Minucher v CA

FACTS:
Khosrow Minucher, an Iranian national and a Labor Attach for the Iranian
Embassies in Tokyo, Japan and Manila.
In May 1986, Minucher was charged with an Information for violation of Republic Act
No. 6425, Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. The criminal charge followed a buy-bust
operation conducted by the Philippine police narcotic agents in his house where a
quantity of heroin was said to have been seized. The narcotic agents were
accompanied by private respondent Arthur Scalzo who became one of the principal
witnesses for the prosecution.
In August 1988, Minucher filed Civil Case before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for
damages on the trumped-up charges of drug trafficking made by Arthur Scalzo.
Issue:
Whether or not a complaint for damages be dismissed in the sole basis of a
statement complained in a Diplomatic Note.

Held:
The complaint for damages cannot be dismissed. Said complaint contains sufficient
allegations which indicate that Scalzo committed imputed acts in his personal
capacity and outside the scope of his official duties and functions. The TC gave
credit to Minucher's theory that he was a victim of frame-up hence, there is a prima
facie showing that Scalzo could be held personally liable for his acts. Further, Scalzo
did not come forward with evidence to, prove that he acted in his official capacity.

Liang vs People
FACTS:

2 criminal informations for for grave oral defamation were filed against Jeffrey
Liang, a Chinese national who was employed as an Economist by the Asian
Development Bank (ADB), by Joyce V. Cabal, a member of the clerical staff of ADB
ISSUE: W/N the crime of oral deflamation enjoys immunity
HELD: NO
slander, in general, cannot be considered as an act performed in an official capacity

People vs Lacson
FACTS: Petitioner asserts that retroactive application of penal laws should also cover
procedures, and that these should be applied only to the sole benefit of the
accused. Petitioner
asserts that Sec 8 was meant to reach back in time to provide relief to the accused
in line with the constitutional guarantee to the right to speedy trial.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the 5 Associate Justices inhibit themselves from deciding in the
Motion for Reconsideration given they were only appointed in the SC after his Feb.
19, 2002 oral arguments.

The rule should be applied prospectively. The court upheld the petitioners
contention that while Sec.8 secures the rights of the accused, it does not and should
not preclude the equally important right of the State to public justice. If a procedural
rule impairs a vested right, or would work injustice, the said rule may not be given a
retroactive application.

2. WON the application of the time-bar under Section 8 Rule 117 be given a
retroactive application without reservations, only and solely on the basis of its being
favorable to the accused.

The Court is not mandated to apply rules retroactively simply because it is favorable
to the accused. The time-bar under the new rule is intended to benefit both the
State and
the accused. When the rule was approved by the court, it intended that the rule be
applied prospectively and not retroactively, for to do so would be tantamount to the
denial
of the States right to due process. A retroactive application would result in absurd,
unjust and oppressive consequences to the State and to the victims of crimes and
their heirs.

Go vs. Dimagiba
Facts: Fernando Dimagiba issued to Susan Go thirteen checks which, when
presented to the drawee bank for encashment or payment on the due dates, were
dishonored for the reason account closed. Subqequently, Dimagiba was
prosecuted for 13 counts of violation of BP 22 He was found guilty by the MTCC, was
sentenced three months imprisonment, and was ordered to pay the offended party
the amount he owed plus interest. he pointed out that the penalty of fine only,
instead of imprisonment also, should have been imposed on him
Issues:

(2) Whether or not SC-AC No. 12-2000 can be given retroactive application.

(2) No. The rule on retroactivity states that criminal laws may be applied
retroactively if favorable to the accused. SC-AC No. 12-2000 cannot be given
retroactive application for it is not a law that deletes the penalty of imprisonment. It
is merely a rule of preference as to which penalty should be imposed under the
peculiar circumstances of the case.

US vs. Lol-lo and Saraw

Facts: 2 Dutch boats left Matuta on 30 June 1920, headed for Peta. First boat had 1
person aboard and the secondhad 11 men, women and children. After a few days, at
7pm, the second boat arrived between the isles of Buang andBukid and was
stopped by 6 vintas with 24 men, all armed. They asked for food, took cargo, hurt
men, and rapedwomen. Then, 2 women were taken, the rest were put back on boat
made to sink. Lol-lo raped one of the women onthe way to Maruro, where both
women escaped.

