Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 37

People v Dalag suggested to his father that they bring Leah inside the

house. When they woke up the following day Francis


Crime charged: PARRICIDE and Princess Joy noticed that their mother remained
unconscious. Despite their mother's condition, they
ISSUE: WON the credibility of the prosecution
decided to go to school. During lunchtime, Francis
witnesses and the probative weight accorded by the
went home and saw that Leah's condition had not
trial court.
improved. When the children came home in the
Ruling: afternoon after their classes, Armando told them that
their mother was brought to the hospital. When
1. RTC: Guilty (mitigating circumstances Francis visited his mother in the hospital, he saw her
present: voluntary surrender and 1 lying on the bed, her face badly swollen. He saw the
analogous to passion and obfuscation) lumps and bruises on the different parts of her body.
2. SC: Affirmed w/modifications (MC: Leah never regained her consciousness and died.
voluntary surrender only)
Held:
Facts:

Armando and Leah had an argument. Leah Credibility of witness:


was admonishing Armando not to drink liquor. The
children heard their mother crying and rushed It is axiomatic in criminal
outside the house to see what was happening. They jurisprudence that when the issue is one of
were horrified when they saw Armando pushing and credibility of witnesses, an appellate court
kicking Leah on the left side of her body even as Leah will normally not disturb the factual findings
was already lying posthaste on the ground, continued of the trial unless the lower court has reached
to beat her up. They pleaded to their father to stop conclusions that are clearly unsupported by
maltreating their mother, but angrily told them not to evidence, or unless it has overlooked some
interfere and that he will later beat them up as well. facts or circumstances of weight and
He grabbed Leah's hair and banged her head on the influence which, if considered, would affect
wall. Leah's forehead directly hit the wall. In the the result of the case.10 The rationale for this
process, Armando stepped on a nail. Even as she was rule is that trial courts have superior
being assaulted by her husband, she told him that she advantages in ascertaining the truth and in
will find some medicine for his wound and so she detecting falsehood as they have the
fled. Armando ran after his wife. He herded her back opportunity to observe at close range the
to the house. Princess Joy was awakened when she manner and demeanor of witnesses while
heard her mother crying. She went outside of the testifying.11
house, saw her mother being pushed by her father.
Leah fell to the ground and lost consciousness. In this case, the trial court declared
Armando placed the head of Leah on a stone and that the children, Francis and Princess Joy,
ordered Princess Joy to get some water. She poured the principal prosecution witnesses, testified
water on the face of her mother but the latter did not "in a logical, candid, and straight-forward
move. Armando then tried to revive Leah by applying manner, describing in detail what they saw
mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to no avail. Princess and heard in a manner characteristic of
Joy went back to the house to rouse Francis. When witnesses who are telling the truth."12 The
Francis came out to the yard, he saw his mother lying Court finds no reason to deviate from these
on the ground still unconscious. Armando was sitting findings as the records fully support the same.
near Leah, while nonchalantly smoking cigarette. The children recalled the sordid events that
Francis got a piece of carton from their store and happened in the evening of August 15, 1996
placed it underneath his mother's body. Francis then involving their parents without any trace of

1|Page
bias, impelled by no other motive than to People v Rebucan
bring justice to their mother's senseless
death. Crime charged: DOUBLE MURDER

For the crime committed: ISSUE: WON the accused is liable for the crime of
murder
ART. 246. Parricide. — Any person
who shall kill his father, mother, or child, Ruling:
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of
his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, 1. RTC: Convicted of double murder
shall be guilty of parricide and shall be 2. CA: Modified, adjudged guilty beyond
punished by the penalty of reclusion reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of
perpetua to death. (Restored by Sec. 5, RA No. murder
7659.) 3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications: GUILTY of
two (2) counts of murder
The prosecution is mandated to prove the following
essential elements: Facts:

(1) a person is killed; Carmela Tagpis testified as an eyewitness to


(2) the deceased is killed by the the incident in question. She pointed to the accused-
accused; and appellant as the "Bata Endong" (Uncle Endong) who
(3) the deceased is the father, mother hacked her grandfather and brother. She stated that
or child, whether legitimate or Ranil was hit in the forehead, while Felipe was hit on
illegitimate, or a legitimate other the face, the left shoulder and the right shoulder.
ascendant or other descendant, or the After Felipe was hacked by the accused-appellant,
legitimate spouse of the accused. the former was still able to walk outside of his house,
to the direction of the coconut tree and thereafter
The prescribed penalty for the crime is reclusion fell to the ground. Carmela said that she saw that a
perpetua to death. The key element in parricide is the long bolo was used in the killing of Felipe and Ranil.
relationship of the offender with the victim. In the She related that Felipe also owned a bolo but he was
case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the not able to use the same when he was attacked. She
relationship between the accused and the deceased was then inside the house with Felipe and her two
would be the marriage certificate. In this case, the younger brothers, Jericho and Bitoy (Ranil). She was
prosecution proved all the essential elements of sitting about four meters away when the hacking
parricide. incident occurred indoors.

On cross-examination, Carmela stated that at


the time of the incident, she was playing with a toy
camera inside the house and she was situated beside
a chicken cage, near a bench. Felipe was also there
near the bench and he was carrying Ranil in his right
arm. When asked whether the accused-appellant
came inside the house in a sudden manner, Carmela
answered in the affirmative. She insisted that Ranil
was indeed carried by Felipe when the accused-
appellant entered the house. She said that no fight or
altercation occurred between Felipe and the accused-
appellant. After Felipe was hacked, he immediately
2|Page
ran outside of the house. Carmela and Jericho then without risk to himself arising from the defense
ran to the back of the house. which the offended party might make. The essence of
treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack, offering
Both Adoracion Lagera and Alma Tagpis an unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to
testified that someone told then that Felipe was resist or to escape. There is treachery even if the
hacked; saw him lying in the grassy place, wounded attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected, with
and motionless; and asked Carmela and Jericho who the victims having no opportunity to repel it or
killed Felipe. Carmela answered it was the accused. defend themselves, for what is decisive in treachery
is that the execution of the attack made it impossible
Defense alleged that Felipe and Timboy for the victims to defend themselves or to retaliate.
Lagera went to the house of the accused and sexually
abused his wife; and he harbored ill feelings towards The Court finds erroneous, however, the trial
the said men but he was able to control the same for court’s and the Court of Appeals’ appreciation of the
the sake of his children. aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation.
For evident premeditation to aggravate a crime,
Held: there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the
crime itself, of the following elements:
There is credence to the testimony of the
minor eyewitness Carmela Tagpis that the victim, (1) the time when the offender determined to
Felipe was holding in his arms her younger brother, commit the crime;
Ramil Tagpis, Jr. inside his house, when the accused (2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung
entered, and without any warning or provocation to his determination; and
coming from the victim, the accused immediately (3) sufficient lapse of time, between
delivered several hacking blows on the victim giving determination and execution, to allow himself
no regard to the innocent child in the arms of Lagera. to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
With this precarious situation, the victim who was
unarmed has no opportunity to put up his defense It is not enough that evident premeditation is
against the unlawful aggression of the accused, suspected or surmised, but criminal intent must be
moreso, to retaliate. Moreover, what defense could evidenced by notorious outward acts evidencing
an innocent 1 1/2 years old Ramil Tagpis, Jr. put up determination to commit the crime. In order to be
against the armed and superior strength of the considered an aggravation of the offense, the
accused, but to leave his fate to God. circumstance must not merely be "premeditation"; it
must be "evident premeditation." In the case at bar,
The circumstance that the attack was sudden the evidence of the prosecution failed to establish
and unexpected and the victims, unarmed, were any of the elements of evident premeditation since
caught totally unprepared to defend themselves the testimonies they presented pertained to the
qualifies the crime committed as murder. period of the actual commission of the crime and the
events that occurred thereafter. The prosecution
According to Article 248 of the Revised Penal failed to adduce any evidence that tended to
Code, as amended, any person who shall kill another establish the exact moment when the accused-
shall be guilty of murder if the same was committed appellant devised a plan to kill Felipe, that the latter
with the attendant circumstance of treachery, among clung to his determination to carry out the plan and
other things, and that the situation does not fall that a sufficient time had lapsed before he carried
within the provisions of Article 246. There is out his plan.
treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, Likewise, the trial court erred in appreciating
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior
tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
3|Page
strength, dwelling, minority and intoxication. When sidecar of a motorcycle. Without warning, the
the circumstance of abuse of superior strength accused approached her and punched her face
concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the several times. The accused turned on Sicor, grabbed
latter. On the other hand, dwelling, minority and her and stabbed her in the middle of her buttocks
intoxication cannot be appreciated as aggravating with a small knife. Maniego got out of the sidecar and
circumstances in the instant case considering that the ran to the barangay hall for help. Upon finding that
same were not alleged and/or specified in the the barangay chairman was not around, Maniego
information that was filed. went to check on her common-law spouse, Jondel
Santiago (Santiago), at the house of Santiago’s
The Court finds that there is a paucity of mother. On her way there, she saw the accused stab
evidence to prove that the instant case falls under Santiago four (4) times from a distance of five (5) to
any of the two classes of complex crimes. The six (6) meters. The distance between where Maniego
evidence of the prosecution failed to clearly and was punched and where Santiago was stabbed was
indubitably establish the fact that Felipe and Ranil about nine (9) meters. Maniego then saw the
were killed by a single fatal hacking blow from the accused flee the scene of the crime carrying a knife
accused-appellant. The eyewitness testimony of and heading towards Juan Luna Street. Seeing that
Carmela did not contain any detail as to this material Santiago was mortally hurt, Maniego rushed Santiago
fact. To a greater degree, it was neither proven that to Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital but he later expired.
the murder of Felipe was committed as a necessary While Maniego was at the hospital, she saw the
means for committing and/or facilitating the murder accused, who was being treated after an angry crowd
of Ranil and vice versa. As the factual milieu of the mauled her. Maniego informed the policeman who
case at bar excludes the application of Article 48 of was escorting the accused that it was the latter who
the Revised Penal Code, the accused-appellant should had stabbed and killed Santiago.
be made liable for two separate and distinct acts of
murder. In the past, when two crimes have been The accused claimed that on the date of the
improperly designated as a complex crime, this Court stabbing incident, she confronted Maniego and asked
has affirmed the conviction of the accused for the her if it was true that she had been spreading the
component crimes separately instead of the complex rumor that the accused was insane. Maniego
crime. answered in the affirmative. Angered, the accused
slapped Maniego and left, leaving Santiago, Sicor, and
People v Lagman Maniego in pursuit. Santiago then hit her with a lead
pipe. Since she needed medical treatment after the
Crime charged: MURDER and FRUSTRATED MURDER attack, she was brought to Gat Andres Bonifacio
Medical Hospital by her mother and a barangay
ISSUE: WON there is treachery kagawad.

Ruling: Held:

1. RTC: Guilty of murder and less serious The elements of murder that the prosecution
physical injuries must establish are (1) that a person was killed; (2)
2. CA: Affirmed the decision of the RTC that the accused killed him or her; (3) that the killing
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modification: guilty of was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
murder and slight physical injuries mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC); and (4) that the killing is not parricide or
Facts: infanticide.

