1

ROO SEGURITAN y JARA, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Ronowas charged with Homicide with intent to kill, did then attack and box one LucrecioSeguritan, The Version of the Prosecution: Rono was having a drinking session with his uncles including Lucrecioin the house of Manuel. Rono, who was seated beside Lucrecio, claimed that Lucrecio scarabao entered his farm and destroyed his crops. A heated discussion was transpired, and rono punched Lucrecio twice causing him to fall face-up to the ground and hit a hollow block which was being used as an improvised stove. At around 9 o clock in the evening, Lucrecio s wife and daughter noticed that his complexion has darkened and foamy substance was coming out of his mouth. Attempts were made to revive Lucrecio but to no avail. He died that same night.The Version of the Defense:rono denied hitting Lucrecio and alleged that the latter died of cardiac arrest, Lucrecio lost his balance and fell before he could be hit. Lucrecio s head hit the improvised stove as a result of which he lost consciousness. RTC:convicting petitioner of homicide.GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. CA:affirmed with modification the Judgment of the RTC. The Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. We are not impressed with petitioner s argument that he should be held liable only for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide due to the absence of intent to kill Lucrecio. When death resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not just physical injuries, since with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.Accordingly, Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 4. Criminal liability Criminal liability shall be incurred:1. By any person committing a felony (delito) although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. Petitioner committed an unlawful act by punching Lucrecio, his uncle who was much older than him, and even if he did not intend to cause the death of Lucrecio, he must be held guilty beyond reasonable doubt for killing him pursuant to the above-quoted provision. He who is the cause of the cause is the cause of the evil caused. MELBA QUINTO, petitioner, vs. DANTE ANDRES and RANDYVER PACHECO, respondents. Edison Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was also about eleven years old saw respondents Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of a drainage culvert. Andres and Pacheco invited Wilson to go fishing with them inside the drainage culvert, Wilson assented. And Garcia opted to stayed outside the drainage system Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage system and leftwithout saying a word. Andres also came out, went back inside, and emerged again, this time, carrying Wilson who was already dead. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled from the scene. Andres went to the house of petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson s mother, and informed her that her son had died. Melba Quinto rushed to the drainage.The cadaver of Wilson was buried without any autopsy thereon having been conducted.The NBI filed a criminal complaint for homicide against respondents Andres and Pacheco in the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor, which found probable cause for homicide by dolo against the two. RTC:He also stated that the trachea region was full of mud, but that there was no sign of strangulation. It held that it could not hold the respondents liable for damages because of the absence of preponderant evidence to prove their liability for Wilson s death. CA with regard to civil liability: rendered judgment affirming the assailed order of the RTC on December 21, 2001. It ruled as follows:The acquittal in this case is not merely based on reasonable doubt but rather on a finding that the accused-appellees did not commit the criminal acts complained of. Acquittal in a criminal action bars the civil action arising therefrom where the judgment of acquittal holds that the accused did not commit the criminal acts imputed to them. The petitioner filed the instant petition for review and raised the following issues: WHETHER OR NOT THE EXTINCTION OF RESPONDENTS CRIMINAL LIABILITY, LIKEWISE, CARRIES WITH IT THE EXTINCTION OF THEIR CIVIL LIABILITY. WHETHER OR NOT PREPONDERANT EVIDENCE EXISTS TO HOLD RESPONDENTS CIVILLY LIABLE FOR THE DEATH OF WILSON QUINTO. Ruling SC: a person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury. Proximate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. it could be seen from the pictures presented by the prosecution that there were stones inside the culvert. The stones could have caused the victim to slip and hit his head on the pavement. Since there was water on the culvert, the portion soaked with water must be very slippery, aside from the fact that the culvert is round. If the victim hit his head and lost consciousness, he will naturally take in some amount of water and drown. The petitioner failed to adduce proof of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill the deceased before or after the latter

2
