G.R. No.
167766 April 7, 2010 ISSUE
ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES, JR., Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
FACTS:
On September 2, 1998, Rudy Baclig was drinking with
his brother-in-law. After consuming ½ bottle of gin, he
left and went to the house of a certain Siababa to buy
coffee and sugar. He was accompanied by his four-
year-old son. On their way there, a gray automobile
coming from the opposite direction passed by them.
After a while, he noticed that the vehicle was moving
backward towards them. When the car was about two
arms’ length from where they were, it stopped and he
heard the driver of the vehicle call him by his
nickname Parrod. Rudy came closer, but after taking
one step, the driver, which he identified as the petitioner,
opened the door and while still in the car drew a gun and
shot him once, hitting him just below the left armpit.
Rudy immediately ran at the back of the car, while
petitioner sped away.
The people who assisted him initially brought him to the
Municipal Hall of Gonzaga, Cagayan, where he was
interrogated by a policeman who asked him to identify
his assailant. He informed the policeman that petitioner
was the one who shot him. After he was interrogated, he
was later brought to the Don Alfonso Ponce Memorial
Hospital at Gonzaga, Cagayan. The following day, he
was discharged from the hospital.
Information was filed by the Provincial Prosecutor of
Aparri, Cagayan, charging the petitioner of frustrated
murder.
Petitioner was employed by NIA as Irrigation Supt. He
insisted that he reported at the NIA Central Office on
September 1, 1998 and stayed in Manila until the
afternoon of September 4, 1998.
On February 27, 2003, RTC found petitioner guilty of
attempted murder.
Petitioner appealed to the CA. CA affirmed decision of
RTC, modified decision to accused guilty of Less
Serious Physical Injuries. Accused filed MR but was
denied. Accused appealed to the SC.
Accused alleges that the CA and RTC erred, because
victim was drunk, and that he was not in Cagayan from
Sept 1 – 4. Also, CA erred because victim only
recognized accused in his voice, and did not positively
identify him.
Whether or not the prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt that petitioner was the one who shot
the victim; - YES
Whether or not petitioner’s defense of alibi would
prosper - NO
RATIO
Complainant averred that he personally knew the
accused.
The fact remains that Rudy has been shot with a gun
and he positively identified his shooter as the petitioner.
Petitioner faulted the RTC and the CA for giving
credence to the testimony of Rudy. However, it is to be
noted that even the lone declaration of a sole eyewitness
is sufficient to convict if that testimony is found to be
credible. Credibility of witnesses is to be weighed and
should not be based on numbers.
As regards petitioner’s defense of alibi, well settled is the
rule that alibi is an inherently weak defense which
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the
accused by the victim.
As to the crime committed by petitioner, this Court also
concurs with the conclusion of the CA that petitioner is
guilty of the crime of less serious physical injuries, not
attempted murder.
The principal and essential element of attempted or
frustrated murder is the intent on the part of the assailant
to take the life of the person attacked. Such intent must
be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude
every possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the
aggressor.
In the present case, intent to kill the victim could not be
inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Petitioner
only shot the victim once and did not hit any vital part of
the latter’s body. If he intended to kill him, petitioner
could have shot the victim multiple times or even ran him
over with the car. Favorably to petitioner, the inference
that intent to kill existed should not be drawn in the
absence of circumstances sufficient to prove this fact
beyond reasonable doubt.28 When such intent is lacking
but wounds are inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not
attempted murder but physical injuries only.
Petition DENIED.
G.R. No. 181701 January 18, 2012
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
EDUARDO DOLLENDO AND NESTOR
MEDICE, Accused,
NESTOR MEDICE, Appellant.
FACTS:
On Feb 10, 2001, Medice and Dollendo went to victim
Garry Ruiz’s wife Mylene, to ask the victim’s
whereabouts. She asked the accused why so since the
latter was out peddling fish. The accused told her that
they had a problem with him, which she would later find
out when they meet.
On Feb 13, victim Garry Ruiz, together with Del Valle
(witness) and Anquillo, were playing cards in the sala of
Romines’ house. The drinking session had not yet begun
when appellant Medice arrived. He did nothing and left
immediately upon seeing them.
