designs. Thus, when Jimmy,
using a blade, forcibly took away complainant for the
purpose of se*ually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape
her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction. ence,
the crime committed by appellant is simple rape only.
?here the rape is committed with the use of deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the imposable penalty
ranges from RP to death. The use of the bladed weapon
already qualified the rape. %ince there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
%ection // ./0 of R.'. )o. IEGH imposes the death penalty
when the rape victim is under /C years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step8parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common8law spouse of the parent of the
victim. owever, R.'. )o. IEGH cannot apply ,) -'7
because ./0 at the time the rape was committed, victim
was already more than /C years old and .20 the information
did not allege that offender and offended party were
relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. %entence
should only be reclusion perpetua.
People vs. 'rillas (2000)
'mor (. 'rillas accused her father, Romeo 'rillas of raping
her on two occasions when she was barely /E years old. The
trial court found her father guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and imposed the death penalty for the reason that the
victim was under /C years old at the time of the
commission of the offense and the offender was her father.
!"#$ The informations in these cases alleged that the
victim is the daughter of the appellant but it did not allege
that the victim is under /C years old. ,t is a denial of the
right of an accused not to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against him, and consequently, a denial of due
process if he is convicted of a crime in its qualified form
notwithstanding the fact that the information, on which he
was arraigned, charges him only of the crime in its simple
form by not specifying the circumstance that qualifies the
crime. ence, the appellant was only charged with simple
rape and its penalty is reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Ma,ina2
'ccused here was a houseboy who raped and killed the /28
year8old daughter of their neighbor. 'ccused was convicted
of Rape with omicide and sentenced to death.
!"#$ %ince the victim here was /2 years old already, must
prove se*ual congress by force and violence and lack of
consent. %ince in this case the victim was unconscious, the
conclusion is that there was lack of consent.
The crime here is Rape with omicide, which is a special
comple* crime with an indivisible penalty of death. This is
treated in the same way as qualified rape, rape with any of
the /F attendant circumstances properly alleged in the
information and proven at trial. owever if any of the
circumstances are not alleged but proven, the penalty
cannot be death e*cept if the circumstance can be made to
fall under 'rt./B9/G RP-. ,n -'7, the court has no choice
but to impose death as this is what is given in the law as
the penalty for the special comple* crime.
People vs. 6ui7anola (1999)
There were 2 accused here who took turns in raping a /G8
year8old girl. They were convicted of frustrated rape based
on People vs. Erina despite the fact that the subsequent
case of People vs. Orita saying that there can never be a
crime of frustrated rape. The ruling was based on the
testimony of the victim that she only felt the penis
touching her.
!"#$ The 2 accused should be convicted each of two
counts of consummated rape. ;rustrated rape can never be
committed because no matter how slight the penetration,
as long the penis touches the e*ternal genitalia of the
woman, the rape is consummated as the person has done
all the necessary acts to complete the crime.
95
!ven if 'rt33G RP- as amended still uses frustrated rape,
the -ourt will ignore it and &ust treat it as a mere lapse in
language.
People vs. Campu,an
-ampuhan had his pants down and was on top of the B8year
old child when the childs mother arrived. ' medical
e*amination showed that there were no signs of genital
in&ury and that the victims hymen was intact.
!"#$ ;or rape to be consummated, a slight brush or
scrape of the penis on the e*ternal layer of the vagina
.mons pubis0 will not suffice. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias
or slid into the female organ, and )(T merely stroked the
e*ternal surface thereof. 'T "!'%T T! "'7,' +'J(R'
+@%T 7! !)T!R!# ;(R R'P! T( 7! -()%@++'T!#.