was invited to join them in fishing. Indeed, the petitioner testified that respondent Andres used to go to their house and play with her son before the latter s death. Denied. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RAFAEL MARCO, SIMEON MARCO and DULCISIMO BELTRAN, defendants. RAFAEL MARCO, The incident in question took place during fiesta being celebrated, but it was raining. ConstancioSabelbero was approached by Simeon Marco who asked him if he was the one who boxed simeon s brother the previous year. Constancio denied. Then Simeon asked if he had cigarettes and when he said he had none, Simeon said, "I have cigarettes; here is my cigarette", as he pulled out a one-foot long hunting knife. Frightened, Constancio ran away and Simeon chased him. As Constancio was passing by the place were appellant Rafael Marco, the father of Simeon, was standing, Rafael struck Constancio with a round cane, hitting him on the left ear and left shoulder. This was the basis of the information in Criminal Case No. 2758, where Rafael was convicted of slight physical injuries and his son, Simeon, was acquitted. Rafael Marco approached Vicente, father of constantino, armed with a cane and a hunting knife. Then Vicente shouted to his son Constancio, who had been hit by Rafael, and his other son Bienvenido, who appeared on the scene. Constancio and Vicente was able to run away but Bienvenido who was being chased by Rafael was stabbed by the Rafael.Dulcisimo Beltran, arrived and stabbed Bienvenido near his anus followed by Simeon, who stabbed Bienvenido on the left breast and the upper part of the left arm. Afterwards, Rafael, Simeon and Beltran ran away. CFI: finds Rafael Marco, Dulcisimo Beltran, and Simeon Marco, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder, qualified by abuse of superior strength. Appeal: According the trial court for such act of Rafael, he was guilty of slight physical injuries, since "it is safe to assume that at that moment there was no intent to kill any one.." Our problem is to determine whether or not the act of Rafael in stabbing Bienvenido is a separate one from the stabbing of said deceased by the two other accused who did not appeal, Simeon Marco and Dulcisimo Beltran. To be sure, the acts of each of the three of them followed one after the other in rather fast succession, as if propelled by a common and concerted design, but this circumstance alone does not prove criminal conspiracy. In order that mere simultaneity or near simultaneity of the acts of several accused may justify the conclusion that they had conspired together, the inference must be ineludible. We are not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that appellant was in any conspiracy with Simeon and Beltran to kill Bienvenido or any of the Sabelberos. We are constrained to hold that he had no homicidal intent. He can be held criminally responsible only for the wound on the back of the left hand of the deceased which is described as a "stab wound. And there being no evidence as to the period of incapacity or medical attendance consequence to said wound, appellant is guilty only of slight physical injuries.appellant is found guilty only of slight physical injuries PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.PABLITO DOMASIAN AND DR. SAMSON TAN, accused-appellant.. Enricoagra8 years old when the incident was transpired, was walking with a classmate along Roque street in the poblacion of Lopez, Quezon, he was approached by a man who requested his assistance in getting his father's signature on a medical certificate. Enrico agreed to help and rode with the man in a tricycle to Calantipayan, where he waited outside while the man went into a building to get the certificate. Enrico became apprehensive and started to cry when, instead of taking him to the hospital, the man flagged a minibus and forced him inside, holding him firmly all the while. The man told him to stop crying or he would not be returned to his father. When they alighted at Gumaca, they took another tricycle, this time bound for the municipal building from where they walked to the market. Here the man talked to a jeepney driver and handed him an envelope addressed to Dr. Enrique Agra, the boy's father. The two then boarded a tricycle headed for San Vicente, with the man still firmly holding Enrico, who continued crying. This aroused the suspicion of the driver, Alexander Grate, who asked the man about his relationship with the boy. The man said he and the boy were brothers, making Grate doubly suspicious because of the physical differences between the two and the wide gap between their ages. Grate immediately reported the matter to two barangay tanods when his passengers alighted from the tricycle. Grate and the tanodswent after the two and saw the man dragging the boy. Noticing that they were being pursued, the man told Enrico to run fast as their pursuers might behead them. Somehow, the man managed to escape, leaving Enrico behind. Enrico was on his way home in a passenger jeep when he met his parents, who were riding in the hospital ambulance and already looking for him. After a while Agra received an envelope containing a ransom note. The note demanded P1 million for the release of Enrico and warned that otherwise the boy would be killed. Agra thought the handwriting in the note was familiar. After comparing it with some records in the hospital, he gave the note to the police, which referred it to the NBI for examination.The test showed that it bad been written by Dr. Samson Tan. On the other hand, Enrico was shown a folder of pictures in the police station so be could identify the man who had detained him, and he 5 pointed to the picture of PablitoDomasian. Domasian and Tan were subsequently charged with the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon. RTC: both accused were found guilty of the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention.

