PEOPLE VS BUENO

When the arson consists in the burning of other

property and under the circurmstances given
hereunder, the offender shall be punished:

This case is about the appeal of Bueno after the

Court of Apeals charge him of the crime of Arson
through Reckless Imprudence. He contended
that he be convicted only of the crime of
Reckless Imprudence.

When the execution of the act covered by this

article shall have only resulted in damage to the
property of another, the offender shall be
punished by a fine ranging from an amount
equal to the value of said damages to three
times such value, but which shall in no case be
less than 25 pesos.

Facts:
The said accused, being then owner of a parcel
of agricultural land still covered with rice hays
adjoining the land of the herein complainant,
who has a hut of strong materials with assorted
personal properties kept in it consisting of all his
farming implements and fruit trees surrounding
the hut, unlawfully and voluntarily set fire to the
rice hays on his said land in a careless and
imprudent manner without taking the necessary
precautions to prevent its spread to the
neighboring properties although the danger of
the spreading of the fire to the adjoining lands
and properties and the danger of burning the
properties on same is immediate and clearly
manifest causing said fire to spread and burn or
swept the hut, all the farming implements and
properties kept in it and surrounding trees
belonging to the herein complainant, causing the
entire loss of said hut and properties in it.

BUEBOS VS PEOPLE
This case is about the petition to review
on certiorari the Decision of the Court of
Appeals, affirming with modification that of the
Regional Trial Court finding petitioners Dante
Buebos and Sarmelito Buebos guilty of arson of
an inhabited place under section 3, PD 1613.
However, the petitioners contended that they
should be guilty only of simple arson since the
information only charged them of the same.
Facts
On January 1, 1994, Adelina B. Borbe was in
her house at Hacienda San Miguel,
Tabaco, Albay watching over her sick child. She
was lying down when she heard some noise
around the house. She got up and looked
through the window and saw the four accused,
Rolando Buela, Sarmelito Buebos, Dante
Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr. congregating in
front of her hut. When she went out, she saw the
roof of her nipa hut already on fire. She shouted
for help. Instead of coming to her immediate
succor, the four fled.

Issue:
WON the accused is proper to chrge with the
crime of Arson through Reckless Imprudence.
Ruling:
Article 365 provides that:
Any person, who, by reckless imprudence, shall
commit any act which, had it been intentional,
would constitute grave felony, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prison correccional in its minimum period; if it
would have constituted a less grave felony, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and
periods shall be imposed.

At some distance away, Olipiano Berjuela heard

Adelina scream for help. Olipiano was then
drinking with Pepito Borbe to celebrate New
Years Eve. Olipiano immediately ran to the
place and saw a number of people jumping over
the fence. When he focused his flashlight on
them, he was able to identify Sarmelito Buebos,
Dante Buebos and Antonio Cornel, Jr. He also
saw Rolando Buela running away.

in relation to paragraph 5 of Article 321, which

provides:

CRIM FEB 24&26

Page 1

Issue:

the RTC on April 7, 1998, it may be applied

retroactively. It is elementary that rules of
criminal procedure are given retroactive
application insofar as they benefit the accused.

WON the petitioners should be held guilty of the

crime of Arson in an inhabited place
Ruling:
The legal basis of the trial court in convicting
petitioners of arson is Section 3, paragraph 2 of
P.D. No. 1613. The said provision of law reads:

PEOPLE VS GUTIERREZ

SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. The penalty

of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed if the property burned is any of the
following:

This case is about the appeal of the accused of

the decision of the RTC convicting him of the
crime of arson under PD 1613 of an inhabited
place. However, he challenged the same
because the information failed to identify that the
arson was committed in the same.

x xxx

Facts:

2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;

In the evening of 14 December 1989, at around

eight o'clock, while Felipe Enriquez, a barangay
tanod, was in front of his house in Makabalo
Street, Kalookan City, he noticed a commotion at
a distance. Repairing to the place, he saw
appellant, bloodied, being embraced by his
mother Corazon Gutierrez. His neighbor Paul
Polinga, a policeman of Valenzuela, was, by the
time Enriquez arrived at the scene, already
attending to appellant. Enriquez was told by
some people around him that there had been a
"fight" between appellant and a son of one Mario
Alano.

The elements of this form of arson are: (a) there

is intentional burning; and (b) what is
intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling. Admittedly, there is a confluence of the
foregoing elements here. However, the
information failed to allege that what was
intentionally burned was an inhabited house or
dwelling. That is fatal.
Under the new rules, the information or
complaint must state the designation of the
offense given by the statute and specify its
qualifying
and
generic
aggravating
circumstances. Otherwise stated, the accused
will not be convicted of the offense proved
during the trial if it was not properly alleged in
the information.

Later that evening, at about 11:30, while

Enriquez and appellant's brother Eric and sister
Bolet, were conversing at the corner of Rajah
Soliman and Makabalo Streets about the
incident, appellant passed by carrying a bag
containing what seemed to be "gasoline.
Enriquez followed appellant. A few meters away,
he saw appellant throw the bag at the house of
Mario Alano and then lit it. The plea of
appellant's mother, who screamed "Egay,
Egay, huwag," was ignored by the son. Enriquez
yelled
'"Mang
Mario,
Mang
Mario, nagliliyabangbahayninyo!" Forthwith,
Enriquez saw Mario Alano pouring water on the
ablaze portion of the house. Neighbors rushed in
to help put the fire under control.

Perusing the information, there was no

allegation that the house intentionally burned by
petitioners
and
their
cohorts
was
inhabited. Rather, the information merely recited
that accused, conspiring, confederating and
helping one another, with intent to cause
damage, did then and there willfully, unlawfully,
feloniously and maliciously set on fire the
nipa roof of the house of ADELINA B. BORBE,
to the latters damage and prejudice.
Although the rule took effect only on December
1, 2000, while the petitioners were convicted by
CRIM FEB 24&26

Page 2

Mario Alano, testifying, said that he was at home

in 104 Rajah Soliman Street, Kalookan City,
watching the television program "Tell the
People," when he heard appellant, whose voice
he was familiar with, shouting that he (appellant)
would blow-up the house. Mario then heard a
sound resembling that of a piece of wet cloth
being hurled at the wall of the house. Instantly,
the wall was aflame.

complainant) was driving his Honda CRV (CRV)

from the 3rd basement parking, while Robert
Taguinod (petitioner) was driving his Suzuki
Vitara
(Vitara) from the
2nd basement
parking. When they were about to queue at the
corner to pay the parking fees, the respective
vehicles were edging each other. The CRV was
ahead of the queue, but the Vitara tried to
overtake, which resulted the touching of their
side view mirrors. The side view mirror of the
Vitara was pushed backward and naturally, the
side view mirror of the CRV was pushed
forward. This prompted the private complainant's
wife and daughter, namely, Susan and Mary
Ann, respectively, to alight from the CRV and
confront the petitioner. Petitioner appeared to be
hostile, hence, the private complainant
instructed his wife and daughter to go back to
the CRV. While they were returning to the car,
petitioner accelerated the Vitara and moved
backward as if to hit them. The CRV, having
been overtaken by the Vitara, took another
lane. Private complainant was able to pay the
parking fee at the booth ahead of
petitioner.When the CRV was at the upward
ramp leading to the exit, the Vitara bumped the
CRV's rear portion and pushed the CRV until it
hit the stainless steel railing located at the exit
portion of the ramp.
As a result of the collision, the CRV sustained
damage at the back bumper spare tires and the
front bumper, the repair of which amounted
to P57,464.66. The
insurance
company
shouldered the said amount, but the private
complainant
paid P18,191.66
as
his
participation. On the other hand, the Vitara
sustained damage on the right side of its
bumper.

Issue:
WON the accused should be held guilty of Arson
in an inhabited place under PD 1613
Ruling:
The information charges appellant with violation
of P.D. 1613 without specifying the particular
provision breached. The information having
failed to allege whether or not the burnt house is
inhabited, and not having been established that
the house is situated in a populated or
congested area, appellant should be deemed to
have only been charged with plain arson under
Section 1 of the decree. Kalookan City might be
a densely populated part of the metropolis but its
entire territory cannot be said to be congested.
Although the whole 2-storey wood and
galvanized iron house has not been completely
gutted by the fire, the crime committed is still
consummated arson. It is enough that a portion
thereof is shown to have been destroyed. Under
Section 1 of the decree, the offense of simple
arson committed is punishable by prision mayor.

