JURISPRUDENCE ON CRIMNAL LAWS

Felonies
and

General Principles

DOLO Distinguished from CULPA; Negligence and connivance are two different things. Connivance is a deliberate act, and cannot arise from negligence." As pointed o t b! this Co rt in Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan" "#impl! beca se a person in a chain of processing officers happens to sign or initial a vo cher as it is going the ro nds, it does not necessaril! follow that said person becomes part of a conspirac! in an illegal scheme. $t is all too eas! to be swept into a long prison term simpl! beca se g ilt of some conspirators is overwhelming and somehow it attached to all who happen to be charged in one indictment."

%e la Pe&a v. #andiganba!a n, G' ()*++, --, .ct., /, /))).

DECEIT Distinguished from FAULT; Accident connotes PP v. Aglipa!, the absence of criminal intent, the e0istence of w1c is G' /5+*)5, shown b! a persons overt acts. $n the case at bar, .ct. /6, -++/. appellants son intervened in the 2 arrel between appellant and his wife. Appellant got his shotg n and ret rned to the 3itchen where he coc3ed the shotg n, aimed and fired it at his son. A deliberate intent to do an nlawf l act is inconsistent w1 rec3less impr dence. Citation of cases ill strative of rec3less impr dence res lting in homicide4 also cases negating rec3less impr dence, as criminal intent was established. CRIMINAL LIABILITY is inc rred b! an! person committing a felon!, altho gh the wrongf l act done is different from what was intended. !me; :hile chatting w1 a friend, the victim was slain b! a b llet fired from acc sed,appellants g n that was intended for another target. ;nder Art. 5 of the 'PC, criminal liabilit! is inc rred b! an! person committing a felon! altho gh the wrongf l act be different from that w1c is intended. CON PIRACY; As ! M!nner of In"urring Crimin!# Li!$i#it% or As ! Mode of Committing ! Fe#on%; Conspirac! m st be established b! positive and concl sive evidence. $t m st be shown to e0ist as clearl! and convincingl! as the offense itself. $t cannot be based on mere con=ect res. !me; Conspirac! e0ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felon! and decide to commit it. >here is conspirac! if at the time of the commission of the felon! the defendants had ><? #A@? C'$@$NAA P;'P.#? and AC>?% $N ;N$#.N >.:A'%# ><? ?B?C;>$.N .F ><?$' C.@@.N C'$@$NAA %?#$GN. .nce the conspirac! is proven the act of one becomes the act of all regardless of who act all! rendered the fatal blow on the victim. A conspirator m st however, perform an .C?'> AC> in f rtherance of the plan to commit a felon!4 mere presence at the scene of the incident, 3nowledge of the plan or ac2 iescence thereto are not s fficient gro nds to hold a person liable as a conspirator. As s ch conspirac! m st be established as an! element of the crime and evidence of the conspirac! m st be be!ond reasonable do bt. $n the case of People vs. Elijorde this Co rt had occasion to e0plain the re2 isites for a defendant to be held liable as a conspirator" "Conspirac! m st be proved as ind bitabl! PP v. Flora, G' /-7)+), 8 ne -9, -+++. PP v. <errera, G' /5+77*, 7(, %ec. 7, -++/.

PP v. Canag ran, G' /+(/*5, .ct. -(, /))).

#alvatierra v. Ca, G' //7))(, 8 ne /6, -+++4 PP v. @ mar, G' /-9/77, 8 ne (, -+++ 4 PP v. 'oche, G' //7/(-, April 6, -+++ 4 PP v. 'ag ndiaD, G' /-5)**, 8 ne --, -+++ 4 PP v. Candare, G' /-)7-(, 8 ne (, -+++4 PP v. Aegaspi, G' //*(+-, April4

as the crime itself thro gh clear and convincing evidence, PP v. C pino, not merel! b! con=ect re. >o hold an acc sed g ilt! as a G' /-76((, co,principal b! reason of conspirac!, he m st be shown to April 9, -+++. have performed an overt act in p rs ance or f rtherance of the complicit!. <ence, conspirac! e0ists in a sit ation where at the time the malefactors were committing the crime their actions impliedl! showed nit! of p rpose among them, a concerted effort to bring abo t the death of the victim. $n a great ma=orit! of cases, complicit! was established b! proof of acts done in concert, i.e., acts which !ield the reasonable inference that the doers thereof were acting with a common intent or design. >herefore, the tas3 in ever! case is determining whether the partic lar acts established b! the re2 isite 2 ant m of proof do reasonabl! !ield that inference." !me; >he cond ct of the acc sed before, d ring, and after the commission of the crime ma! be considered to show an e0tant conspirac!. For conspirac! to e0ist, it is not essential that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the commission of the crime4 it is s fficient that at the time of the commission, the acc sed had the same p rpose and were nited in its e0ec tion. !me; Conspirac! ma! be inferred from the acts of the PP v. Aisterio, acc sed before, d ring and after the commission of the G' /--+)), crime w1c ind bitabl! point to a =oint p rpose, concert of 8 l! 7, -+++. action and comm nit! of interest. !me; >he lac3 of design or plan to rape and 3ill the victim prior to the commission of the crime does not negate conspirac!. For conspirac! to e0ist, proof of an act al planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a condition precedent. $t is s fficient that at the time of the commission of the offense the acc sed had the same p rpose and were nited in its e0ec tion. !me; :hile there is no evidence of previo s agreement between the appellants to 3ill the victims, their sim ltaneo s acts in stoning the victims ind bitabl! show nit! of p rpose, and intent to harm the victims. !me; >here was conspirac! in this case as shown b! the fact that acc sed,appellants acted in concert. <.:?C?', while this circ mstance ma3es the act of one the act of all, it does not ma3e each of the acc sed,appellants liable for as man! crimes of m rder as there are conspirators. For the fact is that there was onl! one crime of m rder. !me; $n an indictment based on conspirac!, the ac2 ittal of a conspirator does not absolve the co,conspirator from criminal liabilit!. $f the prosec tion fails to prove conspirac!, the alleged conspirators sho ld be individ all! responsible for their respective acts. !me; &'( Cons)ir!"% "!n $e dedu"ed from the "ir"umst!n"es surrounding the "rime* Action in concert to achieve a common design is the hallmar3 of conspirac!. $ll strative cases" FiG Acc sed,appellants and their cohort sim ltaneo sl! p lled o t their g ns and anno nced a hold, p. After divesting their victims of personal belongings, the! fled on foot at the same time and toward the same direction. HPP v. Cabilto, GR 128816 1!""#"$ 8%, &'g. 8, 2%%1I. FiiG >he acc sed waiting in amb sh, one PP v. .rdono, G' /9-/75, 8 ne -), -+++.

PP v. #inda, G' //7-5*, 5(, %ec. /, -+++. PP v. Eira!on, G' /99*(*, Nov. -), -+++.

PP v. Fig eroa, G' /95+76, 8 l! 6, -+++.

at each side of the road, s ddenl! attac3ed one victim and then the other, pon the signal, Jhere are the two persons we are waiting for,K HPP v. Medios, GR 1!2%66$6#, (ov. 2", 2%%1I. FiiiG Appellants and their co,acc sed wa!laid and s rro nded the lone and narmed victim, ganged p on him, and tho gh blows delivered w1 a wooden cl b and a lead pipe, inflicted fatal in= ries on him. After the victim fell prostrate, appellants and their confederates fled the scene together. >he acts of the appellants before, d ring and after the incident ind bitabl! point to a =oint p rpose, intent, and design to effect a common nlawf l ob=ective. HPP v. )re*, GR 12#!68, )ec. !, 2%%1 I. FivG E! g arding the victims and preventing their escape, acc sed, appellants e0hibited not onl! their 3nowledge of the criminal design of their co,conspirators b t also their participation in its e0ec tion. HPP v. +icayan, GR 1,%"%% 1,%"11, &'g. 1-, 2%%1I. FvG Conspirac! was also established in the ff. cases" HPP v. .'inicio, GR 1,2,!%, Sept. 1!, 2%%1/ PP v. 0er1osa, GR 1!18%-, Sept. #, 2%%1/ PP v. 2e1pla, GR 1218"#, &'g. 16, 2%%1/ PP v. )e G'31an, GR 12,%!#, 4ct. 2, 2%%1/ PP v. 5illaver, GR 1!!!81, (ov. 2#, 2%%1I. &+( Cons)ir!"% must $e sho,n !s "#e!r#% !nd "on-in"ing#% !s the "ommission of the "rime itse#f* A finding of conspirac! cannot be based on mere con=ect re and ins fficient proof of a preconceived plan to commit the crime or commonalit! of the p rpose among the perpetrators of the crime. H PP v. Reapor, GR 1!%"62, 4ct. -, 2%%1/ PP v. 5icente, GR 1,2,,#, )ec. 21, 2%%1/ PP v. Sa'l, GR 12,8%", )ec. 1", 2%%1I. &.( On"e the "ons)ir!"% is est!$#ished/ the !"t of one is the !"t of !##* $t is not an!more necessar! to pinpoint w1c of the two appellants inflicted the fatal wo nd on the victim. HPP v. 6ig'racion, GR 12"162, &'g. 1%, 2%%1/ PP v. Cantonjos, GR 1!6#,8, (ov. 21, 2%%1I. Effe"t of Cons)ir!"%; ?vidence as to who inflicted the PP v. Gallo, fatal wo nd is immaterial. All of the acc sed are regarded G' /-(96/, as co,principals since the act of one is the act of all. Nov. /6, /))). !me; >he e0istence of conspirac! ma3es the act of one the act of all. <ence, the acc sed,appellant was held liable for 9 co nts of rape and 9 co nts of fr strated homicide on acco nt of a clear conspirac! among the 9 acc sed fo nd g ilt! of committing, one after the other, rape and then homicide. !me; $t is not essential that there be direct proof of previo s agreement to commit the crime. $t is s fficient that the form and manner the attac3 is accomplished clearl! indicate nit! of action and p rpose. $t ma! even be shown b! circ mstantial evidence or ded ced from the mode and manner the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the acc sed themselves pointing to a =oint p rpose and design, conserted action, and comm nit! of interest. !me; The e-iden"e )ro-ed the e0isten"e of "ons)ir!"% $ut not the "u#)!$i#it% of the !))e##!nt* >he taped interview revealed that the acc sed vol ntaril! admitted to the rape,sla! and even e0pressed remorse for having perpetrated the crime. >his is admissible in evidence as the verbal confession is not violative #ections /-, pars. H/I and H9I, Art. $$$, of the Constit tion w1c bars PP v. <onra, G' /96+/-, /6, #ept. -6, -+++.

PP v. Apelado, G' //5, .ct. //, /)))4 PP v. Aachica, G' )559-, .ct. /-, /)))4 PP v. @arcelino, G' /-6-6), .ct. /, /))). PP v. Arlale=o, G' /9-/75, 8 ne -), -+++.

the comp lsor! disclos re of incriminating facts or confessions. Cons)ir!"% Not Est!$#ished; @ere presence at the PP v. >ab so, scene of the crime or sole relationship with the acc sed G' //9*+(, does not ma3e one a co,conspirator. Act al cooperation .ct. -6, /))). and not mere cogniDance or approval of an illegal act is re2 ired to establish conspirac!. !me; @ere presence at the scene of the crime or even 3nowledge of the plan or ac2 iescence thereto are not s fficient gro nds to hold a person liable as a conspirator. PP v. >olentino, G' /9)/*), April 9, -++-.

!me; $t cannot be s rmised that conspirac! e0isted = st PP v. Aoreno, beca se Aoreno and appellant Ae!sa were both seen G' /9+((), raising their arms and aiming at the victim. @ere 8 ne 6, -++-. sim ltaneo s aiming b! the appellant and his co,acc sed at the victim w1 their firearms does not b! itself demonstrate conc rrence of will or nit! of action or p rpose that co ld be the basis for their collective responsibilit!. >he evidence of the prosec tion onl! proves w1 certaint! that appellant was present when the victim was 3illed. $t does not prove be!ond do bt who 3illed him. >here is pa cit! of evidence that indicate, be!ond a scintilla of a do bt, that appellant and Aoreno shared a common design and a nit! of p rpose in 3illing $gmedio so as to ma3e both responsible b! reason of a conspirac!. >here is even do bt whether both did fire at the victim. For the victim was hit onl! once4 he s ffered onl! one b llet wo nd. Accordingl!, ac2 ittal of Ae!sa is in order. <is responsibilit! for the death of $gmedio has not been proven be!ond reasonable do bt. Conspirac! as a basis for conviction of appellant sho ld be proved in the same manner as the criminal act. Altho gh direct proof is not essential, conspirac! m st be shown to e0ist clearl! as the commission of the offense itself. Conspirac! m st be proven, = st li3e an! other criminal acc sation, "independentl! and be!ond reasonable do bt.K CONFEDERATION; $t is not an aggravating circ mstance nder Art. /5 of the 'PC. Ai3e conspirac!, w1c m st be alleged in and not merel! inferred from the information, confederation is b t a mode of inc rring criminal liabilit! and ma! not be considered criminal in itself nless specificall! provided b! law. Neither ma! confederation be treated as an aggravating circ mstance in the absence of an! law defining or classif!ing it as s ch. >h s, the trial co rt erred in appreciating it for the p rpose of imposing the ma0im m penalt!. PECIAL COMPLE1 CRIME ; :here a comple0 crime is charged and the evidence fails to s pport the charge as to one of the component offense, the acc sed can be convicted of the other. PP v. Earo!, G' /9*7-+, --, @a! ), -++-.

PP v. Nanas, G' /9*-)), A g. -/, -++/.

REPEAL OF PENAL TATUTE ; >he repeal of a penal Eenedicto v. law or provision, nder w1c a person is charged w1 CA, /-797), violation thereof and its sim ltaneo s reenactment #ept. 5, -++/. penaliDing the same act done b! him nder the old law, will neither precl de the acc seds prosec tion nor deprive the co rt of its = risdiction to hear and tr! his case. >he act penaliDed before the reenactment contin es to remain an offense and pending cases are naffected. >herefore, the repeal of 'A -67 b! 'A *679 did not e0ting ish the

criminal liabilit! of petitioners for transgressions of Circ lar No. )6+ and cannot, nder the circ mstances of this case be made the basis for 2 ashing the indictments against petitioners. PRE CRIPTION OF OFFEN E ; 'A 9-96 governs offenses penaliDed nder special laws, li3e the Anti,Graft and Corr pt Practices Act HPresidential &d 0oc 6act 6inding Co11. 4n 7e8est +oans v. 41b'ds1an, GR 1!-,82, &'g. 1,, 2%%1I4 and the Central Ean3 H7enedicto v. C&, s'praI. Prescription shall begin to r n from the da! of the commission of the violation of the law, and if the same be not 3nown at the time, from the discover! thereof and the instit tion of = dicial proceeding for its investigation and p nishment. $n cases involving violations of 'A 9+/) committed prior to the Febr ar! /)(6 ?%#A 'evol tion, the Co rt has r led that the government co ld not have 3nown of s ch violations at the time the 2 estioned transactions were made. @oreover, no person wo ld have dared to 2 estion the legalit! of those transactions. >h s, in said cases, the co nting of the prescriptive period commenced from the date of discover! of the offense in /))- after an e0ha stive investigation b! the Presidential Ad <oc Committee on Eehest Aoans. DUTY OF T2E COURT IN CA E OF E1CE I3E PENALTY; Considering that the acc sed" F/G was onl! -/ !ears old when she committed the crime of 3idnapping penaliDed b! recl'sion perpet'a4 F-G did not maltreat the child victim4 and F9G had been in preventive detention since /))/, the Co rt recommended that she be granted either a comm tation of sentence or e0ec tive clemenc!. !me; Ai3ewise, the Co rt recommended the grant of e0ec tive clemenc! to the acc sed,appellant convicted of rape penaliDed b! recl'sion perpet'a, as he is alread! *!ears old, s ffering from an ac te heart ailment that re2 ires a heart b!,pass operation and has served a term of imprisonment consistent w1 the ends of retrib tive = stice. Crimin!# L!,; All do bts sho ld be resolved in favor of the acc sed. HPro 'eo %octrineI Presidential Ad <oc Fact Finding Comm. .n Eehest Aoans v. .mb dsman, G' /975(-, A g. /5, -++/

PP v. Acbangin, G' //*-/6, A g. ), -+++.

PP v. %el 'osario, G' /957(/, .ct. -6, -+++.

Padda! man v. People, G' /-+955, 8an. -9, -++-. PP v. Albacin, G' /99)/(, #ept. /9, -+++.

#tages of Felonies

ATTEMPTED FELONY Distinguished from FRU TRATED FELONY; >he doctrinal r le is that where the wo nd inflicted on the victim is not life threatening, the acc sed not having performed all the acts of e0ec tion that wo ld have bro ght abo t death, the crime committed is onl! attempted m rder. $n the instant case, however, there being no circ mstance to 2 alif! the assa lt pon Florencio to attempted m rder, the crime committed is attempted homicide. !me; !me; Appellant had not !et been able to perform all the acts of e0ec tion necessar! to bring abo t the death of .rbe, beca se the latter was able to r n awa! after being fired at. Altho gh appellant had alread! directl! commenced the commission of a felon! b! overt acts Hshooting .rbe with a de sabogI, he was not able to cons mmate that felon! for some reason other than his spontaneo s desistance. >h s, he committed attempted homicide. A felon! is fr strated when the offender

PP v. 'ecto, G' /-)+6), .ct. /*, -++/.

performs all the acts of e0ec tion which wo ld prod ce the felon! as a conse2 ence b t which, nevertheless, do not prod ce it b! reason of ca ses independent of the will of the perpetrator." $n this case, the nat re of the weapon sed b! appellant nmista3abl! shows that he intended to 3ill .rbe. <owever, li3e the wo nds inflicted b! the acc sed on @elchor 'ecto, those on .rbe were not fatal. $n 9nited States v. Ed'ave, :!6 P8il. 2%", 6ebr'ary 2, 1"1#;. this Co rt has held that if the wo nds wo ld not normall! ca se death, then the last act necessar! to prod ce homicide has not been performed b! the offender. >h s, appellantLs liabilit! amo nted onl! to attempted, not fr strated, homicide. ATTEMPTED FELONY; Petitioner stabbed the victim twice on the chest w1c is indicative of intent to 3ill. Eelieving that the victim was d!ing, petitioner left. <owever, there was no evidence that the wo nds s stained b! the victim were fatal eno gh as to ca se death. Circ mstances w1c1 2 alif! criminal responsibilit! cannot rest on mere con=ect res, no matter how reasonable or probable, b t m st be based on facts of n2 estionable e0istence. >he ncertaint! on the nat re of the wo nds warrants the appreciation of a lesser gravit! of the crime committed as this is in accordance w1 the f ndamental principle in Criminal Aaw that all do bts sho ld be resolved in favor of the acc sed. ?ven if the victim was wo nded b t the in= r! was not fatal and co ld not ca se his death, the crime wo ld onl! be attempted. Attem)ted Murder; Acc sed,appellant was charged b! the trial co rt with fr strated m rder b t was convicted onl! for attempted m rder. >he trial co rt e0plained that the fail re of the prosec tion to present a medical certificate or competent testimonial evidence showing that Crispina wo ld have died from her wo nd witho t medical intervention, = stified the acc sedLs conviction for attempted m rder onl!. $n People v. )e +a Cr'3 FG.'. Nos. /+)6/),-9, -6 8 ne /))(G where this Co rt r led that the crime committed for the shooting of the victim was attempted m rder and not fr strated m rder for the reason that "his in= ries, tho gh no do bt serio s, were not proved FA>AA s ch that witho t timel! medical intervention, the! wo ld have ca sed his death." $n fact, as earl! as People v. <aragosa, F7( ..G. 57/)G we en nciated the doctrine that where there is nothing in the evidence to show that the wo nd wo ld be FA>AA if not medicall! attended to, the character of the wo nd is do btf l4 hence, the do bt sho ld be resolved in favor of the acc sed and the crime committed b! him ma! be declared as attempted, not fr strated m rder. FRU TRATED FELONY; Appellants intent to 3ill is reflected b! the weapon he sed4 and the nat re and position of the wo nds inflicted on the victim Hthr and thr laceration of the gall bladder, stomach and the =e= n mI as a res lt of the stabbing b! appellant. :ere it not for timel! medical attention, C ra wo ld have died from said wo nd. Persons Criminall! Aiable PRINCIPAL; $% Indis)ens!$#e Coo)er!tion M c lpabilit! not established. Acc sed was fo nd to be onl! an accomplice as his onl! participation in the crime was that he dragged the victim to a ta0icab and allegedl! droved the same awa! from the scene of the crime. Padda! man v. People, G' /-+955, 8an. -9, -++-.

PP v. Costales, G' /5//75, 8an. /7, -++-.

PP v. #alva, G' /9-97/, 8an. /+, -++-.

PP v. 'ag ndiaD, G' /-5)**, 8 ne --, -+++.

!me; !me; Eeca se of the lac3 of a nited p rpose, PP v. appellant cannot be considered a principal b! >olentino, G' indispensable cooperation. /9)/*), April 9, -++-. !me; $% Indu"ement; $t ma! be ind cement b! command HpreceptoI or for a consideration HpactoI, or b! an! other similar act w1c constit te the real and moving ca se of the crime. PP v. Canag ran, s pra4 PP v. % mancas, G' /997-*, -(, %ec. /9, /))).

ACCOMPLICE; >he following re2 isites m st conc r in PP v. 'oche, order that a person ma! be considered an accomplice" H/I G' //7/(-, comm nit! of design, i.e., 3nowing that criminal April 6, -+++. design of the principal b! direct participation, he conc rs with the latter in his p rpose4 H-I he cooperates in the e0ec tion of the offense b! previo s or sim ltaneo s acts4 and, H9I there m st be a relation between the acts done b! the principal and those attrib ted to the person charged as accomplice. !me; Art. /( of the 'PC defines accomplices as "those persons who, not being incl ded in Art. /*, C..P?'A>? in the e0ec tion of the offense EN P'?C$.;# .' #$@;A>AN?.;# AC>#." >o be convicted as an accomplice, it is necessar! that the acc sed be A:A'? .F ><? C'$@$NAA $N>?N> of the principal and then C..P?'A>? ON.:$NGAN .' $N>?N>$.NAAAN EN #;PPAN$NG @A>?'$AA .' @.'AA A$% for the efficacio s e0ec tion of the crime. !me; >o be deemed an accomplice, one needs to have had both 3nowledge of and participation in the criminal act. $n other words, the principal and the accomplice m st have acted in con= nction and directed their efforts to the same end. >h s, it is essential that both were nited in their criminal design. $n the case before s, appellant did not conc r in or lend s pport to the nefario s intent of >olentino. >he mere fact that the former had prior 3nowledge of the latterLs criminal design did not a tomaticall! ma3e him an accomplice. >his circ mstance, b! itself, did not show his conc rrence in the principalLs criminal intent. !me; JEK was the driver of the =eepne! sed b! the 9 acc sed,appellants to go to the scene of the crime. <e waited for them and after the! had accomplished their mission, helped two of the acc sed,appellants get,awa!. !me; $n this case, Altho gh the 3nife sed b! 'oberto belonged to ?lmer, his handing the 3nife to 'oberto was not b! itself an act of conspirac!. >he two did not preconceived plan to commit the crime. $t will be recalled that here the fra! started beca se of a practical =o3e p lled on one of the victims, 'odrigo #ero=o. Appellant ?lmer Aven e was not motivated b! the criminal design similarl! entertained b! 'oberto #a l at the same time. $n a string of cases, we said that the milder form of responsibilit! sho ld be attrib ted to the appellants in case of do bt. >h s, we are constrained to agree with appellant ?lmer Aven eLs assertion that his participation was onl! that of an accomplice in the offenses committed. PP v. >olentino, G' /9)/*), April 9, -++-.

PP v. >olentino, G' /9)/*), April 9, -++-.

PP v. Ch a, G' /-6-77, 76, A g. 9/, -+++. PP v. #a l, G' No. /-5(+), %ec. , -++/.

!me; From the foregoing facts Aariba and 'ogels participation is not indispensable. >he! merel! g arded the ho se for the p rpose of either helping other ac sed, appellants in facilitating the s ccessf l deno ement HcompletionI to the crime or repelling an! attempt to resc e the 3idnap victim. >he! cooperated in the e0ec tion of the offense b! previo s or sim ltaneo s acts b! means of w1c the! aided or facilitated the e0ec tion of the crime b t w1o an! indispensable act for its accomplishment. $t appears that the! had 3nowledge of the 3idnapping for the p rpose of e0torting ransom and their cooperation to p rs e s ch crime. E t those facts, w1o more, do not ma3e them co,conspirators since the ON.:A?%G? .F AN% PA'>$C$PA>$.N $N, the criminal act are also inherent elements of an accomplice. ACCE ORIE ; Art. /) of the 'PC defines accessor! as one who had 3nowledge of the commission of the crime and did not participate in its commission as principal or accomplice, !et >..O PA'> #;E#?Q;?N> >. $># C.@@$##$.N b! an! of three modes" H/I P'.F$>$NG oneself or assisting the offender to profit b! the effects of the crime4 H-I C.NC?AA$NG .' %?#>'.N$NG the bod! of the crime, or the effects or instr ments thereof, in order to prevent its discover!4 and H9I <A'E.'$NG, C.NC?AA$NG, .' A##$#>$NG in ><? ?#CAP? of the principals of the crime, provided the accessor! acts w1 ab se of his p blic f nctions or when the offender is g ilt! of treason, parricide, m rder, or an attempt to ta3e the life of the Chief ?0ec tive, or is 3nown to be habit all! g ilt! of some other crime. >o convict an acc sed as an accessor!, the following ?A?@?N># m st be proven" H/I 3nowledge of the commission of the crime and H-I s bse2 ent participation in it b! an! of the three above, cited modes.

PP v. Garcia, G' /995() P /59)*+, 8an. /7, -++-.

PP v. >olentino, G' /9)/*), April 9, -++-.

ACCE ORIE ; ;nder par. 9, Art. /) of the 'PC, there PP v. Antonio, are onl! two cases of accessories, of w1c, are p blic G' /-()++, officers who, acting w1 ab se of their p blic f nctions, 8 l! /5, -+++. harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of a crime w1c is not a light felon!. Appellant is one s ch p blic officer, and he ab sed his p blic f nction when he failed to effect the immediate arrest of acc sed and to cond ct a speed! investigation of the crime committed. !me; ;nder paragraph - of said codal provision, the concealment or the destr ction of the bod! of the crime or of the effects or the instr ments thereof m st have been done in order to prevent the discover! of the crime. >hat, precisel!, is wanting in the present case. !me; Accessories who are e0empt from criminal liabilit! b! reason of relationship nder Art. -+ of the 'PC. PP v. >olentino, G' /9)/*), April 9, -++-. PP v. AopeD, G' /96(6/, Nov. /7, -+++. PP v. Cast rio, G' /-((/), Nov. -+, -+++4 PP v. Nacario, G' /9*+5), Nov. -), -+++4 PP v. Eriones, G'

8 stif!ing Circ ms, tance

ELF4DEFEN E; >he re2 isites of self,defense are" H/I nlawf l aggression on the part of the victim4 H-I reasonable necessit! of the means emplo!ed to prevent or repel it4 and H9I lac3 of s fficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. >he acc sed m st prove the conc rrent e0istence of all these elements b! clear and convincing evidence. >he element of nlawf l aggression is a condition sine 2 a non for the = stif!ing circ mstance of self,defense. >here can be no self,

defense, complete or incomplete, nless the victim has /-(/-*, .ct. committed nlawf l aggression against the person -9, -+++. defending himself. !me; :hen an acc sed invo3es self,defense, the b rden PP v. .bordo, of evidence is shifted to him to prove b! clear and G' /9)7-(, convincing evidence the elements of his defense. $n effect, @a! ), -++-. he admits that he committed the 3illing and the b rden is shifted to him to prove that the 3illing was = stified. <e m st therefore establish the presence of the following re2 isites of self,defense" H/I nlawf l aggression on the part of the victim4 H-I reasonable necessit! of the means emplo!ed to prevent or repel s ch nlawf l aggression4 and H9I lac3 of s fficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. !me; Burden of Proof; >he acc sed ass mes the PP v. b rden of proof to establish his plea of self,defense b! Aangres, G' credible, clear and convincing evidence. /-(*75, .ct. 9, /))). !me; $t m st be proved w1 certaint! b! s fficient, satisfactor! and convincing evidence that e0cl des an! vestige of criminal aggression on the part of the person invo3ing it, and it cannot be = stifiabl! entertained where it is not onl! ncorroborated b! an! separate competent evidence b t, in itself, is e0tremel! do btf l. PP v. >empla, G' /-/()*, A g. /6, -++/ 4 PP v. AlmaDan, G' /9()59,55, #ept. /*, -++/ 4 PP v. Condino, G' /9+)57, Nov. /), -++/. PP v. Reta, G' /5+)+/, +-, @a! ), -++-.

!me; $t is a0iomatic that when an acc sed invo3es self, defense, the on's probandi to show that the 3illing was = stified shifts to him. ?ven if the prosec tion evidence was wea3, it co ld not be readil! dismissed considering that the acc sed had openl! admitted his responsibilit! for the 3illing. #elf,defense, li3e alibi, is inherentl! a wea3 defense, w1c can easil! be concocted. !me; >he discrepanc! on acc sed,appellants testimon! as to whether he stabbed the victim on the left of the right side of his chest is of s ch a material character that it renders his entire testimon! d bio s at best. >he mere fact that acc sed,appellant was in= red does not prove his claim of self,defense. !me; >he n mber and location of wo nds inflicted on the victim effectivel! negate the claim of self,defense.

PP v. Gadia, G' /9-9(5, #ept. -/, -++/.

PP v. #aragina, G' /-(-(/, @a! 9+, -+++4 PP v. Francisco, G' /9+5)+, 8 ne /), -+++. PP v. Reta, G' /5+)+/, +-, @a! ), -++-4 PP v. >e=ero, G' /97+7+, April /), -++-.

!me; >he 2 estion of whether acc sed,appellant acted in self,defense is essentiall! a 2 estion of fact. $n self, defense, nlawf l aggression is a primordial element. $t pres pposes an act al, s dden and ne0pected attac3 or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person S not a mere threatening or intimidating attit de S b t, most importantl!, at the time the defensive action was ta3en against the aggressor.

DEFEN E OF RELATI3E; For defense of a relative to >obes v. CA, prosper, appellant m st prove the conc rrence of the first G' /-*55/, and the second re2 isites of self,defense and the f rther .ct. 7, -++/. re2 isite, in case the provocation was given b! the person attac3ed, that the one ma3ing the defense had no part therein. !me; An!one who admits the 3illing of a person b t invo3es the defense of a relative to = stif! the same has the b rden of proving the elements of said defense b! clear and convincing evidence. !me; Not gi-en Creden"e; For this plea to s cceed, the following elements m st be proven" H/I nlawf l aggression on the part of the victim4 H-I reasonable necessit! of the means emplo!ed to prevent or repel it4 and H9I if the provocation was made b! the person attac3ed, the one ma3ing the defense had no part therein. :itho t nlawf l aggression on the part of the victim, defense of a relative cannot prosper. >he plea of defense of a relative cannot be = stifiabl! entertained where it is not onl! ncorroborated b! an! separate competent evidence b t is also e0tremel! do btf l in itself. PP v. Francisco, G' /9+5)+, 8 ne /), -+++. PP v. @ana, a!, G' /9-*/*, Nov. -+, -+++4 PP v. Earrameda, G' /9+/**, .ct. //, -+++.

!me; !me; >he weapon sed and the grave wo nds PP v. #alva, inflicted on the victims negate the reasonableness of G' /9-97/, appellants action, ta3en allegedl! in defense of his 8an. /+, -++-. brothers. Appellants testimon! on record is nconvincing, conf sed, and evasive. Ai3e self,defense, defense of relatives m st be proved positivel! and convincingl!. DEFEN E OF TRAN5ER; A part! who invo3es the PP v. %i=an, = stif!ing circ mstance of "defense of a stranger" has the G' /5-6(-, b rden of proving b! clear and convincing evidence the 8 ne 7, -++-. e0c lpator! ca se that can save him from conviction. $n order to s ccessf ll! p t p this defense an acc sed m st show H/I the e0istence of nlawf l aggression on the part of the victim4 H-I the reasonable necessit! of the means emplo!ed to prevent or repel it4 and H9I that the acc sed has not been ind ced b! revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. !me; Not Est!$#ished; >he presence of a large n mber of wo nds on the victim negates self,defense and indicates a determined effort to 3ill the victim. PP v. #a re, G' /97(5(, @arch /-, -++-.

!me; Acc sed,appellants acts of fleeing and hiding in PP v. GalveD, #orsogon immediatel! after the shooting are indicative of G' /9+9)*, g ilt. 8an. /*, -++-. Common E#ement of e#f4Defense/ Defense of Re#!ti-e PP v. %i=an, !nd Defense of tr!nger; Un#!,fu# Aggression; >he G' /5-6(-, nlawf l aggression m st be a contin ing circ mstance or 8 ne 7, -++-. m st have been e0isting at the time the defense is made. .nce nlawf l aggression is fo nd to have ceased, the one ma3ing the defense of a stranger wo ld li3ewise cease to have an! = stification for 3illing, or even = st wo nding, the former aggressor. $n this case, it wo ld appear that <ilario was alread! disarmed and nlawf l aggression b! <ilario Hif indeed he was the aggressorI had been abated, when acc sed,appellant still delivered the fatal thr st in the victim.

!me; !me; >he one,inch long wo nd in appellants left hand was too s perficial to s pport his claim that it was inflicted while he was parr!ing the tr st of the victim. >he mere fact that he was wo nded does not prove ind bitabl! his claim that he acted in self,defense. Nor that the victim and not he was the aggressor. Appellant did not present the 3nife d ring the trial to bolster his case. >he witnesses for the prosec tion denied that the victim was armed w1 a 3nife and, indeed, none was recovered from the scene of the crime.

PP v. %e la Cr D, G' /9))*+, 8 ne 6, -++-.

!me; !me; ;nlawf l aggression is a condition sine ='a PP v. AriDala, non. $t pres pposes an act al, s dden, ne0pected attac3 G' /9+*+(, or imminent danger thereof, not merel! a threatening or .ct. --, /))). intimidating attit de4 and the acc sed m st prove positivel! strong act of real aggression. !me; !me; ;nlawf l aggression pres pposes an >anga v. CA. act al, s dden and ne0pected attac3, or imminent G' /+7(9+, danger thereof. >he person defending himself m st have 8an. /7, -++-. been attac3ed w1 act al ph!sical force or w1 act al se of weapon. $n this case, all that the deceased did immediatel! before he was shot was sho t e0pletives and slap petitioners hand when the latter pointed it to his face. >hese acts, while offensive, did not warrant petitioner4s act of drawing and firing his g n. !me; !me; ?ven ass ming that there was an PP v. GalveD, altercation for the possession of the cameras and that the G' /9+9)*, Cinc lados cleched their fists in anger, w1 @ig el sa!ing, 8an. /*, -++-. JA ganoon ba. G sto mo @a!or a! sasapa3in 3ita,K the same is not nlawf l aggression. ;nlawf l aggression refers to an attac3 that has act all! bro3en o t or materialiDed or at the ver! least is clearl! imminent4 it cannot consist in oral threats or a merel! threathening stance or post re. !me; !me; A mere heated e0change of words between the protagonists does not amo nt to nlawf l aggression. !me; !me; Not est!$#ished; According to the acc sed, the victim tried to grab his g n w1c was still t c3ed in his waist b t the acc sed beat the victim to it b! p lling the revolver o t. :ith the firearm alread! in acc seds hand, there was no chance for the victim to se it against him. F rthermore, w1 acc sed,appellants bac3gro nd and training as a policeman, bigger b ilt that the victim and the fact that the latter was seated when the altercation started, $t was the victim and not acc sed, appellant who was, in fact, in a disadvantageo s position. !me; Re!son!$#e Ne"essit% of the Me!ns Em)#o%ed to Defend; 'esorted to, prevent or repel, an nlawf l act of aggression. >he presence of a large n mber of wo nds inflicted on the victim clearl! indicates a determined effort of the acc sed to 3ill the victim. >angan v. CA, G' /+7(9+, 8an. /7, -++-. PP v. <errera, G' /5+77*, 7(, %ec. 7, -++/.

PP v. AriDala, G' /9+*+(, .ct. --, /))).

!me; !me; >he n mber of wo nds s stained b! the PP v. %i=an, victim wo ld itself negate acc sed,appellants claim of G' /5-6(-, defense of a stranger. 8 ne 7, -++-. !me; !me; Negated b! the location and severit! of the victims wo nds. @ortal wo nds at vital parts of the victims bod! indicate appellants determination to 3ill the PP v. Rate, s pra4 PP v. Eantiling, G'

deceased and not merel! to defend himself.

/96+/*, Nov. /7, -++/4 PP v. <errera, s pra. PP v. GalveD, G' /9+9)*, 8an. /*, -++-. PP v. Cast rio, G' /-((/), Nov. -+, -+++4 PP v. Nacario, G' /9*+5), Nov. -), -+++4 PP v. Eriones, G' /-(/-*, .ct. -9, -+++.

!me; !me; >he nat re and n mber of wo nds s ffered b! the Cinc lados negate an! claim of self,defense w1c demonstrate a determined effort to 3ill the victim and not self,defense. !me; Un#!,fu# Agrression or Re!son!$#e Me!ns to Pre-ent or Re)e# the Att!"6 4 Not Est!$#ished7 FaG A he!ted dis"ussion is not the nlawf l aggression contemplated b! law4 FbG >he cond ct of the victim and his alleged comment concerning disres)e"t to e#ders, which angered appellant, is not a challenge to a fight. $t is not s fficient provocation nor can it be deemed nlawf l aggression. >he victim = st sat in silence while the heated arg ment happened. No fighting words were h rled b! the victim b! wa! of provocation4 F9G Use of ! $o#o ,!s ! gross#% dis)ro)ortion!te res)onse to an narmed assa lt. >he reasonableness of the means emplo!ed to stave off the p rported attac3 is absent. !me; :hen the acc sed invo3es self defense or accident to avoid criminal liabilit!, he thereb! admits having ca sed the death of the victim. <e m st therefore prove b! clear and convincing evidence the = stif!ing circ mstance he invo3es. $f he fails, his conviction is inevitable. !me; E! claiming self,defense, petitioners ass mes the on s to establish his plea w1 certaint! b! credible, clear and convincing evidence4 otherwise, conviction will follow from his admission that he 3illed the victim.

PP v. Antonio, G' /-()++, 8 l! /5, -+++.

Padda! man v. People, -++-4 PP v. Q ening, G' /9-/6*, 8an. (, -++-4 PP v. Pacificador, G' /-67/7, Feb. 6, -++-. Ealana! v. #andiganba!a n, G' //-)-5, .ct. -+, -+++.

FULFILLMENT OF DUTY; E! invo3ing the = stif!ing circ mstance of f lfillment of a d t! nder Article // of the 'PC, acc sed had the b rden of proving that" H/I as the offender, he acted in the performance of a d t!, and H-I the in= r! or offense committed was the necessar! conse2 ence of the d e performance or lawf l e0ercise of s ch d t!. ?0empting Circ ms, tance IN ANITY; An insane person is e0empt from criminal liabilit! nless he acted d ring a l cid interval. $f the acc sed is fo nd insane when he committed the alleged crime, he sho ld be ac2 itted. # ch ac2 ittal does not res lt in his o tright release, b t rather in a verdict w1c followed b! commitment of the acc sed to a mental instit tion. #ince the pres mption is alwa!s in favor of sanit!, he who invo3es as an e0empting circ mstance m st prove it b! clear and positive evidence. >his evidence m st refer to the time preceding the act nder prosec tion or to the ver! moment of its e0ec tion. !me; As a gro nd for e0emption from criminal responsibilit!, m st refer to the time preceding the act nder prosec tion or to the ver! moment of its e0ec tion. $f the evidence points to insanit! s bse2 ent to the

PP v. ?strada, G' /9+5(*, 8 ne /), -+++.

PP v. 'obi&os, G' /9(579, @a! -), -++-.

commission of the crime, the acc sed cannot be ac2 itted. !me; >he defense of insanit! m st be raised at the earliest opport nit!. Article /-H/I of the 'PC provides that an insane person is e0empt for criminal liabilit! nless he has acted d ring a l cid interval. ;nder Art. (+ of the Civil Code, the pres mption is that ever! man is sane4 an!one who pleads the e0empting circ mstance of insanit! bears the b rden of proving that he was completel! deprived of reason when he committed the crime charged. @ere abnormalit! of his mental fac lties does not e0cl de imp tabilit!. $t is e2 all! well,settled that proof of the acc sed,appellantLs insanit! m st relate to the time preceding or coetaneo s with the commission of the offense with which he is charged4 the mental illness that co ld diminish his will power sho ld relate to the time immediatel! preceding or d ring the commission of the crime. !me; 3!rious test to determine ins!nit%7 A n mber of tests evolved to determine insanit! nder the law. F/G >he M'Naghten rule of /(59 which states that "to establish a defense on the gro nd of insanit!, it m st be clearl! proved that, at the time of committing the act, the part! acc sed was laboring nder s ch a defect of reason from disease of the mind, as not to 3now the nat re and 2 alit! of the act he was doing, or, if he did 3now it, that he did not 3now he was doing what was wrong." >he M>(ag8ten r'le is a cognitive meas re of insanit! as the acc sed is re2 ired to 3now two things" the nat re and 2 alit! of the act, and that the act was wrong. >his r le has been criticiDed for its ambig it!. $t was debated whether the word "wrong" referred to moral or legal wrong. >he importance of the distinction was ill strated b! #tephen as follows" A 3ills E 3nowing that he is 3illing E and it is illegal to 3ill E b t nder an insane del sion that God has commanded him to 3ill E to obtain the salvation of the h man race. ALs act is a crime if the word "wrong" means illegal b t it is not a crime if the word "wrong" means morall! wrong. >he word "3now" was also assailed as it referred solel! to intellect al reason and e0cl ded affective or emotional 3nowledge. $t was pointed o t that the acc sed ma! 3now in his mind what he is doing b t ma! have no grasp of the effect or conse2 ences of his actions. M?(ag8ten was condemned as based on an obsolete and misleading concept of the nat re of insanit! as insanit! does not onl! affect the intellect al fac lties b t also affects the whole personalit! of the patient, incl ding his will and emotions. $t was arg ed that reason is onl! one of the elements of a personalit! and does not solel! determine manLs cond ct. F-G >he "Irresistible impulse" test which means that ass ming defendantLs 3nowledge of the nat re and 2 alit! of his act and 3nowledge that the act is wrong, if, b! reason of disease of the mind, defendant has been deprived of or lost the power of his will which wo ld enable him to prevent himself from doing the act, then he cannot be fo nd g ilt!. >h s, even if the acc sed 3new that what he was doing was wrong, he wo ld be ac2 itted b! reason of insanit! if his mental illness 3ept him from controlling his cond ct or resisting the imp lse to commit the crime. >his r le rests on the ass mption that there are mental illnesses that impair volition or self,control, even while there is cognition or 3nowledge of what is right and wrong. PP v. .cfemia, G' /-6/97, .ct. -7, -+++.

PP v. @adarang, G' /9-9/), ma! /-, -+++.

