Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

People vs Abarca 153 SCRA 735

Facts: In 1984, the accused Francisco Abarca went to the bus
station to fetch his daughter in Eastern Samar. However, due
to bus engine trouble he was not able to leave. This prompted
him to just go home instead and upon reaching home, the
accused found his wife, Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act
of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the
accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver.
The accused then jumped and ran away to look for a firearm.
After he was able to borrow an M-16 rifle from a soldier, he
went back to his house. Not finding his wife and Koh, he
proceeded to the "mahjong session" where he found Koh
playing mahjong. He fired at Koh three times with his rifle
which resulted to the latters death. Arnold and Lina
Amparado who were occupying a room adjacent to the room
where the deceased was playing were also hit by the shots.
The Amparado spouses were hospitalized but they were able
to survive. The trial court held the accused guilty of the
complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder.
Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the
accused for the complex crime of murder with double
frustrated murder instead of entering a judgment based on Art.
247 of the RPC.
Held: YES. The Court held that the accused is entitled to the
benefits of Art. 247, which states that any legally married
person who, having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill
any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical
injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
The accused in the case at bar satisfied the elements
mentioned of the said Article as he is legally married with his
wife whom he caught having sexual intercourse with another
man. The killing of Koh was also the product of Abarcas rage
even though an hour has already lapsed from the time the
infidel act was discovered. However, Abarca is liable for the
injuries he caused to the Amparado spouses but for less
serious physical injuries through simple negligence only as
there was no intent to kill the other two persons injured. He
was not committing an illegal act when he shot Koh but he
was negligent as he did not exercise enough precaution to
make sure no one else will be hurt.
PEOPLE VS. WHISENHUNT

FACTS: Demetrio Ravelo, driver of accused Stephen Mark

Whisenhunt, was ordered by the latter to fetch the victim Elsa
Santos-Castillo to the accused's condo unit on September 23,
1993. Stephen and Elsa were lovers.
Until September 25, Demetrio believed that Elsa was still in
the unit. By noon, Stephen asked Demetrio if how long does
the latter wants to work for the former, to which Demetrio
answered forever. Accused Stephen then admitted that Elsa
was dead because of "bangungot." Demetrio suggested that the
body be autopsied but accused told the former that he already
beheaded her.
They bought a bag, went back to the condo unit, and wrapped
the body. In the bathroom, Demetrio saw dismembered head,
feet, trunk, and hands of Elsa. They loaded it in Stephen's car
and dumped it somewhere in a road in Laguna.
When Demetrio got home, he reported the incident to Fiscal
Joey Diaz, who referred him to the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). Accused was arrested.

ISSUE: WON qualifying circumstances of 1) abuse of

superior strength and 2) outraging and scoffing at the victim's
person or corpse, as held by the trial court, were sufficiently
proved.

HELD: 1) No. Abuse of superior strength must be shown and

clearly established in the crime itself. In this case, nobody
witnessed the actual killing. Thus, it cannot be appreciated to
qualify the killing to murder.

2) Yes. The mere decapitation of the victim's head constitutes

outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus,
qualifying the killing to murder. In this case, accused not only
beheaded Elsa. He further cut-up her body like pieces of meat.
Then, he strewed and dismembered parts of her body in a
deserted road in the countryside, leaving them to rot on the
ground, vividly depicted in the photographs offered in
evidence, is both revolting and horrifying.
People vs. Gonzales Jr., 359 SCRA 352
Facts: In the afternoon of October 31, 1998 at about 2:30 p.m.
both the families of the private complainant Noel Andres and
that of the accused-appellant Inocencio Gonzalez were on

Page 1 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

their way to the exit of the Loyola Memorial Park. At the
intersection near the Garden of Remembrance, while the
accused-appellant Gonzalez was turning left towards the exit
and the complainant Noel Andres was headed straight along
the road to the exit their two vehicles almost collided.
However, the accused-appellant left towards the exit instead
he stopped upon the accident. Thereafter, the complainant
Andres found an opportunity to cut off the way of Inocencio
Gonzales, and he got out of his vehicle, and went over to
Gonzales. Altercation then ensued. Meanwhile, Dino
Gonzales, son of Inocencio Gonzales, arrived at the scene he
confronted Andres, and the two had an altercation. Fearing
that his son is in danger, Gonzales get his gun from his car, but
as when he saw that the complainant did not have weapon, he
put down his hand holding the gun. Upon seeing his father,
Tricia, daughter of the accused, approached and hugged her
father and in the process held his hand holding the gun. The
appellant tried to free his hand and with Trishas substantial
body weight pushing against him the appellant lost his balance
and the gun accidentally fired. As a result, his wife, Feliber
Andres, was shot to death while his son and nephew, Kenneth
and Kevin, were mortally wounded respectively.
The trial court found the accused Inocencio Gonzales guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder with
Two counts of Frustrated Murder and Attempted Murder. Also,
they ordered to pay civil damages for the heirs of the
complainant and parents of Kevin.
However, Gonzales filed a petition where he submitted the
following assignments of errors:
1.
2.

