You are on page 1of 139

OCTOBER 1999 PEOPLE V.

MARCELINO October 1, 1999 Victims Pineda and Bajos were sent by the governor to investigate reported abuses by paramilitary groups in the hinterlands. Barangay Chairman Marcelino and some of his Civilian Home Defense (CHDF) cohorts shot to death and incinerated the corpses of said victims. Issue: Was there treachery? Was conspiracy established to hold other accused equally liable for the murder? HELD: YES Elements of treachery (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted. Victims were deliberately led toward Nabilog by Marcelino when he claimed there was a taxi there waiting for them. When they reached Tampa Creek, said unforwarned victims were suddenly shot to death without chance to defend themselves. Marcelino effectively ordered his men to kill the two by means of a signal (drawing a line across his neck with a finger). The gesture was so conspicuous that even the witness saw it. The group followed the deceased then killed them. Their bodies were set on the ground side-by side, their clothes removed, their personal belongings stolen. Thereafter Marcelino ordered that the bodies be burned in order to conceal their evil deed. These circumstances, taken together, sufficiently established a unity of purpose, community of interest and intent, which were carried out in concert. For conspiracy to exist, there need not be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. PEOPLE V. NARIDO October 1, 1999 Accused raped his 11-year-old daughter while they are gathering firewood. On another occasion, his common law wife caught him laying on top of his daughter. Issue: W/N said crime is punishable by death? (special circumstance imposing death penalty automatically - victim is under 18 years of age and offender is a parent.) HELD: No. Guilty only of simple statutory rape and not qualified rape for want of allegation of relationship. Said special circumstances introduced by RA 7659 which sanction automatic imposition of death penalty partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances since these circumstances increase the penalty for rape by one degree. Nonetheless, to be properly appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, it must be specifically pleaded in the information. Information in this case reveals that although the complainant's minority was alleged, the fact of relationship, albeit proven during the trial, was not so specified. PEOPLE V. PADAMA October 1, 1999 Victim Gatchalian was chased by the two accused, each armed with a knife, and stabbed simultaneously several times. He eventually died of severe blood loss. Said killing arose from a previous incident where victim confronted accused regarding their plan of stealing from the store of the former. Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes. W/N there was evident premeditation? No. HELD:

The conclusion that the killing was attended with treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, as the two accused each armed with bladed weapons and continuously attacking and raining knife thrusts upon the unarmed and unsuspecting victim which caused his eventual death is also not to be disturbed. The evidence shows that the two accused took turns in stabbing the victim while the latter had already fallen down on the pavement. Proof of the alleged resentment does not constitute conclusive proof of evident premeditation. An expression of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a crime; there must be a demonstration of outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest. PEOPLE V. VILLABLANCA October 1, 1999 Villablanca brothers barged in to the house of victim Pedro Natanio late in the night. Pedro and his family was awakened by their chickens flying off the perch. Victim was made to kneel on the floor and then stabbed him on the stomach with a samurai, while the other pointed a gun to his face. Victim rolled to his side and was again stabbed thrice which led to his death Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes. W/N there was abuse of superior strength? No. W/N there was conspiracy? Yes. HELD: Pedro may have been warned of a possible danger to his person. However, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner making it impossible for Pedro to retaliate. When Pedro was made to kneel on the floor, he was unarmed. There was no risk to the accused when they commenced the stabbing. Pedro's helplessness was bolstered by the fact that he was suffering from a congenital limpness which allowed him to walk only short distances. There is no evidence that accused took advantage of superior strength. In any event, even if it was present it was absorbed in treachery. Both accused shall suffer the same fate, as there was conspiracy between them. When the other pointed a gun to Pedro, he provided his brother with moral assistance. This is enough to make him a co-conspirator. It is not necessary to show that he actually he hit and killed Pedro to make him liable for his brother's acts. PEOPLE V. VERGEL October 4, 1999 Vergel and Duran, both drunk and armed with a gun and a fan knife, fetched and forcibly brought victim on board a tricycle to an apartment. Vergel had carnal knowledge with said victim after he poked the gun at her side and pulled her into a bedroom, while Duran stayed guard near the door of the sala. Issue: W/N there was rape? HELD: Yes. It is clear there was rape. The prosecution was able to prove that (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant (2) because he intimidated her by pointing a gun at her. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the criminal acts of the accused. Such resistance is not an element of the felony. It is enough that the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Not every victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectation of everyone. PEOPLE V. YABUT October 5, 1999 Spouses Yabut on several occasions received money from complainants promising them they will be able to work in Japan. After several cancellation of their scheduled departure, complainants discovered that said spouses were not licensed to engage in recruitment and placement activities. Wife eluded arrest and remains at-large. Husband contends that he was not engaged in recruitment for overseas employment and but only in processing visas. He was acquitted of the crime of estafa.

Issue: W/N accused could be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the crime of estafa? HELD: Yes. It is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa Art. 315 of the RPC. The former is mala prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is mala in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. PEOPLE V. CARATAY October 5, 1999 Accused in several occasions had carnal knowledge with his common-law wife's 13 year-old niece. In one occasion he drugged the lugaw of said victim. Issue: Was there rape? HELD: Yes. We have ruled that if the ability to resist is taken away by administering a drug, even though the woman may be conscious, sexual intercourse with her will be rape. Moral character is immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of the accused in a rape case. We have ruled that even prostitutes can be rape victims. PEOPLE V. SUELTO October 7, 1999 Appellant came home late, and his wife was angry with him because she believed that he came from Sing-A-Long. Quarrel ensued resulting to death of the wife after being shot on the head. Issue: W/N guilty of parricide? HELD: Yes. Appellant was the only person with his wife when she was shot in their room. Considering, that his defense was built on the theory that the shooting was purportedly accidental, appellant has the inescapable burden of proving the elements of the exempting circumstance of accident. PEOPLE V. FLORO October 7, 1999 Witness and victim were walking along a trail on a cassava plantation owned by accused, who suddenly appeared and shot the victim then striked the head several times with the gun. Issue: W/N guilty of murder? HELD: Yes. The killing in this case is murder qualified by treachery. The evidence shows that accused suddenly sprang from the cassava plants and shot the victim. The victim was unarmed and unsuspecting of any impending peril to his life and limb at the time he was shot by accused. The swift and unexpected attack by accused rendered the victim helpless. The rule that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not mean it cannot be appreciated if the attack is frontally launched. The suddenness of the shooting without the slightest provocation from he victim who was unarmed and had no opportunity to defend himself, ineluctably qualified the crime with treachery. PEOPLE V. ORTIZ October 7, 1999 Accused threw stones on the roof of the victim's house. After the victim hurled challenge for the stone thrower to come out, the four accused suddenly emerged from the dark. Victim was held by the arms and dragged towards the barangay hall. Accused fired their rifles on the ground to