After two (2) minutes, appellant returned with his
brother-in-law Dollendo.14 Ruiz did not notice them enter
the house because his back was turned against the
door.15 Appellant pulled out a bolo (dipang), handed it
over to Dollendo which in turn, immediately stabbed Ruiz
on the left chest. Victim was then stabbed again 3 times
and died upon arrival to the hospital due to shock
secondary to internal haemorrhage caused by stab
wounds.
Accused alleges that he never saw Dollendo that day
and was at a house in Brgy West, a mere forty meters
away.
On 30 April 2003, RTC found Medice guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as principal by induction of the crime
of Murder. Dollendo escaped from the provincial jail in
Samar.
CA affirmed decision of RTC.
ISSUE
Whether or not Accused is guilty of murder - YES
RATIO
To be convicted of murder, the following must concur:
(1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him; (3)
the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances enumerated in Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code; and (4) the killing does not constitute
parricide or infanticide.
Treachery qualified the killing to murder
The law provides that an offender acts with treachery
when he "commits any of the crimes against a person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. It is clear
in the records that the circumstance of treachery is
attendant in this case. The aggressors ensured that the
victim had no opportunity to resist or defend himself
through the sudden and unexpected attack.
There was conspiracy to commit murder;
Appellant is, therefore, liable
notwithstanding
the evidence showing that it was only
Dollendo
who stabbed the victim
The prosecution clearly established that it was only
Dollendo who stabbed Ruiz. That appellant did not
actually stab the victim does not, however, release him
from criminal liability.
Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "[a]
conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it." The "evidence of a chain of
circumstances,"45 to wit: that appellant went inside the
house of Romines to ascertain that the victim was there;
that he fetched Dollendo to bring him to Ruiz; that he
gave the dipang to Dollendo to commit the crime; and
that they both fled after the stabbing, taken collectively,
shows a community of criminal design to kill the victim.
Evidently, there was conspiracy in the commission of the
crime.1avvphil Thus:
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every
detail of the execution; he need not even take part in
every act xxx. Each conspirator may be assigned
separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated
to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective
effort to achieve their common criminal objective. Once
conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all
the conspirators.
Defense of alibi cannot prosper;
There was failure to establish physical
impossibility
to be at the locus criminis;
Witnesses positively identified the assailants
It has been held time and again that alibi may prosper
only when the accused establishes that not only was he
somewhere else when the crime was committed but that
it was physically impossible for him to have been at
the locus criminis at that time.
Petition DENIED. Accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Murder and is sentenced to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
G.R. No. 186472 July 5, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
ANTONIO SIONGCO y DELA CRUZ, ERIBERTO
ENRIQUEZ y GEMSON, GEORGE HAYCO y
CULLERA, and ALLAN BONSOL y PAZ, Accused,
ANTONIO SIONGCO y DELA CRUZ and ALLAN
BONSOL y PAZ, Appellants.
FACTS:
On December 27, 1998, 11-year-old Nikko, a resident of
Balanga, was induced by Siongco to board a bus bound
for Pilar, Bataan, together with the latter’s friends,
Marion Boton (Boton) and Eriberto Enriquez (Enriquez).
Nikko was told that the two would accompany him in
getting the "Gameboy" that Siongco promised. Siongco
was no stranger to Nikko as he used to be a security
guard at Footlockers shoe store where Nikko’s mother,
Elvira Satimbre (Elvira), works as a cashier. After a short
stop in Pilar, Bataan, the three proceeded to Mariveles,
Bataan, where they met with George Hayco (Hayco).
The boy was then brought to Dinalupihan, Bataan,
where he was kept for the night.
Meanwhile, Elvira arrived home at 7:00 p.m. and found
that her son was not there. She searched for him in the
places he frequented, but to no avail. As her continued
search for the child proved futile, she reported him
missing to the nearest police detachment
The following day, Enriquez and Siongco took Nikko to
Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. The next day Dec 29,
Elvira received a phone call from a man, later identified
as appellant Siongco, who claimed to have custody of
Nikko and asked for ₱400,000.00 in exchange for his