People v. 5ga( )-1 *C!' -5) (200))
;'-T%$ 't around /F$FF p.m., (ga summoned /B8
year8old ,rene to his barracks. ,nside his barracks, (ga,
however, suddenly pulled her and laid her on the wooden
bed. The appellant then took off her pants and panty, as
well as his clothes. ,rene allegedly resisted the se*ual
assault, but her efforts proved in vain because the (ga was
strong and drunk. e pinned her down with his body, while
his right hand pinned her hands above her shoulders and his
left hand separated her legs. Then he inserted his penis
into her vagina. ,t was only at around 2$FF a.m. when her
parents caught (ga naked atop ,renes naked body. ,rene
denied that the appellant was her boyfriend. ;or his part,
(ga interposed as a defense the 5sweetheart theory.6
!"#$ ,n reviewing rape cases, the -ourt has
established the following principles as guides$ ./0 an
accusation of rape can be made with facility, difficult to
prove but more difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove1 .20 by reason of the intrinsic nature
of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutini>ed with e*treme caution1 and .30 the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits and cannot
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense. ,n the present case, the -out ruled that no
physical force was used to quell ,renes alleged resistance.
,rene claimed that she resisted the se*ual molestation, but
a careful reading of her testimony failed to reveal the kind
of resistance she did under the circumstances. ?hile it is
true that a rape victim is not e*pected to resist until
death, it is contrary to human e*perience that ,rene did
not even make an outcry or use her hands which must have
been free most of the time to ward off the lustful advances
of appellant. ;urther, the findings of #r. Nillena, who
e*amined ,rene only several hours after the alleged rape,
showed no sign of e*tragenital in&uries on her body. )ot a
piece of ,renes apparel was torn or damaged as would
evince a struggle on her part. These circumstances
additionally belie ,renes claim that the appellant had
se*ual intercourse with her without her consent.
People v. 0uates( )0" *C!' 2%" (200-)
;'-T%$ (n July 2C, /HHF, at around G$FF p.m.,
Jennifer 7uates was on her way home when the appellant,
who is his uncle, called her, allegedly to give her
something. 's Jennifer approached the appellant, the
latter pointed a knife at her and told her to undress.
;earful for her life, Jennifer undressed, followed by the
appellant. Thereafter, he ordered her to lie down on the
grassy portion of the area. e spread her legs and inserted
his penis into her vagina while she cried and felt severe
pain. The appellant appeared to have shivered before
finally pulling out his penis. e instructed Jennifer to dress
up and warned her not to tell her family about the
incident, otherwise they would all be killed. 'fter the
incident appellant succeeded in molesting her several
times more on different dates. ,n #ecember /HHB,
Jennifer went to live with her grandmother one month
after her own father allegedly molested her. %ubsequently,
she stayed with an aunt a before transferring to another
aunt, a certain !nrica Provido, to whom she finally
revealed her harrowing e*perience in the hands of the
appellant and her own father. -onsequently, !nrica called
Jennifers mother, 4liceria in 7icol and related her
daughters ordeal. The RT- convicted (ga of two counts of
rape. 'ppellant principally assails the credibility of
Jennifer, claiming that her actuations after the alleged
commission of each act of rape were not typical of a rape
victim. %pecifically, appellant points out that Jennifer
continued to take a bath alone and fetch water from the
river near where the appellant allegedly raped. %he also
took the same path on her way to school where the second
se*ual assault allegedly took place. +oreover, Jennifer
remained respectful of the appellant. ,n addition, she did
not inform any member of her family about the alleged
se*ual assaults in /HHF and /HH3 but only after several
years, in /HHC.
!"#$ The appellant cannot successfully impugn
the credibility of the private complainant on account of her
alleged DnormalD behavior after both se*ual assaults. ,t
must be borne in mind that different people respond
differently to a given stimulus or type of situation and
there is no standard form of behavioral response when one
undergoes a shocking or startling e*perience. The
demeanor of the private complainant was understandable
in the light of the circumstances in both incidents of rape.
%he did not immediately disclose her misfortune to anybody
because of the death threats from the appellant. 7eing in
her early teens, she was obviously cowed into silence as
the appellant warned her not to divulge the incident to
anybody, otherwise she and her family would be killed.
%uch threat from the appellant, for sure, generated much
fear in her mind. ;urther the victims lowly station in life
simply offered no other option for the private complainant
but to continue doing those things. i.e. taking a bath alone1
fetching water<
The -ourt also held that it was e*tremely
ludicrous for the appellant to claim the continued respect
and affection of the private complainant solely from the
latter=s customary act of obtaining his blessing
.pagmamano0. The private complainant herself clarified
that the practice was an involuntary gesture to keep the
public from getting wind of her sorry episode of defloration
and to maintain her honor.