>his test was li3ewise criticiDed on the following gro nds" HaI the "imp lse" re2 irement is too restrictive as it covers onl! imp lsive acts4 HbI the "irresistible" re2 irement is also restrictive as it re2 ires absol te impairment of the freedom of the will which cases are ver! rare4 HcI it will not serve the p rpose of criminal law to deter criminals as the will to resist commission of the crime will not be enco raged, and4 HfI it is diffic lt to prove whether the act was the res lt of an insane, irresistible imp lse. F9G the Durham "product" test which post lated that an acc sed is not criminall! responsible if his nlawf l act was the prod ct of mental disease or defect." Critics of this test arg ed that it gave too m ch protection to the acc sed. $t placed the prosec tion in a diffic lt position of proving acc sedLs sanit! be!ond reasonable do bt as a mere testimon! of a ps!chiatrist that acc sedLs act was the res lt of a mental disease leaves the = dge with no choice b t to accept it as a fact. >he case th s becomes completel! dependent on the testimonies of e0perts. F5G >he ALI "substantial capacity" test, integrated b! the American Aaw $nstit te HAA$I in its @odel Penal Code >est, which improved on the @LNaghten and irresistible imp lse tests. >he new r le stated that a person is not responsible for his criminal act if, as a res lt of the mental disease or defect, he lac3s s bstantial capacit! to appreciate the criminalit! of his act or to conform his cond ct to the re2 irements of the law. #till, this test has been criticiDed for its se of ambig o s words li3e "s bstantial capacit!" and "appreciate" as there wo ld be differences in e0pert testimonies whether the acc sedLs degree of awareness was s fficient. .b=ections were also made to the e0cl sion of ps!chopaths or persons whose abnormalities are manifested onl! b! repeated criminal cond ct. Critics observed that ps!chopaths cannot be deterred and th s ndeserving of p nishment. F7G >he Appreciation Test rep diated the above test in /)(5 b! the ;.#. Congress in favor of the @LNaghten st!le stat tor! form lation and enacted enacted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act applicable in all federal co rts. >he test is similar to @LNaghten as it relies on the cognitive test. >he acc sed is not re2 ired to prove lac3 of control as in the AA$ test. >he appreciation test shifted the b rden of proof to the defense, limited the scope of e0pert testimon!, eliminated the defense of diminished capacit! and provided for commitment of acc sed fo nd to be insane. F6G >he 8Com)#ete de)ri-!tion of inte##igen"e9 test. $n the Philippines, the co rts have established a more stringent criterion for insanit! to be e0empting as it is re2 ired that there m st be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the acc sed is deprived of reason4 he acted witho t the least discernment beca se there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is a total deprivation of the will. @ere abnormalit! of the mental fac lties will not e0cl de imp tabilit!. >he iss e of insanit! is a 2 estion of fact for insanit! is a condition of the mind, not s sceptible of the s al means of proof. As no man can 3now what is going on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a personLs mind can onl! be meas red and = dged b! his behavior. ?stablishing the insanit! of an acc sed re2 ires opinion testimon! which ma! be given b! a witness who is intimatel! ac2 ainted with the acc sed, b! a witness who has rational basis to concl de that the acc sed was insane based on the witnessL own perception of the

acc sed, or b! a witness who is 2 alified as an e0pert, s ch as a ps!chiatrist. >he testimon! or proof of the acc sedLs insanit! m st relate to the time preceding or coetaneo s with the commission of the offense with which he is charged. $n the case at bar, the appellant was diagnosed to be s ffering from s"hi:o)hreni! when he was committed to the NC@< months after he 3illed his wife. @edical boo3s describe schiDophrenia as a chronic mental disorder characteriDed b! inabilit! to disting ish between fantas! and realit! and often accompanied b! hall cinations and del sions. Formerl! called dementia praeco0, it is the most common form of ps!chosis. #!mptomaticall!, schiDophrenic reactions are recogniDable thro gh odd and biDarre behavior apparent in aloofness or periods of imp lsive destr ctiveness and immat re and e0aggerated emotionalit!, often ambivalentl! directed. >he interpersonal perceptions are distorted in the more serio s states b! del sions and hall cinations. $n the most disorganiDed form of schiDophrenic living, withdrawal into a fantas! life ta3es place and is associated with serio s tho ght disorder and profo nd habit deterioration in which the s al social c stoms are disregarded. % ring the initial stage, the common earl! s!mptom is aloofness, a withdrawal behind barriers of loneliness, hopelessness, hatred and fear. Fre2 entl!, the patient wo ld seem preocc pied and dream! and ma! appear "farawa!." <e does not empathiDe with the feelings of others and manifests little concern abo t the realities of life sit ations. >he schiDophrenic s ffers from a feeling of re=ection and an intolerable lac3 of self,respect. <e withdraws from emotional involvement with other people to protect himself from painf l relationships. >here is shallowness of affect, a pa cit! of emotional responsiveness and a loss of spontaneit!. Fre2 entl!, he becomes neglectf l of personal care and cleanliness. A variet! of s b=ective e0periences, associated with or infl enced b! mo nting an0iet! and fears precede the earliest behavioral changes and oddities. <e becomes aware of increasing tension and conf sion and becomes distracted in conversation manifested b! his inabilit! to maintain a train of tho ght in his conversations. . twardl!, this will be noticed as bloc3s or brea3s in conversations. >he schiDophrenic ma! not spea3 or respond appropriatel! to his companions. <e ma! loo3 fi0edl! awa!, or he ma! appear to stare, as he does not reg larl! blin3 his e!es in his attempt to hold his attention. None of the witnesses presented b! the appellant declared that he e0hibited an! of the m!riad s!mptoms associated with schiDophrenia immediatel! before or sim ltaneo s with the stabbing incident. >o be s re, the record is bereft of even a single acco nt of abnormal or biDarre behavior on the part of the appellant prior to that fatef l da!. Altho gh %r. >iba!an opined that there is a high possibilit! that the appellant was alread! s ffering from schiDophrenia at the time of the stabbing, he also declared that schiDophrenics have l cid intervals d ring which the! are capable of disting ishing right from wrong. <ence the importance of add cing proof to show that the appellant was not in his l cid interval at the time he committed the offense. Altho gh the appellant was diagnosed with schiDophrenia a few months after the stabbing incident, the evidence of insanit! after the fact of commission of the offense ma! be accorded weight onl! if there is also proof of abnormal behavior immediatel! before or sim ltaneo s to the commission of the crime.

?vidence on the alleged insanit! m st refer to the time preceding the act nder prosec tion or to the ver! moment of its e0ec tion. $n the case at bar, there is a dearth of evidence on record to show that the appellant was completel! of nso nd mind prior to or coetaneo s with the commission of the crime. >he arg ments advanced b! the appellant to prove his insanit! are spec lative and non,se2 it r. For one, his claim that he has absol tel! no recollection of the stabbing incident amo nts to a mere general denial that can be made with facilit!. >he fact that Avelina and her nephew were frightened at the sight of the appellant holding a bolo after he 3illed his wife does not, b! an! stretch of imagination, prove that the appellant has lost his grip on realit! on that occasion. Neither is the appellantLs seemingl! non,repentant attit de immediatel! after he stabbed his wife an indici m of his alleged insanit!. ?ven criminals of stable mental condition ta3e this non,remorsef l stance. #imilarl!, that the appellant and his wife were never seen 2 arreling prior to that fatef l da! does not b! itself prove the appellantLs nstable mental condition. Neither can it be said that =ealo s! is not a s fficient reason to 3ill a pregnant spo se. . r = rispr dence is replete with cases where lives had been terminated for the flimsiest reason. !me; >o be an e0empting circ mstance, there m st be complete deprivation of intelligence at the time of the commission of the crime w1c the defense m st establish. >he in2 ir! into the mental state of the acc sed,appellant sho ld relate to the period immediatel! before or at the ver! moment the act was committed. !me; Pedophilia is not s!non!mo s to insanit! as an e0empting circ mstance. IN ANITY Distinguished from RA5E or PA ION; >here is a vast difference between a gen inel! insane person and one who wor3ed himself p into s ch a frenD! of anger that he fails to se reason or good = dgment in what he does. A man does craD! things when enraged b t is does not necessaril! and concl sivel! prove that he is insane. ACCIDENT; Art. /- H5I of the 'PC is based on the lac3 of criminal intent. ?lements" H/I a person is performing a lawf l act4 H-I w1 d e care4 H9I he ca ses an in= r! to another b! mere accident4 and H5I w1o an! fa lt or intention of ca sing it. Firing a shotg n at another is not a lawf l act. !me; Accidental shooting M re=ected. >he shooting was the accidental conse2 ence of the str ggle between acc sed,appellant and Angel #oliva does not inspire belief as no s bstantial evidence was presented to prove it. !me; Accident is not consistent w1 failed plea of self, defense. PP v. Condino, G' /9+)57, Nov. /), -++/.

PP v. %iaD, G' /9+-/+, %ec. (, /))). PP v. Cilla, G' /-)()), April -*, -+++.

PP v. Aglida!, G' /5+*)5, .ct. /6, -++/.

PP v. AlmaDan, G' /9()59,55, #ept. /*, -++/. PP Eantiling, -++/. v.

IRRE I TIBLE FORCE or UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR; PP A person invo3ing this m st show that the force e0erted %omingo, was s ch that it red ced him to a mere instr ment who -++/. acted not onl! w1o will b t against his will.

v.

@itigating Circ ms, tance

Generall!, mitigating circ mstances are personal to an acc sed in whose favor the! are determined to e0ist and cannot be en=o!ed b! his co,conspirators or co,acc sed.

PP v. Earro, G' //(+)(, A g. /*, -+++4 PP v. Earreta, G' /-+96*, .ct. /6, -+++. PP v. @aDo, s pra4 PP v. G Dman, G' /9-*7+, %ec. /5, -++/4 PP v. Adlawan, G' /9/(9), 8an. 9+, -++-. PP v. Aibrando, G' /9--7/, 8 l! 6, -+++.

INCOMPLETE ELF4DEFEN E; Pri-i#eged Mitig!ting Cir"umst!n"e; ;nlawf l aggression on the part of the victim is an indispensable re2 isite for this circ mstance to be appreciated.

!me; !me;; >o avail of the mitigating circ mstance of incomplete self defense, there m st be nlawf l aggression on the part of the victim. $n the case at bar, prosec tion witness testified that it was in fact the said acc sed,appellant who after in2 iring from ?dwin the whereabo ts of Fernando, delivered the first blow w1o an! warning to the deceased. >he severit! of the in= ries inflicted on the deceased as well as the fact that 'aelito who admitted that he was of bigger b ilt than the deceased, co ld hardl! present an! evidence of in= ries allegedl! inflicted on him b! the deceased belie his claim of self defense. INCOMPLETE FULFILLMENT OF DUTY; An incomplete = stif!ing circ mstance defined in Article //, paragraph n mber 7 of the 'PC. A person inc rs no criminal liabilit! when he acts in the f lfillment of a d t! or in the lawf l e0ercise of a right or office. E t we m st stress there are t,o re;uisites for this = stif!ing circ mstance" H/I that the offender acted in the performance of a d t! or in the lawf l e0ercise of a d t! or in the lawf l e0ercise of a right4 and H-I that the in= r! or offense committed be the necessar! conse2 ence of the d e performance of s ch right or office. $n the instant case, onl! the first re2 isite is present4 admittedl! appellant acted in the performance of his d t!. <owever, the second re2 isite is lac3ing, for the 3illing need not be a necessar! conse2 ence of the performance of his d t!. <is d t! is to maintain peace and order d ring the 8 nior and #enior Prom. E t he e0ceeded s ch d t!, in o r view, when he fired his armalite witho t warning. No do bt, the concept of mitigating circ mstances is fo nded on lenienc! in favor of an acc sed who has shown less perversit! in the commission of an offense. !me; Pri-i#eged Mitig!ting Cir"umst!n"e; $ncomplete = stification is a special or privileged mitigating circ mstance, w1c, not onl! cannot be offset b! aggravating circ mstances b t also red ces the penalt! b! one or two degrees than that prescribed b! law. $n the instant case it wo ld have fallen nder Art. //, par. 7 of >he 'evised Penal Code had the two H-I conditions therefore conc rred which, are" @irst, that the acc sed acted in the performance of a d t! or the lawf l e0ercise of a right or office4 and second, that the in= r! or offense committed be the necessar! conse2 ence of the d e performance of s ch d t! or the lawf l e0ercise of s ch right or office. E t here, onl! the first condition was f lfilled

PP v. %omingo Eelbes, G' /-56*+, 8 ne -/, -+++.

PP v. ;lep, G' /9-75*, #ept. -+, -+++.

Hsince $t cannot be said that the fatal wo nd in the head of the victim was a necessar! conse2 ence of acc sed, appellantLs d e performance of a d t! or the lawf l e0ercise of a right or officeI. <ence, Art. 6) is applicable, altho gh its "that the ma=orit! of s ch conditions be present," is immaterial since there are onl! two H-I conditions that ma! be ta3en into acco nt nder Art. //, par. 7. Article 6) is obvio sl! in favor of the acc sed as it provides for a penalt! lower than that prescribed b! law when the crime committed is not wholl! = stifiable. >he intention of the legislat re, obvio sl!, is to mitigate the penalt! b! reason of the dimin tion of either freedom of action, intelligence, or intent, or of the lesser perversit! of the offender. MINORITY; Pri-i#eged Mitig!ting Cir"umst!n"e; .ffender is nder /( !ears of age at the time of the commission of the offense. !me; !me; Altho gh the acc sed did not offer an! evidence to s pport his claim of minorit!, this fact will remain as s ch, ntil disproved b! the prosec tion. !me; >he claim of the acc sed that he was /* !ears old when the crime was committed will be pheld b! the co rt even w1o an! proof to corroborate his testimon!, especiall! so when co pled b! the fact that the prosec tion failed to present contradictor! evidence thereto. >herefore, the penalt! to be imposed on acc sed,appellant sho ld be lowered b! one degree. LAC< OF INTENT TO COMMIT O 5RA3E A =RON5 A T2AT COMMITTED; $t is an internal state shown b! the weapon sed, the part of the bod! in= red, the in= r! inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. >hat the ac sed sed a ),inch h nting 3nife in attac3ing the victim frim behind, w1o giving him an opport nit! to defend himself, clearl! shows that he intended to do what he act all! did, and he m st be held responsible therefore, w1o the benefit of this mitigating circ mstance. PP v. GonDage, G' /975+-,+9, #ept. *, -++/. PP v. @orial, G' /-)-)7, A g. /7, -++/. PP v. @onteron, G' /9+*+), @arch 6, -++-4 'e!es v. CA, G' /-**+9, 8an. /(, -++-. PP v. Callet, G' /97*+/, @a! ), -++-.

PA ION !nd>or OBFU CATION; >he re2 isites of PP v. Aobino, passion and obf scation are" G' /-9+*/, /. that there be an act, both nlawf l and s fficient, to .ct. -(, /))). prod ce s ch a condition of mind4 and -. that said act which prod ced the obf scation was not far removed from the commission of the crime b! a considerable length of time d ring which the perpetrator might recover his normal e2 animit!. $t has been held that "F>Ghere is passional obf scation when the crime was committed d e to AN ;NC.N>'.AAAEA? E;'#> .F PA##$.N provo3ed b! prior n= st or improper acts, or d e to a legitimate stim l s so powerf l as to overcome reason." L>he obf scation m st originate from lawf l feelings. >he t rmoil and nreason which nat rall! res lt from a 2 arrel or fight sho ld not be conf sed with the sentiment or e0citement in the mind of a person in= red or offended to s ch a degree as to deprive him of his sanit! and self, control, beca se the ca se of this condition of mind m st necessaril! have preceded the commission of the offense." @oreover, "the act prod cing the obf scation

m st not be far removed from the commission of the crime b! a considerable length of time, d ring which the acc sed might have recovered his normal e2 animit!. !me; $n the instant case, witnesses testified that the deceased #P.5 @ig el started the confrontation when he 3ic3ed appellant and h rled invectives at him, and aimed his rifle at appellantLs temple. >here is passion and obf scation when the crime was committed d e to an ncontrollable b rst of passion provo3ed b! prior n= st or improper acts, or d e to a legitimate stim l s so powerf l as to overcome reason. !me; >he act of the victim of demanding that the acc sed,appellant, among others, Jvacate 8er land and trans@er else*8ere . . .K was not nlawf l and n= st as she was e0ercising her right to her land. >he e0ercise of a lawf l right cannot be a proper so rce of obf scation that ma! be considered a mitigating circ mstance. !me; $n the case at bar, acc sed,appellant tho ght his father, whose face was bloodied and l!ing nconscio s on the gro nd, was dead. # rel!, s ch a scenario is s fficient to trigger an ncontrollable b rst of legitimate passion. <is act, therefore, of shooting the deceased, right after learning that the latter was the one who harmed his father, satisfies the re2 isite of this mitigating circ mstance. PP v. Feliciano, G' /-**7),6+, #ept. -7, -++/4 PP v. %omingo, s pra. PP v. AopeD, G' /96(6/, Nov. /7, -+++4 PP v. Ea!otas, G' /96(/(, %ec. /), -+++. PP v. Adlawan, G' /9/(9), 8an. 9+, -++-.

!me; <owever, where the victim did not do an!thing PP v. Aab,eo, nlawf l in as3ing the appellant to leave, there is an G' /9959(, absol te lac3 of proof that the appellant was tterl! 8an. /6, -++-. h miliated b! the victims tterance, nor was it shown that the victim made that remar3 in an ins lting and rep gnant manner M s ch tterance is not the stim l s re2 ired b! = rispr dence to be so overwhelming as to overcome reason and self,restraint on the part of the acc sed. UFFICIENT PRO3OCATION; $t m st be PP v. Aab,eo, P'.P.'>$.NA>? >. ><? G'AC$>N .F ><? G' /9959(, '?>AA$A>.'N AC>. $n this case, the victim merel! 8an. /6, -++-. sho ted at the appellant and as3ed him to leave. #tabbing her to death co ld hardl! be proportionate in gravit! to her act of sho ting, no matter how lo d. 3INDICATION OF A 5RA3E OFFEN E; >he mitigating circ mstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense cannot be considered in favor of acc sed,appellant beca se he had s fficient time to recover his serenit! HPP v. Santos, -77 #C'A 9+) F/))6GI. >he s pposed vindication did not immediatel! or pro0imatel! follow the alleged ins lting and provocative remar3s. Almost two months had lapsed. Aside from the fact that the provocation sho ld immediatel! precede the commission of the offense, it sho ld also be proportionate to the damage ca sed b! the act and ade2 ate to stir one to its commission HPP v. +'ayon, -6+ #C'A *9) F/))6GI. >he remar3 attrib ted to Gina that acc sed,appellantLs da ghter is a flirt does not warrant and = stif! acc sed, appellantLs act of sla!ing the victim. 3OLUNTARY URRENDER; >he re2 isites of vol ntar! s rrender are" HaI the offender had not been act all! arrested4 HbI the offender s rrendered himself to a person in a thorit! or to the latterLs agent4 and HcI the s rrender PP v. AopeD, G' /96(6/, Nov. /7, -+++.

PP v. Reta, G' /5+)+/, +-, @a! ), -++-.

was vol ntar!. For s rrender to be vol ntar!, it m st be spontaneo s and show the intent of the acc sed to s bmit himself nconditionall! to the a thorities, either" H/I beca se he ac3nowledges his g ilt4 or H-I beca se he wishes to save them the tro ble and e0pense incidental to his search and capt re. !me; >he essence of vol ntar! s rrender is #P.N>AN?$>N and the intent of the acc sed to give himself p and s bmit ;NC.N%$>$.NAAAN to the a thorities either beca se he ac3nowledges his g ilt or he wishes to save them from the tro ble and e0pense for his search and capt re. PP v. Adoc, G' /9-+*), April /-, -+++4 'ivera v. CA, G' /-7(6*, @a! 9/, -+++4 PP v. Eo2 ila, G' /96/57, @arch (, -++-.

!me; >he records reveal that the acc sed ran toward the PP v. Callet, m nicipal b ilding after the stabbing incident. .n his wa! G' /97*+/, to the m nicipal b ilding, he admitted to barangay tanods @a! ), -++-. Nilo and 8es s that he stabbed the victim. Altho gh he did not immediatel! t rn over his weapon to them for fear of retaliation from the victims relatives, he did so as soon as the! reached the m nicipal b ilding. ;ndo btedl!, the cond ct he displa!ed was #P.N>AN?.;# as it shows his interest to give him p ;NC.N%$>$.NAAAN to the a thorities, th s saving the #tate the tro ble and e0penses necessaril! inc rred in his search and capt re. !me; Col ntar! s rrender to the baranga! captain. Appellant spontaneo sl! and nconditionall! placed himself in the hands of the a thorities, and saved them the time and effort attendant to a search. -) >he testimon! of baranga! captain $sberto and the police officer on this point were not contradicted b! the prosec tion. !me; Appellants move Jto clear t8eir na1esK is not e2 ivalent to vol ntar! s rrender. For a s rrender to be vol ntar!, it m st be spontaneo s and sho ld show the intent of the acc sed to s bmit himself nconditionall! to the a thorities, either beca se he ac3nowledges his g ilt or he wishes to save the government the tro ble and e0pense necessaril! incl ded for his search and capt re. !me; >his circ mstance was not appreciated where, at the time of his s rrender, acc sed,appellant alread! had a pending warrant of arrest 7 da!s before his s rrender. !me; $t was appreciated in favor of appellant who testified that after the hac3ing incident, he went to the ho se of the Oagawad who bro ght him to the @ nicipalit! of Aroro! to admit to the 3illing, albeit in self,defense. PP v. %e la Cr D, G' /9))*+, 8 ne 6, -++-.

PP v. Ea!otas, G' /96(/(, %ec. /), -+++4 PP v. Caber, #r., G' /-)-7-, Nov. -(, -+++. PP v. >ara!a, G' /9777/, .ct. -*, -+++. PP v. Q ening, G' /9-/6*, 8an. (, -++-.

!me; $t was also appreciated where shortl! after the PP v. Aab,eo, incident4 the appellant went to the m nicipal hall and G' /9959(, s rrendered to the a thorities. 8an. /6, -++!me; Ai3ewise appreciated when 9 da!s after the death of the victim, acc sed,appellant read in the local newspaper that the victim had 6 children. >his bothered his conscience, prompting him to go to the police and admit his g ilt. PP v. Eo2 ila, G' /96/57, @arch (, -++-.

!me; >he cond ct of the acc sed and not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneit! of the s rrender. >he s rrender is not spontaneo s where it too3 acc sed,appellant more than 9 !ears from the iss ance of the warrant of arrest before he finall! decided to s rrender. !me; >he acc sed testified that he vol ntaril! s rrendered not beca se he ac3nowledged his g ilt b t beca se there was a treat made b! the person whom he alleged to be the real assailant. !me; After the 3illings, the acc sed went into hiding and onl! s rrendered after the police were tipped on his whereabo ts and sent a team to arrest him.

PP v. Adlawan, G' /9/(9), 8an. 9+, -++-.

PP v. CorteDano, G' /5+*9-, 8an. -), -++-. PP v. @anlasing, G' /9/*96, 9*, @arch //, -++-. PP v. Costales, G' /5//75,76, 8an. /7, -++-. PP v. Q inicio, G' /5-59+, #ept. /9, -++/. v.

!me; >he s rrender was made too late in a place too distant from the crime site as well as the place of residence of the acc sed. !me; E t it cannot offset the 2 alif!ing aggravating circ mstance of treacher!.

CONFE ION OF 5UILT; Not appreciated where PP acc sed,appellant merel! proposed to the prosec tion Q inicio, that he plead g ilt! to the crime of homicide d ring the s pra. pre,trial for m rder w1c proposal was re=ected b! the prosec tion.

!me; >he confession of g ilt m st be prior to the Paga!ao v. presentation of the evidence for the prosec tion. $mbing, A.@. No. (),5+9, A g. /7, -++/4 PP v. Callos, G' /995*(, 8an. /6, -++-. !me; A plea of g ilt! after arraignment and after trial had PP v. beg n is not mitigating. Almendras, G' /9*-**, %ec. -+, -++/ LAC< OF EDUCATION; >he appellantLs lac3 of ed cation w1c apparentl! hampered him from giving coherent and even simple responsive answers is not s fficient in view of the fail re of his co nsel to prove convincingl! before the co rt that said appellant, as a res lt thereof, did not f ll! realiDe the conse2 ences of his criminal act. Aggrava, ting Circ ms, tances In 5ener!#; Four <inds7 F/G G?N?'$C M those that can generall! appl! to all crimes4 F-G #P?C$F$C M those that appl! onl! to partic lar crimes4 F9G Q;AA$FN$NG M those that changes the nat re of the crime4 F5G $N<?'?N> M those that m st of necessit! accompan! the commission of the crime. ?0cept for scoffing at the victims corpse, all the 2 alif!ing circ mstances en merated in Art. -5( of the 'PC H@ rderI are also aggravating circ mstances beca se the! are li3ewise fo nd in Art. /5 of the same PP v. Rinampan, G' /-6*(/, #ept. /9, -+++. PP v. Aab,eo, G' /9959(, 8an. /6, -++-.

Code, en merating the aggravating circ mstances. 5ener!# Prin"i)#es; :hen more than one of the 2 alif!ing circ mstances are proven, the others m st be considered as generic aggravating. <owever, when the other circ mstances are absorbed or incl ded in one 2 alif!ing circ mstance, the! cannot be considered as generic aggravating. .nce a circ mstance is sed to 2 alif! a crime, the same co ld not longer be considered as generic aggravating. PP v. 'e!nes, G' /956+*, %ec. /-, -++/.

!me; Under the +??? Ru#es of Crimin!# Pro"edure PP v. Eragat, &Effe"ti-e De"* '/ +???(; :1o an appropriate allegation in G' /955)+, the complaint or information, co rts are precl ded from #ept. 5, -++/4 considering the attendance of 2 alif!ing or aggravating circ mstancesK in their = dgment. !me; #ec. (, ' le //+ H%esignation of the .ffenseIM applied retroactivel!. >he complaint or information m st not onl! state the designation of the offense given b! stat te and aver the acts or omissions constit ting the offense, b t also "specif! its 2 alif!ing and aggravating circ mstances." E t here the informations against appellant in both cases show no specification of circ mstances that aggravate the offenses charged. Note that the close relationship between the victim and the offender Hmother and sonI is alleged, b t nothing is stated in the informations specificall! concerning pertinent circ mstances Hs ch as disregard of the filial respect d e the victim b! reason of her age, se0, and ran3I that co ld aggravate the crimes and = stif! imposing the death sentence. >h s, absent an! aggravating circ mstance specificall! alleged and proved in the two rape cases, the penalt! imposable on appellant for each offense is not death b t onl! the lesser penalt! of recl sion perpet a. !me; :hile a non,alleged b t proven aggravating circ mstance cannot be sed to increase the penalt!, nonetheless it can be the so rce of C$C$A A:A'%#. @UALIFYIN5 CIRCUM TANCE; $t is settled that 2 alif!ing circ mstances cannot be pres med b t m st be established b! clear and convincing evidence, as concl sivel! as the 3illing itself. E3IDENT PREMEDITATION &@u!#if%ing(; $t is settled that 2 alif!ing circ mstances cannot be pres med, b t m st be established b! clear and convincing evidence as concl sivel! as the 3illing itself. !me; Appreciated as a Q;AA$FN$NG circ mstance. >here is evident premeditation when the following elements are proven" H/I the time when the offender determined to commit the crime4 H-I an overt act manifestl! indicating that the c lprint had cl ng to his determination to commit the crime4 and H9I a s fficient lapse of a period of time between the determination and the e0ec tion of the crime, s fficient to allow the c lprit to reflect pon the conse2 ences of his act. >he elements of evident premeditation m st be established w1 e2 al certaint! and clarit! as the criminal act itself before it can be appreciated as a 2 alif!ing circ mstance. PP v. #agarino, G' /97976,7(, #ept. 5, -++/4 PP v. %e G Dman, s pra4 PP v. 'eapor, s pra 4 PP v. Padilla, G' /--*96, Nov. /5, -++/ 4 PP v. Perreras, G' /9)6--, 8 l! 9/, -++/.

PP v. # ela, G' /997*+, */, 8an. /7, -++-. People v. >abones, G' /-)6)7, @arch /*, /))). PP v. %iscalsota, G' /96()-, April //, -++-. PP v. #abado, G' /97)69, Nov. -+, -+++4 PP v. Calago, G' /5//--, April --, -++-.

!me; $nherent in crimes against propert!, b t ma! be considered in robber! w1 homicide, if there is premeditation to 3ill besides stealing.

PP v. Cando, G' /-(//5, .ct. -7, -+++

!me; >he trial co rt was correct in not appreciating PP v. Pa=otal, evident premeditation as a 2 alif!ing circ mstance since G' /5-(*+, this is $N<?'?N> in the crime of robber!. Nov. /5, -++/4 Pp v. @orial, s pra. !me; Not appreciated where there is neither evidence of planning or preparation to 3ill nor the time when the plot was conceived. >he premeditation to 3ill m st be plain and notorio s4 it m st be s fficientl! proven b! evidence of o tward acts showing the intent to 3ill. $n the absence of clear and positive evidence, mere pres mptions and inferences of evident premeditation no matter how logocal and probable, are ins fficient. PP v. Almendras, s pra4 PP v. Oino3, G' /+56-), Nov. /9, -++/ 4PP v. Cabote, G' /96/59, Nov. /7, -++/4 PP v. Feliciano, s pra 4 PP v. aco=edo, G' /9(66/, Nov. /), -++/4 PP v. Canto=os, G' /96*5(, Nov. -/, -++/4 PP v. @osende, G' /9*++/, %ec. 7, -++/4 PP v. Clari&o, s pra4 PP v. Abriol, G' /-9/9*, .ct. /*, -++/4 PP v. Parba4 G' /99((6, #ept. 7, -++/4 PP v. $glesia, G' /9-975, #ept. /9, -++/4 PP v. <ermosa, G' /9/(+7, #ept. *, -++/.

!me; Proof of alleged resentment does not constit te PP v. Padam, concl sive proof of evident premeditation. G' /9-/9*, .ct. /, /))). TREAC2ERY &@u!#if%ing(; Essen"e; >he s dden and PP v. %i=an, ne0pected attac3 b! an aggressor on an ns specting G' /5-6(-, victim, depriving the latter of an! real chance to defend 8 ne 7, -++-. himself and thereb! ens ring its commission w1 no ris3 to the aggressor. !me; !me; >he essence of treacher! is the s dden and ne0pected attac3, w1o the slightest provocation on the part of the person attac3ed. >here is treacher! when the attac3 on the victim was deliberatel! made w1o giving the latter an! warning, th s rendering him nable to defend himself from the ne0pected attac3 or no chance to escape. PP v. %onato, G' /-5-)(, .ct. //, /)))4 PP v. Aab,eo, G' /9959(, 8an. /6, -++-.

!me; E#ements7 F/G the emplo!ment of means of PP v. %i=an, e0ec tion that gives the person attac3ed no opport nit! to G' /5-6(-, defend himself or to retaliate4 and F-G that the means of 8 ne 7, -++-. e0ec tion are deliberatel! and conscio sl! adopted. >hese elements m st be proven as ind bitabl! as the 3illing itself and cannot be ded ced from con=ect re. !me; >reacher! M essentiall! a swift and an ne0pected attac3 on an narmed and ns specting victim. !me; >he law stresses the @ANN?' .F P?'F.'@ANC? or ACC.@PA$#<?@?N> of the crime than an! other factor. PP v. G Dman, -++/. %e

PP v. Eagano, G' /9)79/, 8an. 9/, -++-4 PP v. Coscos, G' /9-9-/, 8an. -/, -++-4 PP v. Abe= ela, G' /955(5, 8an. 9+, -++PP v. #ebastian, G' /9/*95, @arch *, -++-. v.

!me; :hat is decisive is that the ?B?C;>$.N .F ><? A>>ACO made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.

!me; >reacher! e0ists when the offender commits an! of PP the C'$@?# AGA$N#> ><? P?'#.N, emplo!ing means, Perreras, methods or forms in the e0ec tion thereof w1c tend directl! -++/. and speciall! to ins re its e0ec tion, w1o ris3 to himself arising from the defense w1c the offended part! might ma3e. !me; $t m st be clearl! shown that the method of assa lt adopted b! the aggressor was deliberatel! chosen to accomplish the crime w1o ris3 to the aggressor.

PP v. Ee=o, G' /9(575, Feb. /9, -++-4 PP v. Catian, G' /9)6)9, 8an. -5, -++-. PP v. A2 ino, G' /9+6/9, .ct. 7, -+++. PP v. %iscalsota, G' /96()-, April //, -++-. PP v. Aachica, -+++. PP v. 'ios, s pra4 PP v. Adoc, -+++.

!me; >he attendance of treacher! Q;AA$F$?# the 3illing to m rder. As s ch, treacher! m st be specificall! alleged in the information and established b! proof be!ond reasonable do bt. !me; :1o an! proven 2 alif!ing circ mstance, a 3illing constit tes homicide w1c is p nishable b! recl sion temporal, not death. :here the attac3 was made openl! and the victim had ample opport nit! to escape, treacher! cannot be appreciated. !me; $n order for treacher! to be treated as 2 alif!ing aggravating circ mstance, it m st be alleged in the information and proved. !me; :hen treacher! is alleged, the manner of attac3 m st be proven. $t cannot be appreciated absent an! partic lars on the manner in w1c the aggression commenced or how the act w1c res lted in death of the victim nfolded. !me; >reacher! can onl! be considered as a 2 alif!ing

PP v. Eagano,

circ mstance that wo ld affect the nat re of the crime and not as a generic aggravating circ mstance that wo ld raise the penalt! to death. !me; >o be appreciated, treacher! sho ld normall! attend the inception of the aggression. And if absent and the attac3 is contin o s, treacher!, even if present at the s bse2 ent stage, is not to be considered.

G' /9)79/, 8an. 9/, -++-. PP v. A2 ino, G' /9+6/9, .ct. 7, -+++4 PP v. Reta, G' /5+)+/, +-, ma! ), -++-. PP v. 'enda=e, G' /96*57, Nov. /7, -+++. PP v. Anacan, G' /559/(, April 9, -++-. PP v. @endoDa, G' /5-675, Nov. /6, -++/. PP v. #ia, -++/4 PP v. Canto=os, -++/. PP v. @os2 erra, s pra4 PP v. %octolero, G' /9/(66, A g. -+, -++/ 4 PP v. 'eapor, s pra 4 PP v. <ermosa, s pra 4 PP v. Ancheta, G' /9(9+6,+*, %ec. -/, -++/4 PP v. Parba, -++/. PP v. .c men, -+++4 PP v. @antes, G' /9()/5, Nov. /5, -++/. PP v. @irador, G' /97)96, #ept. /), -++/4 PP v. .=erio, G' /9-9-+, #ept. *, -++/.

!me; $n this case, treacher! was established, tho gh no one positivel! testified on how the victim was 3illed M as the lifeless bod! of the victim, a /7,!ear old deaf,m te, elo2 entl! showed how she was attac3ed b! her assailant. !me; <owever, not established from the mere fact that appellant repeatedl! stabbed the victim. !me; A finding of treacher! m st be gro nded on something more than s pposition or sheer spec lation. Prosec tion m st establish it b! proof be!ond reasonable do bt. !me; >here m st be a description of how the attac3 was commenced and the method of e0ec tion of the crime, showing that it was conscio sl! or deliberatel! adopted b! the malefactors. !me; Pa cit! of proof on the manner in w1c the aggression stated or how the act w1c res lted in the death of the victim began or developed negates treacher!.

!me; :here both victims were narmed and defenseless does not b! itself ma3e the attac3 treachero s.

!me; Front!# Att!"6; $t can be present in a frontal attac3 and appreciated even if the victim is forewarned of the danger to his person, if the assa lt was carried o t in a w1c made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.

!me; There is =!rning; ?ven if the victim is warned of PP v. AriDala, the danger to his person, if the e0ec tion of the attac3 /))). made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or to

retaliate, treacher! can still be appreciated. !me; !me; >ho gh the victim ma! have been warned of possible danger to his person, there wo ld still be treacher! if the attac3 was e0ec ted in s ch a manner as to ma3e it impossible for the victim to retaliate. !me; F!"ing E!"h Other; >here was treacher! even as the victim and the appellant were facing each other when the latter stabbed the former. PP v. ?storco, G' ///)5/, April -*, -+++. PP v. Francisco, G' /-/6(-, April /-, -+++. v.

!me; Ret!#i!tion; >he JretaliationK relevant in treacher! PP m st come from the victim, not from an!one else. $n a Costello, heavil! pop lated site were the crime was committed, the s pra. fact that others co ld have intervene is not significant at all. !me; Chi#d; Oilling of a child b! reason of tender !ears is treacher! even if the manner of attac3 is not precisel! shown. !me; Use of Motor 3ehi"#e; >he " se of motor vehicle" constit te treacher!, when deliberatel! availed of to facilitate the commission of the offense, giving them cover in the co rse thereof. !me; Use of Fire!rm; ;se of firearm is not a s fficient indication of treacher!. PP v. -+++.

%iaD,

PP v. Aachica, G' )559-, .ct. /-, /))). PP v. @aramara, G' //+))5, .ct. --, /))).

!me; )ur of the Moment; >reacher! was not PP v. Adoc, established as the shooting was done at the sp r of the -+++. moment. !me; Not the Intended 3i"tim; Not appreciated in a PP v. <errera, case of the slain who was not the intended victim. -++/. !me; Ch!n"e En"ounter; Chance enco nter does not constit te treacher! b t when the manner in w1c it was perpetrated was swift and ne0pected and w1o the lightest provocation b! the victim, th s ens ring the e0ec tion of the crime w1o ris3 on the part of the acc sed constit te alevosia. !me; >reacher! , ?stablished in the ff. cases" F/G >he #;%%?NN?## AN% ;N?BP?C>?% A##A;A> HPP v. +ope3, GR 1!6861, (ov. 1-, 2%%%4 PP v. 7ayotas, GR 1!6818, )ec. 1", 2%%%/ PP v. &costa, GR 1,%!86, (ov. 2", 2%%1/ PP v. Mosende, GR 1!#%%1, )ec. -, 2 ++/I4 F-G A##A;A> F'.@ E?<$N% even if the victim was alread! aware HPP v. &bendan, GR 1!181!, Sept. 2", 2%%%I. F9G $N ><? C.@F.' > .F <$# <.@? P #<.> F'.@ E?<$N% HPP v. Perreras, 2%%1/ PP v. 0errera, 2%%1I4 A##A;A> :1. A :A'N$NG HPP v. Gadia, GR 1!2!8,, Sept. 21, 2%%1/ PP v. Cabo='in, GR 1!#61!, (ov. 1,, 2%%1I4 F5G ;NP'?PA'?% .F ><? A>>ACO HPP v. Reynes, 2%%1I4 F7G ><? C$C>$@ :A# A#A??P HPP v. AinoB, 2%%1/ PP v. ClariCo, 2%%1I4 F6G acc sed,appellant and his victim were conversing w1 each other while wal3ing side b! side, when acc sed,appellant s ddenl! p lled o t his g n and fired at the victim 5 times. HPP v. %omingo, s praI4 F*G <.A%$NG ><? C$C>$@ HPP v. )el 5alle, GR 11"616, )ec. 1,, 2%%1I4 PP v. G itiereD, G' /5-)+7, @arch /(, -++-.

!me; >reacher! M Not ?stablished" F/G %.N? .N $@P;A#? or A# A '?AC>$.N >. AN AC>;AA .' $@AG$N?% P'.C.CA>$.N offered b! the victim. P'.C.CA>$.N of the acc sed b! the victim negates the presence of treacher!, even if the attac3 ma! have been s dden and ne0pected HPP v. 2e1plo, GR 1!!-6", )ec. 1, 2%%%I4 F-G an $@P;A#? O$AA$NG. $t was a #P;',.F, ><? M@.@?N> C'$@?. .ne who, in the heat of passion, loses his reason and self,control cannot conscio sl! emplo! a partic lar means, method, or form of attac3 in the e0ec tion of the crime HPP v. &ntonio, GR 128"%%, D'ly 1,, 2%%%I. <owever, in his conc'rring and dissenting opinion, 8 stice P no observed that treacher! attended the 3illing of J>K4 >he victim s stained a single g nshot wo nd on the forehead, between his e!es. <e was shot at close range. <e e0plained that the victim had absol tel! no opport nit! to defend himself from the aggression of acc sed,appellant and that Jmeans, method and manner of e0ec tion were deliberatel! and conscio sl! adopted b! the offender Hid.I4 F9G #.A$>A'N ?N?:$>N?## %$% N.> #?? ><? C.@@?NC?@?N> .F ><? A##A;A> H PP v. Macaliag, GR 1!%6--, &'g. ", 2%%%I4 F5G >he incident happened d ring a traffic =am, in the presence of armed policeman and other passengers aside of some on, loo3ers. >he victim was not completel! helpless. @oreover, no s fficient evidence to establish that it was conscio sl! adopted the mode of attac3 H PP v. Salva, GR 1!2!-1, Dan. 1%, 2%%2I F7G >he 3illing was P'?C?%?% EN A Q;A''?A and a <?A>?% %$#C;##$.N HPP v. +'1intigar, GR 1!2--#, Dan. 1-, 2%%2I !me; @?'? #;%%?NN?## .F ><? A>>ACO does not ma3e it treachero s, absent proof that the mode of attac3 was conscio sl! adopted. :here there is reasonable do bt that appellant deliberatel! and conscio sl! adopted a mode of attac3 to 3ill the victim w1o ris3 to himself, treacher! will not be appreciated. !me; @ore so, where the victim was alread! aware of the danger as he saw acc sed,appellant carr!ing a g n and heard - g nshots prompting him to r n and hide behind a wall. >here co ld be no treacher! since prior to the attac3 the victim was forewarned of the danger if his life and even managed to flee, albeit ns ccessf ll!. !me; Altho gh the attac3 was s dden, the evidence shows that the victim was not ca ght completel! off g ard. >he victim and acc sed,appellant engaged in combat that lasted for several min tes before the former was finall! overpowered and then 3illed. PP v. G Dman, G' /9-*7+, %ec. /5, -++/.

PP v. Ancheta, G' /9(9+6,+*, %ec. -/, -++/. PP v. $glesia, -++/4 PP v. Pa=otal, -++/.

!me; 6i##ing done !t ! )ur of the Moment; is not PP v. @aDo, treachero s. >hat appellant contin ed to stab the victim G' /96(6), when the latter fell and was crawling on his bac3 does not .ct. /*, -++/. prove treacher! as there is no showing that appellant had conscio sl! adopted, prepared or planned to se the victims s dden, hapless position to his advantage. !me; Br!,#; :hat act all! too3 place was a E'A:A. >h s, no treacher!. !me; >he fact that the victim s stained wo nds at his bac3. >hese wo nds might have been the last ones PP v. Fig racion, -++/. PP v. Eantiling, G'

inflicted in order to finish the victim, or might have been inflicted b! accident, or inflicted in a frontal enco nter. !me; :hen treacher! is present in the special comple0 crime of robber! w1 homicide, it is to be regarded as a generic aggravating circ mstance. !me; >reacher! AE#.'E# Ab se of # perior #trength.

/96+/*, Nov. -++/.

G' /7,

PP v. Cando, G' /-(//5, .ct. -7, -+++ PP v. @anlasing, G' /9/*96, 9*, @arch //, -++-4 PP v. Aab,eo, -++-. PP Feliciano, -++/. v.

!me; Not aggravating in robber! with homicide.

ABU E OF UPERIOR TREN5T2 &@u!#if%ing( A it is PP v. the se of e0cessive force o t of proportion to the means Apelado4 PP of defense available to the person attac3ed. v. .c men, G' /-+5)9, )51//*6)-, %ec. -, /))). !me; Q;AA$F$?# 3illing to m rder, as when an armed man w1 a deadl! weapon attac3s an narmed and defenseless woman. !me; Appellants en=o!ed not onl! n merical s periorit! over the victim and his son, b t also of arms consisting of a shotg n, a revolver and a bolo, while Arsenio and Cincent Cillaver were narmed. PP v. Eohol, G' /9+7(*, 8 l! /-, -+++. PP v. @ mar, G' /-9/77, 8 ne (, -+++ 4 PP v. .rio, G' /-((-/, April /-, -+++. PP v. Almendras, s pra.

!me; ;se of e0cessive force is o t of proportion to the means available to the person attac3ed to defend himself. >o be appreciated, it m st be clearl! shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefactor to ta3e advantage thereof. !me; >hat there were two 3illers as against one victim did not of itself establish ab se of s perior strength.

PP v. Abe= ela, G' /955(5, 8an. 9+, -++-.

!me; A$sor$ed in Tre!"her%; not considered PP v. separatel! even as a generic aggravating circ mstance. @arcelino, s pra4 PP v. Nablo, G' //**//, %ec. 6, /)))4 PP v. Cillablanca, G' ()66-, .ct. /, /))). !me; $t is m rder, when a -- !ear old male w1 a deadl! weapon assa lts an old woman w1 failing e!esight and narmed. <owever, since treacher! was alread! appreciated as a 2 alif!ing circ mstance, ab se of s perior strength was deemed absorbed therein. PP v. AopeD, G' /96(6/, Nov. /7, -+++.

!me; As a generic aggravating circ mstance, capable of being proved and ta3en into consideration in imposing the sentence, even if it is not alleged in the information. !me; A))re"i!ted7 FiG where appellants, armed w1 wooden cl bs and lead pipe, and // confederates inflicted fatal in= ries pon the victim, rendering him defenseless and preventing his escape. HPP v. )re*, s'praI4 FiiG when the victim was s ddenl! attac3ed b! 9 armed persons Hincl ding the acc sed,appellantI, while another acted as a loo3,o t to g arantee the smooth e0ec tion of the crime. HPP v. Mos='erra, s'praI. !me; >hat the victim is a woman does not, b! itself, establish ab se of s perior strength.

id.

PP v. :hisenh nt, G' /-9(/), Nov. /5, -++/. PP v. Cabancala, G' /97+67, A g. (, -++/.

!me; :hat sho ld be considered is not that there were 9, 5 or more assailants as against one victim, b t whether the aggressors too3 advantage of their combined strength in order to cons mmate the offense. $n the present case, acc sed,appellants were priorl! narmed, and it was onl! when the! were abo t to commit the crime, while waiting for the victim to pass b! the bamboo groove that the! tho ght of getting some implement, a cr de bamboo pole w1 the! c t right there and then. >he 9 acc sed,appellants did not p rposel! ta3e advantage of their s perior strength. !me; A$sor$ed in Tre!"her%; Ab se of s perior strength and aid of armed men, when present w1 treacher!, are AE#.'E?% in the latter and can no longer be appreciated.

PP v. Pasc a, G' /9+)69, Nov. -*, -++/ 4 PP v. #ia, G' /9*57*, Nov. -/, -++/ 4 PP v. Fig racion, s pra. =IT2 IN ULT OR IN DI RE5ARD OF T2E RE PECT PP v. Paraiso, DUE TO T2E OFFENDED PARTY &5eneri"( A can be G' /-*(5+, appreciated onl! in crimes against person or honor, not in Nov. -), special comple0 crime of robber! w1 <omicide w1c is a /))). crime against propert!. !me; $n order to be appreciated, there m st be a deliberate intent to act w1 ins lt to or in disregard of, the victim on acco nt of his ran3. A hatred against all policemen in general, does not, b! itself, s ffice to prove this aggravating circ mstance. DI RE5ARD OF A5E OR E1; Oilling of a woman is not attended b! this aggravating circ mstance if the offender did not manifest an! specific ins lt or disrespect towards the offenders se0. $n the case at bar, there is absol tel! no showing that acc sed,appellant deliberatel! intended to offend or ins lt the victim. <owever, even if disrespect or disregard of age or se0 were not appreciated, the fo r circ mstances en merated in Art. /5, par. 9 of the 'PC, as amended, can be considered singl! or together. PP v. Aobino, G' /-9+*/, .ct. -(, /))).

PP v. >aboga, G' /55+(6, (*, Feb. 6, -++-.

D=ELLIN5 &5eneri"(; incl des ever! dependencies of a PP v. 'ios, ho se that forms an integral part thereof, s ch as G' /9-69-, staircase or terrace. :hen a crime is committed in the 8 ne /),

dwelling of the offended part! who did not ca se the provocation, dwelling ma! be appreciated as an aggravating circ mstance. !me; %welling was correctl! ta3en into acco nt as an aggravating circ mstance HgenericI as the evidence shows that complainant was forcibl! ta3en from the ho se of her parents. !me; Aggravating, when the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended part! and the latter has not given provocation. $t is not necessar! that the acc sed sho ld have act all! entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense4 it is eno gh that the victim was attac3ed inside his own ho se, altho gh the assailant might have devised means to perpetrate the assa lt from the o tside. !me; Aggravating in <omicide.

-+++.

PP v. >alo, G' /-775-, .ct. -7, -+++. PP v. Perreras, s pra4 PP v. @orial, G' /-)-)7, A g. /7, -++/. PP v. >aboga, G' /55+(6, (*, Feb. 6, -++-. PP v. Eragat, G' /955)+, #ept. 5, -++/. PP v. %e la >orre, G' )(59/, 8an. /7, -++-.

