Title 8 - Persons

Title Eight CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Chapter One.
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE Section One Parricide, murder, homicide Article 246. Parricide Article 247. Death or physical injuries under exceptional circumstances Article 248. Murder Article 249. Homicide Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide Article 254. Discharge of firearms Section Two Infanticide and Abortion Article 255. Infanticide Article 256. Intentional Abortion Article 257. Unintentional Abortion Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives Section Three Duel Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel Article 261. Challenging to a duel Chapter Two PHYSICAL INJURIES Article 262. Mutilation Article 263. Serious physical injuries Article 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages Article 265. Less serious physical injuries Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment Chapter Three RAPE Article Article Article Article 266-A. 266-B. 266-C. 266-D. Rape, When and How committed Penalties Effect of pardon Presumptions
Relationship of the offender with the victim is an essential element of this crime.
GENERAL RULE: only relatives by blood and in the direct line are considered in parricide. EXCEPTION: spouse The father, mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate. However, the other ascendants or descendants must be legitimate. The spouse must be legitimate. The best proof of the relationship is the marriage certificate. Relationship must be alleged in order that the accused may be convicted of parricide. If not alleged, relationship must be considered as an aggravating circumstance. If a person wanted to kill a stranger but killed his own father by mistake, is this parricide? YES, but Art. 49 applies as regards the proper penalty to be imposed. If a person killed another, not knowing that the latter was his son, will he be guilty of parricide? YES, because the law does not require knowledge of relationship between them.
A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the commission of the crime of parricide is not guilty of parricide, but only homicide or murder, as the case may be.
People vs. Jumawan Presentacion Jumawan, her father and two brothers conspired to kill Presentacions husband Rodolfo in a store near the public market. The fiscal filed an information for murder against the four accused and they were subsequently convicted for such crime. HELD: Since Presentacions relationship to the victim is not alleged in the information, she can be convicted of murder only. Relationship can be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstance only. People vs. Tomotorgo
Article 246. Parricide Elements: 1. 2. A person is killed; The deceased is killed by the accused; 3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate; or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of the accused.
Julian Tomotorgo hit his wife with a piece of wood, after the latter tried to leave their conjugal home. Although Julian stopped the beating when his wife complained of chest pains, the wife succumbed to the serious injuries. Julian was convicted of parricide but he claims that he should be sentenced to the penalty corresponding to serious physical injuires only, the offense which he intended to commit. HELD: The fact that the accused intended to maltreat the victim or inflict physical injuries DOES NOT exempt him from liability for the resulting and more serious crime committed. He is only entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 80
People vs. Malabago (1996) After an argument, Pedro Malabago fatally hacked and struck his wife with a bolo. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of PARRICIDE. HELD: Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not objected to. People vs. Ignacio (1997) Accused wife here was accused of parricide for the killing of her husband by hitting the latter on the nape with a piece of wood. Accused was convicted of parricide. She however appeals saying that the crime she committed is not parricide but only homicide since there was no proof of marriage between her and the victim. HELD: Guilty of parricide. The phrase whether legitimate or illegitimate in the law just refers to children and not to spouses who must therefore be legitimate. In CAB, accused declared in open court that they were husband and wife. And even without this, there is a presumption in law that persons deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful marriage without proof to the contrary. People vs. Genosa Accused wife here was convicted parricide for the killing her husband and was sentenced to death. Accused asks for a reopening of the case in order to prove her state of mind during the killing in as she says that she is a battered wife (battered wife syndrome). HELD: Case should be remanded for the psychological examination. If accused can prove that she indeed was a battered wife, this may be raised as a valid defense as a species of self-defense. Having been proven to be a victim of domestic violence of the husband. This can be self defense because since the wife already always assumes, and correctly that the husband will beat her up again, she may be justified in taking steps to protect herself. And since there is the fear of an impending beating again in the mind of the wife, she would have no opportunity beforehand to choose means to protect herself other than to injure and/ or kill the husband. The psychological examination can prove how the accused perceived danger and how, in her honest belief, she believed that danger to herself was imminent (as one of the elements of self-defense).
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances Requisites for application: 1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18 years of age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person. 2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury, in the act or immediately thereafter. 3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. Justification for this article: The law considers the spouse or parent as acting in a justified burst of passion.
In the case of an accused killing his spouse or his spouses paramour, the accused must be a legally married person. However, in the case of a parent killing his/her daughter and/or the man with whom she is having sexual intercourse, the parents need not be legitimate. Does this article apply even if the daughter is married? Although the article does not use the word unmarried, this article applies only when the daughter is single because while under 18 and single, she is still under parental authority. If she is married, her husband alone can claim the benefits of this article. Surprise to come upon suddenly and unexpectedly
The accused must have seen his spouse or daughter in the acts of sexual intercourse with another. (not before, or after sexual intercourse) The killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries must be in the act of sexual intercourse, or immediately thereafter. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accuseds rage.
The article does not apply where the wife was not surprised in flagrant adultery but was being abused C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 81
(raped) by a man. An attack upon the man by the husband will be considered a defense of relative under Article 11 par. 2. When less serious or slight physical injuries are committed, there is no criminal liability. It is an absolutory cause. The penalty of destierro is really not intended as a penalty but to remove the killer spouse from the vicinity and to protect him/her from acts of reprisal principally by relatives of the deceased spouse. Cases where a person who committed parricide is not punished with reclusion perpetua to death: o When parricide is committed through negligence (Art. 365) o When parricide is committed by mistake (Art. 249) o When parricide is committed under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
People vs. Abarca Abarca caught his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with Koh. An hour later, Abarca fired several shots at Koh during a mahjongg session. Koh was killed and two others were seriously wounded. Abarca was convicted of Murder and Double Frustrated Murder. HELD: Though quite a length of time, about an hour, had passed between the time Abarca caught his wife in sexual intercourse with Koh and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by Abarca. The RPC, in requiring that the accused shall kill any of them or both of themimmediately after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon the spouse in the basest act of infidelity.
1.
2. 3.
a.
A person was killed; The accused killed him;
The killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid or armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity; In consideration of a price, reward or promise; By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other public calamity; With evident premeditation; With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. is not parricide or
b. c.
d.
e. f.
4. The killing infanticide.
Article 248. Murder Elements:
Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not parricide or infanticide, provided any of the qualifying circumstances are present. Murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described in this article. When more than one of the circumstances is present, the others must be considered as generic aggravating. However, when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic aggravating. (example: abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery) The qualifying circumstance must be alleged, in order to qualify the killing to murder. If not alleged, it is only a generic aggravating circumstance.
The offender must have intent to kill to be liable for murder committed by means of fire, poison, explosion etc.
Cruelty when other injuries or wounds are inflicted deliberately by he offender, which are not necessary for the killing of the victim. The victim must be alive when the other injuries or wounds are inflicted. Outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse the only qualifying circumstance which is not mentioned in Article 14 as an aggravating circumstance. outraging to commit an extremely vicious or deeply insulting act scoffing to jeer, and implies a showing of irreverence
People v. Mallari, 404 SCRA 170 FACTS: Joseph admonished Rufino and his brothers Ino and Felix Mallari not to drive fast while passing by Joseph's house. Rufino and his brothers, who were then hot-tempered, challenged Joseph to a fight. The latter just ignored the challenge; and, instead he and his own brothers Radi and Manny asked apology from Rufino. Later that afternoon, while Joseph and Liza were watching a basketball game at the barangay basketball court, Rufino and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed weapons, arrived and attempted to stab Joseph; but Joseph was able to run away. When they were not able to catch up with him, Rufino boarded and drove the truck parked near the basketball court and continued chasing Joseph until the truck ran over the latter, which caused his instantaneous death. The trial court found Rufino guilty of murder. It ruled that the crime was committed by means of a motor vehicle as a qualifying circumstance. HELD: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that Rufino deliberately bumped Joseph with the truck he was driving. The evidence shows that Rufino deliberately used his truck in pursuing Joseph. Upon catching up with him, Rufino hit him with the truck, as a result of which Joseph died instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck was the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the killing of Joseph. The case of People v. Muoz cited by Rufino finds no application to the present case. In the said case, the police patrol jeep was merely used by the accused therein in looking for the victim and in carrying the body of the victim to the place where it was dumped. The accused therein shot the victim, which caused the latter's death. In the present case, the truck itself was used to kill the victim by running over him. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who kills another "by means of a motor vehicle" is guilty of murder. Thus, the use of motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder. People v. Pascual (2006) At any rate, the doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not life threatening, the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about death, the crime committed is only attempted murder. People v. Whisenhunt, 386 SCRA 586
FACTS: Whisenhunt and the deceased, Elsa Santos-Castillo, were lovers. They met at the Apex Motor Corporation where accused was the Manager while Elsa was the Assistant Personnel Manager. Both accused and Elsa were married, but they were estranged from their respective spouses. Inside his condominium unit, accused Whisenhunt killed Elsa by stabbing her with a knife. He then beheaded her and mutilated her body parts. Thereafter, with the help of Ravelo, the dismembered parts of Elsas body were wrapped in three separate black garbage bags. Whisenhunt and Ravelo packed all the garbage bags in another bag with zipper and rollers. The two then drove in Whisenhunts car and the garbage bags were eventually thrown on the roadside; and into a river. The trial court found Whisenhun guilty of murder qualified by outraging and scoffing at the victim's person or corpse. HELD: The mere decapitation of the victim's head constitute outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying the killing to murder. In this case, accusedappellant not only beheaded Elsa. He further cut up her body like pieces of meat. Then, he strewed dismembered parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside, leaving them to rot on the ground. The sight of Elsa's severed body parts on the ground, vividly depicted in the photographs offered in evidence, is both revolting and horrifying. At the same time, the viewer cannot help but feel utter pity for the sub-human manner of disposing of her remains. Hence, the trial court was correct in convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder, qualified by outraging and scoffing at the victim's person or corpse. Sabang v. People (2007) The distance from which a shot is fired affects the nature and extent of the injury caused on the victim. In close range fire, the injury is not only due to the missile but also due to the pressure of the expanded gases, flame and other solid products of combustion. In contrast, distant fire usually produces the characteristic effect of the bullet alone. A shot fired from a distance of more than 60 cm or about two (2) feet does not produce the burning, smudging or tattooing typically present in loose contact or near fire, short range fire and medium range fire. Powder burns is a term commonly used by physicians whenever there is blackening of the margin at the entrance of the gunshot wound. The blackening is due to smoke smudging, gunpowder tattooing and, to a certain extent, burning of the wound margin. The fact that there were no powder burns on Butads body indicates that the shots were fired at a distance of more than two (2) feet and not at close range as the defense suggests. Moreover, Butad sustained four (4) gunshot wounds, three (3) of which were in the chest area, circumstances which are inconsistent with the defenses theory of accidental firing
