Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By:
BOOK 1
There is alevosia when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and especially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk
to himself from any defense which the offended party might make. (G.R. No.
135222. March 04, 2005)PETER ANDRADA, petitioner, vs. THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
One who joins a conspiracy while the felony subject thereof is being
committed or before the said felony is committed and performs overt acts to
achieve the common design or purpose, is criminally liable for said felony.
On the other hand, one who joins a conspiracy after the felony subject of the
conspiracy has been completed or consummated is not criminally liable as a
conspirator. There can be no ex post facto conspiracy to do that which has
already been done and consummated. PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES
INC., and EDWIN YU, vs. CA, (SEVENTH DIVISION) and HARLEY T. SY
G.R. No. 163593, December 16, 2005.
2
The standard that should be observed by the courts in appreciating
circumstantial evidence was extensively discussed in the case of People of
the Philippines v. Modesto, et al. thus:
The defense of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear and
positive identification of appellant as the assailant of the deceased. The
positive identification of the assailant, when categorical and consistent
without any ill motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses, prevails over
alibi and denial which are negative, self-serving and undeserving of weight in
3
law. The defense of denial, like alibi, is considered with suspicion and is
always received with caution, not only because it is inherently weak and
unreliable, but also because it can be fabricated easily. Ibid.
The rule that an accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was never
intended to change or shift the burden of proof in criminal cases. It is basic
that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and
cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Unless the
prosecution overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence of an
accused by competent and credible evidence proving his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, the presumption remains. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
4
appellee, vs. RICO CALUMPANG and JOVENAL OMATANG, appellants. G.R.
No. 158203. March 31, 2005
Generally, mala in se felonies are defined and penalized in the Revised Penal
Code. When the acts complained of are inherently immoral, they are
deemed mala in se, even if they are punished by a special law. Accordingly,
criminal intent must be clearly established with the other elements of the
crime; otherwise, no crime is committed. On the other hand, in crimes that
are mala prohibita, the criminal acts are not inherently immoral but become
punishable only because the law says they are forbidden. With these crimes,
the sole issue is whether the law has been violated. Criminal intent is not
necessary where the acts are prohibited for reasons of public policy. Garcia
v. CA, G.R. No. 157171, Mar. 14, 2006
SELF-DEFENSE; REQUISITES
5
It is well-settled in this jurisdiction that once an accused has admitted
that he inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased, it is incumbent upon him
in order to avoid criminal liability, to prove the justifying circumstance
claimed by him with clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. He cannot
rely on the weakness of the prosecution but on the strength of his own
evidence, “for even if the evidence of the prosecution were weak it could not
be disbelieved after the accused himself had admitted the killing.” Thus,
petitioner must establish with clear and convincing evidence that the killing
was justified, and that he incurred no criminal liability therefor.
(Sabang vs. People, G.R. No. 168818, March 9, 2007)
SELF DEFENSE
SELF DEFENSE
6
circumstance. He must discharge this burden by clear and convincing
evidence. When successful, an otherwise felonious deed would be excused,
mainly predicated on the lack of criminal intent of the accused. Self-defense
requires that there be (1) an unlawful aggression by the person injured or
killed by the offender, (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel that unlawful aggression, and (3) lack of sufficient
provocation on the part of the person defending himself. All these conditions
must concur.
SELF-DEFENSE; ELEMENTS
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
The condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-
defense is the element of unlawful aggression. There can be no self-defense
unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who
resorted to self-defense. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden
and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof and not just a
threatening or intimidating attitude. In case of threat, it must be offensive,
strong and positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. For a
person to be considered the unlawful aggressor, he must be shown to have
exhibited external acts clearly showing his intent to cause and commit harm
to the other.
(Razon vs. People, G.R. No. 158053, June 21, 2007)
7
It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful
aggression on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when
unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or
wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is
committed. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the
aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the
accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression was still existing
when the aggressor was injured by the accused.
(Razon vs. People, G.R. No. 158053, June 21, 2007)
8
failed to establish the physical condition of the protagonists, much less that
appellants deliberately took advantage of their superior strength.
(People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 176526, August 8, 2007)
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Basic is the principle in criminal law that the evidence presented must
be sufficient to prove the corpus delicti – the body or substance of the crime;
and in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually
committed. The corpus delicti is a compound fact composed of two things: 1)
the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal
9
charge; and 2) the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or
result
(People vs. Barangan, G.R. No. 175480, October 2, 2007)
THEFT; ELEMENTS
CONSPIRACY
10
Their concerted efforts were performed with closeness and
coordination indicating their common purpose to inflict injury on the
victim. For conspiracy to exist, the evidence need not establish the
actual agreement which shows the preconceived plan, motive, interest
or purpose in the commission of the crime. Proof of publicly observable
mutual agreement is not indispensable to establish conspiracy. Hence,
there is conspiracy where two of the accused held the victim's hands
and the third stabbed the victim from behind. Conspiracy may be
implied from the concerted action of the assailants in confronting the
victim. In the instant case, the prosecution satisfactorily established
that Jemuel twisted and pinned Jessie’s hands at the back, after which
Charlie delivered the fatal blow. Since there was conspiracy between
the malefactors, the actual role played by each of them does not have
to be differentiated or segregated from the acts performed by the
other accused. As a conspirator, each would still be equally responsible
for the acts of the other conspirators.
