Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. Nos. 143468-71
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
Contrary to law.
xxx
xxx
xxx
Contrary to law."3
The four (4) Informations were docketed as
Criminal Cases Nos. 99-171390, 99-171391, 99171392 and 99-171393, respectively.
Accused-appellant was arraigned on April 15,
1999, assisted by counsel de parte and entered a
plea of not guilty to each of the charges.4 A joint
trial then ensued.
II. Evidence of the Prosecution5
Ricardo Orillosa and his wife, Rose Orillosa,
natives of San Isidro, Bohol, had three (3) children,
namely: Analia, who was born on December 18,
1985;6 Jepsy, who was 11 years old, and Rossel,
who was nine years old. However, the couple
decided to part ways and live separately. Rose left
Bohol and settled in Manila with her young
children. She worked as a waitress to make both
ends meet.
In 1994, Rose met accused-appellant. They decided
to live together as husband and wife at No. 1252
Jose Abad Santos Street, Moriones, Tondo, Manila.
In 1996, Rose resigned from her job as a waitress.
She secured a loan, bought a truck and used it for
her business.
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
SO ORDERED."11
V. Assigned Errors of the Trial Court
A
He inserted his finger (Finenger nya ako,
ipinatong nya yong ano nya)
Q
Can you please describe more specifically
what is this and I quote "Pinatong nya yong ano
nya" and where did he place it?
A
Q
At this very juncture madam witness, what
did you feel?
A
I felt pain, sir, and I also felt that there was a
sticky substance that was coming out,
sir."27(Emphasis supplied)
We agree with accused-appellant that he is guilty
only of two counts of simple rape, instead of
qualified rape. The evidence on record shows that
accused-appellant is the common-law husband of
Rose, the mother of private complainant. The
private complainant, as of October 1998, was still
13 years old, and under Article 335 as amended by
Q
In November of 1998, do you recall of any
unusual experience that happened to you again?
A
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Q
You said he placed himself on top of you in
November, 1998, what did he do while he was on
top of you?
A
He's smashing my breast and he was also
touching my arms and my legs, sir.
Atty. Estorco:
May we take note of the same objection your
honor, the prosecution
Court:
Witness:
With his hands, sir.
Q
What about after November 1998 was
this the last incident, this unusual thing that you
experienced from the hands of the accused was this
that last time, the one you narrated in November
1998?
A
Yes, sir."32
A
He was not wearing any shirt then, sir, he
was naked.
Q
When you realized that somebody was
entering the room were you not afraid?
A
Q
Do you mean to tell us that he was holding
your two arms and at the same time your legs, is
that what you are trying to tell us?
A
He held me first in my arms and then my
legs, sir.
Q
What happened when you realized that
somebody entered the room, and the one who
entered was your stepfather, Freedie Lizada?
Q
He held you first by your arms, is that what
you are trying to tell us?
Fiscal Carisma:
"Atty. Balaba:
Q
room?
A
I did not mind him entering the room
because I know that my brother was around but
suddenly I felt that somebody was holding me.
Q
He was holding you, where were you when
he held you?
Already answered.
Q
He was fully dressed at that time, during the
time, is that correct?
Atty. Balaba:
Yes, sir.
Court:
Q
What part of the body did the accused
Freedie Lizada touched you?
Q
Was it a T-shirt that he had, at that time or a
polo shirt?
Proceed.
Atty. Balaba:
Atty. Balaba:
A
I did not ask for help, I was motioning to
resist him, so that he would go out, sir. I was
struggling to free myself from him, sir.
Q
And you were not able to extricate yourself
from him?
Court:
Q
You were struggling with one arm of Lizada
holding your arm, and the other hand was holding
your leg, is that what you are trying to tell us?
Q
Which arm of yours was held by Freedie
Lizada?
A
Q
Which side of your body was Freedie
Lizada at that time?
Atty. Balaba:
A
I cannot recall, sir.
Q
What was the position of Freedie Lizada
when he held your arms?
Q
Could you tell us, what happened, you did
not shout for help and you were trying to extricate
yourself, what happened?
Court:
So we will be finished by 11:15, proceed.
Now, he went
Atty. Balaba:
Q
Which side of your bed was Freedie Lizada
sitting on?
A
Court:
Atty. Balaba:
Can we take a recess your honor?