Maniego was in front of her banana cue


store, seated alongside her mother, Sicor, inside the
4|Page
In order for treachery to be properly released two hours after she was admitted to the
appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at hospital. She later returned to the hospital for the
the time of the attack, the victim was not in a removal of the suture on her wound, according to the
position to defend himself; and (2) the accused RTC, "after a certain period of time."The Medico-
consciously and deliberately adopted the particular Legal Report on Sicor (Exhibit "H") does not indicate
means, methods, or forms of attack employed by how many days of medical treatment her injury
him. The essence of treachery is that the attack is would need. Sicor, however, testified that she lost
deliberate and without warning, done in a swift and two (2) days of work on account of the injury she
unexpected way, affording the hapless, unarmed and sustained. The testimony of her attending physician,
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. In Dr. Christian Dennis Cendeno, on the other hand, was
the case at bar, the victim was caught off guard when dispensed with following a stipulation by the parties
appellant, without warning, stabbed him four times on his testimony. The prosecution was, therefore,
successively leaving the latter no chance at all to unable to establish that the injury sustained by Sicor
evade the knife thrusts and defend himself from falls under less serious physical injuries absent the
appellant’s onslaught. Thus, there is no denying that requirement that her injury required medical
appellant’s act of suddenly stabbing the victim attention for 10 days or incapacitated her for the
leaving the latter no room for defense is a clear case same period.
of treachery. x x x
The Court can, thus, only convict accused-
We modify the conviction of accused- appellant of slight physical injuries. Under par. 1, Art.
appellant with regard to Criminal Case No. 02- 266 of the RPC, the penalty for slight physical injuries
200107. Originally charged with frustrated murder, is arresto menor "when the offender has inflicted
accused-appellant was convicted of less serious physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended
physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 02-200107. The party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require
RTC reasoned that the stabbing injury sustained by medical attendance during the same period." There
Sicor was not on a vital part of the body and she was being no modifying circumstances to be appreciated,
able to leave the hospital two hours after receiving and in accordance with par. 1 of Art. 64, accused-
medical treatment. The RTC properly ruled that the appellant should be meted a penalty of imprisonment
crime committed was not frustrated murder as it was of arresto menor in its medium period, which has a
not shown that there was intent to kill.29 However, duration of eleven (11) to twenty (20) days under Art.
while the RTC correctly ruled that the accused- 76 of the RPC.
appellant is not guilty of frustrated murder in
Criminal Case No. 02-200107, the records do not
support a conviction for less serious physical injuries.

Art. 265 of the RPC provides, "Any person


who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not
described [as serious physical injuries] but which shall
incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten (10)
days or more, or shall require medical attendance for
the same period, shall be guilty of less serious
physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor." Nothing in the records, however,
supports the finding that Sicor was incapacitated for
labor for ten (10) days or more or that she required
medical attention for the same period. After the
wound on her buttocks was treated, Sicor was

5|Page
People vs Laog Held:

Crime charged: MURDER and RAPE Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, provides only a single penalty for the
ISSUE: WON the crime charged is correct composite acts of rape and the killing committed by
reason or on the occasion of the rape.
Ruling:
ART. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under
1. RTC: Guilty of murder and rape paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications be punished by reclusion perpetua.
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications; guilty of Whenever the rape is committed with
Rape w/ homicide under Art. 266-B the use of a deadly weapon or by two or
more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
Facts: perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of
AAA and her friend, Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal, the rape, the victim has become insane, the
were walking along the rice paddies on their way to penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
apply for work at a canteen near the National When the rape is attempted and a
Highway in Sampaloc, San Rafael, Bulacan. Suddenly, homicide is committed by reason or on the
appellant, who was holding an ice pick and a lead occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
pipe, waylaid them and forcibly brought them to a reclusion perpetua to death.
grassy area at the back of a concrete wall. Without When by reason or on the occasion of
warning, appellant struck AAA in the head with the the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty
lead pipe causing her to feel dizzy and to fall down. shall be death. x x x x (Emphasis supplied.)
When Jennifer saw this, she cried out for help but
appellant also hit her on the head with the lead pipe, Considering that the prosecution in this case
knocking her down. Appellant stabbed Jennifer was able to prove both the rape of AAA and the
several times with the ice pick and thereafter covered killing of Jennifer both perpetrated by appellant, he is
her body with thick grass. Appellant then turned to liable for rape with homicide under the above
AAA. He hit her in the head several times more with provision. There is no doubt that appellant killed
the lead pipe and stabbed her on the face. While she Jennifer to prevent her from aiding AAA or calling for
was in such defenseless position, appellant pulled help once she is able to run away, and also to silence
down her jogging pants, removed her panty, and her completely so she may not witness the rape of
pulled up her blouse and bra. He then went on top of AAA, the original intent of appellant. His carnal desire
her, sucked her breasts and inserted his penis into having been satiated, appellant purposely covered
her vagina. After raping her, appellant also covered AAA’s body with grass, as he did earlier with
her with grass. At that point, she passed out. When Jennifer’s body, so that it may not be easily noticed
she regained consciousness, it was nighttime and or seen by passersby. Appellant indeed thought that
raining hard. She crawled until she reached her the savage blows he had inflicted on AAA were
uncle’s farm at daybreak. When she saw him, she enough to cause her death as with Jennifer. But AAA
waved at him for help. Her uncle, BBB, and a certain survived and appellant’s barbaric deeds were soon
Nano then brought her to Carpa Hospital in Baliuag, enough discovered.
Bulacan where she stayed for more than three
weeks. She later learned that Jennifer had died. The facts established showed that the
constitutive elements of rape with homicide were
Accused claimed that at the time of the consummated, and it is immaterial that the person
incident, he was at his house with his children and killed in this case is someone other than the woman
nephew cooking dinner.
6|Page
victim of the rape. An analogy may be drawn from People v Pareja
our rulings in cases of robbery with homicide, where
the component acts of homicide, physical injuries and Crime charged: RAPE
other offenses have been committed by reason or on
the occasion of robbery. ISSUE: WON the crime charged is correct

It is immaterial that the death would Ruling:


supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of
homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that 1. RTC: Convicted of rape
two or more persons are killed, or that aside from the 2. CA: Affirmed RTC’s decision
homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation 3. SC: Modified: guilty of attempted rape
of authority, is committed by reason or on the
occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact Facts:
that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the
felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a Victim was the sister of the accused-
homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the appellant’s common-law-wife. He tried to rape her
robbery, the felony committed is robbery with but when the victim’s cry got louder; he stopped and
homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or was kicked by the victim on his thigh. He threatened
on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into to kill her if she divulged the incident to anyone.
one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide.
The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Held:
Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and
infanticide. (Emphasis supplied.) By definition, rape is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman with the use of force,
In the special complex crime of rape with threat or intimidation, or when she is deprived of
homicide, the term "homicide" is to be understood in reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she is
its generic sense, and includes murder and slight under 12 years of age or is demented. "Carnal
physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion knowledge is defined as the act of a man having
of the rape. Hence, even if any or all of the sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with
circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength a woman." Carnal knowledge of the victim by the
and evident premeditation) alleged in the accused must be proven beyond reasonable doubt,
information have been duly established by the considering that it is the central element in the crime
prosecution, the same would not qualify the killing to of rape.
murder and the crime committed by appellant is still
rape with homicide. As in the case of robbery with We find it clear that the appellant’s penis did not
homicide, the aggravating circumstance of treachery penetrate, but merely ‘touched’ (i.e.,"naidikit"),
is to be considered as a generic aggravating AAA’s private part. In fact, the victim confirmed on
circumstance only. cross-examination that the appellant did not
succeed in inserting his penis into her vagina.
Significantly, AAA’s Sinumpaang Salaysay also
disclosed that the appellant was holding the victim’s
hand when he was trying to insert his penis in her
vagina. This circumstance – coupled with the victim’s
declaration that she was resisting the appellant’s
attempt to insert his penis into her vagina – makes
penile penetration highly difficult, if not improbable.
Significantly, nothing in the records supports the CA’s

7|Page
conclusion that the appellant’s penis penetrated, penetrate, attempted rape is committed; otherwise,
however slightly, the victim’s female organ. the crime committed is merely acts of lasciviousness.

Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply


mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of
organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the
external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons
pubis, as in this case. 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.

Simply put, "rape is consummated by the slightest


penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum
of the female organ." Without any showing of such
penetration, there can be no consummated rape; at
most, it can only be attempted rape [or] acts of
lasciviousness."

As earlier discussed, the prosecution failed to present


sufficient and convincing evidence to establish the
required penile penetration. AAA’s testimony did not
establish that the appellant’s penis touched the labias
or slid into her private part. Aside from AAA’s
testimony, no other evidence on record, such as a
medico-legal report, could confirm whether there
indeed had been penetration, however slight, of the
victim’s labias. In the absence of testimonial or
physical evidence to establish penile penetration, the
appellant cannot be convicted of consummated rape.

Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,


states that there is an attempt when the offender
commenced the commission of the crime directly by
overt acts but does not perform all the acts of
execution by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance. In People v.
Publico, we ruled that when the "touching" of the
vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to

8|Page
People v Padigos b. When the offended party is
deprived of reason or is otherwise
Crime charged: RAPE and ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent
ISSUE: WON the guilt was proven beyond reasonable machination or grave abuse of
doubt authority;
d. When the offended party is under
Ruling: twelve (12) years of age or is
demented, even though none of the
1. RTC: Guilty of rape (considering the circumstances mentioned above be
aggravating qualifying circumstance of present;
relationship to and minority of the victim) 2. By any person who, under any of
and acts of lasciviousness the circumstances mentioned in par. 1
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications by inserting his penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
Facts: object, into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
"AAA", six-years old, was sleeping inside their
house when her father, accused-appellant raped her. As cemented in jurisprudence, the elements
He undressed her and removed her panty, and also of rape under the said provision of law are: (1) the
took off his pants. He inserted his penis into her offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2)
vagina and made push and pull movements. She felt such act was accomplished through force or
pain in her private organ. Her mother was not around intimidation; or when the victim is deprived of reason
as it was only her and her father who were home. or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is
The next day, accused-appellant made her hold his under 12 years of age. Thus, sexual intercourse with a
penis. He, on the other hand, touched her genitals girl below 12 years old, which is the subject of this
and inserted his fingers into her vagina causing her to case, is considered as statutory rape in this
feel pain. She related the incidents to her mother jurisdiction.
who simply gave her father a fierce piercing stare but
did nothing. She also confided to her aunt, sister of According to the sixth paragraph of Article
her mother, who brought her to a doctor for medical 266-B, the death penalty shall be imposed if the
examination and to the police station to report the crime of rape is committed "when the victim is under
matter. eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
Held: consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree,
or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code which victim."
deals with the offense of rape provides:
After a careful review of the records of this
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How case, we are persuaded that appellant is indeed guilty
Committed. – Rape is committed of qualified rape. In People v. Pruna, we formulated a
1. By a man who shall have carnal set of guidelines that will serve as a jurisprudential
knowledge of a woman under any of the benchmark in appreciating age either as an element
following circumstances: of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance in order
a. Through force, threat or to address the seemingly conflicting court decisions
intimidation; regarding the sufficiency of evidence of the victim’s