11
official – a former Judge who later rose to hold, in a concurrent
capacity, the positions of Secretary of Justice and Secretary of
National Defense, to be precise. In Castelo, charges and
countercharges were initially hurled by and between Castelo and
Senator Claro Recto, who was then planning to present Manuel Monroy
as star witness against Castelo in a scandal case. Castelo left the
Philippines for Korea. While away, someone shot Monroy dead.
Evidence pointed to a conspiracy led by a certain “Ben Ulo” (who
appears to be the mastermind) and a group of confidential agents of
the Department of National Defense, one of whom was the triggerman.
Coincidentally, Ben Ulo was a close bodyguard of Castelo. In the end,
the Solicitor General tagged Ben Ulo (not Castelo) as the central figure
in the conspiracy. This notwithstanding, the Court held Castelo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for murder, because only he had a motive
for desiring Monroy’s demise. The conspiracy between Castelo and
Ben Ulo was then determined to be overlapping with the conspiracy
between Ben Ulo and the confidential agents, one of whom was the
triggerman.
Further explaining the theory of overlapping conspiracies,
petitioner cites the ruling in People v. Ty Sui Wong, featuring a love
triangle involving a certain Victor and Mariano, each out to win the
heart of Ruby. Victor left Manila for Mindanao. While Victor was away,
the dead body of Mariano was found with multiple stab wounds in a
dark alley in Pasay. Evidence pointed to a conspiracy among
“Sampaloc hoodlums” who had no direct link with Victor. However,
one of the neighbors of the “Sampaloc hoodlums” was a classmate of
Victor. In the end, on the basis of interlocking confessions, the Court
found Victor and his classmate together with all the “Sampaloc
hoodlums” guilty of murder.
(People vs. Sandiganbayan, et. al. G.R. No. 158754, August 10,
2007)
12
clandestine in nature. It may be inferred from the conduct
of the accused before, during and after the commission of
the crime, showing that they had acted with a common
purpose and design. Conspiracy may be implied if it is
proved that two or more persons aimed their acts towards
the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each
doing a part so that their combined acts, though
apparently independent of each other, were in fact,
connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of
personal association and a concurrence of sentiment. To
hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt
act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. There
must be intentional participation in the transaction with a
view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose.
13
Parole refers to the conditional release of an offender from a
correctional institution after he serves the minimum term of his prison
sentence. The grant thereof does not extinguish the criminal liability of
the offender. Parole is not one of the modes of totally extinguishing
criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. Inclusio
unius est exclusio alterius.
(People vs. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007)
The rationale for this rule has long been settled. In People v.
Quitlong, the Court explained:
xxx
14
x x x Quite unlike the omission of an ordinary recital of
fact which, if not excepted from or objected to during trial, may
be corrected or supplied by competent proof, an allegation,
however, of conspiracy, or one that would impute criminal
liability to an accused for the act of another or others, is
indispensable in order to hold such person, regardless of the
nature and extent of his own participation, equally guilty with
the other or others in the commission of the crime. Where
conspiracy exists and can rightly be appreciated, the individual
acts done to perpetrate the felony becomes of secondary
importance, the act of one being imputable to all the others.
Verily, an accused must know from the information whether he
faces a criminal responsibility not only for his acts but also for
the acts of his co-accused as well
15
most careful scrutiny of the testimony of the State,
both oral and documentary, independently of
whatever defense is offered by the accused. Only if
the judge below and the appellate tribunal could
arrive at a conclusion that the crime had been
committed precisely by the person on trial under
such an exacting test should the sentence be one
of conviction. It is thus required that every
circumstance favoring innocence be duly taken into
account. The proof against him must survive the
test of reason; the strongest suspicion must not be
permitted to sway judgment. (Emphasis supplied)
STAGES OF CRIMES
16
the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are
present.” It is frustrated “when the offender performs all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which,
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.” Finally, it is attempted “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.”
(People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007)
17
execution have been performed by the offender. The critical distinction
instead is whether the felony itself was actually produced by the acts
of execution. The determination of whether the felony was “produced”
after all the acts of execution had been performed hinges on the
particular statutory definition of the felony. It is the statutory
definition that generally furnishes the elements of each crime under
the Revised Penal Code, while the elements in turn unravel the
particular requisite acts of execution and accompanying criminal
intent.
(People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007)
Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the
nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c)
the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the
manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the
offender at the time the injuries were inflicted by him on the victim.
(Epifanio vs. People, G.R. No. 157057, June 26, 2009)
xxxx
4. Any person who, while performing a lawful act with due
care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it.
19
By no stretch of imagination could playing with or using a deadly
sling and arrow be considered as performing a “lawful act.” Thus, on
this ground alone, appellant’s defense of accident must be struck down
because he was performing an unlawful act during the incident. As
correctly found by the trial court:
20
the attacker arising from any defense the victim might offer.
Furthermore, an attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an
unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes abuse of superior
strength as an aggravating circumstance is already absorbed in
treachery. (People vs. Brodett, G.R. No. 170136, January 18, 2008,
Carpio, J)
21
the crime without risk to himself from any defense which the offended
party might make. (G.R. No. 135222. March 04, 2005) PETER
ANDRADA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
respondent.
