Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PEOPLE V. MARCELINO
October 1, 1999
PEOPLE V. NARIDO
Victims Pineda and Bajos were sent by the
governor to investigate reported abuses by
para-military groups in the hinterlands.
Barangay Chairman Marcelino and some of his
Civilian Home Defense (CHDF) cohorts shot to
death and incinerated the corpses of said
victims.
October 1, 1999
Issue:
Was there treachery?
Was conspiracy established to hold other
accused equally liable for the murder?
Issue:
W/N said crime is punishable by death? (special
circumstance imposing death penalty
automatically - victim is under 18 years of age
and offender is a parent.)
HELD: YES
Elements of treachery (1) the employment of
means of execution that gives the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to
retaliate, and (2) the said means of execution
was deliberately or consciously adopted.
Victims were deliberately led toward Nabilog by
Marcelino when he claimed there was a taxi
there waiting for them. When they reached
Tampa Creek, said unforwarned victims were
suddenly shot to death without chance to
defend themselves. Marcelino effectively
ordered his men to kill the two by means of a
signal (drawing a line across his neck with a
finger). The gesture was so conspicuous that
even the witness saw it. The group followed the
deceased then killed them. Their bodies were
set on the ground side-by side, their clothes
removed, their personal belongings stolen.
Thereafter Marcelino ordered that the bodies
be burned in order to conceal their evil deed.
These circumstances, taken together,
sufficiently established a unity of purpose,
community of interest and intent, which were
carried out in concert. For conspiracy to exist,
HELD: No.
Guilty only of simple statutory rape and not
qualified rape for want of allegation of
relationship. Said special circumstances
introduced by RA 7659 which sanction
automatic imposition of death penalty partake
of the nature of qualifying circumstances since
these circumstances increase the penalty for
rape by one degree. Nonetheless, to be
properly appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance, it must be specifically pleaded in
the information. Information in this case
reveals that although the complainant's
minority was alleged, the fact of relationship,
albeit proven during the trial, was not so
specified.
PEOPLE V. PADAMA
October 1, 1999
HELD:
The conclusion that the killing was attended
with treachery or taking advantage of superior
strength, as the two accused each armed with
bladed weapons and continuously attacking
and raining knife thrusts upon the unarmed
and unsuspecting victim which caused his
eventual death is also not to be disturbed. The
evidence shows that the two accused took
turns in stabbing the victim while the latter had
already fallen down on the pavement.
Proof of the alleged resentment does not
constitute conclusive proof of evident
premeditation. An expression of hatred does
not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a
crime; there must be a demonstration of
outward acts of a criminal intent that is
notorious and manifest.
HELD:
Pedro may have been warned of a possible
danger to his person. However, what is
decisive is that the attack was executed in a
manner making it impossible for Pedro to
retaliate. When Pedro was made to kneel on
the floor, he was unarmed. There was no risk to
the accused when they commenced the
stabbing. Pedro's helplessness was bolstered
by the fact that he was suffering from a
congenital limpness which allowed him to walk
only short distances.
There is no evidence that accused took
advantage of superior strength. In any event,
even if it was present it was absorbed in
treachery. Both accused shall suffer the same
fate, as there was conspiracy between them.
When the other pointed a gun to Pedro, he
provided his brother with moral assistance.
This is enough to make him a co-conspirator. It
is not necessary to show that he actually he hit
and killed Pedro to make him liable for his
brother's acts.
PEOPLE V. VERGEL
PEOPLE V. VILLABLANCA
October 4, 1999
October 1, 1999
HELD: Yes.
It is clear there was rape. The prosecution was
able to prove that (1) the accused had carnal
knowledge of the complainant (2) because he
intimidated her by pointing a gun at her. Failure
to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not
make voluntary the complainant's submission
to the criminal acts of the accused. Such
resistance is not an element of the felony. It is
enough that the malefactor intimidated the
complainant into submission. Not every victim
of rape can be expected to act with reason or
in conformity with the usual expectation of
everyone.
PEOPLE V. CARATAY
October 5, 1999
HELD: Yes.
We have ruled that if the ability to resist is
taken away by administering a drug, even
though the woman may be conscious, sexual
intercourse with her will be rape. Moral
character is immaterial in the prosecution and
conviction of the accused in a rape case. We
have ruled that even prostitutes can be rape
victims.
PEOPLE V. SUELTO
October 7, 1999
HELD: Yes.
It is settled that a person who commits illegal
recruitment may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment under the
Labor Code and estafa Art. 315 of the RPC. The
former is mala prohibitum where the criminal
intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is mala in se where the
HELD: Yes.
Appellant was the only person with his wife
when she was shot in their room. Considering,
PEOPLE V. FLORO
October 7, 1999
HELD: Yes.
The killing in this case is murder qualified by
treachery. The evidence shows that accused
suddenly sprang from the cassava plants and
shot the victim. The victim was unarmed and
unsuspecting of any impending peril to his life
and limb at the time he was shot by accused.
The swift and unexpected attack by accused
rendered the victim helpless.
The rule that treachery may be shown if the
victim is attacked from behind does not mean
it cannot be appreciated if the attack is
frontally launched. The suddenness of the
shooting without the slightest provocation from
he victim who was unarmed and had no
opportunity to defend himself, ineluctably
qualified the crime with treachery.
HELD: Yes.
The only clear circumstance that qualifies the
killing to murder in this case is the abuse of
superior strength between the victim and his
four aggressors, as well as the degree of force
and the weapons used by the latter.
Conspiracy among the four assailants was
proven by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused were together when two of them held
the victim, while one was firing his rifle. All of
them dragged the latter towards the barangay
hall. To establish conspiracy, it is not necessary
that there be proof of the previous agreement
to commit the crime, it being enough that the
malefactors shall have acted in concert
pursuant to the same objective. At the very
instant the plotters agree, expressly or
impliedly, to commit the crime and decide to
pursue it, each and everyone of the
conspirators is criminally liable for the crime
committed by anyone of them.
PEOPLE V. APELADO
October 11, 1999
PEOPLE V. ORTIZ
October 7, 1999
HELD:
To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that
there be proof as to the previous agreement to
commit a crime. It is sufficient that the form
and manner in which the attack was
accomplished clearly indicate unity of action
and purpose. In this instance, the fact that the
assailants followed, overtook, surrounded and
took turns in inflicting injuries to the victim
show a common purpose.
Abuse of superior strength also attended the
commission of the crime. This circumstance is
appreciated when the aggressors purposely
use excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to the person
attacked. In the case at bar, the aggressors
who were all armed first hit the legs of their
unarmed victim which caused him to fall
kneeling. This was followed by a stab above
the knee. Having deprived him of his means to
stand or run, they took turns in inflicting mortal
wounds on him.
Neither treachery nor evident premeditation
was present in the commission of the crime.
Treachery is absent as the accused-appellants
were not entirely risk free during their attack.
As stated, the victim prepared to fight it out
with the accused-appellants. Evident
premeditation cannot be considered for lack of
evidence that accused-appellants preconceived
the crime.
PEOPLE V. RENATO
October 11, 1999
HELD:
The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack, without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person attacked.
There is treachery when the attack on the
victim was made without giving the latter
warning of any kind and thus rendering him
unable to defend himself from an assailant's
unexpected attack. What is decisive is that the
attack was executed in such a manner as to
make it impossible for the victim to retaliate.
As testified to by Melecia, the victim was
"squatting on the ground" in their makeshift
hut when the shooting started. The victim
stood up to find out what was happening. On
the third time, accused-appellant shot him
point blank and in a helpless position.
PEOPLE V. RAGANAS
October 12, 1999
HELD: Yes.
In order that circumstantial evidence may be
sufficient to convict, the same must comply
with these essential requisites, viz.: (a) there is
more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inference are derived are proven;
and (c) the combination of all the
circumstances is such as to produce a
conviction beyond reasonable doubt. All the
foregoing requisites are here present. The
testimonies of Daayata, Obsioma, and Baba
pieced together reveal an unbroken chain of
events that leads to but one fair and
reasonable conclusion that the appellant, is
guilty of the crime charged.
PEOPLE V. LACHICA
October 12, 1999
PEOPLE V. MANEGDEG
October 13, 1999
HELD:
HELD: Yes.
Circumstances surrounding the killing of the
victim Federico Abian clearly indicate the
presence of alevosia or treachery, for accusedappellant attacked the victim while he was
about to exit his house to urinate, with no
inkling whatsoever that he would be attacked.
A sudden and unexpected attack, without the
slightest provocation on the person of the one
attacked, is the essence of treachery.
Moreover, the trial court correctly considered
the generic aggravating circumstance of
dwelling. Where the crime was committed in
the place of abode of the victims, the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling shall be
appreciated against the accused.
PEOPLE V. GAILO
October 13, 1999
HELD: Yes.
PEOPLE V. PANIQUE
October 13, 1999
HELD: Yes.
In a rape committed by a father against his
own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy
and influence over the latter substitutes for
violence or intimidation. That ascendancy or
influence necessarily flows from the father's
parental authority, which the Constitution the
laws recognize, support and enhance, as well
as from the children's duty to obey and
observe reverence and respect towards their
parents. Such reverence and respect are
deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino
children and are recognized by law. Abuse of
both by a father can subjugate his daughter's
will, thereby forcing he to do whatever he
wants.
The minority of the victim and her relationship
to the offender constitute a special qualifying
circumstance which should be alleged in the
information and proved to warrant the
imposition of the death penalty. For this reason,
said penalty should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
PEOPLE V. LANGRES
October 13, 1999
HELD: No.
PEOPLE V. CLEMENTE
October 13, 1999
HELD: No.
In rape cases alleged to have been committed
by force, it is imperative for the prosecution to
establish that the element of voluntariness on
the part of the victim to be absolutely lacking.
Testimony inexorably shows that complainant
obviously consented to the sexual act which
was done not only once but twice. Glaring too
is the fact that by her own admissions that her
mouth was not covered and that the accused
was not holding or poking the pointed object at
her while doing the sexual act, she certainly
had every opportunity to make an outcry
against the alleged rapist or shout for help had
she wanted to. No woman would meekly give
in to a sexual intruder where her life is not in
serious jeopardy.
PEOPLE V. AGUNOS
PEOPLE V. BELLO
PEOPLE V. AGUINALDO
October 13, 1999
HELD: NO.
Complainant's claim that she bled implies that
there must have been laceration of her sex
organ. When physical evidence runs counter to
testimonial evidence, conclusions as to
physical evidence must prevail. Physical
evidence is that mute but eloquent
manifestation of truth which rate high in our
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.
HELD: Yes.
Force and violence in rape cases need not be
overpowering or irresistible when applied. The
record shows that amidst complainant's pleas
and struggles, accused pinned complainant's
hand behind her back, covered her mouth with
his hand and pulled her underwear to her knee
before spreading hr legs apart with such force
that her undergarments were ripped. It appears
that accused remained unfazed when
complainant slapped him and struggled to
point the beam of the flashlight at him not only
to take a look at her assailant but apparently to
deter him from consummating his bestial
desires.