!me; Aggravating in robber! w1 homicide.

!me; Aggravating in 'ape. >he 3itchen where @arita was dragged b! appellant is her Jdwelling,K albeit the same does not belong to her. >he Jdwelling contemplated in Art. /5 H9I of the 'PC does not necessaril! mean that the victim owns the place where he lives or dwells. Ee he a lessee, a boarder, or a bedspacer, the place is his home. >hat the crime was cons mmated in the nearb! ho se is also immaterial. @arita was forcibl! ta3en b! appellant from her dwelling ho se H3itchenI and then raped nearb!. !me; Not aggravating, as the crime was committed o tside the ho se of the victim.

PP v. Fig racion, -++/.

CRUELTY or I5NOMINY &5eneri"(; >o be appreciated, PP v. Catian, there m st be proof that the acc sed %?A$G<>?% in G' /9)6)9, ma3ing their victim #;FF?' #A.:AN and G'A%;AAAN, 8an. -5, -++-. ca sing him ;NN?C?##A'N P<N#$CAA AN% @.'AA PA$N in the cons mption of the criminal act. >hat the acc sed b rned the bod! of the deceased is not s fficient to show that means were emplo!ed w1c added ignomin! to the nat ral effects of the act. Nor ma! cr elt! as fo nd b! the trial co rt be s stained beca se there is no showing that the victim was b rned while he was still alive. !me; ( shots on the victims bac3 cannot ipso facto be considered cr elt! or ignomin!. PP v. @aga!ac, G' /-6+59, April /), -+++. PP v. AopeD, G' /96(6/, Nov. /7, -+++.

CRUELTY &5eneri"(; >he ph!sical evidence shows that the victim s ffered /st and -nd degree scalding b rns covering *-T of the bod! s rface, ca sed b! acc sed, appellants repeated acts of po ring boiling water on the victim while the! were allegedl! embroiled in a 2 arrel. Clearl!, the sheer n mber, and severe nat re and e0tent of the wo nds s ffered b! the victim attest to their deliberate infliction. >he wo nds and scalding b rns listed in the a tops! report were inflicted in different times b t

did not immediatel! res lt in death, as some of the wo nds were still in the process of healing at the time of a tops!. >he nat re and e0tent of those in= ries ndo btedl! ca sed terrible s fferings to the victim for a long period of time, res lting in a slow and painf l death. A person is to be held to contemplate and be responsible for the nat ral conse2 ences of her own acts. $f she inflicts wo nds of s ch a gravit! as to p t the life of the victim in =eopard!, and death follows as a conse2 ence, it does not alter the nat re nor diminish the criminalit! of the acts to prove that other ca ses cooperated in prod cing the fatal res lt. Es ='e es ca'sa de la ca'sa es ca'sa del 1al ca'sado. 2e ,ho is the "!use of the "!use is the "!use of the e-i# "!used. Acc sed,appellants atrocio s character, w1c transfi0es the so l w1 s ch horror and rev lsion, tr l! merits the severest condemnation. !me; $n another case, the victim was alread! wea3 and PP v. almost d!ing when acc sed,appellant inserted the Eangcado, cassava tr n3 inside her private organ. G' /9-99+, Nov. -(, -+++ !me; Not aggravating in the absence of an! showing that appellant, for his pleas re and satisfaction, ca sed the victim to s ffer slowl! and painf ll! and inflicted on him nnecessar! ph!sical and moral pains. >hat wo nds in e0cess of what was indispensabl! necessar! to ca se death were fo nd in the bod! of the victim does not necessaril! impl! that s ch wo nds were inflicted w1 the intention of deliberatel! and inh manl! intensif!ing or aggravating the s fferings of the victim. PP v. Almendras, G' /9*-**, %ec. -+, -++/.

I5NOMINY &5eneri"(; $t co ld not be appreciated where PP v. %iaD, the se0 al assa lt was not shown as having been done b! G' /9+-/+, the acc sed to p t the victim to shame before the 3illing. %ec. (, /))). OUTRA5IN5 AND COFFIN5 AT T2E CORP E OF PP v. T2E 3ICTIM &5eneri"(; @ere decapitation of the victims :hisenh nt, head constit tes o traging or scoffing at the corpse of the -++/. victim M 2 alifies the 3illing to m rder. Acc sed,appellant f rther c t p the victims bod! and strewed the dismembered parts in a deserted road in the co ntr!side. ABU E OF PUBLIC PO ITION &5eneri"(; >o be aggravating, the p blic officer m st se the infl ence, prestige or ascendanc! w1c his office gives him as a means b! w1c he realiDes his p rpose. $n this case, there was no showing that acc sed,appellant too3 advantage of his being a policeman to shoot 8elord or that he sed his Jinfl ence, prestige or ascendanc!K in 3illing the victim. Acc sed,appellant co ld have shot 8elord even w1o being a policeman. !me; @embership in the CAFG; and se of his government,iss ed @,/5 rifle to 3ill the victim does not necessaril! prove that the acc sed too3 advantage of his p blic position to commit the crime. PP v. Cillamor, G' /5/)+(,+), 8an. /7, -++-.

PP v. @aga!ac, G' /-6+59, April /), -+++4 PP v. Cilla, G' /-)()), April -*, -+++. Fort na v. People, G' /97*(5, %ec. -7, -+++.

!me; Ab se of P blic position was aggravating in robber!. >he mere fact that the three H9I acc sed were all police officers at the time of the robber! placed them in a position to perpetrate the offense. $f the! were not police

officers the! co ld not have terrified the @ontecillos into boarding the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand over their mone!. Precisel! it was on acco nt of their a thorit! that the @ontecillos believed that @ario had in fact committed a crime and wo ld be bro ght to the police station for investigation nless the! gave them what the! demanded. !me; Not appreciated. For p blic position to be appreciated as an aggravating circ mstance, the p blic official m st se his infl ence, prestige and ascendanc! which his office gives him in realiDing his p rpose. $f the acc sed co ld have perpetrated the crime witho t occ p!ing his position, then there is no ab se of p blic position. $n this case, while it ma! seem that acc sed, appellants intended to assert their a thorit! as policemen and enco rage in the victimsL minds the belief that the! were part of .peration OapOap when the! fris3ed the victims, both Cogasi and Clemente testified that the! never told the investigating officers that their assailants might be policemen. $n fact, beca se the assailants were not in niform, the! believed the latter to be civilians. !me; $t was not shown that acc sed,appellant too3 advantage of his position as a policeman to shoot the victim. PP v. Eangcado, G' /9-99+, Nov. -(, -+++.

PP v. <errera, G' /5+77*, 7(, %ec. 7, -++/.

NI52TTIME &5eneri"(; An aggravating circ mstance, PP v. when deliberatel! and intentionall! so ght b! acc sed, AriDobal, G' appellants to help them realiDe their evil intentions. /97+7/,7-, %ec. /5, -+++4 PP v. >alo, G' /-775-, .ct. -7, -+++. !me; Per se not aggravating, it becomes so onl! when" H/I it is #P?C$AAAN #.;G<> b! the offender4 or H-I it was >AO?N A%CAN>AG? of him4 or H9I it FAC$A$>A>?# ><? C.@@$##$.N of the crime. PP v. Almendras, G' /9*-**, %ec. -+, -++/4 PP v. @os2 erra, G' /-)-+), A g. ), -++/ 4 PP v. <ermosa, G' /9/(+7, #ept. *, -++/ 4 PP v. Clari&o, G' /95695, 8 l! 9/, -++/. PP v. Earo!, G' /9*7-+, --, @a! ), -++-.

!me; Nighttime is considered an aggravating circ mstance onl! when it is deliberatel! so ght to prevent the acc sed from being recogniDed or to ens re their escape. >here m st be proof that this was intentionall! so ght to ens re the commission of the crime, and that appellants too3 advantage of it. $n the instant case, there is pa cit! of evidence that nighttime was p rposel! and deliberatel! so ght b! appellants. !me; Altho gh the crime was committed at * P@, no evidence was presented showing that nighttime was especiall! so ght b! the offenders to cons mmate the

PP v. Conde, G' /955(9, 8an. /6, -++-4

crime or to facilitate its commission.

PP v. @oreno, G' /5++99, 8an. -7, -++-.

!me; Not aggravating in these cases" FiG >he dar3ness of the night was not p rposel! so ght b! the offenders to facilitate the commission of the crime nor ens re its e0ec tion w1 imp nit!. :PP v. 7o='ila, GR 1!61,-, Marc8 8, 2%%2;4 Absorbed in >reacher!. HPP v. Costales, GR 1,11-,, Dan. 1-, 2%%2I. !me; Noct rnit! does not become a modif!ing factor when the place is ade2 atel! lighted, and th s co ld no longer ins re the offenders imm nit! from identification or capt re. NI5T2TIME !nd UNIN2ABITED PLACE &5eneri"(; >reated as one aggravating circ mstance. $n the case of PP vs. Santos H)/ Phil 9-+ F/)7-GI, it has been held that if the aggravating circ mstances of nighttime, ninhabited place or band conc r in the commission of the crime, all will constit te one aggravating circ mstance onl! as a general r le altho gh the! can be considered separatel! if their elements are distinctl! perceived and can s bsist independentl!, revealing a greater degree of perversit!. RECIDI3I M; >o prove recidivism, it is necessar! to AAA?G? the same $N ><? $NF.'@A>$.N and to attach thereto certified copies of the sentences rendered against the acc sed. Absent s ch allegation in the information, however, the trial co rt ma! still consider recidivism as an aggravating circ mstance if the acc sed does N.> .E8?C> to the presentation of evidence thereon. PP @acaliag, -+++. v.

PP v. Aibrando, G' /9--7/, 8 l! 6, -+++.

PP v. @olina, G' /95***, *(, 8 l! -5, -+++.

!me; Previo s convictions do not ma3e the acc sed, PP v. appellant a recidivist ntil and nless s ch convictions are Abendan, G' alread! final. /9/(/9, #ept. -), -+++. BAND &5eneri"(; Not aggravating ;NA?## there is proof that at least 5 of the 7 perpetrators of the crime are armed. PP v. AriDobal, G' /97+7/,7-, %ec. /5, -+++. PP v. %inamling, G' /956+7, @arch /-, -++-. PP v. # ltan, G' /9-5*+, April -*, -+++4 PP v. 'egala, G' /9+7+(, April 7, -+++.

!me; :henever more than 9 armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense. Aggravating in this case of robber! w1 homicide warranting the imposition of the death penalt!. Mu#ti)#e 2omi"ide in Ro$$er% ,> 2omi"ide; Mu#ti)#e R!)e in Ro$$er% ,> R!)e7 >he additional rapes committed on the occasion of robber! sho ld not be appreciated as an aggravating circ mstance despite a res ltant Janomalo s sit ationK where, in terms of gravit!, robber! w1 rape wo ld be on the same level as robber! w1 m ltiple rapes. >here is no law ma3ing the said additional rape1s or homicide1s as an aggravating circ mstance nder Art /5 of the 'PC is e0cl sive, nli3e the en meration of mitigating circ mstances in Art. /9 of the same Code w1c provides for analogo s circ mstances. >he remed! lies w1 the legislat re. Conse2 entl!, nless and ntil a law is passed considering that the additional rape1s or homicide1s ma! be considered aggravating, the

Co rt m st constr e the penal law in favor of the offender as no person ma! be bro ght w1in its terms if he is not clearl! made so b! the stat te. ;nder this view, the additional rape committed is not considered as aggravating circ mstance. !me; Pre-ious Ru#ing "onsiders the !ddition!# homi"ide>r!)e !s Not Aggr!-!ting $ut ,!s re-ersed to $e A55RA3ATIN5; $n a more recent case, the Co rt r led that when more than one person is 3illed on the occasion of robber!, the additional 3illing sho ld be appreciated as an aggravating circ mstance to avoid the anomalo s sit ation where, from the standpoint of the gravit! of the offense, robber! w1 one 3illing wo ld be on the same level as robber! w1 m ltiple 3illings. !me; $n order to determine the e0istence of the crime of robber! with homicide, it is eno gh that death res lts b! reason or on the occasion of the robber! inasm ch as it is onl! the res lt obtained, w1o reference or distinction as to the circ mstances, ca ses, modes, or persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be ta3en into consideration. $n other words, in the crime of robber! w1 homicide, it does not matter if the homicide preceded or occ rred after the robber!. For what is essential is that there is a direct relation or intimate connection between the robber! and the 3illing, whether the latter be prior or s bse2 ent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time. >he original criminal design of the c lprit m st be robber! and the homicide is perpetrated w1 a view to the cons mmation of the robber!, b! reason or on the occasion of the robber!. >h s, in People v. G'iapar, F/-) #C'A 79) H/)(5IG, it was held that the death of a g ard res lting from the in= r! he s stained d ring the robber! 2 alified the offense to robber! with homicide. As long as homicide res lted d ring, or beca se of, the robber!, even if the 3illing is b! mere accident, robber! with homicide committed. Use of De!d#% =e!)on in R!)e; $t m st be alleged in the information beca se it is in the nat re of a 2 alif!ing aggravating circ mstance w1c increases the range of the penalt! to incl de death. As it was not so alleged, even tho gh it was proved in the case, the same can onl! be treated as a generic aggravating circ mstance w1c cannot affect the penalt! to be imposed.
Alternative

PP v. #abredo, G' /-6//5, @a! //, -+++.

PP v. Pa=otal, G' /5-(*+. Nov. /5, -++/.

PP v. Fraga, G' /95/9+, 99, April /-, -+++.

Circ m, stance

Re#!tionshi); $t shall be ta3en into consideration onl! when the offended part! is the spo se, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, nat ral, or adopted brother or sister, or relative b! affinit! in the same degree of the offender. >hat the victim is the maid of the acc sed appellant M is not aggravating. !me; Considered when the offended part! is the spo se, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, nat ral or adopted brother or sister, or relative b! affinit! in the same degrees of the offender. !me; >reated as a generic aggravating circ mstance in crimes of rape HArt. 997, 'PCI and acts of lascivio sness HArt. 996, 'PCI.

PP v. .cfemia, G' /-6/97, .ct. -7, -+++.

PP v. Cari&o, G' /9/-+9, A g. -, -++/. PP v. >oralba, G' /9)5//, A g. ), -++/4 PP v. Caingat, G' /9*)69, Feb. 6, -++-.

Into0i"!tion; >o be considered as mitigating, it m st PP v. Pinca, plead" H/I 2 antit! of alcoholic beverage ta3en prior to the s pra. commission of the crime s fficient to prod ce the effect of obf scating reason4 H-I the acc sed is not a habit al drin3er and did not ta3e the alcoholic drin3 to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime. !me; Not proven or appreciated. Art. /7 of the 'PC states" "that Alternative circ mstances are those which m st be ta3en into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nat re and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission. >he! are the relationship, into0ication and the degree of instr ction and ed cation of the offender. B00 000 000 >he into0ication of the offender shall be ta3en into consideration as a mitigating circ mstance when the offender has committed a felon! in a state of into0ication, if the same is not habit al or s bse2 ent to the plan to commit said felon! b t when the into0ication is habit al or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circ mstance." >he records do not show whether acc sedLs into0ication was habit al, intentional or s bse2 ent to the plan to commit the felon!. !me; @itigating, when the offender has committed a felon! in a state of into0ication, if the same is not habit al or s bse2 ent to the plan to commit said felon!. $n the instant case, acc sed,appellant failed to prove the appro0imate 2 antit! of his inta3e as to s fficientl! affect his mental fac lties and conse2 entl! entitle him to a mitigation of his offense. !me; %r n3enness or into0ication is mitigating if accidental, not habit al or intentional4 that is, not s bse2 ent to the plan to commit the crime. >o be mitigating, the state of into0ication of the acc sed m st be proved or established b! s fficient evidence. E t if into0ication is proved, then in the absence of tr th to the contrar!, it is pres med to be nintentional or not habit al. <ence, this mitigating circ mstance sho ld be appreciated where the acc sed committed the felon! in a state of into0ication, and there was no s fficient proof that it was habit al or s bse2 ent to the plan to commit the felon!. F rthermore, a finding of this circ mstance has the effect of decreasing the penalt!, as long as it meets these twin re2 irements. !me; ;nder normal circ mstances, a glass of beer is not so into0icating as to diminish a mans rational capacit!. $n this case, the 2 antit! cons med b! appellants co ld certainl! have affected their capacit! to realiDe or contemplate the wrongf lness of their actions. Penalties Retro!"ti-e effe"t of Pen!# L!,s; A))#%ing the Do"trine of Pro eo; ?ven if the commission of the crime too3 effect before the passage of a penal law favorable or advantageo s to the acc sed. >he latter law sho ld be applied retroactivel!. !me; >he retroactive effect of penal laws, insofar as the! favor the person g ilt! of a felon!, applies to = dicial decisions. PP v. % mag ing, G' /977/6, #ept. -+, -+++4 PP v. Eato, G' /-*(59, %ec. /7, -+++.

PP v. %omingo, s pra4 PP v. Nanas, G' /9*-)), A g. -/, -++/. PP v. Earo!, G' /9*7-+, --, @a! ), -++-.

PP v. Earo!, G' /9*7-+, --, @a! ), -++-. PP v. AaDaro, G' //-+)+, .ct -6, /))).

PP v. %e los #antos, G' /-/)+6, April 7, -+++.

!me; Altho gh this case originated in /))* before the #avage v. enactment of the $P' Code, the provisions of the said 8 dge >a!pin, code was applied p rs ant to Art. -- of the 'PC. G' /95-/*, @a! //, -+++. !me; >he retroactive effect applies even to crimes Cilla v. CA, p nishable b! special laws. >he on#% e0"e)tion to this G' /-7(95, retroactive application is when the person g ilt! of a felon! %ec. 6, /))). is a Jhabit al criminalK as defined in Art. 6- of the 'PC. !me; Conversel!, if the new law is nfavorable to the acc sed, it cannot be given retroactive effect to the convict. An amendator! law ma! onl! be applied retroactivel! if beneficial to the acc sed. PP v. Aangres, s pra4 PP v. Aacaba, G' /9+7)/, Nov. /*, /)))4 PP v. Eal dda, G' //5/)(, Nov. /), /))). PP v. CaldeD, G' /-**79, %ec. //. -+++4 PP v. %e la Cr D, G' //()6*, 8 l! /5, -+++.

!me; Penal laws shall have a retroactive insofar as the! favor the person g ilt! of a felon!, who is not a 8abit'al cri1inal as defined in ' le 7, Art. 6- of the 'PC. >h s, in this case, the trial co rt convicted the acc sed,appellant for " FiG m rder for w1c the trial co rt Hin light of its appreciation of attendant aggravating circ mstancesI imposed the death penalt!4 and FiiG illegal possession of firearm and amm nition for w1c the penalt! of recl'sion perpet'a nder P% /(66 was imposed M both crimes committed in /))7. ' ling o t all generic aggravating circ mstances fo nd b! the trial co rt, the Co rt applied 'A (-)5 Hw1c too3 effect on 8 l! 6, /))*I to the cases of the acc sed, to the e0tent that it was favorable to him. >h s, the acc sed ma! no longer be separatel! charged w1 illegal possession or se of nlicensed firearm and sho ld be p nished onl! for the crime of m rder. @oreover, s ch aggravating circ mstance co ld not even be appreciated beca se its retroactive application wo ld be nfavorable to the acc sed, since the higher penalt! of death wo ld necessaril! be imposed. !me; 'A *67), amending Art. -5( of the 'PC and imposing a heavier penalt! for m rder, was not applied to m rder committed before the effectivit! of the amendator! law. !me; ;nder 'A (-)5 Heffective 8 ne 6, /))*I, the se of nlicensed firearm in m rder or homicide is not a separate crime, b t merel! a special aggravating circ mstances. !me; Altho gh the crime in this case was committed in /))+, the amendator! law was applied since it is favorable to the acc sed,appellant. >herefore, the acc sed can no longer be separatel! charged w1 illegal possession of an nlicensed firearm. !me; Pro"edur!# L!,s; Proced ral law favorable to the acc sed. Given retroactive effect even as the crime was committed and the decision of the trial co rt rendered before the New ' les of Criminal Proced re was prom lgated. >h s, Jdisg iseK co ld not be appreciated to increase the penalt! to death as it was not alleged in the information.

PP v. Gadia, G' /9-9(5, #ept. -/, -++/. PP v. Abriol, G' /-9/9*, .ct. /*, -++/. PP v. Pablo, G' //9(--, -9, A g. /7, -++/. PP v. # ela, G' /997*+, */, 8an. /7, -++-.

Pen!#ties th!t m!% $e Im)osed; >he law is settled that no stat te, decree, ordinance, r le or reg lation shall be given retroactive effect ;NA?## e0pressl! so provided, or favorable to the acc sed. An acc sed cannot be convicted of an offense, nless it is charged in the complaint or information. !me; #ection // of 'A *67) Htoo3 effect 9/ %ec. /))9I w1c amended Art. 997 of the 'PC, is not applicable to this crime of rape that was committed sometime in %ec. /))9 and not b! the end of %ec. /))9. $n respect to rape committed on Nov. 6, /))*, 'A (979 Hthe law e0panding the definition of the crime of rape and reclassif!ing the same as a crime against personsI applies. Dur!tion !nd Effe"t of Pen!#ties; De!th Pen!#t%; ?ven if the crime at bar is attended b! an aggravating circ mstance, the death penalt! cannot be imposed on appellants since the /)(* Constit tion proscribes the imposition thereof to crimes committed prior to its reimposition nder 'A *67) on %ec. 9/, /))9. !me; !me; >he death penalt! cannot be imposed on the three acc sed. $t is tr e that the d al 3illings were committed on %ecember /(, /)(7, before the s spension of the death penalt!. :hen the /)(* Constit tion too3 effect, the provision therein proscribing the imposition of the death penalt!, being more favorable to the acc sed, co ld have been retroactive applied to them, <owever, the cases at bar were decided b! the trial co rt on .ctober *, /))*. $n the interim, 'A *76) too3 effect on 8an ar! /, /))5, reinstating the death penalt!. >he acc sed cannot be fa lted for the dela! in the disposition of the cases against them. $n the case of People v. Cogonon H-6- #C'A 6)9, *+* F/))6GI, we held that the death penalt! cannot be imposed on an acc sed notwithstanding that at the time = dgment was rendered, the said penalt! had been reinstated. $n the same vein, the acc sed in this case cannot be sentenced to death = st beca se the same was reinstated at the time the trial co rt rendered = dgment against them. >he! sho ld contin e to en=o! the benefit nder the /)(* Constit tion, which co ld have been applied to them if onl! these eases had been decided earlier. $n criminal cases, all do bts shall be resolved in favor of the acc sed. /( <ence, the acc sed sho ld onl! be sentenced to s ffer the penalt! of recl sion perpet a.

'emigio v. #andiganba!a n, G' /575--,-9, 8an. /(, -++-. PP v. Flores, G' /955((, (), 8an. -7, -++-.

PP v. >empla, G' /-/()*, A g. /6, -++/.

PP v. % malaha!, G' /9/(9*, 9(, April -, -++-.

!me; eclusion Perpetua ; Aife imprisonment and PP v. recl'sion perpet'a are two distinct penalties and are not @os2 erra, interchangeable. G' /-)-+), A g. ), -++/. Pen!#t% th!t m!% $e im)osed for Murder; :here death PPv. penalt! co ld not be imposed, hence, the imposable Cillablanca, penalt! is recl'sion perpet'a. s pra. eclusion Perpetua; Proper penalt! in Q alified >heft 4 PP v. Eago, >he Jpenalt! higher than recl'sion perpet'aK is recl'sion G' /---)+, perpet'a for 5+ !ears w1 the accessor! penalties nder April 6, -+++. Art. 5+ of the 'PC. !me; Altho gh #ect. /* of 'A *67) has fi0ed the d ration of recl'sion perpet'a from -+ !ears and / da! to 5+ !ears, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalt!. PP v. Francisco, G' /9+5)+, 8 ne /), -+++.

u""essi-e er-i"e of enten"e &Art* B?/ RPC(; :hen the c lprit has to serve - or more penalties, he sho ld serve them sim ltaneo sl! if the nat re of the penalties will so permit4 otherwise4 said penalties shall be e0ec ted s ccessivel!, ff. the order of their respective severit!. !me; >he penalties consisting of deprivation of libert! cannot be served sim ltaneo sl!.

?vangelista v. #istoDa, G' /59((/, A g. ), -++/. $n 'e" Pete Aagran, G' /5*-*+, A g. /7, -++/. Cit! :arden of the @anila Cit! 8ail v. ?strella, G' /5/-//, A g. 9/, -++/. PP v. <errera, G' /5+77*, 7(, %ec. 7, -++/4 PP v. 'ecto, G' /-)+6), .ct. /*, -++/.

A##o,!n"e for 5ood Condu"t; >he %irector of the E rea of Corrections is the official a thoriDed to iss e a certification as to the good cond ct time allowance of all prisoners, regardless of their places of detention.

Comple0 Crimes

Con"e)t; >he concept of a comple0 crime is defined in Art. 5( of the 'PC w1c states that when a single act constit tes two or more grave or less grave felonies or when an offense is a necessar! means for committing the other, the penalt! for the most serio s crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its ma0im m period. HAs amended b! Act No. 5+++I. >he cases at bar clearl! do not fall nder an! of the two instances of comple0 crimes that wo ld merit the imposition of the prescribed penalt! in its ma0im m period. $n Easao, the victims were on board their speeding motorc!cle when the! were fatall! strafed with a volle! of a tomatic g nfire from the acc sedLs @,/6 Armalite rifle. $n this case, acc sed, appellant, sing a single action .9( cal. #mith P :esson revolver, fired several times. $n PP v. Eermas, reiterating the earlier r ling of PP v. Cargas, 8r., the Co rt observed that S ?videntl!, this is a case where several persons were 3illed and others in= red b! s ccessive shots. $n the case of PP vs. @ones, the #C fo nd the acc sed g ilt! of three distinct and separate m rders, each 2 alified b! treacher!, when the said acc sed fired a series of shots 3illing three persons attending a school commencement e0ercise. #imilarl!, in the case of PP vs. %esierto, it was r led that several shots from a >hompson s b,machine, g n ca sing several deaths, altho gh ca sed b! a single act of pressing the trigger of the s b,machine g n, in view of its special mechanism, the person firing it onl! has to 3eep pressing the trigger of the s b,machine,g n, with his finger and it wo ld fire contin all!. <ence, it is not the act of pressing the trigger which sho ld be considered as prod cing several felonies, b t the n mber of b llets which act all! prod ced them. . . . Conse2 entl!, the acc sed sho ld be responsible for each of the res ltant crimes instead of the comple0 crime of do ble m rder nder Art. 5( of the 'PC. !me; As the m ltiple m rder and fr strated m rder res lted from the firing of #?C?'AA #<.># against the ( victims, the crimes are not comple0. Art. 5( of the 'PC is not applicable. Art* CD of the RPC; there is a comple0 crime when" F/G a single act constit te - or more grave or less grave felonies, or F-G when an offense is a necessar! means for committing the other.

PP v. Pacificador, G' /-67/7, Feb. 6, -++-.

!me; $n a comple0 crime, altho gh two or more crimes are act all! committed, the! constit te onl! one crime in the e!es of the law, i.e., m rder w1 abortion M Hthe stabbing and 3illing of the victim w1c ca sed li3ewise the death of the fet s arising from the single criminal intent of 3illing the victimI. >he penalt! for the more or the most serio s crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its ma0im m period. As between m rder and nintentional abortion, m rder is the more serio s crime and the penalt! therefor is recl'sion perpet'a to death. %eath being the ma0im m or the greater penalt! m st then be imposed, and since this is an indivisible penalt!, the presence of mitigating or aggravating circ mstances is inconse2 ential. !me; >here is no comple0 crime of "rape with fr strated homicide". Article 5( of the 'PC re2 ires the commission of at least two crimes, b t the two or more grave or less grave felonies m st be the res lt of a single act, or an offense m st be a necessar! means for committing the other. Negativel! p t, when two or more crimes are committed b t H/I not b! a single act or H-I one is not a necessar! means for committing,the others, there is no comple0 crime. $n the instant case, acc sed,appellant committed separate crimes of rape and fr strated homicide. >he! do not constit te a comple0 crime of "rape with fr strated homicide." Neither does this case fall nder Article 997 of >he 'PC w1c provides for a special comple0 crime of rape with homicide. ?0tinction of Criminal Aiabilit! De!th; >he death of the appellant pending appeal and prior to the finalit! of conviction totall! e0ting ishes his criminal liabilit! and civil liabilities arising from the crime. >he criminal case against him and not the appeal sho ld be dismissed.

PP v. AopeD, G' /96(6/, Nov. /7, -+++.

PP v. <onra, G' /96+/-, /6, #ept. -6, -+++.

PP v. Ab ngan, G' /96(59, #ept. -(, -+++4 PP v. Paca&a, G' )*5*-,*9, Nov. -+, -+++ PP v. Patriarca, G' /9757*, #ept. -), -+++.

Amnest% distinguished from P!rdon; E'F Pardon is granted b! the Chief ?0ec tive and as s ch it is a private act w1c m st be pleaded and proved b! the person pardoned, beca se the co rts ta3e no notice thereof4 while amnest! b! Proclamation of the Chief ?0ec tive with the conc rrence of Congress, is a p blic act of which the co rts sho ld ta3e = dicial notice. E+F Pardon is granted to one after conviction4 while amnest! is granted to classes of persons or comm nities who ma! be g ilt! of political offenses, generall! before or after the instit tion of the criminal prosec tion and sometimes after conviction. E.F Pardon loo3s forward and relieves the offender from the conse2 ences of an offense of w1c he has been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the p nishment, and for that reason it does Lnot wor3 the restoration of the rights to hold,p blic office, or the,right of s ffrage nless s ch rights be e0pressl! restored b! the terms of the pardon,L and it Lin no case e0empts the c lprit from the pa!ment of the civil indemnit! imposed pon him b! the sentenceL HArticle 96, 'PCI. :hile amnest! loo3s bac3ward and abolishes and p ts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overloo3s and obliterates the offense w1 w1c he is charged that the person released b! amnest! stands before the law precisel! as tho gh he had committed no offense. No-!tion is not ! mode of e0tinguishing "rimin!# #i!$i#it%* $t ma! prevent the rise of criminal liabilit! as long as it occ rs prior to the filing of the criminal information in

%iongDon v. CA, G' //5(-9, %ec.

co rt. >he death of the acc sed pending appeal of his conviction e0ting ishes his criminal liabilit! as well as the civil liabilit! based solel! theron. Civil liabilit! A";uitt!# in the Crimin!# C!se7 An acc sed ac2 itted of a criminal charge ma! nevertheless be held civill! liable in the same case where the facts established b! evidence so warrant. CI3IL INDEMNITY; $n the nat re of AC>;AA and C.@P?N#A>.'N damages. >he award is @NA%A>.'N for each co nt, pon the finding of the commission of the crime, w1o need of f rther proof of damages.

-9, /))). PP v. Canag ran, /))). Pacheco v. CA, G' /-66*+, %ec. -, /))).

The Ci-i# Indemnit% E0 De#i"to shou#d $e !,!rded/ ,>o PP v. Eatoon, need of further e-iden"e/ e0"e)t the "on-i"tion of the G' /95/)5, !""used* .ct. -6, /)))4 PP v. Celis, G' /-79+*, +), .ct. -+, /)))4 PP v. #antiago, G' /-)99), %ec. -, /))). !me; 5uide#ines7 PG?/???*?? awarded in Murder w1o need of f rther proof other than death of the victim HPP v. Floro, /)))4 PP v. AriDala, /)))4 HPP v. Cillablanca, s pra4 PP v. %iaD, s praI4 HPP v. Catian, G' /9)6)9, 8an. -5, -++-4 PP v.
#amson, G' /-5666, Feb. /7, -++-4 PP v. G itirreD, G' /5-)+7, @arch /(, -++-I.

!me; !me; PG?/???*?? awarded in 2omi"ide HPP v. .c men, /)))I4 HPP v. %inamling, G' /956+7, @arch /-, -++-I4 PP v. Aabitad, G' /9-*)9, @a! *, -++!me; P.?/???*?? for Attem)ted R!)e HPP v. @ariano, G' /977//,/9, Nov. /5, -++/I. !me; !me; PG?/???*?? in R!)e HPP v. Apostol, G' /-9)6*,6(, %ec. ), /)))4 PP v. Carata!, G' //)5/(, //)596U9*, .ct. 7, /)))4 PP v. %e Aeon, G' /-(596, %ec. /+, /)))4 PP v. >abion, G' /9-*/7, .ct. -+, /))) I4 #ame amo nt where the death penalt! is not decreed HPP v. %e la >orre, G' )(59/, 8an. /7, -++-4 PP v. ?s ela, G' /9(*-+,-/, @arch /), -++-4 PP v. Calindo, G' /5++-*, @arch /(, -++-4 PP v. Pala&a, G' /-5+79, @arch -+, -++-4 PP v. <ermanoes, G' /9)5/6, @arch /-, -++-I. !me; !me; PG?/???*?? in im)#e t!tutor% R!)e HPP v. 8alos=os, G' /9-(*7,*6, Nov. /6, -++/I !me; !me; PBG/???*?? in @u!#ified R!)e Heffectivel! 2 alified b! an! circ mstances nder w1c the death penalt! is mandated b! lawI. HPP v. 'odavia, G' /99++(,-5,
Feb. 6, -++-4 PP v. @arcellana, G' /9*5+/,+9, Feb. 6, -++-4 PP v. %aganio, G' /9*9(7, 8an. -9, -++-4 PP v. Callos, G' /995*(, 8an. /6, -++-4 PP v. ?sca&o, G' /5+-/(,-9, Feb. /9, -++-4 PP v. Aba&o, G' /5-*-(, 8an. -9, -++-4 PP v. Erondial, G' /977/*, .ct. /(, -+++I. PG?/???*?? in R!)e ,> use of De!d#% =e!)on HPP v. A&on evo, G' /9*(59, .ct. /-, -++/I

!me;

!me;

!me; PG?/???*?? in C!rn!))ing HPP v. #ia, G.'.

No. /9*57*. November -/, -++/I

!me; !me; PG?/???*?? for e!"h "ount of A"ts of L!s"i-iousness HPP v. 8alos=os, G' /9-(*7,*6, Nov. /6, -++/I. !me; !me; $ncreased to P'+G/???*?? in R!)e ,> PP v. >ablon, 2omi"ide HPP v. Feli0minia, G' /-7999, @arch -+, G' /9*-(+, -++-I. .riginall, set at P/++,+++.++ in PP v. >ahop. @arch /9, -++-. !me; !me; PBG/???*?? in Ro$$er% ,> 2omi"ide HPP v. %inamling, G' /956+7, @arch /-, -++-I. Eefore the Co rt awarded P'??/???*?? HPP v. #erenilla, G' //9+--5, -5, %ec. /7, -+++I* LO OF EARNIN5 CAPACITY; ;nder Art. --+6 of the PP v. #irad, Civil Code, in addition to civil indemnit! for the death of the G' /9+7)5, victim, the acc sed,appellants are also =ointl! and 8 l! 7, -+++. severall! liable for the loss of earning capacit! of the deceased and s ch indemnit! sho ld be paid to the heirs of the latter. !me; The Formu#!7 NET EARNIN5 CAPACITY &1( H Life E0)e"t!n"% 1 5ross Annu!# In"ome 4 Li-ing E0)enses &G?I of gross !nnu!# in"ome/ if co ld not be s bstantiatedI* =here7 Life E0)e"t!n"% H +>. 1 &D? 4 E!ge of de"e!sedF(4 and 5ross Annu!# In"ome H Month#% E!rnings 1 No* of Months &'+( PP v. @ore, G' /-((-+, %ec. -9, /)))4 PP v. .rpilla, G' //(+*9, 8an. -7, -++-4 PP v. CorteDano, G' /5+*9-, 8an. -), -++-4 PP v. Adlawan, G' /9/(9), 8an. 9+, -++-4 PP v. Natco, G' /9(9((, @arch /), -++-4 PP v. Ciron, G' /9)5+), @arch /(, -++-. PP v. Cerde, G' //)+**, Feb. /+, /)))

!me; Ade;u!te Proof Re;uired; >he testimon! of the victims wife was deemed s fficient to establish the basis for the grant of award for the loss of earning capacit! to the heirs of the deceased despite the absence of doc mentar! evidence to s bstantiate s ch claim. !me; !me; $n <omicide HPP v. Eantiling, G' /96+/*, Nov. /7, -++/I4 $n @ rder HPP v. Eit on, G' /5-+59, #ept. /9, -++/I4 $n Carnapping HPP v. #ia, G' /9*57*, Nov. -/, -++/I4 %isallowed in the absence of evidence s fficientl! showing the income of the deceased.

PP v. Pa=otal, G' /5-(*+, Nov. /5, -++/4 PP v. Nrat, G' /9+5/7, .ct. //, -++/. PP v. #ia, s pra4 PP v. Perreras, s pra4 PP v.

!me; !me; >estimonial evidence is s fficient to establish a basis for the co rt to ma3e a fair and reasonable estimate of damages for loss of earning capacit!.

@anDano, G' /9(9+9, Nov. -6, -++/. !me; !me; $ndemnification for loss of earning capacit! parta3es of the nat re of act al damages which m st be d l! proven. A self,serving statement, being nreliable, is not eno gh. For lost income to be recovered, there m st li3ewise be an nbiased proof of the deceasedLs average, not = st gross, income. !me; !me; >he testimon! of the wife of the deceased that her h sband had an average harvest of twice a !ear and a net gain of P7+> in si0 months M is s fficient to establish a basis from w1c the Co rt can ma3e a fair and reasonable estimate of damages for the loss of earning capacit!. !me; !me; Pre-!i#ing Ru#e; $t now precl des an! award for loss of earning capacit! w1o ade2 ate proof. $n People v. Cerde, we granted an award for the loss of earning capacit! to the heirs of the deceased despite the absence of doc mentar! evidence to s bstantiate s ch claim. :e deemed the testimon! of the victimLs wife s fficient to establish the basis for the grant. <owever, the new r ling in People v. Panabang 95 modifies this principle and now precl des an award for loss of earning capacit! witho t ade2 ate proof. >he bare testimon! of the brother of the deceased Felicisimo Castillo that, at the time of his death, :ilfredo Castillo was earning P-7+.++ dail! as carpenter 97 is not s fficient proof. LO OF CAPACITY TO EARN MONEY; If not g!infu##% em)#o%ed; >o be compensated for loss of earning capacit!, it is not necessar! that the victim, at the time of in= r! or death, be gainf ll! emplo!ed. Compensation of this nat re is awarded not for loss of earnings b t for loss of capacit! to earn mone!. MORAL DAMA5E ; $n addition to civil indemnit!. Also awarded a tomaticall!, or mandatoril!, w1o need of f rther proof other than the commission of the crime. >he award of moral damages is not intended to p nish the acc sed b t >. C.@P?N#A>? for the mental ang ish, serio s an0iet!, and moral shoc3 s ffered b! the victim or his1her famil! as the pro0imate res lt of the wrongf l act. >he award is not meant to enrich the victim at the e0pense of the acc sed. !me; 5uide#ines; PG?/???*?? is awarded in Murder HPP v. Alilin, G' /5-)+7, @arch /(, -++-4 PP v. G iterrieD, G' @arch /(, -++-4 Aba&o, G' /5-*-(, 8an. -9, -++-4 PP v. #amson, G' /-5666, Feb. /7, -++-4 PP v. Caitan, G' /9)6)9, 8an. -5, -++-I. !me; !me; PG?/???*?? in 2omi"ide HPP v. CorteDano, G' /5+*9-, 8an. -), -++-4 PP v. Panabang, G' /9*7/5,/7, 8an. /6, -++-4 PP v. >aboga, G' /55+(6,(*, Feb. 6, -++- I. >he nlawf l 3illing of a person, w1c ma! either be m rder or homicide, entitles the heirs of the deceased to moral damages, w1o need of independent proof other than the fact of death of the victim. >his is beca se the law pres mes that the death of the victim nat rall! ca ses mental ang ish, serio s an0iet!, and wo nded feelings to his bereaved famil!. PP v. Ciron, G' /9)5+), @arch /(, -++-. PP v. Panabang, G' /9*7/5, /7, 8an. /6, -++PP v. C enca, G' /59(/), 8an. -), -++-.

PP v. Ciron, G' /9)5+), @arch /(, -++-.

PP v. #ancheD, G' /-/+9),57, .ct. /(, -++/.

PP v. %!, G' //7-96,9*, 8an. -), -++-.

!me;

!me; P+G/???*?? for Attem)ted R!)e* HPP v. PP v. Apostol, /)))4 PP v. Carata!, /)))4 PP v. #antiago, /)))1 PP. Celis, /)))4 PP v. Narido, /)))4 PP v. >abion, /)))4 PP v. Eatoon, /)))4 PP v. %aganio, G' /9*9(7, 8an. -9, -++-. PP GomeD, G' /9-6*9, *7, .ct. /*, -++/4 PP v. Navarette, G' /96(5+,5-, #ept. /9, -++/4 PP v. >orres, G' /977--,-9, .ct. -, -++/4 PP v. Erondial, G' /977/*, .ct. /(, -+++.

@ariano, G' /977//,/9, Nov. /5, -++/I.

!me; !me; PG?/???*?? in R!)e/ whether 2 alified or not. HPP v. Calindo, G' /5++-*, @arch /(, -++-4 PP v. ?s ela, G' /9(*-+,-/, @arch /), -++- I. >he fact that the complainant has s ffered the scars of mental, ph!sical and ps!chological tra ma w1c constit te the basis for moral damages is too obvio s to still re2 ire the recital thereof at the trial b! the victim, since the Co rt itself A##;@?# and ACON.:A?%G?# s ch agon! on her part as a ga ge of her credibilit!.

!me; !me; PG?/???*?? !,!rded in @u!#ified R!)e.

!me; !me; PG?/???*?? in R!)e ,> 2omi"ide HPP v. Feli0minia, G' /-7999, @arch -+, -++-4 PP v. >ablon, G' /9*-(+, @arch /9, -++-I. Eefore the Co rt awarded P'??/???*?? HPP v. > angco, G' /9+99/, Nov. --, -+++I. !me; !me; PG?/???*?? in Ro$$er% ,> 2omi"ide HPP v. #erenilla, G' //9+--5,-7, %ec. /7, -+++4 PP v. %inamling, G' /956+7, @arch /-, -++-I. !me; !me; P+??/???*?? in <idn!))ing for R!nsom HPP v. Garcia, G' /995() P /59)*+, 8an. /7, -++-I. !me; PG?/???*?? in C!rn!))ing HPP v. #ia, G' /9*57*,
Nov. -/, -++/I.

!me; PG?/???*?? for e!"h "ount of A"ts of L!s"i-iousness under e"* G &$(/ RA BJ'? HPP v. 8alos=os, G' /9-(*7,*6, Nov. /6, -++/I. !me; P/@ awarded in @ rder, considering the n s al grief and o trage s ffered b! the bereaved famil! as a res lt of the br tal and indecent m tilation and disposal of victims bod!. !me; $n another case, the Co rt red ced the award of moral damages to the heirs of each victim. PP v. :hisenh nt, s pra. PP v. #ancheD, G' /-/+9),57, .ct. /(, -++/.

Under )resent "!se #!,, @oral damages, vi3$a vi3 compensator! damages or civil indemnit!, are different from each other and sho ld th s be awarded separatel!. >he indemnit! a thoriDed b! o r criminal law as civil liabilit! e0 delicto for the offended part!, is itself e2 ivalent to act al or compensator! damages in civil law. $t is not to be considered moral damages there nder, the latter being based on a diff. = ral fo ndation and assessed b! the co rt in the e0ercise of so nd discretion. !me; @oral damages ma! not #;E#>$>;>$.N for Civil $ndemnit!. be imposed

PP v. Eangcado, G' /9-99+, Nov. -(, -+++.

$N PP. v. @aramara, G' //+))5, .ct. --, /))). PP v. Cat big, G' /9*(5-, A g. -9, -++/4 PP v. Ono3, s pra.

E1EMPLARY DAMA5E ;; Also 3nown as JP nitiveK or CindictiveK damages, or Corrective %amages. >he! are intended to serve as a deterrent to serio s wrongdoings and as a vindication of nd e s fferings and wanton invasion of the rights of an in= red or a p nishment for those g ilt! of o trageo s cond ct. >he term Jaggravating circ mstances sed in Civil Code is to be nderstood in its broad or generic sense. $n fine, an aggravating circ mstance, whether ordinar! or 2 alif!ing, sho ld entitle the offended part! to an award of e0emplar! damages nder Art. --9+ of the NCC. !me; >he -+++ ' les on Criminal Proced re re2 ire aggravating circ mstances, whether ordinar! or 2 alif!ing, to be stated in the complaint or information H#ec. ( P ) of ' le //+I. >he retroactive application of proced ral r les, nevertheless, cannot adversel! affect the rights of private offended part! that have become vested prior to the effectivit! of said r les. >h s, in the case at bar, altho gh relationship has not been alleged in the information, the offense having been committed, however, prior to the effectivit! of the new r les, the civil liabilit! alread! inc rred b! appellant remains naffected thereb!. !me; $n addition to civil indemnit! and moral damages. !me; P+G/???*?? in Murder* E t in the case of PP v. ;baldo, G' /9*7/5,/7, 8an. /6, -++/, the Co rt awarded onl! P/+,+++.++. !me; P+?/???*?? w1 the attendance of treacher! in the 3illing of the victim.

PP v. Cat big, G' /9*(5-, A g. -9, -++/.