Issue: Given that piracy is punishable in all jurisdictions, does Art. 153 still apply
since is still says Spain insteadof Philippines etc?
Held: Yes; all laws still applicable in Philippines until so changed or repealed.

US vs. Ah Chong
Facts: Ah Chong was a cook in mess hall at Fort McKinley (now Fort Bonifacio) and
stayed there at Bldg. 27. Onenight, he woke up to the sound of someone trying to
force his way into the room.; all he could do wasask who it was. He asked twice, and
then, when no response came, he threatened the attacker that if he continued,he
would be killed. He took a knife which he kept under his pillow because of the
robberies occurring recently, andwhen he was hit on the knee by a chair he uses to
keep the door closed, he attacked and killed the man who turnedout to be his
roommate, Pascal Gualberto. He called for help immediately but it was too late.
Issue: Is he liable for the crime?
Held: No; it was a mistake of facts. The act would have been lawful if the facts had
been as he believed them to be.-Feliciano

People vs Oanis
Facts: Under instructions to seize Balagtas (escaped convict), the two policemen
went to a house where theysuspected Balagtas to be hiding. Upon finding a
sleeping man inside, they shot him. He turned out to be Tecson, aninnocent man.
Issue: Are they liable?
Held: Yes; unlike in Ah Chong, facts did not show that they tried to ascertain that
they had the right man. As they didnot exercise due precaution, they were guilty of
murder.

PEOPLE VS PUGAY
FACTS:
May 19, 1982, a town fiesta was held in the public plaza of Rosario, Cavite.
Sometime after midnight, Eduardo Gabion was sitting in the ferris wheel and
reading a comic book.

Later, Pugay and Samson with several companions arrived at the scene seemingly
drunk.
The group saw Bayani Miranda and started making fun of him by tickling him with a
piece of wood.
Pugay suddenly took a can of gasoline and poured its contents on Miranda. Gabion
asked Pugay to stop during the process of pouring the gasoline.
Then Samson set Miranda on fire
ISSUE/HELD:
WON Pugay and Samson are guilty of the crime murder. (NO)
RATIO:
There was no evidence found that Pugay and Samson planned to kill Miranda. Their
meeting was accidental and the accused were merely making fun of the deceasedvictim.
Criminal responsibility of Pugay and Samson are counted as individual acts and they
are held liable only for the acts they committed individually.
Pugay should have known that what he was pouring on Miranda was gasoline
because of its smell. He failed to exercise diligence necessary to avoid the
consequences of his actions and exposed Miranda to danger and injury.
Pugay is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence.
Samson just wanted to set Mirandas clothes on fire but this doesnt relieve him of
criminal liability
Samson is guilty of homicide credited with ordinary mitigating circumstance of no
intention to commit so grave a wrong.

People vs Garcia
Facts:
On May 22, 1998, While Sanily was crossing the street, a passenger jeepney hit her.
The jeepney stopped and suddenly accelerated running over Sanilys stomach.
Bentley and appellant pulled her from underneath the vehicle and brought her to
the hospital where she died four days later. The lower court rendered judgment,
finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder qualified by

evident premeditation because he deliberately ran over the slumped body of the
victim.

Issue:Whether or not he is guilty of murder or reckless imprudence resulting in

homicide.

Ruling:

When the vehicle stopped and accelerated the crime. There is also no evidence
that shows overt acts for the commission of the crime. The court ruled that the
accused is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. Voluntary without
malice

Garcia vs CA
In 1995, Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., ran for the senatorial elections.
Meanwhile, in Alaminos, Pangasinan, Arsenia Garcia was one of the designated
election officers. Garcia was accused by Pimentel of violating the Electoral Reforms
Law of 1987.
The trial court found Garcia guilty. On appeal, Garcia invoked that the trial court
erred in ruling that her defense of good faith was not properly appreciated. She
averred that due to the workload given to her during said elections, she got fatigued
and that caused the error in the tabulation of Pimentels votes.
Pimentel argued that the Electoral Reforms Law is a special law hence it is a malum
prohibitum law and therefore, good faith is not a defense.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alleged violation of Garcia of the Electoral Reforms Law
is a malum prohibitum.