They then ran away and left him sprawled on the ground. Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes. He fell down. German pulled out a knife and stabbed him at his legs and then at his throat. All of them dragged the latter towards the barangay hall. Melecia saw accused-appellant Ruben Ronato shoot Ludovico. De Jesus was hit twice . waiting for customers to arrive. Robert thrust an ice pick at his back and side below the armpit. When another shot was fired. overtook. Suddenly. German hit his lower legs with a piece of wood. Conspiracy among the four assailants was proven by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Melecia hid herself in an irrigation canal while Ludovico stood up and tried to find out where the shot came from. APELADO October 11. Lifeless body of the victim was later found near the barangay hall. as well as the degree of force and the weapons used by the latter. Having deprived him of his means to stand or run. Ludovico then stood an arm's length away from the highway. while one was firing his rifle. Later. As stated. it being enough that the malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. "What is my fault to you?" He raised his hands and prepared to fight. It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose. This was followed by a stab above the knee. At the very instant the plotters agree. Evident premeditation cannot be considered for lack of evidence that accused-appellants preconceived the crime. Melecia sat on a bench. There is treachery when the attack on the victim was made without giving the latter warning of any kind and thus rendering him unable to defend himself from an assailant's unexpected attack. His line of way was cut. To establish conspiracy. In this instance. 1999 Victim Rodolfo de Jesus was overtaken by Jose Apelado and his group while walking in front of a house. the victim prepared to fight it out with the accused-appellants.at the top of his head and nape. to commit the crime and decide to pursue it. a shot was fired.dissuade witnesses from coming to his aid. In the case at bar. each and everyone of the conspirators is criminally liable for the crime committed by anyone of them. PEOPLE V. the fact that the assailants followed. The three surrounded him. The only clear circumstance that qualifies the killing to murder in this case is the abuse of superior strength between the victim and his four aggressors. surrounded and took turns in inflicting injuries to the victim show a common purpose. 1999 Victim Ludovico Romano and his wife Melecia were selling tuba in a makeshift hut. bursts of gunfire were heard coming from the direction of the barangay hall. Abuse of superior strength also attended the commission of the crime. De Jesus asked him. it is not necessary that there be proof of the previous agreement to commit the crime. This circumstance is appreciated when the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. expressly or impliedly. while Ludovico squatted on the ground. they took turns in inflicting mortal wounds on him. the aggressors who were all armed first hit the legs of their unarmed victim which caused him to fall kneeling. it is not essential that there be proof as to the previous agreement to commit a crime. It was too late. several meters away from the highway. without the slightest provocation on the part of the person attacked. Neither treachery nor evident premeditation was present in the commission of the crime. What is decisive is that the attack was executed . The accused were together when two of them held the victim. PEOPLE V. Melecia shouted for Ludovico to duck. HELD: To establish conspiracy. Apelado hacked him with a bolo using his left hand. HELD: The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack. Treachery is absent as the accused-appellants were not entirely risk free during their attack. Issue: W/N guilty of murder? W/N there was conspiracy? HELD: Yes. Victim was rushed to the hospital and died two days later. RENATO October 11.

On the third time. their strategic seating positions inside the tricycle.in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate. is guilty of the crime charged. PEOPLE V. . Treachery . There was no force employed on him when he boarded the tricycle. It is sufficient that their actions indicate a common intent such that the act of one is the act of all. As Federico held the door frame with his hand. their respective acts of stabbing the deceased. (b) the facts from which the inference are derived are proven. At about that time. As testified to by Melecia. giving the latter no opportunity to retaliate or defend himself from the means or method consciously adopted by the felons in taking his life. All the foregoing requisites are here present. 1999 Accused was seen running through the rice fields towards the house of the victim. accused was requesting Federico's consent to marry his daughter but to which he replied that is more honorable for his daughter to marry son of accused. the security guard thereat. Issue: W/N accused are guilty of robbery with homicide? HELD: Yes. RAGANAS October 12. from all appearances the deceased was lured into going with the assailants who suddenly stabbed him inside the moving tricycle. In order that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict. he heard somebody inside the tricycle cry out 'aray' and felt warm blood spurt from inside the sidecar of the tricycle landing at the back of his right palm.The deceased had no inkling that he would be killed that fateful night. The testimonies of Daayata. viz. cut off. his wife Lorie and son Ronel. who died instantaneously from multiple stab wounds.: (a) there is more than one circumstance. He then stopped the tricycle and accused brought out victim Rodolfo Pamoleras. they appeared to be in a jubilant mood even as they were singing "Tayo na sa Heaven". Neither was there a heated argument with any of the culprits. the victim was "squatting on the ground" in their makeshift hut when the shooting started. In fact. Prior said incident. after which the above-named accused destroyed. and their washing the blood off the tricycle all evinced a unity of action and common design to kill the victim. and disconnected the electrical and communication facilities therein such as the radio power supply unit and an intercom set and carried away one cassette recorder. LACHICA October 12. It is not necessary that there be evidence of a previous plan or agreement to embark upon the assault. and stab one Mamerto Lucion. depriving the deceased an opportunity to free himself. assault. W/N there was treachery? Yes. accused-appellant shot him point blank and in a helpless position. and started to stab him while others served as lookout. and Baba pieced together reveal an unbroken chain of events that leads to but one fair and reasonable conclusion that the appellant. Issue: W/N there was conspiracy? Yes. Federico requested Ronel to switch to another radio station while he will go out to urinate and proceeded to the door. MANEGDEG October 13. HELD: Conspiracy . Obsioma.The act of Junuario dela Cruz of hiring a tricycle on the pretext of needing to throw something. Qualifying circumstance of treachery suffices to qualify the offense to murder. PEOPLE V. 1999 Accused entered the guardhouse of the Yasay Compound and the office beside it and forthwith proceeded to attack. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Federico. he was stabbed by appellant. were inside their house listening to the radio. PEOPLE V. the same must comply with these essential requisites. 1999 Accused boarded the tricycle of Pascasio as his tricycle was running on the shoulder of the road. Evidently. The victim stood up to find out what was happening. Jr.