A"o"i'it o- Ficti'
People v. Cabal8uinto (2006)
Pursuant to Republic 'ct )o. H2E2, otherwise known as the
5'nti8Niolence 'gainst ?omen and Their -hildren 'ct of
2FFB6 and its implementing rules, the real name of the
victim, together with the real names of her immediate
96
family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead
are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy.
Stat$tor Rape
People v. Jalos9os( -69 *C!' 1%9 (2001)
;'-T%$ The victim // year8old, +aria Rosilyn
#elantar, grew up under the care of %implicio #elantar,
whom she treated as her own father. %implicio was a GE
year8old homose*ual whose ostensible source of income
was selling longgani>a and tocino and accepting boarders at
his house. (n the side, he was also engaged in the skin
trade as a pimp. 't a very young age of G, Rosilyn was
e*posed by %implicio to his illicit activities. %he and her
brother would tag along with %implicio whenever he
delivered prostitutes to his clients. ?hen she turned H,
Rosilyn was offered by %implicio as a prostitute to an
'rabian national known as +r. ammond. Thus begun her
ordeal as one of the girls sold by %implicio for se*ual
favors. %implicio brought Rosilyn to -ongressman Jalos&os
condominium unit at Rit> Towers on several occassions.
There, -ong. Jalos&os would kiss, caress and fondle said
Rosilyn=s face, lips, neck, breasts, vagina1 suck her nipples
and insert his finger and then his tongue into her vagina,
and other similar lascivious conduct. (n two occasions,
Jalos&os placed himself on top of Rosilyn and inserted his
se*ual organ into her vagina. (n said occassions, -ong.
Jalos&os would thereafter give her money which she in turn
gives to %implicio. 'fter trial, the RT- convicted -ong.
Jalos&os of two .20 counts of statutory rape, and si* .E0
counts of acts of lasciviousness defined and penali>ed
under 'rticle 33E of the RP-, in relation to %ection G.b0 of
Republic 'ct )o. IE/F, also known as the -hild 'buse "aw.
!"#$ ,n statutory rape, mere se*ual congress
with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the
crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the act
or lack of it. The law presumes that a woman of tender age
does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving
intelligent consent to the se*ual act. Thus, it was held that
carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if
she is engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory
rape. The application of force and intimidation or the
deprivation of reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. The
absence of struggle or outcry of the victim or even her
passive submission to the se*ual act will not mitigate nor
absolve the accused from liability.
,n the case at bar, the prosecution established
beyond reasonable doubt that accused8appellant had carnal
knowledge of Rosilyn. +oreover, the prosecution
successfully proved that Rosilyn was only eleven years of
age at the time she was se*ually abused. 's such, the
absence of proof of any struggle, or for that matter of
consent or passive submission to the se*ual advances of
accused8appellant, was of no moment. The fact that
accused8appellant had se*ual congress with eleven year8old
Rosilyn is sufficient to hold him liable for statutory rape,
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
)ote$ Republic 'ct )o. C3G3, the 'nti8Rape
law of /HHI was enacted after /HHE8the year the above acts
were committed, hence, it does not apply in this case.
People v. 0as8ue:( -66 *C!' 15) (2001)
;'-T%$ 'round B$FF pm, Jiggle Jilt dela -erna, si*
.E0 years old, was on her way home from school, where she
was a 4rade / student. ?hile casually walking, 7asque>,
who was drinking outside a store along her way blocked her
way and pulled her by the belt of her dress. %he was then
dragged towards the direction of the houses at the back of
the school and was brought inside an unoccupied
dilapidated house. @pon reaching the said house, her
hands, feet and body were tied with a tieback. Jiggle
struggled and cry. 't this point, her attacker undressed
himself, untied Jiggle, had her lie down and put himself on
top of her. 7asque> hands then started groping all over her
young and fragile body and forced himself inside her.
Jiggle, despite the e*cruciating pain, kicked appellant
repeatedly in an effort to free herself from him. 7asque>,
however, continued forcing his penis inside her vagina. 'n
hour after when the 7asque> left Jiggle with her body still
tied. ?ith her school bag &ust beside her, Jiggle mustered
enough courage and strength to take a pair of scissors from
it and cut the remaining tiebacks tied at her body. The
following day, Jiggle, traumati>ed by the assault and rape
committed by the appellant, refused to go to school for
fear of seeing the 7asque> again. %he later narrated her
horrifying e*perience to her grandmother %egundina dela
-erna with whom she was living.