Issue
TAGUINOD VS PEOPLE

WON the petitioner be held guilty of the crime of

Malicious Mischief

This case is about the petition for review of

petitioner Robert Taguinod seeking to reverse
the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
the Decisions of the Regional Trial Court of
Makati City of the crime of Malicious Mischief

Ruling
What really governs this particular case is that
the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. The
elements of the crime of malicious mischief
under Article 327 of the Revised Penal Code
are:

Facts:
This case started with a single incident on May
26, 2002 at the parking area of the Rockwell
Powerplant
Mall. Pedro
Ang
(private
CRIM FEB 24&26

Page 3

(1) That the offender deliberately

caused damage to the property of another;

The CA also accurately observed that the

elements of the crime of malicious mischief are
not wanting in this case, thus:

(2) That such act does not

constitute arson or other crimes involving
destruction;

Contrary to the contention of the petitioner, the

evidence for the prosecution had proven beyond
reasonable doubt the existence of the foregoing
elements. First, the hitting of the back portion of
the CRV by the petitioner was clearly deliberate
as indicated by the evidence on record. The
version of the private complainant that the
petitioner chased him and that the Vitara pushed
the CRV until it reached the stairway railing was
more believable than the petitioner's version that
it was private complainant's CRV which moved
backward and deliberately hit the Vitara
considering the steepness or angle of the
elevation of the P2 exit ramp. It would be too
risky and dangerous for the private complainant
and his family to move the CRV backward when
it would be hard for him to see his direction as
well as to control his speed in view of the
gravitational pull. Second, the act of damaging
the rear bumper of the CRV does not constitute
arson
or
other
crimes
involving
destruction. Lastly, when the Vitara bumped the
CRV, the petitioner was just giving vent to his
anger and hate as a result of a heated
encounter between him and the private
complainant.

(3) That the act of damaging another's property

be committed merely for the sake of damaging
it.
In finding that all the above elements are
present, the MeTC rightly ruled that:
The following were not disputed: that there was
a collision between the side view mirrors of the
two (2) vehicles; that immediately thereafter, the
wife and the daughter of the complainant
alighted from the CRV and confronted the
accused; and, the complainant, in view of the
hostile attitude of the accused, summoned his
wife and daughter to enter the CRV and while
they were in the process of doing so, the
accused moved and accelerated his Vitara
backward as if to hit them.
The incident involving the collision of the two
side view mirrors is proof enough to establish
the existence of the element of hate, revenge
and other evil motive. Here, the accused
entertained hate, revenge and other evil motive
because to his mind, he was wronged by the
complainant when the CRV overtook his Vitara
while proceeding toward the booth to pay their
parking fee, as a consequence of which, their
side view mirrors collided. On the same
occasion, the hood of his Vitara was also
pounded, and he was badmouthed by the
complainant's wife and daughter when they
alighted from the CRV to confront him for the
collision of the side view mirrors. These
circumstances motivated the accused to push
upward the ramp complainant's CRV until it
reached the steel railing of the exit ramp. The
pushing of the CRV by the Vitara is corroborated
by the Incident Report dated May 26,
2002 prepared by SO Robert Cambre, Shift-InCharge of the Power Plant Mall, as well as the
Police Report.

CRIM FEB 24&26

In sum, this Court finds that the evidence on

record shows that the prosecution had proven
the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of malicious mischief. This
adjudication is but an affirmation of the finding of
guilt of the petitioner by both the lower courts,
the MeTC and the RTC.

PEOPLE VS ORITA
This case is about the appeal of the accused
Oritaafter he was found guilty of RTC and CA of
the Crime of Frustrated Rape. However, he
contended that he be acquitted because there is
no crime of Frustrated Rape.
Page 4

Facts:

She dashed out to the next room and locked

herself in. Appellant pursued her and climbed
the partition. When she saw him inside the
room, she ran to another room. Appellant again
chased her. She fled to another room and
jumped out through a window.

Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year

old freshman student at the St. Joseph's College
at Borongan, Eastern Samar. Appellant was a
Philippine Constabulary (PC) soldier.
In the early morning of March 20, 1983,
complainant arrived at her boarding house. Her
classmates had just brought her home from a
party. Shortly after her classmates had left, she
knocked at the door of her boarding house. All of
a sudden, somebody held her and poked a knife
to her neck. She then recognized appellant who
was a frequent visitor of another boarder.

Still naked, she darted to the municipal building,

which was about eighteen meters in front of the
boarding house, and knocked on the door. When
there was no answer, she ran around the
building and knocked on the back door. When
the policemen who were inside the building
opened the door, they found complainant naked
sitting on the stairs crying. Pat. Donceras, the
first policeman to see her, took off his jacket and
wrapped it around her. When they discovered
what happened, Pat. Donceras and two other
policemen rushed to the boarding house. They
heard a sound at the second floor and saw
somebody running away. Due to darkness, they
failed to apprehend appellant.

She pleaded with him to release her, but he

ordered her to go upstairs with him. Since the
door which led to the first floor was locked from
the inside, appellant forced complainant to use
the back door leading to the second floor. With
his left arm wrapped around her neck and his
right hand poking a "balisong" to her neck,
appellant dragged complainant up the stairs.
When they reached the second floor, he
commanded her to look for a room. With the
Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they
entered complainant's room.

Issue:
WON the accused can be held guilty of
Frustrated Rape
Ruling

Upon entering the room, appellant pushed

complainant who hit her head on the wall. With
one hand holding the knife, appellant undressed
himself. He then ordered complainant to take off
her clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt.
Then he pulled off her bra, pants and panty. He
ordered her to lie down on the floor and then
mounted her. He made her hold his penis and
insert it in her vagina. She followed his order as
he continued to poke the knife to her. At said
position, however, appellant could not fully
penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis
entered her as she kept on moving (p. 23, ibid).

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code defines

and enumerates the elements of the crime of
rape:
Art. 335. When and how rape is committed.
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge
of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious and

Appellant then lay down on his back and

commanded her to mount him. In this position,
only a small part again of his penis was inserted
into her vagina. At this stage, appellant had both
his hands flat on the floor. Complainant thought
of escaping.

CRIM FEB 24&26

3. When the woman is under twelve years of

age, even though neither of the circumstances
mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs
shall be present.

Page 5

(Q Was the penis inserted on your vagina?

PEREZ Y AGUSTIN VS CA

A It entered but only a portion of it.

This case is about the petition for review

on certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside
the Decision of the Court of Appeals in affirming
the conviction of petitioner Adelmo Perez y
Agustin for the crime of Attempted Rape. He
contended thathe be should be convicted only of
the crime of acts of lasciviousness.

x xx

x xx

x xx

Q What do you mean when you said comply, or

what act do you referred (sic) to, when you said
comply?
A I inserted his penis into my vagina.
Q And was it inserted?

Facts:

A Yes only a little.)

EufemiaTria, in her testimony, gave an account

of the incident that took place in the morning of
April 14, 1988. She was then washing clothes
outside their house when she heard someone
cry Inay. She then peeped into their window
which was just a few meters from where she
was and there saw her daughter Julita lying flat
on a bamboo bed with her skirt raised. She saw
accused Adelmo on top of Julita with her hands
pinned down. As accused was kissing her
daughter in the neck, his buttocks were moving
in an up and down motion while her daughter
was fighting back and struggling to break
free. Eufemia then rushed straight to the room
where she found accused hiding under the
bamboo bed. She then ordered the accused to
come out which he did. She thought of hacking
the accused with the bolo which she found
hanging on the wall but realized that she could
not do it and instead dragged the accused out of
the house and brought him to his parents house
to tell them what happened.

Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment

the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim
he actually attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished.Nothing more
is left to be done by the offender, because he
has performed the last act necessary to produce
the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a
long line of cases (People v. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527;
People v. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People v.
Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974, 56
SCRA 666; People v. Amores, G.R. No. L32996, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 505), We
have set the uniform rule that for the
consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not
essential. Any penetration of the female organ
by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia
or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the
hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
warrant
conviction. Necessarily,
rape
is
attempted if there is no penetration of the female
organ (People v. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559 People v.
Rabadan et al., 53 Phil. 694; United States v.
Garcia: 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of
execution was performed. The offender merely
commenced the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts. Taking into account the nature,
elements and manner of execution of the crime
of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is
hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in
rape can ever be committed.