there having been no indication that accusedappellants earlier resolved to kill the victim and clung to such determination for a considerable length of time. at the time of the killing. alias "Mukong". Some minutes later. for accused-appellant attacked the victim while he was about to exit his house to urinate. under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the commission of the offense. Said killing was qualified to murder by the use of superior strength. helped stone the victim. with no inkling whatsoever that he would be attacked. A sudden and unexpected attack. because she was afraid of her father whom she knew was hooked on drugs. We reverse. Neither can we appreciate the presence of evident premeditation. hitting him on the head and body. there was sufficient illumination from the moon such that the two eyewitnesses were able to identify the six accused.the objective test.Issue: W/N there was treachery? HELD: Yes. as there was no showing that the attack was made swiftly and unexpectedly as to render the victim helpless and unable to defend himself. 1999 Sotela and Mañale went to the store to drink beer. All she could do was cry. as well as from the children's duty to obey and observe reverence and respect towards their parents. the accused having clearly overpowered the victim in terms of number and weapons used. Moreover. PEOPLE V. accused laid himself on top of her. and for five minutes. When the place of the crime is illuminated by light. Neither was treachery proven. Gailos assaulted the victim. That ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the father's parental authority. three other accused arrived. and Rudy hit the victim with a lead pipe on the neck. Such reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of . Circumstances surrounding the killing of the victim Federico Abian clearly indicate the presence of alevosia or treachery. was left to the care of latter when her mother went to Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper. PEOPLE V. which the Constitution the laws recognize. A minute later. they were joined in their drinking by Renato Gailo and his elder brother. the aggravating circumstance of dwelling shall be appreciated against the accused. In the instant case. eldest child of the accused. under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender in order to facilitate the achievement of his objectives. 1999 Complainant. is the essence of treachery. Issue: W/N guilty of murder? HELD: Yes. Where the crime was committed in the place of abode of the victims. GAILO October 13. without the slightest provocation on the person of the one attacked. but the two were soon pacified and the group resumed their drinking. to the extent that it appreciated nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. On the way to the said party. While complainant was asleep. however. and the subjective test. Issue: W/N there was rape? HELD: Yes. A minor altercation ensued when Ronaldo boxed the victim. Ronaldo Gailo. or that it aided the accused in the consummation of the murder. she found accused fondling her breasts even as he inserted his penis into her vagina. where allegedly there was a birthday party. In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter. then Renato stabbed the victim on the back. nighttime is not aggravating. Sotela witnessed Ronaldo stab the victim on the face with a bolo. There are two tests for nocturnity to be aggravating . prevent discovery or evade capture. PANIQUE October 13. the trial court correctly considered the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Ronaldo then invited Sotela and the victim to his house. When she awoke. support and enhance. there is no evidence that nighttime was sought for any of these purposes. the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation. Moreover.

thereby forcing he to do whatever he wants. Without such imminent threat on his life. PEOPLE V. For this reason. the victim's brother was discourteous to accused. but interposes excuses or additional facts which. Later. LANGRES October 13. accused moved for the reinstatement of his plea of not guilty but was denied by the trial court. They proceeded to the house of their elder brother. No woman would meekly give in to a sexual intruder where her life is not in serious jeopardy. Testimony inexorably shows that complainant obviously consented to the sexual act which was done not only once but twice. who instead gave a fistblow on the former without provocation. . Accused drew his gun and shot the victim at the forehead. Restituto greeted PO3 Langres when he came. Mere belief of an impending attack is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression. PEOPLE V. PEOPLE V. innocuous conversation when appellant passed by. Victim Teodorico intervened to ask what is his brother's fault. such behavior could not be taken as an unlawful aggression to justify the shooting of the victim. CLEMENTE October 13. The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non. Abuse of both by a father can subjugate his daughter's will. said penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE V. BELLO October 13. The minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitute a special qualifying circumstance which should be alleged in the information and proved to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. AGUINALDO October 13. At best. Neither is an intimidating or threatening attitude.Filipino children and are recognized by law. 1999 Complainant was selling balut in front of Lanai beerhouse when she met accused. it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that the element of voluntariness on the part of the victim to be absolutely lacking. They were young men having a jovial. A formal plea of not guilty should be properly entered if an accused admits the truth of some or all the allegations of the information. They had sexual intercourse in friend's house. 1999 Sindo bothers attended a dance which ended about midnight. Even then. the person invoking self-defense has nothing to repel. Even a mere push or shove not followed by other acts placing in peril the life or personal safety of the accused is not unlawful aggression. In rape cases alleged to have been committed by force. Glaring too is the fact that by her own admissions that her mouth was not covered and that the accused was not holding or poking the pointed object at her while doing the sexual act. 1999 Accused allegedly raped his daughter in several occasions. Issue: W/N there was self-defense? HELD: No. His previous plea of not guilty was substituted to a plea of guilty before the date of his scheduled cross-examination. HELD: Case remanded for proper arraignment. It is noteworthy hat the Sindo brothers were unarmed. They sat on a bench opposite said house while sharing light moments. 1999 Accused allegedly raped his 17 year-old daughter. if duly established would exempt or relieve him in whole or in part of criminal responsibility. The unlawful aggression contemplated under the law must come from the victim himself. Issue: W/N there was rape? HELD: No. she certainly had every opportunity to make an outcry against the alleged rapist or shout for help had she wanted to.