!"#$ 'lthough there had been no complete
penetration of the victim=s vagina by appellant=s penis,
contact between them was not ruled out by the doctor who
testified in this case. ,n fact, he found the victim=s vagina
positive for spermato>oa. !*isting rulings on rape do not
require complete or full penetration of the victim=s private
organ. )either is the rupture of the hymen necessary. The
mere introduction of the penis into the labia ma&ora of the
victim=s genitalia engenders the crime of rape. BF ence, it
is the DtouchingD or DentryD of the penis into the labia
ma&ora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim=s
genitalia that consummates rape. B/ Penile invasion
necessarily entails contact with the labia. !ven the briefest
of contacts, without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to
be rape.
People v. 4alisa2( )0" *C!' -%5 (200-)
;'-T%$ "anie was lying in bed when her
father, the appellant arrived from work. %uddenly appellant
removed "anies pants and underwear. "anie resisted but
appellant bo*ed her on her thigh. 'ppellant touched her
daughters vagina and licked it. Thereafter, while in a
kneeling position, he placed his penis at the entrance of
"anie=s vagina and inserted his private organ into hers. e
then proceeded to make push and pull movements. "anie
felt pain but she did not complain because she was afraid.
The following day, "anie went to school and pretended as if
nothing happened. owever, her 4rade N teacher noticed
that "anie looked depressed that day. ?hen she inquired,
"anie answered that she was raped by her father. 'ppellant
had se*ually abused "anie since she was in grade ,,,. %he
estimated that her father had raped her seventeen ./I0
times, although she could no longer remember the e*act
dates when they took place. ,ncidentally, "anie=s sister, "u>,
also filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against
appellant. 'ppellant contends that since "anie=s hymen is
intact and that there was no spermato>oa in her genitalia,
he could not have committed the crime.
!"#$ The appellant is guilty of statury rape. The
presence of either hymenal laceration or spermato>oa on
"anie=s private part is not an essential element of rape. The
court cited the cases of1 People vs. Parcia, where it was
9%
held that the absence of sperm does not disprove the
charge of rape1 People vs. Regala, where was ruled that an
intact hymen does not necessarily prove absence of se*ual
intercourse1 and People vs. Rafales, where it was declared
that, D. . .. ;or rape to be committed, entrance of the male
organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is
sufficient. Rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina
are not essential. !ntry to the least e*tent of the labia or
the lips of the female organ is sufficient, the victim
remaining virgin does not negate rape.D
's testified to by "anie, Dthe tipD of appellant=s
penis was inserted into her vagina, as a result of which
she felt pain. ,n other words, there was no full penetration,
and this e*plains why her hymen remained intact.
)onetheless, carnal knowledge was consummated by the
entry of Dthe tipD of appellant=s private organ into the labia
or pudendum of "anie=s genitalia. ,t is well8settled that full
penetration is not required to consummate carnal
knowledge, as proof of entrance showing the slightest
penetration of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ is sufficient.
7ia4ilit o- Se2eral Acc$!ed i"
M$ltiple Rape
People v. Plura/( -9- *C!' -06 (2002)
;'-T%; 'n hour and a half past midnight, after
)orielene consumed half a glass of gin handed to her by
accused 7ernadas, she began to feel di>>y. )orielene fell
asleep on the lap of her friend, ,baAe>. 't around 3$FF in
the morning, )orielene woke up and found that she was
being carried by the three .30 accused towards the
bedroom of accused 7ernadas. %ince she still felt di>>y,
)orielene fell fast asleep in the room. %he later woke up
when accused 7ernadas was removing her shorts and
panties. )orielene tried to shout for help but her mouth
was covered by 7ernadas. ?hen she was already naked,
accused 7ernadas placed himself on top of her, inserted his
se* organ into her private parts and performed pumping
motions. 7oth hands of the victim were held by the accused
Plurad and -aAedo. 'fter 7ernadas finished raping her,
Plurad took his turn and had se*ual intercourse with
)orielene while fondling her breasts. )orielene struggled
to free herself but 7ernadas held her hands while Plurad
covered her mouth with a handkerchief ?hen Plurad was
through, -aAedo also had se*ual intercourse with her while
7ernadas and Plurad held her hands.