CRIM FEB 24&26

Issue:
WON the accused can be held guilty of
attempted rape
Ruling:
The Court is not inclined to deviate from these
courts findings that petitioner, against the will of
the complainant, performed sexual acts on the
latter. However, a careful review of the records
of the case shows that the crime committed by
petitioner was acts of lasciviousness not
attempted rape.
Page 6

Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there

is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. In the crime of rape,
penetration is an essential act of execution to
produce the felony. Thus, for there to be an
attempted rape, the accused must have
commenced the act of penetrating his sexual
organ to the vagina of the victim but for some
cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance, the penetration,
however slight, is not completed.

acts of lasciviousness because the crime of acts

of lasciviousness is included in rape.

PEOPLE VS EGAN
This case is about the appeal of the accused
Egan of the decision of the RTC after he was
then found guilty of the crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape. He contended that he
should be held guilty only of the crime of
Forcible abduction.
Facts:
On 6 January 1997 Lenie and her cousin
Jessica Silona were fetching water at a deep
well several meters from Lenies house in
SitioSalaysay. At around 2:00 o'clock in the
afternoon, the accused appeared from nowhere
and forcibly dragged and pushed Lenie towards
SitioDalag, Arakan, Cotabato.He threatened to
kill her if she resisted. Before leaving the site of
the deep well, he likewise terrorized Jessica by
brandishing his hunting knife which forced the
girl to scamper for safety. About 5:00 o'clock that
same afternoon, Jessica was able to report to
Lenies father, PalmonesCamad, the abduction
of his daughter.Palmones immediately borrowed
the horse
of
a
neighbor and together with a friend proceeded to
SitioDalag to look for Lenie.They sought the help
of the barangay captain of SitioDalag and then
returned to SitioSalaysay to rest for the
night. For their part, the accused and Lenie
stayed that same night in a house in SitioDalag.

There is no showing in this case that petitioners

sexual organ had even touched complainants
vagina nor any part of her body.
Petitioners acts of lying on top of the
complainant, embracing and kissing her,
mashing her breasts, inserting his hand inside
her panty and touching her sexual organ, while
admittedly obscene and detestable acts, do not
constitute attempted rape absent any showing
that petitioner actually commenced to force his
penis
into
the
complainants
sexual
organ. Rather, these acts constitute acts of
lasciviousness. The elements of said crime are:
(1) that the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done (a)
by using force and intimidation or (b) when the
offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended
party is under 12 years of age; and (3) that the
offended party is another person of either sex.

On 7 January 1997 accused Lito Egan forced

Lenie to escort him to SitioSayawan, Miokan,
Arakan, Cotabato, still threatening to kill her if
she shouted or resisted, and there stayed in the
house of a sister of Lito. It was in this place
where under the cover of darkness and
desolation he allegedly raped Lenie.

All these elements are present and have been

sufficiently established in this case. Petitioner
clearly committed lewd acts against the
complainant. Moreover, petitioner employed
force when he committed these acts on the
complainant. In fact, as found by the trial court,
there were bruises on complainants neck and
navel which belie petitioners claim that the
complainant consented to these acts.

Issue:
WON the accused is guilty of the crime of Rape
and Forcible Abduction

Although the information filed against petitioner

was for attempted rape, he can be convicted of
CRIM FEB 24&26

Page 7

Ruling:

was still intact and impenetrable without causing

the least hymenal injury. The medico-legal report
concluded that there were no evident signs of
extragenital physical injuries on the body of the
subject at the time of the examination, and her
hymen was intact with her orifice small (1.5 cms.
in diameter) as to preclude complete penetration
by an average-sized male organ in erection
without causing hymenal injury.

Forcible Abduction
Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code defines
and
penalizes
the
crime
of
forcible
abduction. The elements of forcible abduction
are (a) that the person abducted is a woman,
regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation;
(b) that the abduction is against her will; and, (c)
that the abduction is with lewd designs.

Under the circumstances, the criminal liability of

accused-appellant is only for forcible abduction
under Art. 342 of The Revised Penal Code. The
sexual abuse which accused-appellant forced
upon Lenie constitutes the lewd design inherent
in forcible abduction and is thus absorbed
therein. The indecent molestation cannot form
the other half of a complex crime since the
record
does
not
show
that
the
principal purpose of the accused was to commit
any of the crimes against chastity and that her
abduction would only be a necessary means to
commit the same. Surely it would not have been
the
case
that
accused-appellant
would touch Lenie only once during her four (4)month captivity, as she herself admitted, if his
chief or primordial intention had been to lay with
her. Instead, what we discern from the evidence
is that the intent to seduce the girl forms part
and parcel of her forcible abduction and shares
equal importance with the other element of the
crime which was to remove the victim from her
home or from whatever familiar place she may
be and to take her to some other. Stated
otherwise, the intention of accused-appellant as
the evidence shows was not only to seduce the
victim but also to separate her from her family,
especially from her father Palmones, clearly telltale signs of forcible abduction.

All the elements of forcible abduction were

proved in this case. The victim, who is a young
girl, was taken against her will as shown by the
fact that at knife-point she was dragged and
taken by accused-appellant to a place far from
her abode. At her tender age, Lenie could not be
expected to physically resist considering the fact
that even her companion, Jessica Silona, had to
run home to escape accused-appellant's wrath
as he brandished a hunting knife. Fear gripped
and paralyzed Lenie into helplessness as she
was manhandled by accused-appellant who was
armed and twenty-four (24) years her senior.
Rape
Art. 335 of the same Code defines the crime of
rape and provides for its penalty. The elements
of rape pertinent to this case are: (a) that the
offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and,
(b) that such act is accomplished by using force
or intimidation.
Sexual abuse cannot be equated with rape. In
the case at bar, there is no evidence of entrance
or introduction of the male organ into the labia of
the pudendum. Lenie's testimony did not
establish that there was penetration by the sex
organ of the accused or that he tried to
penetrate her. The doctor who examined Lenie's
vagina on 28 May 1997 would in fact admit upon
questioning of the trial judge that "there was no
interlabia contact. The medico-legal report would
then reflect our statement in People v.
Tayag "that considering the age of the victim and
the condition of her hymen, there should be
laceration if there was penetration by an adult
male sex organ" when it reported that the hymen
CRIM FEB 24&26

PEOPLE VS SABREDO
This case is about the automatic review of the
judgment of the Regional Trial Court imposing
the penalty of death on accused-appellant,
Jimmy Sabredo y Garbo, for the complex crime
of abduction with rape of complainant

Page 8

JudelizaSabredo. He contended that he be

convicted only of the crime of Rape.

however, stopped him. On July 8, 1994, Judeliza

recovered sufficiently from her injuries. Nilda
brought her to the police where Judeliza
reported her ordeal. That same day, while Jimmy
was sleeping, Nilda managed to take away from
him the blade, made of stainless steel, which he
had used in the rape of Judeliza.

Facts:
On June 27, 1994, Judeliza went to the well
near their house, to take a bath. There, Jimmy
grabbed and forcibly dragged her at knife's
point, to the highway where he made her board
a truck for Bogo, Cebu. Impelled by fear, she
complied, since Jimmy continuously poked a
knife under cover of his jacket at her. From
Bogo, he took her by passenger motorboat to
Placer, Masbate. Thence he brought her to
Estampar, Cataingan, Masbate, where they
stayed at the house of ConchitaTipnit. Conchita
was Jimmy's sister and Judeliza's aunt, though
aunt and niece did not know each other. In
Estampar, Judeliza tried to escape but was
caught by Jimmy, who severely mauled her until
she lost consciousness. Scedp

Issue:
WON the acused be held guilty of the crime of
Forcibl Abduction with Rape.
Ruling:
Forcible Abduction
The elements of forcible abduction are: (1) that
the person abducted is any woman, regardless
of age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that the
abduction is against her will; and (3) that the
abduction is with lewd designs. The
prosecution's evidence clearly shows that the
victim was forcibly taken at knifepoint from
Borbon, Cebu by appellant and through threats
and intimidation brought to various towns in
Masbate, where he passed her off as his "wife".
That appellant was moved by lewd designs was
shown in regard to rape by his having carnal
knowledge of private complainant, against her
will, on July 4, 1994 at Cagba, Tugbo, Masbate.

Suspecting that Conchita would report the

matter to the police, Jimmy took Judeliza by
jeepney to Cagba, Tugbo, Masbate. They stayed
with Roberto Sabredo, his nephew and
Judeliza's first cousin. The two cousins,
however, had not met before and Jimmy was
able to pass her off as his wife. They stayed in
Cagba from June 29 to July 5, 1994, with Jimmy
closely guarding Judeliza. Calrspped

Rape

On July 4, 1994, at around midnight, Jimmy,

armed with a blade, sexually assaulted Judeliza.
He covered her mouth to prevent her from
shouting. After satisfying his lust, Jimmy inserted
three fingers into her vaginal orifice and cruelly
pinched it. Judeliza screamed and cried for help.
Their host, Roberto, was awakened but could
not do anything to assist her. Later, Jimmy
struck Judeliza with a piece of wood, rendering
her unconscious. Much later, he brought her to
the house of his sister, NildaPolloso, also at
Cagba.