9|Page
age in rape cases. The Pruna guidelines are as 6. The trial court should always make a
follows: categorical finding as to the age of the victim.
(Citation omitted.)
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the In the case at bar, the prosecution may have
offended party is an original or certified true been unable to present AAA’s birth certificate or
copy of the certificate of live birth of such other authentic document such as a baptismal
party. certificate during trial, however, that failure to
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, present relevant evidence will not deter this Court
similar authentic documents such as from upholding that qualified rape was indeed
baptismal certificate and school records committed by appellant because he himself
which show the date of birth of the victim admitted, in his counter-affidavit which formed part
would suffice to prove age. of the evidence for the defense and the contents of
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic which he later affirmed in his testimony in open
document is shown to have been lost or court, that AAA was below 7 years old around the
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the time of the rape incident. In the Court’s view, this
testimony, if clear and credible, of the admission from appellant, taken with the testimony
victim’s mother or a member of the family of the victim, sufficiently proved the victim’s
either by affinity or consanguinity who is minority.
qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of Acts of Lasciviousness
birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence Anent the charge of acts of lasciviousness, Article 336
shall be sufficient under the following of the Revised Penal Code provides:
circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. – Any
years of age and what is sought to be person who shall commit any act of
proved is that she is less than 7 years lasciviousness upon other persons of
old; either sex, under any of the
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 circumstances mentioned in the
years of age and what is sought to be preceding article, shall be punished by
proved is that she is less than 12 years prision correccional.
old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below Therefore, the crime of acts of lasciviousness is
12 years of age and what is sought to composed of the following elements:
be proved is that she is less than 18
years old. (1) That the offender commits any act of
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, lasciviousness or lewdness;
authentic document, or the testimony of the (2) That it is done under any of the following
victim’s mother or relatives concerning the circumstances:
victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will a. By using force or intimidation; or
suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly b. When the offended party is
admitted by the accused. deprived of reason or otherwise
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of unconscious; or
proving the age of the offended party. The c. When the offended party is under
failure of the accused to object to the 12 years of age; and
testimonial evidence regarding age shall not (3) That the offended party is another person
be taken against him. of either sex. (Citation omitted.)

10 | P a g e
Utilizing the foregoing definition as a guide, it People v Villaflores
is beyond cavil that appellant’s act of making AAA
hold his penis and, subsequently, of touching her Crime charged: RAPE w/ HOMICIDE
vagina with his fingers can be both characterized as
constituting acts of lasciviousness. As previously ISSUE: WON RTC and the CA gravely erred in finding
discussed, the moral influence or ascendancy accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with
exercised by appellant over AAA takes the place of homicide
the element of force and intimidation.
Ruling:

1. RTC: Guilty of rape w/ homicide


2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
Facts:

- Aldrin Bautista and Jovie Solidum saw


Villaflores holding Marita by the hand
(akay-akay) at around 10:00 am on July 2,
1999, leading the child through the alley
going towards the direction of his house
about 6 houses away from the victim’s
house.
- Secondly, Marita went missing after that
and remained missing until the discovery
of her lifeless body on the following day.
- Thirdly, Solidum passed by Villaflores’
house at about 3:00 pm of July 2, 1999
and heard the crying and moaning
(umuungol) of a child coming from inside.
- Fourthly, at about 7:00 pm of July 2, 1999
Solidum saw Villaflores coming from his
house carrying a yellow sack that
appeared to be heavy and going towards
the abandoned house where the child’s
lifeless body was later found.
- Fifthly, Manito, the father of Marita,
identified the yellow sack as the same
yellow sack that covered the head of his
daughter (nakapalupot sa ulo) at the time
he discovered her body; Manito also
mentioned that a blue sack covered her
body.
- Sixthly, a hidden pathway existed
between the abandoned house where
Marita’s body was found and Villaflores’
house, because his house had a rear exit
that enabled access to the abandoned
house without having to pass any other
11 | P a g e
houses. This indicated Villaflores’ d) When the offended party is under
familiarity and access to the abandoned twelve (12) years of age or is
house. demented, even though none of the
- Seventhly, several pieces of evidence circumstance mentioned above be
recovered from the abandoned house, present.
like the white rope around the victim’s xxx
neck and the yellow sack, were traced to Article 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under
Villaflores. The white rope was the same paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall
rope tied to the door of his house, and be punished by reclusion perpetua.
the yellow sack was a wall-covering for his xxx
toilet. When the rape is attempted and a
- Eighthly, the medico-legal findings homicide is committed by reason or on the
showed that Marita had died from occasion thereof, the penalty shall be
asphyxiation by strangulation, which reclusion perpetua to death.
cause of death was consistent with the When by reason or on the occasion of
ligature marks on her neck and the the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty
multiple injuries including abrasions, shall be death.
hematomas, contusions and punctured Xxx
wounds.
- Ninthly, Marita sustained multiple deep The law on rape quoted herein thus defines
fresh hymenal lacerations, and had fresh and sets forth the composite crimes of attempted
blood from her genitalia. The vaginal and rape with homicide and rape with homicide. In both
periurethral smears taken from her body composite crimes, the homicide is committed by
tested positive for spermatozoa. reason or on the occasion of rape. As can be noted,
- And, tenthly, the body of Marita was each of said composite crimes is punished with a
already in the second stage of flaccidity at single penalty, the former with reclusion perpetua to
the time of the autopsy of her cadaver at death, and the latter with death.
8 pm of July 3, 1999. The medico-legal
findings indicated that such stage of The phrases by reason of the rape and on the
flaccidity confirmed that she had been occasion of the rape are crucial in determining
dead for more than 24 hours, or at the whether the crime is a composite crime or a complex
latest by 9 pm of July 2, 1999. or compound crime. The phrase by reason of the rape
obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to
Held: the rape, the offense the offender originally designed
to commit. The victim of the rape is also the victim of
Article 266-A. Rape; When and How the killing. The indivisibility of the homicide and the
Committed. – Rape is committed rape (attempted or consummated) is clear and
admits of no doubt. In contrast, the import of the
1) By a man who have carnal phrase on the occasion of the rape may not be as
knowledge of a woman under any of the easy to determine. To understand what homicide
following circumstances: may be covered by the phrase on the occasion of the
a) Through force, threat, or rape, a resort to the meaning the framers of the law
intimidation; intended to convey thereby is helpful. Indeed, during
b) When the offended party is the floor deliberations of the Senate on Republic Act
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; No. 8353, the legislative intent on the import of the
c) By means of fraudulent phrase on the occasion of the rape to refer to a killing
machination or grave abuse of authority; and that occurs immediately before or after, or during the
commission itself of the attempted or consummated
12 | P a g e
rape, where the victim of the homicide may be a People v Suansing
person other than the rape victim herself for as long
as the killing is linked to the rape. Crime charged: RAPE (attended by the qualifying
circumstance that the victim has a mental disability)

ISSUE: WON the crime charged of qualified rape is


correct

Ruling:

1. RTC: Guilty of simple rape (mental


retardation was not specifically alleged in
the Amended Information, it cannot be
considered as a qualifying circumstance
that would warrant the imposition of the
death penalty.)
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications (crime of
qualified rape)

Facts:

LEGEND:

AAA: victim
EEE: the aunt/guardian
FFF: friend
GGG: accused-appellant’s sister

FFF was requested to get from appellant’s


boarding house an electric fan and a transformer.
Together with her brother and "AAA" went to the
boarding house of appellant. After giving the
requested items, appellant ordered "FFF" and her
brother to leave "AAA" behind. FFF" brought the
items to "GGG" who, upon learning that "AAA" was
still with appellant, requested "FFF" to return to
appellant’s boarding house to fetch "AAA." Upon
arriving at the boarding house, "FFF" noticed that the
door was closed. She called out to "AAA" to go home
to avoid being scolded by "EEE." "AAA" opened the
door and came out fixing her short pants. "FFF" then
asked "AAA" if anything happened. "AAA" replied
that after "FFF" and her brother left the boarding
house, appellant pulled her inside the room, removed
her shoes and panty, told her to lie down on the
floor, and inserted his penis into her vagina without
her consent. "AAA" requested "FFF" not to tell
anyone that she was raped by appellant. “EEE"
13 | P a g e
learned about the rape and confronted "AAA." "EEE" between the accused and the victim and the latter’s
then reported the incident to police authorities. mental retardation need to be proved.

Held: Both the RTC and the CA also found that


"AAA’s" mental retardation was satisfactorily
Article 266-A, paragraph 1 of the Revised established by the prosecution. Dr. Kwong-Garcia, a
Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) psychiatrist at the Davao Medical Center, testified
No. 8353, states that: that the results of the IQ test conducted on "AAA"
revealed that she is a mental retardate with a mental
Art. 226-A. Rape, When and How age of between 9-12 years. These findings are
Committed. – Rape is committed – contained in a Medical Certificate dated December
1) By a man who shall have carnal 11, 2002. These findings were corroborated by the
knowledge of a woman under any of the Psychological Assessment Report of Castro, a
following circumstances: psychologist at the Davao Medical Center, whose
a) Through force, threat or examination showed that the intellectual capacity of
intimidation; "AAA" is between 9-12 years old. These pieces of
b) When the offended party is evidence prove beyond doubt that "AAA" is a mental
deprived of reason or is otherwise retardate. Notably, the defense did not even impugn
unconscious, "AAA’s" mental retardation. On the contrary, records
c) By means of fraudulent show that even appellant himself conceded that
machination or grave abuse of "AAA" is a mental retardate. We therefore agree with
authority; the RTC’s ruling, as affirmed by the CA, that "AAA’" is
d) When the offended party is mentally retarded.
under twelve (12) years of age
or is demented, even though Knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of
none of the circumstances the victim during the rape qualifies and makes it
mentioned above be present. punishable by death.

