CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
(MUST READ)VALENZUELA V. PEOPLE
PONENTE: J. TINGA
FACTS:
- 19 May 1994, at around 4:30 p.m.,
petitioner and Calderon were sighted
outside the Super Sale Club, a
supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM)
complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo
Lago (Lago), a security guard who was
then manning his post at the open
parking area of the supermarket.
- Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing
an ID card with the mark Receiving
Dispatching Unit (RDU), hauling a push
cart with cases of detergent of the well-
known Tide brand.
- Petitioner unloaded these cases in an
open parking space, where Calderon
was waiting. Petitioner then returned
inside the supermarket, and after five
(5) minutes, emerged with more
cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again
unloaded these boxes to the same area
in the open parking space.
- Thereafter, petitioner left the parking
area and hailed a taxi. He boarded the
cab and directed it towards the parking
space where Calderon was waiting.
Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide
Ultramatic inside the taxi, then
boarded the vehicle. All these acts
were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to
stop the taxi as it was leaving the open
parking area.
- When Lago asked petitioner for a
receipt of the merchandise, petitioner
and Calderon reacted by fleeing on
foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
Page 1 of 40
alert his fellow security guards of the
incident.
- Petitioner and Calderon were
apprehended at the scene, and the
stolen merchandise recovered. The
filched items seized from the duo were
four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one
(1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three
(3) additional cases of detergent, the
goods with an aggregate value
of P12,090.00.
- Petitioner and Calderon were first
brought to the SM security office
before they were transferred on the
same day to the Baler Station II of
PNP, Quezon City, for investigation.
- It appears from the police investigation
records that apart from petitioner and
Calderon, four (4) other persons were
apprehended by the security guards at
the scene and delivered to police
custody at the Baler PNP Station in
connection with the incident. However,
after the matter was referred to the
Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor,
only petitioner and Calderon were
charged with theft by the Assistant City
Prosecutor, in Informations prepared
on 20 May 1994, the day after the
incident
- Calderon claimed a defense of alibi
wherein he stated that he was with his
neighbor Leoncio while queing at the
ATM machine. As the queue was long,
they decided to buy snacks inside the
supermarket when they suddenly
heard the gunshots fired by Lago that
prompted them to go out to see what
is going on. As they were outside, they
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
were suddenly grabbed by a security
guard, thus commencing their
detention
- Petitioner on the other hand claimed
the defense of alibi wherein he
contended that during the incident, he
was with his cousin on the parking lot,
walking beside the nearby BLISS
complex and headed to ride a tricycle
going to Pag-asa, when they saw the
security guard Lago fire a shot. The
gunshot caused him and the other
people at the scene to start running, at
which point he was apprehended by
Lago and brought to the security office.
RTC:
- Both petitioner and Calderon of were
convicted the crime of consummated
theft
CA:
- Calderons appeal was abandoned as
he failed to submit a brief
- Petitioner argued that he should only
be convicted of frustrated theft since at
the time he was apprehended, he was
never placed in a position to freely
dispose of the articles stolen.
- Court of Appeals rejected this
contention and affirmed the RTC
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner should only be
liable for frustrated theft
RULING:
- NO. The petitioner is guilty
consummated theft
- Each felony under the RPC has a
subjective phase, or that portion of the
acts constituting the crime included
between the act which begins the
commission of the crime and the last
act performed by the offender which,
with prior acts, should result in the
consummated crime. After that point
has been breached, the subjective
phase ends and the objective phase
begins.
- It has been held that if the offender
never passes the subjective phase of
the offense, the crime is merely
attempted. On the other hand, the
subjective phase is completely passed
in case of frustrated crimes, for in such
instances, subjectively the crime is
complete.
- Article 308 provides for a general
definition of theft may be committed
- On the face of the definition, there is
only one operative act of execution by
the actor involved in theft the taking
of personal property of another. It is
also clear from the provision that in
order that such taking may be qualified
as theft, there must further be present
the descriptive circumstances that the
taking was with intent to gain; without
force upon things or violence against or
intimidation of persons; and it was
without the consent of the owner of
the property.
- So, in order to ascertain whether the
of theft is consummated or frustrated, it
is necessary to inquire as to how
exactly is the felony of theft produced.
Parsing through the statutory definition
Page 2 of 40
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
of theft under Article 308, there is one
apparent answer provided in the
language of the law that theft is already
produced upon the taking of personal
property of another without the latters
consent.
- On the critical question of whether it
was consummated or frustrated theft,
we are obliged to apply Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code to ascertain the
answer.
- Following that provision, the theft
would have been frustrated only, once
the acts committed by petitioner, if
ordinarily sufficient to produce theft as
a consequence, do not produce [such
theft] by reason of causes independent
of the will of the perpetrator.
- There are clearly two determinative
factors to consider: that the felony is
not produced, and that such failure is
due to causes independent of the will
of the perpetrator.
- The petitioner heavily relies on the
jurisprudence of Dio and Flores
whereby it ruled determinative of
consummation is the ability of the thief
to dispose freely of the articles stolen,
even if it were more or less momentary
- Dio thus laid down the theory that the
ability of the actor to freely dispose of
the items stolen at the time of
apprehension is determinative as to
whether the theft is consummated or
frustrated
- According to the cited jurisprudences
of the Court that in the crime of theft,
the accused having materially taken
Page 3 of 40
possession of the thing from the
moment he took it from the place
where it had been, and having taken it
with his hands with intent to
appropriate the same, he executed all
the acts necessary to constitute the
crime which was thereby produced;
only the act of making use of the thing
having been frustrated, which,
however, does not go to make the
elements of the consummated crime
does not go to make the elements of
the consummated crime.
- As stated by Chief Justice Aquino, theft
is consummated upon the voluntary and
malicious taking of property belonging to
another which is realized by the material
occupation of the thing whereby the thief
places it under his control and in such a
situation that he could dispose of it at
once.
- The fact that the offender was able to
succeed in obtaining physical possession of
the stolen item, no matter how
momentary, was able to consummate the
theft.
- With that in mind, a problem clearly
emerges with the Dio/Flores dictum.
The ability of the offender to freely
dispose of the property stolen is not a
constitutive element of the crime of
theft. It finds no support or extension
in Article 308, whether as a descriptive
or operative element of theft or as
the mens rea or actus reus of the
felony.
- Such factor runs immaterial to the
statutory definition of theft, which is
the taking, with intent to gain, of
personal property of another without
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
the latters consent. While
the Dio/Flores dictum is considerate to
the mindset of the offender, the
statutory definition of theft considers
only the perspective of intent to gain
on the part of the offender,
compounded by the deprivation of
property on the part of the victim.
- Viewed from that perspective, it is
immaterial to the product of the felony
that the offender, once having
committed all the acts of execution for
theft, is able or unable to freely
dispose of the property stolen since
the deprivation from the owner alone
has already ensued from such acts of
execution.
- It might be argued, that the ability of
the offender to freely dispose of the
property stolen delves into the concept
of taking itself, in that there could be
no true taking until the actor obtains
such degree of control over the stolen
item. But even if this were correct, the
effect would be to downgrade the
crime to its attempted, and not
frustrated stage, for it would mean that
not all the acts of execution have not
been completed, the taking not having
been accomplished.
- Perhaps this point could serve as fertile
ground for future discussion, but our
concern now is whether there is indeed
a crime of frustrated theft, and such
consideration proves ultimately
immaterial to that question. Moreover,
such issue will not apply to the facts of
this particular case.
Page 4 of 40
- We are satisfied beyond reasonable
doubt that the taking by the petitioner
was completed in this case. With intent
to gain, he acquired physical
possession of the stolen cases of
detergent for a considerable period of
time that he was able to drop these
off at a spot in the parking lot, and
long enough to load these onto a
taxicab.
- Insofar as we consider the present
question, unlawful taking is most
material in this respect. Unlawful
taking, which is the deprivation of ones
personal property, is the element
which produces the felony in its
consummated stage. At the same time,
without unlawful taking as an act of
execution, the offense could only be
attempted theft, if at all.
- With these considerations, we can only
conclude that under Article 308 of the
Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have
a frustrated stage. Theft can only be
attempted or consummated.
- Neither Dio nor Flores can convince us
otherwise. Both fail to consider that
once the offenders therein obtained
possession over the stolen items, the
effect of the felony has been produced
as there has been deprivation of
property. The presumed inability of the
offenders to freely dispose of the
stolen property does not negate the
fact that the owners have already been
deprived of their right to possession
upon the completion of the taking.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
- Moreover, as is evident in this case, the
adoption of the rule that the inability of
the offender to freely dispose of the
stolen property frustrates the theft
would introduce a convenient
defense for the accused which does not
reflect any legislated intent, since the
Court would have carved a viable
means for offenders to seek a
mitigated penalty under applied
circumstances that do not admit of
easy classification. It is difficult to
formulate definite standards as to
when a stolen item is susceptible to
free disposal by the thief. Would this
depend on the psychological belief of
the offender at the time of the
commission of the crime, as implied
in Dio?
- We thus conclude that under the Revised
Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated
theft
PALAGANAS VS. PEOPLE
PONENTE: J. CHICO-NAZARIO
FACTS:
- The case involved 2 counts of
frustrated homicide, 1 murder, and 1
violation of COMELEC Resolution No.
29587 relative to Article 22, Section
261, of the Omnibus Election Code
- On January 16, 1998, around 8:00PM
brothers Servillano, Melton and
Michael, all surnamed Ferrer were
having a drinking spree in their house
because Melton,.
- At 9:45 in the evening, the three
brothers decided to proceed to Tidbits
Videoke bar located at the corner of
Malvar and Rizal Streets, Poblacion,
Page 5 of 40
Manaoag to continue their drinking
spree and to sing. Inside the karaoke
bar, they were having a good time,
singing and drinking beer.
- Thereafter, at 10:30PM, Jaime
Palaganas arrived together with
Ferdinand Palaganas and Virgilio
Bautista. At that time, only the Ferrer
brothers were the customers in the
bar. The two groups occupied separate
tables. Later, when Jaime Palaganas
was singing, Melton Ferrer sang along
with him as he was familiar with the
song [My Way]. Jaime however,
resented this and went near the table
of the Ferrer brothers and said in
Pangasinan dialect "As if you are tough
guys." Jaime further said "You are
already insulting me in that way."
- Then, Jaime struck Servillano Ferrer
with the microphone, hitting the back
of his head. A rumble ensued between
the Ferrer brothers on the one hand,
and the Palaganases, on the other
hand.
- Meantime, Edith Palaganas, sister of
Jaime and the owner of the bar, arrived
and pacified them. Servillano noticed
that his wristwatch was missing.
Unable to locate the watch inside the
bar, the Ferrer brothers went outside.
They saw Ferdinand about eight (8)
meters away standing at Rizal Street.
Ferdinand was pointing at them and
said to his companion, later identified
as petitioner Rujjeric Palaganas,
"Oraratan paltog mo lara", meaning
"They are the ones, shoot them."
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
- Petitioner (Rujjerick Palaganas) then
shot them hitting Servillano first at the
left side of the abdomen, causing him
to fall on the ground, and followed by
Melton who also fell to the ground.