3.
4.

5.

6.
7.

8.

Error of trial court when they found that treachery

was present.
Error of trial court when they presumed that there
was treachery by taking judicial notice of the feature
of automatic pistol.
Error of trial court when they violated the
constitutional rights of the accused in due process.
Error of trial court when they found out that the
accused guilty of the complex crime of Murder with
2 counts of frustrated murder.
Error of trial court when they failed to appreciate
mitigating circumstances of passion or obfuscation,
lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong,
provocation or threat on the part of the offended party
immediately preceded the act, incomplete defense of
relative, and voluntary surrender.
Error of trial court when they failed to find that the
shooting incident was accidental.
Error of trial court when they gave credence to the
prosecutions witnesses Elmer Ramos and Moises
Castro.
Error of trial court for ordering the accused to pay for
the civil liabilities.

Issue(s): 1. WON that the trial court committed reversible

error as when they found out that treachery was present in the
commission of the crime.
2. WON that the accused Inocencio Gonzales was liable for 2
counts of Frustrated Murder.
Held: 1. Yes. It has been consistently held by this court that
chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the
spur of the moment or that were preceded by heated
altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of
opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a
treacherous mode of attack. Thus, the sudden attack made by
the accused due to his infuriation by reason of the victims
provocation was held to be without treachery. Sudden attacks
made by the accused preceded by curses and insults by the
victim or acts taunting the accused to retaliate or the rebellious
or aggressive behaviour of the victim were held to be without
treachery as the victim was sufficiently forewarned of reprisal.
For the rules on treachery to apply the sudden attack must
have been preconceived by the accused, unexpected by the
victim and without provocation on the part of the latter.
We affirm the recommendation of the Solicitor-General that
the shooting was not attended by treachery and accordingly
the crime committed for the death of Feliber Andres is
homicide and not murder.
2. No. The intent to kill determines whether the crime
committed is physical injuries or homicide and such intent is
made manifest by the acts of the accused which are
undoubtedly intended to kill the victim.
In case of doubt as to the homicidal intent of the accused, he
should be convicted of the lesser offense of physical injuries.
In the case at bar, as per physicians observation, the wounds
sustained by the two children from the metallic fragments are
not in themselves fatal but may cause death if left untreated.
Thus, considering the nature and location of their injuries and
the number of days required for their treatment, we find that
the crime committed for the injuries sustained by the children
are two counts of slight physical injuries under Art. 266 of the
Revised Penal Code which imposes a penalty of arresto menor
or imprisonment for 1 to 30 days for injuries sustained that has
incapacitated the victim for one to nine days or required
medical attendance for the same period.
Dissenting Opinion:
1) WON that the trial court committed reversible error as
when they found out that treachery was present in the
commission of the crime.
No - For treachery to be appreciated, two elements must
concur: (1) the employment of means of execution that would
insure the safety of the accused from retaliatory acts of the

Page 2 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

intended victim and leaving the latter without an opportunity
to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution
employed were deliberately or consciously adopted by the
offender. The means employed for the commission of the
crime or the mode of attack must be shown to have been
consciously or deliberately adopted by the accused to insure
the consummation of the crime and at the same time eliminate
or reduce the risk of retaliation by the victim.
In the case at bar, at the time of the shooting, the complainant
was having a tiff with accuseds son. He knew that the
complainant was not armed and there was no imminent and
grave danger to the life of his son. His conscious use of a
firearm with pre-loaded multiple missile bullets against a
defenseless man who was totally unaware of the danger to his
life, as the events moved fast and he did not even hear the shot
constitutes treachery. Accused insured the success of the crime
without risk to himself arising from defense or retaliation. The
complainant could not defend himself from such firepower,
much less retaliate. He was without any firearm. Even if the
attack was frontal, it was sudden and the victim was unarmed.
Therefore, we are convinced that the shooting was attended by
treachery that qualified the crime to murder aggravated by the
use of a semi-automatic pistol specially fitted with murderous
missile. The crime committed for the killing of Feliber Andres
was murder, qualified by treachery and aggravated by the use
of firearm.
2. Whether or not that the accused Inocencio Gonzales was
liable for 2 counts of Frustrated Murder.
Yes - The intent to kill was evident with the use of deadly
weapon especially loaded with multi-missile bullets and such
intent was clearly made manifest by the acts of the accused
undoubtedly intended to kill the victims.
An examination of the testimonies of the attending physicians
showed that the wounds sustained by the two children from
the metallic fragments may cause death if left untreated. One
of the attending physicians testified that the fragments
themselves will not cause complications; however, it is the
entry of the fragments or the open wound that is susceptible to
infection. Two small fragments were no longer extracted from
the face of Kevin Valdez as the doctors deemed it to be
without danger of complication, but this could still be life
threatening.
Therefore, the accused Inocencio Gonzales was liable for
2counts of Frustrated Murder.
People v Antonio - July 14, 2000
Facts: Alberto S. Antonio was found guilty of a crime of
Murder in killing Arnulfo B. Tuadles. His co-accused, SPO4
Juanito Nieto and SPO1 Honorio C. Cartalla Jr. was also
charged as an accessories to the crime.