"[F]or the charge of rape to prosper, the Paragraph 10, Article 266-B of the RPC, as
prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had amended, provides:
carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) through force or
intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or ART. 266-B. Penalties. x x x
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 The death penalty shall also be
years of age or was demented." From these imposed if the crime of rape is committed
requisites, it can thus be deduced that rape is with any of the following
committed the moment the offender has sexual aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
intercourse with a person suffering from mental xxxx
retardation. "[C]arnal knowledge of a woman who is 10. When the offender knew of the
a mental retardate is rape. A mental condition of mental disability, emotional disorder and/or
retardation deprives the complainant of that natural physical handicap of the offended party at the
instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and time of the commission of the crime.
womanhood. For this reason, sexual intercourse with [Emphasis supplied]
one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she
is incapable of giving consent to the carnal act Thus, knowledge of the offender of the mental
already constitutes rape[,] without requiring proof disability of the victim during the commission of the
that the accused used force and intimidation in crime of rape qualifies and makes it punishable by
committing the act." Only the facts of sexual congress death. However, such knowledge by the rapist should
be alleged in the Information since "a crime can only
14 | P a g e
be qualified by circumstances pleaded in the People v Cial
indictment."
Crime charged: RAPE (attended by the qualifying
Appellant’s knowledge of the mental circumstances of minority, the victim being less than
disability of "AAA" at the time of the commission of 18 years old, and relationship, the accused being the
the crime of rape was properly alleged in the common-law husband of complainant’s mother)
Amended Information. "Knowledge of the offender of
the mental disability of the victim at the time of the ISSUE: WON the crime charged is correct
commission of the crime of rape qualifies the crime
and makes it punishable by death x x x." "When rape Ruling:
is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of
the victim’s mental retardation, the penalty is 1. RTC: Guilty of qualified rape
increased to death." "Mental retardation is a chronic 2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
condition present from birth or early childhood and 3. SC: Modified, guilty of simple rape
characterized by impaired intellectual functioning
measured by standardized tests." Intellectual or Facts:
mental disability "is a term synonymous with and is
now preferred over the older term, mental Appellant, common-law-husband of AAA’s
retardation." mother, called "AAA" and told her to go to the
bedroom inside their house. Once inside, he took off
Thus, appellant’s knowledge of "AAA’s" "AAA’s" shorts and panty and spread her legs. He
mental disability at the time of the commission of the pulled his pants down to his thighs and inserted his
crime qualifies the crime of rape. Appellant is penis into the little girl’s vagina. "AAA" felt intense
therefore guilty of the crime of qualified rape. pain but she did not try to struggle because he had a
bolo on his waist. After satiating his lust, he
threatened to kill "AAA" and her family if she
reported the incident to anyone. At that time,
"AAA’s" maternal grandmother was in the house but
was unaware that "AAA" was being ravished. Unable
to endure the torment, "AAA" confided her ordeal to
her mother but did not believe her. "AAA" ran away
from home and went to her maternal uncle’s house.
She disclosed her harrowing experience to her uncle.
Her uncle appeared to be angered by appellant’s
wrong doing. But nonetheless, her uncle allowed
appellant to bring her home when appellant fetched
her. For fear that she might be raped again, "AAA"
ran away and went to the house of her aunt. Her aunt
helped her file the complaint against her stepfather.

Held:

We find however that both the trial court and


the CA erred in convicting appellant of the crime of
qualified rape. According to both courts, the twin
qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship
attended the commission of the crime. We rule
otherwise.
15 | P a g e
In its Formal Offer of Evidence, the appellant to be a step-father to "AAA," he must be
prosecution mentioned "AAA’s" Certificate of Live legally married to "AAA's" mother.
Birth. Also attached to the Folder of Exhibits marked
as Exhibit "B" is "AAA’s" Certificate of Live Birth Suffice it to state that qualifying
showing that "AAA" was born on October 31, 1991. circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable
However, upon closer scrutiny, we note that the said doubt just like the crime itself In this case, the
Certificate of Live Birth was never presented or prosecution utterly tailed to prove beyond
offered during the trial of the case. During the March reasonable doubt the qualifying circumstances of
28, 2006 hearing, the prosecution manifested before minority and relationship. As such, appellant should
the RTC that it will be presenting "AAA’s" Certificate only be convicted of the crime of simple rape, the
of Live Birth at the next setting. In its Order dated penalty for which is reclusion perpetua.
June 27, 2006, the trial court reset the hearing of the
case to allow the prosecution to present evidence
with respect to "AAA’s" Certificate of Live Birth.
However, up until the prosecution rested its case,
nobody was presented to testify on "AAA’s"
Certificate of Live Birth.

The same is true with respect to the other


qualifying circumstance of relationship. The
prosecution likewise miserably failed to establish
"AAA’s" relationship with the appellant. Although the
Information alleged that appellant is the common-
law husband of "AAA’s" mother, "AAA’" referred to
appellant as her step-father.

The RTC interchangeably referred to


appellant as the common-law husband of "AAA’s"
mother as well as the step-father of "AAA".Moreover,
the RTC failed to cite any basis for its reference to
appellant as such. In fact, the RTC Decision is bereft
of any discussion as to how it reached its conclusion
that appellant is the common-law husband of "AAA’s"
mother or that "AAA" is his step-daughter.

The CA committed the same error.


Notwithstanding appellant's claim that he is married
to "AAA's" mother, it went on to declare, without any
explanation or justification, that appellant is the
common-law husband of "AAA's" mother, viz: x x x
Also. given that Marciano and AAA's mother were not
legally married, the qualifying circumstance that the
accused is the common-law husband of the victim's
mother may be properly appreciated.

The temrs "common-law husband" and "step-


father" have different legal connotations. For

16 | P a g e
People v Candellada appellant became violently angry. He mauled AAA
and hit her head with a piece of wood, which
Crime charged: ATTEMPTED RAPE and 8 COUNTS OF rendered her unconscious. Gemina, who saw what
RAPE happened, asked help from the Barangay Captain.
The Barangay Captain and civilian volunteers arrested
ISSUE: the accused-appellant.

Ruling: According to Gemina, since accused-appellant


and AAA arrived in Lanao del Norte, the two lived as
1. RTC: Acquitted in attempted rape; Guilty husband and wife. However, sometime in December
of 8 counts of rape 2004, a drunk accused-appellant already admitted to
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications (into Gemina’s husband that AAA was his (accused-
account the qualified aggravating appellant’s) daughter.
circumstances of minority of the victim
and her relationship with accused- Held:
appellant)
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications Qualified rape is defined and punished under
the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code, as
Facts: amended:

AAA was the second of three daughters of ART. 266-A. Rape; When and How
accused-appellant and his deceased first wife. She Committed. – Rape is committed –
lived with accused-appellant and the latter’s second 1) By a man who shall have carnal
wife, while her two sisters lived with accused- knowledge of a woman under any of the
appellant’s mother. While they were still living in following circumstances:
Davao, accused-appellant impregnated her. When a) Through force, threat or
she was already five months pregnant, accused- intimidation;
appellant brought her with him to Lanao del Norte. b) When the offended party is
deprived of reason or is otherwise
Accused-appellant approached Gemina, who unconscious;
he came to know during a previous visit to Lanao del c) By means of fraudulent
Norte in 1993, and asked permission if he could stay machination or grave abuse of
at Gemina’s old house with his wife, introducing AAA authority;
to Gemina as his wife. Gemina immediately noticed d) When the offended party is under
that AAA was pregnant and also commented that twelve (12) years of age or is
AAA was so young she could already be accused- demented, even though none of the
appellant’s daughter, but accused-appellant only circumstances mentioned above be
laughed. Gemina and her husband allowed accused- present.
appellant and AAA to stay at their old house. xxxx
ART. 266-B. Penalties. – x x x.
While they were staying at Gemina’s old xxxx
house, accused-appellant had intercourse with AAA The death penalty shall also be
many times, but AAA could only remember eight imposed if the crime of rape is
specific dates. AAA further testified that she committed with any of the following
consistently resisted accused-appellant’s bestial acts aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
but he threatened to stab her with a knife. On 1) When the victim is under
December 28, 2004, accused-appellant again made eighteen (18) years of age and the
amorous advances on AAA; she refused so accused-
17 | P a g e
offender is a parent, ascendant, behavior and manner of testifying, the trial court
stepparent, guardian, relative by stood in a much better position to decide the
consanguinity or affinity within the question of credibility. Findings of the trial court on
third civil degree, or the common-law such matters are binding and conclusive on the
spouse of the parent of the victim. appellate court, unless some facts or circumstances
of weight and substance have been overlooked,
For a conviction of qualified rape, the misapprehended or misinterpreted. No such facts or
prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary circumstances exist in the present case.
elements of (1) sexual congress, (2) with a woman,
(3) by force and without consent; and in order to It is noteworthy to mention that even if
warrant the imposition of the death penalty, the accused-appellant did not use a knife or made threats
additional elements that (4) the victim is under to AAA, accused-appellant would still be guilty of
eighteen years of age at the time of the rape, and (5) raping AAA, for in rape committed by a close kin,
the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, such as the victim's father, stepfather, uncle, or the
illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. common-law spouse of her mother, it is not
necessary that actual force or intimidation be
The fourth and fifth elements, minority and employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the
relationship, were admitted by accused-appellant place of violence or intimidation.
during the pre-trial conference.

In a prosecution for rape, the accused may be


convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the
victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent
with human nature and the normal course of things,
as in this case. There is a plethora of cases which tend
to disfavor the accused in a rape case by holding that
when a woman declares that she has been raped, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape
has been committed and, where her testimony
passes the test of credibility, the accused can be
convicted on the basis thereof. Furthermore, the
Court has repeatedly declared that it takes a certain
amount of psychological depravity for a young
woman to concoct a story which would put her own
father to jail for the rest of his remaining life and drag
the rest of the family including herself to a lifetime of
shame. For this reason, courts are inclined to give
credit to the straightforward and consistent
testimony of a minor victim in criminal prosecutions
for rape.