Article 249. Homicide Elements:
1. A person was killed; 2. The accused killed him without any justifying circumstance; 3. The accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; 4. The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or infanticide. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. (crime is consummated) Evidence of intent to kill is important only in attempted or frustrated homicide (to differentiate it from physical injuries). In such cases, intent to kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. There is no offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence because the element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence. Accidental homicide the death of a person brought about by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill, and without homicidal intent. (example: the death of a boxer following a serious blow in a boxing bout, provided that the rules of boxing had been followed) Corpus delicti the actual commission of the crime charged, means that the crime was actually committed. In crimes against persons in which death of the victim is an element of the offense, there must be satisfactory proof of the fact of death, and the identity of the victim. When the victim is under 12 years of age, penalty for homicide shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law.
People vs. Buensuceso Several police officers fired shots at a knife-wielding guy, who later died from the gunshot wounds. The investigation showed that all the four officers actually fired their service pistols but it was not established as to which wound was inflicted by each policeman. HELD: Where several personas acting independently of each other inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be determined which wound was inflicted by each person, all the assailants are liable for the victims death. People vs. Pugay Pugay poured gasoline on a 25-year old mental retardate while Samson set the poor guy on fire, killing him in the process. They were both convicted of murder.
HELD: Pugay can only be convicted of Homicide thru reckless imprudence because of his failure to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act committed by his companions. Samson is guilty of Homicide although it was not his intention to kill the guy, but he shall be credited with the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong. People vs. Basay (1993) The two accused here were charged with Multiple Murder and Frustrated Murder with Arson in one information. They were charged with having stabbed people, and to conceal the crime, they burned down the house. The burning of the house then led to the death of another and 3 rd degree burns on the lone survivor. HELD: It was not proper to have consolidated all the charges against the accused in one single complaint. It was proven that 3 victims were hacked and stabbed before the house was burned down. And then when the house was burned down, this led to the death of another person and serious burns on another. Several separate informations must be filed where the victims were killed by separate acts. 4 crimes were committed here, 3 separate murders under the RPC and arson as punished under sec5 PD1613 (if by reason/ on occasion of the arson, death results, penalty of reclusion perpetua to death imposed). Therefore the information was vulnerable to a motion to quash for being duplicitous. People vs. Rivera (2006) An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo.
Article 250. Penalty for parricide, murder or homicide
frustrated
For frustrated parricide, homicide or murder, the courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose a penalty lower by one degree than that imposed under Article 50. Article 50 provides that the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony. Thus, under Article 250, the court can impose a penalty of TWO DEGREES LOWER for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide. For attempted parricide, homicide or murder, the courts, in view of the facts of C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 84
the case, may impose a penalty lower by one degree than that imposed under Article 51. Article 51 provides that the penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a attempted felony. Thus, under Article 250, the court can impose a penalty of THREE DEGREES LOWER for attempted parricide, murder or homicide. Note however that any attempt on, or conspire against, the life of the Chief Executive of the Philippines or that of any member of his family, or against the life of any member of his cabinet or that of any member of the latters family, shall suffer the penalty of DEATH. Article 251. Death tumultuous affray Elements: caused in a
the deceased, all the persons who used violence upon the person of the victim are liable, but with lesser liability.
People v. Unlagada, 389 SCRA 224 FACTS: At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening Laurel left his house together with his visitor, Selda, to attend a public dance. Two hours later, Danilo asked Edwin to take a short break from dancing to attend to their personal necessities outside the dance hall. Once outside, they decided to have a drink and bought 2 bottles of beer at a nearby store. Not long after, Daniloleft to look for a place to relieve himself. While Danilo was relieving himself, Unlagada approached Danilo and stabbed him at the side. Danilo retaliated by striking his assailant with a half-filled bottle of beer. Almost simultaneously, a group of men numbering about seven 7, ganged up on Danilo and hit him with assorted weapons, i.e., bamboo poles, stones and pieces of wood. Danilo died before he could be given any medical assistance. Unlagada was convicted by the RTC. He claims the trial court erred in convicting him of murder and not "death in a tumultuous affray." under Art. 251 of The Revised Penal Code. HELD: A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons who engage in a confused and tumultuous manner, in the course of which a person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case is between a distinct group of individuals, one of whom was sufficiently identified as the principal author of the killing, as against a common, particular victim. It is not, as the defense suggests, a "tumultuous affray" within the meaning of Art. 251 of The RPC, that is, a melee or free-for-all, where several persons not comprising definite or identifiable groups attack one another in a confused and disorganized manner, resulting in the death or injury of one or some of them.
1.
There are several persons; 2. They do not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally; 3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner; 4. Someone was killed in the course of the affray; 5. It can not be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; 6. The person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified. Tumultuous affray exists when at least four persons take part. The word tumultuous as used in Article 153 means that the disturbance is caused by more than three persons who are armed or are provided with means of violence. When there are two identified groups of men who assaulted each other, then there is no tumultuous affray. The person killed in the course of the affray need not be one of the participants in the affray. Who are liable? a. the person or persons who inflicted the serious physical injuries b. if it is not known who inflicted the serious physical injuries on
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray Elements: 1. There is a tumultuous affray; 2. A participant or some participants thereof suffered serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious nature ONLY; 3. The person responsible thereof cannot be identified; 4. All those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are known.
Unlike in Article 251, the injured party in this article must be one or some of the participants in the affray. All those who appear to have used violence shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the serious physical injuries inflicted. For less serious physical injuries, the penalty is arresto mayor from five to fifteen days. This article does not include slight physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide Acts punishable:
against or at another person; 2. The offender had no intention to kill that person.
If the firearm is not discharged AT A PERSON, there is no crime of discharge of firearms. For example, firing a gun at a house at random, not knowing where the people inside were, is not discharge of firearms. The crime may be alarms and scandals under Article 155.
There must be no intention to kill, otherwise the crime is attempted or frustrated murder/homicide/parricide, as the case may be. The purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or frighten the offended party.
1.
Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not; 2. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself. The relation of the offender to the person committing suicide is not material, the law does not distinguish. Hence, penalty would be the same if the offender is the father, mother or child. A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable because society considers such person to be an unfortunate being, a wretched person more deserving of pity rather than of penalty. If a pregnant woman tries to commit suicide but instead kills the baby in her womb, is she liable for abortion? NO. In order to incur criminal liability for a result not intended, one must be committing a felony. An attempt to commit suicide is not an act punishable by law. Euthanasia (mercy killing) practice of painlessly putting to death a person suffering from some incurable disease. This is not lending assistance to suicide because in euthanasia, the person killed does not want to die. A doctor who resorts to mercy killing may be liable for murder. Article 254. Discharge of firearms Elements:
If physical injuries resulted from discharge, the crime committed is the complex crime of discharge of firearm with physical injuries, when the physical injuries are serious or less serious. The crime is discharge of firearm, even if the gun was not pointed at the offended party when it fired, as long as it was initially aimed by the accused at or against the offended party.
Dado v. People, 392 SCRA 46 FACTS: The Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat Police Station formed 3 teams to intercept cattle rustlers. The team, composed of petitioner SPO4 Dado and CAFGU members Eraso, Balinas, and Alga, waited behind a large dike. Balinas and Alga, who were both armed with M14 armalite rifles, positioned themselves between Dado, who was armed with a caliber .45 pistol, and accused Eraso, who was carrying an M16 armalite rifle. They were all facing southwards in a half-kneeling position and were about 2 arms length away from each other. Thereafter, the team saw somebody approaching at a distance of 50 meters. Though it was a moonless night, they noticed that he was half-naked. When he was about 5 meters away from the team, Balinas noticed that Eraso, who was on his right side, was making some movements. Balinas told Eraso to wait, but before Balinas could beam his flash light, Eraso fired his M16 armalite rifle at the approaching man. Immediately thereafter, Dado, fired a single shot from his . 45 caliber pistol. The victim shouted, "Tay Dolfo, ako ini," ("Tay Dolfo, [this is] me") as he fell on the ground. The victim turned out to be Silvestre "Butsoy" Balinas, the nephew of Balinas and not the cattle rustler the team were ordered to intercept. Silvestre Balinas died as a result of the gunshot wounds he sustained. The RTC convicted Dado of the crime of Homicide. HELD: Dado is guilty of the crime of illegal discharge of firearm. Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim, petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 of the RPC. The elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person; and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill that person. Though the information charged the petitioner with
1.
The
offender
discharges
firearm
murder, he could be validly convicted of illegal discharge of firearm, an offense which is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing of a person. Under Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman; 3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom; 4. The abortion is intended. Abortion is the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus, or the violent expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb which results in the death of the fetus. The person who intentionally caused the abortion is liable under this article. The pregnant woman, if she consented to the abortion, shall be liable under Article 258. If she did not consent, she is not criminally liable. Abortion distinguished from infanticide: if the fetus could sustain an independent life after its separation from the maternal womb; and it is killed, the crime is infanticide. Article 257. Unintentional abortion Elements: 1. There is a pregnant woman; 2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion; 3. The violence is intentionally exerted; 4. As a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom. Unintentional abortion is committed only by violence, which must be intentionally exerted. Unintentional abortion may be committed through imprudence (example: negligent driver gets into a car crash, causing pregnant passenger to get thrown off the car, killing fetus inside her)
Article 255. Infanticide Elements: 1. 2. A child was killed The accused killed the said child; 3. The deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age.
The penalty prescribed is the same for parricide or murder, as the case may be. Concealment of dishonor is not an element of infanticide. If the crime is committed by the mother of the child to conceal her dishonor, or by the maternal grandparents for the same purpose, the penalty for infanticide is mitigated.
Delinquent mother must be of good reputation and good morals, in order that concealing dishonor may mitigate her liability. No crime of infanticide is committed when the child was born dead, or although born alive, it could not sustain an independent life when it was killed. Article 256. Intentional Abortion