Issue: W/N there was rape? HELD: NO. Complainant's claim that she bled implies that there must have been laceration of her sex organ. When physical evidence runs counter to testimonial evidence, conclusions as to physical evidence must prevail. Physical evidence is that mute but eloquent manifestation of truth which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. PEOPLE V. AGUNOS October 13, 1999 Accused raped complainant while her husband was away serving as a poll watcher. Issue: W/N there was rape? HELD: Yes. Force and violence in rape cases need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied. The record shows that amidst complainant's pleas and struggles, accused pinned complainant's hand behind her back, covered her mouth with his hand and pulled her underwear to her knee before spreading hr legs apart with such force that her undergarments were ripped. It appears that accused remained unfazed when complainant slapped him and struggled to point the beam of the flashlight at him not only to take a look at her assailant but apparently to deter him from consummating his bestial desires. PEOPLE V. GABALLO October 13, 1999 Two construction workers heard a girl scream for a distance, then saw her being hugged and pulled by accused towards the ipil trees. When they reached the place, they saw the girl in school uniform lying face down. They also saw the accused sitting down, who immediately ran away. Unfortunatey, they were not able to apprehend the unidentified man. Issue: W/N there was treachery? HELD: YES. Treachery is appreciated when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from any defense which the offended party might make. We ruled that the killing of children, who by reason of their tender years cannot be expected to put up a defense, is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not precisely shown. PEOPLE V. COSTELO October 13, 1999 Accused Conde grabbed victim Remy by the neck, then stabbed her at the mouth and at the back. When Remy was able to escape from Conde, she ran towards Costelo, who pushed her towards Conde, who again squeezed Remy's mouth and dragged her. Pablo, who suddenly appeared, sat on her chest and stabbed her more than fifteen times. Costelo held Remy on the shoulders in a stooping position while the latter was being stabbed by Pablo. Issue: W/N there was treachery? W/N there was conspiracy? HELD: Yes. That the locus criminis was a heavily populated area where others could thus intervene is not significant at all. The essence of treachery is that the attack was deliberate and without warning. The defense or retaliation contemplated here must come from the victim, not from anyone else. Treachery was irrefutably indicated in the method by which the assailants waited for the victim to pass by before suddenly attacking her and preventing her escape. At any rate, no help was forthcoming because anyone inclined to lend assistance was intimidated.

Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. Such acts must point to a joint purpose, concert of action or community of interest. Hence, the victim need not be actually hit by each of the conspirators for the act of one of them is deemed the act of all. In this case, conspiracy was shown because Conde grabbed and stabbed the victim while Costelo impeded her escape and shoved her towards Pablo, who in turn straddled her on the ground and stabbed her. Their prior act of waiting for the victim outside her house affirms the existence of conspiracy, for ti speaks of a common design and purpose. PEOPLE V. CELIS October 20, 1999 Complainant Racquel arrived from Manila at Magundanao and boarded the passenger jeep driven by accused appellants Roque and Carlos. Upon reaching the terminal, Racquel discovered that there was no more tricycle trip going to San Antonio. Accused invited Racquel to sleep in their house, who agreed after the initial hesitation because she is not familiar with the area. She was raped in several occasions, once in a makeshift hut and twice in a school building. Issue: W/N there was a rape? HELD: Yes. For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the appellant had in mind. When Racquel was dragged to the makeshift hut by Carlos, he told her to cooperate with him or she would be shot. These threats were enough to implant fear in the mind of the complainant, who was alone and helpless. Roque, in turn, managed to have sexual intercourse with complainant by flashing a knife in her face. Threatening the victim with a knife, a deadly weapon, is sufficient to cow the victim. It constitutes an element of rape. PEOPLE V. MOTOS October 20, 1999 Accused invited 7 year-old Jenalyn and her younger sister in his room. Vicitim Jenalyn fell asleep beside her sister, who was playing with a doll. Jenalyn woke up after feeling pain and saw accused on top of her. She was asked to take a bath but was later rushed to the hospital by her parents due to her continuous bleeding. HELD: Neither does the complaint allege, nor does the evidence introduced show, any qualifying circumstance in the commission of the offense that can make the offense fall within the category of rape punishable by death. The only penalty that can be properly decreed is the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE V. TABION October 20, 1999 Accused in several occasions, raped his 16- year old daughter while his wife is away. She could not resist the accused because she was afraid of him and of his threat to kill her and her family. Issue: W/N there was rape? HELD: Yes. In the incestuous rape of a minor, proof of force and violence exerted by the aggressor is not essential. The moral and physical ascendancy of the father over his daughter-victim is sufficient to cow her into submission to his bestial desires. Fear oftentimes overwhelms the victim. In the instant case, the appellant enhanced his physical supremacy over his daughter by holding the knife to her neck. In the face of such brutal intimidation, she knuckled under, thus enabling him to satisfy his incestuous lust.

The death penalty may be imposed only if the information has alleged and the evidence has proven both the age of the victim and her relationship to the victim. PEOPLE V. MARAMARA October 20, 1999 A quarrel transpired between the friend of the accused and the victim in a benefit dance. Accused shot to death victim after a rumble occurred. Issue: W/N accused is guilty of murder? HELD: No. Guilty of Homicide only The use of a firearm is not sufficient indication of treachery. In the absence of any convincing proof that accused-appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the means by which he committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, the Court must resolve doubt in favor of the accused. Accused cannot be held liable only for death caused in a tumultuous affray because he joined the fray purportedly to pacify the protagonist before shooting the victim. PEOPLE V. ARIZALA October 20, 1999 Accused stabbed to death Sgt. Cara. Issue: W/N accused is guilty of murder? Yes. W/N there was self-defense? Yes. HELD: Even if deceased hurled incentives at him and moved as if to draw something from his waist, we are unable to establish a finding of unlawful aggression on the victim's part. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. Though deceased was in uniform, the latter did not have a firearm or a holster for the same, and none was retrieved from the scene of the crime. Deceased was killed with treachery. Not only was it not proven that there was provocation on the part of the hapless victim but the attack at the back of the victim was made in such a manner that would make it difficult for the deceased to offer an effective defense against his aggressor. PEOPLE V. PARANZO October 26, 1999 HELD: Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, states: "Art. 335...When and how rape is committed...Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1......By using force or intimidation; 2......When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3......When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present." Circumstances 1, 2 and 3 are alternative circumstances...When the rape is committed by using force or intimidation, the victim does not have to be less than twelve (12) years of age...It is only required that the proper complaint and information for rape must clearly describe the specific circumstance which would make the carnal knowledge of a woman qualify as rape under Article 335. In addition, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining witness provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature and the course of things. PEOPLE V. GARIGADI October 26, 1999 Defendant was convicted of rape and sentenced. complainant was unsubstantiated, and contradictory. He contends that the testimony of the