In resolving rape cases, primordial


consideration is given to the credibility of the victim’s
testimony. The settled rule is that the trial court's
conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape
cases are generally accorded great weight and
respect, and at times, even finality. Having seen and
heard the witnesses themselves and observed their
18 | P a g e
Pielago v People however, denied the accusations and maintained that
he was asleep when the incident happened. At 6:00
Crime charged: ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS p.m. of the same day, AAA and BBB lodged a
complaint at the Police Station where AAA was
ISSUE: CA erred in convicting the petitioner of the physically examined by a medico-legal officer which
crime of rape by sexual assault despite his being issued a report showing a superficial laceration found
charged in the information for acts of lasciviousness at the 7 o’clock position of AAA’s anus and the
only. presence of erythema in the perihymenal area and
fossa navicularis caused by the insertion into the
Ruling: victim’s genitals of a foreign object, possibly a small
finger or any blunt object.
1. RTC: Guilty of rape by sexual assault
(taking into account the qualifying Held:
circumstance relating to the victim’s age,
"less than seven (7) years of age") It is well-settled that in all criminal
2. CA: Affirmed prosecutions, the accused is entitled to be informed
3. SC: Affirmed w/ Modifications of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him. In this respect, the designation in the
Facts: Information of the specific statute violated is
imperative to avoid surprise on the accused and to
AAA and her two (2)-year old brother, CCC, afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense
were playing with Pielago whom they call as Kuya accordingly. In the instant case, the designation of
Alvin at the porch of Boyet Ros’ (Boyet) house. After the offense in the Information against Pielago was
playing, the three (3) went inside Boyet’s house to changed from the crime of acts of lasciviousness in
watch television. After a while, Pielago turned off the relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 to the crime
television and brought AAA and CCC to a bedroom. of rape by sexual assault penalized under Article 266-
While CCC played with a toy carabao at a corner, A(2) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
Pielago made AAA lie down on bed. Pielago then took No. 8353. It cannot be said, however, that his right to
off AAA’s short pants and inserted his right hand’s be properly informed of the nature and cause of the
forefinger inside her vagina and exclaimed "masiram" accusation against him was violated. This Court is not
(which means "delicious") as he brutely licked it and unaware that the Information was worded, as
spewed saliva in it. AAA felt pain and blood came out follows: "x x x commit an act of lasciviousness upon
of her vagina which frightened her. Unsatisfied, the person of AAA, a minor being four (4) years old,
Pielago made AAA lie on her chest on the same bed by kissing the vagina and inserting one of his fingers
then fingered her anus. After a few minutes, AAA and to the vagina of AAA, x x x." And, as correctly
CCC were called for lunch by their mother, BBB. explained by the CA, the factual allegations contained
Pielago immediately replaced AAA’s shorts then sent in the Information determine the crime charged
her and CCC out of the bedroom. BBB noticed the against the accused and not the designation of the
bloodstains at the back portion of AAA’s shorts. offense as given by the prosecutor which is merely an
When BBB asked AAA what happened, AAA did not opinion not binding to the courts. As held in Malto v.
answer immediately until she said "Kuya Alvin tugsok People:
buyay saka lubot ko buda dila pa." (which means
"Kuya Alvin inserted something in my vagina and my What controls is not the title of the
anus and he licked me). Incensed by what AAA told information or the designation of the offense
her, BBB went to a certain Manay Eden who but the actual facts recited in the
accompanied her to the house of Boyet where she information. In other words, it is the recital of
found Pielago still lying on bed. BBB continually hit facts of the commission of the offense, not
Pielago as she asked him what he did to AAA. Pielago,
19 | P a g e
the nomenclature of the offense, that Garingarao v People
determines the crime being charged in the
information. (Citations omitted) Crime charged: ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS IN
RELATION TO RA 7610
Also, in the more recent case of People v. Rayon, Sr.,
this Court reiterated that the character of the crime is ISSUE:
not determined by the caption or preamble of the
information nor from the specification of the Ruling:
provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by
the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in 1. RTC: Guilty of the crime of acts of
the complaint or information. lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
The CA further ratiocinated that the variance 3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
in the two crimes is not fatal to Pielago’s conviction.
Indeed, in order to obtain a conviction for rape by Facts:
sexual assault, it is essential for the prosecution to
establish the elements that constitute such crime. AAA was brought to the Virgen Milagrosa
Article 266-A(2) of the Revised Penal Code explicitly Medical Center by her father BBB and mother CCC
provides that the gravamen of the crime of rape by due to fever and abdominal pain. Dr. George
sexual assault which is the insertion of the penis into Morante (Dr. Morante), the attending physician,
another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any recommended that AAA be confined at the hospital
instrument or object, into another person’s genital or for further observation. AAA was admitted at the
anal orifice. In the instant case, this element is clearly hospital and confined at a private room where she
present when AAA straightforwardly testified in court and her parents stayed for the night. The next day,
that Pielago inserted his forefinger in her vagina and BBB left the hospital to go to Lingayen, Pangasinan to
anus. Jurisprudence has it that testimonies of child- process his daughter’s Medicare papers. CCC also left
victims are given full weight and credit, since when a the hospital that same morning to attend to their
woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, store at Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, leaving AAA alone in
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that her room.
rape was indeed committed. Thus, AAA’s unrelenting
narration of what transpired, accompanied by her When BBB returned to the hospital, AAA told
categorical identification of Pielago as the malefactor, him that she wanted to go home. Dr. Morante
established the case for the prosecution. advised against it but due to AAA’s insistence, he
allowed AAA to be discharged from the hospital with
instructions that she should continue her
medications. When AAA and her parents arrived at
their house, AAA cried and told her parents that
Garingarao sexually abused her. They all went back to
the hospital and reported the incident to Dr.
Morante. They inquired from the nurses’ station and
learned that Garingarao was the nurse on duty on
that day.

AAA testified that Garingarao, who was


wearing a white uniform, entered her room and
asked if she already took her medicines and if she
was still experiencing pains. AAA replied that her
stomach was no longer painful. Garingarao then lifted
20 | P a g e
AAA’s bra and touched her left breast. Embarrassed, rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815,
AAA asked Garingarao what he was doing. Garingarao as amended, the Revised Penal Code,
replied that he was just examining her. Garingarao for rape or lascivious conduct, as the
then left the room and returned 15 to 30 minutes case may be; Provided, That the
later with a stethoscope. Garingarao told AAA that he penalty for lascivious conduct when
would examine her again. Garingarao lifted AAA’s the victim is under twelve (12) yeas of
shirt, pressed the stethoscope to her stomach and age shall be reclusion temporal in its
touched her two nipples. Garingarao then lifted medium period, x x x
AAA’s pajama and underwear and pressed the lower (c) x x x
part of her abdomen. Garingarao then slid his finger
inside AAA’s private part. AAA instinctively crossed The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article
her legs and again asked Garingarao what he was III of RA 7610 are the following:
doing. She asked him to stop and informed him she
had her monthly period. Garingarao ignored AAA and 1. The accused commits the act of sexual
continued to insert his finger inside her private part. intercourse or lascivious conduct;
Garingarao only stopped when he saw that AAA really 2. The said act is performed with a child
had her monthly period. He went inside the exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
bathroom of the private room, washed his hands, sexual abuse; and
applied alcohol and left. When BBB arrived at the 3. The child, whether male or female, is below
hospital, AAA insisted on going home. She only 18 years of age.
narrated the incident to her parents when they got
home and they went back to the hospital to report Under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing
the incident to Dr. Morante. Rules and Regulations of RA 7610, lascivious conduct
is defined as follows:
Held:
[T]he intentional touching, either
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides: directly or through clothing, of the genitalia,
anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks,
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual or the introduction of any object into the
Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to whether of the same or opposite sex, with the
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or
group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
prostitution and other sexual abuse. exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its person.
medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the following: In this case, the prosecution established that
(a) x x x Garingarao touched AAA’s breasts and inserted his
(b) Those who commit the act of finger into her private part for his sexual gratification.
sexual intercourse or lascivious Garingarao used his influence as a nurse by
conduct with a child exploited in pretending that his actions were part of the physical
prostitution or subject to other sexual examination he was doing. Garingarao persisted on
abuse; Provided, That when the victim what he was doing despite AAA’s objections. AAA
is under twelve (12) years of age, the twice asked Garingarao what he was doing and he
perpetrators shall be prosecuted answered that he was just examining her.
under Article 335, paragraph 3 for

21 | P a g e
The Court has ruled that a child is deemed People v Dulay
subject to other sexual abuse when the child is the
victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or Crime Charged: RAPE (a co-principal by indispensable
influence of any adult. In lascivious conduct under cooperation)
the coercion or influence of any adult, there must be
some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation ISSUE: WON the court gravely erred in finding the
which subdues the free exercise of the offended accused-appellant guilty of rape as co-principal by
party’s free will. In this case, Garingarao coerced AAA indispensable cooperation
into submitting to his lascivious acts by pretending
that he was examining her. Ruling:

Garingarao insists that, assuming that the 1. RTC: Guilty of rape as a co-principal by
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were true, indispensable cooperation
he should not be convicted of violation of RA 7610 2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
because the incident happened only once. 3. SC: Modified, guilty of violating Section 5
Garingarao alleges that the single incident would not (a), Article III R.A. 7610, as amended
suffice to hold him liable under RA 7610. His
argument has no legal basis. The Court has already Facts:
ruled that it is inconsequential that sexual abuse
under RA 7610 occurred only once. Section 3(b) of RA AAA’s sister introduced her to appellant as
7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not. someone nice. They went to a wake together, and
Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only once is then they went to the “kubuhan” to look for some
enough to hold Garingarao liable for acts of fish. At the “kubuhan”, AAA was pulled by the
lasciviousness under RA 7610. appellant in a room where “Speed” was. She saw
appellant received money from “Speed” and left
them. She was threatened and tied by “Speed” and
raped her. She saw appellant peeping in the room
and asked for help but the latter did nothing.
Thereafter, she was threatened by “Speed” not
divulge the incident or else he’ll come after her. AAA
went to San Pedro, Laguna and told her sister what
happened, and then her sister told their mother and
filed a case against “Speed” and appellant.

Held:

The Supreme Court is of another view and


does not subscribe to the findings of the trial court,
as sustained by the CA that appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as co-principal by indispensable
cooperation in the crime of rape.

Under the Revised Penal Code, an accused may be


considered a principal by direct participation, by
inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. To be a
principal by indispensable cooperation, one must
participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or
unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the
22 | P a g e
commission of the offense by performing another act (1) Acting as a procurer of a child
without which it would not have been accomplished. prostitute;
Nothing in the evidence presented by the (2) Inducing a person to be a client of
prosecution does it show that the acts committed by a child prostitute by means of written
appellant are indispensable in the commission of the or oral advertisements or other
crime of rape. The events narrated by the CA, from similar means;
the time appellant convinced AAA to go with her until (3) Taking advantage of influence or
appellant received money from the man who relationship to procure a child as a prostitute;
allegedly raped AAA, are not indispensable in the (4) Threatening or using violence
crime of rape. Anyone could have accompanied AAA towards a child to engage him as a prostitute;
and offered the latter's services in exchange for or
money and AAA could still have been raped. Even (5) Giving monetary consideration
AAA could have offered her own services in exchange goods or other pecuniary benefit to a
for monetary consideration and still end up being child with intent to engage such child
raped. Thus, this disproves the indispensable aspect in prostitution.
of the appellant in the crime of rape. It must be
remembered that in the Information, as well as in the The elements of paragraph (a) are:
testimony of AAA, she was delivered and offered for
a fee by appellant, thereafter, she was raped by 1. the accused engages in, promotes,
"Speed." facilitates or induces child prostitution;
2. the act is done through, but not limited to,
The Supreme Court does not find appellant to have the following means:
committed the crime of rape as a principal by a. acting as a procurer of a child
indispensable cooperation, she is still guilty of prostitute;
violation of Section 5 (a) of R.A. 7610, or the Special b. inducing a person to be a client of a
Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation child prostitute by means of written
and Discrimination Act, which states that: or oral advertisements or other
similar means;
Section 5. Child Prostitution and c. taking advantage of influence or
Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, relationship to procure a child as a
whether male or female, who for prostitute;
money, profit, or any other d. threatening or using violence
consideration or due to the coercion towards a child to engage him as a
or influence of any adult, syndicate or prostitute; or
group, indulge in sexual intercourse or e. giving monetary consideration,
lascivious conduct, are deemed to be goods or other pecuniary benefit to a
children exploited in prostitution and child with intent to engage such child
other sexual abuse. in prostitution;
3. the child is exploited or intended to be
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium exploited in prostitution and
period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon 4. the child, whether male or female, is below
the following: 18 years of age.

(a) Those who engage in or promote, Paragraph (a) essentially punishes acts pertaining to
facilitate or induce child prostitution which or connected with child prostitution. It contemplates
include, but are not limited to, the following: sexual abuse of a child exploited in prostitution. In
other words, under paragraph (a), the child is abused
primarily for profit.
23 | P a g e
Undoubtedly, the above-quoted falls under Section 5 Bongalon v People
(a) of R.A. 7610, the appellant acting as a procurer of
a child and inducing the latter into prostitution. It Crime charged: CHILD ABUSE (act in violation of
must be remembered that the character of the crime Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610)
is not determined by the caption or preamble of the
ISSUE: WON accused should be guilty of the crime
information nor from the specification of the
charged
provision of law alleged to have been violated, they
may be conclusions of law, but by the recital of the Ruling:
ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or
information. The sufficiency of an information is not 1. RTC: Guilty of violation of RA 7610
negated by an incomplete or defective designation of 2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
the crime in the caption or other parts of the 3. SC: Decision of CA set aside, guilty of
information but by the narration of facts and slight physical injuries
circumstances which adequately depicts a crime and
Facts:
sufficiently apprises the accused of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. Prosecution

Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his


older brother, both minors, joined the evening
procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi
City. When the procession passed in front of the
petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann
Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called
him "sissy".Petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan
and called them names like "strangers" and
"animals". He struck Jayson at the back with his hand,
and slapped Jayson on the face, and went to the
brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz,
their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out
of the house to take on the petitioner. Rolando later
brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and
reported the incident. Jayson also underwent medical
treatment at the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching
Hospital. The doctors who examined Jayson issued
two medical certificates attesting that Jayson
suffered contusions.