23
There is treachery when the means, methods, and forms of
execution employed gave the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or retaliate; and such means, methods and forms of
execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the accused
without danger to his person. What is decisive in an appreciation of
treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the
victim to defend himself. People of the Philippines vs. Fabian Sades y
Rodel, G.R. No. 171087, July 12, 2006)
The defense of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear and
positive identification of appellant as the assailant of the deceased.
The positive identification of the assailant, when categorical and
consistent without any ill motive on the part of the prosecution
witnesses, prevails over alibi and denial which are negative, self-
serving and undeserving of weight in law. The defense of denial, like
alibi, is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution,
not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because
it can be fabricated easily. Ibid.
24
OBFUSCATION; AS A MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
ACCOMPLICE
25
abuse of superior strength as an aggravating circumstance is already
absorbed in treachery. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.ROBERT
BRODETT y PAJARO,G.R. No. 170136 January 18, 2008)
26
find employment abroad and leave for Taiwan after the filing of their
applications. Accused-appellant was clearly engaged in recruitment
activities, notwithstanding her gratuitous protestation that her actions
were merely done in the course of her employment as a clerk.
27
case, while Martin did not take part in stabbing the victim, his act of
stopping Dolores from seeking help implied his assent to Tanoan’s act
and ensured the completion of the criminal act.( G.R. No. 173791.
April 7, 2009 People of the Philippines Vs. Pablo Amodia)
Upon the cessation of the unlawful aggression and the danger or risk
to life and limb, the necessity of invoking self-defense to attach his
adversary ceases;
28
Insanity exists when there is a complete deprivation of intelligence
while committing the act; Mere abnormality of mental faculties is not
enough;
29
his search and capture.[69] Without these reasons and where the
clear reasons for the supposed surrender is the inevitability of arrest
and the need to ensure his safety, the surrender cannot be
spontaneous and cannot be the “voluntary surrender” that serves as a
mitigating circumstance. (G.R. No.174479. June 17, 2008 People of
the Phil. Vs. Zaldy Garcia Y Ancheta)
In the instant case, Nestor Estacio was attacked from behind and
assaulted without warning and provocation. Even when the already
wounded Nestor fell on the ground, accused-appellant mercilessly fired
several more shots at him. He obviously wanted to ensure the
execution of the killing, without risk to himself, and deprive Nestor of
any opportunity to retaliate or defend himself. The fact that accused-
appellant brought a gun with him indicated that he made a deliberate
and conscious adoption of the means to kill Nestor. Further, the
autopsy conducted by Dr. Necessario revealed multiple gunshot
wounds at the lower back area of the lumbar region of Nestor. This
autopsy indubitably indicates that the shots were fired from behind on
the unsuspecting victim. Clearly then, treachery or alevosia has been
sufficiently established. (G.R. No. 177825. October 24, 2008 ,People
of the Phil. Vs. Rene Rosas)
TREACHERY
30
was forewarned of danger to his person. What is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or to retaliate. Thus, even a frontal attack could be
treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who would
be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it. Treachery may still be
appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his
person. ( G.R. No. 145002, People v. Malejana, January 24, 2006)
INTENT TO KILL
MOTIVE
TREACHERY
31
There is treachery when the following essential elements are
present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack
employed by him. The essence of treachery is the swift and
unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest
provocation on the part of the victim. It was clearly established that
private complainant, while washing his jeep, was suddenly fired upon
by petitioner for no reason at all. The suddenness of the shooting and
the fact that he was unarmed left private complainant with no option
but to run for his life. Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, Feb. 28,
2006
32
PRESENCE OF DECEIT IS A QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW:
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
33
1. In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony as a consequence;
whereas in attempted felony, the offender merely commences
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not
perform all the acts of execution.
34
Penal Code, may be appreciated as aggravating if the same is habitual
or intentional, otherwise it shall be considered as a mitigating
circumstance. People v. Cudal, G.R. No. 167502, Oct. 31, 2006
There are four elements of the crime under Article 218. First, the
offender is a public officer. Second, he must be an accountable officer
for public funds or property. Third, the offender is required by law or
regulation to render accounts to the COA, or to a provincial auditor.
Fourth, he fails to render an account for a period of two months after
such accounts should be rendered.
35
or [is an] administrator or depository of funds, property
attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even
if such property belongs to a private individual.
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
The rule that an accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was
never intended to change or shift the burden of proof in criminal
cases. It is basic that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on
its own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
defense. Unless the prosecution overturns the constitutional
presumption of innocence of an accused by competent and credible
evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption
remains. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, Vs. RICO
CALUMPANG And JOVENAL OMATANG, Appellants. G.R. No. 158203.
March 31, 2005
ALIBI; WHEN MAY BE APPRECIATED:
36
disprove, and for which reason it is generally rejected. For the
defense of alibi to prosper, it is imperative that the accused establish
two elements: (1) he was not at the locus delicti at the time the
offense was committed; and (2) it was physically impossible for him to
be at the scene at the time of its commission. People of the
Philippines vs. Jose Alvizo Audine G.R. No. 168649 December 6, 2006
CONSPIRACY
37
However, not having been alleged in the Information, abuse of
superior strength can only be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance. (PP -vs- CIELITO BULURAN Y RAMIREZ and
LEONARDO VALENZUELA Y CASTILLO, Accused-Appellants. G.R. No.