liberty. Elvira haggled with her son’s captor until the
latter agreed to reduce the ransom money to
₱300,000.00. He also threatened that Nikko would be
killed if she fails to give the ransom money the next day
at Pasay City. That night, Elvira telephoned the Office of
the Chief of Police of Balanga, Bataan.
On Dec 31, Elvira coordinated with Philippine Anti-
Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) led by Police
Senior Inspector Rodolfo Azurin, Jr. After briefing, Azurin
and other police operatives proceeded to Genesis Bus
Station in Pasay City. At around 2:30 p.m., Elvira arrived
carrying the brown envelope. As instructed by the
kidnappers, she positioned herself near a tree and tied a
white kerchief around her neck. Shortly thereafter,
Enriquez approached Elvira and took the brown
envelope from her. As he was walking away, the
PAOCTF team arrested him. Thereafter, they followed
Siongco, who hurriedly hailed a taxicab and sped away.
Siongco was arrested at the residence of Heracleo in
Pateros where Nikko was also rescued. Thereafter,
Siongco and Enriquez were brought to Camp Crame.
The investigations of Nikko and the two detainees,
coupled with the follow-up operations of the PAOCTF,
led to the arrest of appellant Bonsol, and the other
cohorts, Hayco and Boton.
Siongco’s defense was alibi, that he went to manila to
collect payments from customers.
On Nov 6, 2000 RTC found Siongco, Bonsol, Enriquez
and Hayco guilty of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention for the purpose of extorting ransom. Boton
was acquitted.
CA affirmed decision of RTC, increased damages to a
total of 200 000.
ISSUE
W/N accused conspired to commit felony
W/N herein accused are guilty of Kidnapping and
Serious Illegal Detention
HOLDING
Art 267, RPC; Art 8, RPC, People v Bringas
RATIO
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any
private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or
in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have
lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating
public authority.
 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have
been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been
made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a
minor, except when the accused is any of the
parents, female, or a public officer.
In the case of People v Bringas, we reiterated the
following elements that must be established by the
prosecution to obtain a conviction for kidnapping, viz.:
(a) the offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or
detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of
his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
The prosecution indubitably proved beyond reasonable
doubt that the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention obtain in the case at bar. In kidnapping, the
victim need not be taken by the accused forcibly or
against his will. What is controlling is the act of the
accused in detaining the victim against his or her will
after the offender is able to take the victim in his custody.
The general rule is that the prosecution is burdened to
prove lack of consent on the part of the victim. However,
where the victim is a minor, lack of consent is presumed.
The findings of the RTC and CA likewise show that the
actuations and roles played by appellants Siongco and
Bonsol undoubtedly demonstrate that they conspired
with Hayco and Enriquez in kidnapping and illegally
detaining Nikko.
It is immaterial whether appellant Bonsol acted as a
principal or as an accomplice because the conspiracy
and his participation therein have been established. In
conspiracy, the act of one is the act of all and the
conspirators shall be held equally liable for the
crime. On the pretext of getting Nikko’s much desired
"Gameboy," Bonsol and Enriquez were able to
conveniently whisk Nikko out of Balanga and bring him
to Pilar, then to Mariveles, and eventually to
Dinalupihan, where Siongco fetched him. Thus, Enriquez
and Siongco’s plan of bringing Nikko to Metro Manila, a
terrain unfamiliar to the boy and where the two could
enjoy anonymity to carry out their ultimate goal of
extorting ransom money from Nikko’s mother, was
accomplished. As shown by the evidence, without the
participation of appellant Bonsol, the commission of the
offense would not have come to fruition.
Petition DENIED.
G.R. No. 181635 November 15, 2010
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
NONOY EBET, Appellant.
On February 3, 1997, around 7:30 p.m., three (3) men
entered the house of the spouses Gabriel Parcasio and
Evelyn Parcasio. Of the three men, Evelyn recognized
one of them to be appellant Ebet, having been a
constant visitor of her husband. Upon entering, one of
the unidentified men poked a gun at Evelyn, while
another unidentified man wielding a knife, held Evelyn's
daughter, Joan. At that moment, Evelyn saw appellant