Court:
Q
help?
Yes, sir.
Q
Now, on that date, time and place you said
you were outside your house, did you stay the
whole afternoon outside your house?
No, sir.
Court Interpreter:
Inside, sir.
Q
Where was your house again, Mr. witness,
at that time? Where was your house at that date,
time and place? At that date and time?
Q
For what purpose did you get inside your
house?
Court:
Q
Fiscal Carisma:
Q
water?
Q
On that date, time and place, do your recall
where your sister Anna Lea Orillosa was?
A
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Fiscal Carisma:
A.
Q
This thing that your father was that your
stepfather did to your elder sister, did you see this
before or after you went to the fridge to get some
water?
Q
And what happened as you went inside your
house to get some water?
A
I saw my stepfather removing the panty of
my sister and he touched her and then he laid on
top of her, sir.
Q
What did you do as you saw this thing being
done by your stepfather to your elder sister?
A
sir.
Q
Who, you saw who? You are referring to the
accused Freedie Lizada?
Yes, sir.
Where was she?
Q
Do you see your stepfather inside the
courtroom now?
Yes, sir.
Q
So, what did you do as you were seen by
your stepfather?
A
He scolded me, he shouted at me, he told
me something and after that he went to the other
room and slept, sir."34
Yes, sir.
Q
And okay, you said your sister was
sleeping. What was the position of your sister when
you said the accused removed her panty?
A
She was lying straight, but she was
resisting, sir.
"Q
So you got thirsty, is that correct, and went
inside the house?
Q
time?
Yes, sir.
Q
And you took a glass of water from the
refrigerator?
Q
time?
Yes, sir.
Q
And it was at this time that you saw the
accused Freedie Lizada touching your sister?
A
Yes, sir.
A
sir.
Q
So your sister was lying down when the
accused removed her panty, is that what you are
trying to tell us?
A
Yes, sir.
Q
And where was the and the accused saw
you when he was removing the panty of your
sister?
Q
So you said the accused was touching
your sister. What part of her body was touched by
the accused?
A
Here, sir.
Q
And all this time you saw the accused doing
this, from the refrigerator where you were taking a
glass of water?
Court Interpreter:
Yes, sir.
Atty. Balaba:
Q
You saw with what hand was the accused
touching your sister?
Yes, sir.
Court Interpreter:
Fiscal Carisma:
Q
And your sister all the time was trying to
was struggling to get free, is that not correct?
Atty. Balaba:
Atty. Balaba:
Q
And which part of your sister's body was the
accused touching with his right hand? Your sister's
body was the accused touching with his right hand?
A
Yes, sir, she was resisting. (witness
demonstrating)
Q
She was struggling was the accused able
to remove the panty?
Fiscal Carisma:
A
Q
How about his left hand, what was the
accused doing with his left hand?
A
Yes, sir.
Yes, sir.
Atty. Balaba:
Q
And all the time you were there looking
with the glass of water in your hand?
Yes, sir."35
Removing her?
Q
So, the accused was touching with his right
hand the left thigh of your sister
Panty, sir.
Fiscal Carisma:
Q
Which hand of your sister was being
removed with the left hand of the accused?
Court:
Which?
Atty. Balaba:
Q
Rather the right thigh of your sister and with
his left hand removing the panty, is that what you
are telling to tell us?
Joseph noticed that CHITO was wearing darkcolored shorts and white T-shirt (Ibid., p. 23) when
he let the latter in. . It was at around 3 oclock in
the morning of December 13, 1991 when he woke
up again later to the sound of knocking at the door,
this time, by Bernard Baptista (Bernard), .
cotton material on top and shorts that felt satinsmooth on the bottom.
From CHITOs bag which was found inside Room
310 at the very spot where witness Renato
Alagadan saw CHITO leave it, were discovered the
most incriminating evidence: the handkerchief
stained with blue and wet with some kind of
chemicals; a black "Adidas" satin short pants; and a
white fraternity T-shirt, also stained with blue. A
different witness, this time, Christian Alcala,
identified these garments as belonging to CHITO.
As it turned out, laboratory examination on these
items and on the beddings and clothes worn by
MALOU during the incident revealed that the
handkerchief and MALOUs night dress both
contained chloroform, a volatile poison which
causes first degree burn exactly like what MALOU
sustained on that part of her face where the
chemical-soaked cloth had been pressed.