- When Servillano noticed that Melton
was no longer moving, he told Michael
"Bato, bato." Michael picked up some
stones and threw them at petitioner
and Ferdinand. The latter then left the
place. Afterwards, the police officers
came and the Ferrer brothers were
brought to the Manaoag Hospital and
later to Villaflor Hospital in Dagupan.
- Servillano later discovered that Melton
was fatally hit in the head while
Michael was hit in the right shoulder.
- The accused claimed self-defense as
when he was at the scene, the Ferrers
threw stones at him and the former
noticed that Ferdinand held a gun but
Rujjeric was able to grab it from the
latter and fired one shot in the air to
force the brothers to retreat. Much to
his surprise, however, the Ferrer
brothers continued throwing stones
and when (sic) the appellant was again
hit several times. Unable to bear the
pain, he closed his eyes and pulled the
trigger.
RTC:
- Petitioner guilty only of the crime of
Homicide and two (2) counts of
Frustrated Homicide. He was,
however, acquitted of the charge of
Violation of COMELEC Resolution No.
2958 in relation to Section 261 of the
Omnibus Election Code.
Page 6 of 40
- In holding that petitioner is liable for
the crimes of Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide but not for Murder and
Frustrated Murder, the trial court
explained that there was no conspiracy
between petitioner and Ferdinand in
killing Melton and wounding Servillano
and Michael.
- According to the trial court, the mere
fact that Ferdinand "pointed" to where
the Ferrer brothers were and uttered
to petitioner "Araratan, paltog mo
lara!" (They are the ones, shoot them!),
does not in itself connote common
design or unity of purpose to kill. It also
took note of the fact that petitioner
was never a participant in the rumble
inside the Tidbits Cafe Videoke Bar on
that night. He was merely called by
Ferdinand to rescue their uncle, Jaime,
who was being assaulted by the Ferrer
brothers.
- It further stated that the shooting was
instantaneous and without any prior
plan or agreement with Ferdinand to
execute the same. It found that
petitioner is solely liable for killing
Melton and for wounding Servillano
and Michael, and that Ferdinand is not
criminally responsible for the act of
petitioner.
- Further, it declared that there was no
treachery that will qualify the crimes as
murder and frustrated murder since
the Ferrer brothers were given the
chance to defend themselves during
the shooting incident by stoning the
petitioner and Ferdinand.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
- It reasoned that the sudden and
unexpected attack, without the
slightest provocation on the part of the
victims, was absent. In addition, it
ratiocinated that there was no evident
premeditation as there was no
sufficient period of time that lapsed
from the point where Ferdinand called
the petitioner for help up to the point
of the shooting of the Ferrer
brothers. Petitioner was sleeping at his
house at the time he heard Ferdinand
calling him for help. Immediately,
petitioner, still clad in pajama and
sleeveless shirt, went out of his room
to meet Ferdinand.
- Thereafter, both petitioner and
Ferdinand went to the videoke bar
where they met the Ferrer brothers
and, shortly afterwards, the shooting
ensued. In other words, according to
the trial court, the sequence of the
events are so fast that it is improbable
for the petitioner to have ample time
and opportunity to then plan and
organize the shooting.
- Corollarily, it also stated that petitioner
cannot successfully invoke self-defense
since there was no actual or imminent
danger to his life at the time he and
Ferdinand saw the Ferrer brothers
outside the videoke bar.
- It noted that when petitioner and
Ferdinand saw the Ferrer brothers
outside the videoke bar, the latter
were not carrying any weapon.
Petitioner then was free to run or take
cover when the Ferrer brothers started
pelting them with stones. Petitioner,
Page 7 of 40
however, opted to shoot the Ferrer
brothers.
- It also stated that the use by petitioner
of a gun was not a reasonable means to
prevent the attack of the Ferrer
brothers since the latter were only
equipped with stones, and that the gun
was deadlier compared to stones.
Moreover, it also found that petitioner
used an unlicensed firearm in shooting
the Ferrer brothers
- As regards the Violation of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2958, in relation to
Section 261 of the Omnibus Election
Code, the trial court acquitted the
petitioner of the offense as his use and
possession of a gun was not for the
purpose of disrupting election activities
CA:
- Affirmed with modification the decision
of the RTC
- In modifying the Decision of the trial
court, the appellate court held that the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender under Article 13, No. 7, of
the Revised Penal Code should be
appreciated in favor of petitioner since
the latter, accompanied by his counsel,
voluntarily appeared before the trial
court, even prior to its issuance of a
warrant of arrest against him.
ISSUE: W/N the petitioner is guilty of the
crime charged
RULING:
- Affirmed the CA with modifications
- Affirmed the charge of homicide
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
- Reversed the charge of Frustrated
homicide to Attempted homicide
we have ruled in several cases that
when the accused intended to kill his
victim, as manifested by his use of a
deadly weapon in his assault, and his
victim sustained fatal or mortal
wound/s but did not die because of
timely medical assistance, the crime
committed is frustrated murder or
VELASCO V. PEOPLE
frustrated homicide depending on
PONENTE: TINGA
whether or not any of the qualifying
FACTS:
circumstances under Article 249 of the
Revised Penal Code are present.
- However, if the wound/s sustained by
the victim in such a case were not fatal
or mortal, then the crime committed is
only attempted murder or attempted
homicide. If there was no intent to kill
on the part of the accused and the
wound/s sustained by the victim were
not fatal, the crime committed may be
serious, less serious or slight physical
injury.
- Based on the medical certificate of
Michael, as well as the testimony of the
physician who diagnosed and treated
Michael, the latter was admitted and
treated at the Dagupan Doctors-
Villaflor Memorial Hospital for a single
gunshot wound in his right shoulder
caused by the shooting of petitioner. It
was also stated in his medical
certificate that he was discharged on
the same day he was admitted and that
the treatment duration for such wound
would be for six to eight days only.
- Given these set of undisputed facts, it
is clear that the gunshot wound
sustained by Michael in his right
Page 8 of 40
shoulder was not fatal or mortal since
the treatment period for his wound
was short and he was discharged from
the hospital on the same day he was
admitted therein.
- Therefore, petitioner is liable only for
the crime of attempted homicide as
regards Michael
- on April 19, 1998, at about 7:30 oclock
in the morning, private complainant
Frederick Maramba was cleaning and
washing his owner type jeep in front of
his house at Lasip Grande, Dagupan
City when a motorized tricycle stopped
near him. Accused Rodolfo Velasco
dashed out of the tricycle, approached
the complainant and fired at him
several times with a .45 caliber pistol.
- The accused missed with his first shot
but the second one hit the complainant
at the upper arm, causing him to
stumble on the ground. The
complainant stood up and ran, while
the accused continued firing at him but
missed.
- The shooting incident was reported to
the police sub-station in Malued
District by Barangay Captain Dacasin of
Lasip Grande, describing the suspect as
wearing a vest or a "chaleco." The
police pursued the accused who
proceeded on board a motorized
tricycle to the highway going to
Barangay Banaoang in Calasiao town.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
- The police caught up with the tricycle
and brought the accused to the police
sub-station. A firearm and live
ammunitions were confiscated from
the possession of the accused. The
police also recovered seven (7) spent
ammunitions at the crime scene. At the
City Jail in Dagupan City where the
accused was subsequently brought, the
private complainant Frederick
Maramba identified and pointed to the
accused as the one who fired at him,
hitting him on the upper left arm.
- Private complainant further testified
that he was hospitalized and issued a
Medico-Legal Certificate stating that he
victim sustained series of gunshots
- Armando Maramba, the driver of the
tricycle in which the accused rode,
testified that he picked up the accused
who was wearing a chaleco, at the
intersection of Pogo-Lasip Road. Upon
reaching the parked jeep which was
being washed by the private
complainant, the accused ordered him
to stop. The accused alighted and fired
several shots at the victim. Then the
accused went back to the tricycle and
ordered him to proceed to Calasiao.
- The accused alighted at the
intersection of the De Venecia Highway
and Malued Road and took another
tricycle.
- The accused on the other hand
interposed the defense of alibi. He said
that a day before the incident he went
to a friends house in Lingayen,
Pangasinan and spent the night there.
The following morning, April 19, 1998,
Page 9 of 40
between 6:00 to 7:00 oclock, he left
Lingayen riding in - the Volkswagen car
of Berting Soriano. He alighted at the
corner of Banaoang diversion road.
From there he took a tricycle and told
the driver to bring him at the foot of
the bridge going to Bayambang.
- While on his way to Calasiao, he heard
a jeep behind him blowing its horn and
when he looked back he saw three men
on board pointing their guns at him. He
told the tricycle driver to stop and
thereupon the three men approached
him and introduced themselves as
policemen. They confiscated his gun
and then brought him to the police
station for interrogation. Thereafter,
the police lodged him in the City Jail of
Dagupan.
RTC:
- Accused guilty of Attempted murder
CA:
- Affirmed the RTC
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of the
crime charged
RULING:
- YES. Petitioners asseveration that it is
unthinkable for him to shoot private
complainant because he has no motive
to harm, much less kill the latter, he
being a total stranger, deserves scant
consideration.
- It must be stressed that motive is a
state of (ones) mind which others
cannot discern. It is not an element of
the crime, and as such does not have to
be proved. In fact, lack of motive for
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
committing a crime does not preclude
conviction. It is judicial knowledge that
persons have been killed or assaulted
for no reason at all.
- Even in the absence of a known motive,
the time-honored rule is that motive is
not essential to convict when there is
no doubt as to the identity of the
culprit. Motive assumes significance
only where there is no showing of who
the perpetrator of the crime was. In the
case at bar, since petitioner has been
positively identified as the assailant,
the lack of motive is no longer of
consequence.
- Petitioner claims that as a navy man
who is trained to kill enemies of the
state, a "protector of the people," he
could not have acted in the manner
which the prosecution pointed out. He
said it is against human experience to
attempt to kill a person in the presence
of a witness and in broad daylight, and
that it is preposterous that after firing
seven shots at close range, he failed to
fatally hit the private complainant. All
these, he said, only point to a different
assailant.
- We are not convinced. The records
show that the shooting happened at
around 7:30 a.m. The fact that the
shooting occurred in broad daylight
does not render its commission
impossible. This Court takes notice that
it is not unusual that killings are
perpetrated in front of witnesses. In
the instant case, the attempted killing
was witnessed by Armando Maramba,
the driver of the tricycle which
Page 10 of 40
petitioner rode in going to, and in
leaving, the crime scene.
- Petitioner argues that he could not
have been the assailant because it was
simply impossible for him, being a navy
man, not to fatally hit private
complainant after firing seven shots at
close range. In effect, what he is saying
is that the bungled killing cannot be the
handiwork of an experienced soldier
like him. Such an argument does not
hold water.
- Finally, petitioner submits that if ever
he committed a crime, he merely
committed attempted homicide. He
maintains there was no sudden firing
because the victim testified he was
observing the alleged gunman for a
period of ten seconds before the latter
finally drew his .45 caliber pistol and
fired at him. After the first shot, the
victim was able to run away.