113940, Feb. 15, 2000)
38
"The home is a sort of sacred place for its owner. He who goes
to another's house to slander him, hurt him or do him wrong, is more
guilty than he who offends him elsewhere." (PP -vs- JOSE &
NESTOR BiñAS, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 121630, Dec. 8, 1999)
BOOK 2
39
"2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned
in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by
inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any
instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
40
NATURE OF INTIMIDATION
IN RAPE CASES
In the case at bar, at the time the crime was committed, the
victim was 40 yrs. old, 5 months pregnant, unarmed and married to a
person older than her by almost 20 yrs.. In contrast, appellant was in
his 20’s, armed with a gun and purportedly in the company of several
NPA members. The crime happened in the evening and in a place
where help was impossible. The nearest neighbor of the victim is
some 3 kms. from their hut. Considering all these circumstances, we
hold that the victim was intimidated to submit to the lustful desire of
the appellant. (Pp. V. Mostrales; GR 125937, Aug.28, 1998)
41
would know what to do under the circumstances, or to have courage
and intelligence to disregard the threat. Even in cases of rape of
mature women, this Court recognized their different and unpredictable
reactions. Some may shout; some may faint; and some may be
shocked into insensibility; while others may openly welcome the
intrusion. (People v. Agbayani; GR 122770, Jan. 16, ’98)
42
Furthermore, since ANALIZA begot a child by reason of the rape,
DANTE must acknowledge and support the offspring pursuant to Article
345 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 201 of the Family
Code. (People v. Alfeche)
DWELLING AS AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE IN RAPE CASES
43
jurisdiction, it has been held that a knife is a deadly weapon. (Pp. V.
Alfeche; GR 124213, Aug. 17, 1998)
44
IS TENABLE IN RAPE
HEINOUSNESS OF RAPE OF
ONE’S DESCENDANT
In the case before us, the accused raped his own flesh and blood
at such a tender age of eleven. He thus violated not only he purity
and her trust but also the mores of his society which he has scornfully
defined. By inflicting his animal greed on her in a disgusting coercion
of incestuous lust, he forfeits all respect as human being and is justly
spurned by all, not least of all, by the fruit of his own loins whose
progeny he has forever stained with his shameful and shameless
lechery. People v jenelito Escober Y Resuento, Nov 6/97)
45
unbelievable that Jacqueline would fabricate a serious criminal charge
just to get even with her father and to emphasize with her sister. The
sisters would not contrive stories of defloration and charge their own
father with rape unless these stories are true. For that matter, no
young Filipina of decent repute would falsely and publicly admit that
she had been ravished and abused considering the social stigma
thereof. People v Tabugoca, GR No. 125334)
46
not legally married to the mother of the complainants, and he referred
to her as his live-in partner. This was confirmed by Emma Macaro,
mother of the complainants. Although the rape of a person under
eighteen (18) years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim's
mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on
accused-appellant in these cases because this relationship was not
what was alleged in the information's. What was alleged was that he
is the stepfather of the complainants.
47
WHEN CARNAL KNOWLEDGE IS CONSUMATED
The elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; (2) that such act is accomplished by using
force or intimidation; or when the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or when the woman is under twelve years of
age or is demented.
49
form punishable by death although the attendant circumstances
qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment were not set
forth in the indictment on which he was arraigned. (PP -vs-
CHARITO ISUG MAGBANUA, G.R. No. 128888, Dec. 3, 1999)
This Court has ruled in a long line of cases that the circumstance
under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act 7659,
the attendance of any of which mandates the single indivisible penalty
of death are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be
proved as such unless alleged with particularity in the information
unlike ordinary aggravating circumstances which affect only the period
of the penalty and which may be proven even if not alleged in the
information. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be
informed of the charge against him and consequently, a denial of due
process, if he is charged with simple rape and will be convicted of its
qualified form punishable by death although the attendant
circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment
was not alleged in the indictment under which he was arraigned.
Procedurally, then, while the minority of Renelyn and her relationship
to the accused-appellant were established during the trial, the
accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape because he
cannot be punished for a graver offense that that with which he was
charged. Accordingly, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.
(PP -vs- EDWIN R. DECENA, G.R. No. 131843, May 31, 2000)
50
First. Private complainant never objected or showed any
resistance when accused-appellant allegedly dragged her forcibly
across the pedestrian overpass and brought her to an undisclosed
place at Quiapo. Although he was holding her wrist tightly, she could
have easily extricated herself form him on several occasions: (a)
while they were inside the bus bound for Quiapo; (b) when they
alighted form the bus and roamed the sidestreets of Quiapo; and
especially so, (c) when they entered the hotel and finally the room
where the alleged rape took place. Accused-appellant was unarmed
and his tight grip could not have prevented private complainant from
at least shouting for help. Her demeanor was simply inconsistent with
that of the ordinary Filipina whose instinct dictates that the summon
every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to
besmirch her honor and blemish her purity. True, women react
differently in similar situations, but it is too unnatural for an intended
rape victim, as in this case, not to make even feeble attempt to free
herself despite a myriad of opportunities to do so.