Ways of committing intentional abortion: 1. 2. Using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman; Acting, but without using violence, without the consent of the woman. (By administering drugs or beverages upon such pregnant woman without her consent.) Acting (by administering drugs or beverages), with the consent of the pregnant woman.
3.
Is the accused liable for abortion even if he did not know that the woman was pregnant? NO. For the crime of abortion, even if unintentional, to be held committed, the accused must have known of the pregnancy.
People vs. Salufrania After quarrelling with his pregnant wife, Salufrania boxed her on the stomach and strangled her to death. He was convicted of the complex crime of parricide with INTENTIONAL ABORTION.
Elements: 1. There is a pregnant woman; 2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the
Held: There is no evidence to show that the accused had the intention to commit an abortion. Mere boxing on the stomach, taken together with the immediate strangling of the victim is not sufficient to show an intent to cause an abortion. Thus, Salufrania should be convicted of the crime of parricide with UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION.
maximum period for physicians and midwives violating this article. Reason: heavier guilt in making use of their knowledge for the destruction of human life, when it should be used only for its preservation. Elements (for pharmacists):
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents Elements: 1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion; 2. The abortion is intended; 3. Abortion is caused by a. The pregnant woman herself; b. Any other person, with her consent; or c. Any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor. The pregnant woman is liable under this article, if she does the abortion herself or she consents to another person doing the abortion. Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if purpose is to conceal dishonor. No mitigation for parents of pregnant woman even if the purpose is to conceal dishonor. The penalty for the parents in this case is the same as the penalty for a pregnant woman committing abortion, without the purpose of concealing dishonor. Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives Elements (for physicians and midwives):
1. The offender is a pharmacist; 2. There is no proper prescription from a physician; 3. The offender dispenses any abortive. It is not necessary that the pharmacist knows that the abortive would be used to cause an abortion. What is punished is the dispensing of the abortive without the proper prescription.
Not necessary that the abortive be actually used either. If the pharmacist knew that the drug would be used to cause an abortion, he may be liable as an accomplice in the crime of abortion. Article 260. Responsibility participants in a duel Acts punishable: 1. Killing ones adversary in a duel; 2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries; 3. Making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted. Persons liable: 1. The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his adversary, or both combatants in any other case, as principals. 2. The seconds, as accomplices. Duel is a formal or regular combat previously concerted between two parties in the presence of two or more seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight. If death results, the penalty is the same as that for homicide. Article 261. Challenging to a duel of the
1.
There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion; 2. The abortion is intended; 3. Offender, who must be a physician or midwife, caused or assisted in causing the abortion; 4. Said physician or midwife took advantage of his or her scientific knowledge or skill.
The penalties provided for intentional abortion shall be imposed in the
Acts punishable:
1. Challenging another to a duel; 2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel; 3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel. A challenge to a fight, without contemplating a duel, is not challenging to a duel. The person making the challenge must have in mind a formal combat to be concerted between him and the one challenged in the presence of two or more seconds. Article 262. Mutilation Acts punishable:
How committed: 1. 2. 3. 4. By By By By wounding; beating; assaulting; or administering injurious substance.
Types of serious physical injuries: 1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted; 2. When the injured person
a.
1.
Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction; (castration) Elements: a. There be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation, such as the penis or ovarium; The mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction.
b.
2.
Loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg; b. Loses the use of any such member; or c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore habitually engaged, in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted; 3. When the person injured a. Becomes deformed; or b. Loses any other member of his body; or c. Loses the use thereof; or d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for more than 90 days in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted; 4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but must not be more than 90 days), as a result of the physical injuries inflicted. In physical injuries, there must not be intent to kill, otherwise the crime is frustrated/attempted murder or homicide as the case may be.
Intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping or clipping off any part of the body of the offended party, other than the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive him of that part of his body. (other intentional mutilation) Mutilation is the lopping or clipping off of some part of the body. The second type of mutilation is also called mayhem. For other intentional mutilation, if the victim is under 12 years of age, the penalty shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law.
Impotence under first type means an inability to copulate. It is used synonymously with sterility. Penalty under the first type is one degree higher when the victim is under 12 years of age.
The offender must have the intention to deprive the offended party of a part of his body. If there is no such intention, the crime will be serious physical injuries. Article 263. Serious physical injuries
Blindness under the second type must be of two eyes. If there is loss of one eye only, the serious physical injuries is of the second type.
Loss of power to hear under the second type must be of both ears. If hearing in only one ear is lost, it falls under the third type. Loss of the use of hand, or incapacity for work under the second type, must be permanent.
All the body parts mentioned in the second type are principal members of the body (eye, hand, foot etc.) The third type covers any other part of the body which is not a principal member of the body.
clipped off. This intention is not present in serious physical injuries.
Deformity physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. It must be conspicuous and visible. Elements of deformity: (a) physical ugliness, (b) permanent and definite abnormality, and (c) it must be conspicuous and visible. All these elements must concur. Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which cannot be repaired by the action of nature. Loss of both outer ears is a deformity. Loss of the lobule of the ear is a deformity. Loss of index and middle fingers only is either deformity or loss of a member, not a principal one, of his body or use of the same. Loss of power to hear of right ear only is loss of use of other part of body. Illness when the wound inflicted did not heal with a certain period of time. Note that under serious physical injuries of the fourth type, illness or incapacity is required, NOT medical attendance.
Qualified serious physical injuries if the offense is committed against any of the persons enumerated in the crime of parricide, or with the attendance of any of the circumstance in murder, the law provides for higher penalties. Article 264. Administering substances or beverages Elements: 1. Offender inflicted upon another any serious physical injury; 2. It was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity; 3. He had no intent to kill. It is frustrated murder when there is intent to kill, the injurious substance to be considered as poison. If the accused did not know of the injurious nature of the substances administered, he is not liable under this article. Administering injurious substance means introducing into the body the substance. Thus, throwing mordant chemicals or poisons on the face is not contemplated in this article. This article does not apply if the physical injuries that result are less serious or slight. Taking advantage of weakness of mind or credulity: for example, using witchcraft, magnetism, philters etc. Article 265. Less serious physical injuries Matters to be noted in this crime: 1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or more (but not more than 30 days), or needs medical attendance for the same period of time; 2. The physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles. Qualified as to penalty: injurious
Paragraphs 2 and 3 refers to the work in which he was theretofore habitually engagedmust the injured party have an avocation at the time at the time of the injury? YES, insofar as these two paragraphs are concerned. Incapacity therefore must related to a certain kind of work only. However, in paragraph 4, incapacity for any kind of work is acceptable, because the phrase incapacity for labor is used. Injury requiring hospitalization for more than thirty days is serious physical injuries under paragraph 4. When the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of illness or incapacity for labor, there must be evidence of the length of that period; otherwise, the offense is only slight physical injuries. Lessening of efficiency due to injury is NOT incapacity.
Distinguished from mutilation: In mutilation, the body parts should have been purposely and deliberately lopped or
1.
A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to arresto mayor, shall be imposed for less serious physical injuries when C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 90
a. There is a manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person; or b. There are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense.
unconsious. At this point in time, Sangalang, who was also present stabbed Arugay several times which resulted to the latters death. The RTC found Li guilty on the tenuous determination that a conspiracy between Li and Sangalang existed. Held: The only injury attributable to Li is the contusion on the victims right arm that resulted from Li striking Arugay with a baseball bat. In view of the victims supervening death from injuries which cannot be attributed to Li beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion caused by Li are not mortal or at least lie entirely in the realm of speculation. When there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the offended party for labor or of the required medical attendance, the offense is only slight R.A. 8049 An Act Regulating Hazing and Other Forms of Initiation Rites in Fraternities, Sororities and other Organizations What is Hazing? Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering or injury. (1) The term organization shall include any club or the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or officer and cadet corp of the Citizen's Military Training, or Citizen's Army Training. But the physical, mental and psychological testing and training procedure and practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental and psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National Police as approved by the Secretary of National Defense and the National Police Commission duly recommended by the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Director General of the Philippine National Police shall not be considered as hazing for the purpose of this Act. (1) Requirements before hazing may be conducted
2.
A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is either a. The offenders parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers; or b. Persons of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is not direct assault.
Medical attendance OR incapacity for labor is required in less serious physical injuries. It is only slight physical injury when there is no medical attendance or incapacity for labor. The phrase shall require medical attendance refers to ACTUAL medical attendance, not to the nature of the wound or injury inflicted. Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment Acts punished: 1. Physical injuries incapacitated the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or required medical attendance during the same period; 2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or which did not require medical attendance; 3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury.
When there is no evidence of actual injury, it is only slight physical injuries. Supervening event converting the crime into serious physical injuries after the filing of the information for slight physical injuries can still be the subject of a new charge. Information may be amended.
Li v. People, 427 SCRA 217 Facts: Because of an altercation between Arugay and Li, the latter armed himself with a baseball bat and used the same to hit Arugay on the arm. Arugay armed with a bolo, retaliated by hacking Li on the head causing the bat to fall from his hand and leaving him unconscious or semi-
1.
No hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner by a fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed without prior written notice to the school authorities or head of organization seven (7) days before the conduct of such initiation. The written notice shall indicate the ff: period of the initiation activities which shall not exceed three (3) days, the names of those to be subjected to such activities
an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody
during such initiation rites. (2)
2.
The head of the school or organization or their representatives must assign at least two (2) representatives of the school or organization as the case may be, to be present during the initiation. It is the duty of such representative to see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or applicant. (3) Who are punishable? If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof, the following are punished under the law: AS PRINCIPALS:
The presence of any person during the hazing is prime facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein. Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong. This section shall apply to the president, manager, director or other responsible officer of a corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement for employment in the manner provided herein. (4) Penalties imposed The penalties imposed shall vary depending on the injury suffered by the victim. If the victim dies, is raped, sodomized or mutilated, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death. The maximum penalty shall be imposed in any of the following instances:
1. 2.
The officer and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who actually participated in the infliction of physical harm If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers or members of the fraternity, group, or organization, the parents shall be held liable as principals when they have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
a) b) c)
when the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the person of the recruit who refuses to join; when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents to join but upon learning that hazing will be committed on his person, is prevented from quitting. when the recruit neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing is prevented from reporting the unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to the proper school authorities, or to the police authorities through force, violence , threat or intimidation; when the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution: or when the victim is below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the hazing.
3.
The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group, fraternity, or sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed
4.
Officers or members of an organization, group, fraternity, or sorority who knowingly cooperated in carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be present thereat
d) e)
5.
A fraternity or sorority's adviser who is present when the acts constituting the hazing were committed and failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring AS ACCOMPLICES:
The responsible officials of the school or of the police, military or citizen's army training organization, may impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on the person or persons charged under this law even before their conviction.
6.
The owner of the place where hazing is conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
Article 266-A. Committed
Rape, When and How
7.
Elements under paragraph 1: 1. 2. woman; 3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances: Offender is a man; Offender had carnal knowledge of a
The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof but failed to take any action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the acts of hazing committed by the perpetrators.
a. b. c.
d.
By using force or intimidation; When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.
When several persons conspired to rape a single victim, each shall be liable for the rape committed personally by him, as well as those committed by the others Article 266-B. Penalties When rape is punished by death: 1. Where the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is her ascendant, stepfather, guardian, or relative by affinity or consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree, or the common law husband of the victims mother; or 2. Where the victim was under the custody of the police or military authorities, or other law enforcement agency; 3. Where the rape is committed in full view of the victims husband, the parents, any of the children or relatives by consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree; 4. Where the victim is a religious, that is, a member of a legitimate religious vocation and the offender knows the victim as such before or at the time of the commission of the offense; 5. Where the victim is a child under 7 yrs of age; 6. Where the offender is a member of the AFP, its paramilitary arm, the PNP, or any law enforcement agency and the offender took advantage of his position; 7. Where the offender is afflicted with AIDS or other sexually transmissible diseases, and he is aware thereof when he committed the rape, and the disease was transmitted; 8. Where the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation; 9. Where the pregnancy of the offended party is known to the rapist at the time of the rape; or 10. Where the rapist is aware of the victims mental disability, emotional disturbance or physical handicap. Rape under the first type is punished by reclusion perpetua. Rape under the second type is punished by reclusion temporal. Penalties are increased in these instances:
Elements under paragraph 2: 1. assault; 2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means: a. By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice; or b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; 3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented. Offender commits an act of sexual
Rape can now be committed by a male or a female. Only one of the four circumstances mentioned is sufficient. Force employed against the victim of the rape need not be of such character as could be resisted. It is enough that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose of copulating with the offended woman. When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not necessary that she put up a determined resistance. Rape may be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of the offended woman. There is no crime of frustrated rape (see Orita case). Character of the offended woman is immaterial in rape.
o When it is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons o When the victim becomes insane o When there is attempted rape and homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof o When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of rape o When rape is committed with any of the enumerated qualifying or aggravating circumstances (death penalty is imposed) Rape with homicide is now a special complex crime, punishable by death (first type) or reclusion perpetua (second type). 266-C. Effect of pardon
Marriage of the victim with one of the offenders benefits not only the principal but also the accomplices and accessories Marital rape NOT recognized
Marriage extinguishes the penal action only as to the principal (the person who married the victim) Marital rape recognized
People vs. Orita A PC soldier raped a 19-year old student while poking a knife on her neck. However, only a portion of his penis entered her vagina because the victim kept on struggling until she was finally able to escape. The soldier was convicted of FRUSTRATED RAPE. HELD: There is NO crime of frustrated rape because In rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his purpose, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. People vs. Mangalino A 55-year old man lured a 6-year old to his bedroom by giving her two pesos. He then tried to force his penis in to her vagina but he was not able to completely do so, because of the little girls undeveloped genitalia (only 1 cm. in diameter). HELD: Rape was committed even though the penetration could only go as deep as the labia. The court has consistently held that for rape to be committed, full penetration is not required. Even the slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape. People vs. Balbuena
Subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. 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 their marriage is not void ab initio. 266-D. Presumptions Evidence which may be accepted prosecution of rape: in the
1. any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party. 2. where the offended party is so situated as to render him/her incapable of giving consent.
Old rape law Crime against chastity May be committed by a man against a woman ONLY PRIVATE CRIME Complaint must be filed by the woman or her parents, grandparents or guardian if the woman was a minor or incapacitated New rape law Crime against persons Under the second type, sexual assault may be committed by ANY PERSON May be prosecuted even if the woman does not file a complaint
A tomboy went on a drinking spree with her male friends. Two of her companions raped her on top of a billiard table. While one guy was raping her, the other pinned her arms down. HELD: In the crime of rape, when a woman testifies that she had been raped, she says all that need to be said to signify that this crime has been committed. Note that each accused was sentenced to two counts of rape - one for actually raping the girl and another for helping the other rape the girl. People vs. Castro Castro brought a 6-year old girl inside the bathroom. He made the girl stand on the toilet bowl and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. Medical findings showed that the victims hymen was not lacerated. HELD: Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina are not essential for the offense of consummated rape. Entry to the extent of the labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. The victims remaining a virgin does not negate rape.
TC sentenced him to death for the complex crime of abduction with rape. People vs. Atento A 16-year old mental retardate was repeatedly raped by her neighbor, and she later on gave birth to their child. She described the sexual experience as pleasurable (Masarap!) HELD: Even though force and intimidation has not been established, rape was still committed because the victim is deprived of reason. Under paragraph 2 of Article 335, it is not necessary that the culprit actually deprives the victim of reason prior to the rape, as by administration of drugs or some other method. This provision also applies to cases where the woman has been earlier deprived of reason by other causes, as when she is congenitally retarded. People vs. Dela Cuesta The RTC of Makati found De La Cuesta guilty of 6 counts of rape against 9-year-old Merma Binasbas. At the time of the alleged incidents of rape, De La Cuesta, then 64 years old, was boarding with Merma and her mom. De La Cuesta threatened the girl and gave her P20 after each encounter. De La Cuesta claims it was error for the lower court to find that he was Mermas guardian, and that he could have committed the rape in view of his age (he claims his last erection was 3 years ago). HELD: The trial court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death. R.A. 7659 provides that the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a guardian. In People v. Garcia (281 SCRA 463), we held that the restrictive definition of a guardian, that of a legal or judicial guardian, should be used in construing the term guardian for the purpose of imposing the death penalty under R.A. 7659. The mere fact that the mother asked De La Cuesta to look after her child while she was away did not constitute the relationship of guardian-ward as contemplated by the law. He watched over the girl as a favor to mother for letting him stay while his place was being renovated. De La Cuestas contention that he was incapable of committing rape due to his age, physical condition and lack of earthly desires is self-serving. There is no evidence presented to substantiate his alleged dysfunction. In one case, we rejected the defense even after a doctor had examined the accused by stimulating his organ with a wisp of cotton for three minutes and there was no erection. (People v. Palma, 144 SCRA 236). At any rate, advanced age does not mean that sexual intercourse is no longer possible, as age is not a criterion taken alone in determining sexual interest and capability of middle-aged and older people. (People v. Bahuyan, 238 SCRA 330). People vs. Sabredo (2000) Jimmy Sabredo, uncle of victim Judeliza, lived with their family in Cebu for more than a year. He forcibly dragged her at knife's point, and brought her to Masbate. Armed with a blade, he sexually assaulted Judeliza. After satisfying his lust, Jimmy inserted three fingers into her vaginal orifice and cruelly pinched it. Later, Jimmy struck Judeliza with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious. HELD: When a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC is charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic that the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. Prosecution failed to allege the 3rd element of forcible abduction which is that the abduction is with lewd designs. Thus, when Jimmy, using a blade, forcibly took away complainant for the purpose of sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction. Hence, the crime committed by appellant is simple rape only. Where the rape is committed with the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the imposable penalty ranges from RP to death. The use of the bladed weapon already qualified the rape. Since there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Section 11 (1) of R.A. No. 7659 imposes the death penalty when the rape victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. However, R.A. No. 7659 cannot apply IN CAB because (1) at the time the rape was committed, victim was already more than 18 years old and (2) the information did not allege that offender and offended party were relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. Sentence should only be reclusion perpetua. People vs. Arillas (2000) Amor O. Arillas accused her father, Romeo Arillas of raping her on two occasions when she was barely 16 years old. The trial court found her father guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the death penalty for the reason that the victim was under 18 years old at the time of the commission of the offense and the offender was her father. HELD: The informations in these cases alleged that the victim is the daughter of the appellant but it did not allege that the victim is under 18 years old. It is a denial of the right of an accused not to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and consequently, a denial of due process if he is convicted of a crime in its qualified form notwithstanding the fact that the information, on which he was arraigned, charges him only of the crime in its simple form by not specifying the circumstance that qualifies the crime. Hence, the appellant was only charged with simple rape and its penalty is reclusion perpetua. People vs. Mahinay Accused here was a houseboy who raped and killed the 12year-old daughter of their neighbor. Accused was convicted of Rape with Homicide and sentenced to death. HELD: Since the victim here was 12 years old already, must prove sexual congress by force and violence and lack of consent. Since in this case the victim was unconscious, the conclusion is that there was lack of consent. The crime here is Rape with Homicide, which is a special complex crime with an indivisible penalty of death. This is