- The suddenness of the shooting and
the fact that he was unarmed left
private complainant with no option but
to run for his life. It is likewise apparent
that petitioner consciously and
deliberately adopted his mode of
attack making sure that private
complainant will have no chance to
defend himself by reason of the
surprise attack. Petitioners claim that
the shooting was not sudden because
private complainant was observing him
from the time he alighted from the
tricycle is belied by the fact that private
complainant was not able to run when
he was first fired upon. Though private
complainant was looking at him, the
former was not forewarned by any
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
outward sign that an attack was
forthcoming. It was only after the first
shot that he felt his life was in danger.
- Having commenced the criminal act by
overt acts but failing to perform all acts
of execution as to produce the felony
by reason of some cause other than his
own desistance, petitioner committed
an attempted felony. Petitioner
already commenced his attack with a
manifest intent to kill by shooting
private complainant seven times, but
failed to perform all the acts of
execution by reason of causes
independent of his will, that is, poor
aim and the swiftness of the latter.
Private complainant sustained a wound
on the left arm that is not sufficient to
cause his death. The settled rule is that
where the wound inflicted on the
victim is not sufficient to cause his
death, the crime is only attempted
murder, since the accused did not
perform all the acts of execution that
would have brought about death
(MUST READ) BALEROS V. PEOPLE
PONENTE: GARCIA
FACTS:
- Like most of the tenants of the Celestial
Marie Building along A.H. Lacson
Street, Sampaloc, Manila, MALOU,
occupying Room 307 with her maid,
Marvilou Bebania (Marvilou), was a
medical student of UST in 1991.
- In the evening of December 12, inside
Room 307, MALOU retired at around
10:30PM. Outside, right in front of her
bedroom door, her maid, Marvilou,
slept on a folding bed.
Page 11 of 40
- Early morning of the following day,
MALOU was awakened by the smell of
chemical on a piece of cloth pressed on
her face. She struggled but could not
move. Somebody was pinning her
down on the bed, holding her tightly.
She wanted to scream for help but the
hands covering her mouth with cloth
wet with chemicals were very tight.
- Still, MALOU continued fighting off her
attacker by kicking him until at last her
right hand got free. With this the
opportunity presented itself when she
was able to grab hold of his sex organ
which she then squeezed.
- The man let her go and MALOU went
straight to the bedroom door and
roused Marvilou. Over the intercom,
MALOU told S/G Ferolin that: "may
pumasok sa kuarto ko pinagtangkaan
ako". Who it was she did not, however,
know. The only thing she had made out
during their struggle was the feel of her
attackers clothes and weight. His
upper garment was of cotton material
while that at the lower portion felt
smooth and satin-like He was wearing a
t-shirt and shorts.
- To Room 310 of the Building where her
classmates Christian Alcala, Bernard
Baptista, Lutgardo Acosta and Rommel
Montes were staying, MALOU then
proceeded to seek help.
- It was then when MALOU saw her bed
topsy-turvy. Her nightdress was stained
with blue. Aside from the window with
grills which she had originally left
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
opened, another window inside her
bedroom was now open. Her attacker
had fled from her room going through
the left bedroom window, the one
without iron grills which leads to Room
306 of the Building.
- Further, MALOU testified that her
relation with CHITO, who was her
classmate was friendly until a week
prior to the attack. CHITO confided his
feelings for her.
- Meanwhile, according to S/G Ferolin,
while he was on duty, CHITO arrived at
the Building at 1:30 in the early
morning of December 13, 1991,
wearing a white t-shirt with a marking
on the front of the T-shirt T M and a
Greek letter (sic) and below the
quoted letters the word 1946 UST
Medicine and Surgery and black
shorts with the brand name Adidas
and requested permission to go up to
Room 306. That Unit was being leased
by Ansbert Co and at that time when
CHITO was asking permission to enter,
only Joseph Bernard Africa was in the
room.
- He asked CHITO to produce the
required written authorization and
when CHITO could not, S/G Ferolin
initially refused, (but later relented).
- S/G Ferolin made the following entry in
the security guards logbook "0130H
Baleros Renato Jr. is a visitor of
Ansbert Co who has not have (sic) a
Request letter from our tenant of Unit
#-306 Ansbert, but still I let him inter
(sic) for the reason that he will be our
tenant this coming summer break as
Page 12 of 40
he said so I let him sign it here Then
CHITO arrived at Room 306 at 1:30
A.M. of December 13, 1991 was
corroborated by Joseph Bernard Africa
- Joseph was already inside Room 306 at
9 oclock in the evening of December
12, 1991 by the time CHITOs knocking
on the door woke him up. He was able
to fix the time of CHITOs arrival at 1:30
A.M. because he glanced at the alarm
clock beside the bed when he was
awakened by the knock at the door
Joseph noticed that CHITO was wearing
dark-colored shorts and white T-shirt
when he let the latter in.
- Later, at about 6 to 6:30 in the morning
of December 13, 1991, Joseph was
finally able to talk to CHITO. He
mentioned to the latter that something
had happened and that they were not
being allowed to get out of the
building. Joseph also told CHITO to
follow him to Room 310.
- CHITO did just that. He followed after
Joseph to Unit 310, carrying his gray
bag. None was in Room 310 so Joseph
went to their yet another classmate,
Renato Alagadan at Room 401 to see if
the others were there.
- People from the CIS came by before 8
oclock that same morning. They
likewise invited CHITO and Joseph to go
with them to Camp Crame where the
two (2) were questioned.
- An occupant of Room 310 Christian
Alcala (Christian) recalled in Court that
in the afternoon of December 13, 1991,
after their 3:30 class, he and his
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
roommates, Bernard Baptista and
Lutgardo Acosta (Gary) were called to
the Building and were asked by the CIS
people to look for anything not
belonging to them in their Unit. While
they were outside Room 310 talking
with the authorities, Rommel Montes
(Loyloy), another roommate of his,
went inside to search the Unit. Loyloy
found a gray "Khumbella" bag cloth
type from inside their unit which they
did not know was there and surrender
the same to the investigators. When he
saw the gray bag, Christian knew right
away that it belonged to CHITO as he
had seen the latter usually bringing it
to school inside the classroom.
- In their presence, the CIS opened the
bag and pulled out its contents, among
others, a white t-shirt with a Taunu (sic)
Sigma Phi sign, a Black Adidas short
pants, a handkerchief , three (3) white
T-shirts, an underwear, and socks.
- Christian recognized the t-shirt the
Adidas short pants, and the
handkerchief to be CHITOs because
CHITO had lent the very same one to
him. The t-shirt with CHITOs fraternity
symbol, CHITO used to wear on
weekends, and the handkerchief he
saw CHITO used at least once in
December.
- That CHITO left his bag inside Room
310 in the morning of December 13,
1991, was what consisted mainly of
Renato R. Alagadans testimony.
- On the other hand, CHITO interposes
the defense of alibi. He claimed that
during the incident, he was wearing the
Page 13 of 40
prescribed barong tagalog over dark
pants and leather shoes and arrived at
their Fraternity house located at Dos
Castillas, Sampaloc, Manila at about 7
oclock in the evening of December 12,
1991. He was included in the entourage
of some fifty (50) fraternity members
scheduled for a Christmas gathering at
the house of their senior fraternity
brother, Dr. Jose Duran, at No. 3 John
Street, North Greenhills, San Juan
- The party was conducted at the garden
beside the swimming pool. Thereafter,
the four (4) presidential nominees of
the Fraternity, CHITO included, were
being dunked one by one into the pool.
- CHITO had anticipated his turn and was
thus wearing his t-shirt and long pants
when he was dunked. Perla Duran,
offered each dry clothes to change into
and CHITO put on the white t-shirt with
the Fraternitys symbol and a pair of
black shorts with stripes.
- Again riding on Albertos car and
wearing "barong tagalog over a white t-
shirt with the symbol TAU Sigma Phi,
black short pants with stripe, socks and
shoes", CHITO left the party with
Robert Chan and Alberto at more or
less past 1 A.M. of December 13, 1991
and proceeded to the Building which
they reached at about 1:30 A.M. He
had left his gray traveling bag
containing "white t-shirt, sando,
underwear, socks, and toothbrush at
room 306 in the afternoon of the
previous day.
- CHITO went up the floor, found the key
left for him by Joseph behind the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
opened jalousie window and for five (5)
minutes vainly tried to open the door
until Rommel Montes, approached him
and even commented: "Okey ang suot
mo ha, di mo mabuksan ang pinto.
Rommel tried to open the door of Unit
306 but was likewise unsuccessful.
CHITO then decided to just call out to
Joseph while knocking at the door.
- It took another (5) minutes of calling
out and knocking before Joseph, at last
answered the door. Telling him, "Ikaw
na ang bahala diyan" Joseph
immediately turned his back on CHITO
and went inside the bedroom. CHITO
changed to a thinner shirt and went to
bed. He still had on the same short
pants given by Perla Duran from the
fraternity party
- At 6 oclock in the morning of
December 13, 1991, CHITO woke up he
was already in his school uniform
when, around 6:30 A.M, Joseph came
to the room not yet dressed up. He
asked the latter why this was so and,
without elaborating on it, Joseph told
him that something had happened and
to just go to Room 310 which CHITO
did.
- At Room 310, CHITO was told by
Rommel Montes that somebody, whom
MALOU was not able to identify, went
to the room of MALOU and tried to
rape her
RTC:
- CHITO guilty of attempted rape
CA:
- Affirmed the RTC
Page 14 of 40
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of the
crime charged
RULING:
- NO. He was only guilty of light coercion
- Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, rape is committed by a man who
has carnal knowledge or intercourse
with a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
(1) By using force or intimidation;
(2)When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
(3) When the woman is under twelve
years of age or is demented.
- Under Article 6, in relation to the
aforementioned article of the same
code, rape is attempted when the
offender commences the commission
of rape directly by overt acts and does
not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the crime of
rape by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance
- Expounding on the nature of an
attempted felony, the Court, speaking
thru Justice Claro M. Recto in People
vs. Lamahang, stated that "the attempt
which the Penal Code punishes is that
which has a logical connection to a
particular, concrete offense; that
which is the beginning of the execution
of the offense by overt acts of the
perpetrator, leading directly to its
realization and consummation." Absent
the unavoidable connection, like the
logical and natural relation of the
cause and its effect, as where the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
purpose of the offender in performing
an act is not certain, meaning the
nature of the act in relation to its
objective is ambiguous, then what
obtains is an attempt to commit an
indeterminate offense, which is not a
juridical fact from the standpoint of
the Penal Code
- There is absolutely no dispute about
the absence of sexual intercourse or
carnal knowledge in the present case.
The next question that thus comes to
the fore is whether or not the act of
the petitioner of pressing himself a
chemical-soaked cloth while on top of
Malou, constitutes an overt act of
rape.1avvphil.net
- Overt or external act has been defined
as some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime, more than a mere
planning or preparation, which if
carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles
nor by the voluntary desistance of the
perpetrator, will logically and
necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.
- Harmonizing the above definition to
the facts of this case, it would be too
strained to construe petitioner's act of
pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in
the mouth of Malou which would
induce her to sleep as an overt act that
will logically and necessarily ripen into
rape.