PEOPLE V. GABALLO
October 13, 1999
HELD: YES.
PEOPLE V. COSTELO
October 13, 1999
PEOPLE V. CELIS
October 20, 1999
HELD: Yes.
That the locus criminis was a heavily populated
area where others could thus intervene is not
significant at all. The essence of treachery is
that the attack was deliberate and without
warning. The defense or retaliation
contemplated here must come from the victim,
not from anyone else. Treachery was irrefutably
indicated in the method by which the
assailants waited for the victim to pass by
before suddenly attacking her and preventing
her escape. At any rate, no help was
Issue:
W/N there was a rape?
HELD: Yes.
For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the
force or intimidation employed be so great or
of such character as could not be resisted. It is
only necessary that the force or intimidation be
sufficient to consummate the purpose which
PEOPLE V. MOTOS
October 20, 1999
HELD: Yes.
In the incestuous rape of a minor, proof of force
and violence exerted by the aggressor is not
essential. The moral and physical ascendancy
of the father over his daughter-victim is
sufficient to cow her into submission to his
bestial desires. Fear oftentimes overwhelms
the victim. In the instant case, the appellant
enhanced his physical supremacy over his
daughter by holding the knife to her neck. In
the face of such brutal intimidation, she
knuckled under, thus enabling him to satisfy
his incestuous lust.
The death penalty may be imposed only if the
information has alleged and the evidence has
proven both the age of the victim and her
relationship to the victim.
PEOPLE V. MARAMARA
October 20, 1999
HELD:
Neither does the complaint allege, nor does the
evidence introduced show, any qualifying
circumstance in the commission of the offense
that can make the offense fall within the
category of rape punishable by death. The only
penalty that can be properly decreed is the
lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Accused in several occasions, raped his 16year old daughter while his wife is away. She
could not resist the accused because she was
afraid of him and of his threat to kill her and
her family.
PEOPLE V. ARIZALA
HELD:
Even if deceased hurled incentives at him and
moved as if to draw something from his waist,
we are unable to establish a finding of unlawful
aggression on the victim's part. Unlawful
aggression presupposes an actual, sudden,
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof,
not merely a threatening or intimidating
attitude and the accused must present proof of
positively strong act of real aggression. Though
deceased was in uniform, the latter did not
have a firearm or a holster for the same, and
none was retrieved from the scene of the
crime.
Deceased was killed with treachery. Not only
was it not proven that there was provocation
on the part of the hapless victim but the attack
at the back of the victim was made in such a
manner that would make it difficult for the
deceased to offer an effective defense against
his aggressor.
PEOPLE V. PARANZO
October 26, 1999
HELD:
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, states:
"Art. 335...When and how rape is
committed...Rape is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
PEOPLE V. GARIGADI
October 26, 1999
HELD:
The testimony of Gloridel was clear and
convincing. Her declaration that accusedappellant inserted his penis into her vagina
was made in a straightforward and unshaken
manner. Errorless and accurate to the last
detail testimony cannot be expected of
Gloridel, who was seven (7) years of age at the
time of the trial. The alleged inconsistencies
and lapses pointed by accused-appellant to
discredit Gloridels testimony, e.g. that
accused-appellant merely fondled her or
inserted his finger in her vagina, are all minor
PEOPLE V. LAZARO
October 26, 1999
HELD:
In cases involving illegal possession of
firearms under P.D. 1866 "Codifying the Laws
on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture,
Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of
Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or
Instruments Used in the Manufacture of
Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and
Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations
Thereof and for Relevant Purposes", as
amended, the prosecution has the burden of
proving the elements thereof, viz.: (a) the
existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the
fact that the accused who owned or possessed
it does not have the corresponding license or
permit to possess the same.
HELD:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement on the commission of a
felony and decide to commit it. In a number of
cases, this Court ruled that similar to the
physical act constituting the crime itself, the
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The mere presence of a
person at the scene of the crime does not
make him a co-conspirator. Assumed intimacy
between two persons of itself does not give
that much significance to the existence of
criminal conspiracy. Conspiracy certainly
transcends companionship. Settled is the rule
that to establish conspiracy, evidence of actual
cooperation rather than mere cognizance or
approval of an illegal act is required.
HELD:
This Court has ruled on countless occasions
that the trial court is in the best position to
determine facts and to assess the credibility of
witnesses as it is in a unique position to
observe the witnesses deportment while
testifying which opportunity the appellate court
is denied on appeal; this Court will respect the
findings and conclusions of the trial court
provided that they are supported by
substantial evidence on record.
The crime of robbery with homicide is a special
complex crime punishable under Article 294 of
the Revised Penal Code with reclusion
perpetua to death. Considering the absence of
any modifying circumstance, the penalty
imposable in the present case isreclusion
perpetua. [Article 63, Revised Penal Code.]
HELD:
Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code provides
that principals are those who "directly force or
induce others" to commit an offense. "One is
induced to commit a crime either by a
command (precepto) or for a consideration
(pacto), or by any other similar act which
constitutes the real and moving cause of the
crime and which was done for the purpose of
inducing such criminal act and was sufficient
for that purpose. Where the circumstances of
force, fear, price, promise or reward are not
present, the question that may arise is whether
the command given by a person to the author
of the crime amounts to a criminal inducement.
The inducement exists whenever the act
performed by the physical author of the crime
is determined by the influence of the inducer
over the mind of him who commits the act
whatever the source of such influence. Thus,
the inciting words must have great dominance
and influence over the person who acts; they
ought to be direct and as efficacious, or
powerful as physical or moral coercion or
violence itself.
A conspiracy may be deduced from the mode
and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated, however, a conspiracy must be
established by positive and conclusive
evidence. It cannot be based on mere
conjectures but must be established as a fact.
HELD:
The Court disagrees. The requisites of passion
and obfuscation are:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such a condition of mind;
2. That said act which produced the
obfuscation was not far removed from the
commission of the crime by a considerable
length of time during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity.
It has been held that there is passional
obfuscation when the crime was committed
due to an uncontrollable burst of passion
provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or
due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to
overcome reason. The obfuscation must
originate from lawful feelings. The turmoil and
unreason which naturally result from a quarrel
or fight should not be confused with the
sentiment or excitement in the mind of a
person injured or offended to such a degree as
to deprive him of his sanity and self-control,
because the cause of this condition of mind
must necessarily have preceded the
commission of the offense.
HELD:
To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or
issuing a check in payment of an obligation
must be the efficient cause of defraudation
and, as such, it should be either prior to or
simultaneous with the act of fraud...The
offender must be able to obtain money or
property from the offended party because of
the issuance of the check or that the person to
whom the check was delivered would not have
parted with his money or property had there
been no check issued to him...Stated
otherwise, the check should have been issued
as an inducement for the surrender by the
party deceived of his money or property and
not in payment of a pre-existing obligation." In
this kind of estafa by postdating or issuing a
bad check, deceit and damage are essential
elements of the offense and have to be
established with satisfactory proof to warrant
conviction.
Estafa, under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 4885, has the following elements:..(1)
postdating or issuance of a check in payment
of an obligation contracted at the time the
check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of
NOVEMBER 1999
HELD:
The Supreme Court repeated the well-settled
doctrine that mere relationship of a witness to
the victim does not render her testimony less
worthy of credit, especially where there is no
showing of improper motive. The Court also
upheld the claim of conspiracy. To establish
conspiracy it is not essential that there be
previous agreement to commit the crime; it is
sufficient that there be a common purpose and
design, concerted action and concurrence of
the interest and the minds of the parties meet
understandingly so as to bring about a
deliberate agreement to commit the offense
charged, notwithstanding the absence of a
formal agreement. The Supreme Court also
upheld the trial courts appreciation of the
qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. The armed assailants used their
greater number and superior power to
overwhelm the unarmed victim.
In addition, since the murder was committed
prior to the effectivity of RA 7659, the
applicable provision is Art. 248 of the Revised
Penal Code, which penalizes murder with
HELD:
The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is
committed when three (3) elements concur,
namely: (a) The offender has no valid license or
authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement
of workers; (b) The offender undertakes either
any activity within the meaning of "recruitment
and placement" defined under Art. 13, par. (b),
of the Labor Code.
HELD:
The Court reiterated the principle that in cases
of qualified rape of an under-aged relative, the
prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary
elements of 1) sexual congress, 2) with a
woman, 3) by force and without consent, and in
order to warrant the imposition of the death
penalty, the additional elements that 4) the
victim is under 18 years of age at the time of
the rape and 5) the offender is a parent
(whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of
the victim. Well-settled too, is the doctrine that
when a woman testifies that she has been
raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary
to constitute the commission of the crime, and
this rule applies with more vigor when the
culprit is a close relative of the victim. The
judgement of the lower court was affirmed.
HELD:
The trial court has correctly imposed the death
penalty in the case at bar after taking into
account the qaulifying circumstances
of minority of the victim and
the paternityrelationship between appellant
and the victim, as provided for in Section 11 of
Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code. The crime of rape has
been established. Alphamia, the victim, is a
minor (merely 10 years of age at the time of
commission of the offense), and the offender is
the father of the victim. These elements have
been properly alleged in the information and
proven during the trial.
HELD:
Under the Rules of Evidence, it is disputably
presumed that things which a person
possesses or over which he exercises acts of
ownership, are owned by him. In U.S. vs.
Bandoc, the Court ruled that the finding of a
dangerous drug in the house or within the
premises of the house of the accused is prima
facie evidence of knowledge or animus
possidendi and is enough to convict in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation. The
November 19,1999
PEOPLE V. SUBA
NOVEMBER 29, 1999
HELD:
PEOPLE V. EMBERGA
G.R. 116616 Nov. 26, 1999
PEOPLE V. PARAISO
NOVEMBER 29, 1999
HELD:
Both were guilty of homicide only. Treachery
cannot be presumed but must be proven which
was not done here. As for the aggravating
circumstance of cruelty, such is
unavailing. The mere fact that the wounds
were in excess of what was indispensably
necessary does not imply cruelty.
HELD:
Guilty. The defense of alibi is no good when
the witnesses have positively identified the
accused. The fact that the witnesses did not
identify him immediately to the police is not a
defense either. There is no standard behavior
for persons confronted with a shocking
incident. One may either report the crime
immediately or after a long lapse of time.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is
appreciated since robbery may be committed
without trespassing the sanctity of the
home. He who goes to another's house to hurt
or do wrong is guiltier than he who offends
elsewhere.
Superior strength is also present since there
was a notorious inequality between the
accused who were both armed males and the
unarmed female victim.
Disregard of sex is not an aggravating
circumstance here since it only applies to
crimes against honor and persons.
HELD:
Accused Agpoon should be acquitted for failure
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he
committed the crime.
PEOPLE V. OCUMEN
GR 120493-94 & 117692
HELD:
Guilty of homicide and frustrated homicide
only. There was no treachery here. The fact
that both victims were unarmed does not
amount to treachery. An altercation precedes
both incidents.
But, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength must be considered since his
2nd victim was an unarmed 14-yr. old, 4'11''
girl.