HELD: No. Generally, mala in se crimes refer to those felonies in violation of the
Revised Penal Code. However, it must be noted that mala in se are crimes which are
inherently immoral. Hence, even if the crime is punished by a special law, if it is
inherently immoral, then it is still a crime mala in se.
In this case, the said violation of the Electoral Reforms Law is a mala in se crime
because it is inherently immoral to decrease the vote of a candidate. Since a
violation of this special law is a malum in se, good faith can be raised as a defense.
However, Garcias defense of good faith was not proven.

Manuel vs People
FACTS:
This case is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of Court of Appeals
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, convicting the
petitioner for the crime of bigamy.

Eduardo P. Manuel, herein petitioner, was first married to Rubylus Gaa on July 18,
1975 and thereafter imprisoned and was never seen again by him after his last visit.
Manuel met Tina B. Gandalera in January 1996 when the latter was only 21 years
old. Three months after their meeting, the two got married Gandaleras knowledge
of Manuels first marriage. In the course of their marriage learned that Eduardo was
in fact already married when he married him. She then filed a criminal case of
bigamy against Eduardo Manuel. The latters defense being that his declaration of
single in his marriage contract with Gandalera was done because he believed in
good faith that his first marriage was invalid and that he did not know that he had to
go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina.
The Regional Trial Court ruled against him.

Eduardo appealed the decision to the CA where he alleged that he was not
criminally liable for bigamy because when he married the private complainant, he
did so in good faith and without any malicious intent.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it
ruled that petitioners wife cannot be legally presumed dead under Article 390 of
the Civil Code as there was no judicial declaration of presumptive death as provided
for under Article 41 of the Family Code.

2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed reversible error of law when it
affirmed the award of Php200,000.00 as moral damages as it has no basis in fact
and in law.

HELD:
1. The petition is denied for lack of merit. The petitioner is presumed to have acted
with malice or evil intent when he married the private complainant. As a general
rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution
for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent. However,
ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the
law.

People vs Delim
FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellants and victim are related for modesto is an adopted son of their
father.
On January 23,1999 Marlon, Robert and Ronald Delim charged into the house and
poked a gun at modesto, their adopted brother and herded him outside the house.
Leon and Manuel Delim both armed stayed put and made sure that randy and rita
stayed put.

Modesto's lifeless body was then found on January 25, 1999. Marlon, Ronald, and
Leon used denial and alibi as their evidence against the charge.
ISSUES OF THE CASE:

Is conspiracy and treachery present in this case to ensure that murder can be the
crime?
Yes there is:
appellants acted in unison when they abducted Modesto. So their acts were
synchronized and executed with precision evincing a preconceived plan to kill
Modesto

There is no:
TREACHERY- there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and especially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make.
For it to be appreciated prosecution needs to prove:
a. employment of means of execution which gives the person no opportunity
to defend himself
b. the means of execution is deliberately and consciously adopted
in the appellants case there are no evidence to the particulars on how Modesto was
assaulted and killed and this in fact does mean that treachery cannot be proven
since it cannot be presumed that modesto was defenseless
HELD:
APPELLANTS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE FELONY OF
HOMICIDE (THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURTS WERE MODIFIED TO LOWER THE
CRIME FROM MURDER TO HOMICIDE)
People vs Ivler
Facts:

Following a vehicular collision in August 2004, petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was
charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC), with two separate
offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries for injuries
sustained by respondent Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property for the death of
respondent Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponces
vehicle.

On 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on the first delict and was meted
out the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to
quash the Information for the second delict for placing him in jeopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence.

Without acting on petitioners motion, the MeTC cancelled his bail and ordered his
arrest.
Issues:

(2) Whether petitioners constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause bars
further proceedings in Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to
Property for the death of respondent Ponces husband.

Ruling:

On Double Jeopardy

The accuseds negative constitutional right not to be "twice put in jeopardy of

punishment for the same offense" protects him from, among others, post-conviction
prosecution for the same offense, with the prior verdict rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction upon a valid information.