!"#$ ,n cases of multiple rape, each of the
defendants is responsible not only for the rape committed
by him but also for those committed by the others. Plurad,
therefore, is responsible not only for the rape committed
personally by him but also for the two other counts of rape
committed by his co8accused.
Rape 'a 4e co''ited 4 a 6o'a"
People v. /ela Torre( )19 *C!' 1" (200))
;'-T%$ 'ppellant8spouses 7utchoy and ;e de la
Torre were convicted by the RT- of H counts of rape
committed against their maid 7aby Jane #agot, who was
then only /E years old.
7aby Jane and the appellant8spouses were asleep on
the floor of the same bedroom when appellant ;e de la
Torre woke 7aby Jane and her husband 7utchoy. 7aby Jane
was surprised to see that ;e was holding a lighted kerosene
lamp and a scythe. ;e ordered her husband to transfer and
lie beside 7aby Jane. 's appellant 7utchoy did not comply,
;e herself transferred so that 7aby Jane was between her
and 7utchoy. ;e put down the scythe and the lamp and
proceeded to take 7utchoy=s clothes off and then 7aby
Jane=s. 7utchoy offered no resistance but 7aby Jane
ob&ected and cried to no avail. ;e then ordered 7utchoy to
have se* with 7aby Jane. 7aby Jane, fearful of the spouses
and the dawning reali>ation of what would happen to her,
could not ward off his advances. 7utchoy placed himself on
top of 7aby Jane, inserted his penis into her vagina and did
a push and pull motion. 7aby Jane felt pain. 'll the while,
;e was standing beside them, holding the lamp and the
scythe. 'fter the se*ual intercourse, 7utchoy kissed her on
the neck and fondled her breasts. 7aby Jane found it
revolting but could not do much to refuse him, as she was
afraid of ;e. ?hen 7utchoy was finished, he threw her
clothes to her and got dressed. 7aby Jane immediately put
on her clothes. %he wanted to leave the room but ;e
prevented her from doing so. The following morning, 7aby
Jane saw that there was blood on her panty. The rape was
repeated once a week from the second week of %eptember
/HH2 on to the fourth week of (ctober /HH2. 7aby Jane had
her menarche in the month of )ovember /HH2 and was
spared from the appellants= abuse that month. owever she
was again raped in the second week of #ecember. This was
to be the last. 7aby Jane testified that the subsequent rape
incidents were carried out in the same manner as the first.
%he felt pain during the first and second rapes, but did not
feel pain anymore in the succeeding rape incidents.
!"#$ 'n accused may be considered a principal
by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable
cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a
woman, provided of course a man is charged together with
her. ,n two cases the -ourt convicted the woman as a
principal by direct participation since it was proven that
she held down the complainant in order to help her co8
accused spouse consummate the offense. ,n People v.
Villamala, the -ourt found the husband and wife guilty for
raping their neighbor and DkumareD in this factual setting,
vi>$ the wife visited the victim at her home on the prete*t
of inquiring as to the whereabouts of her husband. (nce
inside, she whistled for her husband and he immediately
appeared at the doorstep. The wife then suddenly pinned
her DkumareD to the floor. The husband forcefully removed
the victim=s skirt and panties, removed his shorts, placed
himself on top of the victim and consummated the rape. ,n
the more recent People v. Saba, the accused married
couple victimi>ed a fourteen ./B0 year8old epileptic who
stayed at their home for treatment by the wife who was a
reputed healer. (n the prete*t of conducting a healing
session, the wife ordered the victim to lie down on the
floor then pinned the victim=s hands to the floor and
covered her mouth while her husband removed his pants
and briefs and the victim=s panties and raped the young
girl. These two cases show not only the possibility but the
reality of rape committed by a woman together with a
man. The -ourt affirmed the decision of the RT-.