Back then, Antonio, a one-time chairman of the Games and

Amusement Board. That's when Tuadles and Antonio became
socially acquainted.
After awhile, both of them became frequent in the
International Business Club, located in San Juan, Metro
Manila. They usually meet with other members and friends to
play cards in the gameroom. Their preferred games were poker
or pusoy dos, ordinary poker or Russian poker.
The tragic events began when Danny Debdani, then president
of the IBC, had agreed to meet at the club for a poker session,
their third night in a row. Antonio arrived first, followed by
Tuadles. Debdani failed to appear so Antonio and Tuadles
decided to play pusoy dos. They played from that night until
9:00 oclock in the morning to eat breakfast.
The time that their scores are tallied for the collection of the
winnings from the loser, an argument arose. Both the
prosecution and the defense provided a different scenarios.
The prosecution alleged that during the argument, without
warning or cause, Antonio pulled his gun from behind his back
and shot Tuadles at very close range, thus employing
treacherous means to accomplish such deed. The pivotal
evidence presented by the prosecution with the testimony of
Jose Jimmy Bobis, a security guard who testified as to how the
shooting occurred.
On the other hand, the defense claimed that the argument was
caused by Tuades refusal to pay Antonios winnings. During
the heated argument, Tuadles suddenly grabbed Antonio's gun.
Fearing for his life, Antonio grappled for the possession of the
gun. As they wrestled, a single shot roared, Tuadles fellf ace
down to the floor, and Antonio was left too stunned to recall
who had actually pulled the trigger. Antonio alleged that the
shooting was accidental, and his only motive was to defend
himself. He also refuted the testimony of SG Bobus, that he
was notable to see the actual shooting since he was
somewhere else at that time.
While Tuadles lay bloodied and still, no one called an
ambulance or to check if he was still alive. Instead, Antonio
convinced the two security guards to accompany him to his
home at Greenmeadows Subdivision, QC, after which they
proceeded to San Juan Police Station, where he summoned his
lawyer and submit himself to the San Juan Mayor Jinggoy
Estrada and the police authorities.
Before they left, the two security guard first narrated that they
were not able to see the actual shooting because he was
ascending the stairs when he heard the gunshot but it was
changed three days later.
SG Bobis changed his statements, providing that he saw the
actual shooting and included SPO4 Nieto as an accessory to
the crime.

Page 3 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

During the trial, the defense argued that SG Bobis statements
are contradicting and inconsistent. They suggested that
Colonel Lucas Managuelod of Eastern Police District who
coerced SG Bobis to provide such false statements.
The court allowed SG bobis to explain why his written
statements or affidavits are contradictory. He explained that it
was SPO4 Nieto who dictated his first statements and told him
that he should say that he was able to see the actual shooting.

Issues: a) WON accident or self defense are tenable in this

case
b) WON Antonio is guilty of the crime of Murder
Held: a) No. The court believed that SG Bobis saw the actual
shooting and it was not an accident nor a self defense.
The court ruled that the conflicting sworn statements of the
witness should not be the reason for him to be impeached as
an eyewitness. The court find him credible during the crossexamination because it appeared clear and convincing.
Such inconsistencies only happened because of the pressure
that was given by the co-accused SPO4 Nieto against a lower
station in life, he accepted the fact that he is just a Security
Guard and he cannot go against a Policeman at that moment.
Also, the court reiterated that the burden of proof lies to the
person invoking self-defense. He should focus on building his
defense instead of attacking the weakness of the prosecution.
b) No. Though the court find that Antonio is guilty of such
killing, the qualifying circumstance of treachery is not
attendant.
The court find him guilty of Homicide instead.
Treachery could not be appreciated where the victim was
forewarned and could have anticipated the aggression of the
accused. Since the sudden shooting of Tuadles was preceded
by a heated verbal altercation between Tuadles and appellant
Antonio, then it cannot be concluded that the shooting was
committed with treachery.
It is also clear that appellant Antonio did not set out or plan to
kill Tuadles in the first place. His criminal act was an offshoot
of their argument which neither of them had foreseen.
People v Teehankee - October 6, 1995
Facts: Three separate informations were filed against accused
Claudio Teehankee, Jr. for the shooting of Roland John
Chapman, Jussi Olavi Leino, and Maureen Hultman. Initially
he was charged with Murder for killing Roland Chapman and
two Frustrated Murder for the shooting and wounding of Jussi
Leino and Maureen Hultman. During the trial Hultman died

