You are on page 1of 2

G.R. No.

88724 April 3, 1990


Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old freshman student at the St. Joseph's College at Borongan,
Eastern Samar. Appellant Ceilito Orita was a Philippine Constabulary (PC) soldier.

In the early morning of March 20, 1983, complainant arrived at 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

She pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered her to go upstairs with him. With his left arm wrapped around
her neck and his right hand poking a "balisong" to her neck, appellant dragged complainant up the stairs. With the
“balisong” still poked to her neck, they entered complainant's room.

Upon entering the room, appellant pushed complainant who hit her head on the wall. With one hand holding the
knife, appellant undressed himself. He then ordered complainant to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her
T-shirt. Then he pulled off her bra, pants and panty.

He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. At said position, however, appellant could not fully
penetrate her. Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. At this stage, appellant
had both his hands flat on the floor. Complainant thought of escaping and dashed out and ran to the municipal
building to report the crime.

The trial court convicted the accused of frustrated rape.

Whether Orita’s conviction for frustrated rape is proper

NO. Orita’s conviction for frustrated rape is improper because under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of
frustrated rape. The requisites of a frustrated felony are: (1) that the offender has performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony and (2) that the felony is not produced due to causes independent of
the perpetrator's will.

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. Jurisprudence dictates that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is
not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the
female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant
conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of
execution were 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.
G.R. No. 163927 January 27, 2006

Elias Gaviola filed a complaint against Eusebio Mejarito for quieting of title. The suit involved a parcel of coconut
land (Lot 1301). The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 111. Eusebio, for his part, claimed ownership over the
property. The trial court declared Eusebio the lawful owner of the property.

In the meantime, Eusebio Mejarito died intestate and was survived by his son, Cleto. Elias Gaviola also died
intestate and was survived by his son, Alfonso.

Almost 30 years thereafter, Cleto filed a complaint against Alfonso for recovery of possession of a parcel of land.
The property involved was located on the north of Lot 1301. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. B-0600. The
plaintiff therein alleged that the houses of the defendants were located in the property that had been adjudicated
to his father, Eusebio Mejarito, in Civil Case No. 111. The court ordered to have the property resurveyed. The
Commissioner’s report stated that the property adjudicated to Eusebio Mejarito in Civil Case No. 111 was Lot 1301,
while that which belonged to Elias Gaviola was Lot 1311; and the old one-storey house of Alfonso Gaviola was
located in the latter lot. The court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants in Civil Case No. B-0600.

Sometime in September 1997, Jovencio Mejarito, a nephew of Cleto Mejarito saw Gavino Gaviola and others
climbing the coconut trees in Lot 1301. Under the supervision of the spouses Alfonso and Leticia Gaviola, they
gathered 1,500 coconuts worth P3, 000.00 from the coconut trees. A criminal complaint for qualified theft against
the spouses Gaviola was filed.

Alfonso admitted that the coconuts were taken upon his instructions, but insisted that the trees from which they
were taken were planted on Lot 1311, the property he had inherited from his father, Elias Gaviola; the property of
private complainant Cleto Mejarito, Lot 1301, was adjacent to his lot. The RTC rendered judgment convicting
Alfonso of qualified theft. The trial court ruled that the accused took the coconuts from the coconut trees planted
on Lot 1301 which was owned by Cleto Mejarito, and not on his own property, Lot 1311, as he claimed. Alfonso
Gaviola appealed the decision to the CA which affirmed the decision of the RTC. He then filed a motion for
reconsideration of the decision, which the appellate court denied.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Gaviola had intent to gain when the coconuts
were taken upon his instruction

YES. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Gaviola had intent to gain when the coconuts were
taken upon his instruction. In all cases where one, in good faith, takes another’s property under claim of
ownership, he is exempt from the charge of larceny, however puerile or mistaken the claim may in fact be. And the
same is true where the taking is on behalf of another, believed to be the true owner. Still, if the claim is dishonest,
a mere pretense, it will not protect the taker. Gaviola cannot feign ignorance or even unfamiliarity with the
location, identity and metes and bounds of the properties involved as it is categorically stated clearly that the
three parcels of land are distinct and separate from each other. Hence Gaviola’s claim of good faith in taking the
coconuts is a mere pretense to escape criminal liability and was guilty of qualified theft.