PP v. #amson, G' /-5666, Feb./7, -++-. PP v. Panabang, G' /9*7/5, /7, 8an. /6, -++-. PP v. >aboga, G' /55+(6, (*, Feb. 6, -++-. PP v. ?sire&a, G' /5-*-*, 8an. -9, -++-4 PP v. %aganio, G' /9*9(7, 8an. -9, -++-4 PP v. 'odrig eD,

!me; PG?/???*?? in 2omi"ide w1 the attendance of aggravating circ mstances of dwelling and disregard of se0. !me; P+G/???*?? in In"estuous R!)e*

G' /99)(5, 8an. 9+, -++-4 PP v. ?sca&o, G' /5+-/(, -9, Feb. /9, -++!me; P'?/???*??/ for Attem)ted R!)e* PP v. @ariano, G' /977//,/9, Nov. /5, -++/

!me; P+G/???*?? in R!)e committed b! se of deadl! weapon and presence of the aggravating circ mstance of dwelling, or minorit!, or relationship, both of w1c indicate the C'$@$NAA P?'C?'#$>N of the appellant H PP v. %e la >orre, G' )(59/, 8an. /7, -++- I. $n view of the generic aggravating circ mstance of minorit!, or relationship. HPP
v. Ag stin, G' /977-5,-7, #ept. -5, -++/4 PP v. >oralba, s pra4 PP v. 'ivera, G' /9)/(+. 8 l! 9/, -++/4 PP v. Galves, G' /96(6*,6(, #ept. -7, -++/4 PP v. Cat big, G' /9*(5-, A g. -5, -++/4 PP v. Glabo, G' /-)-5(, %ec. *, -++/4 PP v. % mlao, G' /9+5+),/+, Nov. -*, -++/I

!me; P+G/???*?? in R!)e ,> 2omi"ide in view of the PP v. cr elt! inflicted pon the victim, as shown b! the m ltiple Ab lencia, b rns and cont sions on her bod!. G' /9(5+9, A g. --, -++/. !me; P+?/???*?? in Ro$$er% ,> 2omi"ide as the same PP v. Pa=otal, was aggravated b! ab se of s perior strength. G' /5-(*+, Nov. /5, -++/ Ci-i# Li!$i#it%/ Mor!# !nd E0em)#!r% D!m!ges; >he term J<?$'#K entitled to civil indemnit! and moral and e0emplar! damages is limited to the deceaseds Jspo se, legitimate, and illegitimate ascendants and descendantsK per definition in Art. --+6 of the Civil Code. $n this case, since the heirs of the deceased are not 3nown, the award of civil indemnit! and moral and e0emplar! damages sho ld be disallowed. !me; >he heirs are entitled to an indemnit! of P7+,+++.++, for w1c the 5 appellants are solidaril! liable. PP v. @ercado, G' //6-9), Nov. -), -+++.

PP v. @ana, a!, G' /9-*/*, Nov. -+, -+++4 PP v. @atibag, G' //+7/7, 8 l! /(, -+++. PP v. Alvero, G' /95796, 9(, April 7, -+++.

!me; @u!#ified R!)e* Consistent with the c rrent case law, ?A$#?. sho ld be ordered to pa! A.'?G$N the amo nt of P*7,+++ in each of the three co nts of rape. $n addition, e0emplar! damages m st also be awarded in the hope of deterring fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant se0 al behaviors from se0 all! ab sing their da ghters. ACTUAL DAMA5E ; >o see3 recover! of act al damages, it is necessar! to prove the act al amo nt of loss w1 a reasonable degree of certaint!, premised pon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable b! the in= red part!.

PP v. >aboga, G' /55+(6, (*, Feb. 6, -++-4 PP v. %inamling, G' /956+7,

@arch -++-. !me; Act al damages m st be s bstantiated b! PP doc mentar! evidence, s ch as receipts, in order to prove Perreras, e0penses inc rred as a res lt of the death of the victim. -++/. !me; >he Co rt can onl! grant s ch amo nt for e0penses if proper receipts s pport them.

/-, v.

PP v. Natco, G' /9(9((, @arch /), -++-.

!me; $t cannot be based on the allegation of a witness PP v. Alilin, w1o an! tangible doc ment to s pport s ch a claim. Award G' of act al damages s b=ect of stip lation of the parties is allowed. !me; .nl! s bstantiated and proven e0penses, or those that appear to have been gen inel! inc rred in connection w1 the death, wa3e, or b rial of the victim will be recogniDed b! the co rt. !me; ?0penses relating to the )th da!, 5+th da! and /st death anniversar! cannot be considered in the award of act al damages as these were inc rred after a considerable lapse of time from the b rial of the victim. !me; >he trial co rt erred in granting the heirs of the deceased victim an additional amo nt of P-/,9+*.++, representing f neral e0penses. ;nder Art. -/)) of the Civil Code, a part! is entitled to compensation onl! for s ch pec niar! loss s ffered b! him as proven. >he recover! thereof m st be premised pon competent proof and the best evidence obtainable, s ch as receipts b! the in= red part!, showing the act al e0penses inc rred in connection w1 the death, wa3e, or b rial of the victim. >he list of e0penses inc rred for the wa3e, f neral, and b rial of the victim amo nting to P-/,9+*.++ s bmitted b! Arlenes father is self,serving and not proved. TEMPERATE DAMA5E ; Awarded in lie of act al damages considering that some pec niar! loss was inc rred b t the amo nt was not proved w1 certaint!. PP %omingo, -++/. v.

PP v. %octolero, G' /9/(66, A g. -+, -++/. PP v. Principe, G' /97(6-, @a! -, -++-.

PP v. Francisco, G' /9(+--, A g. -9, -++/4 PP v. Gallo, G' /99++-, .ct. /), -++/4 PP v. Nrat, G' /9+5/7, .ct. //, -++/. PP v..rpilla, G' //(+*9, 8an. -7, -++-4 PP v. Adlawan, G' /9/(9), 8an. 9+, -++-. PP v. Principe, G' /97(6-, @a! -, -++-.

!me; P/+,+++.++ b! wa! of temperate damages, was awarded to the heirs of the victim since the! were able to prove P?C;N$A'N A.##, onl! that there was no competent proof as to the amo nt thereof.

!me; >he reason Arlenes father was nable to present the receipt for the f neral parlor was beca se the latters representative ref sed to iss e a receipt ntil he had f ll! paid the entire amo nt, w1c he had not done at the time of the trial. ;nder Art. ---5 of the Civil Code, temperate damages ma! be recovered if it is shown that s ch part!

s ffered some pec niar! loss b t the amo nt cannot, from the nat re of the case, be proved w1 certaint!. As there is no do bt the heirs of the victim inc rred f neral e0penses, altho gh the amo nt thereof has not been proven, it is appropriate to award P/7, +++.++ b! wa! of temperate damages to the heirs of the victim. NOMINAL DAMA5E ; :hile the f neral e0penses inc rred b! the #armenta famil! were s pported b! the appropriate receipts, the same is not tr e for the f neral e0penses inc rred b! the GomeD famil!. Not having been d l! receipted, the amo nt of P*5,+++.++ awarded to the GomeD famil! as f neral e0penses m st, perforce, be deleted. <owever, as the heirs of Allan GomeD clearl! inc rred f neral e0penses, P/+,+++.++ b! wa! of nominal damages sho ld be awarded. >his award is ad= dicated so that a right which has been violated ma! be recogniDed or vindicated, and not for the p rpose of indemnification Hsee People vs. Candare, !!! SCR& !!8 E2%%%FI. CI3IL LIABILITY IN RAPE &Art* .CG/ RPC(; H/I Gnde1ni@ication4 H-I acBno*ledg1ent o@ t8e o@@spring, nless the law sho ld prevent the acc sed from so doing, and H9I in ever! case, s'pport o@ t8e o@@spring. :ith the passage of the FC HArt. /*6I, parental a thorit! over the illegitimate children is vested in the mother. Considering that an offender sentenced to recl'sion perpet'a a tomaticall! loses the power to e0ercise parental a thorit! over his children, acc sed,appellant sho ld onl! be ordered to indemnif! and s pport the victims child. CI3IL LIABILITY; Restitution; $n 'obber! w1 <omicide. >he trial co rt failed to decree the necessar! restit tion or reparation of the personal belongings ta3en b! acc sed, appellants. <ence, acc sed,appellants are ordered to ret rn the ff. items, or, if not feasible, the val e thereof to their owners. u$sidi!r% Ci-i# Li!$i#it% of Other Persons; >here is no good gro nd to order a separate hearing to determine the s bsidiar! liabilit! of petitioner. >o do so wo ld entail a waste of time and reso rces of the trial co rt as the re2 isites for the attachment of s bsidiar! liabilit! of the emplo!er had alread! been established, vi3" F/G the e0istence of ?',?? relationship4 F-G the emplo!er is engaged in some 3ind of ind str!, land transportation ind str! in this case as the =eep driven b! acc sed was admittedl! a passenger =eep4 F9G the emplo!ee has alread! been ad= dged g ilt! of the wrong act and fo nd to have committed the offense in the discharge of his d ties4 and F5G the said emplo!ee is insolvent. #P?C$F$C C'$@?#" Crimes against National #ec rit! @UALIFIED PIRACY; Not established. $t appears that the prosec tion failed to prove be!ond reasonable do bt that appellant was one of the eight men who committed 2 alified pirac! in the instant case. PP v. #ancheD, G' /-/+9),57, .ct. /(, -++/.

PP v. Glabo, G' /-)-5(, %ec. *, -++/4 PP v. Flores, G' /955((, (), 8an. -7, -++-.

PP v. Cabilto, G' /-((/6 P /9))*),(+, A g. (, -++/.

Catac tan v. <eirs of Oad sale, G' /9/-(+, .ct. /(, -+++.

PP v. Aranas, G' /-9/+/, Nov. --, -+++.

!me; Art. /-- of the 'PC, before its amendment, PP v. > lin, provided that pirac! m st be committed on the high seas G' ///*+), b! an! person not a member of its complement nor a A g. 9+, -++/ passenger thereof. ;pon its amendment b! 'A *67), the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to incl de offenses committed "in Philippine waters." .n the other hand, nder P% 79- Hiss ed in /)*5I, the coverage of the

law on pirac! embraces an! person incl ding "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." <ence, passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, an! person is covered b! the law. 'A *67) neither s perseded nor amended the provisions on pirac! nder P% 79-. >here is no contradiction between the two laws. >here is li3ewise no ambig it! and hence, there is no need to constr e or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in 3eeping with the intent to protect the citiDenr! as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As e0pressed in one of the "whereas" cla ses of P% 79-, pirac! is "among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned b! the penal stat tes of all co ntries." For this reason, pirac! nder the Art. /--, as amended, and pirac! nder P% 79- e0ist harmonio sl! as separate laws. Crimes against Propert! E TAFA; $n general, the elements of estafa are" H/I that the acc sed defra ded another HaI b! ab se of confidence or HbI b! means of deceit4 and H-I that damage or pre= dice capable of pec niar! estimation is ca sed to the offended part! or third person. -/ %eceit is not an essential re2 isite of estafa with ab se of confidence, since the breach of confidence ta3es the place of the fra d or deceit, which is a s al element in the other estafas. Ch a,E rce v. CA, G' /+)7)7, April -*, -+++.

!me; Through F!#sifi"!tion of Pu$#i" Do"uments* >he %e la Pe&a v. mere fact of his signing the mentioned doc ments i.e. '$C, #andiganba!a Abstract of Eids, and 'eports of $nspection, does not n, s pra. prove that he 3new said doc ments were fa3e. <is signat re on the '$C onl! certified that the s pplies re2 isitioned "were necessar! and wo ld be sed solel! for the p rpose stated therein. .n the other hand, his signat re on the abstracts of bids was merel! incidental to his being member of the Committee on Awards where his d ties consisted of eval ating the offers and recommending the award to the lowest compl!ing bidder or to one who offers the most advantageo s terms to the government. <is signat re in the 'eport of $nspection onl! certified that he accepted the materials therein delivered. <is signat re does not appear on an! of the fa3e AAAs and neither is there proof that he too3 part in the iss ance of the same. !me; Through Con-ersion or Mis!))ro)ri!tion under Art* .'G &'( &$( of the RPC4 >he elements are" H/I that personal propert! is received in tr st, on commission, for administration or nder an! other circ mstance involving the d t! to ma3e deliver! of or to ret rn the same, even tho gh the obligation is g aranteed b! a bond4 H-I that there is conversion or diversion of s ch propert! b! the person who has so received it or a denial on his part that he received it4 H9I that s ch conversion, diversion or denial is to the in= r! of another and H5I that there be demand for the ret rn of the propert!. !me; !me; B% A$use of Confiden"e A re2 ires that the offender who received mone!, goods, or an! other personal propert! from whom the offended part! H/ ; in tr'st or H-I on co11ission or H9I @or ad1inistration M sho ld have both material or ph!sical possession and = ridical possession of the thing received. 8 ridical Ch a,E rce v. CA, G' /+)7)7, April -*, -+++.

Ch a,E rce v. CA, G' /+)7)7, April -*, -+++.

possession means a possession w1c gives the transferee a right over the thing w1c the transferee ma! set p even against the owner. $n this case, petitioner is a cash c stodian primaril! responsible for the cash,in,va lt. <er possession of the cash belonging to the ban3 is a3in to that of a ban3 teller, a mere ban3 emplo!ee. As s ch, and having no = ridical possession over the missing f nds, petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of estafa. !sta"a distinguished "rom #uali"ied The"t$ >he former re2 ires both the = ridical and material possession4 while the latter onl! material possession. !me; !me; !me; Criminal intent is not a necessar! ingredient of embeDDlement nder Art. 9/7, HbIH/I of the 'PC. $t is the E'?AC< .F C.NF$%?NC? or $NF$%?A$>N in the conversion or diversion of tr st f nds that ta3es the place of the s al element of fra d or deceit in other forms of estafa. !me; !me; !me; Faced with two conflicting versions, we are g ided b! the ?Q;$P.$#? ';A?. ;nder this r le, where the evidence on an iss e of fact is in e2 ipoise or there is do bt on which side the evidence preponderates, the part! having the b rden of proof loses. >he e2 ipoise r le finds application if the inc lpator! facts and circ mstances are capable of two or more e0planations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of the acc sed and the other consistent with his g ilt, for then the evidence does not f lfill the test of moral certaint!, and does not s ffice to prod ce a conviction. !me; !me; !me; >he elements of estafa with ab se of confidence nder this paragraph are" H/I that mone!, goods or other personal propert! be received b! the offender in tr st, or on commission, or for administration, or nder an! other obligation involving the d t! to ma3e deliver! of, or to ret rn the same4 H-I that there be misappropriation or conversion of s ch mone! or propert! of the offender4 or denial on his part of s ch receipt4 H9I that s ch misappropriation or conversion or denial to the pre= dice of another4 and H5I that there is a demand made b! the offended part! to the offender. >he foregoing elements were established in this case based on the ff. facts" FiG Acc sed received the =ewelr! for the p rpose of selling the same nder an e0press obligation to remit to complainant the proceeds thereof or to ret rn those she is nable to sell, thereb! creating a fid ciar! relationship between them4 FiiG Acc sed misappropriated the =ewelr! when she failed to ret rn the same or the proceeds thereof despite demands4 and FiiiG the misappropriation pre= diced the private complainant. !me; !me; Defense of No-!tion of the Crimin!# Li!$i#it%; >he e0ec tion of the Oas nd an sa Ea!aran does not constit te a novation of the original agreement between petitioner and private complainant. #aid Oas nd an did not change the ob=ect or principal conditions of the contract between them. >he change in manner of pa!ment of petitionerLs obligation did not render the Oas nd an incompatible with the original agreement, and hence, did not e0ting ish petitionerLs liabilit! to remit the proceeds of the sale of the =ewelr! or to ret rn the same to private complainant. $n an! case, novation is not one of the gro nds prescribed b! the 'PC for the e0ting ishment of criminal liabilit!. %a!awon v. 8 dge Eadilla, A.@. No. @>8,++/9+), #ept. 6, -+++. >in v. People, G' /-65(+, A g. /+, -++/.

.campo, Pa le v. CA, G' /57(*-, Feb. 5, -++-.

.campo, Pa le v. CA, G' /57(*-, Feb. 5, -++-

!me; Through F!#se Pretense or Fr!udu#ent A"ts under Art* .'G &+( &!( of the RPC; >he elements of estafa or swindling thro gh false pretense or fra d lent acts are" /. >hat there m st be a false pretense, fra d lent act or fra d lent means. -. >hat s ch false pretense, fra d lent act or fra d lent means m st be made or e0ec ted prior to or sim ltaneo sl! with the commission of the fra d. 9. >hat the offended part! m st have relied on the false pretense, fra d lent act, or fra d lent means, that is, he was ind ced to part with his mone! or propert! beca se of the false pretense, fra d lent act, or fra d lent means. 5. >hat as a res lt thereof, the offended part! s ffered damage. E siness losses, w1c incl des borrowed mone! sed to pa! for the goods, constit te damage. >he defense of Jcaveat emptorK is not a defense in this case, beca se the doctrine is premised on the fact that there is no false representation b! the seller. Petitioners scheme in this case involves a well,planned scenario to entice the b !er to pa! for the bog s marine preservative. !me; !me; >he act of the petitioner to the private complainants that Aegarda Pine <ome of w1c he is the general manager, is the owner of the s b=ect lot in Eag io Cit! on w1c townho se nits wo ld be b ilt and that he has the right and a thorit! to offer for sale the proposed townho se nits, when in fact he has none, so that he co ld collect, as in fact he collected down pa!ment for the townho se nits from the private complainants4 and for his fail re to ret rn the amo nts that he had collected from them. %espite several demands4 pl s the fact that the townho se nits were never constr cted M constit te the crime of estafa nder Art. 9/7 H-aI of the 'PC. !me; Through Postd!ting or Issuing Che"6 in )!%ment of o$#ig!tion ,hen the offender h!s no funds !re insuffi"ient under Art* .'G &+( &d( of the RPC; >o constit te estafa, the act of postdating or iss ing a chec3 m st be the efficient ca se of defra dation and, as s ch, it sho ld be either prior to or sim ltaneo s w1 the act fra d. >he offender m st be able to obtain the mone! or propert! beca se of the iss ance of the chec3 or the offended part! wo ld not parted w1 his mone! or propert! if no chec3 was iss ed to him.

?r2 iaga v. CA, G' /-57/9, .ct. /*, -++/.

@ontano v. People, G' /5/)(+, %ec. *, -++/.

PP v. <ernando, G' /-7-/5, .ct. -(, /))).

!me; !me; ?ssential ?lements" H/I the offender Pacheco v. postdated or iss ed a chec3 in pa!ment of an obligation CA, s pra. contracted at the time the chec3 was iss ed4 H-I s ch postdating or iss ing a chec3 was done when the offender had no f nds in the ban3, or his f nds deposited were not s fficient to cover the amo nt of the chec34 H9I deceit or damage to the pa!ee. Absent all of the essential elements bars the prosec tion of estafa. :here parties agreed that the chec3 is not to be encashed or presented to the ban3 and 3nowledge b! the complainant that the drawer does not have s fficient f nds in the ban3 at the time the chec3 was iss ed, no estafa is committed. >he chec3s are mere evidence of indebtedness. !me; !me; >he fail re of the complainant to immediatel! deposit the chec3s w1 the ban3 cannot be sed as a defense b! the acc sed as the complainant PP v. <ernando, G' /-7-/5,

prevailed pon not to deposit the chec3s beca se of .ct. -(, /))). statement to pa! him in cash. !me; !me; As with all other forms of estafa, the element of fra d or bad faith is indispensable. $n the instant case, the presence of the first element is not contested. >here is no pre,e0isting obligation4 rather, the obligation which gave rise to the iss ance of the chec3 was the p rchase of 7,+++ bags of refined s gar from Aa Perla. Clearl!, Aa Perla wo ld not have parted with its deliver! order for the s gar if not for the sim ltaneo s deliver! b! acc sed,appellant of the postdated chec3. >he second and third elements were also s ccessf ll! proved b! the prosec tion. >he ban3 records follow the movement of the f nds in acc sed,appellantLs acco nt, and establish that on 8an ar! /7, /))5 Hwhen acc sed,appellant iss ed the postdated chec3I and on 8an ar! /(, /))5 Hthe date on the chec3I, his acco nt had a balance of onl! P),5-9./). E! the time the chec3 was deposited for clearing, the balance of P-,-5/,)7*.59 was still ins fficient to cover his obligation of P9,5-7,+++.++ to Aa Perla. F rthermore, a "stop pa!ment" order had been iss ed, ens ring the impossibilit! of Aa PerlaLs recover! nder the said chec3. <.:?C?', all this wo ld amo nt to onl! civil liabilit! on the part of acc sed,appellant nless it is satisfactoril! shown that fra d or deceit attended his iss ance of the chec3. $n reliance w1 the Co rts r ling in People %s$ &ingson, H-/7 #C'A 795I w1c serves to nderscore the r le in estafa that the fra d lent intentions of the acc sed m st have been shown to e0ist at the time of the iss ance and postdating of the chec3s or prior thereto. :here s ch fact of fra d is not abl! proven, and the inabilit! to ma3e good on the chec3 ma! have been occasioned b! nforeseen b siness reverses after the obligation had been ta3en o t, there can onl! be civil liabilit! b t no conviction for estafa. E t it is obvio s that acc sed,appellant was aware, at the time he made o t the postdated chec3s to his creditors incl ding Aa Perla, that he wo ld have several debts mat ring at the same time, all of which are recoverable from the same ban3 acco nt. >h s, b! p rchasing and immediatel! reselling Aa PerlaLs s gar and depositing the s bstantial proceeds thereof, he was able to pa! off his other creditors4 then, 3nowing that the balance is ins fficient to cover Aa PerlaLs chec3, he immediatel! ordered the drawee ban3 to stop its pa!ment. >hese circ mstances, ta3en together, indicate the acc sed,appellantLs intent to deceive and defra d Aa Perla at the time he iss ed the chec3. !me; !me; >o constit te estafa, the act of postdating or of iss ing a chec3 in pa!ment of an obligation m st be the efficient ca se of the defra dation. Accordingl!, it sho ld be either prior or sim ltaneo s w1 the act of fra d. $n fine, the offender m st be able to obtain mone! or propert! from the offended part! b! reason of the iss ance, whether postdated or not, of the chec3. $t m st be shown that the person to whom the chec3 is delivered wo ld not have parted w1 his mone! or propert! were it not for the iss ance of the chec3 b! the other part!. !me; !me; $n view of the amendments b! 'A 5((7, the ff. are no longer elements of estafa" F/G 3nowledge of the drawer that he has no f nds in the ban3 or that the f nds b! him are not s fficient4 F-G fail re to inform the pa!ee of s ch circ mstance. >he drawer of the dishonored chec3 is PP v. Panganiban, G' /99+-(, 8 l! /+, -+++.

>imbal v. CA, G' /965(*, %ec. /5, -++/.

PP v. <olDer, G' /9-9-9, 8 l! -+, -+++.

given 9 %AN# from receipt of dishonor to deposit the amo nt necessar! to cover the chec3. .therwise, a pri1a @acie P'?#;@P>$.N of deceit will arise w1c m st then be overcome b! the acc sed. !me; !me; :here there is no evidence that deceit id. accompanied the iss ance of the chec3 as it was not shown that a notice of dishonor was sent to the acc sed. .n the contrar!, affidavit,complaint was filed on the same da! the chec3 was dishonored. F rthermore, complainant, in this case, admitted that he 3new at the time of the iss ance of the chec3 that it was not f nded and that the mone! to cover it was still to come from #witDerland. And he was informed twice that the mone! from #witDerland had not arrived before the chec3s d e date and da!s therafter. <ence, there is no proof that complainant was defra ded. $ndeed the evidence add ced b! the parties shows that the P/++> given b! the complainant to the acc sed was a loan and the liabilit! of the acc sed was merel! civil. !me; !me; No deceit or defra dation where there is no damage s stained b! private complainant b! reason of appellants iss ance of his chec3, as it was not proved that appellant received something of val e from private complainant. Appellant had no obligation to pa! him, or to ma3e good of the chec3. PP v. >an, G' /-+6*-, A g. /*, -+++.

!me; !me; No estafa where the g ilt of acc sed as co, PP v. %iDon, principal Hb! conspirac!I was not proven. Acc sed cannot G' /9+*5-, be pres med to have 3nowledge of the non,e0istence or 8 l! /(, -+++. ins fficienc! of the f nds in the ban3 acco nt of the other acc sed Hthe drawer of the chec3sI at the time the latter iss ed the postdated chec3s, as s ch legal pres mption applies onl! to the drawer or iss er of the chec3. $n s m, the acc sed is not priv! to s ch iss ance. $nterest and participation in the cons mmation of the transaction does not s ffice to establish a conspirac! in estafa. !me; !me; Pen!#t%; Art. 9/7, par. -HdI of the 'PC, as amended b! P% (/( and 'A 5((7 increased the penalt! for estafa committed b! means of bo ncing chec3s. As sed in P% (/(, recl'sion perpet'a is not the prescribed penalt! for the offense, b t merel! describes the penalt! act all! imposed on acco nt of the amo nt of the fra d involved, which e0ceeds P--,+++.++. !me; !me; !me; 'ather, the prescribed penalt! nder #ect. /, par. / of P.%. No. (/( is recl'sion te1poral. >h s, even if the amo nt of fra d involved e0ceeds P--,+++.++, the $ndeterminate #entence Aaw is applicable in determining the imposable penalt!. E TAFA AND 3IOLATION OF BP ++; The e#ements of est!f!/ !s defined under Art* .'G/ )!r* +&d( of the RPC !nd !mended $% RA CDDG, are" H/I that the offender postdated or iss ed a chec3 in pa!ment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or iss ance4 H-I that at the time of the iss ance of the chec3, the offender had no f nds in the ban3 or the f nds deposited were ins fficient to cover the amo nt of the chec34 and H9I that the pa!ee has been defra ded. Art. 9/7, par. -HdI of the 'PC e0pressl! provides that the fail re of the drawer of the chec3 to deposit the amo nt necessar! to cover his chec3 within three H9I da!s from receipt of notice from the >imbal v. CA, G' /965(*, %ec. /5, -++/.

PP v. Flores, G' /56)-/, --, 8an. 9/, -++-. PP v. Flores, G' /56)-/, --, 8an. 9/, -++-.

ban3 and1or the pa!ee or holder that the said chec3 has been dishonored for lac3 or ins fficienc! of f nds shall be P'$@A FAC$? ?C$%?NC? of deceit constit ting false pretenses or fra d lent act. .n the other hand, The e#ements of BP ++ are" H/I the acc sed ma3es, draws, or iss es an! chec3 to appl! to acco nt or for val e4 H-I the acc sed 3nows at the time of iss e that he does not have s fficient f nds in or credit with the drawee ban3 for the pa!ment of s ch chec3 in f ll pon its presentment4 and H9I the chec3 is s bse2 entl! dishonored b! the drawee ban3 for ins fficienc! of f nds or credit or wo ld have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, witho t an! valid reason, ordered the ban3 to stop pa!ment. T2E BOUNCIN5 C2EC< LA= &BP ++(; >he gravemen %iongDon of the offense is the iss ance of a worthless chec3. CA, /))). !me; A Malum Prohibitum; >he gravemen of the offense is the act of ma3ing or iss ing a worthless chec3 that is dishonored pon its presentment for pa!ment. Considering the r le in mala prohibita cases, the onl! in2 ir! is whether the law has been breached. Criminal intent becomes nnecessar! where the acts are prohibited for reasons of p blic polic! and the defense of good faith and absence of criminal intent are navailing. >he chec3s iss ed, ass ming that the! were not intended to be encashed or deposited in a ban3, prod ce the same effect as ordinar! chec3s. :hat the law p nishes is the iss ance of a r bber chec3 itself and not the p rpose for w1c the chec3 was iss ed nor the terms and conditions relating to its iss ance. !me; !me; :hat the law p nishes is the mere iss ance of a bo nching chec3 and not the p rpose for w1c it was iss ed nor the terms and conditions relating to its iss ance. >he mere act of iss ing a worthless chec3 is 1al'1 pro8ibit'1. >his law applies even in cases where dishonored chec3s are iss ed merel! in the form of a g arantee. !me; !me; >he law has made the mere act of iss ing a b m chec3 a 1al'1 pro8ibit'1, an act proscribed b! the legislat re for being deemed pernicio s and inimical to p blic welfare. >he gravemen of the offense nder this law is the act of iss ing a worthless chec3 or a chec3 that is dishonored pon its presentment for pa!ment. ?ven if there had been pa!ment, thro gh compensation or some other means, there co ld still be prosec tion for violation of EP --. !me; !me; >he ca se or reason for the iss ance of the chec3 is inconse2 ential in determining criminal c lpabilit! nder EP --, as the gravemen of the offense is the act of ma3ing or iss ing a worthless chec3 or a chec3 that is dishonored pon presentment for pa!ment. !me; E#ements7 H/I the ma3ing, drawing and iss ance of an! chec3 to appl! for acco nt or for val e4 H-I the 3nowledge of the ma3er, drawer, or iss er that at the time of iss e he does not have s fficient f nds in or credit with the drawee ban3 for the pa!ment of s ch chec3 in f ll pon its presentment4 and H9I s bse2 ent dishonor of the chec3 b! the drawee ban3 for ins fficienc! of f nds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, v.

C eme v. PP, G' /999-7, 8 ne 9+, -+++.

%ichaves v. 8 dge Apalit, A@ No. @>8, ++,/-*5, 8 ne (, -+++.

>an v. @endeD, G' /9(66), 8 ne 6, -++-.

@eriD People, s pra.

v.

Oing v. People, G' /9/75+, %ec. -, /)))4 Cillan eva v. PP, G' /97+)(, April /-, -+++4

witho t an! valid ca se, ordered the ban3 to stop pa!ment.

@eriD v. People, G' /955)(, Nov. /9, -++/4 Caras v. Ca, G' /-))++, .ct. -, -++/. >ing v. CA, G' /5+667, Nov. /9, -+++.

!me7 For liabilit! to attach, it is eno gh that the prosec tion establish that a chec3 was iss ed and that the same was s bse2 entl! dishonored. >he prosec tion m st also prove that the iss er, at t8e ti1e o@ t8e c8ecB?s iss'ance, 8ad Bno*ledge t8at 8e did not 8ave s'@@icient @'nds or credit in t8e banB @or pay1ent t8ereo@ 'pon its present1ent. #ince this element involves a state of mind w1c is diffic lt to verif!, #ec. - of EP -- creates a )resum)tion 'uris tantum that the second element pri1a @acie e0ists when the first and the third elements of the offense are present. !me; Petitioner iss ed 9 EP$ Famil! chec3s in pa!ment for her obligation to pa! the rice w1c private respondent sold to her. :hen presented for pa!ment, all of said chec3s were dishonored fro reason of acco nt closed as shown in the validations at the bac3 of said chec3s. %espite demands from the petitioner b! private respondent for the former to replenish said dishonored chec3s, petitioner simpl! promised to pa! her said amo nts covered b! those b m chec3s b t she did not pa! after all. !me; Acc sed,petitioners contention that the chec3s were merel! iss ed to g arantee pa!ment and to replace several bo nced chec3s she had previo sl! iss ed to private complainant and that the latter was s fficientl! warned that the chec3s were not to be deposited or encashed M N.> A CAA$% %?F?N#?. !me; :hile the gravemen of violation of EP -- is the iss ance of worthless chec3s that are dishonored pon their presentment for pa!ment, penal laws sho ld not be applied mechanicall!. >he application of the law m st be consistent w1 the p rpose and reason for the law. :hen the reason for the law ceases, the law ceases. $n this case, where it appears that the creditor had collected alread! more than a s fficient amo nt to cover the val e of the chec3s for pa!ment of rentals, via a ction sale, holding the debtors president to answer for a criminal offense nder EP -- two !ears after said collection and before the informations were filed, is no longer tenable nor = stified. !me; Presum)tion of insuffi"ien"% of funds or "redit; .f not reb tted, it s ffices to s stain conviction. :h! and to whom the chec3 was iss ed is irrelevant in determining c lpabilit!. >he terms and conditions s rro nding the iss ance are also irrelevant. ;nli3e in ?#>AFA nder the 'PC, EP -- does not re2 ire proof that the chec3 was iss ed in pa!ment of an obligation, or that there was damage. $n this case, >he Co rt modified the penalt! imposed on petitioner b! the trial co rt, deleting the prison sentence and imposed instead a fine do ble the amo nt of the chec3 iss ed. !me; !me; E t the pres mption does not arise when

Ag irre v. People, G' /55/5-, A g. -9, -++/.

Aagman v. People, G' /56-9(, %ec. *, -++/.

Griffith v. CA, G' /-)*65, @arch /-, -++-.

Aim v. People, G' /9++9(, #ept. /(, -+++.

>ing

v.

CA,

the iss er pa!s the amo nt of the chec3 or ma3es arrangement for its pa!ment w1in 7 ban3ing da!s after receiving N.>$C? that s ch chec3 has not been paid b! the drawee. F ll pa!ment of the amo nt appearing in the chec3 w1in 7 ban3ing da!s from notice of dishonor is a complete defense.

G' /5+667, Nov. /9, -+++.

!me; !me; EP -- creates a pres'1ption j'ris tant'1 Caras v. CA, that element H-I above prima facie e0ists when elements G' /-))++, H/I and H9I are present. Onowledge of ins fficienc! of .ct. -, -++/. f nds in or credit w1 the ban3 is pres med from the act of ma3ing, drawing, and iss ing a chec3, pa!ment of w1c is ref sed b! the drawee ban3 for ins fficienc! of f nds when presented w1in )+ da!s from the date of iss e. <owever, this pres mption ma! be reb tted b! the acc sed, petitioner when he pa!s or ma3es arrangement for the pa!ment of the chec3 w1in 7 ban3ing da!s after receiving notice that s ch chec3 had been dishonored. >here is no prescribed form of notice of dishonor e0cept that it sho ld be in writing. Absent. <owever, proof that petitioner act all! received said notice prevents the application of the disp table pres mption and her conviction for violation of EP -- cannot be s stained. !me; Noti"e of Dishonor; :hile #ec. - of EP -- does not state that the notice of dishonor be in writing, ta3en in con= nction w1 #ec. 9 of the law, i.e., Jthat where there are no s fficient f nds in or credit w1 s ch drawee ban3, s ch fact shall alwa!s be e0plicitl! stated in the notice of dishonor or ref sal,K a mere oral notice of demand to pa! wo ld appear to be ins fficient for conviction nder the law. !me; !me; >he notice of dishonor m st act all! be sent and received b! the petitioner to afford her the opport nit! to avert prosec tion nder EP --. >o prove mailing, the prosec tion presented a cop! of the demand letter as well as to show that the demand letter was indeed sent thro gh registered mail. E t the signat re on the registr! receipt was not a thenticated or identified. >he prosec tion seems to have pres med that the registr! ret rn receipt was proof eno gh that the demand letter was sent thro gh registered mail and that the same was act all! received b! petitioners or their agents. $f, in addition to the registr! receipt, it is re2 ired in civil cases that an a@@idavit o@ t8e 1ailing as proof of service be presented, then w1 more reason sho ld it be held in criminal cases that a registry ret'rn receipt alone is ins fficient as proof of mailing. !me; Pen!#t%; Art. 9/7, par. -HaI of the 'PC on the penalt! for the crime of estafa involving an amo nt that e0ceeds >went! >wo >ho sand Pesos HP--,+++.++I, provides Jthe penalt! of prision correccional in its ma0im m period to prision 1ayor in its minim m period, if the amo nt of the fra d is over P/-,+++ pesos b t does not e0ceed P--,+++ pesos, and if s ch amo nt e0ceeds the latter s m, the penalt! provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its ma0im m period, adding one !ear for each additional P/+,+++ pesos4 b t the total penalt! which ma! be imposed shall not e0ceed twent! !ears.K >he fact that the amo nts involved in the instant case e0ceed P--,+++.++ sho ld not be considered in the initial determination of the indeterminate penalt!4 instead, the matter sho ld be so ta3en as analogo s to modif!ing %omagsang v. CA, G' /9)-)-, %ec. 7, -+++.

>ing v. CA, G' /5+667, Nov. /9, -+++.

@ontano v. People, G' /5/)(+, %ec. *, -++/.

circ mstances in the imposition of the ma0im m term of the f ll indeterminate sentence. >his interpretation of the law accords with the r le that penal laws sho ld be constr ed in favor of the acc sed. #ince the penalt! prescribed b! law for the estafa charge against acc sed, appellant is prision correccional ma0im m to prision ma!or minim m, the penalt! ne0t lower wo ld then be prision correccional minim m to medi m. >h s, the minim m term of the indeterminate sentence sho ld be an!where within si0 H6I months and one H/I da! to fo r H5I !ears and two H-I months. !me; !me; >he = dge ma!, in the e0ercise of so nd discretion, determine whether to impose imprisonment or Fine. Absent showing that petitioner acted in bad faith, the deletion of the penalt! of imprisonment and the imposition of a fine e2 ivalent to the val e of the s b=ect chec3s is an appropriate penalt! in this case. !me; !me; Pen!#t% of Fine; $n deleting the penalt! of imprisonment and imposing instead a fine, the Co rt considered the fact that the acc sed" FiG had not been previo sl! charged or convicted of violation of EP --4 FiiG had made s bstantial pa!ments on her obligations and ret rned several =ewelr! to private complainant4 and FiiiG made good some of the chec3s iss ed b! her M w1c circ mstances, ta3en together, show her honest efforts to f lfill her financial obligations. !me; !me; !me; >he Co rt s stained the conviction of petitioners b t modified the penalties thereof. >he Co rt deleted the penalt! of imprisonment and, in lie thereof, imposed pon petitioners a fine amo nting to %.;EA? ><? CAA;? of the s b=ect chec3, w1 s bsidiar! imprisonment in case of insolvenc! or non,pa!ment. !me; !me; !me; C Admin Cir"u#!r No* '+4+??? !s "#!rified $% Admin Cir"u#!r No* '.4+??'; ?stablishes a ';A? .F P'?F?'?NC? in imposing penalties in EP -cases. #ect. / of EP -- imposes the ff. alternative penalties for its violation, to wit" HaI imprisonment of not less than 9+ da!s b t not more than one !ear4 or HbI a fine of not less than b t not more than do ble the amo nt of the chec3 which fine shall in no case e0ceed P-++,+++4 or HcI both s ch fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the co rt. $n fi0ing the penalt! to be imposed for violation of E.P. --, the same philosoph! nderl!ing the $ndeterminate #entence Aaw is observed, i.e. that of redeeming val able h man material and preventing nnecessar! deprivation of personal libert! and economic sef lness with d e regard to the protection of the social order. >he intention is not to decriminaliDe violation of E.P. -- nor to delete the alternative penalt! of imprisonment. >he propriet! and wisdom of decriminaliDing violation of E.P. -- is best left to the legislat re and not the Co rt. :here the circ mstances of the case, for instance, clearl! indicate good faith or a clear mista3e of fact w1o taint of negligence, the imposition of a fine alone ma! be considered as the more appropriate penalt!. >his r le of preference does not foreclose the possibilit! of imprisonment for violators of EP --. Neither does it defeat the legislative intent behind the law. Needless to sa!, the determination of whether the circ mstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solel! pon the = dge. Ag irre v. People, G' /55/5-, A g. -9, -++/4 @eriD v. People, s pra. Aagman v. People, G' /56-9(, %ec. *, -++/.

>an v. @endeD, G' /9(66), 8 ne 6, -++-.

>an v. @endeD, G' /9(66), 8 ne 6, -++-.

#ho ld the = dge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate penalt!, Admin Circ lar No. /-,-+++ o ght not to be deemed a hindrance. !me; !me; !me; !me; E.P. -- was enacted b! the legislat re, to penaliDe individ als who wo ld place worthless chec3s in circ lation and degrade the val e and importance of chec3s in commercial transactions. Notwithstanding the noble ob=ective of EP --, the Co rt deemed it proper to appl! the philosoph! nderl!ing the $ndeterminate #entence Aaw in imposing penalties for its violation. >he gist of Administrative Circ lar No. /-,-+++ is to consider the nderl!ing circ mstances of the case s ch that if the sit ation calls for the imposition of the alternative penalt! of fine rather than imprisonment, the co rts sho ld not hesitate to do so. $n this case, petitioners had e0erted efforts to settle their obligations. >he fact of ret rning the nencashed chec3s to respondent indicates good faith on the part of petitioners. Absent an! showing that petitioners acted in bad faith, the deletion of the penalt! of imprisonment in this case is proper. E TAFA AND LAR5E CALE =INDLIN5 UNDER PD 'JDK; $nvolving the JP.NR$ #cheme.K 'epresentation that f t re profits or income of an enterprise shall be a certain s m made b! one who 3nows that act all! there will be none, or that the! will be s bstantiall! less than what was represented, constit tes an actionable fra d where the hearer believes and relies on the representation to his in= r!. !me; !me; Appellant was charged w1 illegal recr itment in large scale. For s ch a charge to prosper, the following elements m st conc r" H/I the acc sed was engaged in recr itment activit! defined nder Article /9 HbI, or an! prohibited practice nder Article 95 of the Aabor Code4 H-I he or she lac3s the re2 isite license or a thorit! to lawf ll! engage in the recr itment and placement of wor3ers4 and H9I he or she committed s ch acts against three or more persons, individ all! or as a gro p. !me; !me; For charges of estafa to prosper, the following elements m st be present" H/I that the acc sed defra ded another b! ab se of confidence or b! means of deceit, and H-I that damage or pre= dice capable of pec niar! estimation is ca sed to the offended part! or third person. $n this case, appellant clearl! defra ded private complainants b! deceiving them into believing that she had the power and a thorit! to send them on =obs abroad. E! virt e of appellantLs false representations, private complainants each parted w1 their hard,earned mone!. ?ach complainant paid P/7,+++ as recr itment fee to appellant, who then appropriated the mone! for her own se and benefit, b t failed tterl! to provide overseas =ob placements to the complainants. $n a classic rigmarole, complainants were provided defective visas, bro ght to the airport w1 their passports and tic3ets, onl! to be offloaded that da!, b t w1 promises to be boo3ed in a plane flight on another da!. >he recr its wait in vain for wee3s, months, even !ears, onl! to realiDe the! were g!pped, as no =obs await them abroad. No clearer cases of estafa co ld be imagined than those for which appellant sho ld be held criminall! responsible. >an v. @endeD, G' /9(66), 8 ne 6, -++-.

PP v. @enil, G' //7+75, 66, #ept. /-, -+++.

PP v. 'em llo, G' /-5559,56, 8 ne 6, -++-.

PP v. 'em llo, G' /-5559,56, 8 ne 6, -++-.

E TAFA AND ILLE5AL RECRUITMENT;A person who is PP

v.

convicted of illegal recr itment ma!, in addition, be convicted of estafa nder Art. 9/7 H-I, 'PC provided the elements of estafa are present. !me; >he fact that acc sed ret rned a portion of the s m of mone! each complainant paid to her does not negate the crime of estafa. Criminal liabilit! for estafa is not affected b! compromise or novation of contract, for it is a p blic offense w1c m st be prosec ted and p nished b! the Government on its own motion even tho gh complete reparation sho ld have been made of the damage s ffered b! the offended part!. !me; >he acc sed,appellant having recr ited at least 9 persons, giving them the impression of her abilit! to send wor3ers abroad, ass ring them of their emplo!ment in @ala!sia, and collecting vario s amo nts for alleged processing and placement fees w1o license nor a thorit! to so recr it or offer =ob placements abroad M committed large scale illegal recr itment. !me; #imple $llegal recr itment is committed when two elements conc r, namel!" H/I the offender has no valid license or a thorit! re2 ired b! law to enable one to lawf ll! engage in recr itment and placement of wor3ers4 and H-I he nderta3es either an! activit! w1in the meaning of "recr itment and placement" defined nder Art. /9HbI, or an! of the prohibited practices en merated nder Art. 95 of the Aabor Code. Art. /9HbI of the Aabor Code defines "recr itment and placement" as "an! act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, tiliDing, hiring, or proc ring wor3ers, and incl des referrals, contract services, promising, or advertising for emplo!ment, locall! or abroad, whether for profit or not4 Provided that an! person or entit! which in, an! manner, offers or promises for a fee emplo!ment to two or more persons, is considered engaged in recr itment and placement. 'ecr itment incl des the act of referral or the act of passing along or forwarding of an applicant for emplo!ment after initial interview of a selected applicant for emplo!ment to a selected emplo!er, placement officer, or b rea . .n the other hand, ?stafa nder Art. 9/7H-IHaI of the 'PC which p nishes estafa committed S E! means of an! of the following false pretenses or fra d lent acts e0ec ted prior to or sim ltaneo sl! with the commission of the fra d. >he elements of the crime are" HaI the acc sed defra ded another b! ab se of confidence or b! means of deceit4 and HbI damage or pre= dice capable of pec niar! estimation is ca sed to the offended part!. Eoth elements have been proven in these cases. >he prosec tionLs evidence shows that the complainants gave mone! to acc sed,appellant beca se of her misrepresentation that she can get them emplo!ed in high,pa!ing =obs in Oorea. Acc sed,appellant, however, failed to ma3e good her promise, th s ca sing damage and pre= dice to complainants.

<ernandeD, G' /5/--/, 96, @arch *, -++-. PP v. Aadera, G' /9/)--, Nov. /7, -+++4 PP v. EanDales, G' /9--(), 8 l! /(, -+++. PP v. Pasc a, G' /-7+(/, .ct. 9, -++/.4 PP v. Arabia, G' /9(59/, 96, #ept. /-, -++/. PP v. .rdo&o, G' /-)7)9 P /59799,97, 8 l! /+, -+++.

@UALIFIED T2EFT; >he elements of theft are" H/I there PP v. Eago, was a ta3ing of personal propert!4 H-I the propert! belongs G' /---)+, to another4 H9I the ta3ing was witho t the consent of the April 6, -+++. owner4 H5I the ta3ing was done with intent to gain4 and H7I the ta3ing was accomplished witho t violence or intimidation against the person or force pon things. $t is

2 alified when committed w1 grave ab se of confidence. HNote" >he actor ac2 ires it onl! for ph!sical possession and not = ridical possession, otherwise, it wo ld be estafa.I T2EFT; >he constit tive element of violence or PP v. @oreno, intimidation against persons in robber! was not present at G' /5++99, the time of the snatching of the sho lder bag of the victim. 8an. -7, -++-. >he force or intimidation e0erted b! the acc sed against the victim was for a reason foreign to the fact of ta3ing the bag, as it was for the p rpose of accomplishing his l stf l desire. Acc sed,appellant ma! th s be held liable for #$@PA? ><?F> onl!, in addition to the crime of rape. ROBBERY; Aggr!-!ted $% A$use of Pu$#i" Position; Police officers perpetrated the crime of robber!. Fort na v. People, G' /97*(5, %ec. -7, -+++. PP v. # ela, G' /997*+, */, 8an. /7, -++-.