holding a knife and standing at the door of the house.
The men asked Evelyn where her husband was hiding
and compelled her to lead them to the house's
underground. After the two unidentified men reached the
underground, Evelyn heard her husband shout for her
and her daughters to run, which the latter did.
Thereafter, a gunshot was heard, as well as a
commotion underground. Joan, after hearing the
gunshot, returned to the house fearing that her mother
was shot. It was then that the men accosted her and
asked for her money. With no money to give, the men
took her bag, a wrist watch and Thirty Pesos cash, the
total of which is Two Hundred Eighty-Five Pesos
(₱285.00). When the men left the premises, Evelyn went
back to their house and saw her husband bleeding to
death due to multiple stab wounds. The husband
eventually died due to the said stab wounds.
An information was filed, charging appellant with the
crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Defense of appellant was denial. He argues that he was
in the house of Agri Saud, which was 200 meters away
butchering a pig with his friends and that he never left in
the evening.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Accused appealed to the SC but the case was
transferred to CA.
CA affirmed RTC’s decision, added damages.
ISSUE
W/N accused is guilty of Robbery with Homicide through
conspiracy
W/N trial court erred in giving credence to the
testimonies of prosecution witness, or erred in not giving
probative value in his defense of alibi
HOLDING
Art 1 RPC, Art 8 RPC
Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
provides:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons – Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with
the use of violence against or any person shall suffer:
The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by
reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed, or when the
robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson.
For the accused to be convicted of the said crime, the
prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the
following elements:
(1) the taking of personal property is committed
with violence or intimidation against persons;
(2) the property taken belongs to another;
(3) the taking is animo lucrandi; and
(4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion
thereof, homicide is committed.
In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of
the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide
perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of
human life.
Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from
proof of violent unlawful taking of personal property.
When homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals
in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of
the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide
although they did not actually take part in the killing,
unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent
the same.
All those who conspire to commit robbery with homicide
are guilty as principals of such crime, although not all
profited and gained from the robbery. One who joins a
criminal conspiracy adopts the criminal designs of his
co-conspirators and can no longer repudiate the
conspiracy once it has materialized.
Therefore, the basic principle in conspiracy that the "act
of one is the act of all," applies in this case. To be a
conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of
the execution; he need not even take part in every act or
need not even know the exact part to be performed by
the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Once
conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators. To exempt himself from criminal liability, a
conspirator must have performed an overt act to
dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to
commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof.
It is not enough to prove that the accused was
somewhere else when the crime was committed, but it
must also be demonstrated that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the crime scene at
the time the crime was committed. This Court has
always upheld that alibi and denial are inherently weak
defenses and must be brushed aside when the
prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained
the identity of the accused.
Petition DENIED.
G.R. No. 140405 March 4, 2004
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
vs.
MAJOR EMILIO COMILING, GIL SALAGUBANG
(acquitted), MARIO CLOTARIO (acquitted),
GERALDO GALINGAN, EDDIE CALDERON (at large),
BALOT CABOTAJE (at large) and RICKY MENDOZA
(at large), accused.
MAJOR EMILIO COMILING and GERALDO
GALINGAN, appellants.
FACTS
At sundown on September 2, 1995 in Tayug
Pangasinan, Ysiong Chua, the owner of Masterline
Grocery and his helper Mario were about to close the
store when someone knocked on the door to buy some