Appeal: As for the nature of the crime committed, Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code provides as follows: Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetuato death: 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days. 2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority. 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; of if threats to kill him shall have been made. 4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer. The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person; even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense. In the case at bar, it is noted that although the victim was not confined in an enclosure, he was deprived of his liberty when Domasian restrained him from going home and dragged him first into the minibus that took them to the municipal building in Gumaca, thence to the market and then into the tricycle bound for San Vicente. The detention was committed by Domasian, who was a private individual, and Enrico was a minor at that time. The crime clearly comes under Par. 4 of the above-quoted article. Tan claims that the lower court erred in not finding that the sending of the ransom note was an impossible crime which he says is not punishable. His reason is that the second paragraph of Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code provides that criminal liability shall be incurred "by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or on account of the employment of inadequate or ineffectual means." As the crime alleged is not against persons or property but against liberty, he argues that it is not covered by the said provision. Even before the ransom note was received, the crime of kidnapping with serious illegal detention had already been committed. The act cannot be considered an impossible crime because there was no inherent improbability of its accomplishment or the employment of inadequate or ineffective means. The delivery of the ransom note after the rescue of the victim did not extinguish the offense, which had already been consummated when Domasian deprived Enrico of his liberty. The sending of the ransom note would have had the effect only of increasing the penalty to death under the last paragraph of Article 267 although this too would not have been possible under the new Constitution. We are satisfied that Tan and Domasian, in conspiracy with each other, committed the crime of kidnapping as defined and penalized under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code and so deserve the penalty imposed upon them by the trial court. SULPICIO INTOD, petitioner, vs.HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. Petitioner, SulpicioIntod, filed this petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals SulpicioIntod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos Tubio and AvelinoDaligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental and asked him to go with them to the house of BernardinaPalangpangan. Thereafter, Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with AnicetoDumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed. At about 10:00 o'clock in the evening Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house in Katugasan, Lopez Jaena, Misamis Occidental. At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out, however, that Palangpangan was in another City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one was hit by the gun fire. Petitioner and his companions were positively identified by witnesses. One witness testified that before the five men left the premises, they shouted: "We will kill you (the witness) and especially BernardinaPalangpangan and we will come back if (sic) you were not injured". RTC: convicted Intod of attempted murder. The court (RTC), as affirmed by the CA, holding that Petitioner was guilty of attempted murder.SC: Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently impossible. Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Thus:Legal impossibility would apply to those circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an act in violation of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the physical act; (3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the consequence resulting from the intended act does not 14 15 amount to a crime. The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this category. The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where he thought his victim would be, although in reality, the victim was not present in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.This is not true in the Philippines. In our jurisdiction, impossible

4