!me; im)#e ro$$er% is committed b! means of violence against or intimidation of persons as disting ished from the se of force pon things, b t the e0tent of the violence or intimidation does not fall nder pars. / to 5 of Art. -)5, 'PC Hp. /*7, Criminal Aaw, Eoo3 $$, Col. $C, Ambrosio Padilla, /))+I. ;nfort natel!, in the case at bar, the prosec tion failed to prove that appellant, ?dgar # ela emplo!ed force or intimidation on private complainant 'osas b! instilling fear in his mind so as to compel the latter to co gh o t the amo nt of P-++,+++.++. $nstead, what was established was that he had agreed to give the P-++,+++.++ in e0change for information regarding the identit! and whereabo ts of those who robbed him and 3illed his friend. >here was no showing that appellant ?dgar # ela had e0erted intimidation on him so as to leave him no choice b t to give the mone!. $nstead, what is clear was that the giving of the mone! was done not o t of fear b t beca se it was a choice private complainant opted beca se he wanted to get the information being offered to him for the consideration of P-++,+++.++, $n fact, the mone! was delivered not d e to fear b t for the p rpose of possibl! having a lead in solving the case and to possibl! bring the c lprit to = stice. As s ch, the elements of simple robber! have not been established in the instant case, hence, appellant ?dgar # ela sho ld be ac2 itted of that charge. )e"i!# Com)#e0 Crime; ROBBERY => 2OMICIDE E#ements; H/I the ta3ing of personal propert! w1 se of violence or intimidation against person4 H-I the propert! ta3en belongs to another4 H9I the ta3ing is characteriDed b! intent to gain Han'1o l'crandiI4 and H5I on occasion of the robber! or b! reason thereof, the crime of homicide, w1c is sed in the generic sense, is committed.

PP v. Paraiso, G' /-*(5+, Nov. -), /)))4 PP v. @anlapaD, G' /-/5(9, .ct. -6, /)))4 PP v. G arin, G' /-7)65, .ct. --, /)))4 PP v. Cari&o, G' /5/*9*, @arch -+, -++-.

!me; !me; >he homicide ma! precede the robber! or PP v. 'obles, ma! occ r after it. :hat is essential is the intimate G' /+/997, connection between robber! and the 3illing whether the 8 ne (, -+++. latter be prior or s bse2 ent to the former or whether both

crimes be committed at the same time. :henever homicide has been committed as a conse2 ence, or on occasion, of the robber!, all of those who too3 part as principal in the robber! will also be held g ilt! as principal of the special comple0 crime of robber! w1 homicide altho gh the! did not act all! ta3e part in the homicide, nless it clearl! appears that the! endeavo red to prevent the homicide. !me; !me; >he phrase Jb! reasonK covers homicide committed before or after the ta3ing of personal propert! of another, as long as the motive of the offender Hin 3illing a person before the robber!I is to deprive the victim of his personal propert! w1c is so ght to be accomplished b! eliminating an obstacle or opposition, or to do awa! w1 a witness, or to defend the possession of stolen propert!. !me; !me; A crime against propert! and not against persons M homicide being merel! an incident of the robber! w1 the latter being the main p rpose and ob=ect of the criminals. As s ch, treacher! cannot be validl! appreciated as an aggravating circ mstance nder Art. /5 of the 'PC. >he offenders did not commit - separate co nts of robber! w1 homicide b t onl! ! delito continuado, as the ransac3ing of the - ho ses and the 3illings of the victims were not entirel! disconnected and distinct acts of depredation. !me; !me; >he robber! itself m st be established as concl sivel! as an! other essential element of the crime. PP v. Aegaspi, G' //*(+-, April -*, -+++.

PP v. AriDobal, G' /97+7/,7-, %ec. /5, -+++.

PP v. %iDon, G' /9/7+6, #ept. 6, -+++ 4 PP v. @ cam, G' /9*-*6, 8 l! /9, -+++ 4 PP v. Pali=on, G' /-9757, .ct. /(, -+++. PP v. >aboga, G' /55+(6, (*, Feb. 6, -++-.

!me; !me; $n proving the case, it is necessar! that the robber! itself be established concl sivel! as an! other essential element of the crime. $n this case, it appears that aside from the vario s items recovered in the vicinit! of the b rned ho se, no one saw acc sed,appellant act all! asporting these items, m ch less has been satisfactoril! shown that robber! was the @A$N P;'P.#? of the c lprit in perpetrating the crimes. A glaring error of the trial co rt in convicting the acc sed,appellant on tha basis of ass mption. Absent an! evidence that the acc sed indeed robbed the victim, the special comple0 crime of robber! w1 homicide cannot stand. !me; !me; ?vidence onl! showed that the acc sed had anno nced a hold, p and thereafter he and the victim grappled for the g n, then as the! str ggled, the victim was shot. Acc sed then h rriedl! got off the ta0icab, leaving the g n behind. No showing that the victim had a wristwatch and that acc sed too3 it in that fatef l night of the hold, p, as alleged in the information. As the prosec tion failed to prove robber!, acc sed sho ld onl! be convicted for homicide.

PP v. Eo2 ila, G' /96/57, @arch (, -++-.

!me; !me; :hen homicide is committed as a PP v. conse='ence or on the occasion of robber!, all those who CarroDo, G' too3 part as principals in the robber! will also be held )*)/9, .ct.

g ilt! as principals of the special comple0 crime of robber! w1 homicide, altho gh the! did not act all! ta3e part in the homicide, nless it clearl! appears that the! endeavored to prevent the homicide. >he trial co rt erred in convicting the acc sed,appellants of the crime of robber! in band w1 m ltiple homicide. >here is no s ch crime in the 'PC and in the stat tes. obo con homicidio is 3illing of a h man being for the p rpose of robber!.. <omicide is sed in Art. -)5 of the 'PC in a generic sense. ;nder said provision, the term JhomicideK comprehends m rder, do ble homicide and m ltiple homicide, while band is considered as a mere generic aggravating circ mstance. >he crime of robber! w1 homicide remains f ndamentall! the same regardless of the persons 3illed in connection w1 robber!. !me; !me; :hen a homicide ta3es place b! reason or on occasion of robber!, all those who too3 part in the robber! shall be g ilt! of the special comple0 crime of robber! w1 homicide, whether or not the! act all! participated in the 3illing, nless there is proof that the! endeavored to prevent the 3illing. >he ac2 ittal of acc sed,appellants for attempted homicide is in order. >he attempt to ta3e the life of #P./ #antos is absorbed in the crime of robber! w1 homicide w1c is a special comple0 crime that remains f ndamentall! the same, regardless of the n mber of homicides or in= ries committed in connection w1 the robber!. !me; !me; :henever homicide has been committed as a conse2 ence or on occasion of the robber!, all those who too3 part as principals in the robber! will also be held g ilt! as principals of the special comple0 crime of robber! w1 homicide, altho gh the! did not act all! ta3e part in the homicide, ;NA?## it appears that the! endeavored to prevent the homicide.

/-, -+++.

PP v. Cabilto, G' /-((/6 P /9))*),(+, A g. (, -++/.

PP v. %inamling, G' /956+7, @arch /-, -++-.

!me; !me; >he s spects engaged the policemen in a PP v. Arapo3, g nfight either to defend possession of their loot, or to G' /95)*5, escape after the commission of the robber!, or both. >he %ec. (, -+++. 3illing of one of the policemen was a necessar! conse2 ence of the commission of robber!. $n robber! w1 homicide, there m st be a direct relation, an intimate connection between robber! and the 3illing, whether the latter be prior or s bse2 ent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time. !me; !me; $n order to determine the e0istence of the crime of robber! w1 homicide, it is eno gh that death res lts b! reason or on the occasion of the robber!. :hat is essential is that there is A %$'?C> '?AA>$.N .' $N>$@A>? C.NN?C>$.N between the robber! and the 3illing, whether the latter be prior or s bse2 ent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time. !me; !me; 'egardless of the n mber of homicides committed, the crime sho ld still be denominated as robber! w1 homicide. >he n mber of persons 3illed is immaterial and does not increase the penalt! prescribed b! Art. -)5 of the 'PC. #tated differentl!, the homicides or m rders and ph!sical in= ries, irrespective of their n mbers, committed on the occasion or b! reason of the robber! are @?'G?% in the composite crime of robber! w1 homicide. >he trial co rts denomination of the offense as Jrobber! w1 do ble homicideK is erroneo s. PP v. Pa=otal, G' /5-(*+, Nov. /5, -++/.

PP v. %inamling, G' /956+7, @arch /-, -++-.

!me; !me; :here a comple0 crime is charged and the evidence fails to s pport the charge as to one of the component offenses, the acc sed can be convicted onl! of the offense proved. !me; !me; :here the evidence does not concl sivel! prove the robber!, the 3illing of the victim wo ld be classified either as a simple homicide or m rder, as the case ma! be. !me; !me; Not est!$#ished; >o be liable for the special comple0 crime of robber! with homicide, it is inc mbent pon the prosec tion to prove" HaI the ta3ing of the personal propert! with the se of violence or intimidation against a person4 HbI the propert! th s ta3en belongs to another4 HcI the ta3ing is characteriDed b! intent to gain or anim s l crandi4 and HdI on the occasion of the robber! or b! reason thereof, the crime of homicide was committed. :hat is cr cial for a conviction for the crime of robber! with homicide is for the prosec tion to firml! establish the offenderLs intent to ta3e personal propert! before the 3illing, regardless of the time when the homicide is act all! carried o t. >here m st be a showing that the death of the victim occ rred b! reason or on occasion of the robber!. No shred of evidence is on record that co ld s pport the concl sion that appellantLs primar! motive was to rob the victim and that he was able to accomplish it. Absent clear and convincing evidence that the crime of robber! was perpetrated, and that, on occasion or b! reason thereof, a homicide was committed, an acc sed cannot be fo nd g ilt! of robber! with homicide, b t onl! of homicide or m rder, as the case ma! be. >here is a pa cit! of evidence to show that appellant had a hand in the 3illing of the victim. :e cannot convict appellant for the special comple0 crime of robber! with homicide or for the separate crimes of robber! or homicide when the circ mstantial evidence relied pon b! the trial co rt is plainl! inade2 ate and nconvincing in proving appellantLs g ilt be!ond reasonable do bt.

PP v. >aboga, G' /55+(6, (*, Feb. 6, -++-. PP v. Eo2 ila, G' /96/57, @arch (, -++-. PP v. Canlas, G' /5/699, %ec. /5, -++/.

!me; !me; !me; $n the case at bar, the evidence on PP v. Cr D, record shows that appellant stole the camera and cash G' /-**(), onl! as an AF>?'><.;G<>. <is primar! p rpose was to April -, -++-. 3ill Aa ra and her 7,!ear old da ghter, Aara, after he panic3ed. <ence, the prosec tion was correct when it did not charge appellant with the special comple0 crime of robber! with homicide. 2I52=AY ROBBERY &PD G.+( =IT2 2OMICIDE; Distinguished from Ro$$er% ,ith 2omi"ide; >he trial co rt erred in convicting acc sed,appellant of the crime of highwa! robber! with homicide. >o be s re, the crime acc sed,appellant committed was robber! with homicide, not highwa! robber! as defined in P.%. 79-. Conviction for highwa! robber! re2 ires proof that several acc sed were .'GAN$R?% for the p rpose of committing it $N%$#C'$@$NA>?AN. $n the case at bar, there is no proof that acc sed,appellant and "8ohnn!" organiDed themselves to commit highwa! robber!. >he prosec tion established onl! a single act of robber! against a partic lar person. >his is not what is contemplated nder P.%. 79-, the ob=ective of w1c is to deter and p nish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation pon persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants PP v. Pasc al, G' /9-(*+, @a! -), -++-.

who travel from one place to another, thereb! dist rbing the peace and tran2 ilit! of the nation and st nting the economic and social progress of the people. !me; FRU TRATED ROBBERY => 2OMICIDE; >hat appellant intended to rob the passengers of the 8AC Ainer b s is evident. >he robber! was foiled, however, when #P./ 'iDald! @erene decided to fight bac3. :ere it not for the presence and the braver! of this police officer, appellant and his cohorts wo ld have s ccessf ll! cons mmated their original plan. $n the g nfight that ens ed between appellant and @erene, b s cond ctor 8oselito <al m was 3illed. Clearl!, his death occ rred b! reason or as an incident of the robber!. ?ven if it was merel! incidental Hhe was ca ght in the crossfireI, still, fr strated robber! with homicide was committed. :ith regard to the charge of fr strated homicide, appellant, in shooting @erene almost pointblan3, had performed all the acts necessar! to 3ill the latter, who s rvived beca se of timel! medical intervention. !me; ATTEMPTED ROBBERY => 2OMICIDE; >he partic lar item acc sed,appellant intended to p ll or grab from the victim and whether he was able to co1pletely ta3e it were not ascertained. $t was evident, however, that acc sed,appellant had ever! intention of robbing the victim and, were it not for the resistance p t p b! the latter, the robber! wo ld have been cons mmated. !me; ROBBERY => RAPE; :hen the robber! is accompanied b! rape, as in the case at bar, the same m st be p nished as a special comple0 crime of robber! with m ltiple rape nder par. - of Art. -)5 of the P'PC w1c is p nishable b! recl'sion perpet'a to death. And not of the separate crimes of robber! and rape and imposed pon him the penalt! respective to each crime. PP v. @ar2 eD, G' /9()*-,*9, #ept. /9, -++/.

PP v. Amba, G' /5+()(, #ept. -+, -++/.

PP v. Eracero, G' /9)7-), 8 l! 9/, -++/4 PP v. @amala!an, G' /9*-77, Nov. /7, -++/.

!me; !me; Art. -)9 H-I and Art. -)5 of the 'PC. >o be PP v. @oreno, liable for s ch crime, the offender m st have the intent to G' /5++99, ta3e the personal propert! of another nder circ mstances 8an. -7, -++-. that ma3e the ta3ing one of robber! and s ch intent m st P'?C?%? the rape. $f the original plan was to commit rape, b t the acc sed after committing the rape also committed robber! when the opport nit! presented itself, the robber! sho ld be viewed as a #?PA'A>? and %$#>$NC> crime. !me; !me; >he crime of 'obber! with 'ape is PP v. Clidoro, committed when the following elements conc r" H/I the G' /59++5, ta3ing of personal propert! is committed w1 violence or April ), -++9. intimidation against persons4 H-I the propert! ta3en belongs to another4 H9I the ta3ing is done w1 animo l crandi4 and, H5I the robber! is accompanied b! rape. >he crime of 'obber! with 'ape is penaliDed nder Art. -)5 of the 'PC, as amended b! #ect. ) of 'A *67). Inasm ch as the law prescribes a penalt! composed of two indivisible penalties, and considering that there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circ mstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalt! shall be applied, p rs ant to Article 69, paragraph - of the 'evised Penal Code. <ence, the trial co rt was correct in imposing on appellant the penalt! of recl'sion perpet'a.

ANTI4CATTLE RU TLIN5 ACT OF 'KBC &PD G..(; Cattle r stling is the ta3ing awa! b! an! means, method or scheme, witho t the consent of the owner or raiser of cow, carabao, horse, m le, ass, or other domesticated member of the bovine famil!, whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or witho t violence against or intimidation of an! person or force pon things. Cattle r stling incl des the 3illing of large cattle, or ta3ing its meat or hide witho t the consent of the owner or raiser. >he gravamen in the crime of cattle,r stling is the "ta3ing" or "3illing" of large cattle or "ta3ing" its meat or hide witho t the consent of the owner. >he "owner" incl des the herdsman, careta3er, emplo!ee or tenant of an! firm or entit! engaged in the raising of large cattle or other persons in lawf l possession of s ch large cattle. P.%. 799 does not s persede the crime of 2 alified theft of large cattle nder Articles 9+) and 9/+ nder the 'PC. $t merel! modified the penalties provided for 2 alified theft of large cattle nder Art. 9/+ b! imposing stiffer penalties thereon nder special circ mstances. ;nder #ection ( of P% 799, an! person convicted of cattle r stling shall, irrespective of the val e of the large cattle involved, be p nished b! prision 1ayor in its ma0im m period to recl'sion te1poral in its medi m period if the offense is committed witho t violence against or intimidation of persons or force pon things. $f the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force pon things, the penalt! of recl'sion te1poral in its ma0im m period to recl'sion perpet'a shall be imposed. AR ON; >he C4RP9S )E+GC2G r le is satisfied b! proof of" FiG the bare occ rrence of the fire4 and F-G of its having been intentionall! ca sed. U URPATION OF REAL PROPERTY; Art. 9/- of 'PC defines and penaliDes the crime of s rpation of real propert! or real rights in propert! to Jan! person who, b! means of violence against or intimidation of persons, shall ta3e possession of an! real propert! or shall s rp an! real rights in propert! belonging to another, in addition to the penalt! inc rred for the acts of violence e0ec ted b! him shall be p nished b! a fine from P7+ to P/++ per cent m of the gain which he shall have obtained, b t not less than P*7 pesos.K J$f the val e of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine from P-++ to P7++ pesos shall be imposed.K >he re2 isites of s rpation are" F/G that the acc sed too3 possession of anotherLs real propert! or s rped real rights in anotherLs propert!4 F-G that the possession or s rpation was committed with violence or intimidation and F9G that the acc sed had animo l crandi. $n order to s stain a conviction for " 's'rpacion de derec8o reales," the proof m st show that the real propert! occ pied or s rped belongs, not to the occ pant or s rper, b t to some third person, and that the possession of the s rper was obtained b! means of intimidation or violence done to the person o sted of possession of the propert!. @ore e0plicitl!, in Castrodes vs. C'belo, F(9 #C'A 6*+ H/)*(IG, the Co rt stated that the elements of the offense are" H/I occ pation of anotherLs real properl! or s rpation of a real right belonging to another person4 H-I violence or intimidation sho ld be emplo!ed in possessing the real propert! or in s rping the real right, and H9I the acc sed sho ld be animated b! the intent to gain.

PP v. ?scarda, G' /-+75(, .ct. -6, -++/.

PP v. .liva, G' /--//+, #ept. -6, -+++. Q inao v. People, G' /9)6+9, 8 l! /5, -+++.

Crimes against Persons

PARRICIDE; >he following elements of the crime of Parricide HArt. -56, 'evised Penal CodeI are present in this case" /. >hat a person is 3illed4 -. >hat the deceased is 3illed4 and 9. >he deceased is the legitimate spo se of the acc sed. >he o tright re=ection of the acc sed that his wife be bro ght to the hospital for treatment is a clear case of cover p which will not be complete if Alicia is alive. MURDER; @u!#ified $% E-ident Premedit!tion; >he ?lements of evident premeditation are" H/I the time when the acc sed determined to commit the crime4 H-I an act manifestl! indicating that the acc sed has cl ng to his determination4 and H9I a s fficient lapse of time between s ch determination and e0ec tion to allow him to reflect pon the circ mstances of his act. $t is ver! apparent that the attac3 on the victim was premeditated. >he assailants waited in amb sh o tside the ho se of their intended victim. >he! were there earl! in the morning = st before their victim was to leave for his office. @atibag waited ntil ' fino Carlos was inside his car before he shot him several times. !me; !me; Not established. ">he on's probandi in establishing the g ilt of an acc sed for a criminal offense lies with the prosec tion. >he b rden m st be discharged b! it on the strength of its own evidence and not on the wea3ness of the evidence for the defense or the lac3 of it. Proof be!ond reasonable do bt, or that 2 ant m of proof s fficient to prod ce a moral certaint! that wo ld convince and satisf! the conscience of those who are to act in = dgment, is indispensable to overcome the constit tional pres mption of innocence." #tated otherwise, "the overriding consideration is not whether the co rt do bts the innocence of the acc sed b t whether it entertains a reasonable do bt as to his g ilt." And also an acc sed cannot be convicted for m rder where >reacher! was not present in the 3illing as the alleged s dden blow on the nape of the victim b! means of a piece of wood which ca sed him to fall fo nd no corroboration from the post mortem e0amination report which showed that the "onl! in= r!" s stained b! the victim was a hac3 wo nd in the nec3. >here was no telltale sign of an! in= r! on the victimLs head. >here being no 2 alif!ing circ mstance, the crime committed is homicide, not m rder. # ch a finding wo ld benefit Pasc al Ealinad alias #ada! who pleaded g ilt! to the crime charged, which is @ rder. #ince the crime committed is homicide, not m rder, the penalt! imposed on #ada! sho ld be modified accordingl!. !me; @u!#ified $% Tre!"her%; >he two elements of treacher! are present in this case, to wit" H/I the emplo!ment of means of e0ec tion that gives the person attac3ed no opport nit! to defend himself or retaliate, and H-I the means of e0ec tion were deliberatel! or conscio sl! adopted. >he evidence shows that while Carlito and the victim were wal3ing on the trail, acc sed, appellant s ddenl! sprang from the cassava plants and shot the victim. >he victim was narmed and ns specting of an! impending peril to his life and limb at the time he was shot b! acc sed,appellant. >he swift and ne0pected attac3 b! acc sed,appellant rendered the victim helpless. >he r le that treacher! ma! be shown if the victim is

PP v. .pera&a, 8r., G' /-+756, .ct. /9, -+++.

PP v. @atibag, G' //+7/7, 8 l! /(, -+++4 PP v. #amolde, G' /-(77/, 8 l! 9/, -+++.

PP v. G illermo, G' ///-)-, 8 l! -+, -+++4 PP v. Ealinad, G' /-6+96, #ept. *, -+++.

PP v. Floro, s pra4 PP v. Apelado, s pra4 PP v. 'onato, G' /-5-)(, .ct //, /))).

attac3ed from behind does not mean it cannot be appreciated if the attac3 is frontall! la nched. >he s ddenness of the shooting, witho t the slightest provocation from the victim who was narmed and had no opport nit! to defend himself, inel ctabl! 2 alified the crime with treacher!. !me; !me; $n order for treacher! to e0ist, two conditions m st conc r namel!" H/I the emplo!ment of means, methods or manner of e0ec tion which wo ld ens re the offenderLs safet! from an! defense or retaliator! act on the part of the offended part!4 and H-I s ch means, method or manner of e0ec tion was deliberatel! or conscio sl! chosen b! the offender. :hen <ermogenes Flora s ddenl! shot ?merita and $reneo, both were helpless to defend themselves. >heir deaths were m rders, not simpl! homicides since the acts were 2 alified b! treacher!. !me; !me; @ rder is the nlawf l 3illing of an! person when 2 alified b! an! of the circ mstances listed nder Art. -5( of the 'PC. >reacher!, aptl! alleged in the information, is one of s ch 2 alif!ing circ mstances. <ere, treacher! is evident when the acc sed s ddenl! positioned himself at the bac3 of the ns specting victim, pointed his g n at him and, witho t an! warning, promptl! delivered the fatal shots. >here was no wa! the victim co ld have defended himself, ta3en flight, or avoided the assa lt. !me; !me; @ rder is defined as the nlawf l 3illing of an! person when 2 alified b! an! of the circ mstances listed nder Article -5( of the 'evised Penal Code. Among these 2 alif!ing circ mstances is alevosia. >here is treacher! when the offender commits an! of the crimes against persons, emplo!ing means, methods or forms in the e0ec tion thereof which tend directl! and speciall! to ins re its e0ec tion, witho t ris3 to himself arising from the defense which the offended part! might ma3e. !me; @u!#ified $% Tre!"her% or A$use of u)erior trength; >he concl sion that the 3illing was attended with treacher! or ta3ing advantage of s perior strength, as the two acc sed "each armed with bladed weapons and contin o sl! attac3ing and raining 3nife thr sts pon the narmed and ns specting victim which ca sed his event al death" is also not to be dist rbed. >he evidence shows that the two acc sed too3 t rns in stabbing the victim while the latter had alread! fallen down on the pavement. >he crime of m rder is committed where the 3illing is attended b! among others "treacher!, ta3ing advantage of s perior strength, with the aid of armed men, or emplo!ing means or persons to ens re or afford imp nit!" and is p nishable b! recl'sion perpet'a to death. !me; @u!#ified $% A$use of u)erior trength; Ab se of s perior strength re2 ires, at base, a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactor to ta3e advantage thereof. Eesides the ine2 alit! of comparative force between the victim and the aggressor, there m st be a sit ation of strength notorio sl! selected and made se of b! the offender in the commission of the crime before ab se of s perior strength can be appreciated against the offender. $n the case at bar, appellantLs deliberate intent to ta3e PP v. Flora, G' /-7)+), 8 ne -9, -+++.

PP v. Padilla, G' /9(5*-, *9, A g. ), -++/.

PP v. G tierreD, G' /5-)+7, @arch /(, -++-4 PP v. Aab,eo, G' /9959(, 8an. /6, -++-. PP v. Padama, G' /9-/9*, .ct. /, /))).

PP v. Aangres, s pra4 PP v. Nablo, G' //**//, %ec. 6, /))).

advantage of s perior strength is clear. <e was armed with a powerf l weapon that is manifestl! o t of proportion to the defense available to the offended part!. <is victim was !o ng and narmed. $t was nnecessar! for appellant to shoot the victim when the latter approached him for throwing a p nch at 'estit to. !me; !me; >he trial co rt convicted acc sed,appellant of homicide aggravated b! ab se of strength. >his is an obvio s error. Ab se of strength, w1c was alleged in the information, 2 alified the 3illing to m rder. !me; !me; >he death of the victim was correctl! characteriDed as m rder considering that the 2 alif!ing circ mstance of ab se of s perior strength, as alleged in the information, was d l! proven. :hile it is tr e that s periorit! in n mber does not per se mean s periorit! in strength, /5 as borne b! the records, appellants too3 advantage of their combined strength in order to cons mmate the offense. !me; Attem)ted !nd not Frustr!ted; A felon! is fr strated when the offender performs all the acts of e0ec tion which wo ld prod ce the felon! as a conse2 ence b t which, nevertheless, do not prod ce it b! reason of ca ses independent of the will of the perpetrator. For the crime of m rder, the fr strated stage is reached onl! if the wo nd inflicted wo ld have been mortal. >he e0amining ph!sician has declared that the wo nds s ffered b! the victim damaged no vital tiss es and, witho t complications, wo ld not have 3illed him. >h s, not fr strated b t attempted onl!. !me; Attem)ted t!ge Distinguished from Frustr!ted t!ge; >he in= ries s ffered b! Palpal,latoc were s perficial. <owever, evidence show that were it not for timel! medical assistance, Palpal,latoc wo ld have also died li3e %eg erto. %r. .rdo&eD testified that the thro gh and thro gh wo nd on the left thigh s stained b! Palpal, latoc as a res lt of stabbing was s fficient to ca se his death had this wo nd and his other in= ries been left ntreated. $n other words, the thigh wo nd wo ld have been fatal witho t anti,tetan s in=ection. @oreover, it m st be stressed that it is not the gravit! of the wo nds alone which determines whether a felon! is attempted or fr strated, b t whether or not the s b=ective phase in the commission of an offense has been passed and the ob=ective phase has been reached. E! s b=ective phase is meant "FtGhat portion of the acts constit ting the crime incl ded between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed b! the offender which, with the prior acts, sho ld res lt in the cons mmated crime. From that time forward, the phase is ob=ective. $t ma! also be said to be that period occ pied b! the acts of the offender over which he has control S that period between the point where he begins and the point where he vol ntaril! desists. $f between these two points the offender is stopped b! reason of an! ca se o tside of his own vol ntar! desistance, the s b=ective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. $f he is not so stopped b t contin es ntil he performs the last act, it is fr strated." $t m st be remembered that a felon! is fr strated when" /.G the offender has performed all the acts of e0ec tion which wo ld prod ce the felon!4 -.G the felon! is not prod ced d e to ca ses independent of the perpetratorLs will. .n the PP v. %e la 'osa, G' /99559, #ept. -), -+++. PP v. >empla, G' /-/()*, A g. /6, -++/.

PP v. Padilla, G' /9(5*-, *9, A g. ), -++/.

PP v. @edios, G' /9-+66, 6*, Nov. -), -++/.

other hand, in an attempted felon!" /.G the offender commits overt acts to commence the perpetration of the crime4 -.G he is not able to perform all the acts of e0ec tion which sho ld prod ce the felon!4 and 9.G his fail re to perform all the acts of e0ec tion was d e to some ca se or accident other than his spontaneo s desistance. !me; A";uitt!# $!sed on Re!son!$#e Dou$t; Acc sed ac2 itted on the gro nd of reasonable do bt d e to serio s flaws in the prosec tions case against acc sed, appellant. >heir combined effect is nmista3abl! to create reasonable do bt on the g ilt of the latter. 2OMICIDE; $t was not s fficientl! proven that the 3illing was 2 alified b! the aggravating circ mstances of ab se of s perior strength, evident premeditation, and treacher!, th s, it is onl! homicide. !me; :1o an! proven 2 alif!ing circ mstance, a 3illing constit tes homicide w1c is p nishable b! recl sion temporal, not death. :here the attac3 was made openl! and the victim had ample opport nit! to escape, treacher! cannot be appreciated. !me; $n the absence of an! circ mstance that wo ld 2 alif! the 3illing to m rder, the appellants sho ld onl! be held liable for homicide. Art. -5) of the 'PC provides" An! person who, not falling w1in the provisions of Art. -56 shall 3ill another witho t the attendance of an! of the circ mstances en merated in the ne0t preceding article, shall be deemed g ilt! of homicide and p nished b! recl sion temporal. 'ecl sion temporal has a range of /!ears and / da! to -+ !ears of imprisonment. Appl!ing the $#AA:, there being no mitigating or aggravating circ mstance, the ma0im m term of the penalt! shall be imposed in the medi m period of recl'sion te1poral, ranging from /5 !ears, ( months and / da! to /* !ears and 5 months. >he minim m term of the penalt! shall be ta3en from the penalt! ne0t lower in degree or prision ma!or, in an! of its periods, ranging from si0 H6I !ears and one H/I da! to twelve H/-I !ears. !me; Intent to <i##; Criminal intent m st be evidenced b! notorio s o tward acts evidencing a determination to commit the crime. $n order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circ mstance m st not merel! be "premeditation" b t m st be "evident premeditation." $t sho ld be remembered that aggravating circ mstances m st be established with the same 2 ant m of proof as f ll! as the crime itself and an! do bt as to their e0istence m st be resolved in favor of the acc sed. <ence, for fail re of the prosec tion to prove the attendance of the 2 alif!ing circ mstances of treacher! and evident premeditation, acc sed,appellant can onl! be g ilt! of homicide. !me; !me; AppellantLs intent to 3ill is reflected b! the weapon he sed4 and the nat re and position of the wo nds inflicted. %r. Ciado testified that #P./ C ra s ffered "thr and thr laceration of the gall bladder, stomach and the =e= n m" as a res lt of the stabbing b! appellant. :ere it not for timel! medical attention, #P./ C ra wo ld have died from said wo nds. !me; :hile the acc sed,appellant is to be commended PP v. Castillo, G' /9+/((, April -*, -+++. PP v. @onieva, G' /-9)/-, 8 ne (, -+++. PP v. %iscalsota, G' /96()-, April //, -++-. PP v. 'ecto, G' /-)+6), .ct. /*, -++/.4 PP v. <ermosa, G' /9/(+7, #ept. *, -++/4

PP v. ;ma!am, G' /957*-, April /(, -++-.

PP v. #alva, G' /9-97/, 8an. /+, -++-4 PP v. Q ening, G' /9-/6*, 8an. (, -++-. PP v. ;lep,

for promptl! responding to the call of d t! when he stopped the victim from his potentiall! violent cond ct and aggressive behavior, he cannot be e0onerated from overdoing his d t! d ring the second stage of the incident M when he fatall! shot the victim in the head, perhaps in his desire to ta3e no chances, even after the latter sl mped to the gro nd d e to m ltiple g nshot wo nds s stained while charging at the police officers. !me; >he penalt! for homicide nder Art. -5) of the 'PC is recl'sion te1poral. >he same shall be imposed in its medi m period, there being no mitigating or aggravating circ mstance. Acc sed,appellant is th s entitled to the benefits of the $ndeterminate #entence Aaw, and is therefore sentenced to s ffer the indeterminate penalt! of eight H(I !ears and one H/I da! of prision ma!or, as minim m, to fo rteen H/5I !ears, eight H(I months and one H/I da! of recl sion temporal, as ma0im m.

G' /9-75*, #ept. -+, -+++.

PP v. ;ma!am, G' /957*-, April /(, -++-.

!me; Comple0 Crime of 'ape w1 <omicide. :e hold that PP v. Nanas, it was onl! the crime of homicide which was proven G' /9*-)), be!ond reasonable do bt. $t is well settled in this A g. -/, -++/ = risdiction that where a comple0 crime is charged and the evidence fails to s pport the charge as to one of the component offense, the acc sed can be convicted of the other. $t is tr e that in the special comple0 crime of rape w1 homicide, the term "homicide" is to be nderstood in its generic sense, and incl des m rder and slight ph!sical in= ries committed b! reason or on occasion of the rape. <owever, in rape w1 homicide, in order to be convicted of m rder in case the evidence fails to s pport the charge of rape, the 2 alif!ing circ mstance m st be s fficientl! alleged and proved. .therwise, it wo ld be a denial of the right of the acc sed to be informed of the nat re of the offense for which he is charged. $n the case at bench, no circ mstance w1c wo ld 2 alif! the 3illing to m rder was s fficientl! alleged in the information charging acc sed, appellant with rape w1 homicide. Conse2 entl!, considering that the evidence presented fails to s pport the charge for rape, acc sed,appellant ma! onl! be convicted of homicide. FRU TRATED 2OMICIDE; $ntent to 3ill m st be evidenced b! an act, w1c at the time of its e0ec tion is nmista3abl! calc lated to prod ce the victimLs death b! ade2 ate means. $n this case, the intent to 3ill cannot be do bted. Appellant armed himself with a heav! wooden cl b and aimed his blow at the victimLs head. >he blow hit her in the head, and she lost conscio sness. E t for ne0plained reasons she regained conscio sness after her assailant had fled. #he was resc ed b! her h sband who bro ght her to the hospital for timel! medical assistance. <ere the crime of homicide was not cons mmated, b t b! reasons other than the appellantLs desistance. >he appellant had performed all the acts of e0ec tion, b t the felon! of homicide was not prod ced b! reasons independent of his will. Appellant is liable for fr strated homicide beca se the victim lived. <ad she died, he wo ld have been liable for the graver offense of cons mmated homicide. P2Y ICAL INLURIE ; #ight; $n the absence of more convincing evidence, we hold that the prosec tion failed to prove that appellants had fatall! wo nded Anthon! Cillan eva. >h s, the! sho ld be held liable onl! for slight PP v. Arcillas, G' /-6(/*, %ec. -*, -+++.

PP v. A ela, G' /5+9)9, )5, Feb. 5, -++-.

ph!sical in= ries nder Art. -66 of the 'PC. >his is beca se his in= ries lasted less than nine H)I da!s. RAPE; E! the ver! nat re of the crime of rape, conviction or ac2 ittal depends almost entirel! on the credibilit! of the complainantLs testimon! beca se of the fact that s all! onl! the participants can testif! as to its occ rrence. >he eval ation of the credibilit! of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best nderta3en b! the trial co rt considering its opport nit! to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, cond ct, and attit de, especiall! nder cross,e0amination. F rthermore, . r co rts have been traditionall! g ided b! three settled principles in the prosec tion of the crime of rape" H/I an acc sation for rape is eas! to ma3e, diffic lt to prove and even more diffic lt to disprove4 H-I in view of the intrinsic nat re of the crime, the testimon! of the complainant m st be scr tiniDed with tmost ca tion, and H9I the evidence of the prosec tion m st stand on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the wea3ness of the evidence of the defense. $ndisp tabl!, rape is a reprehensible crime and all those who are g ilt! m st be severel! p nished. @ore often than not, the woman is a victim twice" first, of the se0 al assa lt, and, second, of the social stigma that attaches to the victim, tho gh ndeserved. Nonetheless, the records of the case m st be e0amined with d e care and ca tion, the e0acting standard of proof be!ond reasonable do bt ac2 ires more relevance in rape charges which are eas! to ma3e b t harder to prove and harder still to defend b! the part! acc sed,appellant who ma! be innocent. Credible witness and credible testimon! are the two essential elements for the determination of the weight of a partic lar testimon!. .ne witho t the other will serio sl! impair the credibilit! of an! testimon!. >his principle co ld not ring an! tr er in this case where the case for the prosec tion hinges mainl! on the testimon! of the complainant as corroborated b! medico,legal findings of a ph!sician. :hile we find nothing wrong with rape convictions obtained mainl! on the basis of the complainantLs testimon!, the testimon! sho ld be clear and consistent and s pported b! the ph!sical evidence. >hat determination is made b! the co rt which has the opport nit! to observe the demeanor of the complainant and the witnesses first hand and this Co rt will not, in the absence of a palpable misperception or misapprehension of facts, interfere with s ch co rtLs original findings. Generall!, when it comes to the iss e of credibilit!, the trial co rtLs assessment is entitled to great weight, even concl sive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circ mstance of weight and infl ence. >he reason is obvio s. >he trial co rt is in a better position than the appellate co rt to properl! eval ate testimonial evidence having the f ll opport nit! to observe directl! the witnessesL deportment and manner of testif!ing. $f a complainantLs testimon! meets the test of credibilit!, the acc sed ma! be convicted on the sole basis thereof. $n a prosec tion for rape, the complainantLs candor is the single most important iss e. !me; >he nat re of the crime of rape is s ch that oftentimes it is onl! the acc sed and the complainant who can testif! as to the commission of the crime. >h s, it is imperative to scr tiniDe the testimonies and the evidence altogether to see if the conviction of appellant can be s stained. PP v. 'amos4 PP v. Ealora, s pra 4 PP v. %e G Dman, G' /-596(, 8 ne (, -+++ 4 PP v. <ofilena, G' /95**-, 8 ne --, -+++.

PP v. #antos, G' /9*))9, April //, -++-.

!me; #ettled is the r le that no woman wo ld openl! admit that she was raped and conse2 entl! s b=ect herself to an e0amination of her private parts, ndergo the tra ma and h miliation of a p blic trial, and embarrass herself w1 the need to narrate in detail how she was raped, if she was not raped at all. $n the instant case, GA?N%A narrated clearl! and spontaneo sl! how A'@AN and GA#PA' raped her on / @arch /)(). <er narration was made w1 s ch richness of details as onl! one telling the tr th co ld do so. F rthermore, there is absol tel! no showing that GA?N%A was act ated b! an! sinister motive to falsel! implicate A'@AN and GA#PA'. A victim of rape wo ld not come o t in the open if her motive were an!thing other than to obtain = stice. >he testimon! of a woman as to who ab sed her is credible where she has absol tel! no motive to testif! against the acc sed. !me; Ai3e in man! rape cases appealed to this Co rt, the iss e raised is one that attempts to p t in do bt the credibilit! of the victim. >he crime of rape is essentiall!, at least almost alwa!s, one committed in relative isolation or even secrec!, hence, it is s all! onl! the victim who can testif! in respect to the forced coit s. >he case for the prosec tion th s virt all! depends on the credibilit! of the complainant. $f fo nd credible, the lone declaration of the facts given b! the victim wo ld s ffice to s stain a conviction. ?0pectedl!, an acc sed wo ld assail the reliabilit! of the complainant. >he proper response to this 2 estion is made b! the trial co rt w1c has the f ll chance to observe the deportment and demeanor of the witness. Not being in a position to en=o! that same opport nit!, an appellate co rt wo ld, nat rall!, respect the = dgment of the trial Co rt on the matter and dist rb it onl!, as has been so often repeated b! the Co rt, when there e0ists a fact or circ mstance of weight and s bstance w1c has apparentl! been ignored or misconstr ed. !me; $t is an accepted doctrine that in the absence of evidence of improper motive on the part of the victim to falsel! testif! against the acc sed, her testimon! deserves credence. !me; >he sole testimon! of a rape victim, if clear and credible, is s fficient to convict the acc sed. %enials cannot prevail over positive assertions. 8 rispr dence states that the acc sed ma! be convicted solel! on the testimon! of the complaining witness. >his is especiall! tr e in a rape case in w1c, oftentimes, onl! two persons are involved S the offender and the offended part!. >h s, the lone testimon! of the victim, if credible, is s fficient to s stain a conviction. $t is settled that when a woman sa!s she has been raped, she sa!s in effect all that is necessar! to show that rape has been committed4 and that if her testimon! meets the test of credibilit!, the acc sed ma! be convicted on the basis thereof. AppellantLs denial cannot prevail over complainantLs direct, positive and categorical assertion w1c rings w1 tr th. %enial, being inherentl! a wea3 defense, cannot o tweigh complainantLs positive testimon!. As between a positive and categorical testimon! w1c has a ring of verit! on the one hand and a bare denial on the other, the former is generall! held to prevail.

PP v. Arofo, G' /9)599, April //, -++-.

PP v. Pag ra!an. G' /5967(, April /*, -++-.

PP v. Q i=ada, G' //5-6-, 9-/ #C'A 5-6, 59H/)))I. PP v. %arama!, G' /5+-95 P /5-*5(, @a! ), -++-.

!me; An acc sed in a rape case ma! be convicted even on the sole testimon! of the victim, b t s ch testimon! m st be credible, nat ral, convincing, and consistent w1 h man nat re and the normal co rse of things. $n these cases, one can spec late on how complainant s stained a h!menal laceration as a res lt of a "vaginal penetration, complete," b t spec lations and probabilities cannot ta3e the place of the proof re2 ired to establish the g ilt of acc sed,appellant be!ond reasonable do bt. !me; >he prosec tion m st prove the g ilt of the acc sed be!ond reasonable do bt. $t m st avoid p shing the = dge to the pitfall of either convicting the innocent or ac2 itting the g ilt!. >he hornboo3 r le is that where there is reasonable do bt, the acc sed m st be ac2 itted. $t wo ld be far more acceptable to ac2 it the g ilt! erroneo sl! than to convict the innocent wrongl!. :hile it is tr e that it ma! be the sole basis for convicting the acc sed in a rape case, the complaining witnessL testimon! m st be credible. After a painsta3ing review of the records of the case, this Co rt finds several circ mstances creating reasonable do bt as to appellantLs g ilt. >hese are" H/I %?AAN $N F$A$NG ><? C.@PAA$N>, $n rape, the complainantLs dela!ed disclos re of the crime to 3ith or 3in or persons of a thorit! does not alwa!s warrant the concl sion that the woman was not se0 all! molested or that her charges against the acc sed are baseless and fabricated. <owever, the dela! m st be ade2 atel! and satisfactoril! e0plained4 otherwise, it wo ld generate do bt as to the g ilt of the acc sed. H-I FA$A;'? .F ><? P'.#?C;>$.N >. P'.C? APP?AAAN>L# @.'AA A#C?N%ANCN .C?' C.@PAA$NAN>, there is no proof be!ond reasonable do bt that it was his moral ascendanc! that prevented her from p tting p a resistance. Pres mptions of moral ascendanc! cannot and sho ld not prevail over the constit tional pres mption of innocence. H9I lac3 of s pport from the records of C$.A?N> #?B;AA $N>?'C.;'#? between appellant and complainant, the healed lacerations fo nd in complainantLs h!men were not proven to have been ca sed b! rapes that s pposedl! happened two !ears earlier. # ch lacerations ma! simpl! mean that, depending on the changes observed in the affected tiss es, a period ranging from fo r da!s to one month passed from the time the! had been inflicted p to the time the! were e0amined, and H5I %$#C'?PANC$?# in the complainantLs testimon!, cast do bts on appellantLs g ilt. !me; For as held in previo s cases decided b! this Co rt, the absence of fresh lacerations does not prove that she was not raped. <!menal laceration is not an element of rape. Ai3ewise, healed lacerations do not negate rape. $n this case, the medical finding that complainant had a previo s laceration in her genitalia merel! corroborated complainantLs tr thf l admission that she had been se0 all! ab sed before. >his fact, however, has no pertinence to the present case, e0cept to demonstrate f rther the sad plight of a rape victim in o r societ!. !me; >hat complainant did not tter an! c rse against appellant d ring their confrontation is not proof of her consent to a vile act nor condonation of the ab serLs offense. Cictims react differentl! nder emotional stress especiall! after a tra matic e0perience. $n man! instances,

PP v. Earela, G' /57/69, 67, 8 ne 7, -++-.

PP v. Earo, G' /569-*, -), 8 ne 7, -++-.

PP v. Ea!len, G' /97-5-, April /), -++-.

PP v. Ea!len, G' /97-5-, April /), -++-.

rape victims simpl! s ffer in silence. !me; 3irginit% is not an element of rape; :hether the PP v. Eatoon, victim was a virgin or not at the time of the rape is s pra. irrelevant inasm ch as virginit! is not an element of rape. !me; Medi"!# e0!min!tion of the victim and medi"!# PP v. Celis, "ertifi"!te are merel! corroborative and not indispensable s pra. elements in rape. !me; Lust is not ! res)e"ter of time !nd )#!"e* $t is PP v. Eatoon, not impossible that rape ma! be committed even w1 the s pra. other members of the ho sehold present. !me; A st is no respecter of time and place4 it can be committed even in places where people congregate, in par3s, along the roadside, in school premises, in a ho se where there are other occ pants, in the same room where other members of the famil! are also sleeping, and even in places which to man! wo ld appear nli3el! or high ris3 ven es for its commission. PP v. AopeD, G' /5967(, April /*, -++-.

!me; Crime !g!inst Persons;; 'ape as amended b! PP the Anti,'ape Aaw of /))* H'A (979I M now a crime 8alos=os, against persons. An! p blic prosec tor, not necessaril! -++/. the victim or her parents, can prosec te the case. !me; As the alleged rape was committed in %ec. /))*, the law applicable to the case is 'A (979, otherwise 3nown as J>he Anti,'ape Aaw of /))*,K w1c too3 effect on -- .ct. /))* and not 'A *67) w1c too3 effect on %ec. 9/, /))9. !me; 5uiding Prin"i)#es in re-ie,ing>"onsidering e-iden"e in R!)e7 H/I an acc sation for rape can be made w1 facilit!, it is diffic lt for the person acc sed, tho gh innocent, to disprove it4H-I in view of the nat re of the crime where onl! two persons are s all! involved, the testimon! of the complainant m st be scr tiniDed w1 e0treme ca tion4 and H9I the evidence for the prosec tion m st stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the wea3ness of the evidence for the defense.

v.