The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts, were prosecuted
under the same provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article
365 defining and penalizing quasi-offenses.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We REVERSE the Orders dated 2 February

2006 and 2 May 2006 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 157. We
DISMISS the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 against petitioner Jason Ivler y
Aguilar pending with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 71 on the
ground of double jeopardy.

People vs Bayona
FACTS: On Nov. 4, 1968, Vicente Bayona, Daniel Brown Jr., and Roland Cruz were at
Nads restaurant, when Florencio Ordiales entered and asked Vicente Bayona Sino
ba ang minumura mo? immediately firing at the latter a US carbine, caliver.30, in
rapid succession.

he left the restaurant and boarded a yellow jeep parked outside. Two other persons
were in the said jeep by the names of Bayani and Magsakay.

Bayona died of multiple gunshot wounds that same afternoon upon arrival at San
Juan de Dios Hospital, Pasay city.

ISSUE: 1) WON the lower court erred in convicting Ordiales of the cirme of murder
qualified by treachery

RULING:
1) The 3 men were all seated and unarmed, and their movement was impeded by
the table at which they sat. their positions even gave Ordiales more advantage
especially since he carried 2 firearms, a carbine and a revolver. as correctly held by
the lower court, abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery and is inherent
in the same.

US vs Chico
Facts: On or about the 4th day of August, 1908, appellant Go Chico displayed in one
of the windows and one of the show cases of his store a number of medallions, in
the form of a small button, upon which were printed the miniature faces of Emilio
Aguinaldo and the flag or banner or device used during the late insurrection in the
Phil. Islands The appellant was ignorant of any law against the display of such

medallions and had consequently no corrupt intention. The facts stated above are
admitted.
Issue: Whether or not criminal intent is necessary in crimes punishable by special
laws.

Held: The court ruled that the act alone, irrespective of its motive, constitutes the
crime.

People vs. Iligan

Facts: A brawl started and the defendant chases Asis and Lukban with a bolo. Later
on, as the two were walking withEsmeraldo Quinones, the 3 reappeared again.
Macandog hit Quinones on the face with the bolo as the 2 ran away. Itis uncertain
whether or not there was truly a vehicle that ran over Quinones.
Issue: Who is liable for the death?
Held: Iligan is guilty by virtue of their chase being the proximate cause of the death,
if indeed a vehicle did run overQuinones.
People vs. Mananquil
Facts: At 11pm, 6 March 1965, defendant bought 10c worth of gasoline from Esso
gasoline station, put it in a coffee
bottle and went to her husbands guard post at NAWASA. She poured th
e gasoline on him and burned him. He diedof pneumonia, a complication caused by
the burns (weakened immune system; he caught the pneumonia in thehospital
where he was being treated
).Issue: Is she liable for the death when all she intended to do was burn him
?Held: Yes; the death is a consequence of her act of burning him

Quinto vs Andres

Facts: accused Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco, conspiring, confederating, and
helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack,
assault,and maul Wilson Quinto inside a culvert where the three were fishing,
causing Wilson Quinto to drown and die. held that it could not hold the respondents
liable for damages because of the absence of preponderant evidence to prove their
liability for Wilson s death.. Acquittalin a criminal action bars the civil action arising
therefrom where the judgmentof acquittal holds that the accused did not commit
the criminal acts imputed tothem.
Issue: Whether or not the extinction of respondent s criminal liability carries withit
the extinction of their civil liability.
However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from where
the civil liability may arise does not exist. In thiscase, the petitioner failed to adduce
proof of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill the deceased
The more credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's wound was inflicted by the
appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed him was not yet present.
Consequently, Javier's wound could have been infected with tetanus after the
hacking incident.

People vs Quianzon ?
Urbano vs IAC
Facts:

On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on his way to his ricefield. He
found the place where he stored palay flooded with water coming from the irrigation
canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion to see what happened, and there he saw
Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efre cutting grass. Javier admitted that he was the one
who opened the canal. A quarrel ensued, and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm
with his bolo, and again on the leg with the back of the bolo.