PEOPLE V. BARELLANO
NOVEMBER 29, 1999
HELD:
DECEMBER 1999
PEOPLE V. PEREZ
DECEMBER 2, 1999
HELD:
Guilty. For rape to be consummated, full
penetration is not necessary. Even the slightest
penetration of the lips of the sex organ
constitutes carnal knowledge.
Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies between
a witness' affidavit and testimony do not impair
his credibility but even enhance the
truthfulness of his declarations as they erase
any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Plus, it
is a settled rule that testimonies of child-
PEOPLE V. SANTIAGO
DECEMBER 2, 1999
HELD:
Where there is even the least chance for the
accused to be present at the crime scene, alibi
will not hold water. The victim also positively
identified the accused and it is settled that the
negative presence of sperm is immaterial in
the crime of rape. Penetration and not emission
is the important consideration.
PEOPLE V. TUMARU
DECEMBER 2, 1999
HELD:
Proof of motive is not crucial where the identity
of the accused has been amply established.
Witness Miguel's testimony was sufficient to
convict the accused. The testimony of minors
of tender age will suffice to convict a person of
a crime as long as it is credible. The fact that
Miguel eventually stayed with one of the
victim's widows does not prove bias. It is but
natural for the bereaved family to be
concerned about the safety of the lone
witness. The concern for the victim does not
make him biased or unreliable.
she moved to live with her aunt did she tell the
truth about the crime.
HELD:
Denial, just like alibi, is insufficient to overcome
the positive identification made by the witness
for the prosecution. Denial is an inherently
weak defense which cannot prevail over the
credible testimony of the witness that the
accused committed the crime charged. It must
be supported by strong evidence of nonculpability in order to merit acceptability.
Appellant, in the present case, failed to
discharge this burden. His lame attempt to shift
the blame to a certain Ricky Pacaul, who may
not even exist, in order to exculpate himself,
cannot save him. Moreover, where there is no
evidence to show any dubious reason or
improper motive why a prosecution witness
would testify falsely against an accused or
falsely implicate him in a heinous crime, the
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
PEOPLE V. MAGBANUA
DECEMBER 2, 1999
PEOPLE V. DE LEON
DECEMBER 3, 1999
HELD:
He was found guilty of only one count of rape.
Each and every charge of rape is a separate
and distinct crime so that each of the 16 other
rapes charged should be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The victims testimony was
overly generalized and lacked specific details
on how each of the alleged 16 rapes was
committed. Her bare statement that she was
PEOPLE V. JUACHON
DECEMBER 6, 1999
HELD:
Settled is the rule that the real nature of the
crime charged is determined not from the
caption or preamble of the Information nor
from the specification of the provision of law
alleged to have been violated, such being
conclusions of law, but by the actual recitation
of facts alleged in the Complaint or
Information.
The facts recited in the Information constitute
the crime of Rape with Homicide. The elements
of said crime are clearly spelled out in the
Information, particularly the sexual intercourse
against the will of the victim, perpetrated with
violence and force and the killing of said victim
on occasion of the rape by immersing her in
muddy water.
Denial and alibi cannot overcome the amount
of circumstantial evidence against the accused
showing his carnal desire for the victim and his
presence at the scene of the crime.
PEOPLE V. NABLO
DECEMBER 6, 1999
HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that on the issue of
credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will
not disturb the findings by the trial court, which
was decisively in a better position to rate the
credibility of witnesses after hearing them and
observing their deportment and manner of
testifying during the trial. This doctrine stands
absent any showing that certain facts and
circumstances of weight and value have been
overlooked, misinterpreted or misapplied by
the lower court which, if considered, would
affect the result or outcome of the case.
The absence of a dying declaration is also
unnecessary to convict the accused. The
evidence on record suffices to support the
judgment of conviction under scrutiny. Neither
is proof of motive crucial since the identity of
appellants has been established by
eyewitnesses.
PEOPLE V. LADRILLO
DECEMBER 8, 1999
Facts:
The accused asked the 8 year old victim to
come to his house to pick lice from his
head. But then after, he stripped naked and
stripped the victim of his clothes and raped her
4 times during that one day. He raised the
defenses of denial and alibi and questioned the
sufficiency of the information since it states
HELD:
ACQUITTED of rape based on insufficiency of
evidence and reasonable doubt. Denial and
alibi may be weak but courts should not at
once look at them with disfavor. There are
situations where an accused may really have
no other defenses but denial and alibi which, if
established to be the truth, may tilt the scales
of justice in his favor, especially when the
prosecution evidence itself is weak. The crime
was supposedly narrated by the victim 2 yrs.
after. The crime was alleged to have been
perpetrated at the accused's residence when
the accused was not even living in Abanico at
that time. The victim's narration of the
incident was also not credible
PEOPLE V. SEVILLA
DECEMBER 8, 1999
HELD:
Guilty. The Court is not persuaded by
accused-appellants submission. As held by this
Court in People v. Miranda, there is no standard
form of human behavioral response when one
has just been confronted with a strange,
startling or frightful experience as heinous as
the crime of rape and not every victim to a
crime can be expected to act reasonably and
conformably with the expectation of mankind.
The fact that Myra did not complain to her
mother or her aunts about the sexual abuses
PEOPLE V. FELICIANO
DECEMBER 8, 1999
HELD:
Acquitted for lack of evidence. His testimonies
were inadmissible. The right to counsel is a
fundamental right and contemplates not a
mere presence of the lawyer beside the
accused. He was questioned before his counsel
de officio arrived and even when his counsel
was present, his lawyer did not explain to
accused-appellant the consequences of his
action that the sworn statement can be used
against him and that it is possible that he could
be found guilty and sent to jail.
We also find that Atty. Chavezs independence
as counsel is suspect he is regularly
engaged by the Cagayan de Oro City Police as
counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail
the services of counsel. He even received
DECEMBER 8, 1999
HELD:
The crime committed by accused-appellant
was murder even in the absence of the
qualifying circumstance of evident
premeditation because treachery and abuse of
superior strength were present - either of which
qualified the crime to murder. Since the victim
was an 11 yr old boy, both were present
although treachery absorbs superior strength.
HELD:
Jurisprudence forewarns that when serious and
inexplicable discrepancies are present between
a previously executed sworn statement of a
witness and her testimonial declarations with
respect to one's participation in a serious
imputation such as murder, there is raised a
grave doubt on the veracity of the witness'
account. In the case at bar, it is difficult to
reconcile the inconsistencies made by Marissa
in her sworn statement and testimony in court.
It is even more difficult to accept her
explanation in committing these
inconsistencies.
December 9, 1999
HELD:
The use of a deadly weapon was not alleged in
the information, hence the offense cannot be
considered as qualified rape. Night time and
ignominy were present (sa pwet ba naman).
Simple rape is punishable by a single
indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus,
even if there were aggravating circumstances
of nighttime and ignominy in attendance the
appropriate penalty would still be reclusion
perpetua under the law. Article 63 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that in "all cases
in which the law prescribes a single indivisible
penalty, it shall be applied by the courts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances that may have attended the
commission of the deed."
HELD:
PEOPLE V. RONDERO
DECEMBER 9, 1999
HELD:
PEOPLE V. ROLANDO ALFANTA
DECEMBER 9, 1999
HELD:
Guilty. The physical evidence failed to support
the version of accused-appellant that the
victim Ainness Montenegro fell accidentally
into the canal. The victim had bruises only on
the sex organ, sides of the neck, etc.
The fact that no perineal laceration was found
on the genital of the victim does not dispel a
finding of rape. The slightest degree of
penetration of the pudenda by a male sex
organ suffices to consummate the crime of
rape. Jurisprudence is well-settled to the effect
that for rape to be consummated, rupture of
the hymen is not necessary, nor is it necessary
that the vagina sustain a laceration, especially
when the victim is a young girl.
The crime subject matter of the instant appeal
was committed before the death penalty law,
Republic Act No. 7659 became effective so the
penalty for the complex crime of rape with
homicide should only be reclusion perpetua.
HELD:
The sole testimony of the victim sufficiently
establishes the guilt of accused-appellant.
Amelia de Leon testified naturally,
spontaneously and positively.
Accused-appellant's claim that the charge
against him was merely trumped up by Amelia
cannot be believed. No woman, especially a
daughter, would subject herself and her family
to the humiliation of a public trial and send her
father to jail for the rest of his life if her
accusation were not true. Since the rape was
committed with the use of a knife, a deadly
weapon, the crime is therefore punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death.
HELD:
HELD:
HELD:
Guilty but reclusion perpetua only. It is
unthinkable for a daughter to falsely impute
the crime of rape against her own father if it
was not real. The supposed inconsistencies in
HELD:
Guilty but sentenced to reclusion perpetua
only. The averment that Analyn could have run
away when accused-appellant started
removing her panties hardly deserves
consideration. Different people, previous cases
can tell us, react differently to given situations.
Most women might, when given the chance,
immediately flee from their aggressors but
others may become virtually catatonic because
of mental shock
But while the law holds that the death penalty
shall be imposed if, among other instances, the
crime of rape is committed against a victim
PEOPLE V. CABALIDA
DECEMBER 15, 1999
HELD:
Acquitted for failure to prove beyond
reasonable doubt. The victim supposedly told
nobody of the crime since she feared for her
life. But accused had left for Manila already for
several months and the victim supposedly only
told her mother when it was obvious she was
pregnant. Second, victim's motive for
accusing appellant is only so that her
stepfather will not be suspected of being the
father of the child. Finally. accused returned to
Zamboanga City to clear his name. This is a
strong indication of innocence.
HELD:
Guilty. Direct evidence of the actual killing is
not indispensable for convicting an accused
when circumstantial evidence can sufficiently
establish his guilt. The consistent rule has been
that circumstantial evidence is adequate for
conviction if: a) there is more than one
circumstance; b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived have been proven; and
c) the combination of all circumstances is such
as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt. All these requisites, not to mention the
dying declaration of the deceased victim
himself, are extant in the instant case.
HELD:
Gulilty. The rule is settled that in the absence
of any fact or circumstance of weight and
influence which has been overlooked or the
significance of which has been misconstrued as
to impeach the findings of the trial court, the
appellate courts will not interfere with the trial
courts findings on the credibility of the
witnesses or set aside its judgment considering
that it is in a better position to decide the
question having heard the witnesses
themselves during trial.
Also, the non-presentation by the prosecution
of the items which the accused is charged of
having armed himself with in attacking,
HELD:
Appellants assail the trial court's finding of
conspiracy by pointing out alleged
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses Salamanca and Paterna.
The two testimonies constitute cumulative
evidence on who participated in the shooting of
Siegfred. Both witnesses pointed to all five
accused-appellants. Accused were positively
identified by the witnesses and their testimony
is sufficient to convict the accused.
HELD:
All guilty. Although appellant merely held the
victim while the other hit the latter, he is still
guilty as a co-principal because of conspiracy
where the act of one is the act of all.
