G.R. No.

L-65153 July 11, 1986

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MANSUETO LAMBERTE, accused-appellant.
FACTS: Mansueto Lamberto raped his niece, Clarissa Arnino, 13 yrs old, with
the help of Romulo Solomon. After the consummation of rape, they brought
her to a nearby creek and Lamberte ordered her to wash her vagina which
she did. Then Lamberte told her to go home but not to tell her father about
the incident, otherwise, he would kill her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of rape committed by Lamberte falls under the
alternative circumstance by the circumstance of closely-knit family relations.
RULING:
The alleged closely-knit family ties is inaccurate because the relationship
between Clarrisa and Lamberte is actually five degrees removed. Besides,
while it is true that the alternative circumstance of relationship is always
aggravating circumstance of relationship is always aggravating in crimes
against chastity, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher
or lower degree of the offended party, it is only taken into consideration
when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate,
natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree
of the offender. The relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of
the relationship mentioned.
[G.R. No. 130514. June 17, 1999]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABUNDIO
TOLENTINO, accused-appellant.

That during the period from May 1, 1995 to July 1995, in Masantol,
Pampanga, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
ABUNDIO TOLENTINO, step father of nine (9) year old Rachelle Parco, the
former being the common-law spouse of the latter's mother, Teresa David, by
taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over Rachel Parco, then eight (8)
years old, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously thru force
and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the said minor Rachel Parco,
against her will and consent.
On May 1, 1995, at past noon, Rachelle Parco, 8 years old, was inside one of
the two bedrooms at the second floor of the house of her grandmother,
which was located at San Nicolas, Masantol, Pampanga (TSN, January 22,
1997). Rachelle was arranging the clothes while in the room (Ibid, p. 7).
Suddenly, Abundio Tolentino, the stepfather of Rachelle Parco, entered the
same room and closed the door. Abundio Tolentino ordered Rachelle Parco to

stand up and lie down on the bed. When Rachelle Parco was already on the
bed, Abundio Tolentino removed his short pants and of Rachelle Parco
Abundio Tolentino placed his sex organ on Rachelle Parco's genitals and
bumped (binubundol-bundol) hers with his. At that moment, Rachelle Parco
remained silent, because she was afraid and did not know what Abundio
Tolentino was doing to her. Abundio Tolentino's carnal act lasted only for
three minutes, because Rachelle Parco's brother knocked at the door and ask
money from Abundio (Ibid, p. 9). Abundio Tolentino told Rachelle's brother to
ask money from Lola Iding (ibid). Thereafter, Abundio Tolentino put on
his short pants and hers and went down the house (Ibid).
Abundio Tolentino repeatedly did the same thing to Rachelle Parco at least
three to four times a week in May, June, and July 1995. Rachelle Parco was
overc[o]me by fear that she did not tell anyone about what Abundio Tolentino
was doing to her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not alternative circumstance of relationship between the victim
and the accused can be considered in the case.
HELD:
NO.
The information specifically alleges that RACHELLE was eight years old when
the crime was committed and TOLENTINO was "the stepfather... being the
common-law spouse of [RACHELLE's] mother, Teresa David." That allegation
is inaccurate. TOLENTINO was not RACHELLE's step-father, for that
relationship presupposes a legitimate relationship, i.e., he should have been
legally married to Teresa David. A step-father is the husband of one's mother
by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the person spoken of is
the offspring;[12] or, a stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse by a
previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses by a former a
marriage.[13] Nevertheless, since the information specifically alleges that
TOLENTINO was the common-law-spouse of RACHELLE's mother and that
RACHELLE was under eighteen years of age, we shall appreciate these
special qualifying circumstances.
The alternative circumstance of relationship can be considered only "when
the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural
or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender.[15] RACHELLE does not fit in any of the enumeration. At any rate, the
circumstance that TOLENTINO was the common-law spouse of RACHELLE's
mother, together with the fact that RACHELLE was eight years old when the
rape was committed, has already served as a special qualifying circumstance
in this case.