51
It is true that affidavits are generally subordinated in importance to
open court declarations. The general rule is that variance between an
extrajudicial sworn statement of the complainant and here testimony
in court does not impair the complainant's credibility when the said
variance does not alter the essential fact that the complainant was
raped. Variance as to the time and date of the rape, the number of
times it was committed or the garments which the accused or the
complainant wore at the time of the incident do not generally diminish
the complainant's credibility. However, the serious discrepancy
between the two sworn statements executed a day apart by the
complainant in this case, bearing on a material fact, is very substantial
because it pertains to the essential nature of the offense, i.e., whether
the offense was consummated or merely attempted. In People vs.
Ablaneda, wherein a housewife executed a sworn statement for
attempted rape and later changed the accusation to consummated
rape without a rational explanation, this Court held that the general
rule does not apply when the complainant completely changed the
nature of her accusation. The contradiction does not concern a trivial
or inconsequential detail but involves the essential fact of the
consummation of the rape. (PP -vs- ALBERT ERNEST WILSON, G.R.
No. 135915, Dec. 21, 1999)
Considering that the place where the crime took place was
"notorious for hold-ups done at night, precisely to maximize the
advantage of darkness," we cannot but agree with the trial court that
nighttime was purposely sought by accused-appellants "for the more
successful consummation may be perpetrated unmolested or so that
they could escape more thoroughly." (PP -vs- FELIMON ALIPAYO Y
TEJADA, ET AL., G.R. No. 122979, Feb. 2, 2000)
53
relationship with appellant, concurrent qualifying circumstances,
essential in the imposition of that penalty. Furthermore, appellant is
not 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." The latter's grandmother,
Remedios Lustre, herself acknowledges that appellant has just for a
time been her common-law husband. (PP -vs- FEDERICO LUSTRE Y
ENCINAS, G.R. No. 134562, April 6, 2000)
54
generalized and lacked specific details on how each of the alleged
sixteen rapes was committed. Her bare statement that she was raped
so many times on certain weeks is clearly inadequate and grossly
insufficient to establish the guilt of accused-appellant insofar as the
other sixteen rapes charged are concerned. In People vs. Garcia this
Court succinctly observed that:
55
THE DELAY AND INITIAL RELUCTANCE OF A RAPE VICTIM TO MAKE
PUBLIC THE ASSAULT ON HER VIRTUE IS NEITHER UNKNOWN OR
UNCOMMON. AS HELD IN LTHE CASE OF PEOPLE VS. MALAGAR
56
CASES WHEREIN THE SCANDAL RESULTING FROM RELATIONS OF
COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED IMPELS THE COMPLAINANT OR HER
RELATIVES TO FILE COMPLAINT OF RAPE AGAINST THE ACCUSED
BUT DID NOT PROSPER
The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas
in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly required to act with
circumspection and prudence. Great caution is observed so that their
reputations shall remain untainted. Any breath of scandal which
brings dishonor to their character humiliates their entire families. It
could precisely be that complainant's mother wanted to save face in
the community where everybody knows everyone else, and in an
effort to conceal her daughter's indiscretion and escape the wagging
57
tongues of their small rural community, she had to weave the scenario
of this rape drama.
While the "sweetheart theory" does not often gain favor with this
Court, such is not always the case if the hard fact is that the accused
and the supposed victim are, in truth, intimately related except that,
as is usual in most cases, either the relationship is illicit or the victim's
parents are against it. It is not improbable that in some instances,
when the relationship is uncovered, the alleged victim or her parents
for that matter would take the risk of instituting a criminal action in
the hope that the court would take the cudgels for them than for the
woman to admit her own acts of indiscretion. (PP -vs- ERWIN
AGRESOR, G.R. Nos. 119837-39, Dec. 9, 1999)
58
willingness to undergo the trouble and the humiliation of a public trial is an
eloquent testament of the truth of her complaint. In so testifying, she could
only have been impelled to tell the truth, especially in the absence of proof of
ill motive. ( People of the Philippines vs. Edgardo Dimaano. G.R. No.
168168. September 14, 2005)
Rape; Incestous
LACERATIONS IN RAPE
59
GUILTY OF RAPE WITH A FEMALE WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A
“BORDERLINE MENTAL DEFICIENCY”
The fact that the private complainant did not resist or attempt
to flee or shout for help does not negate force or intimidation.
Different people react differently when confronted by a shocking or a
harrowing and unexpected incident, for the workings of the human
mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. Some
people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into
insensibility, while others may appear to yield into intrusion.
60
This rule is in accordance with the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two parties, namely the victim and the accused, are usually
involved. In this regard, the appellate court will generally not disturb
the assessment of the trial court on matters of credibility owing to its
unique opportunity to observe the deportment and manner of
testifying of witnesses firsthand during the trial unless certain facts of
substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might
affect the result of the case. People v. Bang-ayan, G.R. No.
172870, Sept 22, 2006
With the enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 (R.A. No. 8353),
otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, the concept of rape
was revolutionized with the new recognition that the crime should
include sexual violence on the woman’s sex-related orifices other than
her organ, and be expanded as well to cover gender-free rape. The
transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a
crime against persons and the introduction of rape by “sexual assault”
as differentiated from the traditional “rape through carnal knowledge”
or “rape through sexual intercourse.”