crimes are recognized. The impossibility of accomplishing the criminal intent is not merely a defense, but an act penalized by itself. Furthermore, the phrase "inherent impossibility" that is found in Article 4(2) of the Revised Penal Code makes no distinction between factual or physical impossibility and legal impossibility. Ubilex non distinguitnecnosdistingueredebemos. The factual situation in the case at bar present a physical impossibility which rendered the intended crime impossible of accomplishment. And under Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, such is sufficient to make the act an impossible crime. We hereby hold the accused guilty of an impossible crime as defined and penalized in Articles 4, paragraph 2, and 59 of the Revised Penal Code RODOLFO C. VELASCO, Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. Frederick Maramba was cleaning and washing his owner type jeep in front of his house when Rodolfo Velasco stopped his tricycle in front him, approached frederick and fired at him several times causing him to stumble on the ground. The complainant stood up and ran, while the accused continued firing at him but missed. The shooting incident was reported to the police then the police caught up with the tricycle and brought the accused to the police sub-station. Frederick identified and pointed to the accused as the one who fired at him, hitting him on the upper left arm. RTC: Rodolfo C. Velasco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted murder, defined and penalized under Article 248, in relation to the 3rd par. of Arts. 6 and 51 of the Revised Penal Code. APPEAL: dismissed affirmed the RTC s decision. SC: Finally, petitioner submits that if ever he committed a crime, he merely committed attempted homicide. The lower court was correct in appreciating treachery in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the following essential elements are present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him.The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected 49 attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. It was clearly established that private complainant, while washing his jeep, was suddenly fired upon by petitioner for no reason at all. The suddenness of the shooting and the fact that he was unarmed left private complainant with no option but to run for his life. It is likewise apparent that petitioner consciously and deliberately adopted his mode of attack making sure that private complainant will have no chance to defend himself by reason of the surprise attack. Having commenced the criminal act by overt acts but failing to perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of some cause other than his own desistance, petitioner committed an attempted felony. Petitioner already commenced his attack with a manifest intent to kill by shooting private complainant seven times, but failed to perform all the acts of execution by reason of causes independent of his will, that is, poor aim and the swiftness of the latter. Private complainant sustained a wound on the left arm that is not sufficient to cause his death. The settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, since the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that would have brought about death. Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty lower than two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principal in an attempted felony and there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstances RENATO BALEROS, JR., Petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. RenatoBaleros, Jr.seeks reconsideration of decision of acquitting him of the crime of attempted rape, reversedto light coercion. It is petitioner s submission that his conviction for light coercion under an Information for attempted rape, runs counter to the en banc ruling of the Court in 2 People v. Contreras where the Court held:The Solicitor General contends that accused-appellant should be held liable for unjust vexation under Art. 287(2) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the elements of unjust vexation do not form part of the crime of rape as defined in Art. 335 of the RPC therefore, cannot be convicted of unjust vexation. Renato forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying effects, did then commenced the commission of rape by lying on top of her with the intention to have carnal knowledge with her but was unable to perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The paramount question [in a prosecution for unjust vexation] is whether the offender's act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. That Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not distressed, by the acts of the petitioner. Denied.