treated in the same way as qualified rape, rape with any of the 10 attendant circumstances properly alleged in the information and proven at trial. However if any of the circumstances are not alleged but proven, the penalty cannot be death except if the circumstance can be made to fall under Art.14/15 RPC. In CAB, the court has no choice but to impose death as this is what is given in the law as the penalty for the special complex crime. People vs. Quianola (1999) There were 2 accused here who took turns in raping a 15year-old girl. They were convicted of frustrated rape based on People vs. Erina despite the fact that the subsequent case of People vs. Orita saying that there can never be a crime of frustrated rape. The ruling was based on the testimony of the victim that she only felt the penis touching her. HELD: The 2 accused should be convicted each of two counts of consummated rape. Frustrated rape can never be committed because no matter how slight the penetration, as long the penis touches the external genitalia of the woman, the rape is consummated as the person has done all the necessary acts to complete the crime. Even if Art335 RPC as amended still uses frustrated rape, the Court will ignore it and just treat it as a mere lapse in language. People vs. Campuhan Campuhan had his pants down and was on top of the 4-year old child when the childs mother arrived. A medical examination showed that there were no signs of genital injury and that the victims hymen was intact. HELD: For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina (mons pubis) will not suffice. 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. AT LEAST THE LABIA MAJORA MUST BE ENTERED FOR RAPE TO BE CONSUMMATED. People v. Oga, 431 SCRA 354 (2004) FACTS: At around 10:00 p.m., Oga summoned 14year-old Irene to his barracks. Inside his barracks, Oga, however, suddenly pulled her and laid her on the wooden bed. The appellant then took off her pants and panty, as well as his clothes. Irene allegedly resisted the sexual assault, but her efforts proved in vain because the Oga was strong and drunk. He pinned her down with his body, while his right hand pinned her hands above her shoulders and his left hand separated her legs. Then he inserted his penis into her vagina. It was only at around 2:00 a.m. when her parents caught Oga naked atop Irenes naked body. Irene denied that the appellant was her boyfriend. For his part, Oga interposed as a defense the sweetheart theory. HELD: In reviewing rape cases, the Court has established the following principles as guides: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility, difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) by reason of the intrinsic nature
of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. In the present case, the Cout ruled that no physical force was used to quell Irenes alleged resistance. Irene claimed that she resisted the sexual molestation, but a careful reading of her testimony failed to reveal the kind of resistance she did under the circumstances. While it is true that a rape victim is not expected to resist until death, it is contrary to human experience that Irene did not even make an outcry or use her hands which must have been free most of the time to ward off the lustful advances of appellant. Further, the findings of Dr. Villena, who examined Irene only several hours after the alleged rape, showed no sign of extragenital injuries on her body. Not a piece of Irenes apparel was torn or damaged as would evince a struggle on her part. These circumstances additionally belie Irenes claim that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her without her consent. People v. Buates, 408 SCRA 278 (2003) FACTS: On July 28, 1990, at around 5:00 p.m., Jennifer Buates was on her way home when the appellant, who is his uncle, called her, allegedly to give her something. As Jennifer approached the appellant, the latter pointed a knife at her and told her to undress. Fearful for her life, Jennifer undressed, followed by the appellant. Thereafter, he ordered her to lie down on the grassy portion of the area. He spread her legs and inserted his penis into her vagina while she cried and felt severe pain. The appellant appeared to have shivered before finally pulling out his penis. He instructed Jennifer to dress up and warned her not to tell her family about the incident, otherwise they would all be killed. After the incident appellant succeeded in molesting her several times more on different dates. In December 1994, Jennifer went to live with her grandmother one month after her own father allegedly molested her. Subsequently, she stayed with an aunt a before transferring to another aunt, a certain Enrica Provido, to whom she finally revealed her harrowing experience in the hands of the appellant and her own father. Consequently, Enrica called Jennifers mother, Gliceria in Bicol and related her daughters ordeal. The RTC convicted Oga of two counts of rape. Appellant principally assails the credibility of Jennifer, claiming that her actuations after the alleged commission of each act of rape were not typical of a rape victim. Specifically, appellant points out that Jennifer continued to take a bath alone and fetch water from the river near where the appellant allegedly raped. She also took the same path on her way to school where the second sexual assault allegedly took place. Moreover, Jennifer remained respectful of the appellant. In addition, she did not inform any member of her family about the alleged sexual assaults in 1990 and 1993 but only after several years, in 1998. HELD: The appellant cannot successfully impugn the credibility of the private complainant on account of her alleged "normal" behavior after both sexual assaults. It must be borne in mind that different people respond differently to a given stimulus or type of situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when one undergoes a shocking or startling experience. The demeanor of the private complainant was understandable in the light of the circumstances in both incidents of rape. She did not immediately disclose her misfortune to anybody
because of the death threats from the appellant. Being in her early teens, she was obviously cowed into silence as the appellant warned her not to divulge the incident to anybody, otherwise she and her family would be killed. Such threat from the appellant, for sure, generated much fear in her mind. Further the victims lowly station in life simply offered no other option for the private complainant but to continue doing those things. i.e. taking a bath alone; fetching water The Court also held that it was extremely ludicrous for the appellant to claim the continued respect and affection of the private complainant solely from the latter's customary act of obtaining his blessing (pagmamano). The private complainant herself clarified that the practice was an involuntary gesture to keep the public from getting wind of her sorry episode of defloration and to maintain her honor.
Anonimity of Victim
People v. Cabalquinto (2006) Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy.
does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, it was held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if she is engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory rape. The application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. The absence of struggle or outcry of the victim or even her passive submission to the sexual act will not mitigate nor absolve the accused from liability. In the case at bar, the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of Rosilyn. Moreover, the prosecution successfully proved that Rosilyn was only eleven years of age at the time she was sexually abused. As such, the absence of proof of any struggle, or for that matter of consent or passive submission to the sexual advances of accused-appellant, was of no moment. The fact that accused-appellant had sexual congress with eleven year-old Rosilyn is sufficient to hold him liable for statutory rape, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Note: Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape law of 1997 was enacted after 1996-the year the above acts were committed, hence, it does not apply in this case. People v. Basquez, 366 SCRA 154 (2001) FACTS: Around 4:00 pm, Jiggle Jilt dela Cerna, six (6) years old, was on her way home from school, where she was a Grade 1 student. While casually walking, Basquez, who was drinking outside a store along her way blocked her way and pulled her by the belt of her dress. She was then dragged towards the direction of the houses at the back of the school and was brought inside an unoccupied dilapidated house. Upon reaching the said house, her hands, feet and body were tied with a tieback. Jiggle struggled and cry. At this point, her attacker undressed himself, untied Jiggle, had her lie down and put himself on top of her. Basquez hands then started groping all over her young and fragile body and forced himself inside her. Jiggle, despite the excruciating pain, kicked appellant repeatedly in an effort to free herself from him. Basquez, however, continued forcing his penis inside her vagina. An hour after when the Basquez left Jiggle with her body still tied. With her school bag just beside her, Jiggle mustered enough courage and strength to take a pair of scissors from it and cut the remaining tiebacks tied at her body. The following day, Jiggle, traumatized by the assault and rape committed by the appellant, refused to go to school for fear of seeing the Basquez again. She later narrated her horrifying experience to her grandmother Segundina dela Cerna with whom she was living. HELD: Although there had been no complete penetration of the victim's vagina by appellant's penis, contact between them was not ruled out by the doctor who testified in this case. In fact, he found the victim's vagina positive for spermatozoa. Existing rulings on rape do not require complete or full penetration of the victim's private organ. Neither is the rupture of the hymen necessary. The mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape. 40 Hence, it is the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia that consummates rape. 41 Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. Even the briefest of contacts, without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape. People v. Dalisay, 408 SCRA 375 (2003)
Statutory Rape
People v. Jalosjos, 369 SCRA 179 (2001) FACTS: The victim 11 year-old, Maria Rosilyn Delantar, grew up under the care of Simplicio Delantar, whom she treated as her own father. Simplicio was a 56 year-old homosexual whose ostensible source of income was selling longganiza and tocino and accepting boarders at his house. On the side, he was also engaged in the skin trade as a pimp. At a very young age of 5, Rosilyn was exposed by Simplicio to his illicit activities. She and her brother would tag along with Simplicio whenever he delivered prostitutes to his clients. When she turned 9, Rosilyn was offered by Simplicio as a prostitute to an Arabian national known as Mr. Hammond. Thus begun her ordeal as one of the girls sold by Simplicio for sexual favors. Simplicio brought Rosilyn to Congressman Jalosjos condominium unit at Ritz Towers on several occassions. There, Cong. Jalosjos would kiss, caress and fondle said Rosilyn's face, lips, neck, breasts, vagina; suck her nipples and insert his finger and then his tongue into her vagina, and other similar lascivious conduct. On two occasions, Jalosjos placed himself on top of Rosilyn and inserted his sexual organ into her vagina. On said occassions, Cong. Jalosjos would thereafter give her money which she in turn gives to Simplicio. After trial, the RTC convicted Cong. Jalosjos of two (2) counts of statutory rape, and six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Child Abuse Law. HELD: In statutory rape, mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the act or lack of it. The law presumes that a woman of tender age
FACTS: Lanie was lying in bed when her father, the appellant arrived from work. Suddenly appellant removed Lanies pants and underwear. Lanie resisted but appellant boxed her on her thigh. Appellant touched her daughters vagina and licked it. Thereafter, while in a kneeling position, he placed his penis at the entrance of Lanie's vagina and inserted his private organ into hers. He then proceeded to make push and pull movements. Lanie felt pain but she did not complain because she was afraid. The following day, Lanie went to school and pretended as if nothing happened. However, her Grade V teacher noticed that Lanie looked depressed that day. When she inquired, Lanie answered that she was raped by her father. Appellant had sexually abused Lanie since she was in grade III. She estimated that her father had raped her seventeen (17) times, although she could no longer remember the exact dates when they took place. Incidentally, Lanie's sister, Luz, also filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness against appellant. Appellant contends that since Lanie's hymen is intact and that there was no spermatozoa in her genitalia, he could not have committed the crime. HELD: The appellant is guilty of statury rape. The presence of either hymenal laceration or spermatozoa on Lanie's private part is not an essential element of rape. The court cited the cases of; People vs. Parcia, where it was held that the absence of sperm does not disprove the charge of rape; People vs. Regala, where was ruled that an intact hymen does not necessarily prove absence of sexual intercourse; and People vs. Rafales, where it was declared that, ". . .. For rape to be committed, entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. Rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina are not essential. Entry to the least extent of the labia or the lips of the female organ is sufficient, the victim remaining virgin does not negate rape." As testified to by Lanie, "the tip" of appellant's penis was inserted into her vagina, as a result of which she felt pain. In other words, there was no full penetration, and this explains why her hymen remained intact. Nonetheless, carnal knowledge was consummated by the entry of "the tip" of appellant's private organ into the labia or pudendum of Lanie's genitalia. It is well-settled that full penetration is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, as proof of entrance showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient.
motions. Both hands of the victim were held by the accused Plurad and Caedo. After Bernadas finished raping her, Plurad took his turn and had sexual intercourse with Norielene while fondling her breasts. Norielene struggled to free herself but Bernadas held her hands while Plurad covered her mouth with a handkerchief When Plurad was through, Caedo also had sexual intercourse with her while Bernadas and Plurad held her hands. HELD: In cases of multiple rape, each of the defendants is responsible not only for the rape committed by him but also for those committed by the others. Plurad, therefore, is responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him but also for the two other counts of rape committed by his co-accused.
Rape may be commited by a woman