PP v. As ncion, G' /96**), #ept. *, -++/. PP v. Narido, G' /9-+7(, .ct. /, /)))4 PP v. Clemente, G' /9+-+-, .ct. /9, /)))4 PP v. >abion, G' /9-*/7, .ct. -+, /)))4 PP v. Celis, G' /-79+*,+), .ct. -+, /)))4 PP v. #antiago, G' /-)99), %ec. -, /))). PP v. Narido, s pra4 PP v. >abion, s pra4 PP v. Celis, s pra. PP v. Nava, G' /9+7+), /-, 8 ne /), -+++4 PP v. Alvero, s pra.

!me; !me; >he application of this principle becomes more compelling when the c lprit is the father or a close relative of the victim.

!me; Precise time of commission is not an essential element of the crime. $ntimidation in rape incl des the moral 3ind of intimidation or coercion. $n incest o s rape, act al force and intimidation is not even necessar!. >he reason is that in rape committed b! a father against his own da ghter, the moral ascendanc! of the former over the latter s bstit tes for violence or intimidation.

!me; C!rn!# <no,#edge; ' pt re of the h!men is not essential nor it is an element of rape. Absence of h!menal lacerations is also not an indicia that rape has not been committed. !me; !me; Aac3 of lacerated wo nds does not negate se0 al interco rse. A freshl! bro3en h!men is not an essential element of rape. ?ven the fact that the h!men of the victim was still intact does not negate rape. As e0plained b! %r. @a0imo 'e!es, medico,legal officer of the NE$, there are h!mens that ma! admit witho t necessaril! prod cing laceration and there are h!mens that ma! admit in= ries that will prod ce s ch laceration. ?ven the presence or absence of spermatoDoa is immaterial in the prosec tion of a rape case. $t is well settled that penetration of the womanLs vagina, however slight, and not e=ac lation, constit tes rape. !me; !me; $t is well,settled that complete penetration of the penis into the vagina is not necessar! to convict for cons mmated rape since the slightest penetration of one into the other will s ffice, in People v. Camp han HG.'. No. /-)599, 9+ @arch -+++I, the Co rt clarified the legal concept involved in the term Ms#ightest )enetr!tionM where we set forth the criterion that there m st be s fficient and convincing proof of the penis indeed to ching at the ver! least the labias of the female organ.

PP v. Gilbero, G' /5-++7, 8an. -9, -++PP v. %!, G' //7-96,9*, 8an. -), -++-.

PP v. Q are, G' /5+*-), 9+, Feb. /7, -++-4 PP v. Cai&gat, G' /9*)69, Feb. 6, -++-.

!me; !me; $t is carnal 3nowledge, not pain, which is id. the element to cons mmate rape. :hile pain ma! be ded ced from the se0 al act whatever worth this inference ma! have, we certainl! cannot convict for rape b! pres ming carnal 3nowledge o t of pain. $t is tr l! a dangero s proposition to e2 ate the victimLs testimon! of pain with proof of carnal 3nowledge. >he peril lies in the absol te facilit! of man fact ring testimonies asserting pain. Pain is s b=ective and so eas! to feign. . r = rispr dence dictates positive proof of even the slightest penetration, more acc ratel!, the to ching of the labias b! the penis, before rape co ld be deemed cons mmated. >he distinction is critical no matter how despicable the deeds ma! be for pon it depends o r a thorit! in proper cases to ta3e oneLs life. !me; !me; ?ven if the attac3erLs penis merel! to ched id. the e0ternal portions of the female genitalia were made in the conte0t of the e0istence of an erectile penis capable of f ll penetration. >he ph!siologic impossibilit! of penetration absent an erection, complete or otherwise, cannot be gainsaid. $f beca se of the victimLs vigilant attempts at warding off her attac3erLs se0 al advances an acc sed is nable to completel! penetrate his victimLs vaginal orifice, a charge for rape nder e0isting = rispr dence can still be s stained. $f the penis were erect, f ll penetration wo ld have been accomplished were it not for the victimLs vigilance or the occ rrence of other circ mstances which might have fr strated the accomplishment of complete penetration. !me; !me; >he element of carnal 3nowledge does not id. establish itself b! pres mptions b t alwa!s the b rden lies with the #tate to prove this act positivel! and act all! to warrant the capital p nishment. >he prosec tion has the on's probandi of establishing the precise degree of c lpabilit! of the acc sed. $t m st demonstrate in s fficient

detail the manner b! which the crime was perpetrated. $n light of the categorical assertions of the victim that there was no penetration of her vagina and the concomitant ambivalence of these assertions as to the e0act degree of c lpabilit! of the acc sed, we hold that the prosec tion failed to discharge its b rden of proving carnal 3nowledge b! the acc sed of his da ghter @arilo . !me; !me; For rape to be cons mmated, f ll PP v. %!, G' penetration is not necessar!. Penile invasion necessaril! //7-96,9*, entails contact with the labia. $t s ffices that there is proof 8an. -), -++-. of the entrance of the male organ with the labia of the p dend m of the female organ. Penetration of the penis b! entr! into the lips of the vagina, even witho t r pt re or laceration of the h!men, is eno gh to = stif! a conviction for rape. >o repeat, the r pt re of the h!men or laceration of an! part of the womanLs genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape. !me; Resist!n"e; $n rape cases, the force applied need not be irresistible. $t merel! has to be eno gh to s ccessf ll! carr! o t the assailantLs carnal desire. $n the present case, appellant did appl! s fficient force and intimidation to cons mmate his l stf l desire. !me; !me; Absence of signs of e0ternal ph!sical in= ries does not signif! a lac3 of resistance on the part of the rape victim. 'esistance from the victim need not be carried to the point of inviting death or s staining P$ at the hands of the rapist. !me; !me; >he law does not imposed pon the rape victim the b rden of proving resistance where there is intimidation. im)#e R!)e; Use of For"e or Intimid!tion; 'esistance is not an element. $t is eno gh that there was intimidation b! the malefactor for the victims s bmission. Fail re to sho t or offer tenacio s resistance does not ma3e vol ntar! the complainants s bmission to the criminal act of the acc sed. !me; !me; Need not necessaril! be shown to be ob=ectivel! irresistible. 'ather, it m st be viewed from the victims perception that, nless she !ielded to the ravishers demand, some in= r! or evil wo ld befall on her d ring the commission of the offense or even thereafter. >he absence of an! e0ternal sign of in= r! does not necessaril! negate the occ rrence of rape, proof of in= r! not being an essential element of the crime. :hat is more important is that beca se of force or intimidation, the victim was made to s bmit to the will of appellant. !me; !me; >he test is whether the threat or intimidation prod ces a reasonable fear in the victim that she resists or does not !ield to the desires of the acc sed4 the threat wo ld be carried o t. >h s, if at the ver! first instance, the threat has alread! created a reasonable fear in the victim, then s ch threat need not contin e to e0ist ntil the rape has been cons mmated. $n this case, the mere fact that acc sed,appellant had a 3nife and pointed the same towards complainants nec3, co pled w1 the warning that she wo ld be 3illed if she ma3es noise, were eno gh to intimidate and threaten complainant to s bmit to acc sed, appellants bestial desires. PP v. Garchitorena, G' /9/97*, April /-, -+++. PP v. Celis, s pra.

PP <istorillo, s pra.

v.

PP v. Cergel, s pra4 PP v. Carata!, s pra.

PP v. Flores, G' /5/*(-, %ec. /5, -++/4 PP v. %iDon, G' /-)-96, .ct. /*, -++/4 PP v. Earbosa, G' /-6()), A g. -, -++/. PP v. Ag ero, G' /9)5/+, #ept. -+, -++/.

!me; !me; Force or intimidation itself is s fficient = stification for a womanLs fail re to offer resistance. $t is well settled that ph!sical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is e0ercised pon the victim and the latter s bmits herself against her will to the rapistLs advances beca se of fear for her life and personal safet!. >h s, the law does not impose a b rden on the rape victim to prove resistance. :hat needs onl! to be proved b! the prosec tion is the se of force or intimidation b! the acc sed in having se0 al interco rse with the victim. !me; !me; >he act of holding a 3nife b! itself is strongl! s ggestive of force or at least intimidation, and threatening the victim w1 a 3nife is s fficient to bring a woman to s bmission. $n this case, complainant was terrified beca se appellant po3ed his 3nife on her chest and threatened to 3ill her and her famil! in order to sate his l st. AppellantLs claim that force is negated b! the absence of e0ternal in= ries on the part of complainant lac3s logical basis and is bereft of merit. >hat appellant cons mmated the rape of complainant w1 the se of force and intimidation at the time, place, and manner detailed b! the prosec tion has been proved be!ond reasonable do bt.

PP v. @oreno, G' /5++99, 8an. -7, -++-4 PP v. 'odrig eD, G' /99)(5, 8an. 9+, -++-4 PP v. .llama, G' /99/(7, Feb. 6, -++-. PP v. Ea!len, G' /97-5-, April /), -++-.

!me; !me; Gang rape was not established d e to PP v. Castillo, ins fficient evidence to show that appellants emplo!ed G' /9/-++, force and intimidation, as averred in the information. Feb. /7, -++-. !me; !me; $t is not necessar! that the force or intimidation emplo!ed be so great or of s ch character as co ld not be resisted beca se all that is re2 ired is that it be s fficient to cons mmate the p rpose of the acc sed had in mind. !me; !me; >hreatening the victim w1 a 3nife of pointing a g n at her is s fficient intimidation. !me; !me; :ith the se of a 3nife or JEalisongK in raping a minor, the proper penalt! is %eath in view of Art. 997, 'PC, where rape is committed w1 the se of a deadl! weapon and aggravating circ mstance of minorit!. !me; !me; E! the se of Force, it is imperative pon the prosec tion to establish that the element of vol ntariness on the part of the victim be absol tel! lac3ing. :hile intimidation is ver! s b=ective and m st be viewed in the light of the victims perception and = dgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not b! an! hard and fast r le. !me; !me; $ntimidation m st be viewed in the light of the victims perception and = dgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not b! an! hard fast r le. $t is s fficient that the victim is intimidated b! the fear that, if she does not !ield to the bestial demands of the appellant, something will happen to her at that moment, or even after, as when she is threatened w1 death if she reports the incident. PP v. ParanDo, G' /+*(++, .ct. -6, /)))4 PP v. #antiago, s pra. PP v. Celis, s pra4 PP v. Cergel, s pra. PP v. ?sca&o, G' /5+-/(, -9, Feb. /9, -++-. PP v. Clemente, G' /9+-+-, .ct. /9, /))).

PP v. Francisco, G' /5/69/, April 5, -++9.

!me; e0u!# A$use "!nnot $e e;u!ted ,> R!)e; >he PP v. ?gan, se0 al ab se w1c acc sed,appellant forced pon Aenie G' /9)99(, constit tes the lewd design inherent in forcible abd ction @a! -(, -++-. and is th s absorbed therein. >he indecent molestation cannot form the other half of a comple0 crime since the record does not show that the principal p rpose of the acc sed was to commit an! of the crimes against chastit! and that her abd ction wo ld onl! be a necessar! means to commit the same. # rel! it wo ld not have been the case that acc sed,appellant wo ld to ch Aenie onl! once d ring her fo r H5I,month captivit!, as she herself admitted, if his chief or primordial intention had been to la! w1 her. $nstead, what we discern from the evidence is that the intent to sed ce the girl forms part and parcel of her forcible abd ction and shares e2 al importance w1 the other element of the crime w1c was to remove the victim from her home or from whatever familiar place she ma! be and to ta3e her to some other. #tated otherwise, the intention of acc sed,appellant as the evidence shows was not onl! to sed ce the victim b t also to separate her from her famil!, especiall! from her father Palmones, clearl! tell,tale signs of forcible abd ction. !me; !me; #e0 al ab se cannot be e2 ated with rape. $n the case at bar, there is no evidence of entrance or introd ction of the male organ into the labia of the p dend m. AenieLs testimon! did not establish that there was penetration b! the se0 organ of the acc sed or that he tried to penetrate her. >he doctor who e0amined AenieLs vagina on -( @a! /))* wo ld in fact admit pon 2 estioning of the trial = dge that "there was no interlabia contact." !me; Un"ons"ious; Acc sed,appellant was tried and charged on an information alleging rape of a woman who was Jasleep and nconscio s.K <e cannot be convicted of rape done b! intimidation as it wo ld violate his constit tional right Jto be informed of the nat re and ca se of the acc sation against him.K PP v. ?gan, G' /9)99(, @a! -(, -++-.

PP v. Abino, G' /9*-((, %ec. //, -++/.

!me; !me; Use of Drugs; >r e, there was no test PP v. %!, G' cond cted to determine the presence of an! sedative or //7-96,9*, dr g in the drin3s given to the victims which ca sed them 8an. -), -++-. to lose momentar! control of their fac lties. E t this is of little conse2 ence as the same is not an indispensable element in a prosec tion for rape. ;nder the circ mstances, it s ffices that the victim was fo nd to have been nconscio s at the time the offender had carnal 3nowledge of her. #ince complainant was dr gged, she was effectivel! deprived of reason if not effectivel! rendered nconscio s. ;nder Art. 997 of the 'PC, as amended b! 'A *67), rape is committed b! having carnal 3nowledge of a woman who is nconscio s. $n s ch a case, the fact of se0 al assa lt and the identit! of the assailant can be established from the events preceding or following the victimLs loss of conscio sness. !me; !me; !me; <ere, complainant was not totall! nconscio s b t was ph!sicall! helpless to resist or effectivel! comm nicate her ref sal to the lewd desires of acc sed,appellants. #he was aware of the fact of se0 al assa lt and the identit! of her assailants despite her patch! amnesia, disorientation and conf sion. $n People v. Aintag H/-6 #C'A 7// F/)(9GI, this Co rt held that" F$Gf the abilit! to resist is ta3en awa! b! administering dr gs, even id.

tho gh the woman ma! be conscio s, se0 al interco with her is rape. $f the womanLs will is affected b! anesthetic so that the connection is had witho t consent, tho gh she ma! be more or less conscio s, act will be rape.

rse the her the PP v. Narido, s pra4 PP v. >abion, s pra4 PP v. Celis, s pra. PP v. PereD, G' /5/65*, 7/, @arch 6, -++-. PP v. #aban, G' //+77), Nov. -5, /))).

!me; !me; :hen the rape victim sa!s she was defiled, she sa!s in effect all the necessar! to show that rape has been inflicted on her; #o long as the testimon! of the victim meets the test of credibilit!, the acc sed ma! be convicted on the basis thereof. !me; e0u!# Ass!u#t; Appellant committed rape nder Art. -66,A of the 'PC, as amended b! 'A (979 b! forcing the victim to lie face down and $N#?'>$NG his penis into her an s. !me; Cons)ir!"%; )ouses gui#t% of r!)e !g!inst the "om)#!in!nt; #e0 al relations are not a pi0!ish pla! for those co ples o tside the marriage bond. Neither one is allowed to bring in a third person = st to satisf! the insatiable greed of another. $t is well,settled that conspirac! e0ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. Normelita called 'olando H.l!, magh bo 3a na ng salawalI and pinned the complainantLs hands on the floor. #he was la ghing and la ghing while her h sband was perpetrating the act. A st is no respecter of time and place. ATTEMPTED RAPE; @ere epidermal contact between the penis and the e0ternal la!er of the victimLs vagina Hthe stro3ing or graDing of the male organ pon the female organ or the mons p bisI categoriDes the crime as attempted rape or acts of lascivio sness. @UALIFIED RAPE; Punish!$#e $% De!th; Minorit% !nd Re#!tionshi); ;nder #ect. // of 'A *67) H>he <eino s Crime Aaw or %eath Penalt! Aaw, w1c too3 effect on %ec. 9/, /))9I, as amended b! 'A (979 H the Anti,'ape Aaw, w1c too3 effect on .ct. --, /))*I, the imposition of the death penalt! becomes @AN%A>.'N4 F/G when the offended part! is nder /( !ears old HJ@$N.'$>NKI !nd F-G the offender is a parent, ascendant, step,father, g ardian, or relative b! consang init! or affinit! w1in the 9 rd civil degree, or the common,law spo se of the parent of the victim HJ'?AA>$.N#<$PKI. >o be properl! appreciated, the 2 alif!ing circ mstances of @$N.'$>N and '?AA>$.N#<$P m st be #P?C$F$CAAAN alleged and proved. !me; !me; !me; ;nder Art. 997 of the 'PC as amended b! #ec. // of 'A *67), imposing death penalt! in rape attended b! an! of the seven H*I special circ mstances en merated therein. >he sanction of a tomatic imposition of %eath parta3es of the nat re of 2 alif!ing circ mstances. >o be properl! appreciated, the! m st be specificall! pleaded and proved. !me; !me; !me; A single indivisible penalt! of death is imposed. >he * new attendant circ mstances parta3e the nat re of special 2 alif!ing circ mstances that m st be properl! pleaded. 'ape w1 se of deadl! weapon and rape of a minor b! a relative, as introd ced b! 'A *67) on 9/

PP v. Q are, G' /5+*-), 9+, Feb. /7, -++-. PP v. ?s reV5a, G' /5-*-*, 8an. -9, -++-4 PP v. AbaV5o, G' /5-*-(, 8an. -9, -++-4 PP v. Calindo, G' /5++-*, @arch /(, -++-.

PP v. Narido, s pra4 PP v. 'ivera, G' /9+6+*, Nov. /*, /)))4 PP v. Aasola, G' /-9/7-, Nov. /*, /))). PP v. de la Pe&a. G' /9(97(,7), Nov. /), -++/.

%ec. /))9, were both recogniDed as 2 alified rape in PP v. >ab goca. !me; )e"ifi" A##eg!tion; Minorit%; An information merel! stating that appellant had carnal 3nowledge of his minor da ghter, w1o stating the act al age of the latter, does not meet the re2 irement. @ ch less, for an information that did not allege minorit! at all. PP v. <ermanes, G' /9)5/6, @arch /-, -++-4 PP v. Cristobal, G' /55/6/, @arch /-, -++-. PP v. Eanig id, G' /9**/5, #ept. (, -+++.

!me; !me; !me; >he statement that the victim Jis the minor da ghterK of the offender is not eno gh. $t is essential that the information m st state the e0act age of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime. >he offenders admission that he is the victims father and that the latter was a minor nder /( !ears at the time of the commission of the rape cannot c re the defect of absence of allegation in the information. !me; !me; !me; >he victims testimon! as to her date of birth Hthat she was /5 !ears of ageI co pled w1 appellants admission as to said fact s fficientl! established her minorit!. <ence, a birth certificate or an! other official doc ment is no longer necessar! to establish the minorit! of the victim, since the same is admitted and ndisp ted b! the acc sed himself.

PP v. Ag stin, G' /977-5, -7, #ept. -5, -++/.

!me; !me; Re#!tionshi); >he fail re to allege the PP v. relationship of the acc sed to the victim constit tes a fatal 'odrig eD, defect. G' /9()(*, Feb. 6, -++-. !me; !me; !me; >he allegation that the rape victim is Jthe nieceK of the acc sed is not specific eno gh to satisf! the special 2 alif!ing circ mstance of relationship. $f the offender is merel! a relative M not a parent, ascendant, step,parent or g ardian or common law spo se of the mother of the victim M it m st be alleged in the information that he is Ja relative b! consang init! or affinit! Fas the case ma! beG w1in the 9rd civil degree. !me; !me; !me; An allegation that acc sed,appellant is the J ncleK of private complainant is not also s fficient. $t is necessar! to specificall! allege that s ch relationship b! affinit! or consang init! is w1in the 9rd civil degree. HPP v. Celas2 eD, G' /5-76/,6-, Feb. /7, -++- I. E t in this case, the Co rt r led that the information w1c reads ,K 0000 the acc sed, being the ncle of the 7,!ear old Charlaine,K passes the test of s fficienc! of the allegation and clearl! forewarns the acc sed that the circ mstances of minorit! and relationship attended the commission of the crime. !me; !me; !me; >he Co rt cannot rel! on the disp table pres mption that when a man and a woman live together as h sband and wife, the! are pres med to be married. 'elationship as a 2 alif!ing circ mstance in rape m st not onl! be alleged clearl!. $t m st also be proved be!ond reasonable do bt, = st as the crime itself. PP v. Ferolino,, G' /9/*9+,9/, April 7, -+++4 PP v. Alvero, s pra.

PP v. A2 ino, G' /5595+, 5-, A g. 6, -++-.

PP v. AlcoreDa, G' /9757-,79, .ct. 7, -++/.

!me; !me; !me; 'elationship was not established. PP v. :hile the information mentioned appellant as a Eartolome, JstepfatherK of the complainant, he was all ded to in the G' /9(967,

same doc ment as = st being the common,law h sband of the complainants mother. !me; !me; !me; >he trial co rt imposed the death penalt! beca se the victim, 8ovel!n Aistana, was onl! ten H/+I !ears old at the time of the commission of the offense and the offender is her stepparent. E t we m st stress that if this was the case, both circ mstances of the victimLs minorit! and her relationship w1 the acc sed sho ld have been alleged in the information, p rs ant to the 'evised ' les of Criminal Proced re, as 2 alif!ing circ mstances. <ere, the information failed to mention the step, relationship between appellant and the victim, i.e. that of stepfather and stepda ghter. Following People vs. 7alacano FG.'. No. /-*/76, 996 #C'A 6/7, 69+ H-+++IG, fail re to allege the relationship of step,parentage necessaril! e0cl des the offense from the coverage of '.A. No. *67). @oreover, we find that appellantLs live,in partner, 8osephine, was onl! the victimLs a nt and not her real mother. Given these premises, legall! spea3ing, the victim co ld not claim that appellant is her step,father. $t follows that appellant co ld not be declared g ilt! of 2 alified rape b t onl! of stat tor! rape p nishable b! recl sion perpet a nder Art. 997 of the 'PC. !me; C#e!r#% Pro-ed; Minorit%; 8 dicial Notice ma! be ta3en when the victim is /+ !ears old or below. <ence, there is no more need fort he prosec tion to present the certificate of live birth or other e2 all! acceptable official doc ment to prove the victims age.

April -++-.

/6,

PP v. CAna, G' /9)--), April --, -++-.

PP v. 'ivera, G' /9)/(+, 8 l! 9/, -++/4 PP v. Calindo, G' /5++-*, @arch /(, -++-4 PP v. Aba&o, G' /5-*-(, 8an. -9, -++-. PP v. Q eDada, G' /977*,7(, 8an. 9+, -++-4 PP v. 'odrig eD, G' /99)(5, 8an. 9+, -++-. PP v. ?s re&a, G' /5-*-*, 8an. -9, -++-.

!me; !me; !me; :hen the alleged age of the victim at the time of the se0 al assa lt is between /9 and /( !ears, neither her bare testimon! nor that of her mother wo ld s ffice to prove her age and conse2 entl! 2 alif! the crime to = stif! the imposition of the death penalt!. >his is beca se in this era of modernism and rapid growth, the victims mere ph!sical appearance is not eno gh to ga ge her e0act age. !me; !me; !me; >he birth certificate of the victim or, in lie thereof, an! other doc mentar! evidence that can help establish the age of the victim sho ld be presented. $n this case, no evidence was presented to show the victims age, save for her own testimon!. :hile the testimon! of aperson as to her age, altho gh hearsa!, is admissible as evidence of famil! tradition, it cannot be considered proof be!ond reasonable do bt of minorit!.

!me; !me; !me; Altho gh the onl! evidence PP v. Alanita, presented b! the prosec tion to establish that the victim G' /95/+/, was below * !ears old at the time of the commission of the #ept. 7, -++/. rape was her own testimon!, there is no reason to do bt the s fficienc! of the said evidence. <er testimon! as to her age was never 2 estioned b! the acc sed,appellant in the lower co rt and remained nreb tted at the trial. # ch testimon! regarding her age, altho gh hearsa!, is admissible nder #ec. 5+ HFamil! rep tation or tradition regarding pedigreeI of ' le /9+ of the 'evised ' les on ?vidence.

!me; !me; !me; >he minorit! of the victims was proven b! the testimon! of their mother that was never challenged b! the acc sed. <owever, in a separate opinion, it was stressed that recent r lings of the Co rt relative to the rape of minors re2 ire ind bitable proof of age of the victim. >here m st be independent evidence proving the age of the victim Hespeciall! if s ch age is onl! a few !ears from ma=orit! age of /(I, other than the latters testimon! or even that of her mother or the absence of denial b! the acc sed. !me; !me; !me; :here the minorit! of the private complainant was not s fficientl! established. >he photocop! of private complainants birth certificate incl ded in the records of the case was not d l! certified nor formall! offered in evidence. >herefore, no probative val e can be given to it. Neither wo ld appellants admission of his relationship w1 his victims s ffice. !me; !me; !me; <owever, in other cases, the Co rt held that >here m st be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of the prosec tion witnesses and the absence of denial b! the acc sed.

PP v. %e la Cr D, G' /9//6*,6(, A g. -9, -+++.

PP v. >abangga!, G' /9+7+5, 8 ne -), -+++.

PP v. Eation, G' /95*6), */, .ct. /-, -++/4 PP v. GalveD, s pra4 PP v. Agravante, G' /9*-)* P /9(75*,5(, dec. //, -++/ 4 PP v. Eani2 ed, G' /9+679 P /9)9(5, %ec. //, -++/.

!me; !me; !me; $n this case, the minorit! of the PP v. complainant was the s b=ect of the parties stip lation of Agravante, facts. <owever, s ch stip lation was not signed b! s pra. acc sed,appellant M a mandator! re2mt. in ' le //(, #ec. - of the 'evised ' les of Criminal Proced re. !me; !me; Re#!tionshi); >he bare statement in passing of the victim that appellant Jis an ncle,K w1o an! corroborating testimonial or doc mentar! evidence to clearl! establish that relationship, wo ld be ins fficient. !me; !me; !me; >he relationship of JstepfatherK and Jstepda ghterK alleged in the information was not established as the appellant and the victims mother were onl! common,law spo ses. PP v. Capli, G' /5-*5*, @arch /-, -++-. PP v. ?s ela, G' /9(*-+, -/, @arch /), -++-.

!me; !me; !me; or where the prosec tion failed to PP v. Calindo, prove that appellant and the victims mother were married. G' /5++-*, @arch /(, -++!me; !me; !me; >he relationship of stepda ghter and stepfather pres pposes a legitimate relationship bet. >he victims mother and the offender, i.e. the! were married after the marriage of the victims mother to her father was dissolved. A stepda ghter is the da ghter of ones wife or h sband b! a former marriage, or a stepfather is the h sband of ones mother b! virt e of a marriage s bse2 ent to that of w1c the person spo3en of PP v. @elendres, G' /99))), 5++/, A g. 9/, -+++.

its offspring. !me; Both Minorit% !nd Re#!tionshi) must $e )ro)er#% P#e!ded !nd Pro-ed4 :hen either one of the said circ mstances of minorit! and relationship is omitted or lac3ing, that w1c is pleaded in the information and proven b! the evidence, ma! be considered as generic aggravating circ mstance. !me; !me; %eath was not imposed and considered onl! as simple rape p nishable b! recl'sion perpet'a, on ff. cases" H/I where age of the victim was not alleged in the information HPP v. >abionI4 H-I altho gh minorit! was alleged in the information, the fact of her relationship w1 the offender was not alleged therein, even tho gh the same was proven d ring trial HPP v. Narido4 PP v. 'amon, G' /9+5+*, %ec. /7, /)))4 H9I where complainants minorit! and relationship to the offender were not alleged in the information HPP v. Pani2 e4 H5I where the information alleged the acc sed to be her Jstep,fatherK b t act all!, the acc sed is merel! the common,law spo se of the complainants mother. 'elationship of stepfather pres pposes a legitimate relationship. HPP v. >orio, G' /9--/6 P /995*), Nov. /*, /))). !me; !me; 2 alified rape was not established where the information alleged that the victim is the da ghter of the appellant b t failed to allege that the victim is nder /( !ears old. !me; !me; Not li3ewise established where d ring trial, the age of the victim and her relationship w1 the acc sed, appellant were s fficientl! established b t the indictment on w1c the acc sed,appellant was arraigned failed to allege the same. PP v. Arillas, G' /9+7)9, 8 ne /), -+++. PP v. Nava, G' /9+7+), /-, 8 ne /), -+++ 4 PP v. <istorillo, G' /9+5+(, 8 ne /6, -+++ 4 PP v. @amac, G' /9+99-, @a! 9/, -+++. PP v. Gianan, G' /97-((, )9, #ept. /7, -+++. PP v. #alalima, G' /9*)6),*/, A g. /7, -++/. PP v. ?sca&o, G' /5+-/(, -9, Feb. /9, -++-.

!me; !me; $n #everal cases, 2 alified rape was not established and the imposition of the death penalt! was not s stained, as both of the 2 alif!ing circ mstances of minorit! of the victim and her relationship to the offender were not alleged in the information. !me; !me; >he circ mstances nder #ec. // of 'A *67) that" FiG the victim is nder /( !ears of age HJminorit!KI4 and FiiG the offender is a parent, ascendant, step,parent, g ardian, relative b! consang init! or affinit! w1in the 9rd civil degree, or the common,law spo se of the parent of the victim, HJrelationshipKI M m st be ta3en together and constit te onl! one special 2 alif!ing circ mstance. Eoth m st be alleged in the complaint or information and d l! proved b! the 2 ant m of proof in criminal cases to = stif! the imposition of the mandator! death penalt!. !me; !me; $n a criminal prosec tion especiall! of cases involving the e0treme penalt! of death, nothing b t proof be!ond reasonable do bt of ever! fact necessar! to constit te the crime w1 w1c an acc sed is charged m st be established b! the prosec tion in order for said penalt! to be pheld. >he victimLs minorit! and her relationship to the

PP v. @arcelo, G' /-679(,9), Nov. -+, -++/.

offender have been alleged. E t the fact of his being the father of @ariedel has not been s fficientl! established b! competent and independent evidence. For the imposition of capital p nishment, we cannot rel! on the silence of appellant regarding this point. >he fo rth 2 alif!ing circ mstance of #ection // of '.A. *67) was not either proved ade2 atel!. >his circ mstance re2 ires that the victim m st be below seven !ears old. @ariedel was allowed to sit beside @ar! C!ndel while the latter testified, apparentl! to impress on the co rt b! their !o thf l appearances that the sisters were minors and below seven !ears old. E t @ariedel was not presented so that her age co ld be of = dicial notice. Nor was there an! admission b! the defense of her age, m ch less a hearing e0pressl! on the point of her age being below seven !ears. >he fail re of the prosec tion to present @ariedelLs birth certificate witho t credible e0planation leads to do bt, if not to an adverse concl sion. :e m st stress that here what is re2 ired to 2 alif! the penalt! to death is definite, independent, and ind bitable proof that @ariedel was below seven !ears old at the time of her rape, conformabl! with the fo rth circ mstance of #ection //, '.A. *67). >o p t a man to death based on implications and ass mptions, or on his silence regarding allegations against him, co ld be the height of in= stice. !me; !me; >he acc sed himself in his testimon! in co rt admitted that the victim is his da ghter, and that she is ( !ears old. <owever, in light of the more stringent re#uirement prono nced in the 2abanggay case, the Co rt r led that it co ld not simpl! rel! on the admission of the acc sed nor on the victims testimon!. >he testimon! of the mother or victims Certificate of Aive Eirth Has in this case the mother wished to have the case dismissed and did not testif!I, wo ld have met the stringent re2mt. and proof be!ond reasonable do bt. !me; !me; >he prosec tion failed to prove the victims age when it presented onl! the baptismal certificate of the victim and not her birth certificate. $t is elementar! that a baptismal certificate onl! proves the fact of baptism b t not the circ mstances of birth. !me; Use of De!d#% =e!)on; 'ape with the se of a deadl! weapon was introd ced in Art. 997 b! 'A 5/// on 8 ne -+, /)65, and the rape of a minor b! a relative was introd ced b! 'A *67) on %ec. 9/, /))9. Eoth t!pes of rape were recogniDed as 2 alified rape in People v. >ab goca. ;nder Article 997 of the 'PC, simple rape is p nishable b! recl sion perpet a. :hen the rape is committed with the se of a deadl! weapon, i.e., when a deadl! weapon is sed to ma3e the victim s bmit to the will of the offender, the penalt! is recl sion perpet a to death. >his circ mstance m st however be alleged in the information beca se it is also in the nat re of a 2 alif!ing circ mstance which increases the range of the penalt! to incl de death. >herefore, even if the same was proved, it cannot be appreciated as a 2 alif!ing circ mstance. >he same can onl! be treated as a generic aggravating circ mstance, which cannot affect the penalt! to be imposed, i.e., recl sion perpet a. !me; !me; Not established as J se of a g n in committing the rapeK was not alleged in the information. >he crime of rape w1 the se of a deadl! weapon ma! be PP v. As ncion, G' /96**), #ept. *, -++/.

PP v. Eernabe, G' /5/((/, Nov. -/, -++/. PP v. %e la Pe&a, G' /9(97(,7), Nov. /), -++/.

PP v. 'o=as, G' /-7-)-, April /-,

penaliDed onl! w1 recl sion perpet a, not death.

-+++.

!me; !me; ;se of sc!the to intimidate the rape victim M PP v. A stria, considered as aggravating circ mstance of Jdeadl! G' /-979), weaponK. 8 ne -*, -+++4 PP v. @amac, G' /9+99-, @a! 9/, -+++. !me; !me; Appellant cannot be convicted of rape 2 alified b! the se of a deadl! weapon. >he records and the complainants own categorical statement nder 2 estioning indicate that appellant had merel! 3ept the bolo b! his side and held it onl! when he ndressed himself M nat rall!, so that he co ld removed it fro his bod!. J:hat can 2 alif! the offense nder 'A *67) so as to warrant the imposition of the death penalt! wo ld be when the rape is committed w1 the se of a deadl! weapon and not = st the overt act of being armed w1 a weapon.K !me; !me; :here rape was committed, as alleged and proven, w1 the se of a deadl! weapon and b! two or more persons, it is held to be 2 alified rape Hd e to the se of s ch weaponI w1 aggravating circ mstance of s perior strength Hthere being two rapists acting in concertI. !me; In FULL 3IE= of the )ouse/ P!rent/ !nd>or !n% of the Chi#dren/ or Re#!ti-es ,>in the .rd Ci-i# Degree of Cons!nguinit% of the 3i"tim; >he circ mstance Jcommitted in f ll view W.K $s a 2 alif!ing circ mstance. Altho gh proved, it was not alleged in the information. As s ch, it cannot be appreciated to warrant the imposition of the death penalt!. !me; !me; Not established, beca se this 2 alif!ing circ mstance was not pleaded in the information or in the complaint against the acc sed. !me; !me; >he circ mstances that the rape was committed in f ll view of the son of the victim was not alleged in the information. <ence, even if proved, will not affect the imposable penalt!. !me; R!)e 3i"tim is Be#o, e-en &B( Ye!rs O#d; #ince it was clearl! established that @aria Ao rdes was onl! si0 !ears old when she was raped and 3illed b! the acc sed,appellant, the proper imposable penalt! is death p rs ant to #ection 997, No. 9 of the 'PC, as amended b! 'A *67), in relation to Art. -5) of the 'PC. !me; Art. -66,E, par. No. 7 of the 'PC, imposes death penalt! when the victim is a child below seven H*I !ears old. >he allegation in the information specificall! stated that ". . . the victim . . . is onl! seven !ears old" which clearl! r les o t the application of this specific provision that can = stif! the imposition of the capital p nishment. Par. No. / of the same article which warrants the imposition of the death penalt! if the crime of rape is committed where the victim is nder eighteen H/(I !ears of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step,parent, g ardian, relative b! consang init! or affinit! within the third civil degree, or the common,law spo se of the parent of the victim, . will not appl! for while the victim is nder PP v. @endoDa, G' /9-)-9,-5, 8 ne 6, -++-.

PP v. Earo!, G' /9*7-+, --, @a! ), -++-. PP v. ?s re&a, G' /5-*-*, 8an. -9, -++-.

PP v. Ca=ara, G' /--5)(, #ept. -*, -+++. PP v. Eal !a, G' /9-++7, April //, -++-. PP v. Feli0minia, G' /-7999, @arch -+, -++-. PP v. Earing, G' /9*)99, 8an. -(, -++-.

eighteen H/(I !ears old, the acc sed,appellant is not the common,law h sband of the victimLs mother. >h s, acc sed,appellant ma! onl! be sentenced to s ffer the penalt! of recl'sion perpet'a. TATUTORY RAPE; 'ape of a woman below /- !ears old. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is absol tel! nnecessar!, not onl! beca se force is not an element of stat tor! rape, b t the absence of consent is Jconcl sivel! pres medK when the woman is below /- !ears. PP v. Castillo, G' /9+-+7, 8 l! 7, -+++4 PP v. Pala&a, G' /-5+79, @arch -+, -++-4 PP v. #omodio, G' /95/9),5+, Feb. /7, -++PP v. Apostol, s pra4 PP v. Garigadi, G' //+///, .ct. -6, /)))4 PP v. Ea!gar, G' /9--9(, Nov. /*, /))). PP v. Aba&o, G' /5-*-(, 8an. -9, -++PP v. Gopio, G' /99)-7, Nov. -), -+++ PP v. 8alos=os, s pra4 PP v. Earbosa, s pra 4 PP v. <amto, G' /-(/9*, A g. -, -++/. PP v. ?stopito, G' /96/55, 8an. /7, -++-. PP v. Aibeta, G' /9)-9/, April /-, -++-.

!me; E#ements7 H/I the offender has carnal 3nowledge of a woman4 H-I the woman is nder /- !ears old. $t is not necessar! that the victim was intimidated or force sed against her beca se in stat tor! rape, the law P'?#;@?# the victim, on acco nt of her tender age, does not and cannot have a will of her own.

!me; :hen the victim is nder /- !ears old, CA'NAA ON.:A?%G? AA.N? is rape. !me; >he !ge of the -i"tim, being an essential element of the offense, m st n2 estionabl! be proved b! the prosec tion. !me; #ec. // of 'A *67), amending Art. 997 H9I, 'PC. Carnal Onowledge of a child below /- !ears old, even if she is engaged in prostit tion. >he application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. >he absence of str ggle or o tcr! of the victim becomes her passive s bmission to the se0 al act will not mitigate nor absolve the acc sed from liabilit!. !me; $n this case, the acc sed,appellant was not convicted of stat tor! rape, even as the prosec tion proved the victim was onl! // !ears old at the time the crime was committed, beca se the information e0plicitl! alleged that the complainant was a J/-,!ear old minor.K !me; :hat is decisive in a rape charge is the complainantLs positive identification of the acc sed as a malefactor. :hen the complainant in a rape case testifies credibl! that she has been raped, she sa!s in effect all that is necessar! to show rape has been committed. #o long as her testimon! meets the test of credibilit!, the acc sed ma! be convicted on the sole basis thereof. $t is highl! inconceivable that a !o ng girl of eleven !ears wo ld concoct a stor! of defloration, allow an e0amination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself b! being s b=ect to a p blic trial, if she was not motivated solel! b! the desire to obtain = stice for the wrong committed against her. Certainl! the victim wo ld not ma3e p blic the offense, ndergo the h miliation of a p blic trial if she had not in fact been raped.

R!)e Committed $% T,o or More Persons 4 ;nder o r PP v. 8 areD,

penal law, whenever the crime of rape is committed b! two or more persons, the penalt! shall be recl'sion perpet'a to death, a penalt! composed of two indivisible penalties. >here being no mitigating nor aggravating circ mstances in the commission of the crime, in the case at bar, the lesser penalt! of recl'sion perpet'a is imposed pon acc sed,appellant. R!)e is Aggr!-!ted $%7 F/G the alternative circ mstance of relationship Hvictim being the da ghter of the offenderI d l! provenHPP v. Navida, G' /9--9), %ec. 5, -+++I4 or F-G nighttime and ignomin! HPP v. E midang, G' /9+69+, %ec. 5, -+++I for w1c the death penalt! is imposed. DEFEN E IN RAPE; that the complaint was prompted $% re-enge, resentment, h!tred or f!mi#% feud cannot prevail over the credence of the testimon! of a minor. !me; 8 ,eethe!rt Defense9 cannot be s stained in stat tor! rape. :hat is material is not the victims consent b t the fact that the victim was below /- !ears old when it happened.

G' /-(/7(, #ept. *, -+++ 4 PP v. Alarcon, G' /99/)/,)9, 8 l! //, -+++.

PP v. Eatoon, s pra4 PP v. >abion, s pra. PP v. Apostol, s pra.

!me; #weetheart %efense sho ld be s bstantiated b! PP v. some doc mentar! and1or other evidence of the #abredo, G' relationship. /-6//5, @a! //, -+++4 PP v. %re , G' /-6-(-, 8 ne -+, -+++. !me; <ere, the elopement of a thirteen,!ear old with her nineteen,!ear old second co sin no do bt ca sed 2 ite a tempest in the otherwise serene comm nit! of Cintar, $locos Norte. >hat complainantLs parents were against their relationship, as evidenced in one of her letters, ma3es it more li3el! that the charges of rape were instigated to salvage the complainantLs and her famil!Ls honor. <ence, the sweetheart defense is pheld. !me; >he sweetheart theor! is re=ected especiall! in this case, where private complainant and appellant were both married. No independent evidence s ch as love letters, mementos or pict res was ever presented to prove his alleged relationship w1 private complainant. >he affirmative defense of A.C? AFFA$'# needs to be s pported b! s bstantial evidence other than the bare assertions of appellant. !me; Im)oten"e; >here is no Jpres mption of impotenceK in favor of the acc sed,appellant who was alread! (- !ears old when the alleged rape was committed. >he pres mption has alwa!s been in favor of potenc!. $n rape cases, impotence as a defense m st be proven w1 certaint! to overcome the pres mption in favor of potenc!. PP v. aggressor, G' //)(9*, 9), %ec. ), /))).

PP v. Francisco, G' /5/69/, April 5, -++-.

PP v. A stria, G' /-979), 8 ne -*, -+++.

!me; O#d !ge and Effe"t of O)er!tion tending to show PP v. A stre, acc sed as se0 all! in tile M not given credence. G' /9576-, April 6, -+++. !me; Offer of m!rri!ge as a r le in rape cases is an admission of g ilt. PP v. %re , -+++. v.

!me; >he !$sen"e of s)erm in the -!gin!# !re! is a People

good defense in a rape case.

Ealora, #C'A F-+++G.

995+9

!me; A#i$i; Alibi, the plea of having been somewhere other than at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission, is a pla sible e0c se for the acc sed. Contrar! to the common notion, alibi is not alwa!s a wea3 defense. #ometimes, the fact that the acc sed was somewhere else ma! = st be the plain and nvarnished tr th. E t to be valid for p rposes of e0oneration from a criminal charge, the defense of alibi m st be so airtight that it wo ld admit of no e0ception. >he r le is well,settled that in order for it to prosper, it m st be demonstrated that the person charged w1 the crime was not onl! somewhere else when the offense was committed, b t was so far awa! that it wo ld have been ph!sicall! impossible to have been at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinit! at the time of its commission. >he reason is that no person can be in two places at the same time. E-iden"e; Birth "ertifi"!te is the $est e-iden"e of ! )ersonNs d!te of $irth* $ts evidentiar! val e is not affected b! late registration. !me; ?ven ass ming the absence of a valid birth certificate, the victims age ma! be s fficientl! established b! her baptismal certificate. And, even ass ming that her baptismal certificate is li3ewise inadmissible to prove her age, the @aster Aist of Aive Eirths and the Cord %ressing Eoo3 of the <ospital where the victim was born are s fficient evidence to prove her date of birth. INCE TUOU RAPE; Committed $efore the Effe"ti-it% of RA BJGK; At the time of the commission of the offense on ( #eptember /))+ the law applicable was Art. 997 of the 'PC nder w1c this case was considered simple rape and the penalt! was recl'sion perpet'a. >he nat re of the offense and the penalt! attached thereto was not amended ntil 9/ %ecember /))9 when 'A *67) too3 effect. Conse2 entl!, the offense charged sho ld onl! be H/I co nt of simple rape instead of H7I co nts of rape and imposing the penalt! of recl'sion perpet'a for the said offense. 'A *67) cannot be applied to the instant case since it too3 effect long after the perpetration of the crime of which acc sed,appellant was convicted. HNote" Eefore 'A *67), all other rapes are AE#.'E?% and cannot be #?PA'A>?% individ all!.I !me; Minor; Proof of force or violence is not essential. @oral ascendanc! or parental a thorit! of the acc sed over the complainant ta3es the place of violence.

PP v. Earo, G' /569-*, -), 8 ne 7, -++-.

PP v. Apostol, s pra. PP 8alos=os, s pra. v.

PP v. G iwan, G' //*9-5, April -*, -+++.

PP v. Pani2 e, G' /-7*69, .ct. /9, /)))4 PP v. >abion, s pra.

!me; Not est!$#ished; $n incest o s rape cases, the PP v. Ch a, victimLs lac3 of resistance has been e0plained as a prod ct G' /9*(5/, of the moral ascendanc! parents e0ercise over their .ct. /, -++/. children. E t incest, no matter how despicable, hatef l and revolting it is both to the victim and societ!, is not a crime in o r stat te boo3s. >here is no law that specificall! defines and penaliDes incest. Pres mptions of moral ascendanc! cannot and sho ld not prevail over the constit tional pres mption of innocence. Force or

intimidation is an element of the crime of rape. >here m st, therefore, be proof be!ond reasonable do bt that the victim did not resist her defloration d e to the moral ascendanc! of the acc sed. !me; Ag!inst ! P!r!)#egi" ,hose mo$i#it% is #imited to "r!,#ing* $n a prosec tion for rape, the complainantLs credibilit! becomes the single most important iss e. $f her testimon! meets the test of credibilit!, the acc sed ma! be convicted on the basis thereof HPeople vs. Cragto, -79 #C'A 577 F/))6GI. ?ven in the absence of corroborative testimon! of other witnesses, the categorical and candid testimon! of the complainant s ffices as rape is s all! committed in a place where onl! the aggressor and the victim are present HPeople vs. dela Cr D, -*6 #C'A F//)*GI. RAPE OF A MENTAL RETARDATE; $n a prosec tion for rape the complainantLs credibilit! becomes the most important iss e since her testimon! alone is s fficient for a verdict of conviction. $n light of her mental state, E?>>NLs simple narration of what transpired was indicative of her honest! and naivetX. % ring a rigoro s cross,e0amination, she remained steadfast in her acco nt. Aapses in her acco nt were limited to the e0act date of the rape and the d ration of cop lation. Ceril!, these considerations are insignificant to cast do bt on her credibilit!. @inor lapses strengthen, rather than wea3en, the credibilit! of the witness for the! indicate spontaneit! and lac3 of reflection. PP v. Aacaba, G' /9+7)/, Nov. /*, /))).

