You are on page 1of 4

Edmundo Escamilla Vs People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 188551


Feb. 27, 2013
Facts:
Petitioner has a house with a sari-sari store along Arellano Street, Manila.5 The victim,
Virgilio Mendol (Mendol), is a tricycle driver whose route traverses the road where petitioner's
store is located.
Around 2:00 a.m. of 01 August 1999, a brawl ensued at the comer of Estrada and
Arellano Streets, Manila.7 Mendol was about to ride his tricycle at this intersection while facing
Arellano Street.8 Petitioner, who was standing in front of his store, 30 meters away from
Mendol, shot the latter four times, hitting him once in the upper right portion of his chest.10 The
victim was brought to Ospital ng Makati for treatment11 and survived because of timely medical
attention.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held that the positive testimonies of eyewitnesses
deserve far more weight and credence than the defense of alibi. Thus, it found petitioner guilty of
frustrated homicide.
The CA, ruling against petitioner, held that the issue of the credibility of witnesses is
within the domain of the trial court, which is in a better position to observe their demeanor. Thus,
the CA upheld the RTCs appreciation of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses in the
present case.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution has proved his intent to kill
Ruling:
Yes, the intent to kill was shown by the continuous firing at the victim even after he was hit.
The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at whatever stage, may be before or
simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of,
inter alia, the means used; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim;
and the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the
victim. Petitioners intent to kill was simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. Using a gun, he
shot the victim in the chest. Despite a bloodied right upper torso, the latter still managed to run
towards his house to ask for help. Nonetheless, petitioner continued to shoot at him three more
times, albeit unsuccessfully. While running, the victim saw his nephew in front of the house and
asked for help. The victim was immediately brought to the hospital on board an owner-type jeep.
The attending physician, finding that the bullet had no point of exit, did not attempt to extract it;
its extraction would just have caused further damage. The doctor further said that the victim
would have died if the latter were not brought immediately to the hospital. All these facts belie
the absence of petitioners intent to kill the victim.

The Petition is DENIED.

People vs. Reyes


G.R. No. 173307
July 17, 2013
Facts:
AAA and her 9-year-old sister, BBB, had watched television at his house just across the
street from their house. By 9:00 p.m., AAA and BBB rose to go home, but as they were leaving,
Reyes suddenly pulled AAA into the store attached to thesala of his house. Inside the store,
Reyes kissed AAA and mashed her breasts. He threatened her: If you will shout, I will kill you.
He pulled down her long pants and panties below her knees, took out his penis, grabbed her by
the waist, and used his body to anchor her back to a nearby table. She fought back by boxing and
pushing him away, but her efforts were futile. Reyes penis achieved only a slight penetration of
her vagina, he succeeded in satisfying his lust, as confirmed later on when CCC, the mother of
the victim, found semen on AAAs panties.
Issue:
Whether or not slightest penetration of the labia of the female victims genitalia consummates the
crime of rape
Ruling:
Yes, slightest penetration of the labia of the female victims genitalia consummates the
crime of rape
In objective terms, carnal knowledge, the other essential element in consummated
statutory rape, does not require full penile penetration of the female. The Court has clarified in
People v. Campuhan that the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of
consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. All that is necessary to
reach the consummated stage of rape is for the penis of the accused capable of consummating the
sexual act to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim. This means that the
rape is consummated once the penis of the accused capable of consummating the sexual act
touches either labia of the pudendum.
Accordingly, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the
pudendum constitutes consummated rape proceeds from the physical fact that the labias are
physically situated beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, such that for the penis to touch
either of them is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface of the female
genitalia. It is required, however, that this manner of touching of the labias must be sufficiently
and convincingly established.

People vs Labiaga
G.R. No. 202867
July 15, 2013
Facts:
On December 23 2000, Gregorio Conde, and his two daughters, Judy and Glenelyn
Conde, were in their home at Barangay Malayu-an, Ajuy, Iloilo. Thereafter, Gregorio stepped
outside. Glenelyn was in their store, which was part of their house.
Shortly thereafter, Regie Labiaga (appellant), who was approximately five meters away from
Gregorio, shot the latter. Gregorio called Judy for help. When Judy and Glenelyn rushed to
Gregorios aid, appellant shot Judy in the abdomen. The two other accused were standing behind
the appellant. Appellant said, she is already dead, and the three fled the crime scene.
Gregorio and Judy were rushed to the Sara District Hospital. Judy was pronounced dead on
arrival while Gregorio made a full recovery after treatment of his gunshot wound.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of frustrated murder in the case of Gregorio
Ruling:
No, the appellant is guilty of attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been
fatal were it not for timely medical intervention. If the evidence fails to convince the court that
the wound sustained would have caused the victims death without timely medical attention, the
accused should be convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
In the instant case, it does not appear that the wound sustained by Gregorio Conde was
mortal. This was admitted by Dr. Edwin Figura, who examined Gregorio after the shooting
incident. Since Gregorios gunshot wound was not mortal, we hold that appellant should be
convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder.
Appellant Regie Labiaga is GUILTY of Attempted Murder.

People vs. Joseph Barra


G.R. No. 198020
July 10, 2013
Facts:
At around 9:00 p.m. on October 9, 2003, in the light of a bright moon, Joseph Barra (appellant)
enter the house of Elmer Lagdaan, which was lit with a lamp, and poked a gun to the victims
right forehead and demanded money. When the victim stated that the money was not in his
possession, appellant shot him.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of crime of Attempted Robbery with
Homicide
Ruling:
Yes. In the case before us, appellants intention was to extort money from the victim. By
reason of the victims refusal to give up his personal property - his money - to appellant, the
victim was shot in the head, causing his death. The Supreme Court, however, agree with the
Court of Appeals that the element of taking was not complete, making the crime one of
attempted robbery with homicide as opposed to the crime appellant was convicted in the RTC.
Appellant is, therefore, liable under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code, not under Article 294
as originally held by the RTC. Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code states:
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances.
When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed,
the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the
provisions of this Code.
The elements to be convicted under Article 297 were discussed in People v. Macabales, to wit:
The elements of Robbery with Homicide as defined in Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) There is an attempted or frustrated robbery. (2) A homicide is committed.
In the present case, the crime of robbery remained unconsummated because the victim
refused to give his money to appellant and no personal property was shown to have been taken.
It was for this reason that the victim was shot. Appellant can only be found guilty of attempted
robbery with homicide, thus punishable under Article 297 of the Revised Penal Code.