On October 27, 1980, Urbano and Javier had an amicable settlement. Urbano paid
P700 for the medical expenses of Javier. On November 14, 1980, Urbano was rushed
to the hospital where he had lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor found the
condition to be caused by tetanus toxin which infected the healing wound in his
palm. He died the following day.
Urbano was charged with homicide and was found guilty both by the trial court and
on appeal by the Court of Appeals.
Issue:

Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the proximate cause of the
latters death

Held:

The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. The medical
findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection of the wound by
tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between the time Javier was
wounded to the time of his death. The infection was, therefore, distinct and foreign
to the crime.

There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent
infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the
proximate cause of Javier's death with which the petitioner had nothing to do. "A
prior and remote cause cannot be made the be of an action if such remote cause
did nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion by which the
injury was made possible, if there intervened between such prior or remote cause
and the injury a distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury,
even though such injury would not have happened but for such condition or
occasion. If no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent
cause, such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent
act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which result in injury
because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or condition is the
proximate cause."

Intod vs. CAFacts:

Intod and company were tasked to kill Palang-pangan due to land dispute. They
fired at her room. However,she was in another city then thus they hit no one.
Issue:
WON he is liable for attempted murder?
Held:
No. Only impossible crime. In the Philippines, Article 4(2) provides and punishes an
impossible crime
an actwhich, were it not aimed at something quite impossible or carried out with
means which prove inadequate wouldconstitute a felony against person or family.
Its purpose is to punish criminal tendencies. There must either be (1)legal
responsibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended act in
order to qualify the act as animpossible crime. Legal impossibility occurs where the
intended acts even if completed, would not amount to a crime.Thus: Legal
impossibility would apply to those circumstances where:(1) The motive, desire and
expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law;(2) There is no intention to
perform the physical act;(3) There is a performance of the intended physical act;
and(4) The consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a
crime.Factual impossibility occurs when extraneous circumstances unknown to actor
or beyond control preventconsummation of intended crime.Factual impossibility of
the commission of the crime is not a defense. If the crime could have been
committed had thecircumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, it is
no defense that in reality, the crime was impossible ofcommission. Legal
impossibility on the other hand is a defense which can be invoked to avoid criminal
liability for anattempt. The factual situation in the case at bar presents a physical
impossibility which rendered the intended crimeimpossible of accomplishment. And
under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient tomake
the act an impossible crime

PEOPLE VS. DOMASIAN

Enrico was walking with a classmate when a man, Domasian, approached him and
asked for his
assistance in getting his fathers signature on a medical certificate. Enrico agreed
and rode withhim in a tricycle.
Enrico became apprehensive when instead of going to the hospital; he was forced
by petitionerinside a mini-bus, holding him firmly all the while.
They rode another tricycle and alighted from where they walked in a market.
Domasian talked to a jeepney driver and handed a letter address to Dr. Enrique
Agra, the boys
father. They then boarded the tricycle of Grate, which aroused his the latters
suspicion and reported
the incident to the barangay tanods, together with Grate, they went after Domasian
and Enrico.They were able to recover Enrico, Domasian escaped.
Afternoon of that day, a ransom note arrived to Dr. Agra, asking for 1 million pesos
in exchangeof his son, Enrico, who was able to return home earlier that day, after
having been recoveredfrom Domasian.
Dr. Agra identified the handwriting in the letter as Dr. Tans, and this was confirmed
by an
investigation made by the NBI.
W/N the act committed by Dr. Tan constitutes an Impossible Crime.

Court held that even before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping
with seriousillegal detention had already been committed.
The delivery of the ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not extinguish the
offense,which had already been consummated when Domasian deprived Enrico of
his liberty
Jacinto v People
Petitioner had been convicted of qualified theft and is now seeking for a reversal of
thedecision.
Facts:
Jacinto along with Valencia and Capitle was charged with qualified theft for having
stole and deposited acheck with an amount of 10,000 php. Such check was issued
by Baby Aquino for payment of her purchasesfrom Mega Foam, but the check
bounced.Dyhengco found out about the theft and filed a complaint with the NBI. An
entrapment operation wasconducted, with the use of marked bills. The entrapment
was a success and the petitioner along with her co-accused was arrested.
Issue:
Whether this can constitute as an impossible crime and not as qualified theft
Held:
This constitutes as an impossible crime.The requistites of an impossible crime are:1.
that the act performed would be an offense against persons or property
(all acts to consummate thecrime of qualified theft was consummated crime
against property)
2. that the act was done with evil intent
(mere act of unlawful taking showed intent to gain)
3. that its accomplishment was inherently impossible or the means employed was
either inadequate or ineffectual or the extraneous circumstance that constituted it
as a factual impossibility
(the fact that thecheck bounced)