- As it were, petitioner did not
commence at all the performance of
Page 15 of 40
any act indicative of an intent or
attempt to rape Malou. It cannot be
overemphasized that petitioner was
fully clothed and that there was no
attempt on his part to undress Malou,
let alone touch her private part. For
what reason petitioner wanted the
complainant unconscious, if that was
really his immediate intention, is
anybodys guess.
- The CA maintained that if the
petitioner had no intention to rape, he
would not have lain on top of the
complainant. Plodding on, the
appellate court even anticipated the
next step that the petitioner would
have taken if the victim had been
rendered unconscious.
- The shedding of the clothes, both of
the attacker and his victim, will have to
come later. His sexual organ is not yet
exposed because his intended victim is
still struggling. Where the intended
victim is an educated woman already
mature in age, it is very unlikely that a
rapist would be in his naked glory
before even starting his attack on her.
He has to make her lose her guard first,
or as in this case, her unconsciousness
- In the crime of rape, penetration is an
essential act of execution to produce
the felony. Thus, for there to be an
attempted rape, the accused must have
commenced the act of penetrating his
sexual organ to the vagina of the victim
but for some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance,
the penetration, however, slight, is not
completed.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
- Petitioners act of lying on top of the
complainant, embracing and kissing
her, mashing her breasts, inserting his
hand inside her panty and touching her
sexual organ, while admittedly obscene
and detestable acts, do not constitute
attempted rape absent any showing
that petitioner actually commenced to
force his penis into the complainants
sexual organ.
RIVERA V. PEOPLE
PONENTE: CALLEJO, SR.
FACTS:
- Ruben Rodil testified that he used to
work as a taxi driver. He stopped
driving in April 1998 after a would-be
rapist threatened his life. He was even
given a citation as a Bayaning
Pilipino by the television network ABS-
CBN for saving the would-be victim. His
wife eked out a living as a manicurist.
They and their three children resided in
Barangay San Isidro Labrador II,
Dasmarias, Cavite, near the house of
Esmeraldo Rivera and his brothers
Ismael and Edgardo.
- At noon of May 2, 1998, Ruben went to
a nearby store to buy food. Edgardo
mocked him for being jobless and
dependent on his wife for support.
Ruben resented the rebuke and hurled
invectives at Edgardo. A heated
exchange of words ensued.
- At about 7:30 p.m. the next day, a
Sunday, Ruben went to the store to buy
food and to look for his wife. His three-
year-old daughter was with him.
Momentarily, Esmeraldo and his two
brothers, Ismael and Edgardo, emerged
Page 16 of 40
from their house and ganged up on
Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled
Ruben with fist blows and he fell to the
ground.
- In that helpless position, Edgardo hit
Ruben three times with a hollow block
on the parietal area. Esmeraldo and
Ismael continued mauling Ruben.
People who saw the incident
shouted: Awatin sila! Awatin
sila! Ruben felt dizzy but managed to
stand up. Ismael threw a stone at him,
hitting him at the back. When
policemen on board a mobile car
arrived, Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo
fled to their house.
- Ruben was brought to the hospital. His
attending physician, signed a medical
certificate in which he declared that
Ruben sustained lacerated wounds on
his head. The doctor prescribed
medicine for Rubens back pain, which
he had to take for one month
- Esmeraldo testified that at around 1:00
p.m. on May 3, 1998, Ruben arrived at
his house and banged the gate. Ruben
challenged him and his brothers to
come out and fight. When he went out
of the house and talked to Ruben, the
latter punched him. They wrestled with
each other. He fell to the ground.
Edgardo arrived and pushed Ruben
aside. His wife arrived, and he was
pulled away and brought to their
house.
- For his part, Ismael testified that he
tried to pacify Ruben and his brother
Esmeraldo, but Ruben grabbed him by
the hair. He managed to free himself
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
from Ruben and the latter fled. He
went home afterwards. He did not see
his brother Edgardo at the scene.
- Edgardo declared that at about 1:00
p.m. on May 3, 1998, he was throwing
garbage in front of their house. Ruben
arrived and he went inside the house to
avoid a confrontation. Ruben banged
the gate and ordered him to get out of
their house and even threatened to
shoot him. His brother Esmeraldo went
out of their house and asked Ruben
what the problem was.
- A fist fight ensued. Edgardo rushed out
of the house and pushed Ruben aside.
Ruben fell to the ground. When he
stood up, he pulled at Edgardos shirt
and hair, and, in the process, Rubens
head hit the lamp post.
RTC:
- Accused were guilty of Frustrated
murder
CA:
- Affirmed RTC with modification
- Accused were guilty of Attempted
murder
ISSUE: W/N the accused were guilty of the
charge
RULING:
- YES. Appellants could have killed the
victim had the hollow block directly hit
his head, and had the police not
promptly intervened so that the
brothers scampered away. When a
wound is not sufficient to cause death,
but intent to kill is evident, the crime is
Page 17 of 40
attempted. Intent to kill was shown by
the fact that the (3) brothers helped
each other maul the defenseless victim,
and even after he had already fallen to
the ground; that one of them even
picked up a cement hollow block and
proceeded to hit the victim on the head
with it three times; and that it was only
the arrival of the policemen that made
the appellants desist from their
concerted act of trying to kill Ruben
Rodil
- An essential element of murder and
homicide, whether in their
consummated, frustrated or attempted
stage, is intent of the offenders to kill
the victim immediately before or
simultaneously with the infliction of
injuries. Intent to kill is a specific
intent which the prosecution must
prove by direct or circumstantial
evidence, while general criminal intent
is presumed from the commission of a
felony by dolo.
- The first requisite of an attempted
felony consists of two elements,
namely:
(a) That there be external acts;
(b) Such external acts have direct
connection with the crime intended
to be committed
- In the present case, the prosecution
mustered the requisite quantum of
evidence to prove the intent of
petitioners to kill Ruben. Esmeraldo
and Ismael pummeled the victim with
fist blows. Even as Ruben fell to the
ground, unable to defend himself
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
against the sudden and sustained
assault of petitioners, Edgardo hit him
three times with a hollow block.
Edgardo tried to hit Ruben on the head,
missed, but still managed to hit the
victim only in the parietal area,
resulting in a lacerated wound and
cerebral contusions.
- That the head wounds sustained by the
victim were merely superficial and
could not have produced his death
does not negate petitioners criminal
liability for attempted murder.
PEREZ V. CA
PONENTE: KAPUNAN
FACTS:
- Eufemia Tria, in her testimony, gave an
account of the incident that took place
in the morning of April 14, 1988.
- She was then washing clothes outside
their house when she heard someone
cry Inay. She then peeped into their
window which was just a few meters
from where she was and there saw her
daughter Julita lying flat on a bamboo
bed with her skirt raised.
- She saw accused Adelmo on top of
Julita with her hands pinned down. As
accused was kissing her daughter in the
neck, his buttocks were moving in an
up and down motion while her
daughter was fighting back and
struggling to break free. Eufemia then
rushed straight to the room where she
found accused hiding under the
bamboo bed.
- She then ordered the accused to come
out which he did. She thought of
Page 18 of 40
hacking the accused with the bolo
which she found hanging on the wall
but realized that she could not do it
and instead dragged the accused out of
the house and brought him to his
parents house to tell them what
happened.
- Complainant Julita Tria testified that in
the morning of April 14, 1988, after she
was through with washing the dishes,
she proceeded to the bedroom to store
away their, beddings. Suddenly, out of
nowhere, accused appeared pulled her
by the hand, embraced her from
behind and held her breasts. At this
juncture, he pulled her to the bamboo
bed, positioned himself on top of her
and placed her hands behind her as he
kissed her lips and neck.
- She tried to avoid his kisses by moving
her head from side to side. As she was
pinned by accuseds vise-like grip,
accused then managed to insert his
right hand inside her t-shirt and bra
and squeezed nipples. Thereafter, he
tried to raise her balloon-like skirt with
his right hand, inserted it inside her
panty and held her private part while
making up and down motions.
- Accused then retorted Sige na,
pagbigyan mo na ako. It was at this
point when she cried out Inay. Shortly
thereafter, her mother entered the
room and found the accused under the
bamboo bed.
- Complainant further testified that it
was not the first time that accused
assaulted her. On March 25, 1988,
while she was in the kitchen doing the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
dishes, accused suddenly appeared at
her back with unzipped shorts and bare
torso, embraced her and warned her
not to make a sound or else he would
kill her. He then jumped out of the
window and fled. She did not tell
anybody about this incident for fear
that accused will make good his
promise.
- On the part of the defense, it
presented the accused and Junar Perez
as witnesses.
- Juna Perez is a ten (10) year old grade
IV honor pupil who at the time of the
incident was on vacation at his
grandmothers place. In the morning of
April 14, 1988, he was playing with his
cousins near the house of his Auntie
Feming (Julitas mother) when he got
thirsty and asked for a drink in the
latters house.
- There he saw Julita and accused
conversing while seated on a bench
near the door. He also saw Eufemia
washing clothes a few meters away
from Julita and the accused. He did not
hear any noise in the house.
- Accused Adelmo Perez declared that he
was in Julitas house that morning of
April 14, 1988 upon her prodding for
him to come over as he would often
do. When Junar had left the house, he
invited Julita to the room where they
could not be seen by her mother, there
they embraced and kissed, he then
inserted his hand inside her clothes,
held her breast and slowly laid her on
the bamboo bed.
Page 19 of 40
- Shortly thereafter, her mother called
Julita so she stood up but later
returned and they again resumed
embracing and kissing after which they
laid down on the bamboo bed and he
was able to place himself on top of
her.
- He sensed that someone had entered
the house and so stood up and hid
under the bed upon Julitas advice. He
denied that the acts done were against
Julitas will. In fact, he claimed that he
and Julita were already becoming
intimate
RTC:
- Accused guilty of Attempted rape
CA:
- Affirmed the RTC
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of the
crime charged
RULING:
- NO. Petitioner is only guilty of acts of
lasciviousness
- Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal
Code, there is an attempt when the
offender commences the commission
of a felony directly by overt acts, and
does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
- In the crime of rape, penetration is an
essential act of execution to produce
the felony.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
- Thus, for there to be an attempted
rape, the accused must have
commenced the act of penetrating his
sexual organ to the vagina of the victim
but for some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance,
the penetration, however slight, is not
completed.
- There is no showing in this case that
petitioners sexual organ had even
touched complainants vagina nor any
part of her body.
- Petitioners acts of lying on top of the
complainant, embracing and kissing
her, mashing her breasts, inserting his
hand inside her panty and touching her
sexual organ, while admittedly obscene
and detestable acts, do not constitute
attempted rape absent any showing
that petitioner actually commenced to
force his penis into the complainants
sexual organ.
- Rather, these acts constitute acts of
lasciviousness. The elements of said
crime are: (1) that the offender
commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness; (2) that it is done (a) by using
force and intimidation or (b) when the
offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the
offended party is under 12 years of
age; and (3) that the offended party is
another person of either sex.
- All these elements are present and
have been sufficiently established in
this case. Petitioner clearly committed
lewd acts against the complainant.