Appellants contend that the trial court
convicted them on the basis of the testimony
of the lone eyewitness, Hermogenes Pan, which
is allegedly not worthy of belief. Appellants
allege that it was highly impossible for Pan to
have witnessed the alleged commission of the
crime as he was drinking all the time that
afternoon until the time that he was informed
of the victim's death.
Where there is no concrete evidence to
indicate that the witness against the accused
has been actuated by any improper motive,
and absent any compelling reason to conclude
otherwise, the testimony given is ordinarily
accorded full faith and credit. Hence,
eyewitness Pan's straightforward testimony
against the appellants was rightly accorded
credence. The absence of sufficiently
convincing evidence as to ill motives actuating
the principal witness of the prosecution
strongly tents to sustain the finding that no
improper motive existed and, thus, his
testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
HELD:
Acquitted due to insufficient evidence. In
cases involving illegal possession of firearm,
the requisite elements are: (a) the existence of
the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the
accused who owned or possessed the firearm
does not have he corresponding license or
permit to possess. While the information
alleged that the appellant did not possess any
license or permit to carry, such fact was not
established during trial. The only reference to
the non-possession of a license or permit of the
appellant was when the trial judge propounded
clarificatory questions to the officers who
accosted appellant and nothing else.
PEOPLE V. MERINO
December 17, 1999
HELD:
Guilty. The trial court's assessment of the
credibility of witness is generally accorded
great respect. Both accused were positively
identified by the private complainants. There
was no hesitation on their part to point to the
accused as the culprits.
Both are guilty of rape since although it was
only Siervo who raped the 2 girls, Merino did
nothing to stop it. There was conspiracy
because both of them acted as one in their
greed and lust. In a conspiracy, the act of one
HELD:
Judgement set aside and case remanded for
new trial. Being represented by a non-lawyer
is a denial of due process.
PEOPLE V. MORENO
December 21, 1999
HELD:
Acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt.
While the version of the defense is not entirely
satisfactory, as in any criminal prosecution,
conviction must rest on proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The State must rely on the
JANUARY 2000
HELD:
More importantly, the declaration of appellant
acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be
given in evidence against him under Section 33
of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Note
that his extrajudicial confession is corroborated
by the corpus delicti as required by Section 3 of
Rule 133. The Rules do not require that all the
elements of the crime must be clearly
established by evidence independent of the
confession. Corpus delicti only means that
there should be some concrete evidence
HELD:
Time-honored is the rule that alibi is inherently
weak and easily contrived. Accused-appellant
must therefore prove with clear and convincing
evidence that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the place and approximate time of
commission of the felony, which quantum of
proof he failed to come forward with.
In a long line of rape cases, the Court has
consistently held that lust is no respecter of
time and place, and rape can be and has been
committed in even the unlikeliest of places.
Venues of rape have been inside a house
where there were other occupants, in a room
adjacent to where the victims family members
were sleeping or even in a room which the
victim shares with the sister of the offender.
There is no rule that rape can be committed
only in seclusion. Neither does the Court find
convincing the claim of delay on the part of the
victim in reporting the sexual assault against
her. This Court has consistently held that delay
in reporting rape incidents in the face of
threats of physical violence, cannot be taken
against the victim.
Issue:
HELD:
Private respondent Javellana has been arrested
based on the filing of criminal cases against
him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under
the custody of the law. The trial court gave
Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of
private respondent Javellana with the
obligation "to hold and detain" him in Atty. del
Rosarios residence in his official capacity as
the clerk of court of the regional trial court.
Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed
judge, he ceased to be the personal custodian
of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk
of court must be deemed the custodian under
the same undertaking.
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for
an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed
under the custody of the law. He is placed in
actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of the
offense. He must be detained in jail during the
pendency of the case against him, unless he is
authorized by the court to be released on bail
or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all
prisoners whether under preventive detention
or serving final sentence can not practice their
profession nor engage in any business or
occupation, or hold office, elective or
appointive, while in detention.
HELD:
At the time the trial court promulgated its
judgment of conviction in September 1990, it
had already been six (6) months since We held
in People v. Tac-an that the unlawful possession
of an unlicensed firearm or ammunition,
whether or not homicide or murder resulted
from its use, on one hand, and murder or
homicide, on the other, are offenses different
and separate from and independent of, each
other. While the former is punished under a
special law, the latter is penalized under the
Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the
prosecution for one will not bar prosecution for
the other, and double jeopardy will not lie.
Under Sec. 7 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules
of Court, double jeopardy lies when after the
accused has pleaded to the first offense
charged in a valid complaint or information and
he is subsequently convicted or acquitted or
the case against him is dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a
court of competent jurisdiction, he is
prosecuted for a second offense or any attempt
to commit the same or frustration thereof or
any other offense, which necessarily includes
or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information.
It cannot be said that murder or homicide
necessarily includes or is necessarily included
HELD:
In this appeal, the accused contends that the
subpoenas directing submission of counteraffidavits for purposes of preliminary
investigation, were not received by him since
the same were sent to his former residence at
A. Del Rosario Street and not to Dalahican
Street where he moved to. Accused-appellant
therefore, maintains that he was deprived of
his right to a preliminary investigation.
In Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, this Court
reiterated the rule that the New Rules on
Criminal Procedure "does not require as
condition sine qua non to the validity of the
proceedings (in the preliminary investigation)
the presence of the accused for as long as
efforts to reach him were made, and an
opportunity to controvert the evidence for the
complainant is accorded him. The obvious
purpose of the rule is to block attempts of
unscrupulous respondents to thwart the
prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves
or by employing dilatory tactics."
Being a mentally retarded woman, twenty-six
years of age, Analyn is in the same class as a
woman deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious when she was raped by accusedappellant. Proof of force and intimidation is not
required if the victim is "deprived of reason" or
suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency
since the same deprives the victim of the
natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her
chastity and womanhood. It is well-settled that
sexual intercourse with a woman who is a
mental retardate constitutes statutory rape.
Neither is the Court persuaded by accusedappellants submission that he cannot be
required to acknowledge and support the child
HELD:
Under rules laid by the Constitution, existing
laws and jurisprudence, a confession to be
admissible must satisfy all four fundamental
requirements, namely: (1) the confession must
be voluntary; (2) the confession must be made
with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; (3) the confession must
be express; and (4) the confession must be in
writing. All these requirements were complied
with. It would have been different if the
accused were merely asked if they were
waiving their Constitutional rights without any
explanation from the assisting counsel.
HELD:
HELD:
It has been held that delay or vacillation in
making a criminal accusation will not
necessarily impair the credibility of the
complaining witness if such delay is
satisfactorily explained. The trial court found
that the testimony of Pedro Abunda was
rendered in a "very straight forward manner,"
complete with details of the incidents that
could not have been the product of coaching
from anyone. The court a quo also found
Lorlita credible. The court did not err in ruling
that the alibi of the accused that he was drunk
and asleep in his house at the time that the
shooting occured will not lie against the
positive identification of Lorlita and Pedro
Abunda. It is doctrinal that the Supreme Court
will not interfere with the judgment of the trial
court in passing upon the credibility of
witnesses unless there appears in the record
some fact or circumstance of weight and
substance which has been overlooked or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted.
We find no such basis.
HELD:
The trial is court correct in imposing the
supreme penalty of death on the accusedappellant. Under Article 335 of the Revised
Issue:
Whether or not the extra-judicial confessions
were executed in accordance with the
provisions of the 1973 Constitution?
HELD:
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the
actual deprivation of the victim's liberty
coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the
accused to effect the same. And if the person
detained is a child, the question that needs to
be addressed is whether there is, evidence to
show that in taking the child, there was
deprivation of the child's liberty and that it was
the intention of the accused to deprive the
mother of the child's custody. We find
abundant evidence of this fact in this case.
There is no question that the elements of
kidnapping for ransom were sufficiently
established: (a) the accused is a private
individual; (b) the accused kidnapped or
detained the victim and deprived him of his
liberty; and, (c) the deprivation of the victim's
liberty was illegal. As provided for in Art. 267 of
the Revised Penal Code as amended, the
imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if
the victim is a minor. In this case, the minority
HELD:
The right to counsel attaches the moment an
investigating officer starts to ask questions to
elicit information on the crime from the
suspected offender.. In other words, "the
moment there is a move or even urge of said
investigators to elicit admissions or confessions
or even plain information which may appear
innocent or innocuous at the time, from said
suspect, he should then and there be assisted
by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the
waiver shall be made in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
There was no evidence that Maximo executed a
waiver of his right to counsel. In light of these
facts, we are constrained to rule that Maximo
Velardes extra-judicial statement is
inadmissible in evidence. An uncounselled
extra-judicial confession without a valid waiver
Issue:
Whether or not the Court erred in disregarding
the fact that the evidence of the prosecution
did not overcome the time-honored
presumption of innocence of the accused in
criminal cases?
HELD:
HELD:
The court found no reason to disturb the
findings of the trial court. Contrary to the
contention of the accused-appellant that
inconsistencies materially affected the
credibility of the witnesses, we rather view the
minor inconsistencies as indicative of truth.
FEBRUARY 2000
PEOPLE V. ALBERTO BLANCO Y SEORA
PEOPLE V. PEDRO LUMACANG
February 1, 2000
February 1, 2000
HELD:
HELD:
PEOPLE V. JALOSJOS
February 3, 2000
HELD:
True, election is the expression of the sovereign
power of the people. In the exercise of
suffrage, a free people expects to achieve the
continuity of government and the perpetuation
of its benefits. However, inspite of its
importance, the privileges and rights arising
from having been elected may be enlarged or
restricted by law. The election to the position of
Congressman is not a reasonable classification
in criminal law enforcement. The functions and
duties of the office are not substantial
distinctions which lift him from the class of
PEOPLE V. NICOLAS
February 4, 2000
HELD:
We strongly sustain his conviction. The rule is
settled that this Court does not generally
disturb the findings of fact of the trial court.
Having observed the manner, conduct and
demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand,
the trial court is clearly in a better position to
determine the weight to be given to their
respective testimonies. Unless there is a clear
showing that it overlooked certain facts and
circumstances which might alter the result of
the case, this Court accords respect, even
finality, to these findings of fact made by the
trial court.
The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by the
perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his
victim into submission, is evident in virtually all
cases that have reached this Court. The
relationship of the victim to the perpetrator
magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator
is a person normally expected to give solace
and protection to the victim.
PEOPLE V. LLANES
February 4, 2000
HELD:
The declaration of a dying person, made under
a consciousness of an impending death, may
be received in any case wherein his death is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause
and surrounding circumstances of such death.
The essential requisites for the admission of a
dying declaration under Section 37 of Rule 130
of the Rules of Court are,viz: (a) the declaration
must concern the cause and surrounding
circumstances of the declarants death; (b) at
the time the declaration was made, the
declarant was under the consciousness of an
impending death; (c) the declarant was at that
time competent as a witness; and (d) the
declaration is offered in any case wherein the
declarants is the subject of inquiry. All these
requisites have been met in this case.
It is a well-settled rule that different witnesses
testifying on the circumstances of a criminal
event would naturally differ in various details.