While it may appear at first blush that forcible

abduction, as defined and penalized by Article
342 of the Revised Penal Code was also
committed, we are not totally disposed to convict
appellant for the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape. We note that while the
information sufficiently alleges the forcible taking
of complainant from Cebu to Masbate, the same
fails to allege "lewd designs." When a complex
crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal
Code is charged, such as forcible abduction with
rape, it is axiomatic that the prosecution must
allege and prove the presence of all the
elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the
elements of the crime of rape. When appellant,
using a blade, forcibly took away complainant for

Nilda noticed the victim's weak and wan

condition and offered her medicine. Catching
Jimmy in the act of boiling water, she asked
what it was for and was told that it would be
poured over Judeliza to finish her off. Nilda,
CRIM FEB 24&26

Page 9

the purpose of sexually assaulting her, as in fact

he did rape her, the rape may then absorb
forcible abduction. Hence, the crime committed
by appellant is simple rape only.
Penalty
In sentencing appellant to death, the trial court
noted that the victim was his niece, a relative by
consanguinity within the third civil degree.
Section 11 (1) of R.A. No. 7659 imposes the
death penalty when the rape victim is under 18
years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim. However, R.A. No. 7659 cannot be
made to apply in the instant case for two
reasons: First, at the time the rape was
committed, private complainant was already
more than eighteen years of age. Second, the
information did not allege that offender and
offended party were relatives within the third
degree of consanguinity. We have held that the
seven circumstances in R.A. No. 7659 which
warrant the automatic imposition of the death
penalty partake of the nature of qualifying
circumstances and as such should be alleged in
the information to be appreciated as such. In
view of the failure of the information to comply
with this requirement, said degree of relation
could not be taken into account in considering
the penalty to be imposed. For these reasons,
the sentence on appellant should only
be reclusion perpetua.

BABANTO VSZOSA
This case is about the appeal of the offended
party of the judgment rendered by the RTC
finding the accused guilty only of qualified
seduction. She reasoned that the accused
should be convicted of the crime of Rape.
Facts:
The said accused was a policeman of
Oroquieta. He take advantage of the night time

CRIM FEB 24&26

and of the feeble minded condition of the

complainant who is of tender age of 13, with the
use of his service firearm and by means of
violence and intimidation, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge of the undersigned complainant
LeonidaDagohoy, against her will inside the ABC
Hall which happen to be dark. At dawn of
October 24, 1969 she was in the market of
Oroquieta sitting leisurely. While thus sitting,
EusebioBabanto, a policeman, came and held
her by the right hand at the same time saying: I
will bring you to the municipal building. 'She
accompanied and went along with him because
she was being held. But they did not reach the
municipal building because EusebioBabanto
brought her to the ABC Hall. The hall was empty
and there was nobody in. It was dark. In the
ABC Hall, EusebioBabanto made her lie down
face upward. Then he lifted her dress and pulled
down her pantie. She felt pain in her vagina
when his penis penetrated her sexual organ.
She cried. He completed the act, stood up and
left her; told her that if she tells her parents, he
will shoot her. EusebioBabanto was in uniform
and with a side arm.
She did not shout because he held her mouth.
After Babanto left her, she put on her pantie
back and felt her vagina was bleeding. She was
then wearing a blue dress. When morning came,
she took a bath and washed her pantie.
When Babanto left her that dawn in the ABC
Hall, she went to the seashore. She did not
report to her parents because she was afraid of
EusebioBabanto when he said that he will kill
her if she tells her parents. But eventually her
parents came to know of what happened to her
that she was abused because they investigated
her. Ultimately, she confessed to them. So, they
brought her to the hospital and had her
examined by a doctor.
The RTC however found him guilty only of
qualified seduction.
Issue:

Page 10

WON the accused should be held guilty only of

Qualified Seduction
Ruling:
We agree with the trial court's findings that
sexual intercourse took place between the
accused-petitioner
and
complainant
LeonidaDagohoy in the manner that Leonida
narrated in court. It is inconceivable that a 13
year old mentally deficient girl could create such
a story and implicate the accused- petitioner
who at that time was a police officer and the
father of a friend. There is no evidence on record
which could show evil motive on her part that
she could, despite her mental incapacity, accuse
the petitioner of such a heinous crime as rape.
The record shows that the two of them, were
really together just about the time the incident
happened and that the ABC Hall, where the
crime was committed was an annex of the
municipal building. Hence, accused-petitioner
could have easily gone to the municipal building
after the incident, earlier than Patrolman Apos,
who admittedly was behind Leonida and the
accused-petitioner on their way to the municipal
building.
Except for Babanto's holding down the girl when
she kicked him and covering her mouth when
she was in pain there was no violence which
accompanied the sexual intercourse. However,
we find as erroneous the trial court's conclusion
that under the circumstances, where no physical
intimidation preceded the sexual intercourse an
essential element which could qualify accusedpetitioner's crime to rape is missing.
In the instant case, considering the age, mental
abnormality, and deficiency of the complainant
plus the fact that the accused-petitioner was at
the time of the incident in uniform and with a
side arm, there was sufficient intimidation to
convict for rape. The fact that the complainant
kicked the accused- petitioner while the latter
was lifting her dress and removing her panty and
that she cried afterwards negate any consent on
her part to the sexual intercourse.

CRIM FEB 24&26

PEOPLE VS VELASQUEZ
This case is about the appeal of the accused of
the decision of the RTC convicting him of the
crime of qualified. He contended that he should
be acquitted since the information charge him of
the crime of Rape and not the crime he was
convicted.
Facts:
The complainant Remedios Domingo was a
housemaid of Cecilia Velasquez in the latter's
house in Licab Nueva Ecija. Cecilia, a sister of
the appellant, is a public school teacher married
to a dentist. The appellant, who was unmarried,
was staying in the house of said spouses in the
ground floor of which he had a radio repair shop.
Remedios, at the time of the alleged rape
committed on February 9, 1966, was 15 years, 2
months and 27 days old, she having been born
on November 12, 1950.
In the evening of February 9, 1966, while she
was sleeping in a room in the house of her
employer, she felt someone embracing her.
Awakened, she saw the appellant by her side,
threatening her with death if she would make an
outcry. The appellant held a bladed weapon
which he pressed to her breast. Overcome with
fear, the complainant did not shout. The
appellant then proceeding to raise her blouse
and touched her breast. Despite her struggle,
the appellant persisted in his erotic advances.
He held her hands and removed her panties
after snapping its garter. The appellant then
inserted his penis into her private parts and
succeeded in consummating his carnal desire.
The complainant simply cried her heart out. In
the next two succeeding days, February 10 and
11, 1966, the appellant again satisfied his lust by
having sexual intercourse with the complainant.
Sometime later, the complainant told her
employer that she wanted to leave, but the latter
refused to let her go until a replacement for her
could be secured. The complainant decided to
write to her mother to take her home. On May 4,
1966, the mother of the complainant took her
from the house of Cecilia Velasquez and brought

Page 11

her home to barrio Linao, Licab Nueva Ecija.