Page 20 of 40
- Moreover, petitioner employed force
when he committed these acts on the
complainant. In fact, as found by the
trial court, there were bruises on
complainants neck and navel which
belie petitioners claim that the
complainant consented to these acts.
- Although the information filed against
petitioner was for attempted rape, he
can be convicted of acts of
lasciviousness because the crime of
acts of lasciviousness is included in
rape.
(MUST READ) PEOPLE V. ALMAZAN
PONENTE: BELLOSILLO
FACTS:
- On 28 September 1996, at about 4:00
o'clock in the afternoon, Vicente
Madriaga and a certain Allan played
chess in front of the former's house at
Pag-asa, Camarin, Caloocan
City. Spectators were Vicente's son
Noli, who was carrying his 2-year old
daughter, Vicente's grandson Noel, and
a neighbor named Angel Soliva.
- While the game was underway, Henry
Almazan unexpectedly arrived and
brandished a .38 caliber revolver in
front of the group. Almazan's fighting
cocks had just been stolen and he
suspected Angel, one of the spectators,
to be the culprit. Thus he said, "manos-
manos na lang tayo," aimed his gun at
Angel and pulled the trigger. It did not
fire. He tried again, but again it failed.
- At this juncture, Vicente Madriaga
stood up and tried to calm down Henry,
but the latter refused to be
pacified ("ayaw paawat"). Angel ran
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
away and Henry aimed his gun instead
at Noli.
- Noli cried for mercy, for his life and
that of his daughter, but to no
avail. Henry shot Noli at the left side of
his stomach sending him immediately
to the ground. His daughter,
unscathed, held on to Noli, crying.
- Henry then turned on Noel and shot
him on the left thigh. Noel managed to
walk lamely("paika-ika") but only to
eventually fall to the ground.
- Thereafter, Vicente Madriaga called on
his neighbors who brought Noli and
Noel to the hospital. Noli however died
before reaching the hospital, while
Noel survived his injuries.
- Dr. Ma. Cristina Freyra of the PNP
Crime Laboratory Service conducted an
autopsy on the body of Noli which
revealed that the cause of the victim's
death was a gunshot at the trunk from
a .38 caliber revolver.
- Dr. Misael Jonathan Ticman,
(remember this name, baka tanungin
to kasi according to my sources,
kapatid siya ni Atty. Ticman) attending
physician of Noel, in turn declared that
the gunshot wound on the left thigh of
Noel was a minor injury that would
heal in a week. Noel was never
admitted in the hospital as his doctor
sent him home the same day. On
cross-examination, Dr. Ticman testified
that if not medically treated the wound
might get infected or lead to the
victim's death
Page 21 of 40
- The accused testified on a different
version. Henry Almazan testified that at
about 4:00 oclock in the afternoon of
28 September 1996 he went home
accompanied by his friend Johnald
Molina. Henry's wife informed him
upon his return that his fighting cocks,
12 cocks, had been stolen. He went out
of the house to inquire from neighbors
as to who could have taken his
cocks. He was followed by Johnald.
- On their way they saw Vicente
Madriaga and Allan playing chess
surrounded by Noli, Noel, Angel and
other persons. They were drinking
liquor. As he (Almazan) and Johnald
were passing by, Angel called Henry
and asked if he was looking for his
fighting cocks. The group then burst
into laughter and pointed to
their pulutan.
- Someone in the group advised Henry
not to look anymore for his fighting
cocks as he would only be courting
trouble ("naghahanap ka lang ng sakit
ng katawan"). To this advice Henry
replied, "Bakit naman ganoon?"
Suddenly, Angel pulled out his gun and
shot Henry twice but the gun did not
fire.
- Seizing the opportunity Henry grappled
with Angel for the possession of his
gun. During the scuffle Angel pulled the
trigger which hit Noli. Henry finally
succeeded in wresting the gun from
Angel and aimed it at him. Suddenly, he
received a blow from behind and he
fell.
- As he raised his head from the ground,
he saw Noel poised to attack him with
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
a broken bottle, so that he had to train
his gun at the lower part of Noel's body
and fired. The bullet hit Noel on the
thigh which sent him reeling down his
knees ("napaluhod"). Shocked and
afraid that he hit Noel, Henry ran
home.
- Johnald Molina corroborated Henry
Almazan's statement in all material
points. Johnald testified that the group
mocked Henry when they told him not
to look for his cocks anymore as they
had already been cooked for pulutan,
and to insist in his search would only
cause him physical trouble. Henry could
only reply, "Tila nga may nagnakaw ng
mga manok ko . . . . Bakit naman
ganoon?"
- As he made his remarks, someone from
the group suddenly pulled out a gun
and aimed at Henry. Henry grappled
with the gun-wielder who pressed the
trigger twice but the gun misfired each
time. When the gun-wielder pulled the
trigger for the third time it fired, hitting
a person who was carrying a small child
and standing within the vicinity. He was
obviously referring to Noli.
- Johnald immediately ran towards
Henry's house to report the incident to
his wife and asked for help. Then he
heard another shot, but in his haste to
reach Henry's house he ignored
it. Upon reaching Henry's house, Henry
also arrived. To avoid being involved
and out of fear, Johnald did not report
the incident to the police. Later
however, bothered by his conscience
and being the friend of Henry, Johnald
Page 22 of 40
volunteered to testify on what he knew
of the incident.
RTC:
- Accused guilty of murder Noli
frustrated murder Noel
- The trial court declared that the theft
of Henry's fighting cocks constituted
sufficient motive for the killing and that
as a cockfight afficionado he must have
found it imperative to exact vengeance
on his suspected culprits.
- The trial court held that the testimony
of Johnald failed to create reasonable
doubt on the guilt of Henry since as a
friend he was expected to extend
succor to a friend, especially one in
need
CA:
- Affirmed the murder of Noli
- Modified the Frustrated murder to
Attempted murder of Noel
- Johnald Molina corroborated the
statement of -accused-appellant
pointing at Angel Soliva as the real
culprit; however, we are inclined to
agree with the observation of the
court a quo that it was natural for an
individual to exert effort in liberating
his friend from confinement or
execution, even to the extent of
distorting the truth.
- It is significant to note that accused-
appellant went into hiding after the
shooting incident and was only collared
by the agents from the Western Police
District eight (8) months later. Flight
indeed is an indication of guilt,
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
especially when accused-appellant
failed to sufficiently explain why he left
his residence and resurrected only
several months after Nevertheless, we
find that the accused-appellant should
be held liable for attempted murder,
not frustrated murder. For the charge
of frustrated murder to flourish, the
victim should sustain a fatal wound
that could have caused his death were
it not for timely medical assistance.
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of the
crime charged
RULING:
- YES. The accused is guilty of Attempted
murder of Noel and Murder of Noli
- The court a quo anchored its ruling on
the statement of Dr. Ticman on cross-
PEOPLE V. PAGADOR
examination that the wound of Noel
PONENTE: BELLOSILLO
could catch infection or lead to his
FACTS:
death if not timely and properly
treated. However, in his direct
testimony, Dr. Ticman declared that
the wound was a mere minor injury for
which Noel, after undergoing
treatment, was immediately advised to
go home. He even referred to the
wound as a slight physical injury that
would heal within a week and for
whichthe victim was in no danger of
dying.
- Clear as the statement is, coupled with
the fact that Noel was indeed
immediately advised to go home as he
was not in any danger of death, we
have no reason to doubt the meaning
and implications of Dr. Ticman's
statement.
- His statement that Noel could catch
infection was based on pure
speculation rather than on the actual
nature of the wound which was a mere
minor injury, hence, not
fatal. According to jurisprudence, if the
victim was wounded with an injury
that was not fatal, and could not cause
his death, the crime would only be
attempted. The observation that the
conviction should be for slight physical
injuries only is likewise improper as the
accused-appellant was motivated by
the same impetus and intent, i.e., to
exact vengeance and even kill, if
necessary, when he shot Noel
Madriaga. The fact that the wound was
merely a minor injury which could heal
in a week becomes inconsequential.
- Accused Rolly Pagador and Nenita
Mendez were sweethearts for more
than two (2) years. Although the
accused was a mere tricycle driver
Nenitas family had no objection to their
relationship; in fact they allowed him
to drop by their house anytime and
spend the night with her. He was
treated like a member of the family
such that he would visit the Mendez
household even at 1:00 o'clock or 2:00
oclock in the morning.
- On 12 October 1996, at around 1:00
oclock in the morning, Nenita and her
sisters Emily, Josephine and Rosalinda
were awakened by shouts coming from
their parents room. It was their mother

Page 23 of 40
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
Magdalena shouting, "Aray ko! Aray
ko!" Thinking that their mother was
again having another bout with her
perennial ailment, they hurriedly
rushed to her room. Emily was first to
reach the room, followed by Josephine,
then Nenita, and finally,
Rosalinda. They were shocked to see
accused Rolly Pagador stabbing their
mother with a bolo at the back with
two (2) hands holding the bolo.
- The accused was kneeling behind their
mother as he continuously stabbed her
who was already slumped on the floor
with her legs outstretched. Their ten
(10)-year old sister Shirley was
clutching her wounded stomach while
lying on their mothers lap
- Their father Herminigildo was sprawled
motionless on the floor. Quite
instinctively, the four (4) sisters
approached their mother in an attempt
to repulse the assailant but the latter
swung his bolo at them, cutting Emilys
left index finger in the
process. Forthwith, Emily rushed back
to her room, picked up her sleeping
child and jumped out of the window.
- Meanwhile, Nenita cried
out, "Rolly! Rolly!" but the accused
swung his bolo in silent rage. Nenita
retreated from the room and, like her
sister Emily, jumped out of the
window. As she reached the ground,
Nenita hid behind a tamarind tree.
- Moments later she saw the accused
passing by still wielding his
bolo. Fearing that she would be
Page 24 of 40
discovered, she removed her white
dress and crawled towards a group that
was making charcoal. As she went near
them, she put on her clothes and
pleaded to them for
help. Unfortunately, no one could
extend any assistance to Nenita, much
less to any of the Mendezes, as
everyone was too afraid to confront
therampaging lothario.
- According to Josephine, like her sisters,
she rushed to her parents room when
she heard the anguished cries of her
mother. There she saw her father lying
motionless on the floor, while her
younger sister Shirley was clutching her
bleeding stomach. On bent knees the
accused repeatedly stabbed their
mother at the back. Josephine
immediately recognized Rolly Pagador
as the assailant because the room was
well lighted by a kerosene lamp.
- Among the four (4) sisters, Rosalinda
bore the brunt of Rollys fury. She
narrated that she was the last one to
leave her parents room. As she escaped
to her own room, Rolly went after her
and violently pulled her hair causing
her to fall down. The accused sat
astride on her stomach and furiously
hacked and stabbed her. As he directed
the bolo at her face, Rosalinda held the
blade of the bolo and deflected the
thrust to her left side. The accused
made several more thrusts with the
bolo hitting her on the right ear, left
breast, left upper portion of her arm
and right thigh. To stop the murderous
assault, she played dead. Apparently
the ruse succeeded because the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
accused thereafter stood up and
escaped through the window. With
blood oozing profusely from her
numerous wounds Rosalinda slowly
lost consciousness.