PP v. Antolin, G' /99((+, April -*, -+++4 Pp v. Eabera, G' /9+6+), @a! 9+, -+++.

!me; >he victim co ld not have consented to engage in PP v. Glabo, se0 al interco rse with acc sed,appellant. <er condition G' /-)-5(, falls nder the definition of a person "deprived of reason." %ec. *, -++/. >hese incl de those s ffering from mental abnormalit! or deficienc!4 or some form of mental retardation4 the feeble minded b t coherent4 or even those s ffering from mental abnormalit! or deficienc! of reason. @entall! deficient persons generall! share certain social behavior characteristics that ndermine their abilit! to give statements vol ntaril!, 3nowingl! and intelligentl! S the! "ma! be v lnerable to e0ploitation b! others." :here the rape victim is feeble,minded, even if there ma! have been no ph!sical force emplo!ed on her, there is a thorit! to the effect that the force re2 ired b! law is the se0 al act itself. R!)e A not est!$#ished; $n rape cases, the following g idelines and principles are well,entrenched" H/I an acc sation for rape can be made with facilit!, it is diffic lt to prove b t more diffic lt for the person acc sed, tho gh innocent, to disprove it4 H-I in view of the intrinsic nat re of the crime of rape where two persons are s all! involved, the testimon! of the complainant m st be scr tiniDed with e0treme ca tion4 and H9I the evidence for the prosec tion m st stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the wea3ness of the evidence for the defense. :hile the version of the defense is not entirel! satisfactor!, as in an! criminal prosec tion, conviction m st rest on proof be!ond reasonable do bt. >he #tate m st rel! on the strength of its own evidence and not on the wea3ness of the evidence of the defense. $n the case at bar, the prosec tion failed to meet the standard necessar! to sec re conviction. :ell,settled is the r le that in the crime of rape alleged to have been committed b! force, it is imperative for the prosec tion to establish that the element of vol ntariness on the part of the victim be PP v. @oreno, G' //7/)/, %ec. -/, /)))4 PP v. :ilson, G' /97)/7, %ec. -/, /)))4 PP v. Clemente, s pra.

absol tel! lac3ing. .therwise stated, the prosec tion m st prove that force or intimidation was act all! emplo!ed b! the acc sed,appellant pon his victim to achieve his end. Fail re to do so is fatal to its ca se. Private complainantLs act ation before, d ring and after the alleged rape fails to convince s that the se0 al interco rse was tr l! against her will. First, when acc sed,appellant allegedl! held her and pointed a bolo against her bod! witho t an! verbal threat from the acc sed,appellant to hold her silence, she did not even tr! to ma3e an o tcr! or otherwise vigoro sl! resist the acc sed,appellant, even while she was being carried to the ma3eshift bed HpapagI. :hen she was held b! the acc sed,appellant, all she did was to twist her bod! from right to left. :hile the acc sed was on top of her, she li3ewise merel! twisted her bod! from right to left. :e have previo sl! r led that "FtGhe test of s fficienc! of force or intimidation in the crime of rape nder Art. 997 of the 'evised Penal Code, is whether it prod ces a reasonable fear in the victim that if she resists or does not !ield to the bestial demands of the acc sed, that which the latter threatened to do wo ld happen to her or to those dear to her. Private complainantLs cond ct failed to convince s that the "force or intimidation" allegedl! emplo!ed b! acc sed,appellant prod ced s ch a reasonable fear in private complainant. >he Co rt cannot bring itself to believe that there was force or intimidation of s ch character as to render private complainant helpless to resist the assa lt against her virt e. !me; GeneraliDed testimon! of the victim and lac3 of specific details on how each of the alleged rapes was committed. !me; Complainants cond ct in the witness stand did not evince tr thf lness. <esitance on the ver! meat of her case and mere parroting of her sworn statement. !me; @oral ascendanc! or infl ence was negated b! proof of complainants notorio sl! defiant and recalcitrant behavior towards him. !me; !me; Art. 997 of the 'PC as amended b! 'A *67), provides that when b! reason or on occasion of the rape of a woman nder /- !ears of age, a homicide is committed, the penalt! shall be death. PP v. %e Aeon, G' /9+)(7, %ec. 9, /))). PP v. Ag inaldo, G' /9+*(5, .ct /9, /))). PP v. Ag inaldo, G' /9+*(5, .ct /9, /))). PP v. <ermoso, G' /9+7)+, .ct. /(, -+++.

!me; !me; Eeca se of the finding of conspirac!, the PP v. imposition of two death penalties pon each of the > angco, G' acc sed,appellants is correct. /9+99/, Nov. --, -+++. !me; !me; Eoth the rape and the <omicide m st be PP v. Nanas, established be!ond reasonable do bt. $n these cases, the G' /9*-)), element of rape was not established. A g, -/, -++/4 PP v. Plana, G' /-(-(7, Nov. -*, -++/. ATTEMPTED RAPE; $n People vs. Ca1p'8an, F9-) #C'A PP v. -*+ H-+++IG the Co rt clarified that mere to ching of the AlcoreDa, G' private organ of the victim sho ld be nderstood "as /9757-,79,

inherentl! part of the entr! of the penis into the labias of .ct. 7, -++/. the female organ and not mere to ching alone of the mons p bis or p dend m. . . . >h s, to ching when applied to rape cases does not simpl! mean mere epidermal contact, stro3ing or graDing of organs, a slight br sh or a scrape of the penis on the e0ternal la!er of the victimLs vagina, or the mons p bis . . . . >here m st be s fficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed to ched the labias or slid into the female organ and not merel! stro3ed the e0ternal s rface thereof for an acc sed to be convicted of cons mmated rape. As the labias are re2 ired to be "to ched" b! the penis, which are b! their nat ral sit s or location beneath the mons p bis or the vaginal s rface, to to ch with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the s rface, hence the concl sion that to ching the labia ma=ora or minora of the p dend m constit tes cons mmated rape." Appl!ing the foregoing = rispr dence and ta3ing into acco nt Article 6 of the 'evised Penal Code, /( the appellant can onl! be convicted of attempted rape. <e commenced the commission of rape b! removing his clothes, ndressing and 3issing his victim and l!ing on top of her. <owever, he failed to perform all the acts of e0ec tion which sho ld prod ce the crime of rape b! reason of a ca se other than his own spontaneo s desistance, i.e., b! the timel! arrival of the victimLs brother. >h s, his penis merel! to ched @ar! 8o!Ls private organ. !me; !me; $t is tr l! a dangero s proposition to e2 ate the victimLs testimon! of pain with proof of carnal 3nowledge. >he peril lies in the absol te facilit! of man fact ring testimonies asserting pain. :ith malice towards none of the parties or their respective co nsel in this case, law!ers can easil! coach victims to tter "$ felt pain" to sec re the conviction of the acc sed. "Pain" is s b=ective and so eas! to feign, nless the specific ca se is pinpointed which in the case of rape sho ld be an insertion of the penis into the vagina. >o insist on this inference of carnal 3nowledge on the strength solel! of "pain" in the vagina effectivel! emasc lates the critical distinction between cons mmated and attempted rape that we laid down in People vs. Camp han /6 that the to ching of the female organ to constit te cons mmated rape sho ld be constr ed in relation to the entr! b! the penis, however slight, into the labia ma=ora. :e emphasiDed this need even more b! r ling that it was not mere to ching in the ordinar! sense, nor a graDing or clashing alone of the organs, b t there m st be entr! of the vagina of the victim even in the slightest degree. >h s in Camp han the = dgment of the co rt a 2 o holding the acc sed g ilt! of cons mmated rape was modified to attempted rape for fail re of the prosec tion to prove the slightest intr sion into the labia ma=ora of the victim. >he critical bottom line in this dissent therefore is the absence of s fficient evidence for the prosec tion to prove that we have set o t in Camp han" there m st be s fficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed to ched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merel! stro3ed the e0ternal s rface thereof, for an acc sed to be convicted of cons mmated rape. As $ find no evidence of this sort in the case at bar, acc sed,appellant is liable onl! for attempted rape. !me; >o ching b! the penis of the opening of the vagina is not cons mmated rape, onl! attempted rape. >here is JAnne0 MAK %issenting opinion in PP v. .mbreso, G' /5-(6, %ec. /), -++/.

JAnne0 MEK %issenting

no evidence showing that the acc sedLs penis to ched the p dend m of the victim. >r e, entr! of the penis into the lips of the female organ even witho t r pt re or laceration of the h!men is eno gh. $n this case, the doctor certified that "there was no laceration, no abrasion" on the h!men of the victim. $n the absence of an! showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., to ching either labia of the p dend m b! the penis, there can be no cons mmated rape4 at most, it can onl! be attempted rape, if not acts of lascivio sness."

opinion in PP v. .mbreso, G' /5-(6/, %ec. /), -++/.

!me; $n the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act PereD v. CA, of e0ec tion to prod ce the felon!. ( >h s, for there to be G' /59(9(, an attempted rape, the acc sed m st have commenced @a!), -++-. the act of penetrating his se0 al organ to the vagina of the victim b t for some ca se or accident other than his own spontaneo s desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not completed. >here is no showing in this case that petitionerLs se0 al organ had even to ched complainantLs vagina nor an! part of her bod!. PetitionerLs acts of l!ing on top of the complainant, embracing and 3issing her, mashing her breasts, inserting his hand inside her pant! and to ching her se0 al organ, while admittedl! obscene and detestable acts, do not constit te attempted rape absent an! showing that petitioner act all! commenced to force his penis into the complainantLs se0 al organ. 'ather, these acts constit te acts of lascivio sness. CON UMATED RAPE; >o prove rape, it is necessar! to establish that the penis to ched the labia of the p dend m of the victim. >o ching when applied to rape cases does not simpl! mean mere epidermal contact, stro3ing or graDing of organs, a slight br sh or scrape of the penis on the e0ternal la!er of the victimLs vagina or mons p bis. >here m st be s fficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed to ched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merel! stro3ed the e0ternal s rface thereof, for an acc sed to be convicted of cons mmated rape. As the labias, which are re2 ired to be "to ched" b! the penis, are b! their nat ral sit s beneath the mons p bis or the vaginal s rface, to to ch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the s rface, hence, the concl sion that to ching the labia ma=ora or the labia minora of the p dend m constit tes cons mmated rape. !me; ;nder Art. -66,A of the 'PC, as amended b! 'A (979, w1c too3 effect on .ctober --, /))*, rape is cons mmated pon contact, however slight, of the male organ with the labia of the victimLs genitalia b! means of force, threat, or intimidation. .n the other hand, attempted rape is committed when the offender commences the commission of rape directl! b! overt acts b t does not perform all the acts of e0ec tion b! reason of some ca se or accident other than his own spontaneo s desistance. PP v. .mbreso, G' /5-(6/, %ec. /), -++/.

PP v. .mbreso, G' /5-(6/, %ec. /), -++/.

!me; E-iden"e of P!in; >he Co rt in Ca1p'8an id. ac3nowledged that a victimLs testimon! that she felt pain in her se0 organ d ring the assa lt constit tes s fficient proof that the rape was cons mmated. And, in People vs. Palicte, F--) #C'A 759, 75*,75( H/))5IG in which altho gh the victimLs h!men was fo nd intact and she claimed that d ring the attac3 she felt pain in her genitalia. >his, at least, co ld be nothing b t the res lt of the penile penetration s fficient to constit te rape. HNote" #ee

%issenting .pinion in Anne0 JAK I P#!"e of R!)e; >hat it was ph!sicall! impossible for acc sed,appellant to have committed rape beca se of the condition, config ration or area of the place where it was alleged to have been committed M not given credence. PP v. %iDo, G' /-)-96, .ct. /*, -++/4 PP v. Eernabe, G' /5/((/, Nov. -/, -++/. PP v. Galisim, G' /555+/, Nov. -+, -++/. PP v. #anahon, G' /9-*-5, Nov. /), -++/.

!me; Neither availing to appellant is his contention that it wo ld have been improbable for the rape to ta3e place considering that her /- !ear brother was sleeping at her right side while her 7 !ear old sister @ar! 8ane was on her left. >he crime of rape is not alwa!s done in secl sion. Com)#e0 Crime; FORCIBLE ABDUCTION => RAPE; >he cond ct and behavior of complainant d ring the entire d ration of her alleged abd ction is incompatible with her charge against the acc sed,appellant who was narmed and did not inflict or threaten to inflict an! harm on her. $t ma! be stated that complainant and the three others were onl! in their teens when the incident too3 place. :hile the Co rt has consistentl! r led that absence of in= r! does not negate the charge of rape, it is also tr e that "total absence thereof is fatal to complainantLs claim considering her testimon! that she tried to p sh and 3ic3 the acc sed and that she str ggled to resist the acc sed. $t is to fa rl! concl de that based on the n s al cond ct of the complainant, the latter and the acc sed,appellant were sweethearts and eloped on the da! of the alleged abd ction. )e"i!# Com)#e0 Crime; RAPE => 2OMICIDE; :hile it ma! be tr e that Article 997 of the 'evised Penal Code, as amended b! 'A*67) provides, inter alia, that Jwhenever the rape is committed with the se of a deadl! weapon or b! two or more persons, the penalt! shall be recl sion perpet a to death.K And that the presence of an aggravating circ mstance wo ld = stif! the imposition of the graver penalt! of death, the fact of commission "b! two or more persons," which parta3e of the nat re of a 2 alif!ing circ mstance, was not alleged in the information in Criminal Cases Nos. 769/ and 769-. >he mere fact that three were acc sed therein did not amo nt to a specification of the 2 alif!ing circ mstance in 2 estion and was ins fficient for the p rpose of compl!ing with the constit tional re2 irement that the acc sed be informed of the nat re and ca se of the acc sation against them. Also, ab se of s perior strength as a generic aggravating circ mstance, w1c ma! be appreciated against the acc sed even if not alleged, was not proven in this case. @ere s periorit! in n mber is not eno gh, there m st be proof of deliberate intent to ta3e advantage of s perior strength

PP v. Alarcon, G' /99/)/, )9, 8 l! //, -+++.

RAMBLE OR FREE4FOR4ALL FI52T; Art. -7/ of the PP v. 'PC applies where there is positive identification of the @aramara, acc sed as the 3iller. /))). Crimes against <onor ERIOU LANDER BY DEED; done in the heat of @ari v. CA, anger and in reaction to a perceived provocation. Penalt! G' /-*6)5, for this offense is either imprisonment or fine. >he Co rt @a! 9/, -+++. opted to impose a fine.

LIBEL; 5ener!# Ru#e7 ?ver! defamator! imp tation is pres med to be malicio s. E0"e)tion7 A fair and tr e report, made in good faith, w1o an! comments or remar3s, of an! = dicial, legislative or other official proceedings w1c are not of confidential nat re. Petitioner cannot insist that the case against him is confidential in nat re beca se it has alread! been r led that complaints are p blic records w1c ma! be p blished as s ch nless the Co rt directs otherwise in the interest of moralit! or decenc!. ;nli3e proceedings in the #C, where disciplinar! proceedings for law!ers and = dges are confidential in nat re, the .ffice of the .mb dsman has no s ch confidentialit! r le. Crimes against Chastit! ACT OF LA CI3IOU NE &Art* ..J/ RPC(; >he element of lewd designs was apparent when appellant removed his shorts and brief, then fondled complainantLs breast. Altho gh the information was for attempted rape, appellant co ld be held liable for acts of lascivio sness beca se the latter constit te an offense incl ded or s bs med in the charge of attempted rape.

8 dge .campo v. # n,#tar P blishing, G' /997*7, %ec. /7, -+++.

PP v. #agarino, G' /97976,7(, #ept. 5, -++/.

!me; >he elements are" F/G that the offender commits PP v. Cai&gat, an! act of lascivio sness or lewdness4 F-G that it is done G' /9*)69, HaI b! sing force or intimidation, or HbI when the offended Feb. 6, -++-. part! is deprived of reason or otherwise nconscio s, or HcI when the offended part! is nder /- !ears of age4 and F9G that the offended part! is another person of either se0. !me; As reco nted b! ?strella, the appellant s rreptitio sl! entered her bedroom and laid down beside her. <e repeatedl! tried to p ll down her shorts and pant! b t he failed as she resisted. <e also tried to remove her shirt b t he was able to lift it onl! p to her abdomen as she wo ld lower it again. >he appellant to ched her private parts. >hese acts, as described b! ?strella, are ins fficient to prove that the appellant intended to have carnal 3nowledge of ?strella. <e did not lie on top of ?strella or even made the motion of removing his nderwear. $n fact, he 3ept his clothes on d ring the entire time that he was in the bedroom. Neither does it appear that he tried to insert his finger or an! ob=ect into the genital or anal orifice of ?strella. All that the appellant was able to do was to ch her "private parts." /) From the circ mstances th s proved, the appellant can onl! be convicted of acts of lascivio sness !me; Ne"ess!ri#% In"#uded in the Crime of R!)e; Altho gh the information was for 2 alified rape, acc sed, appellant can be convicted of acts of lascivio sness beca se the crime of acts of lascivio sness is $NCA;%?% in rape. !me; !me; however, the above r le did not appl! to this case where the crime of rape and acts of lascivio sness were committed b! two different persons acting in conspirac!. >he r le applied here, there being conspirac!, the crime committed b! one conspirator is added to the crime committed b! his co,conspirator and vice,versa. PP v. AlcoreDa, G' /9757-,79, .ct. 7, -++/.

PP v. Cai&gat, G' /9*)69, Feb. 6, -++-.

PP v. %!, G' //7-96,9*, 8an. -), -++-.

FORCIBLE ABDUCTION; =IT2 RAPE; >he elements of PP v. ?gan, forcible abd ction are HaI that the person abd cted is a G' /9)99(, woman, regardless of her age, civil stat s, or rep tation4 @a! -(, -++-. HbI that the abd ction is against her will4 and, HcI that the abd ction is with lewd designs. All the elements of forcible

abd ction were proved in this case. >he victim, who is a !o ng girl, was ta3en against her will as shown b! the fact that at 3nife,point she was dragged and ta3en b! acc sed, appellant to a place far from her abode. At her tender age, Aenie co ld not be e0pected to ph!sicall! resist considering the fact that even her companion, 8essica #ilona, had to r n home to escape acc sed,appellantLs wrath as he brandished a h nting 3nife. Fear gripped and paral!Ded Aenie into helplessness as she was manhandled b! acc sed,appellant who was armed and twent!,fo r H-5I !ears her senior. >he evidence li3ewise shows that the ta3ing of the !o ng victim against her will was done con miras deshonestas or in f rtherance of lewd and nchaste designs. >he word lewd is defined as obscene, l stf l, indecent, lascivio s, lechero s. $t signifies that form of immoralit! w1c has relation to moral imp rit!4 or that w1c is carried on in a wanton manner. # ch lewd designs were established b! the pr rient and l stf l acts w1c acc sed,appellant displa!ed towards the victim after she was abd cted. >his element ma! also be inferred from the fact that while Aenie was then a naive twelve H/-I,!ear old, acc sed,appellant was thirt!,si0 H96I !ears old and altho gh nmarried was m ch wiser in the wa!s of the world than she. Crimes against Personal Aibert! and #ec rit! <IDNAPPIN5 => MURDER* $t is evident that the PP v. 'imorin, P;'P.#? of appellant and his companions when the! G' /-59+), 3idnapped the victims was to 3ill them. <ence, there were @a! /6, -+++. two co nts of the comple0 crime of 3idnapping with m rder. !me; >here was act al restraint of the victims libert! when he was ta3en at g npoint from Pasig to acc sed, appellants apartment in >ana!. >he crime was committed in /))5, after the amendment of the 'PC on %ec. 9/, /))9 b! 'A *67), w1c pertinentl! provides that when the victim is 3illed or dies as a conse2 ence of the detention or is raped, or is s b=ected to tort re or deh maniDing acts, the ma0im m penalt! of death shall be imposed. ;nder the said amendment, the 3idnapping and m rder or homicide can no longer be comple0 nder Art. 5( of the 'PC, nor be treated as separate crimes, b t shall be p nished as a special comple0 crime nder the last paragraph of Art. -6* of the 'PC, as amended b! 'A *67). <IDNAPPIN5 FOR RAN OM; >he penalt! of death is imposable where the detention is committed for the p rpose of e0torting ransom. >he d ration of the detention is not material. PP v. @ercado, G' //6-9), Nov. -), -+++.

PP v. Pavillare, G' /-))*+, April 7, -+++4 PP v. @alapa!on, G' ///*95, 97, 8 ne /6, -+++4 PP v. @itt , Gr. /+))9), 8 ne (, -+++. PP v. Nambot, G' /-+97+, .ct. /9, -+++.

!me; >he trial co rt correctl! imposed pon them the s preme penalt! of death as provided for in #ect. ( of 'A *67) amending Art. -6* of the 'PC.

!me; Art. -6* of the 'PC, as amended b! 'A *67), PP v. Aica!an, imposes the penalt! of death if the person 3idnapped is a G' /5+)++ P female or if the crime was committed for the p rpose of /5+)++, A g.

e0torting ransom from the victim or an! person. !me; A Continuing Crime; Oidnapping for 'ansom is a contin ing crime, defined and penaliDed nder Art. -6* of the 'PC, as amended b! 'A *67). >he essence of the crime of 3idnapping is the act al deprivation of the victimLs libert!, co pled with ind bitable proof of the acc sedLs intent to effect the same. And if the person detained is a child, the 2 estion that needs to be addressed is whether there is evidence to show that in ta3ing the child, there was deprivation of the childLs libert! and that it was the intention of the acc sed to deprive the mother of the childLs c stod!. <IDNAPPIN5 FOR RAN ON !nd ERIOU ILLE5AL DETENTION; $n People v. #alimbago HG.'. No. /-/967, /5 #eptember /)))I we r led S No specific form of ransom is re2 ired to cons mmate the felon! of 3idnapping for ransom so long as it was intended as a bargaining chip in e0change for the victimLs freedom. $n m nicipal criminal law, ransom refers to the mone!, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a capt red person or persons, a pa!ment that releases from captivit!. Neither act al demand for nor act al pa!ment of ransom is necessar! for the crime to be committed. $t is eno gh if the crime was committed "for the p rpose of e0torting ransom." Considering therefore, that the 3idnapping was committed for s ch p rpose, it is not necessar! that one or an! of the fo r circ mstances be present. #o the gist of the crime, as aptl! stated in American = rispr dence from w1c was derived the crime of 3idnapping for ransom. is "not the forcible or secret confinement, imprisonment, inveiglement, or 3idnapping w1o lawf l a thorit!, b t . . . the felonio s act of so doing with intent to hold for a ransom the person so 3idnapped, confined, imprisoned, inveigled, etc." $t is obvio s that once that intent is present, as in the case at bar, 3idnapping for ransom is alread! committed. An! other interpretation of the role of ransom, partic larl! the one advanced b! acc sed,appellants, is certainl! abs rd since it ironicall! penaliDes resc e efforts of 3idnap victims b! law enforcers and in t rn rewards 3idnappers for the s ccess of police efforts in s ch resc e operations. @oreover, o r = rispr dence is replete with cases wherein botched ransom pa!ments and effective recover! of the victim did not deter s from finding c lpabilit! for 3idnapping for ransom. FORCIBLE ABDUCTION => RAPE; Forcible abd ction is defined nder Art. 95- of the 'PC as the abd ction of an! woman against her will and with lewd designs. >he elements of this crime are" H/I the person abd cted is an! woman, regardless of her age, civil stat s, or rep tation4 H-I the abd ction is against her will4 and H9I the abd ction is with lewd designs. >he comple0 crime of forcible abd ction w1 rape occ rs when there is carnal 3nowledge of the abd cted woman nder the ff. circ mstances" H/I b! sing force or intimidation4 H-I when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise nconscio s4 and H9I when the woman is nder /- !ears of age or demented. !me; not established4 ?lements4 :hile the information s fficientl! alleged the forcible ta3ing of complainant, the same failed to allege le(d design. :hen a comple0 crime nder Art. 5( of the 'PC is charged, s ch as forcible abd ction w1 rape, it is a0iomatic that the

/7, -++/. PP v. # riaga, G' /-9**), April /*, -++-.

PP v. Garcia, G' /995() P /59)*+, 8an. /7, -++-.

PP v. Aacanieta, G' /-5-)), April /-, -+++.

PP v. #abredo, G' /-6//5, @a! //, -+++.

prosec tion m st allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abd ction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. :hen appellant, sing a blade, forcibl! too3 awa! complainant for the p rpose of se0 all! assa lting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape ma! then absorbed forcible abd ction. <ence, the crime committed is simple rape. !me; :hen the acc sed forcibl! too3 awa! the victim, for the p rpose of raping her, lewd and nchaste designs e0isted since the commencement of the crime and raped her. !me; Conspirac! among the acc sed not established. :hile it is eno gh that at least one of the acc sed entertained lewd design in order to convict all of them of forcible abd ction, s ch lewd intent, however, m st be 3nown to all acc sed who cooperated in the commission of the felon!. PP v. ?spirit , G' /-))*+, .ct. -*, /))). PP v. %e Aara, G' /-5*+9, 8 ne -*, -+++.

!me; >he Co rt has affirmed convictions for forcible PP v. >alo, abd ction w1 rape 2 alified b! the se of deadl! weapon in G' /-775-, cases where the se of deadl! weapon was alleged in the .ct. -7, -+++. information w1 respect to the crime of forcible abd ction, or w1 respect to the comple0 crime of forcible abd ction and rape, or to the portion referring to the crime of rape. Accordingl!, to = stif! the imposition of the death penalt! in this case, the se of deadl! weapon sho ld be alleged w1 respect to the rape or w1 respect to both the forcible abd ction and rape. #ince, in this case, this 2 alif!ing circ mstance was alleged onl! w1 respect to the commission of the forcible abd ction, it cannot be ta3en to 2 alif! the crime of rape. >he se of a deadl! weapon can be appreciated onl! as a generic aggravating circ mstance. 5RA3E COERCION; >his crime is committed when" H/I a id. person is prevented b! another from doing something not prohibited b! law, or that he was compelled to do something against his will be it right or wrong4 H-I that the prevention or comp lsion be effected b! violence, either b! material force or s ch a displa! of force as wo ld prod ce intimidation and control the will of the offended part!4 and H9I that the restraint shall not be made nder a thorit! of law or in the e0ercise of an! lawf l right. Crimes against P blic .rder DIRECT A AULT; $t ma! be committed b! an! person PP v. 'ecto, or persons who, w1o a p blic prising, shall attac3, emplo! G' /-)+6), force, or serio sl! intimidate or resist an! person in .ct. /*, -++/. a thorit! of an! of its agents, while engaged in the performance of official d ties, or on occasion of s ch performance. !me; Earanga! chief >anod Han agent of a person in a thorit!I, when shot in this case, was not engaged in the performance of his official d ties nor was he attac3ed on the occasion of s ch performance. id.

!me; @UALIFIED DIRECT A AULT ,> Attem)ted id. 2omi"ide; Attac3 on a Earanga! Captain Ha P$AI while he was attempting to pacif! appellant and to 3eep the peace between the two gro ps Hon the occasion of the performance of his d t!I. Crimes FOR5ERY; >he filing of information for estafa does not Corp s v.

against P blic $nterest

itself prove that the respondent forged the signat re of petitioner. UNFAIR COMPETITION; >he iss e involving the e0istence of J nfair competitionK as a felon! involving design patents referred to in Art. /() of the 'PC have been rendered moot and academic b! the repeal of that article b! the $P' Code w1c too3 effect on 8an ar! /, /))(. >here is evidentl! no mention of an! crime of J nfair competitionK involving design patents in the controlling provisions of the $P' Code on ;nfair Competition. $t is therefore nclear whether the crime e0ists at all, for the enactment of 'A (-)9 did not res lt in the re,enactment of Art. /() of the 'PC.

#ps. Grospe, G' /97-)*, 8 ne (, -+++. #avage v. 8 dge >a!pin, G' /95-/*, @a! //, -+++.

Crimes committed b! P blic .fficers

MAL3ER ATION OF PUBLIC FUND ; An acco ntable p blic officer ma! be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappreciation and the onl! evidence is the shortage in his acco nt w1c he is not able to e0plain satisfactoril!. !me; >he elements of malversation, essential for the conviction of an acc sed, nder A'>. -/* of the 'PC" H/I the offender is a p blic officer4 H-I he has the c stod! or control of f nds or propert! b! reason of the d ties of his office4 H9I the f nds or propert! involved are p blic f nds or propert! for which he is acco ntable4 and H5I he has appropriated, ta3en or misappropriated, or has consented to, or thro gh abandonment or negligence permitted, the ta3ing b! another person of, s ch f nds or propert!.

?strella v. #andiganba!a n, G' /-7/6+, 8 ne -+, -+++. ' eda, 8r. C. #andiganba!a n, G' /-)+65, Nov. -), -+++.

!me; >he mere fact that he signed the dorsal side of the id. report of cash e0amination is not an admission of "shortage". <is signat re was onl! evidence that he received a cop! of the report. >h s, it is incorrect to sa! that petitioner admitted his shortage when he signed the a dit report prepared b! the a dit team. For one thing, he was made to sign it right awa!4 for another, his signat re onl! meant an ac3nowledgment that a demand from him to prod ce all his cash, mone! and paid vo chers had been made. $t did not mean that he admitted an! shortage. $n fact, s bse2 ent events showed that he had f ll! e0plained his acco ntabilit!. >h s, he satisfactoril! e0plained the shortage. $n other words, there was no direct evidence or proof that he p t p blic f nds to personal se. :hen absence of f nds was not d e to personal se, the pres mption is completel! destro!ed. >he ta3ing or conversion of p blic f nds for personal se m st be affirmativel! proved. :hen there is no shortage, ta3ing, appropriation, conversion or loss, there is no malversation. !me; 8C!sh hort!ge9 as evidence of ta3ing, id. appropriation, conversion, or loss of p blic f nds4 $tems that are classified as cash incl de coin and c rrenc! on hand, and nrestricted f nds available on deposit in a ban3, which are often called demand deposits since the! can be withdrawn pon demand. Pett! cash f nds or change f nds and negotiable instr ments, s ch as personal chec3s, travelersL chec3s, cashiersL chec3s, ban3 drafts, and mone! orders are also items commonl! reported as cash. >he total of these items pl s ndeposited coin and c rrenc! is sometimes called cash

on hand. $nterest,bearing acco nts, or time deposits, also are s all! classified as cash, even tho gh a ban3 legall! can demand prior notification before a withdrawal can be made. $n practice, ban3s generall! do not e0ercise this legal right. %eposits that are not immediatel! available d e to withdrawal or other restrictions re2 ire separate classification as Hrestricted cas8I or Hte1porary invest1entI. >he! are not JcashK. $n short, there was no shortage on petitionerLs cash acco ntabilit!. "?vidence of shortage is necessar! before there co ld be an! ta3ing, appropriation, conversion, or loss of p blic f nds that wo ld amo nt to malversation." >he law re2 ires that the shortage m st be clearl! established as a fact that over and above the f nds fo nd b! the a ditors in the act al possession of the acco ntable officers, there is an additional amo nt which co ld not be prod ced or acco nted for at the time of a dit. $n this case, there was absol tel! no shortage as to petitionerLs cash acco ntabilit!. >he a ditors mista3enl! incl ded as cash items collectibles in the form of "vales" and "chits" and "disb rsement vo chers" for legitimate e0penses of the m nicipalit!. <NO=IN5LY RENDERIN5 UNLU T LUD5MENT &Art* +?C !nd +?G of the RPC(; For s ch charge to proper, complainant m st prove that the = dgment is patentl! contrar! to law or is not s pported b! the evidence and made w1 deliberate intent to perpetrate an in= stice. !me; >he iss es have been settled in the case of $n 'e" 8oa2 in Eorromeo F-5/ #C'A 5+(, 56+ H/))7I G. >here, we laid down the r le that before a civil or criminal action against a = dge for a violation of Art. -+5 and -+7 H3nowingl! rendering an n= st = dgment or orderI can be entertained, there m st first be "a final and a thoritative = dicial declaration" that the decision or order in 2 estion is indeed " n= st." >he prono ncement ma! res lt from either" HaI an action of certiorari or prohibition in a higher co rt imp gning the validit! of the = dgment4 or HbI an administrative proceeding in the # preme Co rt against the = dge precisel! for prom lgating an n= st = dgment or order. Ai3ewise, the determination of whether a = dge has malicio sl! dela!ed the disposition of the case is also an e0cl sive = dicial f nction. ">o repeat, no other entit! or official of the Government, not the prosec tion or investigation service of an! other branch, not an! f nctionar! thereof, has competence to review a = dicial order or decision S whether final and e0ec tor! or not S and prono nce it erroneo s so as to la! the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an n= st = dgment or order. >hat prerogative belongs to the co rts alone. Crimes T2E DAN5EROU DRU5 LA= &RA JC+G(; >he penalt! against prescribed in #ec. ) of 'A 65-7 will appl! onl! if the %ange,ro s 2 antit! of dangero s dr gs involved falls w1in par. H/I, %r gs #ec. -+ as amended, i.e., *7+ grams or more. #ec. /* of 'A *67) does not prescribe an! fine in cases involving a 2 antit! of less than *7+ grams. !me; De#i-er%/ Distri$ution/ !#e or Tr!ns)ort of Regu#!ted Drugs; #ect. 5, Article $$ of the %angero s %r gs Act, as amended, ma3es p nishable an! of the acts #amaniego v. Ag ila, G' /-776*, 8 ne -*, -+++. %e Cera v. Pela!o, G' /9*975, 8 l! 6, -+++.

PP v. Flores, G' /9*5)/, Nov. -9, -+++.

PP v. %el @ ndo, G' /9()-), .ct.

specified therein, s ch as selling, administering, delivering, -, -++/. giving awa!, distrib ting, dispatching in transit or transporting, and the li3e. >h s, when an acc sed is charged with illegal possession or transportation of prohibited dr gs, the ownership thereof is immaterial. Conse2 entl!, proof of ownership of the confiscated mari= ana is not necessar!4 it is s fficient that s ch prohibited s bstance was fo nd in acc sed,appellantLs tric!cle at the time he was apprehended. $nherent in the crime of transporting the prohibited dr g is the se of a motor vehicle. >he ver! act of transporting a prohibited dr g, li3e in the instant case, is a mal m prohibit m since it is p nished as an offense nder a special law. >he mere commission of the act constit tes the offense and is s fficient to validl! charge and convict an individ al committing the act, regardless of criminal intent. #ince the appellant was ca ght transporting mari= ana, the crime being mala prohibita, acc sed,appellantLs intent, motive, or 3nowledge thereof need not be shown. !me; !me; Malum Prohibitum; >he Crime nder PP v. Q e, consideration is 1al'1 pro8ibit'1. $n s ch case, the lac3 G' /99-67, of criminal intent or good faith do not e0empt the acc sed @a! -), -++-. from criminal liabilit!. >h s, GoLs contention that he did not 3now that there were illegal dr gs inside the van cannot constit te a valid defense. @ere possession and1or deliver! of a reg lated dr g witho t legal a thorit! is p nishable nder the %angero s %r gs Act. M!inten!n"e of ! Drug Den; #?C. -/. Attempt and conspirac!. S >he same penalt! prescribed b! this Act for the commission of the offense shall be imposed in case of an! attempt or conspirac! to commit the same in the following cases" HaI $mportation of dangero s dr gs4 HbI #ale, administration, deliver!, distrib tion and transportation of dangero s dr gs4 HcI @aintenance of a den, dive, or resort for prohibited dr g sers4 HdI @an fact re of dangero s dr gs4 and HeI C ltivation or c lt re of plants, which are so rces of prohibited dr gs. Appellant was g ilt! of maintenance of a dr g den, an offense for which he was correctl! sentenced to recl'sion perpet'a. <is g ilt was clearl! established b! the testimon! of Prosec tion :itness, who himself had sed the e0tension ho se of appellant as a dr g den on several occasions, incl ding the time of the raid. >he formerLs testimon! was corroborated b! all the raiding police officers who testified before the co rt. >hat appellant did not den! ownership of the ho se and its e0tension lent credence to the prosec tionLs stor!. The Pen!#t% of I##eg!# !#e !nd De#i-er% of D!ngerous Drugs Heither prohibited or reg latedI of *7+ grams or more consists of two H-I indivisible penalties, that is recl'sion perpet'a to death. Appl!ing Art. 69 of the 'PC, there being no mitigating or aggravating circ mstance that attended the commission of the offense, the lesser penalt! of recl'sion perpet'a sho ld be imposed. !me; ;nder #ection 5, Article $$ of '.A. 65-7, the applicable stat te, the prescribed penalt! for the transport of prohibited dr gs is recl'sion perpet'a to death, not life imprisonment. Absent 2 alif!ing circ mstances, the PP v. Aad=aalam, G' /96/5), 7/, #ept. /), -+++.

PP v. Eanawor, G' /9/)-*, #ept. -+, -+++.

PP v. GonDales, G' /-/(**, #ept. /-, -++/.

penalt! imposable in the present case is onl! recl'sion perpet'a. !me; ;nder '.A. No. *67), the penalt! to be imposed depends on the 2 antit! of the dr g. >he sale of *7+ grams or more of the dangero s dr g became p nishable b! recl sion perpet a to death. 9+ >he penalt! for the sale of less than *7+ grams of the dangero s dr g was red ced to a range of prision correccional to recl'sion perpet'a, depending pon the 2 antit!" of the dr g. @ore e0plicitl!, in the /))5 case of People v. Si1on F-95 #C'A 777 F/))5G, we held that for dr gs with 2 antities weighing *7+ grams or more, and for dr gs with 2 antities weighing below *7+ grams, recl'sion perpet'a co ld not be imposed twice. >he penalt! of "prision correccional to recl'sion perpet'a" for dr g offenses where the 2 antit! involved is less than those en merated in the first paragraph of #ection /*, 'A *67) was constr ed as " prision correccional to recl'sion te1poral." >his was the range of the imposable penalt! for dr gs weighing less than *7+ grams and the proper penalt! depended on the 2 antit! of the dr g involved. $f the dr g weighs less than -7+ grams, the penalt! to be imposed is prision correccional4 from -7+ grams to 5)) grams, prision 1ayor4 and from 7++ grams to *5) grams, recl'sion te1poral. Cons)ir!"%; #ec. -/ HbI of '.A. No. 65-7 p nishes, among other things, the C.N#P$'ACN to commit sale, administration, deliver!, distrib tion, and transportation of dangero s dr gs. >he law provides that the same penalt! prescribed for the commission of the offense shall be imposed in case of a conspirac! which, p rs ant to Y5 of Art. $$ of the law, ranges from recl'sion perpet'a to death and incl des a fine of P7++,+++.++ to P/+,+++,+++.++. #ince the mari= ana seiDed from acc sed,appellants amo nted to )9-.9 grams, or more than *7+ grams as indicated in Y-+ of the law, the trial co rt correctl! imposed on acc sed,appellants the penalt! of recl'sion perpet'a. Identifi"!tion of Prohi$ited Drugs* All acc sed, appellants co ld m ster are their feeble denials and e0c ses. # ffice it to state in this regard that "FCGategorical, consistent and positive identification, witho t an! ill motive on the part of the e!ewitness, prevails over nconvincing alibi and ns bstantiated denials. >hese latter testimonies are self,serving statements ndeserving of weight in law. Presum)tion of Regu#!rit%; $t is a settled r le that in cases involving violations of the %angero s %r gs Act, credence is given to prosec tion witnesses who are police officers for the! are pres med to have performed their d ties in a reg lar manner, nless there is evidence to the contrar!. M!r6ed Mone%; >he presentation in Co rt of "mar3ed mone!" sed in "b !,b st operations" is not indispensable in dr g cases for the offense is committed b! mere act of deliver! or transfer of the prohibited dr g and the consideration for the transaction is of no moment. >he co rt several times stressed that the offense of illegal sale of prohibited dr g is committed once a sale transaction was cons mmated. >he presence of act al monetar! consideration is not indispensable for the e0istence of the offense. $n People vs. de la Cr'3, the co rt stated that PP v. Concepcion, G' /99--7, 8 l! -6, -++/.

PP v. 'odrig eD, G' /559)), @arch -+, -++-.

PP v. Concepcion, G' /99--7, 8 l! -6, -++/.

PP v. Eongalon, G' /-7+-7, 8an. -9, -++-.

PP v. Concepcion, G' /99--7, 8 l! -6, -++/.

when a police officer went thro gh the motions of b !ing prohibited dr gs and his offer to b ! was accepted b! the acc sed,seller, the crime was cons mmated b! mere deliver! of the dr g p rchased. >he fact that no mone! was act all! delivered b! the pretended b !er to the acc sed,seller did not prevent the offenses from being committed. 3io#!tion/ not est!$#ished; $ncredibl!, the re2 est for laborator! e0amination preceded the confiscation of the dr gs. $n addition, the articles presented to @rs. %e Cilla were s spected methamphetamine h!drochloride or shab and s spected cocaine b t the "'eceipt of Propert! #eiDed" d ring the operations indicated that no shab was ta3en from the ho se of Aeodones. DEFEN E ; 8Fr!me4U)9; $n almost ever! case involving a b !,b st operation, the claim of "frame, p" is a common and standard line of defense which is invariabl! viewed b! this Co rt with disfavor, it being capable of eas! concoction and diffic lt to prove. Clear and convincing evidence is re2 ired to prove the defense of "frame, p" beca se in the absence of proof of an! intent on the part of the police a thorities to falsel! imp te s ch a serio s crime against acc sed,appellants, the pres mption of reg larit! in the performance of official d t!, as well as the principle that findings of the trial co rt on the credibilit! of witnesses are entitled to great respect, m st prevail over the claims of acc sed,appellants that the! have been framed, p. <owever, given the evidence add ced b! acc sed,appellants, this Co rt holds that acc sed, appellants have clearl! and convincingl! overcome the pres mption that agents #oriano and Palencia performed their d ties in a reg lar and proper manner. $n fact, it seems that #oriano and Palencia are hiding behind the mantle of reg larit! of official f nctions in p rs it of their own d bio s ends. Eesides, the pres mption of reg larit! in the performance of official d t! cannot b! itself overcome the pres mption of innocence nor constit te proof be!ond reasonable do bt. !me; !me; Ai3e alibi, frame, p is a defense that has been viewed b! the Co rt with disfavor as it can easil! be concocted, hence, commonl! sed as a standard line of defense in most prosec tions arising from violations of the %angero s %r gs Act. :e realiDe the disastro s conse2 ences on the enforcement of law and order, not to mention the well,being of societ!, if the co rts, solel! on the basis of the policemenLs alleged rotten rep tation, accept in ever! instance this form of defense which can be so easil! fabricated. $t is precisel! for this reason that the legal pres mption that official d t! has been reg larl! performed e0ists. !me; Deni!#; >he defense of frame, p or denial, li3e alibi, has invariabl! been viewed b! the co rts with disfavor for it can = st as easil! be concocted and is a common and standard defense plo! in most prosec tions for violation of the %angero s %r gs Act. For s ch a defense to prosper, the evidence m st be clear and convincing. PP v. Aeodones, G' /9(*97, Nov. --, -+++.

PP v. >an, G' /99++/, %ec. /5, -+++.

PP v. Eongalon, G' /-7+-7, 8an. -9, -++-.

PP v. Concepcion, G' /99--7, 8 l! -6, -++/.

!me; !me; Eare denials cannot prevail over the PP v. positive identification b! the prosec tion witnesses of the Eongalon, G' appellant as the person who was in possession of, and /-7+-7, 8an.

who delivered the methamphetamine H"shab "I to the pose r,b !er.

h!drochloride

-9, -++-. PP v. Casimiro, G' /56-**, 8 ne -+, -++-.

!me; )orpus Delicti of the Offense; Identit% of )rohi$ited drug; Ciolation of #ection 5 of Art. $$ of 'A 65-7 as amended b! #ects. /9 and /* of 'A *67) H#ale or deliver! of )+5.6 grams of mari= ana bric3I. >he prosec tion failed to establish the identit! of the prohibited dr g w1c constit tes the corp's delicti of the offense, an essential re2 irement in a dr g,related case. $n this case, the prosec tion failed to prove the cr cial first lin3 in the chain of c stod!. >he discrepanc! in the testimon! of these two police officers casts additional do bt on the identit! of the prohibited dr g w1c constit tes the corp's delicti. $ndeed, there is fail re in this case to observe standard operating proced re for a b !,b st operation. >he governmentLs drive against illegal dr gs deserves ever!bod!Ls s pport. E t it is precisel! when the governmentLs p rposes are beneficent that we sho ld be most on o r g ard to protect these rights. As 8 stice Erandeis warned long ago, "the greatest dangers to libert! l r3 in the insidio s encroachment b! men of Deal, well meaning b t w1o nderstanding." . r desire to stamp o t criminalit! cannot be achieved at the e0pense of constit tional rights. For these reasons, we cannot phold the conviction of acc sed,appellant. ILLE5AL ALE OF DAN5EROU DRU5 ; $ts elements are" F/G identit! of the b !er and seller, the ob=ect and consideration4 F-G the deliver! of the thing sold and the pa!ment thereof. :hat is fatal to the prosec tion of a dangero s dr gs case is the non,presentation of the pose r,b !er if there is no other e!ewitness to the illicit transaction. $n this case, the other members of the team that cond cted the b !,b st operation testified that the! witnessed the cons mmation of the illegal sale perpetrated b! acc sed,appellant. !me; ;nder #ec. 5 of the Act, the selling or acting as bro3er in a sale of mari= ana and other prohibited dr gs cons mmates the crime. #pecificall!, it p nishes the mere act of deliver! of prohibited dr gs. $n ever! prosec tion for the illegal sale of dangero s dr gs, what is material and indispensable is the s bmission of proof that the sale of illicit dr g too3 place. Proof of act al pa!ment of mone! or the presence of mar3ed mone! is not an indispensable re2 isite for conviction. !me; >he commission of the offense of illegal sale of prohibited dr gs re2 ires merel! the cons mmation of the selling transaction. @aterial to a prosec tion for illegal sale of dangero s dr gs is proof that the transaction or sale act all! too3 place, co pled with the presentation in co rt of the corp's delicti as evidence. !me; :hat is material to a prosec tion for illegal sale of dangero s dr gs is the proof that the transaction or sale act all! too3 place co pled w1 the presentation in co rt of the corp s delicti as evidence. $n this regard, in a prosec tion for illegal possession of dangero s dr gs, it m st be shown that" /.G the acc sed is in possession of an item or an ob=ect identified to be a prohibited or a reg lated dr g4 -.G s ch possession is not a thoriDed b! law, and

PP v. ;!, G' /-)+/), A g. /6, -+++4 PP v, @ontano, G' /9+(96, A g. //, -+++4 PP v. Raspa, G' /969)6, #ept. -/, -+++. PP v. C ba, G' /9976(, 8 l! -5, -+++4 PP v. Eanawor, G' /9/)-*, #ept. -+, -+++4 PP v. Raspa, G' /969)6, #ept. -/, -+++. PP v. 8 lian, FernandeD, G' /59(7+, 79, %ec. /(, -++/. PP v. Concepcion, G' /99--7, 8 l! -6, -++/.