Defense

The petitioner denied having physically


abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he
only talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann
Rose and Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told
him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones at
them and about Jayson’s burning Cherrylyn’s hair. He
denied shouting invectives at and challenging
Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando
to restrain his sons from harming his daughters.

24 | P a g e
Mary Ann Rose testified that her father did (4) Failure to immediately give
not hit or slap but only confronted Jayson, asking why medical treatment to an injured child
Jayson had called her daughters "Kimi" and why he resulting in serious impairment of his
had burned Cherrlyn’s hair. Mary Ann Rose denied growth and development or in his
throwing stones at Jayson and calling him a "sissy." permanent incapacity or death.
She insisted that it was instead Jayson who had xxxx
pelted her with stones during the procession.
Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the
Held: RTC and the CA to the effect that the petitioner
struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped
The law under which the petitioner was Jayson on the face, we disagree with their holding
charged, tried and found guilty of violating is Section that his acts constituted child abuse within the
10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610, which purview of the above-quoted provisions. The records
relevantly states: did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his
laying of hands on Jayson had been intended to
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity" of Jayson as
Cruelty or Exploitation and other Conditions a human being, or that he had thereby intended to
Prejudicial to the Child’s Development. – humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed
(a) Any person who shall commit any the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at
other acts of child abuse, cruelty or the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his
exploitation or be responsible for other being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for
conditions prejudicial to the child’s the personal safety of his own minor daughters who
development including those covered by had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and
Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked
amended, but not covered by the Revised that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the
Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum being that was so essential in the crime of child
period. abuse.
xxxx
Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five
Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section to seven days of medical attention, the petitioner
3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, as follows: was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266
(1) of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:
Section 3. Definition of terms. –
xxxx Article 266. Slight physical injuries and
(b) "Child Abuse" refers to the maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries
maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the shall be punished:
child which includes any of the following: 1. By arresto menor when the
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, offender has inflicted physical injuries
neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and which shall incapacitate the offended
emotional maltreatment; party for labor from one to nine days,
(2) Any act by deeds or words which or shall require medical attendance
debases, degrades or demeans the during the same period.
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child xxxx
as a human being;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto
basic needs for survival, such as food menor, which ranges from one day to 30 days of
and shelter; or imprisonment. In imposing the correct penalty,
25 | P a g e
however, we have to consider the mitigating People v Mamantak
circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article
13 (6) of the Revised Penal Code, because the Crime charged: KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM
petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby
ISSUE: WON the accused is liable of kidnapping for
diminishing the exercise of his will power. Passion or
ransom
obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing
only in the honest belief of the accused. It is relevant Ruling:
to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, the
offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and 1. RTC: Guilty of kidnapping for ransom
intent. With his having acted under the belief that 2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at his two 3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
minor daughters, and that Jayson had burned
Facts:
Cherrlyn’s hair, the petitioner was entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of passion. Arresto menor is Teresa went with Christopher and her elder
prescribed in its minimum period (i.e., one day to 10 sister Zenaida to a McDonald’s outlet in the KP Tower
days) in the absence of any aggravating circumstance in Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila. Teresa and
that offset the mitigating circumstance of passion. Christopher looked for a vacant table while Zenaida
Accordingly, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law proceeded to order their food. Shortly after Teresa
being inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not took her seat, Christopher followed Zenaida to the
exceeding one year, the petitioner shall suffer a counter. Barely had Christopher gone from his
straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor. mother’s sight when she realized that he had
disappeared. She and her sister frantically looked for
him inside and outside the premises of the fastfood
outlet, to no avail. As their continued search for the
child was futile, they reported him missing to the
nearest police detachment.

Teresa went to several TV and radio stations


to inform the public of the loss of Christopher and to
appeal for help and information. Despite the
publicity, however, Teresa received no word about
Christopher’s whereabouts. Worse, pranksters were
gleefully having a field day aggravating her misery.

Teresa received a call from a woman who


sounded like a muslim. The caller claimed to have
custody of Christopher and asked for P30,000 in
exchange for the boy. the same muslim-sounding
woman called and instructed Teresa to get a recent
photo of her son from the Jalal Restaurant at the
Muslim Center in Quiapo, Manila. True enough, when
Teresa went there, someone gave her a recent
picture of Christopher. She then contacted the
mysterious woman through the cellphone number
the latter had previously given her. When the woman
instructed her to immediately board a ship for
Mindanao, Teresa reasoned that she had not raised

26 | P a g e
the ransom money yet. They then agreed to conduct Held:
the pay off at Pitang’s Carinderia in Kapatagan, Lanao
del Norte. Teresa sought the help of the Presidential Kidnapping is defined and punished under
Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF). Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act (RA) 7659:
While Teresa and PO3 Palafox were waiting at
Pitang’s Carinderia, two women came. They were ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal
Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak. detention. – Any private individual who shall
Mamantak approached Teresa and PO3 Palafox and kidnap or detain another, or in any other
asked who they were waiting for. Teresa replied that manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer
they were waiting for a certain Rocma Bato, the the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
name written at the back of the picture she received
in Jalal Restaurant in Manila. She showed the photo 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall
to Mamantak who stated that she knew Bato. have lasted more than three days.
Mamantak then told Teresa that she would ask a 2. If it shall have been committed
cousin of Bato if the latter was already in Kapatagan. simulating public authority.
Mamantak turned to Taurak, supposedly the cousin 3. If any serious physical injuries shall
of Bato. Taurak came near Teresa and PO3 Palafox have been inflicted upon the person
and informed them that she had Christopher. Taurak kidnapped or detained; or if threats to
asked Teresa and PO3 Palafox to come with her but kill him shall have been made.
they refused. Taurak reluctantly agreed to leave 4. If the person kidnapped or detained
Mamantak with them while she fetched Christopher. shall be a minor, except when the
accused is any of the parents, female
Several hours later, in the afternoon of the or a public officer.
same day, Taurak returned and told Teresa that
Christopher was in a nearby ice plant. She asked The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or
Teresa to go with her but the latter insisted on their detention was committed for the purpose of
agreement that the boy be handed over at the extorting ransom from the victim or any other
carinderia. Taurak relented, left and came back after person, even if none of the circumstances above-
several minutes with Christopher. mentioned were present in the commission of the
offense.
Upon seeing her son, Teresa cried and
embraced him. However, the child was unmoved. He When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of
no longer recognized nor understood her for he could the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
only speak in the muslim dialect. When asked who he dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be
was, the boy gave a muslim name with "Taurak" as imposed.
surname.
The crime has the following elements:
Mamantak and Taurak interrupted Teresa and
demanded the ransom money. She answered that (1) the offender is a private individual; not
her niece had it and pointed to PO3 Palafox. either of the parents of the victim7 or a public
Thereafter, Mamantak and PO3 Palafox boarded a officer who has a duty under the law to
jeepney which was parked outside, under Taurak’s detain a person;
watchful eyes. Inside the jeepney, PO3 Palafox (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
handed the ransom money to Mamantak. At this manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
juncture, PO3 Palafox gave the pre-agreed signal and (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must
the PAOCTF team then closed in and arrested be illegal and
Mamantak and Taurak.
27 | P a g e
(4) in the commission of the offense, any of actually spent for the care and subsistence of
the following circumstances is present: (a) the Christopher for almost two years. It therefore treated
kidnapping or detention lasts for more than the amount not as ransom but as a reimbursement of
three days; (b) it is committed by simulating expenses incurred for taking care of the child.
public authority; (c) any serious physical (Kidnappers in Mindanao today call it reimbursement
injuries are inflicted upon the person for "board-and-lodging.")
kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him
are made or (d) the person kidnapped or Ransom means money, price or consideration paid or
detained is a minor, female or a public demanded for the redemption of a captured person
official. that will release him from captivity. No specific form
of ransom is required to consummate the felony of
If the victim is a minor, the duration of his detention kidnapping for ransom as long as the ransom is
is immaterial. Likewise, if the victim is kidnapped and intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the
illegally detained for the purpose of extorting victim’s freedom. The amount of and purpose for the
ransom, the duration of his detention becomes ransom is immaterial.
inconsequential. The crime is qualified and becomes
punishable by death even if none of the In this case, the payment of P30,000 was demanded
circumstances mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 4 of as a condition for the release of Christopher to his
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code is present.9 mother. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly
considered it as a demand for ransom.
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual
deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with the
intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only
the imprisonment of a person but also the
deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for
whatever length of time. And liberty is not limited to
mere physical restraint but embraces one’s right to
enjoy his God-given faculties subject only to such
restraints necessary for the common welfare.

Taurak unlawfully kept the child under her control


and custody and even brought him to Lanao del
Norte. She demanded P30,000 in exchange for his
return to his mother. On the other hand, Mamantak’s
actions (e.g., her presence in the carinderia and her
acceptance of the ransom) showed without doubt
that she was aiding her sister and was acting in
concert with her. These were the identical factual
findings of both the trial and appellate courts. There
is no reason to disturb them as they are sufficiently
supported by evidence.

The Court of Appeals considered the demand


for P30,000 as a qualifying circumstance which
necessitated the imposition of the death penalty. On
the other hand, the trial court deemed the amount as
too measly, compared to what must have been

28 | P a g e
People v Muit, et. al. Held:

Crime charged: KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH The elements of the crime of kidnapping and
HOMICIDE AND CARNAPPING serious illegal detention are the following: (a) the
accused is a private individual; (b) the accused
ISSUE: WON the accused-appellants were correctly kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner
convicted by the RTC deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of
detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (d) in the
Ruling: commission of the offense, any of the four
circumstances mentioned in Article 267 is present.
1. RTC: Guilty of carnapping and kidnapping The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual
for ransom, which resulted in the death of deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with
the victim indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect
2. CA: Affirmed the same. The totality of the prosecution’s evidence
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications in this case established the commission of kidnapping
for ransom with homicide.
Facts:
On the other hand, Republic Act No. 6539, or
Accused appellants kidnapped the victim and the Anti-Carnapping Act, as amended, defines
boarded the victim’s Pajero. They then started "carnapping" as the taking, with intent to gain, of a
the Pajero and drove away, passing through the Pag- motor vehicle belonging to another without the
asa Road gate. Two more persons who were waiting latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or
at the Pag-asa road boarded the Pajero. Lipa City intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
Deputy Chief of Police, Supt. Arcadio Mission things. The crime was committed in this case when
received a radio message from the Tanauan Police the victim’s Pajero was forcibly taken away from him
Station that a kidnapping was ongoing and the contemporaneously with his kidnapping at the
kidnappers on board a Pajero with plate number construction site.
UDL-746 were heading towards Lipa City. Supt.
Mission immediately ordered the police posted near The kidnapping for ransom with homicide and
the Lipa City bus stop to put up a barricade. In the the carnapping were established by the direct
meantime, two teams were organized to intercept testimony of Ferraer, Seraspe and Chavez. Ferraer
the Pajero. They proceeded to the barricade. testified on how the group approached and
convinced him to let them use his house to keep the
Right after Supt. Mission and the teams victim they planned to kidnap. They planned the
arrived at the barricade, the Pajero was spotted. crime in Ferraer’s house and waited for the call from
When policemen flagged down the Pajero, the driver Romeo to inform them when the victim would be at
stopped the vehicle. While two policemen the construction site. The group received a call from
approached the Pajero, the driver and front Romeo on 2 December 1997 informing them that the
passenger opened their car doors and started firing at victim was already at the construction site, and so
the policemen. At this point, all the policemen they went there to carry out their plan. At the
present at the scene fired back. The cross-fire lasted construction site, as testified to by Seraspe and
for around four minutes. All the occupants of Chavez, Muit and the other members of the group
the Pajero, except the driver and the front passenger pointed their guns at the victim and his companion
who managed to escape, died. SPO1 Rolando Cariaga and ordered them to lie prostrate on the ground.
apprehended one of the escapees who turned out to After getting the keys to the Pajero from Seraspe,
be Muit, the driver of the Pajero, at Barangay San they forced the victim to board the vehicle with Muit
Carlos, Batangas, about 200 meters from the place of driving it. They immediately reported the kidnapping
the shootout.
29 | P a g e
of the victim to the police and the kidnappers were Madsali, et. al. v People
intercepted by the group led by Supt. Mission. Supt.
Mission testified that the kidnappers refused to Crime charged: ABDUCTION WITH RAPE and SERIOUS
surrender and engaged the police in a shoot out in ILLEGAL DETENTION
which the victim was among the casualties. Muit was
one of the two persons who survived the shoot out, ISSUE: WON the crime charged is correct
but was apprehended by the police. Pancho, Jr.
returned to the house of Ferraer alone when the Ruling:
group did not arrive at their meeting place. Ferraer,
Pancho, Jr., and Pancho, Sr. learned from the news 1. RTC: Guilty of abduction with rape and
that the group engaged the police in a shoot out and serious illegal detention
most of them were killed, and that Muit was arrested 2. CA: Affirmed
by the police. 3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications (guilty of
special complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659 and
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659)

Facts:

AAA and her aunt Inon Dama were fetching


water in a cave in Brgy. Malitub, Bataraza, Palawan.
Suddenly, Sajiron arrived, running towards them and
carrying a badong (bolo). They tried to run away, but
Sajiron overtook them. He held the hair of AAA and
told her, "Sara, you go with me. If you will not go with
me, I will kill you." Inon Dama came to AAA's rescue,
but Sajiron tried to hack her. Luckily, she was able to
shield herself with a plastic container. AAA was crying
while she held her aunt's hand. Sajiron then drew his
gun, which was tucked in his waist, pointed it at Inon
Dama and said, "If you will not go, I will shoot
you." Inon Dama went home and reported the
incident to AAA's mother. When Inon Dama left the
place, Maron, Sajiron's father, suddenly appeared
with a gun and told AAA to come with them. When
AAA refused, Sajiron and Maron tied her hands
behind her back, covered her mouth with a piece of
cloth, and brought her to the forest. There, AAA was
untied and undressed, leaving only her bra on. While
Sajiron was undressing AAA, she pleaded with him
not to abuse her, but Sajiron told her that if she
would submit to his desire, her life would be spared.
Sajiron held her breast, touched her private parts and
30 | P a g e
inserted his sex organ inside her vagina. AAA resisted, A reading of the Information in Criminal Case
but to no avail. She felt pain and she noticed blood on No. 12281, for abduction with rape, would readily
her private parts. She was sexually abused three show that the allegations therein do not charge the
times on the ground, where she was made to lie accused with forcible abduction, because the taking,
down on a bed of leaves. During the entire time that as alleged, was not with lewd designs. The only act
AAA was being abused by Sajiron, Maron stood guard that was alleged to have been attended with lewd
and watched them. They left the forest at around design was the act of rape. Upon further perusal of
10:00 o'clock in the morning of the following day and the allegations in the information, it appears that the
brought AAA to the house of Egap, where she was crime charged was actually the special complex crime
detained in a room. Sajiron instructed Egap to guard of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and rape,
AAA and to shoot her if she would attempt to escape. defined and penalized under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Nine days after the abduction, upon
instruction of Egap, AAA and Sajiron were married by The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal
Imam Musli Muhammad. The marriage was detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
solemnized against AAA's will and without the Code are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2)
presence of her parents. After the marriage, AAA and he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner
Sajiron lived in the house of Egap, together with the deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of
latter's wife, children and mother-in-law. AAA stayed detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the
in one room with Sajiron. While detained, AAA did commission of the offense, any of the following
not try to escape, because her house was very far circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping or
from the place where she was held captive, and her detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is
captors threatened to kill her and her family if she committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any
would attempt to escape. During her detention, serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person
Sajiron abused her twice every night. She was free to kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
roam within the vicinity of the house but she was made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a
usually accompanied by Egap's wife who served as minor, female, or a public officer.
her guard. She was also guarded and threatened by
Egap's sons. She got pregnant after some time. In the case at bar, Sajiron and Maron, who
are private individuals, forcibly took and dragged
Held: AAA, a minor, to the forest and held her captive
against her will. The crime of serious illegal detention
Criminal Case No. 12281 consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure,
but also of detaining him or depriving him in any
The Court does not agree with the findings of manner of his liberty. For there to be kidnapping, it is
the CA affirming the trial court's judgment finding enough that the victim is restrained from going
Sajiron and Maron guilty of abduction and rape in home. Its essence is the actual deprivation of the
Criminal Case No. 12281. An appeal in a criminal case victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the
opens the entire case for review on any question, intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. In
including one not raised by the parties Article 342 of the present case, although AAA was not actually
the Revised Penal Code spells out the elements of the confined in an enclosed place, she was clearly
crime of forcible abduction, thus: (a) that the person restrained and deprived of her liberty, because she
abducted is a woman, regardless of her age, civil was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a piece of
status, or reputation; (b) that the abduction is against cloth, thus, making it very easy to physically drag her
her will; and (c) that the abduction is with lewd to the forest away from her home.
designs.

31 | P a g e
The crime of rape was also proven beyond separate complaints. As earlier mentioned, R.A. No.
reasonable doubt in this case. Sajiron succeeded in 7659 amended Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code
having carnal knowledge of AAA through the use of by adding thereto this provision: "When the victim is
force and intimidation. For fear of losing her life, AAA killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is
had no choice but to give in to Sajiron's beastly and raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing
lustful assault. acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed; and
that this provision gives rise to a special complex
The last paragraph of Art. 267 of the Revised crime. (Italics in the original)
Penal Code provides that if the victim is killed or dies
as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or Criminal Case No. 12309
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed. In People v. We also find Sajiron guilty beyond reasonable
Larrañaga, the Court explained that this provision doubt of the crime of serious illegal detention.
gives rise to a special complex crime:
All the elements of the crime of serious illegal
This amendment introduced in our detention are present in the instant case: AAA, a
criminal statutes, the concept of 'special female and a minor, testified that on July 2, 1994,
complex crime' of kidnapping with murder or after she was raped in the forest, she was brought to
homicide. It effectively eliminated the and detained at the house of Egap and forced to
distinction drawn by the courts between cohabit with Sajiron. From the very start of her
those cases where the killing of the detention on July 2, 1994, Egap directed Sajiron to
kidnapped victim was purposely sought by guard her, and shoot her if she attempted to escape.
the accused, and those where the killing of She did not dare to escape because the accused
the victim was not deliberately resorted to threatened to kill her and her family if she attempted
but was merely an afterthought. to flee.
Consequently, the rule now is: Where the
person kidnapped is killed in the course of the
detention, regardless of whether the killing
was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or
homicide can no longer be complexed under
Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but
shall be punished as a special complex crime
under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as
amended by R.A. No. 7659."

Where the law provides a single penalty for


two or more component offenses, the resulting crime
is called a special complex crime. Some of the special
complex crimes under the Revised Penal Code are (1)
robbery with homicide, (2) robbery with rape, (3)
kidnapping with serious physical injuries, (4)
kidnapping with murder or homicide, and (5) rape
with homicide. In a special complex crime, the
prosecution must necessarily prove each of the
component offenses with the same precision that
would be necessary if they were made the subject of