G.R. No.s 102773-77 June 8, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GODOFREDO SAYAT, alias "Bobby" or "Buboy," accused-appellant.
Accused-appellant Godofredo Sayat, alias "Bobby" or Buboy," was charged
with five crimes of rape in five separate criminal complaints subscribed by
eight-year old Marites Sayat and separately docketed. Said complaints were
identically formulated, to wit:
That on or about (no date given in the website) in the Municipality of
Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above named accused, by means of threat, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of the undersigned complainant, Marites, a minor of eight
years old, (sic) against her will and consent.
The prosecutions version of incident was based principally to the testimony
of the offended party Marites Sayat. She was 8 years old then when she was
raped by her brother ("kapatid sa ama") 18 years her senior.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the alternative circumstance of relationship can be
considered as an aggravating circumstance in the case at bar eventhough
the certificate of live birth of Marites Sayat, marked as Exhibit "F" was not
formally offered in evidence.
HELD:
The identification of documentary evidence is different from its formal offer.
The first is done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking
of the evidence as an exhibit; the second is made when the party rests his
case. The mere fact that a particular document is identified and marked as
exhibit does not mean that it will be or has been offered as part of the
evidence of the party. 27 The party may decide to formally offer it if he
believes this will advance his cause, but then, again, he may decide not to
do so at all. 28 Alternative circumstance of relationship between him and the
victim can not be proved by said document which was not submitted in
court.
Unfortunately for said appellant, however, the victim unequivocally testified
that he is actually her half-brother ('kapatid sa ama',) 29 and said declaration
was never successfully refuted. Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court
provides that they reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the
controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its members, may be
received in evidence of the witness testifying thereon be also a member of

the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. The word "pedigree" includes

relationship, family geneology, birth, marriage, death, the dates when and
the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the relatives. 30
Declarations as to pedigree may not ordinarily be proved by hearsay
evidence or by affidavit; but except for evidence of reputation which usually
is limited to members of the family, any competent witness, including the
person whom the declaration relates, may testify thereto. It has been held
proper for one to testify to facts of family history which relate to him, such as
the identity of his parents or other relatives or the place of his birth or his
age. 31Parenthetically, it will be observed that Marites and appellant bear the
same family name "Sayat."
The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. L-38107

October 16, 1933

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
PABLO PORRAS, defendant-appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo,
convicting the appellant of rape.
The complaint filed by the offended party is as follows:
(in espanol .)
The court below sentenced the defendant-appellant to seventeen years, four
months and one day of reclusion temporal.
The attorney de oficio submits five assignments of error all of which relate to
issues of fact. We have carefully examined the entire record and concur with
the court below that the guilt of the appellant has been established beyond
any reasonable doubt. The crime of rape is penalized by article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code withreclusion temporal. In the present instance, the
aggravating circumstance of relationship (article 15 of the Revised Penal
Code) must be taken into consideration. The crime in this case was so
monstrous that no punishment which it is in the power of this or any other
human tribunal to decree, could possibly be a sufficient expiation of the
offense. we assess the penalty at twenty years of reclusion temporal, and, as
thus modified, affirm the judgment of the court below.
NOTE: heto lang po lahat nilalaman nung case.

G.R. No. 97920 January 20, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
ENRIQUE RAMIREZ y ANTONIO, accused-appellant.
The decision of the court stated therein that the accused was found guilty of
the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt and was imposed for the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA and condemns him to pay to Maribel Soriano the
amount of P30,000.00 as and by way of moral and exemplary damages and
to pay the costs of suit
Maribel Soriano, herein complainant, a 13 year girl, the daughter of Angelita
De Guzman and Alfredo Soriano. The four-year relationship of her father and
mother was turning sour and was growing worse everyday. Since the tender
age of 2 years, she has been staying with her paternal grandmother, Juanita
Soriano which the latter and her mother are not always in good terms.
Sometime on the year 1982, her father died.
Angelita de Guzman cohabited with appellant Enrique Ramirez, a casual
laborer and a member of the notorious Sigue-Sigue Commando Gang. At that
time, appellant Ramirez was already separated from his lawful wife, Cristine
Somera, by whom he had a child.
Since 1979, appellant Ramirez and Angelita de Guzman stayed and lived in a
one-room shanty, a place one can hardly call a house.
During the holiday season on the year 1988, when Maribel was at the house
of the accused, she was raped by the said accused and also on one other
occasion, she was raped again.
ISSUE:
Whether or not alternative circumstance is present in the case at bar.
HELD:
The court appreciated the presence of alternative or aggravating
circumstance of relationship in this case, as "the relationship of stepfather or
stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to
that of ascendant and descendant." 34 Thus, the award of exemplary
damages is likewise proper.
The appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the trial court finding appellant
Enrique Ramirez y Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
rape committed against his own stepdaughter Maribel Soriano and imposing
on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the
modification that he shall indemnify the victim in the amount of eighty
thousand pesos (P80,000.00) broken down as follows: fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) by way of indemnity; plus thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00)
as moral and exemplary damages.
G.R. No. L-288 August 29, 1946