Sometime in August 1966, the mother of the
complainant noticed that she was not
menstruating and that her abdomen was
showing signs of pregnancy. The complainant
had to tell her mother as to what happened to
her while she was working as a housemaid in
the house of Cecilia Velasquez
She then filed a case of Rape.
Issue:
WON the accused should be held guilty of Rape.
Ruling:
The accused should be acquitted.
It is Our considered opinion that the trial court
committed error in holding the appellant guilty of
the crime of qualified seduction. Assuming it to
be a fact that the appellant may be considered a
"domestic" within the meaning of Art. 337 of the
Revised Penal Code a point disputed by the
appellant who claimed that he was not staying in
the house of his sister but only operated a radio
repair shop in the ground floor of said house still, no conviction for qualified seduction may be
decreed against the appellant. This is because
there is no allegation in the information filed
against him of two of the essential elements of
the crime of qualified seduction, to wit: virginity
of the offended party, and that the latter is over
12 but under 18 years of age. In the event of a
variance between the offense charged in the
complaint or information and that proved or
established by the evidence, the accused may
only be convicted of the offense proved included
in that which is charged, or of the offense
charged included in that which is proved.
(Section 4, Rule 120, Rules of Court.) "An
offense charged necessarily includes that which
is proved, when some of the essential elements
or ingredients of the former, as this is alleged in
the complaint or information, constitute the
latter." The view that conviction for qualified
seduction may not be had on a charge of rape
had already been expounded by Chief Justice

CRIM FEB 24&26

Enrique M. Fernando in People vs. Ramirez, 69

SCRA 144.
For similar reasons, neither may the appellant
be validly convicted of the crime of simple
seduction. As may be note from the information
filed against the appellant, there is likewise no
allegation therein of the elements of the good
reputation of the offended party and of the latter
being over 12 but under 18 years of age, which
are essential for the commission of the crime of
simple seduction. (Art. 332, Revised Penal
Code.)
The criminal responsibility of the appellant may
only be predicated on his having committed the
crime of rape should it appear from the evidence
on record that he had, indeed, obtained carnal
knowledge of the complainant against her will
and consent by means of force and intimidation,
and with the use of a bladed instrument, as
alleged in the information. We have meticulously
examined the record of this case, particularly the
testimony of complainant Remedios Domingo, in
an effort to find adequate confirmation of her
claim that the appellant succeeded in making
her submit to his sexual desire by threatening
her with death by means of a bladed weapon
should she refuse to do so, or should she cry out
for help. Sadly enough, Our earnest endeavor
and desire to render justice to the aggrieved
party had failed to dissipate persistent doubts in
Our minds as to the credibility of her assertion
that the appellant coerced and threatened her
with death into submitting to his carnal demand
in the evening of February 9, 1966.
The only testimony in the record as to how the
alleged rape was committed is that of the
complainant herself. Her declaration suffers not
only from lack of corroboration, but also from
inherent improbabilities that effectively impair its
credibility. While it may be true that the
complainant manifested initial reluctance to the
appellant's erotic demand, We are not convinced
that her resistance was sufficient to make the
appellant resort to force and intimidation in
accomplishing his desire. There appears to be
no sincere struggle as the complainant had

Page 12

claimed, or a determined effort on her part to

preserve her virtue. Neither the complainant nor
the appellant sustained injuries of any kind
whatsoever. Not a single piece of complainant's
apparel was torn or damaged, except a snapped
garter of her panty which could easily be
attributed to the eagerness of the appellant as
readily as to a refusal of the complainant to take
her panty off. Not a single outcry came from her
mouth, even as of the moment she was
suddenly awakened with the appellant lying
beside her. There was no claim that the
appellant pressed his hands against her mouth
or covered the same elsewhere so as to prevent
her from shouting for help. No commotion was
created as could have aroused the other
occupants in the house into coming to her aid.
Complainant had testified that her employers
were sleeping in a room only six meters away
from hers. It is a fact that despite the alleged
struggle, not one of the occupants in the said
house had been awakened during the entire
incident that allegedly transpired in the
complainant's room in the evening of February
9, 1966.

PEOPLE VS JUMAWAN
This case is about the automatic review of the
SC of the decision rendered by the CA, affirming
the judgment of the RTc finding the accused
guilty of the crime of rape, under RA 8353. He
contended that with regard to the sex they have
commited, it was consensual, and impliedly,
since they were husband and wife.
Facts:
KKK met the accused-appellant at the farm of
her parents where his father was one of the
laborers. They got married after a year of
courtship.When their first child, MMM, was born,
KKK and the accused-appellant put up a sarisari store. Later on, they engaged in several
other businesses -trucking, rice mill and
hardware. KKK managed the businesses except
for the rice mill, which, ideally, was under the
accused-appellant's supervision with the help of
CRIM FEB 24&26

a trusted employee. In reality, however, he

merely assisted in the rice mill business by
occasionally driving one of the trucks to haul
goods.
Accused-appellant's keenness to make the
businesses flourish was not as fervent as KKK's
dedication. Even the daughters observed the
disproportionate labors of their parents.He would
drive the trucks sometimes but KKK was the one
who actively managed the businesses.
She wanted to provide a comfortable life for their
children; he, on the other hand, did not
acquiesce with that objective.
In 1994, KKK and the accused-appellant bought
a lot and built a house in Villa Ernesto, Gusa,
Cagayan de Oro City.Three of the children
transferred residence therein while KKK, the
accused-appellant and one of their sons stayed
in Dangcagan, Bukidnon. She shuttled between
the two places regularly and sometimes he
accompanied her. In 1998, KKK stayed in Gusa,
Cagayan De Oro City most of the days of the
week. On Wednesdays, she went to Dangcagan,
Bukidnon to procure supplies for the family store
and then returned to Cagayan de Oro City on
the same day.
Conjugal intimacy did not really cause marital
problems between KKK and the accusedappellant. It was, in fact, both frequent and
fulfilling. He treated her well and she, of course,
responded
with
equal
degree
of
enthusiasm.However, in 1997, he started to be
brutal in bed. He would immediately remove her
panties and, sans any foreplay, insert her penis
in her vagina. His abridged method of
lovemaking was physically painful for her so she
would resist his sexual ambush but he would
threaten her into submission.
In 1998, KKK and the accused-appellant started
quarrelling usually upon his complaint that she
failed to attend to him. She was preoccupied
with financial problems in their businesses and a
bank loan. He wanted KKK to stay at home
because "a woman must stay in the house and
only good in bed (sic) x xx." She disobeyed his

Page 13

wishes and focused on her goal of providing a

good future for the children.
Four days before the subject rape incidents or
on October 12, 1998, KKK and the accusedappellant slept together in Cebu City where the
graduation rites of their eldest daughter were
held. By October 14, 1998, the three of them
were already back in Cagayan de Oro City.
On October 16, 1998, the accused-appellant, his
wife KKK and their children went about their
nightly routine. The family store in their
residence was closed at about 9:00 p.m. before
supper was taken. Afterwards, KKK and the
children went to the girls' bedroom at the
mezzanine of the house to pray the rosary while
the accused-appellant watched television in the
living room.OOO and MMM then prepared their
beds. Soon after, the accused-appellant fetched
KKK and bid her to come with him to their
conjugal bedroom in the third floor of the house.
KKK complied.
Once in the bedroom, KKK changed into a
daster and fixed the matrimonial bed but she did
not lie thereon with the accused-appellant and
instead, rested separately in a cot near the bed.
Her reclusive behavior prompted him to ask
angrily: "[W]hy are you lying on the c{o]t[?]", and
to instantaneously order: "You transfer here [to]
our bed."
KKK insisted to stay on the cot and explained
that she had headache and abdominal pain due
to her forthcoming menstruation. Her reasons
did not appease him and he got angrier. He rose
from the bed, lifted the cot and threw it against
the wall causing KKK to fall on the floor.
Terrified, KKK stood up from where she fell, took
her pillow and transferred to the bed.
The accused-appellant then lay beside KKK and
not before long, expressed his desire to copulate
with her by tapping his fingers on her lap. She
politely declined by warding off his hand and
reiterating that she was not feeling well.
The accused-appellant again asserted his
sexual yearning and when KKK tried to resist by
CRIM FEB 24&26

holding on to her panties, he pulled them down

so forcefully they tore on the sides.KKK stayed
defiant by refusing to bend her legs.
The accused-appellant then raised KKK's
daster,stretched her legs apart and rested his
own legs on them. She tried to wrestle him away
but he held her hands and succeeded in
penetrating her. As he was carrying out his
carnal desires, KKK continued to protest by
desperately shouting: "[D]on 't do that to me
because I'm not feeling well."
With a concrete wall on one side and a mere
wooden partition on the other enclosing the
spouses' bedroom,KKK's pleas were audible in
the children's bedroom where MMM lay awake.
Upon hearing her mother crying and hysterically
shouting: "Eddie, don't do that to me, have pity
on me," MMM woke up 000 who prodded her to
go to their parents' room. MMM hurriedly
climbed upstairs, vigorously knocked on the
door of her parents' bedroom and inquired: "Pa,
why is it that Mama is crying?"The accusedappellant then quickly put on his briefs and shirt,
partly opened the door and said: "[D]on 't
interfere because this is a family trouble," before
closing it again. Since she heard her mother
continue to cry, MMM ignored his father's
admonition, knocked at the bedroom door again,
and then kicked it. A furious accused-appellant
opened the door wider and rebuked MMM once
more: "Don't interfere us. Go downstairs
because this is family trouble!" Upon seeing
KKK crouching and crying on top of the bed,
MMM boldly entered the room, approached her
mother and asked: "Ma, why are you crying?"
before asking her father: "Pa, what happened to
Mama why is it that her underwear is torn[?]"
When MMM received no definite answers to her
questions, she helped her mother get up in order
to bring her to the girls' bedroom. KKK then
picked up her tom underwear and covered
herself with a blanket. However, their breakout
from the room was not easy. To prevent KKK
from leaving, the accused-appellant blocked the
doorway by extending his arm towards the knob.
He commanded KKK to "[S]tay here, you sleep