32 | P a g e
People v Mirandilla, Jr. Mirandilla dragged AAA out of the tricycle and
pushed her inside a concrete house. At gunpoint he
Crime charged: KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE (CRIM. CASE ordered her to remove her pants. When she defied
NO. 9278), FOUR COUNTS OF RAPE (CRIM. CASE NOS. him, he slapped her and hit her arms with a gun,
9274 TO 9277), and RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL forced his hands inside her pants, into her panty, and
ASSAULT (CRIM. CASE NO. 9279) reaching her vagina, slipped his three fingers and
rotated them inside. The pain weakened her. He
ISSUE: WON the crime charged is correct forcibly pulled her pants down and lifting her legs,
pushed and pulled his penis inside. "Sayang ka," she
Ruling: heard him whisper at her, as she succumbed to pain
and exhaustion.
1. RTC: Guilty of the crime charged
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications (guilty of When AAA woke up the following morning,
the special complex crime of kidnapping she found herself alone. She cried for help, shouting
with rape (instead of kidnapping as the until her throat dried. But no one heard her. No
RTC ruled), four counts of rape, and one rescue came.
count of rape by sexual assault)
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications (guilty of At around midnight, Mirandilla arrived
special complex crime of kidnapping and together with his gang. Pointing a gun at AAA, he
serious illegal detention with rape under ordered her to open her mouth; she sheepishly
the last paragraph of Article 267 of the obeyed. He forced his penis inside her mouth, pulling
Revised Penal Code) through her hair with his left hand and slapping her
with his right. After satisfying his lust, he dragged her
Facts: into the tricycle and drove to Bogtong, Legazpi. At the
road’s side, Mirandilla pushed her against a reclining
It was eve of the feast in Brgy. San Francisco, tree, gagged her mouth with cloth, punched her arm,
Legazpi City. At the plaza, AAA was dancing with her thigh, and lap, and pulled up her over-sized shirt. Her
elder sister, BBB. AAA went out of the dancing hall to underwear was gone. Then she felt Mirandilla’s penis
buy candies in a nearby store. While making her way inside her vagina. A little while, a companion warned
back through the crowd, a man grabbed her hand, his Mirandilla to move out. And they drove away.
arm wrapped her shoulders, with a knife’s point
thrust at her right side. She will come to know the They reached a nipa hut and AAA was thrown
man’s name at the police station, after her escape, to inside. Her mouth was again covered with cloth.
be Felipe Mirandilla, Jr. Mirandilla, with a gun aimed at her point blank,
grabbed her shirt, forced her legs open, and again
He told her not to move or ask for help. inserted his penis into her vagina.
Another man joined and went beside her, while two
others stayed at her back, one of whom had a gun. The following evening, Mirandilla and his
They slipped through the unsuspecting crowd, gang brought AAA to Guinobatan, where she suffered
walked farther as the deafening music faded into soft the same fate. They repeatedly detained her at
sounds. After a four-hour walk through the grassy daytime, moved her back and forth from one place to
fields, they reached the Mayon International Hotel, another on the following nights, first to Bonga, then
where they boarded a waiting tricycle. Upon passing back to Guinobatan, where she was locked up in a
the Albay Cathedral, the others alighted, leaving AAA cell-type house and was raped repeatedly on the
alone with Mirandilla who after receiving a gun from grassy field right outside her cell, then to Camalig,
a companion, drove the tricycle farther away and into where they caged her in a small house in the middle
the darkness. Minutes later, they reached the Gallera of a rice field. She was allegedly raped 27 times.
de Legazpi in Rawis.
33 | P a g e
One afternoon, in Guinobatan, AAA act of sexual assault by inserting his
succeeded in opening the door of her cell. Seeing that penis into another person’s mouth or
Mirandilla and his companions were busy playing anal orifice, or any instrument or
cards, she rushed outside and ran, crossed a river, got object, into the genital or anal orifice
drenched, and continued running. She rested for of another person.
awhile, hiding behind a rock; she walked through the
fields and stayed out of people’s sight for two nights. AAA was able to prove each element of rape
Finally, she found a road and followed its path, committed under Article 266-A, par. 1(a) of the
leading her to the house of Evelyn Guevarra who Revised Penal Code, that (1) Mirandilla had carnal
brought her to the police station. It was 11 January knowledge of her; (2) through force, threat, or
2001. AAA was in foul smell, starving and sleepless. intimidation. She was also able to prove each
Evelyn Guevarra gave her a bath and the police gave element of rape by sexual assault under Article 266-
her food. When the police presented to her pictures A, par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code: (1) Mirandilla
of suspected criminals, she recognized the man’s face inserted his penis into her mouth; (2) through force,
– she was certain it was him. He was Felipe threat, or intimidation.
Mirandilla, Jr., the police told her.
Likewise, kidnapping and serious illegal detention is
The following morning, accompanied by the provided for under Article 267 of the Revised Penal
police, AAA submitted herself to Dr. Sarah Vasquez, Code:
Legazpi City’s Health Officer for medical examination.
The doctor discovered hymenal lacerations in Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal
different positions of her hymen, indicative of sexual detention. – Any private individual who shall
intercourse. Foul smelling pus also oozed from her kidnap or detain another, or in any manner
vagina - AAA had contracted gonorrhoea. deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua to death;
Held: 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have
lasted more than three days. xxx
The Court agrees with the CA in finding
Mirandilla guilty of the special complex crime of Emphatically, the last paragraph of Article 267
kidnapping with rape, instead of simple kidnapping as of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No.
the RTC ruled. It was the RTC, no less, which found 7659, states that when the victim is killed or dies as a
that Mirandilla kidnapped AAA, held her in detention consequence of the detention or is raped, or is
for 39 days and carnally abused her while holding a subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
gun and/or a knife. maximum penalty shall be imposed. This provision
gives rise to a special complex crime. As the Court
Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code explained in People v. Larrañaga, this arises where
states that: the law provides a single penalty for two or more
component offenses.
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed.
– Rape is committed – Notably, however, no matter how many rapes
1. By a man who shall have carnal had been committed in the special complex crime of
knowledge of a woman under any of the kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one
following circumstances: kidnapping with rape. This is because these
a. Through force, threat or composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible
intimidation; xxx. offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts
2. By any person who, under any of with only one single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659
the circumstances mentioned in depreciated the seriousness of rape because no
paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an matter how many times the victim was raped, like in
34 | P a g e
the present case, there is only one crime committed People v Suyu
– the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape.
Crime charged: ROBBERY w/ RAPE
However, for the crime of kidnapping with
ISSUE: WON court erred in finding the
rape, as in this case, the offender should not have
accusedappellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
taken the victim with lewd designs, otherwise, it
the crime charged
would be complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape. In People v. Garcia, we explained that if the Ruling:
taking was by forcible abduction and the woman was
raped several times, the crimes committed is one 1. RTC: Guilty of robbery w/ rape
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, in as 2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
much as the forcible abduction was only necessary 3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
for the first rape; and each of the other counts of
Facts:
rape constitutes distinct and separate count of rape.
Clarissa Angeles was with her boyfriend,
It having been established that Mirandilla’s
William Ferrer. They were eating snacks inside a pick-
act was kidnapping and serious illegal detention (not
up truck parked in a vacant lot. Suddenly, a man, who
forcible abduction) and on the occasion thereof, he
turned out to be Rommel Macarubbo, appeared in
raped AAA several times, We hold that Mirandilla is
front of the truck, pointed a gun at them and said:
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special
"This is a holdup. If you will start the engine of the
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
car, I will shoot you." Thereafter, another man, who
detention with rape, warranting the penalty of death.
turned out to be Willy Suyu, lifted the lock on
However, in view of R.A. No. 9346 entitled, An Act
William's side and entered the pick-up. Willy Suyu
Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the
then took Ferrer's wallet which contained around
Philippines, the penalty of death is hereby reduced to
P150.00. A third man, who turned out to be Francis
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole.
Cainglet, took Clarissa's jewelry valued at around P2,
500.00 and cash amounting to P10.00. Thereafter,
Willy Suyu clubbed William and dragged him out of
the truck. Fortunately, William was able to escape
and immediately went to the police station to report
the incident. Meanwhile, Willy Suyu lifted the lock of
the pick-up truck at Clarissa's side. Macarubbo then
opened the door. The two and Cainglet dragged the
girl to a hilly place, not far away. Macarubbo and
Willy Suyu held her by the arms, while Cainglet poked
a fan knife at her. There, they ravished her.

Held:

The conviction thus of appellants for robbery


with rape defined and penalized under Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code is correct. The
law provides:

Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or


intimidation of persons- Penalties. - Any
person guilty of robbery with the use of

35 | P a g e
violence against or intimidation of any person People v Cabbab
shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua Crime charged: DOUBLE MURDER AND ATTEMPTED
to death, when by reason or on MURDER WITH ROBBERY
occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed, ISSUE: WON the crime charged is correct
or when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional Ruling:
mutilation or arson.
1. RTC: Guilty of double murder with
robbery or better put, robbery with
To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following double homicide and attempted murder
elements must concur: as defined in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code in relation to Art. 294 of the same
(1) the taking of personal property is committed
Code or robbery with double homicide
with violence or intimidation against
defined and penalized under Art. 248 in
persons;
relation to Art. 6
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications (Guilty of
(3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain
the special complex crime of Robbery
or animus lucrandi;
with Homicide and separate crime of
(4) the robbery is accompanied by rape
attempted murder)
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications (Guilty of
The intent to rob must precede the rape. In
robbery with homicide and acquitted of
robbery with rape, the intention of the felony is to
the separate crime of attempted murder
rob and the felony is accompanied by rape. The rape
against the person of PO William Belmes)
must be contemporaneous with the commission of
the robbery. We note that aside from raping the
Facts:
victim, appellant Rodolfo Suyu inserted his finger in
her sexual organ. Appellant Suyu, thus, committed
Father and son Vidal Agbulos and Winner
sexual assault as defined and penalized in Article 266-
Agbulos, together with Eddie Quindasan, Felipe Abad
A, paragraph 2 of Republic Act No. 8353. Also, aside
and Police Officer (PO) William Belmes, went to
from Rodolfo Suyu, Cainglet raped the victim.
Barangay Kimmalasag, San Isidro, Abra to attend a
Nevertheless, there is only one single and indivisible
"fiesta" celebration. Upon arrival in the area, they
felony of robbery with rape and any crimes
found out that the fiesta celebration was already
committed on the occasion or by reason of the
over, thus, they decided to go home in Villaviciosa,
robbery are merged and integrated into a single and
Abra. The group took their lunch at Sitio Turod,
indivisible felony of robbery with rape.
located in the same area of Barangay Kimmalasag,
thereafter while on their way home, they were met
by accused-appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. and Segundino
Calpito and invited them to play "pepito," a local
version of the game of "russian poker."

Only Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan


played "pepito" with the group of accused-appellant.
Winner Agbulos played the dealer/banker in the
game while accused-appellant and Segundino Calpito
acted as players therein. Around 3:00 o’clock p.m.,

36 | P a g e
PO William Belmes told Winner Agbulos and Eddie homicide shall have been committed,
Quindasan that they should be going home after or when the robbery shall have been
three (3) more deals. About 3:30 p.m., Winner accompanied by rape or intentional
Agbulos’s group wrapped-up the game and were set mutilation or arson.
for home together with his group. Winner Agbulos
won the game. While on their way home from Sitio To warrant conviction for the crime of Robbery with
Turod, PO William Belmes, who was behind Winner Homicide, the prosecution is burdened to prove the
Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan saw accused-appellant, confluence of the following elements:
accused Segundino Calpito and a companion running
up a hill. Suddenly, he heard gunshots and saw (1) the taking of personal property is
Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan, who were committed with violence or intimidation
then walking ahead of the group, hit by the gunfire. against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
By instant, PO William Belmes dove into a (3) the taking is characterized by intent to
canal to save himself from the continuous gunfire of gain or animo lucrandi; and
accused-appellant. PO William Belmes ran towards (4) by reason of the robbery or on the
Vidal Agbulos and Felipe Abad, who were walking occasion thereof, homicide is committed.
behind the group, and informed the two that Winner
In Robbery with Homicide, so long as the
Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan were ambushed by
intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur
accused-appellant and Segundino Calpito. The three
before, during or after the robbery. It is immaterial
(3) proceeded to the crime scene where they saw the
that death would supervene by mere accident, or
dead body of Winner Agbulos together with Eddie
that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of
Quindasan whom they mistook for dead. The three
robbery, or that two or more persons are killed. Once
sought help from the police authorities of Pilar, Abra
a homicide is committed by reason or on the
and returned to the scene of the crime where they
occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the
found Eddie Quindasan who was still alive and who
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
narrated that it was Juan Cabbab, Jr. and Segundino
Calpito who ambused them and took the money,
Here, the prosecution adduced proof beyond
estimated at P12,000.00, of Winner Agbulos which he
reasonable doubt that appellant, having lost to
won in the card game. Eddie Quindasan was brought
Winner Agbulos in the game of poker, intended to
to the Abra Provincial Hospital but died the following
divest Agbulos of his winnings amounting
day.
to P20,000.00. In pursuit of his plan to rob Agbulos of
his winnings, appellant shot and killed him as well as
Held:
his companion, Eddie Quindasan.
The crime committed by appellant was
The Court feels, however, that the two courts
correctly characterized by the appellate court as
below erred in convicting appellant of the separate
Robbery with Homicide under Article 294, paragraph
crime of attempted murder for the shooting of PO
1 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) which reads:
William Belmes. Attempted homicide or attempted
murder committed during or on the occasion of the
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or
robbery, as in this case, is absorbed in the crime of
intimidation of persons — Penalties.— Any
Robbery with Homicide which is a special complex
person guilty of robbery with the use of
crime that remains fundamentally the same
violence against any person shall suffer:
regardless of the number of homicides or injuries
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua
committed in connection with the robbery.
to death, when by reason or on
occasion of the robbery, the crime of

37 | P a g e