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ISABELO

NOBLE,Defendant-Appellant.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for murder. The defendant,
who, before arraignment, expressed through his counsel willingness to plead
guilty to simple homicide if the provincial fiscal would amend the information
accordingly, seeks absolute acquittal on appeal, claiming that he acted in
defense of his sister's honor.
George F. Ott, a private in the United States Army, with two other American
soldiers, took Consolacion Noble, a widow, 50 years old; Corazon Apacible,
Consolacion's daughter, single, 32 years old; and Paz Fores, a doctor of
medicine, single, 25 years of age, to see a cinema showing in an Army camp
in Batangas early in the evening of October 22, 1945. After the show, the
three ladies invited the three Americans to come into the house. There, the
two companions of George F. Ott seated themselves in a sofa in the drawing
room, while Ott fetched from his jeep a phonograph which he placed on a
table in the ante-room and while the ladies are preparing the foods and
drinks. As Ott was fixing the phonograph with one of the ladies standing near
him. Isabelo Noble, brother of Consolacion Noble, came up the stairs and
shot the American several times with a .45 caliber pistol. From the effects of
his wounds Ott died shortly after.
The appellant says that the lady was his sister, Consolacion Noble who was
with the deceased in the ante-room. He states that after making four or five
steps from the top of the stairs he saw Ott holding Consolacion's hands and
trying by force to embrace and kiss her; that he drew his revolver and fired a
shot that missed its mark; that, as the American started to pick a chair,
perhaps to hurl at him, he fired various other shots; that all he knew
afterwards was that Ott had fallen down and he threw away his gun.
But there is a deeper reason why he shot in cold blood the deceased in the
way he killed him.
Jealousy and disappointment drove the defendant to his rash act, Paz Fores
testimony that she was engaged to Ott and the defendant is in love with her
and that the accused had courted her but she was not interested. (in short
busted ((: ). Not only also that the deceased was his rival suitor but he was
also the one who introduced the deceased to her.
The defendant alleges that on that faithful night, he felt distressed because he failed to meet the girl
he loved. He went to his clinic and after treating a patient he took and drink a glass of wine until he
got drunk. As he was about to go home he saw the house of her sister was still lit and he went there
and he saw his old uncle who has a heart ailment and he gave his uncle an injection for the his
heart, after that he got arrested by one Consorcio Noche, the policeman.

Consorcio Noche, the policeman, testifies that when Isabelo Noble and he
"were about to reach the Municipal Building," the accused told him "that he
will sit down and then he vomited"; and that "he smelled wine.