Rape thro$gh !e&$al a!!a$lt
5r/inario v. People( )2" *C!' %%- (200))
;'-T%$ Jayson Ramos and accused 4eronimo
(rdinario were student and teacher, respectively, at
)icanor 4arcia !lementary %chool during the time the
crime was perpetrated. Jayson was then in 4rade B and
9"
accused was his teacher in 7oy %cout. 'fter being
summoned by accused at the 7oy %cout headquarters,
Jayson was ordered to strip off which the latter complied
unwary of the perverse intentions of accused. 'ccused
then approached Jayson and started kissing him all over his
body including his male organ. Thereafter, accused inserted
his private part into the mouth of Jayson but the latter
could not hold on for long as he felt vomiting prompting
accused to remove his penis and ordered Jayson to dress
up. 7efore they parted ways, accused told Jayson =pag
nagsumbong ka sa mga magulang mo, may masamang
mangyayari sa iyo.= ,nterpreting the same to mean an
immediate bodily harm, Jayson kept mum on the incident
for fear of accused reprisal. The same se*ual molestation
recurred, and several more thereafter until Jayson had
mustered enough courtage to inform his parents about the
incident.
!"#$ The definition of the crime of rape has
been e*panded with the enactment of Republic 'ct )o.
C3G3, otherwise also known as the 'nti8Rape "aw of /HHI,
to include not only Drape by se*ual intercourseD but now
likewise Drape by se*ual assault. D'n act of se*ual assault
under the second paragraph of 'rticle 2EE8' of the RP- can
be committed by any person who, under the circumstances
mentioned in the first paragraph of the law, inserts his
penis into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
ob&ect into the genital or anal orifice, of another person.
The law, unlike rape under the first paragraph of said
'rticle 2EE8' of the -ode, has not made any distinction on
the se* of either the offender or the victim. The court
found (rdinario guilty of rape by se*ual assault on twelve
./20 counts.
People v. *oriano( -"" *C!' 1)0 (2002)
;'-T%$ (n four occasions, the -amilo %oriano
forced his penis into her daughter +aricels vagina, (n
twelve other occasions, the accused inserted his finger into
her daughters private organ. The victim was then // years
old.
!"#$ The -ourt found -amilo guilty of B counts
of rape by se*ual intercourse and /2 counts of rape through
se*ual assault. ,nserting a finger inside the genital of a
woman is rape through se*ual assault within the conte*t of
paragraph 2 of 'rticle 2EE8' of the RP-. .!mphasis
supplied0
People v. <etalino (200%)
The insertion of ones finger into the genital or anal
orifice of another person constitutes rape by se*ual assault
and not merely an act of lasciviousness
Dela i" Reporti"g Rape
People v. 'rnai: (2006)
)either does '''s failure to tell her mother about the
incident nor her long delay in reporting the matter to the
authorities negate rape. 's correctly observed by the (%4,
the delay in reporting the rape incident does not weaken
the case for the prosecution. ,t is not uncommon for a
young girl to conceal assaults on her virtue, especially
when the rapist is living with her. ,n fact, we have
previously ruled in People v. !oloma" that even a delay of C
years is not a sign of fabrication.
A4!e"ce o- Medical 9i"di"g!
People v. Teo/oro (2006)
Thus, the contention of appellant that there were no
lacerations in the vagina does not merit any consideration.
,n that regard, it has been held that the medical
e*amination of the victim is merely corroborative in
character and is not an element of rape. "ikewise, a
freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape
and healed lacerations do not negate rape.
S6eetheart de-e"!e
People v. 0autista( )-0 *C!' )69 (200))
;'-T%$ (n the prete*t that he had been
sent by his wife to fetch the victim, a /G8year8old girl for
an field trip, 7austista, brought the latter to a motel,
where he had se*ual intercourse with her against her will.
-ontending that he and the victim were lovers, appellant
claims that what transpired was consensual, though illicit,
se*ual intercourse.
!"#$ 7autistas sweetheart defense
was re&ected by the court for lack of corroboration. 's an
affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing
evidence O by some documentary and9or other evidence
like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like. ,n
this case, the only thing he proffered to prove that he and
the victim were lovers was his self8serving statement,
which she and her mother categorically denied. !ven if he
and the victim were really sweethearts, such a fact would
not necessarily establish consent. ,t has been consistently
ruled that Da love affair does not &ustify rape, for the
beloved cannot be se*ually violated against her will.D The
fact that a woman voluntarily goes out on a date with her
lover does not give him unbridled license to have se* with
her against her will. The court cited the case of People v.