which the information for Frustrated Murder was amended to

Murder.
Upon arrainment, accused pleaded not guilty to the three
charges. The procesution then started to adduce evidence
relative to all three cases.
Based on the facts of the prosecution. The three victimes
together with other friends were at a party at Leino's house in
Forbes Park, Makati. They then proceeded to Roxy's a pub
where students of international school hang out.

After a while Maureen requested Leino to take her home at

Campanilla St. Dasmarias Village, Makati. Chapman tagged
along.
When they entered the village, Maureen asked Leino to drop
her off about a block away from her house. She wanted to
walk the rest of the way to avoid creating noise and getting
caught that she was going home late. Leino offered to walk
with her while Chapman stayed in the car.
Leino and Maureen started walking on the sidewalk when a
light-colored Mitsubishi box-type Lancer car, driven by the
accused Claudio Teehankee, Jr., he approached them and
asked who are they and asked for an identification, Leino
showed his Asian Development Bank ID.
Chapman saw the incident. He manifested from behind Leino
and inquired what was going on. As he say "Why are you
bothering us?" Accused pushed Chapman, pulled out a gun
and fired at him.
When Teehankee pointed the gun to Leino and asked if he
wants trouble. Leino said "no" and took a step backward.
Maureen was shocked, she became hysterical and started
screaming for help. She repeatedly shouted "Oh my God, he's
got a gun. He's gonna kill us. Will Somebody help us?"
Teehankee ordered Leino to sit down on the sidewalk. Leino
obeyed amd made no attempt to move away. Maureen
continued to be hysterical. and tried to make a commotion but
she was enjoined to shut up and sit down beside Leino.
Leino was shot on the upper jaw, he fell backwards on the
sidewalk but did not lose conciousness. Leino heard another
shot and saw Maureen fall beside him. He lifted his head to
see what was happening and saw accused returned to his car
and drive away.
Leino struggled to his knees and shouted for help. He noticed
at least three people looking on standby. Domingo Florece a
private security guard, Vicente Manguabat, a stay-in driver,
and Agripino Cadenas, a private guard, all of them are
working privately to a different home owners in the village.

Page 4 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

The two security guards have seem most of the commotion
even the accused face and the control number of the car as
566.
They were rushed to the hospital, Chapman died, Leino
suffered wounds but not he was safe due to the medical
treatment. But Maureen died after lots of surgeries to stop the
bleeding inside her head and her brain tissues were oozing out
of her nostrils on the left side of the forehead where the bullet
entered.
The witnesses, Leino, and the security guard Cadanas
positively recognized Claudio Teehankee as the gunman. He
was repeatedly recognized through pictures and lineup of
suspects.
Claudio Teehankee provided claimed an alibi that he was at
home during the time of the shooting and his Lancer with the
number 599 was not working well so he was not using the said
car for quite a while.
The NBI took over the case as NBI Director Alfredo Lim
directed the authorities in solving such crime. Lim tried to get
a confession from Teehankee but he failed.
The policemen who testified in favor of Teehankee made
different statements, providing that the witnesses are saying
that they were not sure regarding the color of the car, the face
of the gunman, and they were trying to put different stories but
it was not recognized by the court.
The testimonies of Leino and Cadanas were given weight
since they do not have any ill motive to put the blame to
Teehankee if he is not really the gunman.
Issues: a) WON the crime of MURDER due to the killing of
Ronald Chapman was correct
b) WON treachery was attendant in the case of Maureen
Hultman and Jussi Leino
Held: a) No. The court held that the prosecution failed to
prove treachery in the killing of Chapman, which makes him
guilty of Homicide instead of Murder.
It appears to that appellant acted on the spur of the moment.
Their meeting was by chance. They were strangers to each
other. The time between the initial encounter and the shooting
was short and unbroken. The shooting of Chapman was thus
the result of a rash and impetuous impulse on the part of
appellant rather than a deliberate act of will. We have
consistently ruled that mere suddenness of the attack on the
victim would not, by itself, constitute treachery.
b) Yes. As to the wounding of Jussi Leino and the killing of
Maureen Hultman, The court held that treachery clearly
attended the commission of the crimes. Maureen was ordered

to sit beside Leino on the pavement. While seated, unarmed

and begging for mercy, the two were gunned down by
appellant. Clearly, appellant purposely placed his two victims
in a completely defenseless position before shooting them.
There was a period which appellant used to prepare for a mode
of attack which ensured the execution of the crime without
risk to himself.
Treachery was thus correctly appreciated by the trial court
against appellant insofar as the killing of Hultman and the
wounding of Leino are concerned.