People v. dela Torre, 419 SCRA 18 (2004) FACTS: Appellant-spouses Butchoy and Fe de la Torre were convicted by the RTC of 9 counts of rape committed against their maid Baby Jane Dagot, who was then only 16 years old. Baby Jane and the appellant-spouses were asleep on the floor of the same bedroom when appellant Fe de la Torre woke Baby Jane and her husband Butchoy. Baby Jane was surprised to see that Fe was holding a lighted kerosene lamp and a scythe. Fe ordered her husband to transfer and lie beside Baby Jane. As appellant Butchoy did not comply, Fe herself transferred so that Baby Jane was between her and Butchoy. Fe put down the scythe and the lamp and proceeded to take Butchoy's clothes off and then Baby Jane's. Butchoy offered no resistance but Baby Jane objected and cried to no avail. Fe then ordered Butchoy to have sex with Baby Jane. Baby Jane, fearful of the spouses and the dawning realization of what would happen to her, could not ward off his advances. Butchoy placed himself on top of Baby Jane, inserted his penis into her vagina and did a push and pull motion. Baby Jane felt pain. All the while, Fe was standing beside them, holding the lamp and the scythe. After the sexual intercourse, Butchoy kissed her on the neck and fondled her breasts. Baby Jane found it revolting but could not do much to refuse him, as she was afraid of Fe. When Butchoy was finished, he threw her clothes to her and got dressed. Baby Jane immediately put on her clothes. She wanted to leave the room but Fe prevented her from doing so. The following morning, Baby Jane saw that there was blood on her panty. The rape was repeated once a week from the second week of September 1992 on to the fourth week of October 1992. Baby Jane had her menarche in the month of November 1992 and was spared from the appellants' abuse that month. However she was again raped in the second week of December. This was to be the last. Baby Jane testified that the subsequent rape incidents were carried out in the same manner as the first. She felt pain during the first and second rapes, but did not feel pain anymore in the succeeding rape incidents. HELD: An accused may be considered a principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a woman, provided of course a man is charged together with her. In two cases the Court convicted the woman as a principal by direct participation since it was proven that she held down the complainant in order to help her coaccused spouse consummate the offense. In People v. Villamala, the Court found the husband and wife guilty for raping their neighbor and "kumare" in this factual setting,
Liability of Several Accused in