This brings the Court to the issue on whether the
evidence adduced by the prosecution has
established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the
petitioner for the crime of attempted rape.
The Solicitor General maintained that petitioner, by
pressing on Malous face the piece of cloth soaked
in chemical while holding her body tightly under
the weight of his own, had commenced the
performance of an act indicative of an intent or
SO ORDERED.
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 202867
SO ORDERED.7
Conde P25,000.00
as
moral
damages
andP25,000.00 as exemplary damages, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and
to pay the costs Accused(s) entire period of
detention shall be deducted from the penalty herein
imposed when the accused serves his sentence.
For lack of sufficient evidence, accused Cristy
Demapanag is acquitted of the crime(s) charged in
both cases. The Provincial Warden, Iloilo
Rehabilitation Center, Pototan, Iloilo is hereby
directed to release accused Cristy Demapanag from
custody unless he is being held for some other valid
or lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
SO ORDERED.10
Hence, this appeal.
The Ruling of the Court
2.) In a frustrated felony, the reason for the nonaccomplishment of the crime is some cause
xxxx
SO ORDERED.
ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA y
NATIVIDAD, petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and HON.
COURT OF APPEALS NACHURA, respondents.
DECISION
I.
TINGA, J.:
This case aims for prime space in the firmament of
our criminal law jurisprudence. Petitioner
effectively concedes having performed the
felonious acts imputed against him, but instead
insists that as a result, he should be adjudged guilty
of frustrated theft only, not the felony in its
consummated stage of which he was convicted. The
proposition rests on a common theory expounded in
two well-known decisions1 rendered decades ago
by the Court of Appeals, upholding the existence of
frustrated theft of which the accused in both cases
To
delve
into
any
extended
analysis
of Dio and Flores, as well as the specific issues
relative to "frustrated theft," it is necessary to first
refer to the basic rules on the three stages of crimes
under our Revised Penal Code.30
III.
VITUG, J.:
In People vs. Orita, 1 this Court has declared that
the crime of frustrated rape is non-existent. The
pronouncement, notwithstanding, on 01 March
1996, more than six years after the promulgation of
the decision in Orita, the Regional Trial Court
("RTC") of Cebu City, Branch 14, has convicted
accused Agapito Quianola y Escuadro and
Eduardo Escuadro y Floro, herein appellants, of the
crime of frustrated rape, principally on the strength
SO ORDERED. 15
The trial court ruled that the accused were liable for
the crime of frustrated rape "with an eye to
extending to the two accused the benefit of the
principle that in case of doubt criminal justice
naturally leans in favor of the milder form of
penalty" 16 but that, because of the existence of "at
least six (6) aggravating circumstances, 17 not offset
by any mitigating circumstance," 18the accused
should each be meted the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. It explained:
Now, the crime of rape had it been consummated
and had it been committed with the attendance of
the above-mentioned aggravating circumstances,
with
absolutely no offsetting
mitigating
circumstances, ought to be punished with the
mandatory penalty of death under the pertinent
provisions of Section 11 and 23 of Republic Act
No. 7659, which amended Article 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, and further amplified the
aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14
of the same code. But because the crime committed
here is "merely" frustrated rape for the reasons
heretofore
discussed,
attended
by
the
aforementioned six aggravating circumstances, not
offset by even one mitigating circumstance, the
proper penalty to be imposed upon the two
principals, the two accused herein, both coconspirators, by direct participation and
COURT:
Q How about you, what (sic) were you doing at that
time?
A Yes.
COURT:
A I held my breath.
A No.
A Yes.
A Yes. 25
And on why her T-shirt was no longer soiled with
mud when presented in court, Catalina creditably
explained that when it was offered in evidence, she
had already dusted and rid it of grass particles. At
all events, whether appellants spent their lust on
Catalina in a sitting position or lying down would
not be of any real moment for what remained clear,
established rather convincingly by the prosecution,
was that appellants had forced carnal knowledge of
the victim.
The reliance being made by appellants on the
affidavit of Catalina in order to discredit her is
likewise futile. The Court has consistently ruled
that discrepancies between the statement of an
affiant in an affidavit and those made on the
witness stand do not necessary downgrade
testimonial evidence. Ex parte affidavits are usually
incomplete and frequently prepared by an
administrating officer and cast in the latter's
language and understanding of what the affiant has
said. Quite frequently, the affiant would simply sign
the affidavit after it has been read to him or to her. 26
Not much differently could be said of Catalina's
identification of appellants as being her ravishers.