5
ADELMO PEREZ y AGUSTIN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents. EufemiaTria was then washing clothes outside their house when she heard someone cry Inay . She then peeped into their window which was just a few meters from where she was and there saw her daughter Julita lying flat on a bamboo bed with her skirt raised. She saw accused Adelmo on top of Julita with her hands pinned down. As accused was kissing her daughter in the neck, his buttocks were moving in an up and down motion while her daughter was fighting back and struggling to break free. Eufemia then rushed straight to the room where she found accused hiding under the bamboo bed. She then ordered the accused to come out which he did. She thought of hacking the accused with the bolo which she found hanging on the wall but realized that she could not do it and instead dragged the accused out of the house and brought him to his parents house to tell them what happened. JulitaTria testified that after she was through with washing the dishes, she proceeded to the bedroom to store away their, beddings. Suddenly aldemo appeared pulled her by the hand, embraced her from behind and held her breasts. he pulled her to the bamboo bed, positioned himself on top of her and placed her hands behind her as he kissed her lips and neck. She tried to avoid his kisses by moving her head from side to side. As she was pinned by accused s vise-like grip, accused then managed to insert his right hand inside her t-shirt and bra and squeezed nipples. Thereafter, he tried to raise her balloon-like skirt with his right hand, inserted it inside her panty and held her private part while making up and down motions. Accused then retorted Sigena, pagbigyanmonaako. It was at this point when she cried out Inay . Shortly thereafter, her mother entered the room and found the accused under the bamboo bed. For the defense presented as its witnesses Junar Perez and petitioner: Junar Perez he was playing with his cousins near the house of his Auntie Feming (Julita s mother) when he got thirsty and asked for a drink in the latter s house. There he saw Julita and accused conversing while seated on a bench near the door. He also saw Eufemia washing clothes a few meters away from Julita and the accused. He did not hear any noise in the house. He denied that the acts done were against Julita s will. In fact, he claimed that he and Julita were already becoming intimate RTC: Adelmo Perez y Agustin, of the crime of ATTEMPTED RAPE.CA. AFFIRMED in toto. SC: The Court is not inclined to deviate from these courts findings that petitioner, against the will of the complainant, performed sexual acts on the latter. However, a careful review of the records of the case shows that the crime committed by petitioner was acts of lasciviousness not attempted rape. Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his i[8] own spontaneous desistance. In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed. Petitioner s acts of lying on top of the complainant, embracing and kissing her, mashing her breasts, inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual organ, while admittedly obscene and detestable acts, do not constitute attempted rape absent any showing that petitioner actually commenced to force his penis into the complainant s sexual organ. Rather, these acts constitute acts of lasciviousness. The elements of said crime are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using force and intimidation or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of ii[10] age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex. All these elements are present and have been sufficiently established in this case. Petitioner clearly committed lewd acts against the complainant. Moreover, petitioner employed force when he committed these acts on the complainant. In fact, as found by the trial court, there were bruises on complainant s neck and navel which belie petitioner s claim that the complainant consented to these acts. Petitioner Adelmo Perez y Agustin is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HENRY ALMAZAN, accused-appellant. Vicente Madriaga and a certain Allan played chess in front of the vicente s house. Spectators were Vicente's son Noli, who was carrying his 2year old daughter, Vicente's grandson Noel, and a neighbor named Angel Soliva. While the game was underway, Henry Almazan unexpectedly arrived and brandished a .38 caliber revolver in front of the group. Almazan's fighting cocks had just been stolen and he suspected Angel, one of 2 the spectators, to be the culprit. Thus he said, "manos-manosnalang tayo," aimed his gun at Angel and pulled the trigger. It did not fire. He tried again, but again it failed. Vicente Madriaga stood up and tried to calm down Henry, but the latter refused to be pacified ("ayawpaawat"). Angel ran away and Henry 3 aimed his gun instead at Noli. Noli cried for mercy, for his life and that of his daughter, but to no avail. Henry shot Noli at the left side of his stomach sending him immediately to the ground. His daughter, unscathed, held on to Noli, crying. Henry then turned on Noel and shot him on the left thigh. Noel managed to walk lamely ("paika-ika") but only to eventually fall to the ground. Thereafter, Vicente Madriaga called on his neighbors who brought Noli and Noel to the hospital. Noli however died before reaching the hospital, while Noel survived his injuries.