Multiple Rape
People v. Plurad, 393 SCRA 306 (2002) FACTS: An hour and a half past midnight, after Norielene consumed half a glass of gin handed to her by accused Bernadas, she began to feel dizzy. Norielene fell asleep on the lap of her friend, Ibaez. At around 3:00 in the morning, Norielene woke up and found that she was being carried by the three (3) accused towards the bedroom of accused Bernadas. Since she still felt dizzy, Norielene fell fast asleep in the room. She later woke up when accused Bernadas was removing her shorts and panties. Norielene tried to shout for help but her mouth was covered by Bernadas. When she was already naked, accused Bernadas placed himself on top of her, inserted his sex organ into her private parts and performed pumping
viz: the wife visited the victim at her home on the pretext of inquiring as to the whereabouts of her husband. Once inside, she whistled for her husband and he immediately appeared at the doorstep. The wife then suddenly pinned her "kumare" to the floor. The husband forcefully removed the victim's skirt and panties, removed his shorts, placed himself on top of the victim and consummated the rape. In the more recent People v. Saba, the accused married couple victimized a fourteen (14) year-old epileptic who stayed at their home for treatment by the wife who was a reputed healer. On the pretext of conducting a healing session, the wife ordered the victim to lie down on the floor then pinned the victim's hands to the floor and covered her mouth while her husband removed his pants and briefs and the victim's panties and raped the young girl. These two cases show not only the possibility but the reality of rape committed by a woman together with a man. The Court affirmed the decision of the RTC.
HELD: The Court found Camilo guilty of 4 counts of rape by sexual intercourse and 12 counts of rape through sexual assault. Inserting a finger inside the genital of a woman is rape through sexual assault within the context of paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the RPC. (Emphasis supplied) People v. Fetalino (2007) The insertion of ones finger into the genital or anal orifice of another person constitutes rape by sexual assault and not merely an act of lasciviousness
Delay in Reporting Rape