SISON V. PEOPLE
FACTS: On 1986, several information were filed against 11
persons who were Marcos loyalists, namely, Raul Billosos,
Gery Nery, Romeo Sison, NiloPacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de
los Santos, Joselito Tamayo, Rolando Fernandez and the
accomplices Benjamin Nuega and Annie Ferrer. The
mentioned accused applied for a permit to hold a rally at
Luneta Park but it was denied. Despite of this, 3 thousand of
Marcos loyalists, including the abovementioned, gathered at
the Rizal Monument and conducted the rally. Thereafter, they
were stopped by the authorities and asked them to disperse.
However, they refused and this started the commotion
between the police officials and the loyalists. Moments after,
the Marcos loyalists disperse but later on, a small group of
them converged again, this wasled by Annie Ferrer. A few
moments later, Ferrer was arrested. The arrest of Ferrer
triggered the other loyalists to revenge, hence, they attacked
persons wearing yellow shirts (deemed to be Coryists). Renato
Banculo, a vendor and the witness, saw the loyalists mauled
Salcedo (a man wearing a yellow shirt). Salcedo pleaded for
mercy yet it was disregarded by his attackers. Sumilang tried
to pacify the maulers so he could extricate Salcedo from them.
But the maulers pursued Salcedo unrelentingly, boxing him
with stones in their fists. Somebody gave Sumilang a loyalist
tag which Sumilang showed to Salcedo's attackers. They
backed off for a while and Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo
away from them. But accused Raul Billosos emerged from
behind Sumilang as another man boxed Salcedo on the head.
Accused Richard de los Santos also boxed Salcedo twice on
the head and kicked him even as he was already fallen. The
other accused attacked Salcedo, until he lost consciousness.
Thereafter, Salcedo died of hemorrhage, intracranial
traumatic.
Hence, the cases were filed against the abovementioned
accused, who, then, denied their participation and presented
different alibis. Subsequently, the trial court rendered a
decision finding Romeo Sison, NiloPacadar, Joel Tan, Richard
de los Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the

Page 5 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

crime of murder qualified by treachery. The accused appealed
and the CA modified the decision of the trial court by
acquitting Annie Ferrer but increasing the penalty of the rest
of the accused, except for Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion
perpetua. The appellate court found them guilty of murder
qualified by abuse of superior strength, but convicted Joselito
Tamayo of homicide because the information against him did
not allege the said qualifying circumstance. Hence, this appeal
contending that the lower courts erred in finding the existence
of conspiracy among the principal accused and in convicting
them of murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, not
death in tumultuous affray.
ISSUE: Whether or not the abovementioned accused should
be guilty of Salcedos death caused in tumultuous affray

HELD: No. The Court held that Romeo Sison, NiloPacadar,

Joel Tan and Richard de los Santos are guilty of murder and
Joselito Tamayo is guilty of homicide. Furthermore, the court
appreciated the existence of conspiracy in the crime. Thus, the
accused did not caused the death of the victim through
tumultuous affray.
According to the RPC, tumultuous affray is a commotion in a
confused manner to an extent that it would not be possible to
identify who the killer is if death results, or who inflicted the
serious physical injury, but the person or persons who used
violence are known. Furthemore, there must be (a) several
persons who are engaged in the acts, however, (b) these
persons must not compose groups organized for the common
purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally
and (c) that these several persons quarreled and assaulted one
another in a confused and tumultuous manner hence (d)
someone was killed in the course of affray but (e) the killer
cannot be ascertained but can be identified. In this case, there
was no tumultuous quarrel or affray. Truly, there was a rally
but it was dispersed by the officials and it was only after a
while after the dispersal that one distinct group from the
loyalists picked one defenseless individual and mauled him
repeatedly.
Aguirre v SOJ - March 3, 2008
Facts: The case stemmed from a complaint filed by petitioner
Gloria Aguirre against respondents Pedro B. Aguirre (Pedro
Aguirre), Michelina S. Aguirre-Olondriz (Olondriz), Dr.
Juvido Agatep (Dr. Agatep), Dr. Marissa B. Pascual (Dr.
Pascual) and several John/Jane Does for violation of Articles
172 (Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified
Documents) and 262 (Mutilation), both of the Revised Penal
Code, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known
as "Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act,".