ISSUE: Whether or not the alternative circumstance of intoxication in this

case can be considered as mitigating or aggravating.
The presence of three mitigating circumstances is urged: one among others
is intoxication.
This mitigating circumstance must be proved to the satisfaction of the court
to be available as a means to lighten the penalty. The trial court has found
the evidence insufficient to "conclusively show that the accused was drunk
on the night of the incident.
The amount of liquor the accused had taken, if he had taken any, was not of
sufficient quantity to affect his mental faculties to the extent of entitling him
to a mitigation of his offense. His Honor correctly reasons that "if the accused
was thoughtful enough not to neglect giving his uncle his injection, the
inference would be that his intoxication was not to such a degree as to affect
his mental capacity to fully understand the consequences of his act."
We find, in conclusion, that the judgment of conviction appealed from,
sentencing the defendant to reclusion perpetua with the accesories of law, to
indemnify the heirs of the deceased in the amount of P2,000, and to pay the
costs, is in accordance with law and the evidence, and that it should be, and
the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs against the appellant.
[G.R. No. 1179. August 18, 1903. ]
THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. ARTHUR
FITZGERALD, Defendant-Appellant
Between 11 and 12 oclock on the night of November 15, 1902, Appellant
and the deceased Charles Marsh had an heated argument in the distillery.
they were ordered by Samuel Brown, an American who was in the vicinity
ordered the two to stopped their argument. The deceased was about to go
out but the appellant refused to go out and continued insulting the
deceased. The latter went back and gave appellant a blow that knocked him
down but he immediately stood up and run towards the ice plant and took a
revolver, while the deceased was about 15 feet away and heard the
appellant uttering some words, he turned around to look at him and just at
this moment appellant fired his revolver which hit the deceased below the
nipple which was considered fatal and Samuel Brown(deceased) died less
than two hours later. He also fired his revolver to the two other Americans in
the distillery but no one were shot.
Notwithstanding the denial and exculpatory allegations of the accused, his
guilt as principal by direct participation of the violent death of Charles Marsh
is unquestionable, for this fact is proven in the record by the testimony of
several witnesses who saw that occurred, and even heard the threatening
words uttered by the accused. The record does not contain sufficient
evidence to indicate that the accused was a habitual drunkard. On the
contrary, several witnesses affirmed that he was not in the habit of getting
drunk.

ISSUE: Whether or not the alternative circumstance of intoxication in this

case can be considered.
HELD:
The court considered in his behalf the mitigating circumstance No. 6 of
article 9 of the Code, there being no evidence that the vice of drunkenness
was habitual with the accused. The law does not consider drunkenness as a
complete defense, but merely as a mitigating circumstance, because one
under the influence of liquor cannot be regarded as entirely bereft of sense
and reason.

G.R. No. 9008

September 17, 1914

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
MANUEL FLORES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
This is an appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of First Instance of
Bataan, convicting the defendants and appellants Manuel Flores, Irineo de la
Cruz, Domingo de los Santos, Doroteo de los Santos, and Lorenzo Orozco of
the crime of assassination marked with various aggravating circumstances,
and sentencing each and all of them to found guilty as an accessory and
sentenced to cedena temporal in its medium degree.
The principal witness for the prosecution was one Pedro Flores, a selfconfessed accomplice, He testified that the murder was planned by the
appellant Lorenzo Orozco, with whose wife the deceased had been having an
illicit relation with, and that he himself as well as the other appellants had
joined the party which committed the crime at the invitation the appellant,
who gave small sums of money as a sign of saying that he was thankful of
their participation (gratificacion). The account of the incident that took place
and the participation and how they buried the deceased and its manner on
how they did it was fully corroborated by the law and medical officers who
found the body of the deceased buried at the place and in the manner
indicated by him in his extrajudicial confession.
A review of all the records of this case shows that all the defendants are men
of a low order of intelligence, with but little "instruction or education."
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants who are men of a low order of
intelligence, with but little "instruction or education" can be considered as an
alternative circumstance.
HELD:
The court held that in imposing the penalty upon the four defendants and
appellants convicted as principals in the commission of the crime these
aggravating circumstances should have been compensated by the
extenuating circumstances set forth in subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal

Code and in article 11 as amended by Act No. 2142. A review of the whole
record convinces us that all these defendants are men of a low order of
intelligence, with but little "instruction or education." It also affirmatively
appears that the investigator of the crime had been aroused to a high degree
of passion and "obfuscation" by the discovery of the fact that the deceased
was carrying on illicit relations with his wife and had recently come into the
community for the express purpose of continuing those illicit relations; while
his accomplices, who appear to have been ignorant friends, neighbors and
defendents, were also aroused by him to a high pitch of anger against the
betrayer of the family of their friend.
The sentence imposed by the trial judge, modified by substituting for so
much thereof as imposes the death penalty upon the defendants and
appellants Lorenzo Orozco, Ireneo de la Cruz, Manuel Flores and Doroteo de
los Santos, the penalty of cadena perpetua, together with the subsidiary
penalties of this instances against the appellants.
G.R. No. L-28132