– Offenders or accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the . and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess the same. the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements thereof. or possess any low powered firearm such as rimfire handgun. 8294 has since amended P. Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses who. however. such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. That no other crime was committed. 1866 "Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession.HELD: The testimony of Gloridel was clear and convincing.380 or .The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15. The law now provides: "Section 1.g. Molina. The alleged inconsistencies and lapses pointed by accused-appellant to discredit Gloridel’s testimony.357 and caliber . Acquisition. Dealing in. Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and for Relevant Purposes". are all minor and trivial details which do not touch upon the commission of the offense. Republic Act No. RA 8294 has now amended the said decree and considers the use of an unlicensed firearm simply as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide. HELD: In cases involving illegal possession of firearms under P. who was seven (7) years of age at the time of the trial. it was held:"Fortunately for appellants. ARQUILLOS TABUSO October 26. . much more than adults.000. PEOPLE V. Thus in People v. he is entitled to the provision of Article 29 [Period of Preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment.” PEOPLE V. .41.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm. . That no other crime was committed by the person arrested. e. Her declaration that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina was made in a straightforward and unshaken manner.40.00) shall be imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered firearm which includes those with bores bigger than . of Firearms. Manufacture. Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms. that accused-appellant merely fondled her or inserted his finger in her vagina.000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully manufacture. LAZARO October 26. serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of a witness because they erase any suspicion of coached or rehearsed testimony. If homicide or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed firearm.38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber . Errorless and accurate to the last detail testimony cannot be expected of Gloridel. .22 center-fire magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and by burst of two or three: Provided. and not as separate offense. Ammunition or Explosives. 1866 by reducing the penalties for simple and aggravated forms of illegal possession and considering the use of an unlicensed firearm simply as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide. In the service of his sentence. These lapses. Sale. viz. acquire. Unlawful Manufacture.32 and other firearm of similar firepower. The Court noted that a child of tender age cannot be expected to understand every question asked of her in the course of examination. 1999 Arquillos Tabuso was found guilty of murder.  The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30. 1999 The accused was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.D. In his appeal the accused-appellant raises the sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition qualified by homicide. as amended.45 and also lesser caliber firearms but considered powerful such as caliber . dispose. or machinery. to THE court’s mind. Acquisition or Disposition. No.D. would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court. deal in. tool or instrument used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition: Provided. ammunition. however.

Considering the absence of any modifying circumstance. convincingly and positively identified as the perpetrator of the crime charged. Israel Lacson but denies that participated in the commission of the crime. if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners xxx. when accused raped Aharan. . WILLIAM BATOON October 26. and straightforward testimony of the complainant. Prosecution witness allegedly did not have ample opportunity to see the faces of the alleged malefactors. for the purpose of raping her. ROLANDO ESPIRITU October 27. this Court ruled that similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself. this Court will respect the findings and conclusions of the trial court provided that they are supported by substantial evidence on record. as amended. A painstaking review of the records of the case show that the appellant has failed to controvert the clear. Conspiracy certainly transcends companionship. as defined and penalized under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code. the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. In a prosecution for rape. He argues that he was not clearly.] PEOPLE V. Revised Penal Code. PEOPLE V. The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex crime punishable under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code with reclusion perpetua to death. with the full time during which they have undergone preventive imprisonment. Accordingly. having heard the witnesses and observed their deportment and manner of testifying. Settled is the rule that to establish conspiracy. 1999 Forcible abduction. is the taking of a woman against her will and with lewd designs. PEOPLE V. evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required. When the accused forcibly took away the victim. Assumed intimacy between two persons of itself does not give that much significance to the existence of criminal conspiracy. The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. ROMANO MANLAPAZ October 26. He insists that when he boarded the jeep he sat himself at the back of the jeepney as there were already several passengers on board at that time. 1999 At issue in this case is the credibility of the victim. and in fact did not actually see who fired the gun. the penalty imposable in the present case is reclusion perpetua. Consequently. candid. [Article 63. or of a girl below 12 years of age. The mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a coconspirator. HELD: Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement on the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. as in fact he did rape her. Regina. 1999 Accused-appellant admits that he was a passenger of the jeep of the victim. he committed the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. the complainant’s candor is the single most important issue.service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty. for the crime of forcible abduction with rape. HELD: This Court has ruled on countless occasions that the trial court is in the best position to determine facts and to assess the credibility of witnesses as it is in a unique position to observe the witnesses’ deportment while testifying which opportunity the appellate court is denied on appeal. lewd and unchaste designs existed since the commencement of the crime. the trial court’s findings are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal unless it overlooked or misapplied some facts which could have affected the result of the case. In a number of cases.] of the Revised Penal Code. This must be primarily resolved by the trial court because it is in a better position to decide the question. in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