- Shirley testified that she was awakened
when she felt someone striking her on
the stomach and other parts of the
body. She saw the accused swinging a
bloodied bolo at her sisters and saw
her lifeless parents on the floor. But
she could not ascertain who was
responsible for her wounds although
she saw the accused wielding a bolo
- The medico-legal findings stated that
Shirley, Rosalinda and Emily Mendez
suffered fatal and major injuries
- The accused interposed a self-defense,
wherein he stated that on the during
that incident, it was already night when
he drop by to Nenitas house like he
usually do. Upon reaching there,
Herminigildo told him Nenita was
already asleep.
- Rolly was taken aback by the sudden
change in the old mans attitude
towards him. Nenita had been his
fiancee for more than two (2) years and
her family was used to his visits even at
the most ungodly hours. But, ignoring
Herminigildos acerbic remark, he tried
to go to Nenitas room but Herminigildo
blocked his way and tried to push him
out of the house. Herminigildo
then went inside Nenitas room and
when he reappeared moments later he
was already armed with a bolo.
Page 25 of 40
- Without warning Herminigildo hacked
him but the accused deftly dodged the
blow. According to the accused, he
kicked the kerosene lamp and dashed
towards the room of Herminigildo
where the latters wife Magdalena was
sleeping.
- When the accused reached the room of
the Mendez couple, Magdalena was
already awake. Imploringly, he asked
Magdalena why her husband was
acting the way he did. Before she could
answer, Herminigildo barged into the
room and hacked his wife believing it
was the accused. The accused grappled
with Herminigildo for possession of the
bolo and succeeding, he boloed the
deceased causing the latter to fall face
down. He denied having caused the
injuries suffered by Shirley and
surmised that she might have been
wounded during the struggle.
- Further the accused narrated that the
sisters Emily, Nenita, Josephine and
Rosalinda arrived and upon seeing their
lifeless father, the four (4) women
furiously manhandled him. Some
kicked him while the others pulled his
hair. When he noticed that Rosalinda
was trying to take hold of the bolo, he
wrested it from her and swung it at the
four (4) enraged women never knowing
whether anyone was hit. After the
women took flight, he ran out in
pursuit of Nenita but she was nowhere
to be found.
- He further claimed that while detained
at the municipal jail, he gathered
reports from Nenitas relatives that
Herminigildo had already committed
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
Nenita to marry a certain seaman
which, according to him, explained the
hostile treatment he received from the
deceased father.
RTC:
- The trial court found the accused guilty
in all five (5) cases charged against him.
3 Frustrated murder committed
against Shirley, Rosalinda, and Emily
and 2 murder committed against the
spouses
- The court did not give credence to the
appelants self-defense theory as it
failed to establish the circumstances
that would amount the need to defend
himself.
- Thus, the court affirmed the 2 counts
of murder of the spouses but he
contests the charge of frustrated
murder to the 3 sisters
- Accused-appellant now bewails his
conviction for triple frustrated murder
notwithstanding the absence of any
clear showing of any intent on his part
to kill the three (3) private offended
parties. He does not deny that he hurt
Emily and Rosalinda but their injuries
were not fatal. Intent to kill was not in
his heart. As for Shirley, he
emphatically stated that he never laid a
hand on her. As far as he was
concerned, Shirley was wounded when
he and Herminigildo struggled for the
possession of the bolo and fought each
other to death.
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of
frustrated murder of 3 sisters
Page 26 of 40
RULING:
- NO. The court modified the following
charges:
a.) Murder to Homicide of Herminigildo
Mendez
b.) Murder to Magdalena (unchanged)
c.) Frustrated Murder to Less Serious
Physical Injuries to Shirley
d.) Frustrated Murder to Rosalinda
(unchanged)
e.) Frustrated Murder to Serious
Physical Injuries to Emily
- As regards Rosalinda, we gather from
her testimony that when she rushed
out of her parents room, accused-
appellant stood up and chased
her. Overtaking her, accused-appellant
pulled her hair back which caused her
to stumble. He sat on her stomach and
tried to hack her on the face but she
gripped the bolo with her two (2)
hands. But her assailant pulled the bolo
from her hands and hit her successively
on the right ear and other parts of her
body.
- If only to stop the relentless assault,
Rosalinda pretended to be
dead. Before finally abandoning his
quarry, Rolly swung the bolo for the
last time and hit her on the
thigh. Going by the evidence for the
prosecution, we agree with the finding
of the court a quo that accused-
appellant is guilty of frustrated murder
against Rosalinda Mendez as
charged. Accused-appellant had
already performed all the acts of
execution which tended to produce the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
death of Rosalinda but failed to cause
her death by reason independent of his
own free will.
- We observe that when the perpetrator
stood up and left the crime scene it
was on the belief that he had
consummated his heinous act, not
suspecting that Rosalinda was merely
feigning death. In other words, the
subjective phase had already been
passed.
- With respect to Shirley and Emily, we
are of the opinion that the court a
quo incorrectly convicted accused-
appellant of frustrated murder in both
cases. Prosecution witnesses Josephine
and Rosalinda Mendez testified that
when they entered the room of their
parents, they saw accused-appellent
Rolly Pagador stabbing their mother
Magdalena, while Shirley who was lying
on the lap of her mother was holding
her bleeding stomach. Both witnesses
disaffirmed having seen the person
responsible for the injuries suffered by
Shirley although they were certain it
was accused-appellant as there was no
other stranger in the house swinging a
bolo and who could have done it.
- The principal and essential element of
attempted or frustrated homicide, or
murder, is the intent on the part of the
assailant to take the life of the person
attacked. Such intent must be proved
in a clear and evident manner to
exclude every possible doubt as to the
homicidal intent of the aggressor.
- Although we can safely assume that the
injuries sustained by Shirley were
Page 27 of 40
inflicted by accused-appellant, the
factual environment of the case is
inconclusive as to whether he was
impelled to injure Shirley purposely to
kill her. Even Shirley stated that she
was awakened when someone struck
her and she felt excruciating pain in her
stomach. In short, no one except
probably accused-appellant could shed
light on the circumstances which led to
the wounding of Shirley, but this
notwithstanding, the onus probandi lies
not on accused-appellant but on the
prosecution. The inference that the
intent to kill existed should not be
drawn in the absence of circumstances
sufficient to prove this fact beyond
reasonable doubt
- In the same vein, we cannot also
conclude with certainty that the
injuries inflicted on Emily were the
result of the murderous intent of
accused-appellant. Emily testified that
as she approached her mother,
accused-appellant swung his bolo,
cutting her left index finger and
lacerating her left ring finger. Accused-
appellant did not pursue her as she
ran out of the room and jumped out of
the window. Apparently, his purpose
was merely to drive away the four (4)
sisters and dissuade them from
attacking him.
- Thus, in evaluating the circumstances
of the case, we fail to find any trace of
intent or inclination on the part of
accused-appellant to kill Emily ever
mindful that in criminal cases there is
no room for conjectures as the
quantum of proof required must be
beyond reasonable doubt. From the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
cold facts of the case, the crime
committed against Emily was not
frustrated murder but only serious
physical injuries.
(MUST READ)PEOPLE V. LISTERIO
PONENTE: YNARES-SANTIAGO
FACTS:
- The version of the prosecution of what
transpired on that fateful day of August
14, 1991 culled from the eyewitness
account of Marlon Araque discloses
that at around 5:00 p.m. of August 14,
1991, he and his brother Jeonito were
in Purok 4, Alabang, Muntinlupa to
collect a sum of money from a certain
Tino.
- Having failed to collect anything from
Tino, Marlon and Jeonito then turned
back. On their way back while they
were passing Tramo near Tinos place, a
group composed of Agapito Listerio,
Samson dela Torre, George dela Torre,
Marlon dela Torre and Bonifacio
Bancaya blocked their path and
attacked them with lead pipes and
bladed weapons.
- Agapito Listerio, Marlon dela Torre and
George dela Torre, who were armed
with bladed weapons, stabbed Jeonito
Araque from behind. Jeonito sustained
three (3) stab wounds on the upper
right portion of his back, another on
the lower right portion and the third on
the middle portion of the left side of his
back causing him to fall down.
- Marlon Araque was hit on the head by
Samson dela Torre and Bonifacio
Bancaya with lead pipes and
Page 28 of 40
momentarily lost consciousness. When
he regained his senses three (3)
minutes later, he saw that Jeonito was
already dead. Their assailants then fled
after the incident. Marlon Araque who
sustained injuries in the arm and
back, was thereafter brought to a
hospital for treatment.
- The medico-legal issued a Medical
Certificat indicating that Marlon
Araque sustained two (2) lacerated
wounds, one located in the center of
the ear. The second lacerated wound
located the forehead.
- The accused, through his brief,
interposed a defense of alibi averring
that he was not in the scene when the
incident happened
RTC:
- Accused guilty of murder and
Attempted Homicide
CA:
- Accused guilty of murder and
Frustrated Homicide
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of the
crime charged
RULING:
- YES. It must be noted in this regard that
the manner in which the stab wounds
were inflicted on the deceased were
clearly meant to kill without posing any
danger to the malefactors considering
their locations and the fact that they
were caused by knife thrusts starting
below going upward by assailants who
were standing behind the
victim. Treachery is present when the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
offender commits 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. That circumstance
qualifies the crime into murder
- On the other hand, on the charge of
frustrated homicide, the trial court
convicted accused-appellant of
Attempted Homicide only on the basis
of Dr. Manimtims testimony that none
of the wounds sustained by Marlon
Araque were fatal.
- The reasoning of the lower court on
this point is flawed because it is not the
gravity of the wounds inflicted which
determines whether a felony is
attempted or frustrated but whether or
not the subjective phase in the
commission of an offense has been
passed.
- By subjective phase is meant [t]hat
portion of the acts constituting the
crime included between the act which
begins the commission of the crime
and the last act performed by the
offender which, with the prior acts,
should result in the consummated
crime. From that time forward, the
phase is objective. It may also be said
to be that period occupied by the acts
of the offender over which he has
control that period between the point
where he begins and the point where
he voluntarily desists.
Page 29 of 40
- If between these two points the
offender is stopped by reason of any
cause outside of his own voluntary
desistance, the subjective phase has
not been passed and it is an attempt. If
he is not so stopped but continues until
he performs the last act, it is frustrated.
- In relation to the foregoing, it bears
stressing that intent to kill determines
whether the infliction of injuries should
be punished as attempted or frustrated
murder, homicide, parricide or
consummated physical injuries.
- Homicidal intent must be evidenced by
acts which at the time of their
execution are unmistakably calculated
to produce the death of the victim by
adequate means. Suffice it to state that
the intent to kill of the malefactors
herein who were armed with bladed
weapons and lead pipes can hardly be
doubted given the prevailing facts of
the case.
- It also cannot be denied that the crime
is a frustrated felony not an attempted
offense considering that after being
stabbed and clubbed twice in the head
as a result of which he lost
consciousness and fell, Marlons
attackers apparently thought he was
already dead and fled.
(MUST READ)PEOPLE V. CAMPUHAN
PONENTE: BELLOSILLO
FACTS:
- On 25 April 1996, at around 4 oclock in
the afternoon, Ma. Corazon P.
Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year old
Crysthel Pamintuan, went down from
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
the second floor of their house to
prepare Milo chocolate drinks for her
two (2) children. At the ground floor
she met Primo Campuhan who was
then busy filling small plastic bags with
water to be frozen into ice in the
freezer located at the second floor.
Primo was a helper of Conrado Plata
Jr., brother of Corazon.
- As Corazon was busy preparing the
drinks, she heard one of her daughters
cry, "Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" prompting
Corazon to rush upstairs. Thereupon,
she saw Primo Campuhan inside her
childrens room kneeling before
Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging
pants" and panty were already
removed, while his short pants were
down to his knees.
- According to Corazon, Primo was
forcing his penis into Crysthels vagina.
Horrified, she cursed the accused, "P - t
- ng ina mo, anak ko iyan!" and boxed
him several times. He evaded her blows
and pulled up his pants. He pushed
Corazon aside when she tried to block
his path. Corazon then ran out and
shouted for help thus prompting her
brother, a cousin and an uncle who
were living within their compound, to
chase the accused.
- Seconds later, Primo was apprehended
by those who answered Corazon's call
for help. They held the accused at the
back of their compound until they were
advised by their neighbors to call
the barangay officials instead of
detaining him for his misdeed.
Page 30 of 40
- Physical examination of the victim
yielded negative results. No evident
sign of extra-genital physical injury was
noted by the medico-legal officer on
Crysthels body as her hymen was intact
and its orifice was only 0.5 cm. in
diameter.
- Primo maintained his innocence and
assailed the charge as a mere scheme
of Crysthel's mother who allegedly
harbored ill will against him for his
refusal to run an errand for her. He
asserted that in truth Crysthel was in a
playing mood and wanted to ride on his
back when she suddenly pulled him
down causing both of them to fall
down on the floor. It was in this fallen
position that Corazon chanced upon
them and became hysterical.
- Corazon slapped him and accused him
of raping her child. He got mad but
restrained himself from hitting back
when he realized she was a woman.
Corazon called for help from her
brothers to stop him as he ran down
from the second floor.
- The accused Primo Campuhan seriously
assails the credibility of Ma. Corazon
Pamintuan. He argues that her
narration should not be given any
weight or credence since it was
punctured with implausible statements
and improbabilities so inconsistent
with human nature and experience.
- He claims that it was truly
inconceivable for him to commit the
rape considering that Crysthels younger
sister was also in the room playing
while Corazon was just downstairs
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
preparing Milo drinks for her
daughters. Their presence alone as
possible eyewitnesses and the fact that
the episode happened within the
family compound where a call for
assistance could easily be heard and
responded to, would have been
enough to deter him from committing
the crime.
- Besides, the door of the room was wide
open for anybody to see what could be
taking place inside. Primo insists that it
was almost inconceivable that Corazon
could give such a vivid description of
the alleged sexual contact when from
where she stood she could not have
possibly seen the alleged touching of
the sexual organs of the accused and
his victim.
RTC:
- Guilty of Statutory Rape
- The trial court relied quite heavily on
the testimony of Corazon that she saw
Primo with his short pants down to his
knees kneeling before Crysthel whose
pajamas and panty were supposedly
"already removed" and that Primo was
"forcing his penis into Crysthels
vagina."
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of the
crime charged
RULING:
- NO. He is only guilty of Attempted
Rape
- A review of the records clearly
discloses that the prosecution utterly
failed to discharge its onus of proving
Page 31 of 40
that Primos penis was able to
penetrate Crysthels vagina however
slight. Even if we grant arguendo that
Corazon witnessed Primo in the act of
sexually molesting her daughter, we
seriously doubt the veracity of her
claim that she saw the inter-genital
contact between Primo and Crysthel.
When asked what she saw upon
entering her childrens room Corazon
plunged into saying that she saw Primo
poking his penis on the vagina of
Crysthel without explaining her relative
position to them as to enable her to
see clearly and sufficiently, in
automotive lingo, the contact point.
- It should be recalled that when
Corazon chanced upon Primo and
Crysthel, the former was allegedly in a
kneeling position, which Corazon
described
- It can reasonably be drawn from the
foregoing narration that Primos
kneeling position rendered an
unbridled observation impossible. Not
even a vantage point from the side of
the accused and the victim would have
provided Corazon an unobstructed
view of Primos penis supposedly
reaching Crysthels external genitalia,
i.e., labia majora, labia minora, hymen,
clitoris, etc., since the legs and arms of
Primo would have hidden his
movements from Corazons sight, not to
discount the fact that Primos right
hand was allegedly holding his penis
thereby blocking it from Corazons view.
- The court also heavily relied on
Crysthels testimony averring that
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
Primos penis did not penetrate in her
vagina
- We have said often enough that in
concluding that carnal knowledge took
place, full penetration of the vaginal
orifice is not an essential ingredient,
nor is the rupture of the hymen
necessary; the mere touching of the
external genitalia by the penis capable
of consummating the sexual act is
sufficient to constitute carnal
knowledge.
- But the act of touching should be
understood here as inherently part of
the entry of the penis into the labias of
the female organ and not mere
touching alone of the mons pubis or
the pudendum.
- There must be sufficient and convincing
proof that the penis
indeed touched the labias or slid into
the female organ, and not merely
stroked the external surface thereof, for
an accused to be convicted of
consummated rape
- As the labias, which are required to be
"touched" by the penis, are by their
natural situs or
location beneath the mons pubis or the
vaginal surface, to touch them with the
penis is to attain some degree of
penetration beneath the surface,
hence, the conclusion that touching
the labia majora or the labia minora of
the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape.
- Jurisprudence dictates that the labia
majora must be entered for rape to be
Page 32 of 40
consummated, and not merely for the
penis to stroke the surface of the
female organ. Thus, a grazing of the
surface of the female organ or touching
the mons pubis of the pudendum is not
sufficient to constitute consummated
rape.
- It has foreclosed the possibility of
Primos penis penetrating her vagina,
however slight. Crysthel made a
categorical statement denying
penetration, obviously induced by a
question propounded to her who could
not have been aware of the finer
distinction
between touching and penetration.
- Consequently, it is improper and unfair
to attach to this reply of a four (4)-year
old child, whose vocabulary is yet as
underdeveloped as her sex and whose
language is bereft of worldly
sophistication, an adult interpretation
that because the penis of the
accused touched her organ there was
sexual entry. Nor can it be deduced
that in trying to penetrate the victim's
organ the penis of the
accused touched the middle portion of
her vagina and entered the labia of
her pudendum as the prosecution
failed to establish sufficiently that
Primo made efforts to penetrate
Crysthel.
- Corazon did not say, nay, not even hint
that Primo's penis was erect or that he
responded with an erection. On the
contrary, Corazon even narrated that
Primo had to hold his penis with his
right hand, thus showing that he had
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
yet to attain an erection to be able to
penetrate his victim.
- Antithetically, the possibility of Primos
penis having breached Crysthels vagina
is belied by the child's own assertion
that she resisted Primos advances by
putting her legs close
together; consequently, she did not
feel any intense pain but just felt "not
happy" about what Primo did to
her. Thus, she only shouted "Ayo'ko,
ayo'ko!" not "Aray ko, aray ko!"
- In cases where penetration was not
fully established, the Court had
anchored its conclusion that rape
nevertheless was consummated on the
victim's testimony that she felt pain, or
the medico-legal finding of
discoloration in the inner lips of the
vagina, or the labia minora was already
gaping with redness, or the hymenal
tags were no longer visible.
- None was shown in this case. Although
a child's testimony must be received
with due consideration on account of
her tender age, the Court endeavors at
the same time to harness only what in
her story appears to be true, acutely
aware of the equally guaranteed rights
of the accused. Thus, we have to
conclude that even on the basis of the
testimony of Crysthel alone the
accused cannot be held liable for
consummated rape; worse, be
sentenced to death.
- Lastly, it is pertinent to mention the
medico legal officer's finding in this
case that there were no external signs
of physical injuries on complaining
Page 33 of 40
witness body to conclude from a
medical perspective that penetration
had taken place.
- As Dr. Aurea P. Villena explained,
although the absence of complete
penetration of the hymen does not
negate the possibility of contact, she
clarified that there was no medical
basis to hold that there was sexual
contact between the accused and the
victim.
(MUST READ)PEOPLE V. DELA CRUZ
PONENTE: MELO
FACTS:
- Cecilia Caparos, a neighbor of Whiazel
Soriano, the victim, testified that on
September 27, 1994, at around 11:30
oclock in the morning, she was waiting
for her two children inside the
compound of the Aurora A. Quezon
Elementary School when she saw
Whiazel held on the hand and being led
away by a woman later identified as
accused-appellant.
- Knowing that Whiazel was enrolled in
the afternoon class, she went after
them and asked accused-appellant
where she was going with
Whiazel. Accused-appellant answered
that she asked Whiazel to bring her to
Rowena Soriano, the childs
mother. Cecilia then turned to Whiazel
and asked her why she was with
accused-appellant. Whiazel answered
that accused-appellant requested her
to look for the latters child. Cecilia
grew suspicious because of the
inconsistent answers, Whiazels terrified
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
look, and the scratches on the childs
face.
- She told accused-appellant that she will
bring accused-appellant to a teacher
because she did not trust accused-
appellant. Accused-appellant was
surprised and reasoned out, but just
the same agreed to go to a teacher
- The victim, Whiazel Soriano
(sometimes referred to in the record as
Reazel or Rhiazel), at the time of the
incident, was a Grade 1 pupil at the
Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School in
Malate, Manila. She testified that she
voluntarily went with accused-
appellant after being asked for help in
looking for the school dentist.
- Whiazel also mentioned that accused-
appellant asked for her assistance in
looking for accused-appellants child in
a place far away from school. She was
neither threatened nor hurt in any
way by accused-appellant. She was not
led out of the school; in fact they never
got out of the school compound.
- When Cecilia Caparos saw them,
Whiazel told accused-appellant that
she wanted to go. Accused-appellant
refused, and held Whiazels
hand. Whiazel did not try to
escape. She did not even cry; well, not
until they went to a teacher.
- For the defense, Eufemia Magpantay,
guidance teacher at Aurora A. Quezon
Elementary School, testified that on
September 27, 1994, at around
noontime, accused-appellant, Whiazel,
her teacher Mrs. Rioganes, and Cecilia
Page 34 of 40
Caparos went to her office. The
incident was related to her. Asked what
she was doing with Whiazel, accused-
appellant said she wanted the
Whiazels help in looking for the school
dentist. Accused-appellant reiterated
this before the assistant principal to
whom they all later went. This witness
testified that the school allows patients
who are not connected with the school
to consult at the clinic. Further, she
also mentioned that the students of
the Aurora A. Quezon Elementary
School, the same being a public school,
come mostly from low to average
income families
- Accused-appellants mother-in-law,
Gorgonia Nieva, testified that on the
day prior to the incident, accused-
appellant had asked her to look for Dr.