November 25, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FORTUNATO CASILLAR Y GABRIELES, ET AL., defendants,
ROGELIO AMITA Y BALDORADO and DOMINICO ARMALDA Y
BARTOLATA, defendants-appellants.
On June 11, 1966, about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, testified Danilo Nicolas,
a 14-year old boy, while at the corner of Lope de Vega and Misericordia
Streets, Manila, scavenging ingarbage cans for scraps of paper to sell, he
saw a Chinaman, Chan Siak, walking. He was met by 4 men, who were the
accused, and another not in Court. The 4th man was Celso Puzon who is
charged with the same offense before the Juvenile & Domestic Relations
Court, he being only 15 years of age. Casillar and Puzon held the Chinaman's
hands while Armalda and Amita pointed a "balisong" at him; the former
being then to the right of their victim and the latter in front of him. Armalda
thereafter stabbed the Chinese in his right side whilst Amita stabbed him in
his neck, after which Armalda took Chan's wallet from the hip pocket of his
trousers. This done, the four fled.
ISSUE:
whether or not the alternative circumstance of lack of instruction can be
considered in the case.
HELD:
It is urged that the accused-appellants should be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of lack of instruction. Amita is a laborer who reached Grade V;
Casillar is a puto vendor, whose schooling reached Grade III; and Armalda, a
push-cart hand (nangangariton), is illiterate. It is for the trial court, rather
than the appellate court, to find and consider the circumstance of lack of
instruction, for it is not illiteracy alone but the lack of sufficient intelligence

and knowledge of the full significance of one's acts that constitute this
mitigating circumstance and only the trial court can properly assess the
same.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the judgment under review is hereby
affirmed, with the sole modification that the amount of the indemnity shall
be, as it is hereby increased to, P12,000.00 Costs against appellants.
G.R. No. L-12392

December 4, 1917

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
FRANCISCO BALABA, defendant-appellant.
On the day of the crime the defendant Francisco Balaba was living in the
house of his brother Agapito Balaba, The defendant took care of fighting
cocks. On February 20, 1916, he fell out with his sister-in-law, the deceased
Fortunata Cabasagan, wife of Agapito Balaba, because she had tethered the
defendant's cocks, which were injuring the corn plantings. On the 29th of the
same month, in the morning, while the defendant was feeding this cocks, he
saw one rooster which it was not his, catched and ate it. This rooster
belonged to the deceased Claudia Ligao. In the morning of that same day,
the 29th, Donato Duero, second husband of Claudia Ligao, ask the latter to
look for the cock that had disappeared and made inquiry about it to the
defendant, whom he suspected of having stolen it. In reply to the inquiry,
defendant admitted in killing it and will exchange it to one of his cocks.
Duero chose one but the defendant would not give it to him for it was not
his. Then Duero, backed up by Sergio Daguplo, obliged the defendant to
follow him for the consideration of just paying the cock that was eaten but it
appears that the defendant was hesitant in neither to make payment nor
exchange for the cock butchered by him. To make the story short, he killed
three persons.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the alternative circumstance of ignorance and lack of
education of the accused can be considered in the case for the court stated
that the accused is an uneducated and even a densely ignorant man.
Doubtless the convict is an uneducated and even a densely ignorant man.
But having in mind the conditions under which he did his three victims to
death, we are of opinion that his criminal responsibility for these heinous
crimes is not modified in any substantial degree by his ignorance and lack of
education. Neither education nor a high degree of intelligence is necessary
to teach a man that it is unlawful and criminal in the highest degree to do
murder under the circumstances which surrounded the commission of the
crime of which this accused stands convicted. In giving way to his vindictive
rage aroused by demands for redress for the petty wrong he had done his
neighbor and by criticism of his conduct in that connection, he must have
known that he subjected himself to the severest penalties of the law, and his
ignorance and lack of education offer no justification or excuse for the

merciless and murderous assault upon the lives of his relatives and
neighbors.
The judgment convicting and sentencing the accused should be affirmed
with costs of this instance against him. So ordered.