9.G the acc sed freel! and conscio sl! possessed the said dr g. !me; I##eg!# !#e of h!$u; >he deliver! of the illicit dr g to the pose r,b !er and the receipt b! the seller of the mar3ed mone! s ccessf ll! cons mmates the b !, b st transaction. !me; !me; >he established r le is that when an acc sed is charged w1 the sale of illicit dr gs, he cannot set p the following defenses, viD" H/I that facilities for the commission of the crime were intentionall! placed in his wa!, or H-I that the criminal act was done at the solicitation of the deco! or pose r,b !er see3ing to e0pose his criminal act, or H9I that police a thorities feigning complicit! in the act were present and apparentl! assisted in its commission. >he sale of contraband is a 3ind of offense habit all! committed and the solicitation simpl! f rnishes evidence of the criminalLs co rse of cond ct. $n the case at bar, after the police received a report from their informant abo t the appellantLs criminal activit!, a plan of entrapment was made. >h s, the b !,b st operation was set p precisel! to test the veracit! of the informantLs tip and to arrest the malefactor if the report proved to be tr e. >he prosec tion evidence positivel! showed that the appellant agreed to sell 9++ grams of shab to the informantLs b !er and was in fact ca ght red,handed pl!ing his illegal trade. ;nder the circ mstances, the police officers were not onl! a thoriDed b t were nder an obligation to arrest the dr g p sher even witho t an arrest warrant as the crime was committed in their presence. !me; Bu%4Bust O)er!tion; *ulidap+ Co rts generall! view with disfavor this defense commonl! raised in dr g cases, for it is eas! to concoct and diffic lt to prove. -) @oreover, there is a pres mption that p blic officers, incl ding the arresting officers, reg larl! perform their official d ties. 9+ $n the present case, the defense failed to overcome this pres mption or to present clear and convincing evidence to prove "h lidap." &etting o" &ale+ >his Co rt has consistentl! r led that it is not ncommon for dr g dealers or p shers to sell their commodities to total strangers at an! time and at an! place. $n an! case, the law does not prescribe as an element of the crime that the vendor and the vendee be familiar with each other, or that the transaction be cons mmated in a partic lar place and time. >he law simpl! penaliDes the act al sale of shab . Non,Presentation o" In"ormant+ >he presentation of an informant is not a re2 isite in the prosec tion of dr g cases. "FpGolice a thorities rarel!, if ever, remove the cloa3 of confidentialit! with which the! s rro nd their pose r, b !ers and informers since their sef lness will be over the moment the! are presented in co rt. @oreover, dr g dealers do not loo3 3indl! pon s2 ealers and informants. $t is nderstandable wh!, as m ch as permitted, their identities are 3ept secret." $n an! event, the testimon! of the informant wo ld be merel! corroborative. !me; !me; E !,b st operation is a form of entrapment whereb! wa!s and means are resorted to for the p rpose of trapping and capt ring lawbrea3ers in the e0ec tion of their criminal plan. $t is a proced re or operation sanctioned b! law and which has consistentl! proved itself to be an effective method of apprehending dr g peddlers. ;nless there is a clear and convincing evidence that the PP v. GonDales, G' /59(+7, April //, -++-. PP v. GonDales, G' /59(+7, April //, -++-.

PP v. Ch a, G' /-*75@arch /(, /))).

PP v. %el @ ndo, G' /9()-), .ct. -, -++/.

members of the b !,b st team were Zinspired b! an! improper motive or were not properl! performing their d t!, their testimon! on the operation deserved f ll faith and credit. !me; !me; A b !,b st operation is vastl! different from an ordinar! arrest. $n lawf l arrests in the co rse of a b !, b st operation, it becomes both the d t! and the right of the apprehending officers to cond ct a warrantless search not onl! on the person of the acc sed b t also in the permissible area w1in his reach, i.e., that point w1c is w1in the effective control of the person arrested, or that w1c ma! f rnish him the means of committing violence or of escaping HPeople vs. C'eno, 2"8 SCR& 621 E1""8FI. $n other words, a warrantless search incidental to a lawf l arrest ma! e0tend be!ond the person of the one arrested to incl de the premises or s rro ndings nder his immediate control. $n this case, the three plastic bags containing a total of /,7++ grams of shab were seiDed inside the car where appellant himself was arrested, the same being w1in the area of immediate control b! appellant. ILLE5AL PO E ION OF DAN5EROU DRU5 ; Appellant 3nowingl! carr!ing w1 him /,7/+.( grams of shab S w1o legal a thorit! S at the time of the b !,b st operation. >he elements of illegal possession of dangero s dr gs are" H/I the acc sed is in possession of an item or ob=ect which is identified to be a prohibited dr g4 H-I s ch possession is not a thoriDed b! law4 and H9I the acc sed freel! and conscio sl! possessed the said dr g HManalili vs. Co'rt o@ &ppeals, 28% SCR& ,%% E1""#FI. All these circ mstances are present in the case at bar. Crimes against Civil #tat s of Persons PP v. ;!, G' /557+6,+*, April //, -++-.

PP v. ;!, G' /557+6,+*, April //, -++-.

BI5AMY; Pre= dicial Q estion. >he g arding and >e v. CA, G' controlling precepts and r les. JA pre= dicial 2 estion has /-6*56, Nov. been defined as one based on a fact distinct and separate -), -+++. from the crime b t so intimatel! connected with it that it determines the g ilt or innocence of the acc sed, and for it to s spend the criminal action, it m st appear not onl! that said case involves facts intimatel! related to those pon which the criminal prosec tion wo ld be based b t also that in the resol tion of the iss e or iss es raised in the civil case, the g ilt or innocence of the acc sed wo ld necessaril! be determined. >he rationale behind the principle of s spending a criminal case in view of a pre= dicial 2 estion is to avoid two conflicting decisions.K >he pendenc! of the civil case for ann lment of petitionerLs marriage to private respondent did not give rise to a pre= dicial 2 estion which warranted the s spension of the proceedings in the criminal case for bigam! since at the time of the alleged commission of the crime, their marriage was, nder the law, still valid and s bsisting. Neither did the filing of said civil case for ann lment necessitate the s spension of the administrative proceedings. the concept of pre= dicial 2 estion involves a civil and a criminal case. :e have previo sl! r led that there is no pre= dicial 2 estion where one case is administrative and the other is civil. !me; Article 95) of the 'evised Penal Code. >he elements of this crime are as follows" /. >hat the offender has been legall! married4 -. >hat the marriage has not been legall! dissolved @ercado v. >an, G' /9*//+, A g. /, -+++.

or, in case his or her spo se is absent, the absent spo se co ld not !et be pres med dead according to the Civil Code4 9. >hat he contracts a second or s bse2 ent marriage4 5. >hat the second or s bse2 ent marriage has all the essential re2 isites for validit!. !me; A Civil Aaw a thorit! and member of the Civil Code id. 'evision Committee has observed" FArt. 5+ of the FCG is also in line with the recent decisions of the # preme Co rt that the marriage of a person ma! be n ll and void b t there is need of a = dicial declaration of s ch fact before that person can marr! again4 otherwise, the second marriage will also be void H:iegel v. #empio,%i!, A g. /)1(6, /59 #C'A 5)), Cda. %e Cons egra v. G#$#, 9* #C'A 9/7I . >his provision changes the old r le that where a marriage is illegal and void from its performance, no = dicial decree is necessar! to establish its validit! HPeople v. @endoDa, )7 Phil. (594 People v. Aragon, /++ Phil. /+99I ." # ch declaration is now necessar! before one can contract a second marriage. Absent that declaration, we hold that one ma! be charged with and convicted of bigam!. !me; ;nli3e a voidable marriage which legall! e0ists ntil = diciall! ann lled Hand therefore not a defense in bigam! if the second marriage were contracted prior to the decree of ann lmentI, the complete n llit!, however, of a previo sl! contracted marriage, being a total n llit! and ine0istent, sho ld be capable of being independentl! raised b! wa! of a defense in a criminal case for bigam!. $ see no incongr ence between this r le in criminal law and that of the Famil! Code, and each ma! be applied within the respective spheres of governance. Q asi, .ffenses CRIMINAL NE5LI5ENCE; $n negligence cases, the offended part! Hor his heirsI has the option between an action for enforcement of civil liabilit! based on c'lpa cri1inal nder Art. /++ of the 'PC and an action for recover! of damages based on c'lpa a='iliana nder Art. -/*6, of the Civil Code. <owever, Art. -/** of the Civil Code precl des the recover! of damages twice for the same negligent act or omission. Conse2 entl!, a separate civil action for damages lies against the offender in a criminal action, whether or not he is criminall! prosec ted and fo nd g ilt! or ac2 itted, provided that the offended part! is allowed Hif the offender is act all! charged criminall!I to recover damages on both scores., and wo ld be entitled in s ch event onl! to the bigger award of the two, ass ming the awards made in the two cases var!. id. 4 8 stice Cit g, conc rring and dissenting.

Ace <a lers Corp. v. CA, G' /-*)95, A g. -9, -+++.

REC<LE IMPRUDENCE RE ULTIN5 IN 2OMICIDE; PP v. #hooting was not appreciated beca se it was intentional. %omingo, G' /-56*+, April -/, -+++. #P?C$AA P?NAA AA:# )e"i!# Crimes; PRE CRIPTION OF OFFEN E ; $t is provided for in #ec. - of AC> 99-64 Comp tation of the period of prescription for the .ffense. #ection /7 of Article B$ of the Constit tion, which provides that the right of the #tate to recover properties nlawf ll! ac2 ired b! p blic officials or emplo!ees, from them or from their nominees as transferees, shall not be barred b! prescription, laches, or estoppel. F>Ghe period of prescription shall begin from the da! of the discover! of the violation if this was not Pres. Ad <oc Fact Finding Comm. .n Eehest Aoans v. %esierto, G' /9+/5+, .ct. -7, /))).

shown at the time of its commission. A contrar! view wo ld be dangero s as the s ccessf l concealment of an offense d ring the period fi0ed for its prescription wo ld be the ver! means b! which the offender ma! escape p nishment. Finall!, even ass ming that the discover! r le does not appl!, still, beca se of the principle of "e2 itable tolling," prescription has not !et set in for the offenses with which respondents in .@E,+,)6,+)6+ were charged. >his principle is based on the doctrine "contra non valente1 agere n'lla c'rrit praescriptio," i.e., "no prescription shall r n against a person nable to bring an action." >he C.@@$>>?? was nable to bring the action, for the ca se therefor was not 3nown or reasonabl! 3nown to it owing to the fact that H/I the loans, being behest, were concealed4 H-I both parties to the loan transactions were in conspirac! to perpetrate the fra d against the #tate4 and H9I the loans were granted at the time then President @arcos was at the threshold of his a thorit! when no one dared 2 estion, m ch less investigate, an! of his orders. !me; UB IDIARY PENALTY; $n case of insolvenc! to %iongDon pa! the Fine for violation of special laws, s bsidiar! CA, -+++. imprisonment shall be imposed, notwithstanding the absence of s ch provision in said laws. ILLE5AL PO E ION OF FIREARM under PD 'DJJ; ?lements" H/I e0istence of s b=ect firearm4 and H-I the fact that the acc sed who owns or possess does not have the corresponding permit or license to possess the same. >o Prove the second element be!ond reasonable do bt, either the testimon! of a representative of, or a certification from, the PNP Firearms and ?0plosive .ffice, attesting that a person is not a licensee of an! firearm, wo ld s ffice. !me; >he a thorit! to possess the government firearm iss ed to the acc sed b! virt e of a memorand m receipt H@'I ceased when he was earlier charged and detained for m rder. Eeing a detained prisoner when apprehended w1 the firearm, he was no longer a thoriDed to possess m ch less carr! the same. v.

PP v. AaDaro, G' //-+)+, .ct. -6, /)))4 PP v. Abriol, G' /-9/9*, .ct. /*, -++/.

PP v. Abriol, G' /-9/9*, .ct. /*, -++/.

!me; $llegal possession of firearm is an offense Hwhere PP v. AaDaro, s ch firearm was sedI distinct from @ rder or <omicide G' //-+)+, and the acc sed is c lpable for two separate offenses. .ct. -6, /))). ILLE5AL PO E ION OF FIREARM under RA D+KC/ !mending PD'DJJ; >he penalt! for illegal possession of firearm classified as high powered is prision ma!or minim m or si0 H6I !ears and one H/I da! to eight H(I !ears and a fine of thirt! tho sand HP9+,+++.++I pesos. <ere, the offense was committed on November -*, /))-. #ince the amendator! law is favorable to the acc sed, it shall be given retroactive application. And the $ndeterminate #entence Aaw shall be applicable. PP v. @alapa!on, G' ///*95, 97, 8 ne /6, -+++.

!me; e)!r!te )rose"utions for 2omi"ide !nd i##eg!# PP v. AaDaro, )ossession !re no #onger in order* $llegal Possession of G' //-+)+, Firearm is merel! to be ta3en as an aggravating .ct. -6, /))). circ mstance in <omicide cases !me; !me; Altho gh '.A. No. (-)5 too3 effect on 8 l! 6, /))*, or after the crimes involved in the case at bar were committed on .ctober ), /))5, it is advantageo s to the acc sed, hence, it sho ld be given retrospective PP v. Candido, G' /95+*-,*9, 8 ne /+,

application insofar as it spares the acc sed,appellant -++-. from a separate conviction for the crime of illegal possession of firearm. ;nder #ect. / of '.A. (-)5 f rther amended #ect. / of P.%. /(66 provides that where m rder or homicide is committed w1 the se of an nlicensed firearm, the separate penalt! for illegal possession of firearm shall no longer be meted o t since it becomes merel! a special aggravating circ mstance. >he penalt! for illegal possession of firearms shall be imposed in all other cases where none of the crimes en merated nder '.A. No. (-)5 is committed. >he intent of Congress is to treat the offense of illegal possession of firearm and the commission of homicide or m rder w1 the se of nlicensed firearm as a single offense. $n view of this provision, the Co rt has held in a n mber of cases that there can be no separate conviction of the crime of illegal possession of firearm in a case where another crime, as indicated in '.A. No. (-)5 Hm rder or homicide nder #ect. /, and rebellion, ins rrection, sedition or attempted co p dL etat nder #ect. 9I, is committed. $n the case at bar, altho gh the prosec tion was able to establish that the crime of illegal possession of firearm nder P.%. /(66 had been committed b! the acc sed,appellant, '.A. No. (-)5 merel! considers the se of an nlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circ mstance in m rder or homicide, and not as a separate offense. Fort natel! for the acc sed,appellant, the se of an nlicensed firearm in the 3illing of the victim was not alleged in the information for m rder. # ch being the case, the same co ld not be sed as an aggravating circ mstance to warrant the imposition of the death penalt! against the acc sed,appellant. !me; Un#i"ensed Fire!rm used !s !n Aggr!-!ting Cir"umst!n"e; >here is no basis for considering the se of an nlicensed firearm as an aggravating circ mstance. First, the s b=ect firearm was not recovered4 #econd, 'A (-)5, cited b! the trial co rt, w.c provides that Jif homicide or m rder is committed w1 the se of an nlicensed firearm, s ch se of an nlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circ mstance,K has no application to this case. >he said law too3 effect on 8 l! 6, /))* &62ER the instant crime was committed H@a! /(, /))*I. !me; %irect Assa lt w1 @ ltiple Attempted <omicide was committed in this case. <ence, the appellant can no longer be held liable for illegal possession of firearms. @oreover, since the crime committed was direct assa lt and not homicide or m rder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circ mstance. !me; >he se of nlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or m rder is a 2 alif!ing circ mstance. Conse2 entl!, it m st be specificall! alleged in the information, otherwise, the acc sed cannot be sentenced to death for illegal possession of firearm in its aggravated form w1o violating his right to be informed of the nat re and ca se of the acc sation against him. !me; ;nder said Act, if an nlicensed firearm is sed in the perpetration of ANN C'$@?, there can be no separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. PP v. Ealleras, G' /95765, 8 ne -6, -++-.

PP v. Aad=aalam, G' /96/5), 7/, #ept. /), -+++. %e la Pe&a v. 8 dge ?mpa!nado, 8r., A.@. N.. @>8,)6,/+*7, Nov. -*, -+++. PP v. Cabilto, G' /-((/6 P /9))*),(+, A g. (, -++/4 @argere=o v. ?scoses, G'

/9*-7+,7/, #ept. /9, -++/. !me; >he acc sed can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearm, provided that no other crime was committed b! the person arrested. !me; Altho gh the prosec tion d l! established that the crime of illegal possession of firearm nder P% /(66 was committed, 'A (-)5 amending the decree and now considers the se of nlicensed firearm merel! as a special aggravating circ mstance in m rder and homicide, and not as a separate offense. #till, the above circ mstance was not appreciated in this case of m rder and fr strated m rder, as the same was not alleged in the information. !me; >he imposable penalt! for violation of P% /(66, as amended b! 'A (-)5, is onl! prision correccional in its ma0im m period or from 5 !ears, - months and / da! to 6 !ears and a Fine of P/7,+++.++. ;nder #ec. 9-H-I of EP /-), as amended b! 'A *6)/, $t is the m nicipal trial co rt w1c e0ercisesK e0cl sive original = risdiction over all offenses p nishable w1 imprisonment not e0ceeding 6 !ears, irrespective of the amo nt of the Fine and regardless of other imposable accessor! or other penalties. ?vangelista v. #istoDa, G' /59((/, A g. ), -++/. PP v. Costales, G' /5//75,76, 8an. /7, -++-.

#ps. <erminio v. Calimag, A.@. '>=,)), /5*-, #eptember -+, -++/.

ILLE5AL RECRUITMENT; ?lements" H/I the offender PP v. Pasc a, nderta3es either an! activit! w1in the meaning of G' /-7+(/, Jrecr itment and placementK defined nder Art. /9 HbI, or .ct. 9, -++/. an! of the prohibited practices en merated nder Art. 95 of the Aabor Code4 and H-I he has no valid license or a thorit! re2 ired b! law to enable one to lawf ll! engage in recr itment and placement of wor3ers. ILLE5AL RECRUITMENT IN LAR5E CALE; ?lements" H/I the acc sed nderta3es an! recr itment activit! defined nder Art. /9 HbI, or an! prohibited practice en merated nder Art 95 of the AC4 H-I he does not have a license or a thorit! to lawf ll! engage in the recr itment and placement of wor3ers4 and H9I he commits the same against 9 or more individ all! or as a gro p. PP v. Nab t, G' //7*/), -6, .ct. 7, /)))4 PP v. Ariola, G' /9/***, Nov. /6, /)))4 PP v. %e Arabia, G' /-(//-, @a! /-, -+++4 PP v. 'em llo, G' /-5559,56, 8 ne 6, -++-. PP v. %ionisio, G' /9+/*+, 8an. -), -++-.

!me; I##eg!# Re"ruitment Committed !g!inst . or More Persons; >he acc sed,appellants co ld not be convicted for illegal recr itment committed in large scale based on several informations filed b! onl! one complainant. :hen the Aabor Code spea3s of illegal recr itment committed against 9 or more persons, individ all! or as a gro p, it m st be nderstood as referring to the n mber of complainants in each case who are complainants therein. $n other words, a conviction for large scale illegal recr itment m st be based on a finding in each case of illegal recr itment of 9 or more persons whether individ all! or as a gro p.

!me; Re"ruitment !nd P#!"ement; Art. /9 HbI of the AC defines recr itment and placement as J000 an! act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, tiliDing, hiring, or proc ring wor3ers, and incl des referrals, contract services, promising or advertising for emplo!ment, locall! or abroad, whether for profit or not 000K. Conse2 entl!, even in the absence of mone! given as consideration for acc sed,appellants JservicesK, she wo ld still be considered as having engaged in recr itment activities, since it was s fficientl! demonstrated that she promised overseas emplo!ment to private complainants. !me; !me; >he testimon! of the prosec tion witness that appellants Jbro ghtK them to @anila does not necessaril! mean that the! were JtransportedK in the conte0t of Art. /9 HbI for it co ld be that, based on the defenses acco nt, appellants merel! accompanied 'ogelios famil! to @anila. $f two inc lapator! facts are capable of two different interpretations, that w1c wo ld favor the acc sed sho ld be adopted. Again the term, Jrecr itK is a concl sion of law. >he prosec tion failed to elicit from Aoreta how appellants Jrecr itedK A ther. !me; A person charged with illegal recr itment ma! be convicted on the strength of the testimonies of the complainants, if fo nd to be credible and convincing. >he absence of receipts to evidence pa!ment does not warrant an ac2 ittal of the acc sed, and it is not necessaril! fatal to the prosec tionLs ca se.

PP v. %ionisio, G' /9+/*+, 8an. -), -++-.

PP v. #eg n, G' //)+*6, @arch -7, -++-.

PP v. #a lo, G' /-7)+9, Nov. /7, -+++.

!me; $t is well established in = rispr dence that a person id. ma! be charged and convicted for both illegal recr itment and estafa. >he reason for this is that illegal recr itment is a 1al'1 pro8ibit'1, whereas estafa is 1al'1 in se, meaning that the criminal intent of the acc sed is not necessar! for conviction in the former, b t is re2 ired in the latter. !me; >wo separate cases ma! be filed against a person who commits illegal recr itment. $t is nder the Aabor Code w1c is 1al'1 pro8ibit'1 and ?stafa nder Art. 9/7 H-aI of the 'PC, w1c is 1ala in se. .nes ac2 ittal of the crime of ?stafa will not necessaril! res lt in his ac2 ittal of the crime of $llegal 'ecr itment in Aarge #cale, and vice versa. ILLE5AL RECRUITMENT COMMITTED BY A YNDICATE; ?lements" F/G it is carried o t b! a gro p of 9 or more persons4 F-G the! conspired and1or confederating w1 one another in carr!ing o t an! nlawf l or illegal transaction, enterprise or scheme defined nder par. H/I of Art. 9( of the Aabor Code. $t has been shown that Carla, Nolanda and Francisco conspired w1 each other in convincing private complainants to appl! for overseas =ob and giving them the g arrant! that the! wo ld be hired as domestic helpers in $tal! altho gh the! were not licensed to do so. PP v. Nab t, G' //7*/), -6, .ct. 7, /))).

PP v. <ernandeD, G' /5/--/, 96, @arch *, -++-.

I##eg!# Re"ruitment in L!rge "!#e Distinguished from id. I##eg!# Re"ruitment $% ! %ndi"!te7 $llegal recr itment in large scale re2 ires, among other things, that the illegal recr itment is committed against three or more persons, whether individ all! or as a gro p. $llegal recr itment b! a s!ndicate, on the other hand, is committed b! a gro p or

three or more persons conspiring and confederating with one another. ILLE5AL RECRUITMENT UNDER T2E MI5RANT =OR<ER AND O3ER EA FILIPINO ACT OF 'KKG &RA D?C+(; >he proliferation of illegal =ob recr iters and s!ndicates pre!ing on innocent people an0io s to obtain emplo!ment abroad is one of the primar! considerations that led to the enactment of >he @igrant :or3ers and .verseas Filipinos Act of /))7. Aimed at affording greater protection to overseas Filipino wor3ers, it is a significant improvement on e0isting laws in the recr itment and placement of wor3ers for overseas emplo!ment. .therwise 3nown as the @agna Carta of .F:s, it broadened the concept of illegal recr itment nder i.e., Aabor Code and provided stiffer penalties thereto, especiall! those that constit te economic sabotage, i.e., $llegal 'ecr itment in Aarge #cale and $llegal 'ecr itment Committed b! a #!ndicate. $n a litan! of cases we held that to constit te $llegal 'ecr itment in Aarge #cale three H9I elements m st conc r" HaI the offender has no valid license or a thorit! re2 ired b! law to enable him to lawf ll! engage in recr itment and placement of wor3ers4 HbI the offender nderta3es an! of the activities within the meaning of "recr itment and placement" nder Art. /9, par. HbI, of the Aabor Code, or an! of the prohibited practices en merated nder Art. 95 of the same Code Hnow #ec. 6 of 'A (+5-I4 and, HcI the offender committed the same against three H9I or more persons, individ all! or as a gro p. ANTI45RAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICE ACT; e"tion . &$( of RA .?'K; @ere '?C?$P> .F A G$F> .' ANN .><?' E?N?F$>, even w1o an! e0press demand for it M constit tes an offense. E#ements7 H/I the offender is a p blic officer4 H-I who re2 ested or received a gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit4 H9I on behalf of the offender or an! other person4 H5I in connection w1 a contract or transaction w1 the government4 H7I in w1c the p blic officer, in an official capacit! nder the law, has the right to intervene. >hree modes of committing the offense" FiG demanding or re2 esting4 FiiG receiving4 or FiiiG demanding, re2 esting and receiving. Proof of the e0istence of an! of them s ffices to warrant conviction. >he d ration of the possession is not the controlling element in determining receipt or acceptance. $n the case at bar, petitioner opened the envelope containing the boodle mone!, loo3ed inside, closed it and placed the envelope beside him on the table. # ch reaction did not signif! ref sal or resistance to briber!, especiall! considering that he was not s pposed to accept an! cash from the ta0pa!er. !me; e"tion . &e( of RA .?'K4 ?lements" H/I the respondent is a P;EA$C .FF$C?' or a P'$CA>? P?'#.N charged in conspirac! w1 the former4 H-I the said p blic officer committed the prohibited acts in the performance of his official d ties or in relation to his p blic positions4 H9I he ca sed ;N%;? $N8;'N to an! part!, whether the government or a private part!4 and H5I the p blic officer acted w1 manifest partialit!, evident bad faith, or gross ine0c sable negligence. PP v. Gamboa, G' /979(-, #ept. -), -+++.

Peligrino v. People, G' /96-66, A g. /9, -++/.

>he Presidential Ad <oc Fact Finding Comm. C. %esierto, G' /9****, .ct. -, -++/4 Arro!o v. Alcantara, A.@. No. P, +/,/7/(, Nov.

/5, -++/. !me; !me; Provides as one of its elements that the p blic officer sho ld have acted b! ca sing ;N%;? $N8;'N to an! part!, incl ding the govt., or b! giving an! private part! ;N:A''AN>?% E?N?F$>#, A%CAN>AG? .' P'?F?'?NC? in the discharge of his f nctions. >he se of the dis= nctive term JorK connotes that either act 2 alifies as a violation of #ec. 9 HeI, or there are two different modes of committing the offense. >his does not however indicate that each mode constit tes a distinct offense, b t rather, that an acc sed ma! be charged nder either mode or nder both. >he term Jprivate part!K or Jprivate personK is sed to refer to persons other than those holding p blic office. <owever, petitioner is charged w1 ca sing the hiring of some /)- cas al ??s, and the conse2 ent awarding of their honoraria and salaries ta3en from the peace and order f nds of the m nicipalit!. >he rec3oning period is before the cas al ??s inc mbenc! when the! were still private individ als, and hence, their c rrent positions do not affect the s fficienc! of the information. !me; !me; >wo wa!s of violating this provision" FiG ca sing an! ;N%;? $N8;'N to an! part!, incl ding the government4 and FiiG giving an! private part! ;N:A''AN>?% E?N?F$>, A%CAN>AG? .' P'?F?'?NC?. >he act of the acc sed that ca sed nd e in= r! m st have been done w1 evident bad faith or w1 gross ine0c sable negligence. Ead faith m st be evident and bad faith per se is not eno gh for one to be held liable nder the law. !me; !me; Petitioners act of iss ing the certification w1c did not indicate what 3ind of ta0es J>NC Nos. 9+//, +++/K and J++++,+++K stand for was not a criminal act. ('ll'1 cri1en n'lla poena sine lege. >here is no crime where there is no law p nishing it. !me; !me; $n the absence of evidence showing that the act of respondent asst. Cit! Prosec tor in dismissing the charge was done in bad faith or gross ine0c sable negligence, ca sing nd e in= r! to petitioner, the charge of violation of #ec. 9HeI of 'A 9+/), wo ld not prosper. !me; !me; Charged for violation of #ection 9HeI of the Anti,Graft and Corr pt Practices Act or 'ep blic Act No. 9+/) H'.A. 9+/)I involving transactions of the highwa! engineering districts of the then @inistr! of P blic :or3s and <ighwa!s H"@P:<" or "the @inistr!"I in 'egion C$$ HCentral Cisa!asI d ring the late /)*+s. Altho gh a conspirac! ma! be ded ced from the mode and manner b! which the offense was perpetrated, it m st, li3e the crime itself, be proven be!ond reasonable do bt. @ere 3nowledge, ac2 iescence or approval is not eno gh witho t a showing that the participation was intentional and with a view of f rthering a common criminal design or p rpose. $n the instant case, the prosec tion had nothing to implicate ?nri2 eD, # elto and %iaD with b t their signat res on the doc ments, w1c served as attestations that materials which met the desired specifications were received in the =obsites. >he Co rt holds that the evidence against the three remaining petitioners is too wea3 and specio s to s pport the grave charge of conspirac!. >he %>'s are too nreliable an indicator of the whereabo ts of Ea tista v. #andiganba!a n, G' /96+(-, @a! /-, -+++.

Ea!lon v. .mb dsman, G' /5-*9(, %ec. /5, -++/.

?vangelista v. People, G' /+(/97,96, A g. /5, -+++. Garcia,' eda v. Amores, G' //6)9(, #ept. -+, -++/. Grefalde v. #andiganba!a n, G' /967+-, %ec. /7, -+++.

emplo!ees at certain times within the wor3ing da!. >he signat res, b! themselves, while the! ma! have contrib ted to or facilitated the cons mmation of the crime, do not represent direct or competent proof of connivance. As stated b! this Co rt in Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan F*+ #C'A 9+( H/)()IG. JSi1ply beca'se a person in a c8ain o@ processing o@@icers 8appens to sign or initial a vo'c8er as it is going t8e ro'nds, it does not necessarily @ollo* t8at said person beco1es part o@ a conspiracy in an illegal sc8e1e. Gt is all too easy to be s*ept into a long prison ter1 si1ply beca'se t8e g'ilt o@ so1e conspirators is over*8el1ing and so1e8o* it attac8ed to all *8o 8appen to be c8arged in one indict1ent.K !me; !me; $n this case, there is no basis for the finding that in iss ing the letter of administration in 2 estion, petitioner acted" FiG with Jpartialit!,K or bias w1c e0cites a disposition to see and report matters as the! are wished for rather than as the! are, FiiG with Jbad faith,K w1c connotes not onl! bad = dgment or negligence b t also a dishonest p rpose or conscio s wrongdoing, a breach of d t! amo nting to fra d, nor FiiiG with Jgross negligence,K w1c is negligence characteriDed b! the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a sit ation where there is a d t! to act, not inadvertentl! b t willf ll! and intentionall!, with a conscio s indifference to conse2 ences as far as other persons are concerned. !me; e"tion . &g( of RA .?'K4 $t provides corr pt practices of p blic officers in addition to acts or omissions of p blic officers alread! penaliDed b! e0isting law, declared to be nlawf l b! entering on behalf of the government into an! contract or transaction, manifestl! and grossl! %$#A%CAN>AG?.;# to the same whether or not the p blic officer profited or will profit thereb!. >o s stain a conviction, it m st be established that" HaI the acc sed is a p blic officer4 HbI that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government4 and, HcI that s ch contract or transaction is grossl! and manifestl! disadvantageo s to the government. :hether or not the transaction or contract entered into was manifestl! or grossl! disadvantageo s to the government. "@anifest," meaning evident to the senses, open, obvio s, notorio s, nmista3able etc. while "gross" is defined as glaring, reprehensible, c lpable, flagrant, shoc3ing etc. Given the circ mstances of the case, we do not see how the contract entered into b! the petitioners wo ld ca se obvio s or glaring in= r! to the government when petitioner merel! contin ed the p rchase from a reg lar s pplier which he had a thorit! to do so. ANTI4CARNAPPIN5 ACT OF 'KB+ OF RA JG.K; A person in possession of a stolen article is pres med g ilt! of having illegall! and nlawf ll! ta3en the same nless he can satisfactoril! e0plain his possession thereof. !me; There is no "rime of C!rn!))ing ,ith 2omi"ide* >he proper denomination is CA'NAPP$NG as defined and penaliDed b! 'A 679), #ecs. - P 5. ;nder #ec. /5, the penalt! for carnapping, in the case the owner, driver or occ pant of the carnapped vehicle is 3illed in the co rse of the commission of the carnapping shall be 'ecl sion Perpet a to %eath. Considering that at the time of the5 @endoDa, Arce v. .mb dnsman , G' /5)/5(, April 7, -++-.

#a= l v. #andiganba!a n, G' /97-)5, Nov. -+, -+++.

@ar2 eD v. CA, G' //66(), April 9, -+++. PP v. #irad, G' /9+7)5, 8 l! 7, -+++4 PP v. Calabroso, G' /-696(, #ept. /5,

commission of the crime the death peanalt! was s spended, the ac ssed were onl! sentenced to recl'sion perpet'a. ANTI4PIRACY AND 2I52=AY ROBBERY LA= OF 'KBC OF PD G.+; $n the case of PP v. P no, it was held that P% 79- amended Art. 9+6 of the 'PC and it is no longer re2 ired that there be at least 5 armed persons forming a band of robbers as an essential element of the crime. <ence, the fact that there were onl! 9 identified perpetrators is of no moment. P% 79- onl! re2 ires proof that persons were organiDed for the p rpose of committing highwa! robber! indiscriminatel! M characteriDed b! randomness in the selection of the victims or of committing robber! indiscriminatel!. !me; Conviction of this crime re2 ires proof that several acc sed were organiDed for the p rpose of committing it indiscriminatel!. <ere, there is no proof that the acc sed and his cohorts organiDed themselves to commit highwa! robber!. Neither is there proof that the! attempted to commit similar robberies to show the JindiscriminateK perpetration thereof. .n the other hand, what the prosec tion established was onl! a single act of robber! against partic lar persons. !me; :hile the information charged <ighwa! 'obber! nder P% 79-, the trial co rt correctl! convicted the acc sed,appellants of robber! w1 <omicide. A conviction for highwa! robber! re2 ires proof that several acc sed were organiDed for the p rpose of committing highwa! robber! indiscriminatel!. OB TRUCTIN5 OR DELAYIN5 ARRE T OF U PECT &PD 'D+K(; Ciolation of P.%. /(-), w1c ma3es it nlawf l for an!one to obstr ct the apprehension and prosec tion of criminal offenders. >he r le iis that a criminal prosec tion cannot be en=oined. E t as has been held, "FiGnfinitel! more important than conventional adherence to general r les of criminal proced re is respect for the citiDenLs right to be free not onl! from arbitrar! arrest and p nishment b t also from nwarranted and ve0atio s prosec tion." $n this case, petitionersL ob=ection to the arrest of the st dents cannot be constr ed as a violation of P.%. No. /(-), Y/HcI witho t rendering it nconstit tional. Petitioners had a right to prevent the arrest of >aparan and Narag at the time beca se their attempted arrest was illegal. !me; The 5ener!# Ru#e t8at cri1inal prosec'tions 1ay not be restrained eit8er t8ro'g8 a preli1inary or @inal inj'nction or a *rit o@ pro8ibition. ett#ed E0"e)tions to this ru#e, s ch as those en merated in 7rocBa v. Enrile, to wit" a. >o afford protection to the constit tional rights of the acc sed :0ernande3 vs. &lbano, et al. +$1"2#2, Dan'ary 2-, 1"6#, 1" SCR& "-;4 b. :hen necessar! for the orderl! administration of = stice or to avoid oppression or m ltiplicit! of actions
:)i1ay'ga, et al. vs. 6ernande3, ,! P8il. !%,/ 0ernande3 vs. &lbano, s'pra/ 6ort'n vs. +abang, et al., +$!8!8!, May 2#, 1"81, 1%, SCR& 6%#;4

-+++.

PP v. Agomo, o, G' /9/(-), 8 ne -9, -+++.

PP v. 'eanDares, G' /9+676, 8 ne -), -+++.

PP v. Cabilto, G' /-((/6 P /9))*),(+, A g. (, -++/.

Posadas, .mb dsman, G' /9/5)-, #ept. -), -+++.

id.

c. :hen there is a pre= dicial 2 estion which is s b = dice :)e +eon vs. Mabanag, #% P8il. 2%2;4 d. :hen the acts of the officer are witho t or in

e0cess of a thorit! :Planas vs. Gil, 6# P8il. 62;4 e. :here the prosec tion is nder an invalid law, ordinance or reg lation :Jo'ng vs. Ra@@erty, !! P8il. --6/ J' Cong Eng vs. 2rinidad, ,# P8il. !8-, !8";4 f. :hen do ble =eopard! is clearl! apparent :Sangalang vs. People and &lvendia, 1%" P8il. 11,%;4 g. :here the co rt has no = risdiction over the offense :+ope3 vs. City D'dge, +$2-#"-, 4ctober 2", 1"66, 18 SCR& 616;4 h. :here it is a case of persec tion rather than prosec tion :R'stia vs. 4ca1po, C&$G.R. (o. ,#6%, Marc8 2-, 1"6%;4 i. :here the charges are manifestl! false and motivated b! the l st for vengeance :Recto vs. Castelo, 18
+.D. :1"-!;, cited in RaCoa vs. &lvendia, C& G.R. (o. !%#2%$R, 4ctober 8, 1"62/ C@. G'ingona, et al. vs. City 6iscal, +$6%%!!, &pril ,, 1"8,, 128 SCR& -##;4

=. :here there is clearl! no prima facie case against the acc sed and a motion to 2 ash on that gro nd has been denied :Salonga vs. PaCo, et al., +$-"-2,, 6ebr'ary 18, 1"8-, 1!, SCR& ,!8;4 and 3. Preliminar! in= nction has been iss ed b! the #C to prevent the threatened nlawf l arrest of petitioners
:Rodrig'e3 vs. Castelo, +$6!#,, &'g'st 1, 1"-!; cited in Regalado, Re1edial +a* Co1pendi'1, p. 188, 1"88 Ed.;

INDETERMINATE ENTENCE LA=; $n appl!ing the @ari C. CA, $#AA:, the co rt shall fi0 minim m and ma0im m G' /-*6)5, penalties. $f the offense is p nished b! the 'PC, the co rt @a! 9/, -+++. shall sentence the acc sed to an indeterminate penalt!, the ma0im m term of which shall be that which, in view of the attending circ mstances, co ld be properl! imposed nder the r les of the 'PC, and the minim m term of which shall be within the range of the penalt! ne0t lower to that prescribed b! the Code for the offense. >he co rt shall fi0 the minim m penalt! within the n mber of months or !ears covered b! the penalt! ne0t lower in degree to that prescribed b! the Code for the offense witho t regard to an! modif!ing circ mstance attendant to the commission of the crime. >he co rt has the n2 alified discretion to fi0 the term of the minim m penalt!. >he onl! limitation is that it m st be within the range of the penalt! ne0t lower to that prescribed b! the Code for the offense committed, w1o regard to its three H9I periods or reference to the degrees into which it ma! be s bdivided. >hen, the co rt shall fi0 the ma0im m period. $n doing so, the co rt shall now consider the attending circ mstances, finding whether an! modif!ing circ mstance attended the commission of the crime. PROBATION LA= &PD KJD(; ;nder #ection ), the following offenders cannot avail of the benefits of probation" aI those sentenced to serve a ma0im m term of imprisonment of more than si0 !ears4 bI those convicted of s bversion or an! crime against the national sec rit! or the p blic order4 cI t8ose *8o 8ave previo'sly been convicted by @inal j'dg1ent o@ an o@@ense p'nis8ed by i1prison1ent o@ not less t8an one 1ont8 and one day andKor @ine o@ not less t8an t*o 8'ndred pesos4 dI those who have been once on probation nder the provisions of this %ecree4 and eI those who are alread! serving sentence at the time the s bstantive provisions of this %ecree became applicable p rs ant to #ection 99 hereof. $t is a basic r le of stat tor! constr ction that if a stat te is Pablo v. <on. Castillo, G' /-7/+(, A g. 9, -+++.

clear, plain and free from ambig it!, it m st be given its literal meaning and applied witho t an! interpretation. Not onl! that4 in the matter of interpretation of laws on probation, the Co rt has prono nced that "the polic! of liberalit! of probation stat tes cannot prevail against the categorical provisions of the law." #ection ) paragraph HcI is in clear and plain lang age, to the effect that a person who was Jprevio sl! convictedK b! final = dgment of an offense p nishable b! imprisonment of not less than one month and one da! and1or a fine of not less than two h ndred pesos, is dis2 alified from appl!ing for probation. >his provision of law is definitive and n2 alified. >here is nothing in #ection ), paragraph HcI which 2 alifies "previo s convictionK as referring to a conviction for a crime which is entirel! different from that for which the offender is appl!ing for probation or a crime which arose o t of a single act or transaction as petitioner wo ld have the co rt to nderstand. $n the case of ' ra vs. Aope&a H/9* #C'A /-/, /-9I relied pon b! petitioner, the Co rt declared that "previo s" refers to conviction, and not to commission of a crime. At the time ' ra was convicted of the crime for which he was appl!ing for probation, he had no prior conviction. $n the present case of petitioner, when she applied for probation in Criminal Cases Nos. )5, ++/)*,% and )5,++/)(,%, she had a previo s conviction in Criminal Case No. )5,++/)),%, which thereb! dis2 alified her from the benefits of probation. !me; =!i-er of A))e!#; >he mere filing of an application for probation forecloses the right to appeal. $t is deemed a waiver of the right to appeal H#ec. 5I and amo nts to a vol ntar! compliance w1 the decision and writes @inis to the = risdiction of the trial co rt over the = dgment. YOUT2FUL OFFENDER &PD J?.(; Dismiss!# of the "!se; ;nder Art. /)6 of P% 6+9, in cases where the %#:% recommends the discharge of a !o thf l offender, it is the trial co rt before whom the report and recommendation is s b=ect to = dicial review. 'ecommendation alone is not s fficient to warrant the release of a !o thf l offender. $n reviewing the %#:%Ls recommendation, the trial = dge m st not base his = dgment on mere concl sions b t sho ld see3 o t concrete, material and relevant facts to confirm that the !o thf l offender has indeed been reformed and is read! to re,enter societ! as a prod ctive and law,abiding citiDen. Ca tion, however, is given to the trial co rt. >o begin with, the !o thf l offender is not to be tried anew for the same act for which he was charged. >he in2 ir! is not a criminal prosec tion b t is rather limited to the determination of the offenderLs proper ed cation and rehabilitation d ring his commitment in the >raining Center and his moral and social fitness to re=oin the comm nit!. 'A *6/+ C2ILD ABU E LA= &RA BJ'?(; Chi#d Prostitution !nd Other e0u!# A$use; >he elements of the offense of violation of #ection 7 HbI of '.A. *6/+, or the Child Ab se Aaw, as follows" /. >he acc sed commits the AC> .F #?B;AA $N>?'C.;'#? or AA#C$C$.;# C.N%;C>. -. >he said act is performed with a child e0ploited in prostit tion or s b=ected other se0 al ab se. 9. >he child, whether male or female, is below /( !ears of age. >an v. People, G' /5(/)5, April /-, -++-.

PP v. Candelario, G' /-777+, 8 l! //, -+++.

PP 8alos=os, s pra.

v.

A child is deemed e0ploited in prostit tion or s b=ected to other se0 al ab se, when the child ind lges in se0 al interco rse or lascivio s cond ct HaI for mone!, profit, or an! other consideration4 or HbI nder the coercion or infl ence of an! ad lt, s!ndicate or gro p. ;nder 'A *6/+, children are "persons below eighteen !ears of age or those nable to f ll! ta3e care of themselves or protect themselves from ab se, neglect, cr elt!, e0ploitation or discrimination beca se of their age or mental disabilit! or condition." Aascivio s cond ct" is the intentional to ching, either directl! or thro gh clothing, of the genitalia, an s, groin, breast, inner thigh, or b ttoc3s, or the introd ction of an! ob=ect into the genitalia, an s or mo th, of an! person, whether of the same or opposite se0, with an intent to ab se, h miliate, harass, degrade, or aro se or gratif! the se0 al desire of an! person, bestialit!, mast rbation, lascivio s e0hibition of the genitals or p bic area of a person. $n the case at bar, acc sed,appellantLs acts of 3issing 'osil!n on the lips, fondling her breast, inserting his finger into her vagina and placing his penis between her thighs, all constit te lascivio s cond ct intended to aro se or gratif! his se0 al desire RE3I ED FORE TRY CODE &PD B?G(; >he fact of PP v. %ator, possession b! the appellant of the s b=ect pieces of G' /96/5-, &ntipolo And )ita l mber, as well as his s bse2 ent fail re .ct. -5, -+++. to prod ce the legal doc ments as re2 ired nder e0isting forest laws and reg lations constit te criminal liabilit! for violation of P% *+7, a crime that is considered 1al'1 pro8ibit'1.