People v. Arnaiz (2006) Neither does AAAs failure to tell her mother about the incident nor her long delay in reporting the matter to the authorities negate rape. As correctly observed by the OSG, the delay in reporting the rape incident does not weaken the case for the prosecution. It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal assaults on her virtue, especially when the rapist is living with her. In fact, we have previously ruled in People v. Coloma, that even a delay of 8 years is not a sign of fabrication.
Rape through sexual assault

Ordinario v. People, 428 SCRA 773 (2004) FACTS: Jayson Ramos and accused Geronimo Ordinario were student and teacher, respectively, at Nicanor Garcia Elementary School during the time the crime was perpetrated. Jayson was then in Grade 4 and accused was his teacher in Boy Scout. After being summoned by accused at the Boy Scout headquarters, Jayson was ordered to strip off which the latter complied unwary of the perverse intentions of accused. Accused then approached Jayson and started kissing him all over his body including his male organ. Thereafter, accused inserted his private part into the mouth of Jayson but the latter could not hold on for long as he felt vomiting prompting accused to remove his penis and ordered Jayson to dress up. Before they parted ways, accused told Jayson 'pag nagsumbong ka sa mga magulang mo, may masamang mangyayari sa iyo.' Interpreting the same to mean an immediate bodily harm, Jayson kept mum on the incident for fear of accused reprisal. The same sexual molestation recurred, and several more thereafter until Jayson had mustered enough courtage to inform his parents about the incident. HELD: The definition of the crime of rape has been expanded with the enactment of Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise also known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, to include not only "rape by sexual intercourse" but now likewise "rape by sexual assault. "An act of sexual assault under the second paragraph of Article 266-A of the RPC can be committed by any person who, under the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the law, inserts his penis into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice, of another person. The law, unlike rape under the first paragraph of said Article 266-A of the Code, has not made any distinction on the sex of either the offender or the victim. The court found Ordinario guilty of rape by sexual assault on twelve (12) counts. People v. Soriano, 388 SCRA 140 (2002) FACTS: On four occasions, the Camilo Soriano forced his penis into her daughter Maricels vagina, On twelve other occasions, the accused inserted his finger into her daughters private organ. The victim was then 11 years old.
Absence of Medical Findings

People v. Teodoro (2006) Thus, the contention of appellant that there were no lacerations in the vagina does not merit any consideration. In that regard, it has been held that the medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an element of rape. Likewise, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape.
Sweetheart defense
People v. Bautista, 430 SCRA 469 (2004) FACTS: On the pretext that he had been sent by his wife to fetch the victim, a 15-year-old girl for an field trip, Baustista, brought the latter to a motel, where he had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Contending that he and the victim were lovers, appellant claims that what transpired was consensual, though illicit, sexual intercourse. HELD: Bautistas sweetheart defense was rejected by the court for lack of corroboration. As an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like. In this case, the only thing he proffered to prove that he and the victim were lovers was his self-serving statement, which she and her mother categorically denied. Even if he and the victim were really sweethearts, such a fact would not necessarily establish consent. It has been consistently ruled that "a love affair does not justify rape, for the
beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will." The fact that a woman voluntarily goes out on a date with her lover does not give him unbridled license to have sex with her against her will. The court cited the case of People v. Dreu, where it was held that "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."
Moral Character of Victim

People v. Agsaoay, 430 SCRA 450 (2004) FACTS: Josephine and her sister were sleeping on the second floor of their house, while the other members of the family were at the ground floor. Their mother left their house early and went to the field to uproot palay seedlings. Josephine was awakened when her father suddenly kissed her lips. Instinctively, she pushed him away but to no avail. He threatened to kill her and her entire family should she report the matter to her mother. Josephine was so terrified and was not able to shout and resist. Her father then undressed her, spread her legs, held her hands, and inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and pull movement. Josephine felt pain. Josephine did not tell her mother, about the incident because of her father's threat. It was only the following day that she revealed to her mother what had happened. Her mother was shocked but scared to report the matter immediately to the authorities because in the past, accused killed her brother. Accused ravished Josephine for the second time. At first, her mother again refused to report the incident to the police. Later, however, her mother finally went to the PNP to report the incident. Now, the defense endeavors to prove that Josephine is an unchaste young woman who habitually goes out with different men. HELD: The debasement of Josephines character does not necessarily cast doubt on her credibility, nor does it negate the existence of rape. It is a well-established rule that in the prosecution and conviction of an accused for rape, the victim's moral character is immaterial, there being absolutely no nexus between it and the odious deed committed. Even a prostitute or a woman of loose morals can be the victim of rape, for she can still refuse a man's lustful advances.
the ricefield and was forcibly carried to an unoccupied house. Inside the house, Lining removed Emelinas t-shirt, pants and undergarments. She was pushed to the floor and while Salvacion was holding her hands and kissing her, Lining inserted his penis inside her vagina. Emelina shouted and tried to ward off her attackers, but to no avail. After Lining had satisfied his lust, he held Emelinas hands and kissed her while Salvacion in turn inserted his penis inside her vagina. Thereafter, the two directed Emelina to put on her clothes. Emelina saw an opportunity to escape, and she returned to her aunts house.i However, because of fear, as the accused threatened her that she would be killed if she would reveal what they did to her, she did not tell her aunt what transpired. She next went to the house of her friend Evelyn Saguid where he told Gerry Selda, a friend of her father, who saw her crying about the rape incident. Accused Salvacion remained at large while Lining was convicted by the trial as principal of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. HELD: Lining could only be convicted for the crime of rape, instead of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Indeed, it would appear from the records that the main objective of the accused when the victim was taken to the house of Mila Salvacion was to rape her. Hence, forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape.
Forcible abduction absorbed in rape

People v. Lining, 384 SCRA 427 (2002) FACTS: Emelina, then fifteen (15) years old, requested permission from her parents to visit her aunt where she was supposed to spend the night. While in her aunt josephines house, Emelina was invited to a dance party. Emelina accepted the invitation and she went to the party, accompanied by her aunt. Josephine then left Emelina at the party, telling her that she had to go home but she would return later to fetch her. When the party ended Josephine still had not returned. Emelina decided to go home alone. On her way to her aunts house, Emelina was accosted by Gerry Lining and Lian Salvacion, both of whom were known to her since they were her former neighbors. Lining poked a kitchen knife at Emelinas breast and the two held her hands. Emelina was dragged towards

Title 8 - Persons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 8 - Persons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title Eight CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS Chapter One.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 80

A person was killed; The accused killed him;

4. The killing infanticide.

Article 248. Murder Elements:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 82

Article 249. Homicide Elements:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 83

Article 250. Penalty for parricide, murder or homicide

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 85

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 86

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 87

The penalties provided for intentional abortion shall be imposed in the

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 88

How committed: 1. 2. 3. 4. By By By By wounding; beating; assaulting; or administering injurious substance.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 89

clipped off. This intention is not present in serious physical injuries.

an undertaking that no physical violence be employed by anybody

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 91

during such initiation rites. (2)

Article 266-A. Committed

Rape, When and How

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 92

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 93

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 94

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 95

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 96

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 97

Rape may be commited by a woman

Liability of Several Accused in

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 98

Delay in Reporting Rape

Rape through sexual assault

Absence of Medical Findings

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 99

Moral Character of Victim

Forcible abduction absorbed in rape

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer 100

You might also like