Page 14

in our room," when the trembling KKK pleaded:

"Eddie, allow me to go out." He then held KKK's
hands but she pulled them back. Determined to
get away, MMM leaned against door and
embraced her mother tightly as they pushed
their way out.
In their bedroom, the girls gave their mother
some water and queried her as to what
happened. KKK relayed: "[Y]our father is an
animal, a beast; he forced me to have sex with
him when I'm not feeling well." The girls then
locked the door and let her rest."
The accused-appellant's aggression recurred
the following night. After closing the family store
on October 17, 1998, KKK and the children took
their supper. The accused-appellant did not join
them since, according to him, he already ate
dinner elsewhere. After resting for a short while,
KKK and the children proceeded to the girls'
bedroom and prayed the rosary. KKK decided to
spend the night in the room's small bed and the
girls were already fixing the beddings when the
accused-appellant entered.
"Why are you sleeping in the room of our
children", he asked KKK, who responded that
she preferred to sleep with the children. He then
scoffed: "Its alright if you will not go with me,
anyway, there are women that could be paid [P]
1,000.00." She dismissed his comment by
turning her head away after retorting: "So be it."
After that, he left the room.
He returned 15 minutes laterand when KKK still
refused to go with him, he became infuriated. He
lifted her from the bed and attempted to carry
her out of the room as he exclaimed: "Why will
you sleep here[?] Lets go to our bedroom."
When she defied him, he grabbed her short
pants causing them to tear apart. At this point,
MMM interfered, "Pa, don't do that to Mama
because we are in front of you."
The presence of his children apparently did not
pacify the accused-appellant who yelled, "[E]ven
in front of you, I can have sex of your mother [sic
J because I'm the head of the family." He then
ordered his daughters to leave the room.
CRIM FEB 24&26

Frightened, the girls obliged and went to the

staircase where they subsequently heard the
pleas of their helpless mother resonate with the
creaking bed.
The episodes in the bedroom were no less
disturbing. The accused-appellant forcibly pulled
KKK's short pants and panties. He paid no heed
as she begged, "[D]on 't do that to me, my body
is still aching and also my abdomen and I cannot
do what you wanted me to do [sic]. I cannot
withstand sex."
After removing his own short pants and briefs,
he flexed her legs, held her hands, mounted her
and forced himself inside her. Once gratified, the
accused-appellant put on his short pants and
briefs, stood up, and went out of the room
laughing as he conceitedly uttered: "[I]t s nice,
that is what you deserve because you are [a] flirt
or fond of sex." He then retreated to the masters'
bedroom.
Sensing that the commotion in their bedroom
has ceased, MMM and OOO scurried upstairs
but found the door locked. MMM pulled out a
jalousie window, inserted her arm, reached for
the doorknob inside and disengaged its lock.
Upon entering the room, MMM and OOO found
their mother crouched on the bed with her hair
disheveled. The girls asked: "Ma, what
happened to you, why are you crying?" KKK
replied: "[Y}our father is a beast and animal, he
again forced me to have sex with him even if I
don't feel well. "
Issue:
WON the accused should be held guilty of Rape
Ruling:
The SC ruled that the accused should be held
guilty of Rape.
It is true that the Family Code, obligates the
spouses to love one another but this rule
sanctions affection and sexual intimacy, as
expressions of love, that are both spontaneous
and mutual and not the kind which is unilaterally
exacted by force or coercion.

Page 15

Further, the delicate and reverent nature of

sexual intimacy between a husband and wife
excludes cruelty and coercion. Sexual intimacy
brings spouses wholeness and oneness. It is a
gift and a participation in the mystery of creation.
It is a deep sense of spiritual communion. It is a
function which enlivens the hope of procreation
and ensures the continuation of family relations.
It is an expressive interest in each other's
feelings at a time it is needed by the other and it
can go a long way in deepening marital
relationship. When it is egoistically utilized to
despoil marital union in order to advance a
felonious urge for coitus by force, violence or
intimidation, the Court will step in to protect its
lofty purpose, vindicate justice and protect our
laws and State policies. Besides, a husband
who feels aggrieved by his indifferent or
uninterested wife's absolute refusal to engage in
sexual intimacy may legally seek the court's
intervention to declare her psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill an essential marital
obligation.But he cannot and should not demand
sexual intimacy from her coercively or violently.
Moreover, to treat marital rape cases differently
from non-marital rape cases in terms of the
elements that constitute the crime and in the
rules for their proof, infringes on the equal
protection clause. The Constitutional right to
equal protection of the lawsordains that similar
subjects should not be treated differently, so as
to give undue favor to some and unjustly
discriminate against others; no person or class
of persons shall be denied the same protection
of laws, which is enjoyed, by other persons or
other classes in like circumstances.
As above discussed, the definition of rape in
Section 1 of R.A. No. 8353 pertains to: (a) rape,
as traditionally known; (b) sexual assault; and
(c) marital rape or that where the victim is the
perpetrator's own spouse. The single definition
for all three forms of the crime shows that the
law does not distinguish between rape
committed in wedlock and those committed
without a marriage. Hence, the law affords
protection to women raped by their husband and
those raped by any other man alike.
CRIM FEB 24&26

The posture advanced by the accused-appellant

arbitrarily discriminates against married rape
victims over unmarried rape victims because it
withholds from married women raped by their
husbands the penal redress equally granted by
law to all rape victims.
Further, the Court adheres to and hereby adopts
the rationale in Liberta in rejecting the argument
akin to those raised by herein accusedappellant. A marriage license should not be
viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly
rape his wife with impunity. A married woman
has the same right to control her own body, as
does an unmarried woman.She can give or
withhold her consent to a sexual intercourse with
her husband and he cannot unlawfully wrestle
such consent from her in case she refuses.

PEOPLE VS CLIMACO
This case is about the appeal of the accused in
this case after being found guilty of violation of
RA 9165 because of illegal possession and
illegal sale of illegal drugs. He contended that
since the chain of custody of the drugs was
broken, he must be acquitted.
Facts:
PO1 Ignacio testified that he is a member of the
Philippine National Police since 15 October
1999 and was assigned at Intelligence Division,
San Pedro Municipal Police Station. As member
of the Intelligence Division, he was tasked to
conduct surveillance operation and apprehend
persons engaged in illegal drug activity. On 7
September 2004, he was on 24-hour duty at
PAC base located at United Bayanihan, San
Pedro, Laguna. At around 6:00 in the evening of
the same day, PO1 Ignacio, SPO3 Samson,
SPO4 Balverde, some members of the Laguna
Special Operation Team, Members of the
Provincial Intelligence and Investigation Division
conducted a briefing regarding a drug operation
against a certain Gomer Climaco, No. 5 in the
drug watch list in San Pedro, Laguna. During the
briefing, PO1 Ignacio was tasked to act as the

Page 16

poseur-buyer and SPO4 Almeda as the overall

team leader. The buy-bust money was prepared,
which consist of P500.00 bill and some boodle
money. The team was also armed with a
Warrant of Arrest for illegal drugs issued by
Judge Pao. After the briefing, the team
proceeded to the target area. When they arrived,
PO1 Ignacio saw the suspect standing in front of
his house. The other members of the team
strategically positioned themselves. Since PO1
Ignacio already knew the suspect, PO1 Ignacio
just told Gomer that he would buy shabu. Gomer
entered his house and took something. When he
came out, Gomer showed to PO1 Ignacio the
shabu. PO1 Ignacio scratched his head to signal
the team that item was shown to him and he
would execute the buying of the shabu. After
Gomer asked for the money and PO1 Ignacio
gave it to him, SPO3 Samson and the rest of the
team immediately moved in to effect the arrest of
the suspect. Since he was caught in the act,
Gomer did not resist anymore. The team
likewise showed Gomer his warrant of
arrest. PO1 Ignacio saw SPO3 Samson frisk
and ask Gomer to empty his pockets. SPO3
Samson was able to recover another plastic
sachet, which was inserted between Gomers
fingers. The plastic sachet, which was the
product of the buy-bust, and the one recovered
from Gomer were turned over to SPO4
TeofiloRoyena, who turned them over to the
Office of the Special Operation Group located at
Brgy. Tubigan, Bian, Laguna. The plastic sachet
product of the buy-bust was marked TR-B, which
means TeofiloRoyena and the letter B means
Bust. While the plastic sachet recovered from
Gomer was marked TR-R, which means
TeofiloRoyena and the letter R means
Recovered. PO1 Ignacio identified the accused
Gomer Climaco in open court. He likewise
identified his sworn statement. During the crossexamination, PO1 Ignacio admitted that he
learned of the warrant of arrest on 7 September
2004 only. It was SPO4 Valverde who instructed
PO Ignacio to conduct surveillance operation
against Gomer, who was engaged in rampant
selling of shabu.