cigarettes. As soon as Mario opened the door, three
masked, armed men suddenly barged into the store and
announced a hold-up. One of the robbers shoved Ysiong
and threatened to kill him if he did not give them his
earnings, and also kicked him afterwards. While lying in
the floor, he saw the three men ransacking the drawers,
there he got up and ran to the police station to report
what happened.
A team of police rushed to the crime scene and asked
what happened from Brgy Councilman Rimas when they
heard 3 shots coming inside the store. PO3 Pastor ran
and hid behind a concrete marker but as he was
attempting to flee, he was shot in the face and died in
the hospital from the injury. Ysiong discovered that he
lost three gold necklaces worth P26,000 and cash
amounting to P81,000.
On September 26, 1995, bothered by her conscience,
prosecution witness Naty Panimbaan decided to reveal
to police authorities what she knew about the case.
During the trial, she testified that she was present in all
the four meetings in which the plan to rob the Masterline
Grocery was hatched.
The group had four meetings about the robbery in July
and August. Finally, on September 2, 1995, the group
met at Lani's house where they received their final
instructions and the firearms they were to use from
Comiling and Galingan. The entire group headed for
Masterline Grocery at around 4:00 p.m. except for Naty
who stayed behind in Lani's house. The group planned
to escape to Manila and the witnesses stayed in Makati.
The defenses of all the accused were alibis, that they
were somewhere else when the crime happened.
RTC found Major Comiling, Bong Galingan, and Ricky
Mendoza guilty of Robbery with Homicide, others were
acquitted. Mendoza escaped detention and is still at
large.
Accused appealed to SC.
Comiling contends that Homicide happened after the
robbery and is not connected to the commission of the
robbery; and also questions the credibility of the witness
ISSUE
W/N accused are guilty of Robbery with Homicide for
conspiracy by inducement
HOLDING
Art 294, RPC; Art 8 RPC; People v Assad
RATIO
Robbery with homicide is a "special complex crime." It is
enough that in order to sustain a conviction for this
crime, the killing, which is designated as "homicide," has
a direct relation to the robbery, regardless of whether the
latter takes place before or after the killing. This Court is
not a trier of facts.
Naty's tenacious insistence on the minute details of what
happened suggested nothing else except that she was
telling the truth. We do not doubt her credibility. The
time-tested rule is that, between the positive assertions
of prosecution witnesses and the mere denials of the
accused, the former undisputedly deserve more
credence and are entitled to greater evidentiary value.
Lastly, Comiling asserts that he cannot be held liable for
robbery as he was not physically present at the
Masterline Grocery and had no ostensible participation
therein. The contention is off-tangent.
Although Comiling was never tagged as one of the three
robbers who entered the store of Ysiong Chua nor the
one who mauled the victim or who shot PO3 Erwil Pastor
to death, his participation was his leadership in the
conspiracy to commit robbery with homicide and his
inducement to his cohorts to perpetrate the same. As
held in People vs. Assad, one who plans the
commission of a crime is a principal by inducement.
Naty's testimony showed that Comiling was determined
to commit the crime as early as June 1995. The fact that
the heist was finally executed only on September 2,
1995 indicated that Comiling had indomitably clung to
his determination. Principalship by inducement (or by
induction) presupposes that the offender himself is
determined to commit the felony and must have
persistently clung to his determination.
The fact that a witness is a person of unchaste character
or even a drug dependent does not per se affect her
credibility. Character is frequently used to refer to one's
reputation in the neighborhood. Our established doctrine
is that the witness' testimony deserves full faith and
credit where there exists no evidence to show any
dubious reason or improper motive why he should testify
falsely against the accused.
More importantly, PO3 Erwil Pastor identified Galingan
as the robber who shot him. An ante-mortem statement
is evidence of the highest order. It is doctrinal that, when
a person is at the point of death, every motive of
falsehood is silenced.
The existence of conspiracy in this case cannot be
doubted. The rule is, whenever homicide is committed
as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all
those who take part as principals in the robbery will also
be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is hereby
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Appellants Emilio
Comiling, Geraldo Galingan and accused Ricky
Mendoza are hereby found guilty of robbery with