The fact that witnesses Arevalo and Valenzuela
gave varying testimonies as to the dying
declaration of the victim does not indicate that
they are lying. A truth-telling witness is not
always expected to give an error-free
testimony, considering the lapse of time and
the treachery of human memory.
PEOPLE V. MAGDATO
February 7, 2000
HELD:
We find to be correct the penalty of death
imposed by the trial court for each of the six
(6) crimes of qualified rape. Such penalty is
justified under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by R.A. 7659. The
informations for rape in these cases explicitly
allege that CHERRY ANN is the daughter of
PEPITO and she was only twelve (12) years old
when he committed the rapes in question.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the
death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of
rape is committed with, inter alia, the following
attendant circumstances:
1.
When the victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim.
HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that the trial court's
findings on the credibility of witnesses and
HELD:
HELD:
Alibis are generally considered with suspicion
and are always received with caution, not only
PEOPLE v. GOMEZ
HELD:
Anent the first issue, we have consistently
ruled that any objection to the warrant of arrest
or the procedure in the acquisition by the court
of jurisdiction over the person of the accused
must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
The more significant issue at hand is whether
the culpability of accused-appellant forillegal
recruitment in large scale and estafa has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt. Under the
Labor Code, there are three (3) elements which
constitute illegal recruitment in large
scale. First, the accused undertakes any
recruitment activity defined under Art. 13, par.
(b), or any practice enumerated under Art. 34
of the Labor Code; second, the accused does
not comply with the guidelines issued by the
Secretary of Labor and Employment,
particularly with respect to the securing of a
license or authority to recruit and deploy
workers, either locally or overseas; and third,
the accused commits the same against three
(3) or more persons, individually or as a group.
HELD:
HELD:
It is well-settled that full penile penetration is
not necessary in order to consummate the
crime of rape; it is enough that the male organ
touches the female external genitalia for there
to be carnal knowledge. When there is no
evidence to show any improper motive on the
part of the complainant to testify against the
accused or to falsely implicate him in the
commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is
that the testimony is worthy of full faith and
credence.
HELD:
In adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by
the following principles: (a) an accusation of
rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to
prove but more difficult for the person accused,
though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the
nature of the crime in which only two persons
are involved, the testimony of the complainant
must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
(c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand
or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed
HELD:
As between a writing or document made
contemporaneously with a transaction in which
are evidenced facts pertinent to an issue, when
admitted as proof of these facts, is ordinarily
regarded as more reliable proof and of greater
probative value than oral testimony of a
witness as to such facts based upon memory
and recollection. The reason behind this is
HELD:
In the present case, we find ample evidence
that appellant did shoot the victim. It should be
stressed that appellants conduct cannot be
justified as a lawful defense of property rights.
For this justifying circumstance to be
appreciated, the accused has the burden of
proving unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim and reasonable necessity of the means
HELD:
As a general rule, the factual findings of trial
courts deserve respect and are not disturbed
HELD:
The evidence proving the use of force by the
accused-appellant is overwhelming. Kristine
also adequately explained why she did not
immediately report to the police authorities.
The threats made by accused-appellant scared
her. Accused-appellant can not also dismiss the
complaints against him as merely instigated by
Kristines mother. Even assuming that accused-
HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on
minor and trivial matters only serve to
strengthen rather than weaken the credibility
of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of
rehearsed. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses
in criminal cases and it should be rejected
when the identity of the accused is sufficiently
and positively established by the prosecution.
The essence of treachery is that the attack
comes without a warning and in a swift,
deliberate and unexpected manner, affording
the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim
no chance to resist or escape this case,
accused-appellant, whose face was covered by
a handkerchief, approached the victim, who
was merely standing by the gate in front of his
house, and shot him. The victim was
undoubtedly caught unaware and had no
chance of putting up any defense. Clearly,
treachery attended the commission of the
crime since the attack, although frontally, was
no less sudden and unexpected, giving the
victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any
defense of his person.
HELD:
P.D. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal
possession of firearms, was amended on June
6, 1997 by Republic Act 8294. Aside from
lowering the penalty for said crime, R.A. 8294
also provided that if homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed
firearm, such use shall be considered as a
special aggravating circumstance. This
amendment has two (2) implications: first, the
use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission
of homicide or murder shall not be treated as a
separate offense, but merely as a special
aggravating circumstance; second, as only a
single crime (homicide or murder with the
aggravating circumstance of illegal possession
of firearm) is committed under the law, only
one penalty shall be imposed on the accused.
Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish
illegal possession of firearms: first, the
existence of the subject firearm, and second,
the fact that the accused who owned or
possessed the gun did not have the
corresponding license or permit to carry it
outside his residence. The onus probandi of
establishing these elements as alleged in the
Information lies with the prosecution.
HELD:
Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure provides:
"Section 3. Pleas of guilty to capital offense;
reception of evidence - When the accused
pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court
shall conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and require the
prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise
degree of culpability. The accused may also
present evidence in his behalf." (emphasis
supplied)
To breathe life into this rule, we made it
mandatory for trial courts to do the following:
(1) conduct a searching inquiry into the
voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of the accused's plea;
(2) require the prosecution to prove the guilt of
the accused and the precise degree of his
culpability; and
(3) inquire whether or not the accused wishes
to present evidence on his behalf and allow
him to do so if he so desires.
The records show that the trial court failed to
comply to the letter with these guidelines. It
did not conduct a searching inquiry on whether
accused understood the legal consequences of
his admission of guilt. It is not shown that
accused was informed of the effect of the
concurrence of the special qualifying
circumstance of minority of the victim and his
parental relationship to her. After the accused
testified on how he raped his daughter, he was
not apprised that his crime is punishable by
death. The trial court also failed to explain to
him that as the penalty of death is indivisible, it
shall be imposed despite any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance attending its
HELD:
HELD:
While denial is a legitimate defense in rape
cases bare denials can not overcome the
categorical testimony of the victim. Here,
Melinas testimony is clear, candid,
straightforward and consistent. She had
positively identified accused-appellant as her
malefactor and established all the elements of
the offense. That the physical examination
yielded no conclusive evidence that she had
been raped does not affect her credibility. The
lack of tell-tale signs of rape on her private part
can be explained by the fact that she is a
married woman with four children. This fact
actually bolsters her credibility. She had no
motive to falsely implicate accused-appellant.
HELD:
The qualifying circumstance of treachery
attended the killing as the two conditions for
the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time
of the attack, the victim was not in a position
to defend himself and (2) that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.
The attack was not only sudden, it was
unexpected, as the victim even cried out in
surprise "Why are you firing at me, I have not
done anything wrong!" Further, appellant
deliberately or consciously adopted the means
of attack as shown by the fact that he even
wrapped the gun inside a jacket prior to
shooting the victim.
However, evident premeditation cannot be
appreciated inasmuch as the following
elements were not duly proven: (1) the time
when the offender determined to commit the
crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the
offender had clung to his determination; and
(3) sufficient lapse of time between the
determination and the execution to allow the
offender to reflect on the consequences of his
act.
Nor can the aggravating circumstance of
nighttime be appreciated, for the prosecution
failed to demonstrate (1) that the malefactor
particularly sought or took advantage of the
darkness to commit the offense, or (2) that
nighttime facilitated the commission of the
crime. Although the crime took place at around
11:00 in the evening, the store/house where
the incident occurred was sufficiently lighted
by a fluorescent lamp, and there were still
people milling around because of the dance
held at a nearby plaza.
HELD:
Once more, we are guided by the tenet that
"when the issue is one of credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts will generally not
disturb the findings of the trial court,
considering that the latter is in a better
position to decide the question, having heard
the witnesses themselves and observed their
deportment and manner of testifying during
the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked
certain facts of substance and value that if,
considered, might affect the result of the case.
For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that
there be an agreement for an appreciable
period prior to the occurrence. The concerted
actions of the four accused showed their intent
to kill the victim. The qualifying circumstance
of treachery was present in this case as the
two conditions therefore were proved: (1) that
at the time of the attack, the victim was not in
a position to defend himself and (2) that the
offenders consciously adopted the particular
means, method or form of attack employed by
him. Treachery absorbs the generic
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength so the same need not be appreciated
separately.
HELD:
First. Appellants are estopped from questioning
the validity of their respective arrests since
they never raised this issue before
arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant
of arrest or the acquisition of jurisdiction over
the person of an accused must be made before
he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is
deemed waived. Second. There is no violation
of the constitutional rights of the accused
during custodial investigation since neither one
executed an extrajudicial confession or
admission. In this case, the basis of the
conviction by the trial court was the
testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, Artemio
Avendao, Jacinto Castillo, and Gloria Castillo.
Third. The failure to accord appellants their
right to preliminary investigation did not impair
the validity of the information nor affect the
jurisdiction of the trial court. While the right to
preliminary investigation is a substantive right
and not a mere formal or technical right of the
accused, nevertheless, the right to preliminary
investigation is deemed waived when the
accused fails to invoke it before or at the time
of entering a plea at arraignment.
The SC found that no treachery attended the
killing. On numerous occasions, we have held
that where a killing was preceded by an
argument or quarrel, then the qualifying
circumstance of treachery can no longer be
appreciated since the victim could be said to
have been forewarned and could anticipate
aggression from the assailants. Moreover, the
aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation alleged by the prosecution was
not proved clearly and convincingly.
Considering that the attack was made
about two minutes after the initial altercation,
it cannot be said that there was sufficient lapse
of time between such determination to commit
the crime and its execution so as to allow the
HELD:
Neither is the absence of spermatozoa in
Delias genitalia fatal to the prosecutions case.
The presence or absence of spermatozoa is
immaterial in a prosecution for rape. The
important consideration in rape cases is not
the emission of semen but the unlawful
penetration of the female genitalia by the male
organ.
The crime committed is statutory rape, defined
and penalized under paragraph 3 of Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 11, R. A. 7659. This Court has held that
if the woman is under twelve (12) years of age,
proof of force and consent becomes
immaterial, not only because force is not an
element of statutory rape but the absence of
free consent is presumed when the woman is
below such age. The two (2) elements of
statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had
carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the
woman is below twelve (12) years of age.
Sexual congress with a girl under twelve (12)
years old is always rape."
PEOPLE v. GALLARDER
G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000
Held:
A reading of the accusatory portion of the
information shows that there was no allegation
of any qualifying circumstance. Although it is
true that the term "homicide" as used in
special complex crime of rape with homicide is
to be understood in its generic sense, and
includes murder and slight physical injuries
committed by reason or on the occasion of
rape it is settled in this jurisdiction that where a
complex crime is charged and the evidence
fails to support the charge as to one of the
component offense, the accused can be
convicted of the other. In rape with homicide,
in order to be convicted of murder in case the
evidence fails to support the charge of rape,
the qualifying circumstance must be
sufficiently alleged and proved. Otherwise, it
would be a denial of the right of the accused to
be informed of the nature of the offense with
which he is charged. It is fundamental that
every element of the offense must be alleged
in the complaint or information. The main
purpose of requiring the various elements of a
crime to be set out in an information is to
enable the accused to suitably prepare his
defense. He is presumed to have no
independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense
HELD:
We have long held that "the testimony of a
single eyewitness is sufficient to support a
conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward
and worthy of credence by the trial court.