price. however. He contends he should have been credited with the mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The obfuscation must originate from lawful feelings. The inducement exists whenever the act performed by the physical author of the crime is determined by the influence of the inducer over the mind of him who commits the act whatever the source of such influence. PEOPLE V. since he died of cardio-respiratory arrest during the trial. 1999 Renato Balbon. Thus. The case against Bolivar was dismissed. 1999 It is well-settled that where there is no evidence. the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credence . A conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated. the inciting words must have great dominance and influence over the person who acts. PEOPLE V. The turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person injured or offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control. The evidence on record is likewise insufficient to convict Barrion as a principal by inducement. 1999 Appellant was convicted for murdering his common-law wife. where the Court ruled that the death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. That there be an act. or powerful as physical or moral coercion or violence itself. both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind. or by any other similar act which constitutes the real and moving cause of the crime and which was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was sufficient for that purpose. promise or reward are not present." "It is doctrinally settled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court. This is in line with the ruling in the case of People v. conduct and attitude under grilling examination. It has been held that there is passional obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts. ELPIDIO HERNANDO . PEOPLE V. 2. a conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. the question that may arise is whether the command given by a person to the author of the crime amounts to a criminal inducement. JERONICO LOBINO October 28. It cannot be based on mere conjectures but must be established as a fact. ARMANDO DE LABAJAN October 27. HELD: The Court disagrees. Bayotas. and that he attacked her because he could no longer stand her going home late at night and her sarcastic remarks whenever her attention was called to what she was doing.PEOPLE V. GRACIANO BOLIVAR October 28. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. because the cause of this condition of mind must necessarily have preceded the commission of the offense. Joel Soberano and Graciano Bolivar were found by the lower court to be conspirators in committing murder and frustrated murder against the victims Hugo Callao and Damaso Suelan. because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor. fear. He contends he would not stab her without any apparent reasons. or due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. The requisites of passion and obfuscation are: 1. they ought to be direct and as efficacious. Where the circumstances of force. and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution were actuated by any improper motive. HELD: Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code provides that principals are those who "directly force or induce others" to commit an offense. "One is induced to commit a crime either by a command (precepto) or for a consideration ( pacto).

In sum.. 1999 Spouses Elpidio and Elena Hernando were convicted to reclusion perpetua for estafa. under Article 315. provides: "Section 1. HELD: To constitute estafa. Elena Aban Hernando.. the searching inquiry under Section 3. the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient cause of defraudation and. Accused spouses asserted that the checks had been issued merely an evidence of their indebtedness to the complainant. or makes a conditional plea of guilty. but a failure to enter of record shall not affect the validity of the proceedings. the check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money or property and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation. "(b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea.. – (a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information has been filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment must be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused a copy of the complaint or information with the list of witnesses. which must be recorded .The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party because of the issuance of the check or that the person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted with his money or property had there been no check issued to him.October 28..(1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record. Rule 116 must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea. On different dates. the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. how made. they issued checks to Johnny Sy which were dishonored upon presentment to the bank.The checks. affording. as amended by Republic Act No.Though Elena was not present during the negotiation of the checks. she issued and signed the checks. Rule 116 of the Rules of Court.. were personally delivered and negotiated to Johnny Sy by Elpidio." In this kind of estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check. except for the first transaction.. Estafa. Plea of guilty to capital offense. In this case. so that the plea of guilt is based on a free and informed judgment . ROMEO TIZON October 28. however. Arraignment and plea. it should be either prior to or simultaneous with the act of fraud. reading the same in the language or dialect known to him and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. reception of evidence.. all payable to cash. (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check. PEOPLE V. Though he was not the drawer of the checks. So indispensable is this requirement that a plea . accused Elpidio coaxed the complainant to exchange the checks with cash by guaranteeing that the checks were good checks and funded.. a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.. – When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. "(c) If the accused refuses to plead. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. has the following elements:. Elpidio was present and personally received the money. in part. and (2) a complete comprehension of the legal effects of the plea.Stated otherwise. the proper understanding of the allimportant constitutional mandate regarding the right of an accused to be so informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled against him so essential in aptly putting up his defense. and (3) damage to the payee thereof. call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.. as such. The prosecution may. The searching inquiry. 1999 The Rules of Court have set exacting standards to be strictly complied with by the trial court in the arraignment of an accused. 4885. paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code. "x x x x x x x x x "Section 3. deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. such as they do." These rules are mandatory. requires the court to make it indubitably certain that the accused is fully apprised of the consequences of his plea of guilt. all the checks that bounced were issued and drawn by Elpidio Hernando’s wife.In all the transactions..

and (3) the lapse of a sufficient period of time between the decision and the execution of the crime. unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof. to allow the appellant to reflect upon the consequences of the act. (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. there must be an actual. The Court also upheld the claim of conspiracy. NOVEMBER 1999 PEOPLE V. He questions the testimony of the witness. the Court also found that evident premeditation could not be appreciated against appellants. "The essential elements for evident premeditation to be appreciated are: (1) the time when the appellant decided to commit the crime. it is sufficient that there be a common purpose and design. the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was likewise physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. concerted action and concurrence of the interest and the minds of the parties meet understandingly so as to bring about a deliberate agreement to commit the . appellants failed to prove and demonstrate the physical impossibility of their being at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to his determination. 1999 The appellant invokes the justifying circumstance of self-defense in the charge of murder against him. to wit: (1) the time the offender determined to commit the crime. 1999 The appellant raises in his defense an alibi." In the case under scrutiny. Although the defamatory words uttered by the victim against Corazon CaroLascano must have spawned the grudge of appellants towards the victim. MOROY GALLO November 16. it shall be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance. "unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. (2) an overt act showing that the appellant clung to their determination to commit the crime. "defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the eyewitness who had no untoward motive to falsely testify. Having invoked such circumstance." In analyzing the facts. the evidence for the prosecution has not established all the elements of evident premeditation. not merely a threatening or intimidating and the appellant must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression. Moreover. and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. It has also been held by this Court that. Amelita Elarmo because of her relationship with the deceased. there can be no self-defense. If evident premeditation is also proven.” For unlawful aggression to be appreciated. PEOPLE V. 1999 Moroy Gallo was convicted by the trial court of murder. ARMANDO SARABIA October 29. "all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since in contemplation of law. HELD: The Supreme Court repeated the well-settled doctrine that mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not render her testimony less worthy of credit. EDUARDO ALTABANO October 29. Firmly settled is the doctrine "that for the defense of alibi to prosper. he is deemed to have admitted having killed the victim and the burden of proof shifts to him to establish and prove the elements of selfdefense : (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim." PEOPLE V. and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act. Absent such unlawful aggression." Conspiracy was correctly established in this case and as such. sudden. especially where there is no showing of improper motive. the act of one would be the act of all.of guilt to a capital offense can be held null and void where the trial court has inadequately discharged the duty of conducting the prescribed "searching inquiry. To establish conspiracy it is not essential that there be previous agreement to commit the crime.