Sisters and licensed by the DSDW. The Aguirres knew Larry

when he was just over a hear old. They would have Larry
spend a few days at their home and then return him at the
orphanage thereafter, after 2years, Larry was 2yrs and
9months of age, he became the ward of respondent Pedro
Aguirre and his spouse Lourdes Aguirre by virtue of an
Affidavit of Consent to Legal Guardianship.
As Larry grew up, Larry did not appear normal in that age "at
age 3-4 years, Larry could only crawl on his tummy like a frog
x x x;" he utter his first word until he was 6; and only learned
to stand up and walk after he turned 5. At the age of 6, the
Aguirre spouses first enrolled Larry at the Colegio de San
Agustin, but the child had significant learning difficulties. At
the age of eleven, Larry was taken to specialists for
neurological and psychological evaluations. he was found to
be suffering from a mild mental deficiency. Consequently, the
Aguirre spouses transferred him to St. John Ma. Vianney, an
educational institution for special children.
At his 24th year of age, Dr. Agatep, a urologist/surgeon, was
approached concerning the intention to have Larry
vasectomized. Dr. Agatep required that Larry be evaluated by
a psychiatrist in order to confirm and validate if he can give
his consent to the medical procedure.
Larry was brought to Dr. Pascual, a psychiatrist for evaluation,
Larry was found to have a Mental retardation which was really
shown because he is very much dependent on his family for
his needs, adaptive functioning, direction and in making major
life decisions. The psychiatrist provided that the responsibility
of decision making may be given to his parent or guardian.
With such recommendation from the psychiatrist, Larry was
proceeded to have a bilateral vasectomy that was performed
by Dr. Agatep.
Appellant Gloria Pilar Aguirre filed 3 cases, against the
respondents. She claimed that there was a falsification of
documents because Larry did not consented the Bilateral
Vasectomy, which includes child abuse, exploitation and
discrimination act, which was dismissed by the SOJ through a
motu propio.
Another information was also filed, it was a violation to Art.
262 of the RPC
Issue: WON Mutilation exists in this his Vasectomy Surgery
Held: No. The court sustained that the DOJ in ruling that the
bilateral vasectomy performed on Larry does not constitute
mutilation even if intentionally and purposely done to prevent
him from siring a child.
Mutilate is by depriving him, either totally or partially, or
some essential organ of reproduction.

Laureano "Larry" Agguire used to be a charge of the Heart of

Mary Villa, a child caring agency run by the Good Shepherd

Page 6 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

A straightforward scrutiny of the provision shows that the
elements of mutilation under the first paragraph of Art. 262 of
the Revised Penal Code to be 1) that there be a castration, that
is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation; and 2) that
the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to
deprive the offended party of some essential organ for
reproduction. According to the public prosecutor, the facts
alleged did not amount to the crime of mutilation as defined
and penalized above, i.e., "[t]he vasectomy operation did not
in any way deprived (sic) Larry of his reproductive organ,
which is still very much part of his physical self."

2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances

mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of
sexual assault by inserting his penis into another persons
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the
genital or anal orifice of another person.

The Court denied the petition.

The court affirmed petitioners conviction but modified the

penalty imposed by the lower court to the penalty under
Article III, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 known as
the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act":

RICALDE v. PEOPLE - January 21, 2015

FACTS: Ricalde, then 31 years old is a distant relative and
textmate of XXX, then 10 years old. XXX invited Ricarde to
their house and after dinner, XXXs mother told Ricalde to
spend the night as it was late. He slept on the sofa while XXX
slept on the living room floor.
Around 2:00 a.m., XXX awoke as "he felt pain in his anus and
stomach and something inserted in his anus." He saw that
Ricalde "fondled his penis." XXX ran toward his mothers
room to tell her what happened. He also told his mother that
Ricalde played with his sexual organ.
Dr. Roy Camarillo examined XXX and found no signs of
recent trauma in his anal orifice that was also "NEGATIVE for
spermatozoa."
Ricalde denied the accusations but RTC found him guilty of
rape through sexual assault. The affirmed the conviction with
the modification of lowering the amounts of damages
awarded.
Ricalde filed this Petition praying for his acquittal.
ISSUE: WON petitioner Richard Ricalde is guilty for the
crime of rape through sexual assault
HELD: YES. The Supreme Court affirmed the petitioners
conviction with modification on the penalty imposed.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 classified rape as a crime against
persons and amended the Revised Penal Code to include
Article 266-A on rape through sexual assault:
Article 266A. Rape; When and How Committed.Rape is
Committed
xxx

In a long line of cases, this court has given full weight and
credit to the testimonies of child victims. Their "youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity." XXX,
then only 10 years old, had no reason to concoct lies against
petitioner.

SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.

Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or
any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of
any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpertua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxxx
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age xxx
Hence, Richard Ricalde is sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of reclusion temporal. He is ordered to
pay the victim civil indemnity in the amount of P30,000.00
and moral damages likewise in the amount of P30,000.00.
PP vs. JUMAWAN G.R. No. 187495 April 21, 2014
(First Marital Rape Conviction Case)
FACTS: Edgar Jumawan and KKK were married. One night,
KKK refused to sleep in the matrimonial bed, insisted to stay
on the cot and explained that she was not feeling well. This
made Jumawan angry lifted the cot and threw it against the
wall causing KKK to fall on the floor. Terrified, KKK
transferred to the bed.
Jumawan tapped his fingers on KKKs lap expressing his
desire to have sex with him. She politely declined then
Jumawan pulled her panties down so forcefully they tore on
the sides. KKK resisted by bending her legs but Jumawan
raised KKK's daster, stretched her legs apart, held her hands
and succeeded in penetrating her. As he was carrying out his
carnal desires, KKK continued to protest by desperately
shouting.

Page 7 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

KKK's pleas were heard by MMM(child of spouses). MMM
rushed to her parents' bedroom and saw her mothers
appearance.MMM was able to get her mother out of the room.
The accused-appellant's aggression recurred the following
night. Despite her pleas, Jumawan held her hands, mounted
her and forced himself inside her. The children of Mrs.
Jumawan testified in her favor, that, among others, they saw
their father dragged their mother to the bedroom, and they
heard her cry for help.
The RTC found accused "GUILTY" of the 2 counts of rape.
Jumawan claims the following in defense:
1.

2.
3.

Implied consent theory; that consent to copulation is

presumed between cohabiting husband and wife
unless the contrary is proved.
sexual community is a mutual right and obligation
between husband and wife.
Absence of resistance on the part of KKK

ISSUE: WON husband may be held criminally liable for rape

against her wife
HELD: YES. Husbands do not have property rights over their
wives' bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of
marriage, if not consensual, is rape. This is the clear State
policy expressly legislated in Section 266-A of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
Implied consent theory have already been superseded by
modern global principles on gender equality, such as the
United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination Against Women( CEDAW) to which the PH is
a signatory; and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of
Violence Against Women, which identified 'marital rape' as a
species of sexual violence.
Marriage is not a license for husbands to forcibly rape their
wives. A husband does not own his wife's body by reason of
marriage.
Sexual intimacy is an integral part of marriage but it
contemplates only mutual sexual cooperation and never
sexual coercion or imposition
Resistance is not an element of rape and the law does not
impose upon the victim the burden to prove resistance much
more requires her to raise a specific kind thereof.
In 1997, R.A. No. 8353 reclassified rape as a crime against
person and removed it from the ambit of crimes against
chastity. More particular to the present case, and perhaps the
law's most progressive proviso is the 2nd paragraph of
Section 2 thereof recognizing the reality of marital rape
and criminalizing its perpetration, viz:

Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon.

xxxx In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That
the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be
abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Read together with Section 1 of the law, which unqualifiedly
uses the term "man" in defining rape, it is unmistakable that
R.A. No. 8353 penalizes the crime of Rape without regard
to the rapist's legal relationship with his victim.
The accused-appellant forced his wife when he knowingly
overpowered her by gripping her hands, flexing her legs and
then resting his own legs thereon in order to facilitate the
consummation of his much-desired non-consensual sexual
intercourse.
Jumawan employed sufficient intimidation upon KKK. His
actuations prior to the actual moment of the felonious coitus
revealed that he imposed his distorted sense of moral authority
on his wife. He furiously demanded for her to lay with him on
the bed and thereafter coerced her to indulge his sexual
craving.
The fact that KKK voluntarily went with the accusedappellant to their conjugal bedroom cannot be stretched to
mean that she consented to the forced sexual intercourse that
ensued. The accused-appellant was KKK's husband and hence
it was customary for her to sleep in the conjugal bedroom.
Penalties
The Court affirms the penalty of reclusion perpetua, for each
count of rape, meted upon the accused-appellant for being in
accord with Article 266-A in relation to 266-B of the RPC.
People vs Bonaagua 650 SCRA 260
Facts: One afternoon, the victim AAA who was 8 years of age
was inside a room lying in bed while her younger brothers
were playing outside the house. Her mother was also not
home. The accused Bonaagua then entered the room and
approached AAA. He rolled the childs shirt upward, removed
her shorts and panty, and started to touch and caress her
breasts. AAA tried to resist by putting her clothes back on, but
her fathers strength prevailed. He licked her vagina then
inserted his finger into it. This incident has happened
repeatedly until AAA complained of severe abdominal pain.
This prompted her mother to take her to the hospital and upon
examination, it was revealed that there was a healed
superficial laceration on the hymen of AAA. This medical
finding forced AAA to reveal to her mother all the incidents of
rape committed by accused. The RTC held the accused guilty
of four (4) counts of RAPE. The CA amended the decision