Minor and inconsequential flaws in the
testimony of the witness strengthen rather
than impair his credibility. As to appellants
participation in the killing, the Court in previous
cases have held that holding the hand of the
victim to render him immobile while he is being
stabbed amounts to an act of indispensable
cooperation without which the crime would not
have been accomplished. Appellants act of
holding the right arm of the victim, while
another held the left arm, thus enabling their
third companion to stab the victim, shows that
they acted together with one purpose and
design to kill the victim.
HELD:
We sustain GALLARDEs contention that the
trial court erred in convicting him of murder in
an information charging him of rape with
homicide. A reading of the accusatory portion
of the information shows that there was no
allegation of any qualifying circumstance.
Although it is true that the term "homicide" as
used in special complex crime of rape with
homicide is to be understood in its generic
sense, and includes murder and slight physical
injuries committed by reason or on the
occasion of rape it is settled in this jurisdiction
that where a complex crime is charged and the
evidence fails to support the charge as to one
of the component offense, the accused can be
convicted of the other. In rape with homicide,
in order to be convicted of murder in case the
evidence fails to support the charge of rape,
the qualifying circumstance must be
sufficiently alleged and proved. Otherwise, it
would be a denial of the right of the accused to
be informed of the nature of the offense with
which he is charged.
The rules on evidence and precedents sustain
the conviction of an accused through
circumstantial evidence, as long as the
following requisites are present: (1) there must
be more than one circumstance; (2) the
inference must be based on proven facts; and
(3) the combination of all circumstances
produces a conviction beyond doubt of the
guilt of the accused. The importance of
circumstantial evidence is more apparent in
the prosecution of cases of rape with homicide.
It is well settled that the absence of
spermatozoa in or around the vagina does not
negate the commission of rape. Our doubt on
the commission of rape is based on the fact
that there is at all no convincing proof that the
laceration of the vagina and the rupture of the
hymen of EDITHA were caused in the course of
coitus or by a male organ.
HELD:
In a prosecution for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or an object
identified to be a prohibited or a regulated
drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by
law and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug. Here, as in Boco, the
prosecution witnesses were able to establish
these elements.
We are not persuaded by the argument that
the samples examined were not taken from the
drugs seized. On the contrary, the testimonies
of all the prosecution witnesses fairly
established that the shabu taken from the
appellants is the same substance examined by
the forensic chemist and later presented as
evidence in court. Verily, the presumption of
regularity must prevail over appellants
unfounded allegations and speculations.
Appellants behavior during the entrapment
showed that there was conspiracy between
them and a third person who got away with the
buy-bust money. It is an established rule
that direct proof is not essential to establish
conspiracy, as it may be inferred from the acts
of the accused before, during and after the
commission of the crime, all of which
indubitably point to or indicate a joint purpose,
a concert of action and a community of
interest.
HELD:
While the principal witnesses for the
prosecution did not actually see appellants
shoot and kill the victim, direct proof of their
culpability is not necessary when
circumstantial evidence would suffice. The
requisites thereof are: (1) there is more than
one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable
doubt.
We have held that conspiracy need not be
established by direct evidence of acts charged,
but may and generally must be proved by a
number of indefinite acts, conditions and
circumstances, which vary according to the
purpose accomplished. Thus, the rule is that
conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct or
circumstantial evidence, as clearly and
convincingly as the crime itself. In the absence
of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it
may be deduced from the mode, method and
manner by which the offense was perpetrated,
or inferred from the acts of the accused
themselves when such acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and
community of interest.
The trial court was correct in appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Although
the triggerman fired the shot from outside the
house, his victim was inside. For the
circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is
not necessary that the accused should have
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to
commit the offense; it is enough that the victim
was attacked inside his own house, although
HELD:
Arson is defined as the malicious destruction of
property by fire. In this case, we find the trial
court correctly held that the following
circumstances taken together constitute an
unbroken chain of events pointing to one fair
and logical conclusion, that accused started
the fire which gutted the house of private
complainant. Although there is no direct
evidence linking appellant to the arson, we
agree with the trial court in holding him guilty
thereof in the light of the following
circumstances duly proved and on record.
In prosecutions for arson, proof of the crime
charged is complete where the evidence
establishes (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire
because of criminal agency; and (2) the
identity of the defendants as the one
responsible for the crime.
HELD:
Accused-appellant's attempt to discredit
ROSALIE is unconvincing. The assessment of
credibility of witnesses is primarily the function
of the trial court. It is well established in this
jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court
on the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are accorded great respect unless
the court a quo overlooked substantial facts
and circumstances which, if considered, would
materially affect the result of the case.
The information filed against TOREJOS
specifically alleges that he raped MARY CRIS, a
three-year-old child. We therefore affirm the
judgment of the RTC imposing the death
penalty for being in accordance with law. Four
(4) members of the Court, although
maintaining their adherence to the separate
opinions expressed in People v. Echegaraythat
R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of
death is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit
to the ruling of the majority that the law is
constitutional and that the death penalty
should accordingly be imposed.
HELD:
Accordingly, the range of penalty imposable on
appellant is composed of two indivisible
penalties, i.e., reclusion perpetua to death.
Following Article 63 (1)of the same Code, which
provides the rules for the application of
indivisible penalties, appellant was correctly
meted the supreme penalty of death since the
HELD:
The requirements for the discharge and
utilization of an accused as a state witness are
enumerated in Rule 119, Section 9 of the Rules
of Court, viz:
MARCH 2000
PEOPLE V. PAMBID
G.R. No. 124453. March 15, 2000.
DEFENSE OF INSANITY
Facts:
A man diagnosed of schizophrenia and mild
mental retardation raped a six-year old
girl. Accused pleaded not guilty on the ground
of insanity.
HELD:
Accused-appellants plea of insanity is
unacceptable. While Art. 12(1) of the Revised
Penal Code provides that an imbecile or insane
person is exempt from criminal liability, unless
he has acted during a lucid interval, the
presumption under Art. 800 of the Civil Code is
that every man is sane. Anyone who pleads the
exempting circumstance of insanity bears the
burden of proving it. He must show that he was
completely deprived of reason when he
committed the crime charged, for mere
abnormality of his mental faculties does not
exclude imputability.
PEOPLE V. FRONDA
G.R. No. 130602. March 15, 2000.
Direct Evidence v. Circumstantial
Evidence
Facts:
Three students were convicted of violating the
Dangerous Drugs Act after they allegedly
delivered a brick of marijuana to policemen
who posed as buyers.
HELD:
To be caught flagrante delicto necessarily
implies positive identification by the
eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such is a "direct
evidence" of culpability, which is "that which
proves the fact in dispute without the aid of
any inference or presumption", in contrast to
circumstantial evidence, which is "the proof of
facts from which taken collectively the
existence of the particular fact in dispute may
PEOPLE V. ARIZAPA
G.R. No. 131814. March 15, 2000.
Improvident plea of guilt
Facts:
Accused was sentenced to death after being
convicted of incestuously raping his
stepdaughter.
HELD:
The record discloses the failure of the lower
court to make a searching inquiry on whether
the accuseds admission of guilt was
voluntarily made and whether he understood
PEOPLE V. FABON
G.R. No. 133226. March 16, 2000.
Aggravating circumstance robbery with
homicide
Circumstantial evidence
HELD:
The proper designation of the crime committed
is robbery with homicide aggravated by rape.
When rape and homicide co-exist in the
commission of robbery, it is the first paragraph
of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code that
applies, the rape to be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. Moreover, dwelling
is also considered aggravating in cases such as
this primarily because of the sanctity of privacy
that the law accords to the human abode.
Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with
violence or intimidation because this class of
robbery can be committed without the
necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the
offended party's house.
Circumstantial evidence is defined as that
which indirectly proves a fact in issue. Under
Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on
Evidence, circumstantial evidence is sufficient
to convict an accused if the following requisites
concur: (a) there is more than one
circumstance, (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven, and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.
PEOPLE V. MACARSE
G.R. No. 121780. March 17, 2000.
DEFENSE OF ALIBI
Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged and convicted
of Highway Robbery with Homicide. His main
defense was alibi.
HELD:
For alibi to be believed, the following must be
shown: (a) presence of accused-appellant in
another place at the time of the commission of
the offense, and (b) physical impossibility for
him to be at the scene of the crime.
PEOPLE V. MANRIQUEZ
G.R. Nos. 122510-11. March 17, 2000.
Waiver of Counsel; Extrajudicial Confession
Conspiracy
Treachery
Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged and convicted
of Murder. He impugned the validity of his
waiver of counsel and extrajudicial confession
and denied conspiracy and the attendance of
treachery.
HELD:
Ones right to be informed of the right to
remain silent and to counsel contemplates the
transmission of meaningful information rather
than just the ceremonial and perfunctory
recitation of an abstract constitutional
PEOPLE V. SAPAL
Irregularities in arrest
Conviction based on proof beyond reasonable
doubt
HELD:
HELD:
Admittedly, accused is deemed to have waived
his right to question the irregularities attending
his arrest for his failure to raise the same at the
opportune time, i.e., before he entered his
plea. Nonetheless, the peculiar factual
circumstances surrounding the case, e.g., the
police authorities failure to comply with the
clear directive of the warrant of arrest issued
by Judge Barrios, the undue delay in preparing
the documents relating to the arrest of accused
and his wife and in delivering them to the
proper authorities for inquest, and the failure of
the law enforcers to provide accused with a
counsel during the custodial investigation,
effectively destroy the presumption of
regularity in the performance by Gomez and
his colleagues of their duties. Such being the
case, the presumption of regularity cannot be
made the sole basis of the conviction of
accused.
It is well-settled that "where the circumstances
shown to exist yield two or more inferences,
one of which is consistent with the presumption
of innocence while the other or others may be
compatible with the finding of guilt, the court
must acquit the accused: for the evidence does
not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
insufficient to support a judgment of
conviction."
PEOPLE V. SAN DIEGO
HELD:
PEOPLE V. SAPINOSO
HELD:
The defense of alibi interposed by the accusedappellant hardly deserves any serious
consideration. For this defense to prosper, the
accused must prove, among other things, that
not only has he been at some other place at
the time of the commission of the crime but
that it would have also been physically
impossible for him to be at the locus criminisat
the time thereof.
HELD:
In rape cases, three well-known principles
guide the Court, namely: (1) an accusation for
rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to
prove but more difficult for the person accused,
though innocent, to disprove, (2) in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two
persons are usually involved, the testimony of
the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution, and (3) the evidence of the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits
and cannot be allowed to draw strength from
the weakness of the evidence for the
defense. Likewise, when the complainant in a
rape case, more so if she is a minor, testifies
that she has been raped, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show rape has been
committed, the offended party most often
being the only one available to prove directly
the commission of rape. The credibility of the
complainant is, thus, of utmost importance, for
the accused may be convicted solely on the
basis of the complainant's testimony if the
same meets the test of credibility. Furthermore,
we have held that the conduct of the victim
immediately following the alleged sexual
PEOPLE V. DEDACE
PEOPLE V. MITRA
Statutory rape
HELD:
HELD:
PEOPLE V. MAMALIAS
G.R. No. 128073. March 27, 2000.