remittances of foreign exchange earnings. 13. ART. offers or promises for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. under Article 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. namely. 64 of the Revised Penal Code applicable. and the recruiters were unlicensed. individually or as a group. contracting. and. the applicable provision is Art. 34. hiring or procuring workers. (b). with Rosalinda Ariola were convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale. the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. and (c) The offender committed the same against three (3) or more persons. HELD: The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three (3) elements concur. minimum (reclusion temporal). whether for profit or not: Provided. (h) To fail to file reports on the status of employment. licensee. (j) To become an officer or member of the Board or any corporation engaged in travel agency or to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of a travel agency. separation from jobs. since the murder was committed prior to the effectivity of RA 7659. (b) The offender undertakes either any activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Art. . or holder of authority: (a) To charge or accept. and includes referrals. par. or any of the prohibited acts enumerated in ART. That any person or entity which. namely: (a) The offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. RODRIGO LASOLA November 17. (d) To induce or to attempt to induce a worker already employed to quit his employment in order to offer him to another unless the transfer is designed to liberate the worker from oppressive terms and conditions of employment. ROSALINDA ARIOLA November 16. notwithstanding the absence of a formal agreement. transporting. Scnc PEOPLE V. (c) To give any false notice. testimony. 64 of the Penal Code. In the absence of any other generic aggravating and mitigating circumstance. departures and such other matters or information as may be required by the Secretary of Labor. enlisting. (i) To substitute or alter employment contracts approved and verified by the Department of Labor from the time of actual signing thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of expiration of the same without the approval of the Secretary of Labor.] of the same Code. and offered jobs in New Guinea.x x x x (b) "Recruitment and placement" refers to any act of canvassing. (k) To withhold or deny travel documents from applicant workers before departure for monetary or financial considerations other than those authorized under this Code and its implementing rules and regulations. (g) To obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the Secretary of Labor or by his duly authorized representatives. (e) To influence or to attempt to influence any person or entity not to employ any worker who has not applied for employment through his agency. The imposable penalty which has three periods. utilizing. the medium period of the penalty pursuant to Art. or to make a worker pay any amount greater than that actually received by him as a loan or advance. The Supreme Court also upheld the trial court’s appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength. any amount greater than that specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by the Secretary of Labor. In this case the prosecution was able to establish the qualifying aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength. entity. locally or abroad. 13. 1999 Elvira Obana. (f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of workers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or to the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines. PEOPLE V. . (b) To furnish or publish any false notice or information or document in relation to recruitment or employment. placement.offense charged. in any manner.It shall be unlawful for any individual. which penalizes murder with reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. directly or indirectly. The armed assailants used their greater number and superior power to overwhelm the unarmed victim. The victims discovered that the office was not actually Manila Booking Agency. of the Labor Code. Prohibited practices. contract services. information or document or commit any act of misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or authority under this Code. 248 of the Revised Penal Code. They promised employment upon the payment of recruitment fees. medium (reclusion perpetua) and maximum (death). vacancies. promising or advertising for employment. 1999 . makes Art. The 6 accused presented themselves as part of the Manila Booking Agency. Definitions. In addition.

HELD: The trial court has correctly imposed the death penalty in the case at bar after taking into account the qaulifying circumstances of minority of the victim and the paternity relationship between appellant and the victim. 3) by force and without consent. 7659.1999 To properly appreciate the qualifying circumstance of treachery. and in order to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. the victim. Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty. The crime of rape has been established. when it is habitual or intentional. With respect to evident premeditation. The judgement of the lower court was affirmed. it is considered an aggravating circumstance. 2) with a woman. and this rule applies with more vigor when the culprit is a close relative of the victim. and the offender is the father of the victim.1999 The case is a review by the Court of the issue of whether the constitutional presumption of innocence accorded to an accused has been sufficiently overcome by the State enough to sustain the judgment of the trial court finding the indictee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified rape and thereby imposing upon him the death penalty.This is a case for automatic review where Rodrigo Lasola was convicted of two counts of rape of an under-aged relative. depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. PEOPLE V. method or manner of execution was deliberately adopted. intoxication may be considered either aggravating or mitigating. as provided for in Section 11 of Republic Act No. the following requisites must concur: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested. and (2) the said means. two conditions must first concur: (1) the offender employed such means. if it is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime.1999 . PEOPLE V. the additional elements that 4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape and 5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. Well-settled too. she says. The essence of treachery is the deliberateness and the unexpectedness of the attack. illegitimate or adopted) of the victim. For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance. JOEL PINCA November 17. is the doctrine that when a woman testifies that she has been raped. HELD: The Court reiterated the principle that in cases of qualified rape of an under-aged relative. amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Alphamia. method or manner of execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive or retaliatory acts of the victim. on the other hand. and (3) the surrender was voluntary. and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between such determination and the execution that allowed the criminal to reflect upon the consequences of his act. RUSTICO RIVERA November 17. PEOPLE V. At the same time. Ordinarily. the prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary elements of 1) sexual congress. MATEO BALLUDA November 19. These elements have been properly alleged in the information and proven during the trial. A person pleading intoxication to mitigate penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime. If the only reason for the supposed surrender is to ensure the safety of the accused whose arrest is inevitable. there must be clear and convincing proof of the following: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime. sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason. that person must show proof of not being a habitual drinker and not taking the alcoholic drink with the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime. is a minor (merely 10 years of age at the time of commission of the offense). the surrender is not spontaneous and hence not voluntary. which give the hapless. all that is necessary to constitute the commission of the crime. (2) an act manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination. (2) the offender surrendered to a person in authority. in effect.