Article 6
US vs. Eduave
Facts: The accused rushed upon the girl suddenly and struck her from behind with a
sharp bolo, producing a frightfulgash in the lumbar region and slightly to the side
eight and one-half inches long and two inches deep, severing all ofthe muscles and
tissues there.
Issues: WON the crime murder or homicide if the girl had been killed, WON the
stage of commission is attempted orfrustrated

\Held: The crime committed was MURDER; The attack was made treacherously.
Qualified by the circumstance ofalevosia (Sp. treachery, a-le-vo-SI-a), the accused
making a sudden attack upon his victim partly from the rear anddealing her a
terrible blow in the back and side with his bolo. The stage of commission is
FRUSTRATED; Notattempted murder because defendant PERFORMED ALL OF THE
ACTS which should have resulted in theconsummated crime and voluntarily desisted
from further acts.-Adapt
Art. 6: RapePeople vs. Orita
Facts:
Victim: Cristina Abaya, 19 years old, freshman at St. Josephs College in Borongan,
Eastern Samar
At around 1:30 am, after attending a party, Abayan came home to her boarding
house. As she knocked at the door,Orita suddenly held her and poked a knife at her
neck and dragged her upstairs with him while he had his left arm wrapped around
her neck and his right hand holding andpoking the balisong at the victim. . He then
ordered her to undress. As she took off hershirt, he pulled off her bra, pants and
panty, and ordered her to lie on the floor. He then mounted her and, pointing
thebalisong at her neck, ordered he to hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. In
this position, only a portion of hispenis entered her, so he ordered Abayan to go on
top of him. With him lying on his back and Abayan mounting him,still, he did not
achieve full penetration and only part of his penis was inserted in the vagina.
Issue: Whether or not rape is consummated
Held: Rape was consummated. Perfect penetration is not essential. For the
consummation of rape, any penetration ofthe female organ by the male organ is
sufficient to qualify as having carnal knowledge.In the crime of rape, from the
moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his

purposeand from that moment, the essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished

People vs. Campuhan

Facts:
Primo Campuhan was accused of raping four year old Crysthel Pamintuan.
Campuhan was caught by childsmother on April 25, 1996 at around 4pm in their
house. Campuhan, helper of Corazons brother was allegedly neeling in front of the
child with both their pants downa dn child was crying ayoko, ayoko while Primo
forced hispenis into childs vagina
Issue: WON crime is rape?
Held:No. Modified to attempted rape1. Consummated rape: perfect penetration not
essential. Slight penetration is equivalent to rape. Meretouching of external
genitalia considered when its an essential part of penetration not just touching in
ordinary sense(People v. Orita). Labia majora must be entered for rape to be
consummated (People v. Escober)2. Attempted no penetration or didnt reach
labia/mere grazing of surface
3. Failed to prove that penetration occured. Mothers testimony questionable with
regards to her position
relative to Primo and child. They failed to establish how she could have seen actual
contact in her position4.
Mans instinct is to run when caught. Primo could not have stayed or to satisfy h
is lust even if .. seeingCorazon5. Child denied penetration occurred
People v. Villamor consummation even when penetration doubted: pains felt,
discoloration of inner lips of vagina or
red labia minora or hymenal tags not visible. Now seen in case, Medico legal officer,
though penetration not neededto prove contact, no medical basis to hold that there
was sexual contact. Hymen intact

Valenzuela vs People
While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking area of a
supermarket, he saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded
with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon,
was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket, and later emerged

with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started
loading the cartons inside. As the taxi was about to leave, the security guard asked
Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandize. The accused reacted by fleeing on
foot, but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted
both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage.

HELD:
No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when
all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the
crime of theft, the following elements should be present: (1) that there be taking of
personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be
done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against
or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
The Court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property
by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is able or unable
to freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of
execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts.
Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or
consummated.