Luisa Medina, a dentist. Accused-
appellants daughter was then sick. Her
inquiries showed that the dentist no
longer had her clinic at her house;
instead she may be found at the Aurora
A. Quezon Elementary School.
- Thus, the next day, she went with
accused-appellant to Manila to look for
the dentist. They parted ways when
they arrived at the school at around 11
oclock in the morning
- When she got to the clinic, no one was
there so she left. On her way out, a girl,
later identified as Whiazel, walked with
her at arms length (nakasabay). She did
not hold the child; she did not look at
the child; they did not talk; not even
smiles were exchanged. Before she
could get out of the school, a woman
(Cecilia Caparos) called her; hurled
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
invectives at her, and accused her of
kidnapping Whiazel
RTC:
- Accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention of a minor
- That the accused did not employ any
physical force on Whiazel Soriano in
detaining and restraining her freedom
provides no significant consequence to
relieve the former from the resultant
effects of her consummated criminal
act, for it cannot be denied that she
had exerted sufficient moral
intimidation on the child which
effectively controlled and influenced
her will. At such tender age and
immature mind she can easily be awed
and cowed by a person such as the
accused.
- The People, through the OSG argue
that Whiazel was deprived of her
liberty, no matter how short a time,
the moment accused-appellant, a
person unknown to Whiazel,
prevented her from going over to her
neighbor, Cecilia Caparos. Under the
circumstances, considering that she is
of such tender age, deprivation of
liberty was consummated even in the
absence of force or threats upon the
victim.
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of
consummated kidnapping
RULING:
Page 35 of 40
- NO. The court modified the judgment
declaring accused is guilty of attempted
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention
- In a prosecution for kidnapping, the
intent of the accused to deprive the
victim of the latters liberty, in any
manner, needs to be established by
indubitable proof.
- The acts held by the trial court, and
maintained by the People, as
consummating the crime of kidnapping
in this case are those when accused-
appellant held the victims hand and
refused to let go when the victim
asked to go over to her neighbor, who
by then already saw what was
happening.
- This happened for only a very brief
span of time and the evidentiary record
shows that there were a good number
of people present at that time, that a
guard was stationed at the gate, and
that there was at least a teacher
nearby. The child could have just as
easily shouted for help.
- While it does not take much to scare
the wits out of a small child like
Whiazel, under the attendant
circumstances, we cannot say with
certainty that she was indeed deprived
of her liberty. It must further be noted
that up to that brief moment when
Cecilia saw them, and the child asked
to be let go, the victim had gone with
accused-appellant voluntarily.
- Without any further act reinforcing the
inference that the victim may have
been denied her liberty, even taking
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
cognizance of her minority, the Court
hesitates to find that kidnapping in the
case at bar was consummated.
- To our mind, the felony committed is
kidnapping and serious illegal detention of
a minor in the attempted stage only.
- In the case at bar, accused-appellant
already commenced her criminal
scheme by taking hold of Whiazel by
the hand and leading her out of the
school premises.
- As mentioned earlier, these do not
sufficiently establish that kidnapping
had been consummated.
- Fortunately, the further progress and
completion of accused-appellants
felonious design was thwarted by the
timely intervention of Cecilia Caparos,
the victims neighbor.
(MUST READ)PEOPLE V. ORITA
PONENTE: MEDIALDELA
FACTS:
- Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a
19-year old freshman student at the St.
Joseph's College at Borongan, Eastern
Samar. Appellant was a Philippine
Constabulary (PC) soldier.
- In the early morning of March 20, 1983,
complainant arrived at her boarding
house. Her classmates had just brought
her home from a party
- Shortly after her classmates had left,
she knocked at the door of her
boarding house. All of a sudden,
somebody held her and poked a knife
to her neck. She then recognized
Page 36 of 40
appellant who was a frequent visitor of
another boarder.
- She pleaded with him to release her,
but he ordered her to go upstairs with
him. Since the door which led to the
first floor was locked from the inside,
appellant forced complainant to use
the back door leading to the second
floor.
- With his left arm wrapped around her
neck and his right hand poking a
"balisong" to her neck, appellant
dragged complainant up the stairs.
When they reached the second floor,
he commanded her to look for a room.
With the Batangas knife still poked to
her neck, they entered complainant's
room.
- Upon entering the room, appellant
pushed complainant who hit her head
on the wall. With one hand holding the
knife, appellant undressed himself. He
then ordered complainant to take off
her clothes. Scared, she took off her T-
shirt. Then he pulled off her bra, pants
and panty.
- He ordered her to lie down on the floor
and then mounted her. He made her
hold his penis and insert it in her vagina
She followed his order as he continued
to poke the knife to her. At said
position, however, appellant could not
fully penetrate her. nOnly a portion of
his penis entered her as she kept on
moving.
- Appellant then lay down on his back
and commanded her to mount him. In
this position, only a small part again of
his penis was inserted into her vagina.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
At this stage, appellant had both his
hands flat on the floor. Complainant
thought of escaping.
- She dashed out to the next room and
locked herself in. Appellant pursued
her and climbed the partition. When
she saw him inside the room, she ran
to another room. Appellant again
chased her. She fled to another room
and jumped out through a window
- Still naked, she darted to the municipal
building, which was about eighteen
meters in front of the boarding house,
and knocked on the door. When there
was no answer, she ran around the
building and knocked on the back door.
When the policemen who were inside
the building opened the door, they
found complainant naked sitting on the
stairs crying.
- Pat. Donceras, the first policeman to
see her, took off his jacket and
wrapped it around her. When they
discovered what happened, Pat.
Donceras and two other policemen
rushed to the boarding house. They
heard a sound at the second floor and
saw somebody running away. Due to
darkness, they failed to apprehend
appellant.
- Meanwhile, the policemen brought
complainant to the Eastern Samar
Provincial Hospital where she was
physically examined. According to the
physical examination, she has sustained
bruises on her body and her vagina has
no visible abrasions or marks at the
perineal area or over the vulva, but,
there is errythematous areas noted
Page 37 of 40
surrounding vaginal orifice, tender, but
its hymen intact; no laceration fresh
and old noted; examining finger can
barely enter and with difficulty; vaginal
canal tight; no discharges noted.
RTC:
- Accused guilty of frustrated rape
ISSUE: W/N the accused is guilty of the
crime charged
RULING:
- NO. The accused is guilty of
consummated rape
- Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
defines and enumerates the elements
of the crime of rape:
Art. 335. When and how rape is
committed. Rape is committed by
having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious
3. When the woman is under twelve
years of age, even though neither
of the circumstances mentioned in
the two next preceding paragraphs
shall be present.
- Carnal knowledge is defined as the act
of a man in having sexual bodily
connections with a woman
- In connection with Art. 6 of RPC, the
court discussed that a crime cannot be
held to be attempted unless the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
offender, after beginning the
commission of the crime by overt acts,
is prevented, against his will, by some
outside cause from performing all of
the acts which should produce the
crime.
- In other words, to be an attempted
crime the purpose of the offender must
be thwarted by a foreign force or
agency which intervenes and compels
him to stop prior to the moment when
he has performed all of the acts which
should produce the crime as a
consequence, which acts it is his
intention to perform. If he has
performed all of the acts which should
result in the consummation of the
crime and voluntarily desists from
proceeding further, it cannot be an
attempt.
- The essential element which
distinguishes attempted from
frustrated felony is that, in the latter,
there is no intervention of a foreign or
extraneous cause or agency between
the beginning of the commission of the
crime and the moment when all of the
acts have been performed which
should result in the consummated
crime; while in the former there is such
intervention and the offender does not
arrive at the point of performing all of
the acts which should produce the
crime. He is stopped short of that point
by some cause apart from his voluntary
desistance.
- Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the
moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of his victim he actually
attains his purpose and, from that
Page 38 of 40
moment also all the essential
elements of the offense have been
accomplished. Nothing more is left to
be done by the offender, because he
has performed the last act necessary to
produce the crime
- In relation to Art. 6 of RPC, the Court
discussed that A crime cannot be held
to be attempted unless the offender,
after beginning the commission of the
crime by overt acts, is prevented,
against his will, by some outside cause
from performing all of the acts which
should produce the crime.
- In other words, to be an attempted
crime the purpose of the offender must
be thwarted by a foreign force or
agency which intervenes and compels
him to stop prior to the moment when
he has performed all of the acts which
should produce the crime as a
consequence, which acts it is his
intention to perform. If he has
performed all of the acts which should
result in the consummation of the
crime and voluntarily desists from
proceeding further, it cannot be an
attempt.
- The essential element which
distinguishes attempted from
frustrated felony is that, in the latter,
there is no intervention of a foreign or
extraneous cause or agency between
the beginning of the commission of the
crime and the moment when all of the
acts have been performed which
should result in the consummated
crime; while in the former there is such
intervention and the offender does not
arrive at the point of performing all of
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
the acts which should produce the
crime. He is stopped short of that point
by some cause apart from his voluntary
desistance.
- Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the
moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of his victim he actually
attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all the essential elements
of the offense have been
accomplished. Nothing more is left to
be done by the offender, because he
has performed the last act necessary to
produce the crime. Thus, the felony is
consummated.
- We have set the uniform rule that for
the consummation of rape, perfect
penetration is not essential. Any
penetration of the female organ by the
male organ is sufficient. Entry of the
labia or lips of the female organ,
without rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
warrant conviction.
- Necessarily, rape is attempted if there
is no penetration of the female
organ because not all acts of execution
was performed. The offender merely
commenced the commission of a
felony directly by overt acts.
- Taking into account the nature,
elements and manner of execution of
the crime of rape and jurisprudence on
the matter, it is hardly conceivable how
the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed.
- In concluding that there is no
conclusive evidence of penetration of
the genital organ of the victim, the trial
Page 39 of 40
court relied on the testimony of Dr.
Zamora when he "categorically
declared that the findings in the vulva
does not give a concrete disclosure of
penetration. As a matter of fact, he
tossed back to the offended party the
answer as to whether or not there
actually was penetration."
- It cannot be insensible to the findings
in the medical certificate as interpreted
by Dr. Reinerio Zamora and the
equivocal declaration of the latter of
uncertainty whether there was
penetration or not. It is true, and the
Court is not oblivious, that conviction
for rape could proceed from the
uncorroborated testimony of the
offended party and that a medical
certificate is not necessary.
- The testimony of the offended party is
at variance with the medical
certificate. As such, a very disturbing
doubt has surfaced in the mind of the
court. It should be stressed that in
cases of rape where there is a positive
testimony and a medical certificate,
both should in all respect, complement
each other, for otherwise to rely on the
testimony alone in utter disregard of
the manifest variance in the medical
certificate, would be productive of
mischievous results.
- The alleged variance between the
testimony of the victim and the medical
certificate does not exist. On the
contrary, it is stated in the medical
certificate that the vulva was
erythematous (which means marked by
abnormal redness of the skin due to
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CASE DIGESTS
JOLINA C. ROXAS
ARTICLE 6 RPC
PLM COLLEGE OF LAW
capillary congestion, as in
inflammation) and tender.

- It bears emphasis that Dr. Zamora did

not rule out penetration of the genital
organ of the victim. He merely testified
that there was uncertainty whether or
not there was penetration. Anent this
testimony, the victim positively
testified that there was penetration,
even if only partially

Page 40 of 40