6
RTC: held Henry guilty of murder and frustrated murder as charged.the lower court appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery against accused-appellant on the ground that the victims were completely defenseless when attacked and did not commit the slightest provocation, and mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. Thus, in Crim. Case No. C-51276(murder), accused-appellant was sentenced to the reduced penalty of reclusion perpetuainstead of death. while in Crim. Case No. C-51277(frustrated), he was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term APPEAL: henry prays to be absolved of murder in Crim. Case No. C-51276 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.for Crim. Case No. C-51277,contends that the trial court erred in holding him guilty of frustrated murder as the wound sustained by Noel Madriaga was not fatal that could have caused his death if not for timely medical assistance. Henry should be held liable for attempted murder, not frustrated murder. For the charge of frustrated murder to flourish, the victim should sustain a fatal wound that could have caused his death were it not for timely medical assistance. This is not the case before us. According to jurisprudence, if the victim was wounded with an injury that was not fatal, and could not cause his death, the crime would only be attempted. his conviction for Frustrated Murder in G.R. No. 138944 (Crim. Case No. C-51277) is MODIFIED by lowering the crime to Attempted Murder and he is sentenced accordingly to an indeterminate prison term PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AGAPITO LISTERIO y PRADO and SAMSON DELA TORRE y ESQUELA, accused, THE COURT CONVICTED THE ACCUSED OF THE CRIME OF MURDER AND ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE DESPITE ABSENCE OF PROOF OF CONSPIRACY AND AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF TREACHERY. Marlon and his brother Jeonito were in Muntinlupa to collect a sum of money from a certain Tino. Having failed to collect anything from Tino, Marlon and Jeonito then turned back. On their way back while they were passing Tramo near Tino s place, a group composed of AgapitoListerio, Samson dela Torre, George dela Torre, Marlon dela Torre and BonifacioBancaya blocked their path and attacked them with lead pipes and bladed weapons. The group were armed with bladed weapons, stabbed Jeonito from behind. Jeonito sustained three (3) stab wounds causing him to fall down. Marlon Araque was hit on the head by Samson dela Torre and BonifacioBancaya with lead pipes and momentarily lost consciousness. When he regained his senses three (3) minutes later, he saw that Jeonito was already dead. The malefactors then fled after the incident. Marlon Araque who sustained injuries in the arm and back, was thereafter brought to a hospital for treatment. Thus, even assuming arguendo that the prosecution eyewitness may have been unclear as to who delivered the fatal blow on the victim, accused-appellant as a conspirator is equally liable for the crime as it is unnecessary to determine who inflicted the fatal wound because in conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all. As to the qualifying circumstances here present, the treacherous manner in which accused-appellant and his group perpetrated the crime is shown not only by the sudden and unexpected attack upon the unsuspecting and apparently unarmed victims but also by the deliberate manner in which the assault was perpetrated. All told, an overall scrutiny of the records of this case leads us to no other conclusion than that accused-appellant is guilty as charged for Murder in Criminal Case No. 91-5842. In Criminal Case No. 91-5843, wherein accused-appellant was indicted for Frustrated Homicide, the trial court convicted accused-appellant of Attempted Homicide only on the basis of Dr. Manimtim s testimony that none of the wounds sustained by Marlon Araque were fatal. The reasoning of the lower court on this point is flawed because it is not the gravity of the wounds inflicted which determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated but whether or not the subjective phase in the commission of an offense has been passed. By subjective phase is meant [t]hat portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. From that time forward, the phase is objective. It may also be said to be that period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he has control that period between the point where he begins and the point where he voluntarily desists. If between these two points the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated. To put it another way, in case of an attempt the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense. He is interrupted and compelled to desist by the intervention of outside causes before the subjective phase is passed. On the other hand, in case of frustrated crimes, the subjective phase is completely passed. Subjectively the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while he was passing through the subjective phase. The crime, however, is not consummated by reason of the

7
intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender. He did all that was necessary to commit the crime. If the crime did not result as a consequence it was due to something beyond his control. It also can not be denied that the crime is a frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering that after being stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost consciousness and fell, Marlon s attackers apparently thought he was already dead and fled. Accused-Appellant is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 91-5843 of Frustrated Homicide and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years of PrisionCorreccional, as minimum to Ten (10) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as maximum. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROSEMARIE DE LA CRUZ y NIEVA, accused-appellant. Cecilia Caparos, a neighbor of Whiazel Soriano, the victim, testified that while she waiting for her two children inside the compound of the Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School when she saw Whiazel held on the hand and being led away by a woman later identified as Rosemarie. Knowing that Whiazel was enrolled in the afternoon class, she went after them and asked accused-appellant where she was going with Whiazel. Accused-appellant answered that she asked Whiazel to bring her to Rowena Soriano, the child's mother. Cecilia then turned to Whiazel and asked her why she was with accused-appellant. Whiazel answered that accused-appellant requested her to look for the latter's child. Cecilia grew suspicious because of the inconsistent answers, Whiazel's terrified look, and the scratches on the child's face. She told accused-appellant that she will bring accused-appellant to a teacher because she did not trust accused-appellant. Accused-appellant was "surprised and reasoned out", but just the same agreed to go to a teacher The victim, Whiazel Soriano at the time of the incident, was a Grade 1 pupil at the Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School in Malate, Manila. She testified that she voluntarily went with accused-appellant after being asked for help in looking for the school dentist. Whiazel also mentioned that accused-appellant asked for her assistance in looking for accused-appellant's child in a place far away from school. She was neither threatened nor hurt in any way by accused-appellant. She was not led out of the school; in fact they never got out of the school compound. When Cecilia Caparos saw them, Whiazel told accused-appellant that she wanted to go. Accused-appellant refused, and held Whiazel's hand. Whiazel did not try to escape. She did not even cry; well, not until they went to a teacher (pp. 3-9, tsn, April 7, 1995). RTC: rendered that Rosemarie is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor Appeal:Rosemarie already commenced her criminal scheme by taking hold of Whiazel by the hand and leading her out of the school premises. As mentioned earlier, these do not sufficiently establish that kidnapping had been consummated. However, considering other attendant facts and circumstances because of inconsistency of statement between rosemarie and whiazel and considering the she is os such tender age. The Court thus holds that the felony committed is not kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor in the consummated stage, but rather in its attempted stage. The attempted phase of a felony is defined as when the offender commences the commission of a felony, directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance (Article 6, Revised Penal Code). The overt act must be an external one which has direct connection with the felony, it being "necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its complete termination following its natural course without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the offender, will logically and necessarily ripen to a concrete offense"

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito," Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year and ceilito was a Philippine Constabulary (PC) soldier. Her classmates had just brought her home from a party. Shortly after her classmates had left, she knocked at the door of her boarding house. All of a sudden, somebody held her and poked a knife to her neck. She then recognized ceilito who was a frequent visitor of another boarder When they reached the second floor, he commanded her to look for a room. With the Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they entered in cristinas room. He pushed her who hit her head on the wall. With one hand holding the knife, appellant undressed himself. He then ordered complainant to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt. Then he pulled off her bra, pants and panty He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He made her hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. She followed his order as he continued to poke the knife to her. At said position, however, appellant could not fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as she kept on moving

Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. In this position, only a small part again of his penis was inserted into her vagina. At this stage, appellant had both his hands flat on the floor. Complainant thought of escaping She dashed out to the next room and locked herself in. Appellant pursued her and climbed the partition. When she saw him inside the room, she ran to another room. Appellant again chased her. She fled to another room and jumped out through a window Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, which was about eighteen meters in front of the boarding house, and knocked on the door. When there was no answer, she ran around the building and knocked on the back door. When the policemen who were inside the building opened the door, they found complainant naked sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras, the first policeman to see her, took off his jacket and wrapped it around her. When they discovered what happened, Pat. Donceras and two other policemen rushed to the boarding house. They heard a sound at the second floor and saw somebody running away. Due to darkness, they failed to apprehend appellant. RTC: convicted the accused of frustrated rape. APPEAL: When a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed provided her testimony is clear and free from contradiction and her sincerity and candor, free from suspicion whether or not the accused's conviction for frustrated rape is proper. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, 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. Thus, the felony is consummated. We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organbecause not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. We find the evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of consummated rape.Article335, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code provides that whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. The trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and nighttime. CeilitoOrita is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.