PEOPLE V. MERIS
APPEAL OF AN ACCUSED-ESCAPEE
HELD:
Estafa
HELD:
Accused-appellant was charged and convicted
of illegal recruitment in large scale and
estafa. She contends that her conviction was
erroneous because the court never acquired
jurisdiction over her person, as her arrest was
illegal, and that the prosecution failed to
establish estafa.
HELD:
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is
acquired either by arrest or voluntary
appearance in court. Hence,
granting arguendo that accused-appellants
arrest was defective, such is deemed cured
upon her voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the court. It should be stressed
that the question of legality of an arrest affects
only the jurisdiction of the court over the
person of the accused. Consequently, if
objections based on this ground are waived,
the fact that the arrest was illegal is not
sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise
valid judgment. The technicality cannot render
the subsequent proceedings void and deprive
the State of its right to convict the guilty when
all the facts on record point to the culpability of
the accused.
Estafa is committed by any person who
defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or
falsely pretends to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by
means of similar deceits executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud. The offended party must have relied on
the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means of the accused-appellant and as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damages.
PEOPLE V. TIPAY
G.R. No. 131472. March 28, 2000.
Rape jurisprudential guidelines
PEOPLE V. CULA
G.R. No. 133146. March 28, 2000.
Rape physical resistance; burden of
proving victims minority
PEOPLE V. BARREDO
G.R. No. 133832. March 28, 2000.
Rape
HELD:
PEOPLE V. CABINGAS
G.R. No. 79679. March 28, 2000.
PEOPLE V. AQUINO
HELD:
Sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded
woman is rape. The offense charged is within
the contemplation of paragraph 2 of Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code, like when the
offender had carnal knowledge of a woman
deprived of reason.
HELD:
PEOPLE V. CAVERTE
G.R. No. 123112. March 30, 2000.
SELF-DEFENSE; TREACHERY
PEOPLE V. BALTAZAR
G.R. No. 115990. March 30, 2000.
HELD:
There is self-defense when the following
elements concur: (1) unlawful aggression on
the part of the person injured or killed by the
offender; (2) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself. It is a doctrinal rule
that when an unlawful aggression that has
begun no longer exists, the one making a
defense has no right to kill or even to wound
the former aggressor.
HELD:
The more pressing issue is whether all the
elements of rape as alleged in the Information
were duly proved by the prosecution. Here we
find the following duly established beyond
reasonable doubt. First, appellant had carnal
knowledge with the victim.
PEOPLE V. BASE
G.R. No. 109773. March 30, 2000.
Extrajudicial confessions
Conspiracy; treachery
HELD:
For an extrajudicial confession to be
admissible, it must be: 1.] voluntary; 2.] made
with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; 3.] express; and 4.] in
writing. While the initial choice in cases where
a person under custodial investigation cannot
afford the services of a lawyer is naturally
lodged in the police investigators, the accused
really has the final choice as he may reject the
counsel chosen for him and ask for another
one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is
deemed engaged by the accused where he
never raised any objection against the formers
appointment during the course of the
investigation and the accused thereafter
subscribes to the veracity of his statement
before the swearing officer. Verily, to be an
effective counsel "[a] lawyer need not
challenge all the questions being propounded
to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not
intended to stop an accused from saying
anything that might incriminate him but,
rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to
preclude the slightest coercion as would lead
the accused to admit something false. The
counsel, however, should never prevent an
accused from freely and voluntarily telling the
truth."
When, as in this case, "[a]n extrajudicial
statement satisfies the requirements of the
Constitution, it constitutes evidence of a high
order because of the strong presumption that
no person of normal mind would deliberately
and knowingly confess to a crime unless
prompted by truth and conscience. The
defense has the burden of proving that it was
extracted by means of force, duress, promise
or reward."
Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court
provides that "[a]n extrajudicial confession
made by an accused shall not be sufficient
PEOPLE V. CAMPUHAN
G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000.
Stages of rape
HELD:
The more pressing issue is whether all the
elements of rape as alleged in the Information
were duly proved by the prosecution. Here we
find the following duly established beyond
reasonable doubt. First, appellant had carnal
knowledge with the victim. Second, carnal
knowledge took place by using force or
intimidation. Appellant insists that "the
complainant did not offer any tenacious
resistance to the alleged sexual
assault." Nowhere is it required in our law or
jurisprudence, however, that a woman must
offer "tenacious" resistance to a sexual assault.
The law does not impose upon the rape victim
HELD:
Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as
the crime itself through clear and convincing
evidence, not merely by conjecture. To hold an
accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, he must be shown to have
performed an overt act in pursuance or
furtherance of the complicity. Hence,
conspiracy exists in a situation where at the
time the malefactors were committing the
crime, their actions impliedly showed unity of
purpose among them, a concerted effort to
bring about the death of the victim. In a great
majority of cases, complicity was established
by proof of acts done in concert, i.e., acts that
yielded the reasonable inference that the doers
thereof were acting with a common intent or
design. Therefore, the task in every case is
determining whether the particular acts
established by the requisite quantum of proof
do reasonably yield that inference."
HELD:
Rape - guidelines
HELD:
HELD:
The circumstances under the amendatory
provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act 7659
the attendance of any which mandates the
single indivisible penalty of death, instead of
the standard penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death prescribed in Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, are in the nature of qualifying
circumstances." Qualifying circumstances must
be properly pleaded in the indictment.
HELD:
Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate
sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is
not an essential element of rape. For that
matter, in crimes against chastity, the medical
examination of the victim is not an
indispensable element for the prosecution of
the crime as her testimony alone, if credible, is
sufficient to convict the accused as in this case.
APRIL 2000
Police line-ups
Kidnapping with ransom
HELD:
HELD:
It should be noted that there is no law
providing that the additional rape/s or
homicide/s should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of
the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed
to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same
code regarding mitigating circumstances where
there is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10)
providing for analogous circumstances.
HELD:
The allegation of the exact time and date of
the commission of the crime are not important
in a prosecution for rape. This is because the
precise time of the commission of the crime is
not an essential element of rape and it has no
substantial bearing on its commission. Rule
110, Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides
that it is not necessary to state in the
complaint or information the precise time at
which the offense was committed except when
time is a material ingredient of the offense, but
the act may be alleged to have been
HELD:
a.
On being an accomplice
PEOPLE V. BAGO
G.R. No. 122290(6 April 2000)
On Conspiracy
HELD:
Clearly, when all the elements of theft were
established, to wit: (1) there was a taking of
personal property; (2) the property belongs to
another; (3) the taking was without the consent
of the owner; (4) the taking was done with
intent to gain; and (5) the taking was
accomplished without violence or intimidation
against the person or force upon
things.When the theft is committed with grave
abuse of confidence, accused is guilty
ofqualified theft.
In the crime of theft, if the value of the thing
stolen exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall
be prision mayor in its maximum period and
one year for each additional P10,000.00, but
the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years
or reclusion temporal. However, if that crime of
theft is attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances which convert the taking into
qualified theft, the penalty next higher by two
degrees shall be imposed, that is, at
least, reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE V. RAMOS
PEOPLE V. SUZA
HELD:
a.
HELD:
A rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater
weight when she accuses a close relative of
having raped her, as in the case of a daughter
against her father. Earlier and long-standing
decisions of this Court have likewise held that
when a woman testifies that she has been
raped, she says all that is needed to signify
that the crime has been committed. This is true
when made against any man committing the
PEOPLE V. ASPIRAS
G.R. No. 121203(12 April 2000)
HELD:
a. As to credibility of a witness
The credibility of a witness could not be
affected by an alleged grudge where said
witness was not discredited on crossexamination.
b.
As to damages awarded
PEOPLE V. FRANCISCO
G.R. 121682(12 April 2000)
PEOPLE V. BALLENAS
G.R. No. 124299(12 April 2000)
HELD:
a. On the claim of defense of relative
HELD:
HELD:
Amidst the sea of faces before her, the victim
readily pointed out accused-appellant as her
attacker. This positive identification of accusedappellant will prevail over the defense of alibi
and denial of accused-appellant. Besides, for
the defense of alibi to prosper, accusedappellant must show that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the scene of the
crime at the approximate time of its
commission.
PEOPLE V. RAZONABLE
G.R. No. 128085-87(12 April 2000)
HELD:
a. As to evident premeditation
Like treachery, the requisites of evident
premeditation must be proven by clear and
convincing evidence. The requisites of evident
premeditation are: a.] the time when the
accused determined to commit the crime, b.]
an act manifestly indicating that the accused
has clung to his determination, and c.]
sufficient lapse of time between such
determination and execution to allow them to
reflect upon the consequences of their act.
PEOPLE V. ROJAS
PEOPLE V. ORIO
G.R. No. 128821(April 12, 2000)
HELD:
1. As to the aggravating circumstance
of Treachery
There is treachery when the offenders commit
any of the crimes against persons employing
means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. In order that alevosia may
be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, it
must be shown that : a.] the malefactor
employed means, method or manner of
execution affording the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate;
and b.] the means, method or manner of
execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted by the offender. However, the fact that
both accused-appellants were armed with
bladed weapons while their victim was
unarmed and defenseless does not make the
attack treacherous. Treachery must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence or as
conclusively as the killing itself.
2. As to the aggravating circumstance of
Evident Premeditation
Mere presumptions and inferences, no matter
how logical and probable they might be would
not suffice to establish evident premeditation.
In the case at bar, there was no evidence of
the planning and preparation to kill the victim.
In fact, no attempt was ever made to establish
the requisites of evident premeditation, viz : a.]
the time when the accused determined to
commit the crime, b.] an act manifestly
PEOPLE V. BAER
G.R. No. 130333(April 12, 2000)
HELD:
In rape cases, the force applied need not be
irresistible. It merely has to be enough to
successfully carry out the assailants carnal
desire. In the present case, appellant did apply
sufficient force and intimidation to
consummate his lustful desire.
PEOPLE V. ADOC
G.R. No. 133647(April 12, 2000)
HELD:
Conspiracy exists when two or more person
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. It need not be proved by direct evidence but
may be inferred from the acts of the accused. It
is sufficient that the accused acted in concert
at the time of the commission of the offense,
that they had the same purpose or common
design, and that they were united in its
execution. Coming now to the instant case, the
successive acts of the accused the blow
delivered by EDDIE, while DANNY and TONY
were holding Ricky; followed immediately by
the infliction of a second blow by DANNY; and
finally, the stabbing of the victim by TONY
clearly manifest the existence of a common
intent among the three accused to commit the
crime. Since conspiracy has been established,
there is no need to determine who among the
accused delivered the fatal blow. All of the
accused are liable as principals regardless of
the extent and character of their participation,
for in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all.