homicide and sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
G.R. No. 133887 May 28, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
AVELINO GALGO, DOMITILO GALGO, DIOSDADO
GALGO, and NELSON GALGO, accused-appellants.
FACTS:
An Information was filed against the accused for murder
of Tranquilino Quiling. The prosecution presented as its
witnesses, Fred Guiling, Pablito Japitana, and Dr. Leticia
Tobias, the physician who conducted an autopsy on the
victim.
Fred Quiling testified that around 9PM in Oct 2, 1994, he
was in a drinking session with victim Tranquilino,
together with their friends. After a while, the victim stood
up to leave. As soon as he opened the door, the victim
was met with gunshots coming from below the house.
Witness saw that the shots were being fired by Nelson
and Diosdado Galgo who were outside the house,
armed with a 12-gauge shotgun each. The first shot fired
by Nelson hit the victim in the chest and the second shot
fired by Diosdado hit the victim at the stomach.7 Behind
Nelson and Diosdado were accused-appellants Avelino
and Domitilo Galgo who were also armed with shotguns;
however, the two did not fire their guns.
Pablito Japitana corroborated the statements of Fred,
stating that the victim got up to leave and as soon as he
opened the door, there was a sudden burst of gunshots
hitting him. Witness Japitana immediately jumped out of
the house and took cover behind an acacia tree. From
where he was hiding, he heard the voice of accused-
appellant Avelino Galgo saying: "You run, what are you
waiting for?"14 Upon hearing the voice, he opened and
pointed his flashlight in the direction of the gate of Jose
Japitana’s house and saw Avelino, Domitilo, Diosdado,
and Nelson Galgo.
Dr. Leticia Tobias concluded that the cause of death was
severe hemorrhage due to multiple gunshot wounds.
The accused alleges that they were at their house when
they heard the gunshots, and alleging that Pablito
Japitana confessed that he killed the victim.
RTC found the accused guilty of Murder, sentencing
them to death penalty.
Accused appealed to SC.
ISSUE
W/N accused is guilty of Murder
W/N they conspired to kill the victim; W/N RTC erred in
convicting accused for Murder beyond reasonable doubt
HOLDING
Art 8, RPC, Art 248 RPC
RATIO
It is a well-settled rule in criminal jurisprudence that the
Supreme Court will not interfere with the trial court’s
determination of the credibility of witnesses unless there
appear on record some facts or circumstances of weight
and influence which have been overlooked or the
significance of which has been misinterpreted by the trial
court. After a careful study and review, the Court does
not find sufficient grounds to deviate from the trial court’s
appreciation of the credibility of the witnesses for the
prosecution.
Accused-appellants insist that the trial court should have
discredited the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies
inasmuch as they were inconsistent and conflicting. The
Court finds these perceived inconsistencies to be
immaterial and absolutely without any relevance to the
issues at hand. Inconsistencies that refer only to minor
details and collateral matters do not affect the substance
of the prosecution’s declarations, their weight and their
veracity.
Accused-appellants’ defense of denial and alibi must
likewise fail. Accused-appellants must not only prove
their presence at another place at the time of the
commission of the offense, but they must also
demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for
them to be at the scene of the crime when it was
committed.
In any criminal prosecution, the only requisite is that the
prosecution proves the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does
not mean such a degree of proof that, excluding the
possibility of error produces absolute certainty. Only
moral certainty is required, or the degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
Finally, we approve the trial court’s finding of conspiracy
among accused-appellants. Previous agreement to
commit the crime need not be proved to establish
conspiracy. Where the acts of the accused collectively
and individually demonstrate the existence of a common
design towards the accomplishment of the same
unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the
perpetrators will be liable as principals. Eyewitness Fred
Quiling saw all four accused-appellants at the scene of
the crime. Although he testified that only Nelson and
Diosdado Galgo actually fired shots at the victim, he
declared that Avelino and Domitilo Galgo were right
behind them and likewise armed with shotguns. Their
physical presence at the scene of the crime, their being
armed with shotguns and their act of simultaneously
running away after the victim was shot, manifest a
common design and a unity of purpose and action
among accused-appellants leading to the indubitable
conclusion that they were in conspiracy.