Page 8 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

convicting the accused guilty of 3 counts of rape and guilty of
the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of
Rape Through Sexual Assault
Held: YES. The Court ruled in previous cases that finger is
included within the contemplation of object under Par. 2,
Art. 266-A of the RPC which states that rape is committed by
any person who shall commit an act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice,
or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person under any of the following circumstances: (a)
Through force, threat, or intimidation; (b) When the offended
party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (c) By
means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
and (d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of
age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
In the case at bar, the accused inserted his tongue and finger
into the genital of his daughter, a minor then 8 years of age,
against her will and consent. With the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of minority and relationship,
considering that the rape was committed by a parent against
his minor child, the penalty imposed was reclusion temporal
as prescribed by Art. 266-B of the RPC.
PEOPLE VS. CAMPUHAN
FACTS: On April 25, 1996, Corazon Pamintuan, mother of
the Crysthel Pamintuan, heard the latter cried "Ayoko!
Ayoko!" Corazon rushed upstairs and saw Primo Campuhan, a
helper of Corazon's brother, inside her children's room,
kneeling before Crysthel, whose panty and pajama were
already removed, while Primo's short pants were down to his
knees.
According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into
Crysthel's vagina. However, physical exam yielded negative
results. Hymen was also intact. The trial court found Primo
guilty of statutory rape.
ISSUE: WON the prosecution proved that Primo's penis was
able to penetrate Crysthel's vagina, however slight, thus
qualifying the act as consummated rape.
HELD: No. Touching when applied to rape cases does not
simply mean epidermal contact. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or
slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external
surface thereof for an accused to be convicted of
consummated rape.

The penis must touch the labia majora or minora of the

pudendum. In the case at bar, the Court doubted Corazon's
claim that she saw inter-genital contact between Primo and
Crysthel. Further, the latter, in Court testified that accused
touched, but not penetrated, her organ. Thus, the Court found
Primo guilty only of attempted rape.

People vs. Orita, 184 SCRA 105

Facts: The accused Ceilito Orita poke a balisong to college
freshman Cristina Abayan as soon as she got into her boarding
house early morning after arriving from a party. She knew him
as a frequent visitor of another boarder. She was dragged
inside the house up the stairs while his left arm wrapped
around her neck, and his right hand poking the Batangas knife
to her neck. Upon entering her room, he pushed her in and got
her head hit on the wall. He immediately undressed while still
holding the knife with one hand, and ordered her to do the
same. He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then
mounted her. He asked her to hold his penis and insert it in her
vagina, while still poking the knife to her. She followed, but
the appellant could not fully penetrate her in such a position.
Next, he laid down on his back and commanded her to mount
him, but he cannot fully penetrate her. When Oritas hands
were both flat on the floor, complainant escaped naked. She
ran from room to room as appellant pursued her, and finally
jumped out through a window. She went to the municipal
building nearby and knocked on the back door for there was
no answer. When the door opened, the policemen inside the
building saw her crying and naked. She was given a jacket for
covering by the first policeman who saw her. The policemen
dashed to her boarding house but failed to apprehend the
accused. She was brought to a hospital for physical
examination. Her Physical Examination revealed that she is
still a virgin, with abrasions on the left breast, left and right
knees, and multiple pinpoint marks on her back, among others.
The trial court convicted the accused of frustrated rape. Later
on, the accused filed a petition.
Issue: WON the frustrated stage applies to the crime of rape.
Held: No. The Supreme Court held that for the consummation
of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of
the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the
labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen
or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the
female organ.
Moreover, for the prosecution for rape, the accused may be
convicted even on the sole basis of the victims testimony, if
credible.

Page 9 of 10

Criminal Law II - Lucky 9 - 1st Case Digest

In the case at bar, the victim positively testified that there was
a penetration, even if only partially.
Therefore, the accused Ceilito Orita found guilty of the crime
of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to
indemnify the victim in the amount of P30,000.00.

Page 10 of 10