CRIM FEB 24&26

Issue:
WON the accused should be held guilty of the
violation of RA 9165
Ruling:
The elements necessary in every prosecution for
the illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment. Similarly, it is essential
that the transaction or sale be proved to have
actually taken place coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus
delicti which means the actual commission by
someone
of
the
particular
crime
charged.The corpus delicti in cases involving
dangerous drugs is the presentation of the
dangerous drug itself.
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a
case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
the following elements must be established: (1)
the accused is in possession of an item or object
which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.
Based on the testimony of PO1 Ignacio, the
substances retrieved from Climaco and
submitted to the court were contained in two (2)
plastic sachets with the markings TR-R and TRB. However, according to the Chemistry Report
executed by Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P.
Huelgas on 8 September 2004, the plastic
sachets submitted for examination carried the
markings GSC-1 and GSC-2, different from the
plastic sachets marked TR-R and TR-B
containing the drugs retrieved from Climaco.
As held in Malillin v. People, to establish guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt in cases
involving dangerous drugs, it is important
that the substance illegally possessed in the first
place be the same substance offered in court as
exhibit. This chain of custody requirement
ensures that unnecessary doubts are removed
concerning the identity of the evidence. When

Page 17

the identity of the dangerous drug recovered

from the accused is not the same dangerous
drug presented to the forensic chemist for
review and examination, nor the same
dangerous drug presented to the court, the
identity of the dangerous drug is not preserved
due to the broken chain of custody. With this, an
element in the criminal cases for illegal sale and
illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
the corpus delicti, is not proven, and the
accused must then be acquitted based on
reasonable doubt. For this reason, Climaco must
be acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt
due to the broken chain of custody over the
dangerous drug allegedly recovered from him.

PEOPLE VS MALINAO
This case is about the automatic review of the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting
appellant Johnny Malinaoof Illegal Possession of
Firearm in its aggravated form under the second
paragraph of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 (Illegal
Possession of Firearm Law) and sentencing him
to suffer the supreme penalty of death. He
contended that this appeal is only his conviction
for illegal possession of firearm because the trial
court had dismissed the Information for murder.
Facts:
Appellant and victim Nestor Otanguin were
neighbors in Barangay 10, Muoz Estate,
Catbalogan, Samar. In the afternoon of
November 9, 1994, the car in which Nestor, his
wife Teresita and his brother-in-law were riding,
driven by one RodanteAbarcar who was
maneuvering it out of the garage gate of the
Otanguin residence, accidentally hit and injured
the fighting cock of appellant that was tied near
said gate. Teresita immediately told appellant of
the incident and promised to talk it over with him
later as they were in a hurry to catch up with a
plane flight to Tacloban City. Appellant did not
say anything and just smiled. Nestor and family
left for the airport.

CRIM FEB 24&26

At 4:30 in the afternoon of November 14, 1994,

appellant, armed with a .38 caliber revolver, was
drinking with some friends at a table on a
sidewalk near his house at the corner of
McKinley Street, a narrow alley. 9-year old Rey
Abarcar, 12-year old Allan Federio, 11-year old
Jay-arFederio and 6-year old Danelle Ian
Malindog were playing nearby. At 6:00 in the
evening, Nestor was on his way home from work
and passed by the place where appellant was
drinking with some friends. As Nestor was
approaching, appellant fired his gun and invited
Nestor to join them and offered him a drink
which Nestor accepted. Then Nestor excused
himself for home but appellant offered him
another drink, which he politely refused.
Enraged at the refusal, appellant drew his
revolver from his waist and shot Nestor on the
chest. When Nestor fell, appellant shot him
again at the back of the head, resulting in his
immediate death.
On November 15, 1994, Dr. Frederick Beda C.
Alli, Municipal Health Officer, conducted the
autopsy on Nestor. From the autopsy report, it
appears that Nestor died of cardio-respiratory
arrest due to gunshot wounds on the head and
chest. On the same day, Forensic Analyst
NicandroCanaleja, conducted a paraffin test on
the hands of appellant. The test gave a positive
result for the presence of gunpowder
residue.Meanwhile, IreneoOrdiano, Jr., a
ballistics expert of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI), conducted a ballistics
examination on the two bullets recovered from
the body of Nestor. The ballistics report revealed
that the bullets were fired from the barrel of a
caliber .38 firearm. A certification from the
Philippine National Police (PNP) proved that
appellant is neither a firearm holder nor a
licensee of any firearm of whatever caliber.
Appellant admits having killed Nestor but claims
self-defense. He testified that on the day of the
incident, Nestor, armed with a .38 caliber
handgun, drew his weapon to fire at appellant
but appellant grappled with Nestor for
possession of the gun and in the struggle, the
gun exploded. He further stated that after he

Page 18

succeeded in wrestling the gun from Nestor,

Nestor fought back and held his legs so he fired
at Nestor. Thereafter, he left and went to the
house of his brother in law. Later, he met Fiscal
Wayne Villarin and they went to the Catbalogan
Police Station where he surrendered to the
police.
Issue:

This case is about the Petition for Review

on Certiorari assailing the decision of the Court
Appeals which affirmed the conviction of Cedric
Sayco y Villanueva(petitioner) for violation of
Section 1, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866,
as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8294.
Facts:

WON the accused should be held guilty of Illegal

possession of Fire arm and Murder
Ruling:
The accused cannot be held guilty of
Illegal Possession of Firearms because under
R.A. No. 8294, the use of an unlicensed firearm
in a murder or homicide case is considered
simply as a special aggravating circumstance in
the crime of homicide or murder and no longer
treated as a separate offense in its aggravated
form. It should be noted however that in either
case, whether for illegal use of firearm in its
aggravated form under P.D. No. 1866 as
discussed in the Barros case or whether Murder
or Homicide is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, the imposable penalty is
death.
The use of the unlicensed firearm by appellant in
killing Nestor may not be used against appellant
as a special aggravating circumstance because
there is no allegation in Criminal Case No. 3998
that the crime of Murder was committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm, as mandated by
Section 8 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure; in much the same way as in
Criminal Case No. 4039, it is not alleged in the
Information that the use of illegal firearm caused
murder or homicide.
In fine, appellant may be held liable only for
murder which is punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No.
7659.

CRIM FEB 24&26

VILLANUEVA VS PEOPLE

PO3 Mariano Labe testified on January 17,

2002. He declared that on or about 3:35 in the
afternoon of January 3, 1999, while they were at
the Police Station, they received a telephone call
from a concerned citizen from Tavera Street,
Bais City, informing them that one unidentified
person was inside Abueva's Repair Shop
located at Tavera Street, tucking a handgun on
his waist. They immediately went to the
aforementioned place, and upon their arrival
thereat, they saw one unidentified person
tucking a handgun on his right side
waistline. They approached the unidentified
person and asked him if he had a license to
possess said firearm, but the answer was in the
negative. At this juncture, they immediately
effected the arrest, and confiscated from his
possession and custody a Caliber 9MM marked
"SIGSAUER P299" with 14 live ammunitions
with Serial No. AE 25171. The arrested person
was identified as ZedricSayco y Villanueva, a
resident of Binalbagan, Negros Occidental.
For his defense, petitioner does not deny that he
was in possession of the subject firearm and
ammunitions when he was apprehended on
January 3, 1999 in Bais City, but he insists that
he had the requisite permits to carry the same.
The RTC and MTCC gave no significance to the
foregoing documents. The MTCC held that the
Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order do not
constitute the license required by law because
"they were not issued by the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives Unit, but
by the Commanding Officer of the Philippine
Army who is not authorized by law to issue
licenses to civilians to possess firearms and
ammunitions