61
Section 2 of the law provides:
Sec. 2. Rape as a Crime Against Persons. – The crime of rape shall
hereafter be classified as a Crime Against Persons under Title Eight of
Act No. 9815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code. Accordingly, there shall be incorporated into Title Eight of the
same Code a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three on Rape, to
read as follows:
62
have constituted rape by sexual assault had it been committed when
the new law was already in effect.
(1)In the first mode, the offender is always a man, while in the
second, the offender may be a man or a woman;
(2)In the first mode, the offended party is always a woman,
while in the second, the offended party may be a man or a
woman;
(3)In the first mode, rape is committed through penile
penetration of the vagina, while the second is committed
by inserting the penis into another person’s mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice of another person; and
(4)The penalty for rape under the first mode is higher than that
under the second.
STATUTORY RAPE
The phrase “under twelve years of age” makes the offense Statutory
Rape, and is punishable by reclusion perpetua under Art. 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code. Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code,
however, also states that the death penalty shall be imposed in the
crime of rape if any of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 266-B is present. Aggravating/qualifying
circumstances are circumstances that change the nature of the crime
when these circumstances are present in the commission of the crime.
Particularly, qualifying circumstances are aggravating circumstances,
which, by express provision of law, change the nature of the crime to a
higher category. In this case, such qualifying circumstance is that the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent
of the victim. The presence of the foregoing qualifying circumstance
63
raised the crime of Statutory Rape to Qualified Rape. Simply stated,
under the circumstances obtaining in this case, Qualified Rape is
Statutory Rape in its qualified form.
RAPE VICTIM
64
RAPE
65
the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at
the moment or thereafter, as when she is threatened with death if she
reports the incident. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.EMETERIO
RICAMORA Y SUELLO,.G.R. No. 168628 December 6, 2006.
STATUTORY RAPE
Estafa, to exist:
66
In order for estafa to exist under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised
Penal Code, it is essential that the false pretense or fraudulent
representation be made prior to or at least simultaneously with the
delivery of the thing or property, it being essential that such false
statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only
motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. [55] In
the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused,
however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as
basis for prosecution of estafa under the said provision.The
representor must have knowledge of the falsity of his representation or
his ignorance of the truth. He must have the intention that his false
representation be acted upon by the representee and in the manner
reasonably contemplated. The representee must be ignorant of the
falsity of the representations, must have relied on the truth thereof,
and as a consequence, must have sustained injury.Material injury,
however, is not essential in the crime of estafa. It is enough that there
is disturbance of personal rights. PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES
INC., and EDWIN YU, vs. CA, (SEVENTH DIVISION) and HARLEY
T. SY G.R. No. 163593
67
return the same; b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender; or denial on his part of such
receipt; c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another.
68
guile or trickery or by other means, to believe to be true
what is really false.
For falsification
ESTAFA
xxxx
69
From the foregoing, swindling or estafa by false pretenses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud is committed by “using fictitious name,
or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or
by other similar deceits.”
70
with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction, while the false pretense
or fraudulent act must be committed prior to, or simultaneous with,
the issuance of the bad check. The drawer of the dishonored check is
given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the
amount of the check, otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit
arises.
Further it is settled that it is criminal fraud or deceit in the
issuance of a check which is made punishable under the Revised Penal
Code, and not the nonpayment of a debt. Deceit is the false
representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct by
false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should
have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another
so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Concealment which the
law denotes as fraudulent implies a purpose or design to hide facts
which the other party ought to have. The postdating or issuing of a
check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in
the bank or his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check is a false pretense or a fraudulent act.
ESTAFA
71
AURORA TAMAYO VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET. AL. , G.R.
NO. 174698, JULY 28, 2008
72
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial
proceeding.
73
adduced in evidence a decision of a competent court declaring the
presumptive death of his first wife as required by Article 349 of the
Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. Such
judicial declaration also constitutes proof that the petitioner acted in
good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part when he
married the private complainant and, as a consequence, he could not
be held guilty of bigamy in such case. The petitioner, however, failed
to discharge his burden.( EDUARDO P. MANUEL vs. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 165842. November 29, 2005.)
74
upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence
that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. Ibid.
More pointedly, the felony involves breach of public trust, and whether
it is committed through deceit or negligence, the law makes it punishable
and prescribes a uniform penalty therefor. Even when the information
charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence
may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves that mode of
commission of the offense. ( People of the Philippines vs. Jose Ting Lan
Uy., etc. Et. al. G.r. No. 157399, November 17, 2005)
Perjury, Elements;
75
accused knows his statement to be false or as consciously ignorant of
its truth.
Actual malice test to cover not just public officials, but also
public figures.
76
A public official may not successfully sue for libel unless the
official can prove actual malice, which was defined as “with knowledge
that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether
or not it was true. Ibid.
77
Even assuming that appellant was a mere employee, such fact is not
a shield against his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. In
the case of People v. Cabais, we have held that an employee of a
company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held
liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he
actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. Ibid.