#reu, where it was held that D' sweetheart cannot be
forced to have se* against her will. #efinitely, a man
cannot demand se*ual gratification from a fiancee and,
worse, employ violence upon her on the prete*t of love.
"ove is not a license for lust.D
Moral Character o- Ficti'
People v. 'gsaoa2( )-0 *C!' )50 (200))
;'-T%$ Josephine and her sister were sleeping on
the second floor of their house, while the other members
of the family were at the ground floor. Their mother left
their house early and went to the field to uproot palay
seedlings. Josephine was awakened when her father
suddenly kissed her lips. ,nstinctively, she pushed him away
but to no avail. e threatened to kill her and her entire
family should she report the matter to her mother.
Josephine was so terrified and was not able to shout and
resist. er father then undressed her, spread her legs, held
her hands, and inserted his penis into her vagina and made
99
a push and pull movement. Josephine felt pain. Josephine
did not tell her mother, about the incident because of her
father=s threat. ,t was only the following day that she
revealed to her mother what had happened. er mother
was shocked but scared to report the matter immediately
to the authorities because in the past, accused killed her
brother. 'ccused ravished Josephine for the second time. 't
first, her mother again refused to report the incident to
the police. "ater, however, her mother finally went to the
P)P to report the incident. )ow, the defense endeavors to
prove that Josephine is an unchaste young woman who
habitually goes out with different men.
!"#$ The debasement of Josephines character
does not necessarily cast doubt on her credibility, nor does
it negate the e*istence of rape. ,t is a well8established rule
that in the prosecution and conviction of an accused for
rape, the victim=s moral character is immaterial, there
being absolutely no ne*us between it and the odious deed
committed. !ven a prostitute or a woman of loose morals
can be the victim of rape, for she can still refuse a man=s
lustful advances.
9orci4le a4d$ctio" a4!or4ed i" rape
People v. ining( -") *C!' )2% (2002)
;'-T%$ !melina, then fifteen ./G0 years old,
requested permission from her parents to visit her aunt
where she was supposed to spend the night. ?hile in her
aunt &osephines house, !melina was invited to a dance
party. !melina accepted the invitation and she went to the
party, accompanied by her aunt. Josephine then left
!melina at the party, telling her that she had to go home
but she would return later to fetch her. ?hen the party
ended Josephine still had not returned. !melina decided to
go home alone. (n her way to her aunts house, !melina
was accosted by 4erry "ining and "ian %alvacion, both of
whom were known to her since they were her former
neighbors. "ining poked a kitchen knife at !melinas breast
and the two held her hands. !melina was dragged towards
the ricefield and was forcibly carried to an unoccupied
house. ,nside the house, "ining removed !melinas t8shirt,
pants and undergarments. %he was pushed to the floor and
while %alvacion was holding her hands and kissing her,
"ining inserted his penis inside her vagina. !melina
shouted and tried to ward off her attackers, but to no
avail. 'fter "ining had satisfied his lust, he held !melinas
hands and kissed her while %alvacion in turn inserted his
penis inside her vagina. Thereafter, the two directed
!melina to put on her clothes. !melina saw an opportunity
to escape, and she returned to her aunts house.
i
owever,
because of fear, as the accused threatened her that she
would be killed if she would reveal what they did to her,
she did not tell her aunt what transpired. %he ne*t went to
the house of her friend !velyn %aguid where he told 4erry
%elda, a friend of her father, who saw her crying about the
rape incident. 'ccused %alvacion remained at large while
"ining was convicted by the trial as principal of the
comple* crime of forcible abduction with rape.
!"#$ "ining could only be convicted for the
crime of rape, instead of the comple* crime of forcible
abduction with rape. ,ndeed, it would appear from the
records that the main ob&ective of the accused when the
victim was taken to the house of +ila %alvacion was to rape
her. ence, forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of
rape.
100
i

Title 8 - Persons 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 8 - Persons 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title Eight

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

You might also like