On the witness stand, Catalina explained that while
she gave appellant Escuadro's nickname "Botiquil"
to the investigating police officer, the latter did not
A Yes.
ATTY. CREEP:
CONTRARY TO LAW.
DECISION
In Criminal Case No. 97-159185CORONA, J.:
1
Hymen: Estrogenized,
Attenuated from 1 oclock position to 4 o clock
position
xxx
xxx
xxx
xxx
SO ORDERED.19
However, we agree with the observation of the
Solicitor General that the court a quo was referring
SO ORDERED.
xxxx
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN
CONVICTING [PAREJA] BASED SOLELY ON
THE PROSECUTION WITNESS TESTIMONY.16
In his Supplemental Brief17 Pareja added the
following argument:
The private complainants actuations after the
incident negate the possibility that she was raped.18
Parejas main bone of contention is the reliance of
the lower courts on the testimony of AAA in
convicting him for rape and acts of lasciviousness.
Simply put, Pareja is attacking the credibility of
AAA for being inconsistent. Moreover, he claimed,
AAA acted as if nothing happened after the alleged
sexual abuse.
Ruling of this Court
This Court finds no reason to reverse Parejas
conviction.
Core Issue: Credibility of AAA
Pareja claims that AAAs testimony cannot be the
lone basis of his conviction as it was riddled with
inconsistencies.19
xxxx
The peculiar designation of time in the Information
clearly violates Sec. 11, Rule 110, of the Rules
Court which requires that the time of the
Medical examination
not indispensable
Pareja avers that the Medico-Legal Report
indicating that there is evidence of blunt force or
penetrating trauma upon examination of AAAs
hymen, "cannot be given any significance, as it
failed to indicate how and when the said signs of
physical trauma were inflicted." Furthermore,
Pareja said, the findings that AAAs hymen
sustained trauma cannot be utilized as evidence
against him as the alleged sexual abuse that
occurred in December, was not by penetration of
the vagina.41
This Court has time and again held that an accused
can be convicted of rape on the basis of the sole
testimony of the victim. In People v. Colorado, 42 we
said:
[A] medical certificate is not necessary to prove the
commission of rape, as even a medical examination
of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution
for rape. Expert testimony is merely corroborative
in character and not essential to conviction. x x x.
Therefore, the absence of testimony or medical
certificate on the state of AAAs anus at the time
she was examined is of no consequence. On the
contrary, the medical examination actually bolsters
AAAs claim of being raped by Pareja on more than
October 8, 2014
NORBERTO CRUZ y
BARTOLOME, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
The intent of the offender to lie with the female
defines the distinction between attempted rape and
acts of lasciviousness. The felony of attempted rape
requires such intent; the felony of acts of
lasciviousness does not. Only the direct overt acts
of the offender establish the intent to lie with the
female. However, merely climbing on top of a
naked female does not constitute attempted rape
without proof of his erectile penis being in a
position to penetrate the female's vagina.
The Case
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
Version of the Prosecution
The CA summarized the version of the Prosecution
as follows:6
x x x [Petitioner] Norberto Bartolome and [his
wife] Belinda Cruz were engaged in the selling of
plastic wares and glass wares in different
municipalities around the country. On December
20, 1993, Norberto and Belinda employed AAA
and BBB to help them in selling their wares in
Bangar, La Union which was then celebrating its
fiesta. From Libsong East, Lingayen, Pangasinan to
Bangar, La Union, AAA and BBB boarded a
passenger jeepney owned by Norberto. The young
girls were accompanied by Norberto, Belinda,
Ruben Rodriguez (driver) and a sales boy by the
name of "Jess".
Upon reaching Bangar, La Union, at around 8:00 in
the evening of December 20, 1993, they parked in
front of Maroon enterprises. They brought out all
the goods and wares for display. Two tents were
fixed in order that they will have a place to sleep.
Belinda and the driver proceeded to Manila in order
to get more goods to be sold.
On December 21, 1993, at around 1:00 oclock in
the morning, AAA and BBB went to sleep. Less
xxxx
SO ORDERED.