RTC decision AFFIRMED. Penalty lowered to reclusion
perpetua, liable for damages
G.R. No. 178771 June 8, 2011
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
vs.
ALBERTO ANTICAMARA y CABILLO and
FERNANDO CALAGUAS FERNANDEZ a.k.a. LANDO
CALAGUAS,
Lando, Al, Dick Tañedo (Dick), Roberto Tañedo (Bet),
Marvin Lim (Marvin), Necitas Ordeñiza-Tañedo (Cita),
and Fred Doe are charged with the crimes of Murder and
of Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention in two separate
Informations.
At 3AM on May 7, 2002, househelper AAA and driver
Abad Sulpacio were sleeping in their employers' house
located in Rosales, Pangasinan. Momentarily, AAA was
jolted from sleep when she heard voices saying, "We will
kill her, kill her now" and another voice saying, "Not yet!"
Thereafter, AAA observed about six (6) persons enter
the house, Lando and Al among others. One of the
intruders approached her and told her not to move.
They then decided to tie AAA. Later, AAA was untied
and led her outside the house. Outside, AAA saw Abad,
who was also tied and blindfolded, seated inside a
vehicle.The group later brought AAA and Abad to the
fishpond owned by their employers. The group brought
Abad outside the vehicle and led him away.
Later, alias "Fred" returned telling the group, "Make the
decision now, Abad has already four bullets in his body,
and the one left is for this girl." They later proceeded
towards San Miguel Tarlac, where Lando Calaguas
resided. They stayed in Lando's house where they kept
AAA from May 7 to May 9, 2002
On May 9, 2002, appellant Lando Calaguas brought
AAA to a hotel in Tarlac, and threatened to kill her and
raped her.
On May 22, 2002, Fred brought AAA to Carnaga (should
be Kananga), Leyte, together with his wife Marsha and
their children. AAA stayed in the house of Marsha's
brother Sito, where she was made as a house helper.
She then escaped the house and with the help of her
friend in Leyte, they reported the incident to the police.
Sulpacio was found dead and was examined by Medico-
Legal Bandonil, opined that victim died due to gunshot
wounds.
In their defense, accused Lando interposed alibi, stating
that he was in Tarlac. Al claimed that he acted as a
lookout and that he was forced to follow what was
ordered of him because he was threatened to be killed.
RTC found Lando Calaguas and Anticamara guilty of
murder qualified by treachery; and of
Kidnapping/Serious Illegal Detention
CA affirmed decision
ISSUE
W/N accused are guilty of crime charged; W/N
conspiracy exists among the perpetrators of the crime
HOLDING
Art 8, RPC
RATIO
Circumstantial Evidence
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral
facts and circumstances from which the existence of the
main fact may be inferred according to reason and
common experience .9 Circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to sustain conviction if: (a) there is more than
one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; (c) the combination of
all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt
In this case, the circumstantial evidence presented by
the prosecution, when analyzed and taken together, lead
to the inescapable conclusion that the appellants are
responsible for the death of Sulpacio
In the case at bar, although no one directly saw the
actual killing of Sulpacio, the prosecution was able to
paint a clear picture that the appellants took Sulpacio
away from the house of the Estrellas, tied and
blindfolded him, and brought him to another place where
he was repeatedly shot and buried.
Conspiracy
Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is
conspiracy when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning a felony and decide to commit it.
It may be inferred from the acts of the accused before,
during or after the commission of the crime which, when
taken together, would be enough to reveal a community
of criminal design, as the proof of conspiracy is
frequently made by evidence of a chain of
circumstances.13 To be a conspirator, one need not
participate in every detail of the execution; he need not
even take part in every act or need not even know the
exact part to be performed by the others in the execution
of the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned
separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated
to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective
effort to achieve their common criminal objective. Once
conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators. The precise extent or modality of
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since
all the conspirators are principals.
In the present case, prior to the commission of the crime,
the group met at the landing field in Carmen,
Pangasinan and discussed their plan to rob the house of
the Estrellas with the agreement that whoever comes
their way will be eliminated.15 Appellant Al served as a