PEOPLE V. ANTOLIN
G.R. No. 133880(April 12, 2000)
The appellant was convicted of raping a 23year old mental retardate with a mind of a 4year old girl. The appellant questions the
credibility of the victim since she is the sole
witness against him. What is the importance of
credibility of the victim in rape
HELD:
HELD:
PEOPLE V. FRAGA
PEOPLE V. REYES
G.R. No. 133647(April 12, 2000)
PEOPLE V. GUIWAN
G.R. No. 117324(April 27, 2000)
HELD:
The invocation of self-defense is an admission
of the killing and of its authorship. By this
admission, the burden of proof shifts to the
accused who must now establish with clear and
convincing evidence all the elements of this
justifying circum, stance, to wit: (a) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (b)
reasonable necessity of the means employed
to prevent or repel it; and, (c) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person resorting
to self- defense. In proving these elements, the
accused must rely on the strength of his own
evidence. He can no longer assail the
weakness of the evidence against him simply
because it cannot be disbelieve after his open
admission of responsibility for the killing.
Indeed, a plea of self-defense cannot be
justifiably appreciated where it is not only
uncorroborated by independent and competent
evidence, but also extremely doubtful by itself.
It is an oft- repeated rule that the nature and
number of wounds inflicted by the accused are
constantly and unremittingly considered as
important indicia which disprove a plea for selfdefense because they demonstrate a
determined effort to kill the victim and not just
defend oneself.
HELD:
Two important doctrines on rape
PEOPLE V. LEGASPI
G.R. No. 117802(April 27 2000)
HELD:
Whether the accused is entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
The essence of voluntary surrender is
spontaneity and the intent of the accused to
give himself up and submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities either
because he acknowledges his guilt or he
wishes to save them the trouble and expense
necessarily incurred in his search and capture.
In this case, it was appellant's commanding
officer who surrendered him to the custody of
the court. Being restrained by one's superiors
to stay within the camp without submitting to
the investigating authorities concerned, is not
tantamount to voluntary surrender as
contemplated by law.
PEOPLE V. VILLA
G.R. No. 129899(April 27, 2000)
PEOPLE V. ACURAM
G.R. No. 117954(April 27, 2000)
HELD:
No. The fact that immediately after the incident
(accused) thought of surrendering to the lawenforcement authorities is incontestable proof
that he knew that what he had done was wrong
and that he was going to be punished for it."
Similarly, a feeling of remorse is inconsistent
with insanity, as it is a clear indication that he
was conscious of his acts, he acknowledged his
guilt and was sorry for them.
PEOPLE V. CASTILLO
G.R. No. 130188 (April 27, 2000)
PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 131840(April 27, 2000)
HELD:
No. Since the existence of a conspiracy does
not prevent the appreciation of a mitigating
circumstance exclusively in favor of the coconspirator to whom such circumstance may
relate, to him alone.
PEOPLE V. MUYCO
G.R. No. 132252(April 27 2000)
PEOPLE V. SULTAN
MAY 2000
HELD:
No. In several cases the Court realized that
there was no law providing for the additional
rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be
considered as aggravating circumstance. It
further observed that the enumeration of
aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the
Revised Penal Code is exclusive, unlike in Art.
13 of the same Code which enumerates the
mitigating circumstances where analogous
circumstances may be considered, hence, the
remedy lies with the legislature. Consequently,
unless and until a law is passed providing that
the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be
considered aggravating, the Court must
construe the penal law in favor of the offender
as no person may be brought within its terms if
he is not clearly made so by the statute. Under
this view, the additional rape committed by
accused-appellant is not considered an
aggravating circumstance. Applying Art. 63,
par. (2), of the Revised Penal Code which
provides that "(i)n all cases in which the law
prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties, the following rules shall
be observed in the application thereof x x x x
2. (w)hen there are neither mitigating nor
aggravating circumstances in the commission
of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be
applied," the lower penalty of reclusion
perpetuashould be imposed on accusedappellant. Spp
HELD:
The shooting was intentional as shown by the
location and nature of the wounds. Also a
brown envelope remained tucked under his
arm and was bloodied after he was shot.If they
were grappling for possession of the gun then
the envelope containing his complaint should
have fallen.It would be highly inconceivable for
a retired PC colonel to hold the barrel of the
gun pointing towards him while grappling for
its possession.
It is settled jurisprudence that the assessment
of the credibility of the witnesses lies within the
province and expertise of the trial
courts.Absent any showing of abuse of
discretion or that trial courts overlooked
material and relevant facts which could affect
the outcome of the case, their findings are
accorded great weight and respect.
There is also treachery in the commission of
the crime. The deceased did not expect any
attack coming from the accused when he went
to the police station. Treachery may still be
appreciated even when the victim was
forewarned of the danger to his person.What is
decisive is that the execution of the attack mde
it impossible for the victim to defend himself or
retaliate.The victim was totally defenseless
when he went out of his hiding place(went
PEOPLE V AVILLANA
GRNo119621 May 12,2000
PEOPLE V DE LEON
GRNo-124338-41 May 12,2000
HELD:
Despite his familiarity with appellant's figure,
the witness still failed to identify the assailant
of the victim.He only based his testimony from
rumors, thus he did not have first-hand
knowledge of the identity of the assailant.His
testimony was pure hearsay and has no
evidentiary weight.Without any testimony
positively identifying accused as the gunman
nor any evidence directly linking him as the
author of the crime, the appellant cannot be
convicted of the murder.he enjoys the
PEOPLE V MADARANG
PEOPLE V DEQUITO
G.R. No.-132544 May 12,2000
HELD:
In the Philippines, the courts have established
a more stringent criterion for insanity to be
exempting as it is required that there must be
a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act,i.e., the accused is deprived
of reason; he acted without the least
discernment because there is a complete
absence of the power to discern, or that there
is total deprivation of the will.Mere abnormality
of the mental faculties will not exclude
imputability.The issue of insanity is a question
of fact.The state or condition of a man's mind
can only be measured and judged by his
behavior.Establishing one's insanity requires
testimony of an expert witness, such as a
psychiatrist.The proof must relate to the time
preceding or coetaneous with the commisssion
of the offense with which he is charged.None of
the witnesses declared that he exhibited any of
the symptoms associated with schizophrenia
PEOPLE V RIMORIN
GRNo-124309 May 16,2000
PEOPLE V OBRERO
G.R. No.-122142 May 17, 2000
PEOPLE V TOLEDANO
G.R. No.-110220 May 18,2000
HELD:
There is nothing in the law(Art 89RPC) which
states that exoneration from an administrative
charge extinguishes criminal liability.It is a
fundamental principle of administrative law
that administrative law that administrative
cases a independent from criminal actions for
the same act or omission. RA 7160,LGC of
1991, which replaced BP337 reenacted in its
Sec89 the legal provision of Sec 41 of
BP337.Thus, the act committed before the
reenactment continuous to be a crime.
PEOPLE V SARAGINA
HELD:
Because of this claim, the burden of proof was
shifted to the appellant to establish the
elements thereofa)unlawful aggression on the
part of the victim;b)reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it; c)lack
of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself. The first element is
lacking.Evidence must positively show that
there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked
attack on the person of the accused which
placed him in danger and justified him in
inflicting harm upon his assailant hrough the
employment of reasonable means to repel the
aggression. In this, case the appellant attacked
the victim while the latter was fanning
charcoal.
HELD:
Since the participants are usually the only
witnesses in crimes of this nature, the
conviction or acquittal of the accused would
virtually depend on the credibility of the
complainant's testmony. The trial court
observed that the victim remained consistent
and answered in a frank, sincere and
straighforward manner. Also, factual findings of
the trial court are generally sustained on
appeal unless arbitrary or baseless.
PEOPLE V FRANCISCO
HELD:
The mere fact that the principal witness was
the victim of the crime does not make him a
biased witness and does not make his
testimony incredible.It would be unnatural and
illogical for him to impute the crime to an
innocent person and let the culprit escape
prosecution.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to do it.Proof
of the agreement need not rest on direct
evidence as the same may be inferred from the
conduct of the parties indicating a common
understanding among them with respect to the
commission of the offense.It is not necessary to
show that two or more persons met together
and entered into an explicit agreement setting
out the details of an unlawful scheme or the
details by which an illegal objective is to be
carried out.It may be deduced from the mode
and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the
accused evincing a joint or common purpose
and design, concerted action and community
of interest.In this case, the two John Does
pulled the victim out of the jeepney.As the
victim was getting down, he was stabbed by
the appellant. As to Antonio his participation
was limited to shouting "heto na sila".In a case,
we ruled that the phrase "andiyan na", which
has similar import with the phrase herein, does
not have conclusive conspiratorial meaning for
the supposedly damning utterances are
susceptible of varied inerpretations.One's overt
act, to be shown in pursuance of the
conspiracy, may consist of active participation
in the actual commission of the crime itself, or
it may consist of moral assistance to his
conspirators by being present at the time of
the commission of the crime, by exerting moral
ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by
PEOPLE V BALORA
G.R. No.-124976 May 31, 2000
HELD:
Appellant avers that the victim could
not be made to lie on the floor there being a
HELD:
The purpose of a formal offer is to enable the
trial judge to know the purpose or purposes fro
which the proponent is representing the
evidence.As it is the victim herself who
testified, to state the reason for the
presentaiton of said witness is to state the
obvious.The Court has consistently upheld that
the presumptio hominis that a young filipina
will not charge a person with rape if it is not
true, does not go against theconstitutional
presumption of innocence.It has been decided,
in case of statutory crimes, that no
constitutional provision is violated by a statute
providing that proof by the Sate fo some
material fact or facts shall constitute prima
facie evidence of guilt, and that then the
burdeen is shifted to the defendant for the
purpose of showing that such act or acts are
innocent and are committed without unlawful
intention. The actor in the affidavit of
desistance, as worded, was the mother.Thus, it
cannot be given weight.Also, an affidavit of
desistance by itself, even when construed as
pardon in so-called private crimes is not a
ground for the dismissal of the criminal case
once the action has been instituted. Sec 11
RA7659 applies the offender being a
parent.Thus the penalty of death is to be
imposed
PEOPLE V MENDOZA
GRNo-128890 May 31, 2000
PEOPLE V ALICANTE
G.R. No.-127026-27 May 31,2000
HELD:
We uphold the testimony of the witness.In the
absence of proof to the contrary and by the
defense's failure to impugn the credibility of
prosecution witness Ignacio.
In criminal jurisprudence, when the issue is one
of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will
HELD:
PEOPLE V TRAYA
G.R. No.-129052 May 31, 2000
HELD:
The fact of minority of the victim was not
stated in the Information.Only the relationship
of the victim as daughter of the offender was
alleged therein.The rule is that the elements of
minority of the victim and her realtionship to
the offender must concur.The failure toa llege
on of these elements precludes the imposition
of the death penalty. There being no allegation
of the minority of the victim in the Information,
he cannot be convicted of qualified rape as he
was not informed that he is being accused of
qualified rape.
PEOPLE V MAGAT
G.R. No.-130026 May 31, 2000