Bigamy;
78
PETITIONER, AS MUNICIPAL MAYOR, IS AN ACCOUNTABLE PUBLIC
OFFICER (MALVERSATION)
79
Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes “any person
who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or
impute to an innocent person the commission of a crime.” The crime
known as the incriminating innocent person has the following
elements: (1) the offender performs an act; (2) by such act he directly
incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a
crime; and (3) such act does not constitute perjury.
80
The Court of Appeals also correctly awarded the amounts of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral
damages in line with recent jurisprudence. Civil indemnity is
mandatory and is granted to the heirs of the victim without need of
proof other than the commission of the crime. Moral damages on the
other hand are awarded in a criminal offense resulting in physical
injuries, including death.
Under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code, the heirs of the victim are
also entitled to indemnity for loss of earning capacity. To be entitled
to such an award, documentary evidence is necessary. By way of
exception, testimonial evidence would suffice: (1) if the victim was
self-employed, earning less than the minimum wage under current
labor laws and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
victim’s line of work, no documentary evidence is available; or (2) if
the victim was employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws.
PERJURY; ELEMENTS
81
As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the elements of perjury
are as follows:
xxxx
82
Based on this provision, the elements of the crime of serious
physical injuries under paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code may be
deduced as follows:
83
At any rate, resistance is not an element of rape as rape could
be perpetrated through the use of force or intimidation. Lack of
physical resistance can not be considered consent. In People v.
Loyola, this Court held that:
TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
84
ALIBI
PASSION
85
1. That the offender is a public officer;
86
with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. Dizon v. People,
G.R. No. 144026, June 15, 2006
MALVERSATION
87
FALSIFICATION
88
participated in the falsification of the same document. Nierva v. People,
G.R. No. 153133, September 26, 2006
UNJUST VEXATION
ELEMENTS OF HOMICIDE
89
of parricide or infanticide. Yadao v. People, G. R. No. 150917, Sept.
27, 2006
Pursuant to Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, the failure of the
petitioner to have duly forthcoming such public funds or property upon
demand, is prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to
personal use. Being an accountable officer, petitioner may be
convicted of malversation even in the absence of direct proof of
misappropriation so long as there is evidence of shortage in his
accounts which he is unable to explain. Cabarlo v. People, G.R. No.
172274, November 16, 2006
90
MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
(3) the funds or property are public funds or public property for which
he was accountable and
PROOF IN MALVERSATION
91
THE RULES DO NOT LAY A DISTINCTION THAT ONLY THOSE ACTIONS
FOR CRIMINAL LIBEL LODGED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS NEED BE FILED
IN THE PLACE OF PRINTING AND FIRST PUBLICATION.
92
sedition; and second, by any person or persons who, without a public
uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist
any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the
performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance.
Even assuming that appellant was a mere employee, such fact is not
a shield against his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. In
the case of People v. Cabais, we have held that an employee of a
company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held
liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he
actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. Ibid.
93
THEFT
4. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
94
qualified as theft, there must further be present the descriptive
circumstances that the taking was with intent to gain; without force
upon things or violence against or intimidation of persons; and it was
without the consent of the owner of the property.
(People vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007)
ELEMENTS OF THEFT
95
With these considerations, we can only conclude that under
Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated
stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated.
ESTAFA BY MISAPPROPRIATION
(4) the offended party demands that the offender return the
money or property. G.R. No. 150443, Perez v. People,
January 20, 2006
96
(1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an
obligation contracted at the time the check was issued;
(3) the payee was not informed by the offender and the payee
did not know that the offender had no funds or insufficient
funds. Andan v. People, G.R. No. 136388, Mar. 14, 2006
The crime defined in P.D. No. 115 is malum prohibitum but is classified
as estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
or estafa with abuse of confidence. It may be committed by a
corporation or other juridical entity or by natural persons. However,
the penalty for the crime is imprisonment for the periods provided in
said Article 315. Ching v. Sec. of Justice, G. R. No. 164317, Feb. 6,
2006
97
The deceit must have been committed prior to or simultaneous with
the fraudulent act because this was the only way that said deceit could
become the efficient cause or primary consideration which could have
induced the offended party to part with his money or property.
Gonzaludo v. People, G.R. No. 150910, Feb. 6, 2006
98
The essence of estafa under this paragraph is the appropriation
or conversion of money or property received, to the prejudice of the
owner thereof. It takes place when a person actually appropriates the
property of another for his own benefit, use and enjoyment. In a
prosecution for estafa, demand is not necessary where there is
evidence of misappropriation or conversion; and failure to account,
upon demand for funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial
evidence of misappropriation.
ESTAFA BY MISAPPROPRIATION
99
ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT
100
There is no false pretense or fraudulent act if a postdated check is
issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation. Estafa is a felony
committed by dolo (with malice). For one to be criminally liable for
estafa under paragraph (2)(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code, malice and specific intent to defraud are required. Recuerdo v.
People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006
ESTAFA BY MISAPPROPRIATION
101
The Information in this case erroneously charged accused-appellant
with a complex crime, i.e., Arson with Multiple Homicide. Presently,
there are two (2) laws that govern the crime of arson where death
results therefrom – Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as
amended by Republic Act (RA) No. 7659,[22] and Section 5 of
Presidential Decree (PD) No. 1613[23], quoted hereunder, to wit:
Whether the crime of arson will absorb the resultant death or will have
to be a separate crime altogether, the joint discussion of the late Mr.
Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino and Mme. Justice Carolina C. Griño-
Aquino, on the subject of the crimes of arson and murder/homicide, is
highly instructive:
Groizard says that when fire is used with the intent to kill a
particular person who may be in a house and that objective is
attained by burning the house, the crime is murder only. When
the Penal Code declares that killing committed by means of fire
is murder, it intends that fire should be purposely adopted as a
means to that end. There can be no murder without a design to
take life.[26] In other words, if the main object of the offender is
to kill by means of fire, the offense is murder. But if the main
objective is the burning of the building, the resulting homicide
may be absorbed by the crime of arson.[27]
102
xxxx
If the house was set on fire after the victims therein were killed,
fire would not be a qualifying circumstance. The accused would
be liable for the separate offenses of murder or homicide, as the
case may be, and arson.[28]
ARSON
103
destruction and despair in its wake; hence, the State mandates
greater retribution to authors of this heinous crime. The
exceptionally severe punishment imposed for this crime takes
into consideration the extreme danger to human lives exposed
by the malicious burning of these structures; the danger to
property resulting from the conflagration; the fact that it is
normally difficult to adopt precautions against its commission,
and the difficulty in pinpointing the perpetrators; and, the
greater impact on the social, economic, security and political
fabric of the nation.
On the other hand, PD 1613 which repealed Arts. 321 to 326-B of The
Revised Penal Code remains the governing law for Simple Arson. This
decree contemplates the malicious burning of public and private
structures, regardless of size, not included in Art. 320, as amended by
RA 7659, and classified as other cases of arson. These include houses,
dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways,
bus stations, airports, wharves and other industrial establishments.
Although the purpose of the law on Simple Arson is to prevent the high
incidence of fires and other crimes involving destruction, protect the
national economy and preserve the social, economic and political
stability of the nation, PD 1613 tempers the penalty to be meted to
offenders. This separate classification of Simple Arson recognizes the
need to lessen the severity of punishment commensurate to the act or
acts committed, depending on the particular facts and circumstances
of each case.
To emphasize:
104
Simple Arson may nevertheless be converted into Destructive
Arson depending on the qualifying circumstances present.
People v. Mayo, G. R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006
LIBEL
LIBEL; REQUISITES
The libelous article, while referring to “Miss S,” does not give a
sufficient description or other indications which identify “Miss S.” In
short, the article fails to show that “Miss S” and Florinda Bagay are
one and the same person.
(Diaz vs. People, G.R. No. 159787, May 25, 2007)
LIBEL
106
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance
tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
107
superior, having some interest or duty in the matter, and who has the
power to furnish the protection sought; and (3) the statements in the
communication are made in good faith and without malice. Buatis v.
People, G.R. NO. 142509, Mar. 24, 2006
SLANDER
A public official may not successfully sue for libel unless the
official can prove actual malice, which was defined as “with knowledge
108
that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether
or not it was true.
109
KIDNAPPING
ROBBERY
110
Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code classifies robbery with
homicide as a crime against property with the following elements: 1)
the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation
against persons; 2) personal property thus taken belongs to another;
3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and
4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of
homicide, which is therein used in its generic sense, was committed.
The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. So long as
the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would
supervene by mere accident or that the victim of homicide is other
than the victim of robbery or that two or more persons are killed. It is
likewise not necessary to identify who among the conspirators inflicted
the fatal wound on the victim. Once a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
The original design must have been robbery; and the homicide,
even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, must have a direct
relation to, or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate, the
111
robbery. The taking of the property should not be merely an
afterthought, which arose subsequently to the killing.
HIGHWAY ROBBERY
QUALIFIED THEFT
PEOPLE VS. SAMUEL BONDA ALGARME, ET. AL., G.R. NO. 175978,
FEBRUARY 12, 2009
112
A special complex crime of robbery with homicide takes place
when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on the occasion, of
the robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the
prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the taking of
personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3)
with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; and (4) on
the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as
used in its generic sense, was committed. A conviction requires
certitude that the robbery is the main purpose, and objective of
the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the
robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life but
the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
The Spanish version of Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code
reads: “1.0--Con la pena de reclusion perpetua a muerte, cuando con
motivo o con ocasion del robo resultare homicidio.” Chief Justice
Ramon C. Aquino explains that the use of the words “con motivo…del
robo” permits of no interpretation other than that the intent of the
actor must supply the connection between the homicide and the
robbery in order to constitute the complex offense. If that intent
comprehends the robbery, it is immaterial that the homicide may in
point of time immediately precede instead of follow the robbery.
Where the original design comprehends robbery, and homicide is
perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the consummation of the
former, the crime committed is the special complex offense, even if
homicide precedes the robbery by an appreciable interval of time. On
the other hand, if the original criminal design does not clearly
comprehend robbery, but robbery follows the homicide as an
afterthought or as a minor incident of the homicide, the
criminal acts should be viewed as constitutive of two offenses
and not of a single complex offense. Robbery with homicide
arises only when there is a direct relation, an intimate
connection, between the robbery and the killing, even if the
killing is prior to, concurrent with, or subsequent to the
robbery.
113