Page 19

Issue:
WON the accused should be held guilty of illegal
possession of firearms
Ruling:
The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal
possession of firearms is the accused's lack of
license or permit to possess or carry the firearm,
as possession itself is not prohibited by law. To
establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has
the burden of proving that the firearm exists and
that the accused who owned or possessed it
does not have the corresponding license or
permit to possess or carry the same.
There is no dispute over these key facts: first,
that the subject firearm and ammunitions exist;
second, that petitioner had possession thereof at
the time of his apprehension; third, that
petitioner is a confidential agent of the ISG-AFP;
fourth, that petitioner lacks a license issued by
the Firearms and Explosives Unit of the PNP;
and fifth, that petitioner holds a Memorandum
Receipt and Mission Order covering the subject
firearm and ammunitions. Thus, the issue to be
resolved is confined to whether petitioner's
Memorandum Receipt and Mission Order
constitute sufficient authority for him to possess
the subject firearm and ammunitions and carry
the same outside of his residence, without
violating P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No.
8294.
As correctly cited by the Solicitor General, it is a
settled jurisprudence that a memorandum
receipt and mission order cannot take the place
of a duly issued firearms license,and an accused
who relies on said documents cannot invoke
good faith as a defense against a prosecution
for illegal possession of firearms, as this is
a malumprohibitum.Petitioner interposed no new
argument that would convince this Court to
abandon a deep-rooted jurisprudence.
He should be convicted.
First, special or confidential civilian agents who
are not included in the regular plantilla of any

CRIM FEB 24&26

government agency involved in law enforcement

or receiving regular compensation for services
rendered are not exempt from the requirements
under P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No.
8294, of a regular license to possess firearms
and a permit to carry the same outside of
residence;
Second, said special or confidential civilian
agents are not qualified to receive, obtain and
possess government-owned firearms. Their
ineligibility will not be cured by the issuance of a
memorandum receipt for equipment covering
said government-owned firearms. Neither will
they qualify for exemption from the requirements
of a regular firearms license and a permit to
carry firearms by the mere issuance to them of a
government-owned firearms covered by a
memorandum receipt; and
Third, said special or confidential civilian agents
do not qualify for mission orders to carry
firearms (whether private-owned or governmentowned) outside of their residence.
The foregoing rules do not apply to special or
confidential civilian agents in possession of or
bearing private-owned firearms that are duly
licensed and covered by permits to carry the
same outside of residence.
Set against the foregoing rules, it is clear that
petitioner is not authorized to possess and carry
the
subject
firearm
and
ammunition,
notwithstanding the memorandum receipt and
mission order which were illegally issued to him.
Petitioner is a planter who was recruited to
assist in the counter-insurgency campaign of the
AFP. However, as he offered no evidence that
he is in the regular plantilla of the AFP or that he
is receiving regular compensation from said
agency, he cannot be considered a regular
civilian agent but a mere confidential civilian
agent as defined under Section 6(a) of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of P.D. No.
1866. As such, he was not authorized to receive
the subject government-owned firearm and
ammunitions. The memorandum receipt he
signed to account for said government

Page 20

properties did not legitimize his possession

thereof.
Neither was petitioner authorized to bear the
subject firearm and ammunitions outside of his
residence. The mission order issued to petitioner
was illegal, given that he is not a regular civilian
agent but a mere confidential civilian agent.
Worse, petitioner was not even acting as such
confidential civilian agent at the time he was
carrying the subject firearm and ammunitions.
Petitioner testified that at that time, he was not
on an official mission in Bais City but had merely
visited the place to attend to a family emergency.

ARTILLERO VS OMBUDSMAN
This case is about the appeal of the accused in
this case after finding him administratively guilty
of arresting and detaining the complainant of this
case of violation of Illegal Possession of
Firearm. He contended that he performed such
function in good faith and after seeing him
carrying an unlicensed fire arm.
Facts:
Petitioner is the Chief of Police of the Municipal
Station of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in
Ajuy, Iloilo.According to him, on 6 August 2008,
at about 6:45 in the evening, the municipal
station received information that successive gun
fires had been heard in Barangay Lanjagan,
Ajuy Iloilo. Thus, petitioner, together with Police
Inspector IdelHermoso (Hermoso), and Senior
Police Officer (SPO1) Arial Lanaque (Lanaque),
immediately went to the area to investigate.
Upon arriving, they saw PaquitoPanisales, Jr.
(Paquito) standing beside the road, wearing a
black sweat shirt with a Barangay Tanod print.
They asked Paquito if he had heard the alleged
gunshots, but he answered in the negative.
Petitioner, Hermoso, and Lanaque decided to
investigate further, but before they could
proceed, they saw that Paquito had turned his
back from us that seems like bragging his
firearm to us flagrantly displayed/tucked in his
CRIM FEB 24&26

waist whom we observed to be under the

influence of intoxicating odor. Then, they frisked
him to verify the firearm and its supporting
documents.Paquito then presented his Firearm
License Card and a Permit to Carry Firearm
Outside Residence (PTCFOR).
Thereafter, they spotted two persons walking
towards them, wobbling and visibly drunk. They
further noticed that one of them, Aguillon, was
openly carrying a rifle, and that its barrel
touched the concrete road at times. Petitioner
and Hermoso disarmed Aguillon. The rifle was a
Caliber 5.56 M16 rifle with Serial Number
101365 and with 20 live ammunitions in its
magazine.
According to petitioner and Hermoso, although
Aguillon was able to present his Firearm License
Card, he was not able to present a PTCFOR.
Petitioner arrested Paquito, Aguillon and his
companion Aldan Padilla, and brought them to
the Ajuy Municipal Police Station.
Paquito was released on the same night,
because he was deemed to have been able to
comply with the requirements to possess and
carry firearm.Thereafter, Aguillon was detained
at the police station, but was released from
custody the next day, 7 August 2008, after he
posted a cash bond in the amount of 80,000.
The present Petition does not state under what
circumstances or when Padilla was released.
On 12 August 2008, petitioner and Hermoso
executed a Joint Affidavit alleging the foregoing
facts in support of the filing of a case for illegal
possession of firearm against Aguillon. Petitioner
also endorsed the filing of a Complaint against
Aguillon through a letter sent to the Provincial
Prosecutor on 12 August 2008.
For his part, Aguillon executed an Affidavit
swearing that petitioner had unlawfully arrested
and detained him for illegal possession of
firearm, even though the former had every right
to carry the rifle as evidenced by the license he
had surrendered to petitioner. Aguillon further

Page 21

claims that he was duly authorized by law to

carry his firearm within his barangay.
Issue:
WON the accused should be held guilty for
unlawfully
arresting
and
detaining
the
complainant in this case
Ruling:
It is true therefore, that, as petitioner claims,
a barangay captain is not one of those
authorized to carry firearms outside their
residences unless armed with the appropriate
PTCFOR under the Guidelines.
However, we find merit in respondents
contention that the authority of Aguillon to carry
his firearm outside his residence was not based
on the IRR or the guidelines of P.D. 1866 but,
rather, was rooted in the authority given to him
by Local Government Code (LGC).
Moreover, the dissent contends that probable
cause was already established by facts of this
case, which show that Aguillon was found
carrying a licensed firearm outside his residence
without a PTCFOR. However, even though
Aguillon did not possess a PTCFOR, he had the
legal authority to carry his firearm outside his
residence, as required by P.D. 1866 as amended
by R.A. 8294. This authority was granted to him
by Section 389 (b) of the LGC of 1991, which
specifically carved out an exception to P.D.
1866.

should not be the case. Although the Dissent

correctly declared that the prosecutor cannot
peremptorily apply a statutory exception without
weighing it against the facts and evidence
before him, we find that the facts of the case
prove that there is no probable cause to charge
Aguillon with the crime of illegal possession of
firearm.
In interpreting Section 389 (b) of the LGC of
1991, the Dissent found that the factual
circumstances of the present case show that the
conditions set forth in the law have not been
met. Thus, the exemption should not apply.
Contrary to the allegation of the dissent, there is
no question as to the fact that Aguillon was
within his territorial jurisdiction when he was
found in possession of his rifle.
The authority of punong barangays to possess
the necessary firearm within their territorial
jurisdiction is necessary to enforce their duty to
maintain
peace
and
order
within
the barangays. Owing to the similar functions,
that is, to keep peace and order, this Court
deems that, like police officers, punong
barangays have a duty as a peace officer that
must be discharged 24 hours a day. As a peace
officer, a barangay captain may be called by his
constituents, at any time, to assist in maintaining
the peace and security of his barangay. As long
as Aguillon is within his barangay, he cannot be
separated from his duty as a punongbarangayto
maintain peace and order.

Following the suggestion of the Dissent,

prosecutors have the authority to disregard
existing exemptions, as long as the
requirements of the general rule apply. This

CRIM FEB 24&26

Page 22