lookout by posting himself across the house of the
Estrellas with the task of reporting any movements
outside. Fred then climbed the old unserviceable gate of
the Estrella compound and then opened the small door
and the rest of the group entered the house of the
Estrellas through that opening.16 After almost an hour
inside the house, they left on board a vehicle with AAA
and Sulpacio. AAA and Sulpacio were brought to Sitio
Rosalia, Brgy. San Bartolome, Rosales, Pangasinan. In
that place, Sulpacio was killed and AAA was brought to
another place and deprived of her liberty. These
circumstances establish a community of criminal design
between the malefactors in committing the crime.
Clearly, the group conspired to rob the house of the
Estrellas and kill any person who comes their way. The
killing of Sulpacio was part of their conspiracy. Further,
Dick's act of arming himself with a gun constitutes direct
evidence of a deliberate plan to kill should the need arise
Alibi and Denial
Aside from the testimony of appellant Lando that he was
in Tarlac at the time of the incident, the defense was
unable to show that it was physically impossible for
Lando to be at the scene of the crime. Basic is the rule
that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he
was somewhere else when the crime was committed
and that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime.
However, the Court does not agree with the CA and trial
court's judgment finding appellant Al liable for Rape.
Also, in People v. Canturia,50 the Court held that:
x x x For while the evidence does convincingly show a
conspiracy among the accused, it also as convincingly
suggests that the agreement was to commit robbery
only; and there is no evidence that the other members of
the band of robbers were aware of Canturia's lustful
intent and his consummation thereof so that they could
have attempted to prevent the same. x x x
There is no evidence to prove that appellant Al was
aware of the subsequent events that transpired after the
killing of Sulpacio and the kidnapping of AAA. Appellant
Al could not have prevented appellant Lando from raping
AAA, because at the time of rape, he was no longer
associated with appellant Lando. AAA even testified that
only Fred and appellant Lando brought her to
Tarlac,52 and she never saw appellant Al again after May
7, 2002, the day she was held captive. She only saw
appellant Al once more during the trial of the
case.53 Thus, appellant Al cannot be held liable for the
subsequent rape of AAA.
Accused guilty of Murder
Lando is guilty of the special complex crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape
Al is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention
G.R. No. 88724 April 3, 1990
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito," defendant-appellant.
FACTS:
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, from a party. She
knocked at the door of her boarding house, when all of a
sudden accused held her and poked a knife to her neck.
He ordered her to go upstairs with him. With the
Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they entered
complainant's room in the 2nd floor. 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. 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, she escaped
and ran to another room, appellant then tried to chase
her, so she jumped into the window. She darted to the
municipal building and knocked in the front door and the
back door. 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. Meanwhile, the policemen
brought complainant to the Eastern Samar Provincial
Hospital where she was physically examined.

RTC found accused guilty of frustrated rape.

On appeal with the CA, accused was found guilty of rape

and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. He then appealed
with the SC.

The accused assails some inconsistencies on the

testimonies of the witnesses and and also the rial court
was of the belief that there is no conclusive evidence of
penetration of the genital organ of the victim and thus
convicted the accused of frustrated rape only.

ISSUE

Whether or not accused is guilty of frustrated rape

HOLDING

Art 6, RPC; Art 335 RPC

RATIO

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.

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. 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.

The alleged variance between the testimony of the victim

and the medical certificate does not exist. On the
contrary, it is stated in the medical certificate that the
vulva was erythematous (which means marked by
abnormal redness of the skin due to capillary
congestion, as in inflammation) and tender. It bears
emphasis that Dr. Zamora did not rule out penetration of
the genital organ of the victim.

The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused

may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victim's
testimony if credible.