HELD: Both were guilty of homicide only. there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons.S.e. nor transporting drugs at the time he was apprehended. As for the aggravating circumstance of cruelty. the alibi of accusedappellant cannot prosper. Consequently. 6425. or is attempting to commit an offense. a peace officer or any private person. Treachery cannot be presumed but must be proven which was not done here. 26. Significantly. delivering. PEOPLE V. methods. is in itself lawful. It bears stressing that appellant was caught transporting a prohibited drug in flagrante delicto. In the instant case. accused-appellant only attempted to prove that he was at a different place when Sgt.R. For alibi to be validly invoked. or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. to warrant his acquittal. two elements must concur: (1) the employment of means of execution which gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. The legality of the warrantless search and arrest in the case under scrutiny is also beyond question. Accused plead defense of a relative and self defense.1999 The accused in this case is invoking alibi as a defense. "For treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Consequently. being an incident to a lawful arrest. his alibi must fail. PASCUA GALLADAN November 19. He did not even attempt to establish that it was impossible for him to be at the locus criminis when the offense was committed. he must show that his act was innocent and done without intent to possess. without a search warrant. for that matter. Bandoc. In the case under consideration. Hence. and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. it is disputably presumed that things which a person possesses or over which he exercises acts of ownership. HELD: Under the Rules of Evidence. and the person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. without warrant. arrest a person when in his presence. The . i. it is not disputed that appellant was apprehended while carrying a sack containing marijuana. without knowledge that what he possessed was a prohibited drug. vs. the Court ruled that the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. such is unavailing. are owned by him. Galladan was gunned down. is actually committing. MARIO BASCO November 19. The burden of evidence is thus shifted on the possessor of the dangerous drug to explain absence of animus possidendi. may.Appellant was convicted for violation of Republic Act No. employing means. The accused then grabbed the knife and stabbed the victim 25 times. paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code. and (2) the means of execution is deliberately or consciously adopted. not only must he prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but he must also satisfactorily establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of commission. EMBERGA G. The constitutional presumption of innocence will not apply as long as there is some logical connection between the fact proved and the ultimate fact presumed. They were then charged with murder aggravated by treachery & cruelty. In U." PEOPLE V. 116616 Nov. 1999 Under Article 14. For this fact alone. The accused then threw rocks at the victim causing the latter to drop his knife. the person to be arrested has committed. the warrantless search in this case. 1999 The victim supposedly attacked the Emberga brothers with a knife. PEOPLE V. He contends that he was neither selling.

superior strength and disregard of sex. Accused raised the defense of alibi. The fact that the witnesses did not identify him immediately to the police is not a defense either. AGPOON. 1999 The accused raped his niece twice.000. the means used to repel the attack were not reasonably necessary since the victim already dropped the knife after the accused threw rocks and could no longer threaten the accused. 1999 Accused. Agpoon's 3 co-accused also retracted their statements that Agpoon was with them went they barged into the store of the victims. Agpoon was implicated on the sole testimony of Bolivar who contradicted himself in Court. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is appreciated since robbery may be committed without trespassing the sanctity of the home. PARAISO November 29. HELD: Guilty. AL.00 in cash and. Supposedly. SUBA November 29. . There is no standard behavior for persons confronted with a shocking incident. PEOPLE V. Agpoon loitered outside the store after the crime was committed. The Court state that it is contrary to human experience for a criminal to choose to remain at the crime scene within a considerable period of time when he could see his companions escape. as when the sperm was washed away or the accused failed to ejaculate. Before leaving. Both the victim and her brother positively identified the accused as the rapist. He was charged of robbery with homicide aggravated by dwelling. All 4 accused were found guilty. HELD: Guilty. ET. PEOPLE V. He who goes to another's house to hurt or do wrong is guiltier than he who offends elsewhere. he denied the charge against him. Flores of P30. shot him to death as well as inflicted physical injuries on his son Bolivar J. The absence of spermatozoa in the vagina does not negate the commission of rape. Charged with rape. One may either report the crime immediately or after a long lapse of time. The alleged unlawful aggression on the part of the victim was not proven by clear & convincing evidence. PEOPLE V. 1999 The accused were charged with robbery with homicide and physical injuries for robbing one Alberto S. Self defense and defense of a relative may not be availed of. with 1 John Doe. on the occasion thereof. The defense of alibi is no good when the witnesses have positively identified the accused. There may be a valid explanation for such absence. Disregard of sex is not an aggravating circumstance here since it only applies to crimes against honor and persons. CAPCO. November 29. the accused stabbed the victim who died. No sperm was found in the victim's vagina. HELD: Accused Agpoon should be acquitted for failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. Trial courts assessment as to the credibility of witnesses is to be accorded great weight. The victim's 4 children were herded into 1 room while the accused ransacked the house for cash and other valuables. Forced their way into the house of the victim. Assuming there was an attack. He was caught in the act by the victim's brother on the second time and was reported to the police.mere fact that the wounds were in excess of what was indispensably necessary does not imply cruelty. Besides. Superior strength is also present since there was a notorious inequality between the accused who were both armed males and the unarmed female victim. Well-settled is the rule that for evidence to be believed it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible itself. Flores.

But. The victim fell to the ground and was shot again in the head. Even the slightest penetration of the lips of the sex organ constitutes carnal knowledge. Plus. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies between a witness' affidavit and testimony do not impair his credibility but even enhance the truthfulness of his declarations as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Charged with rape. was unarmed and totally defenseless. PEREZ December 2. 1999 The victim was asleep with her child when she woke up after hearing a noise in the house. The fact that both victims were unarmed does not amount to treachery. 1999 The victim was drinking tuba with friends when the accused walked up to the victim from behind and shot him in the head. HELD: Guilty. the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength must be considered since his 2nd victim was an unarmed 14-yr. it is a settled rule that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit. OCUMEN GR 120493-94 & 117692 Ocumen was accused of murder & frustrated murder. HELD: . the accused gave the defense of alibi and the fact that there was no presence of sperm in the victim. the accused raised the defense of alibi. especially if it will subject a daughter to embarrassment and even stigma. HELD: Guilty of homicide and frustrated homicide only. DECEMBER 1999 PEOPLE V. She went downstairs thinking it was her husband but it was actually the accused that entered the victim's house with a scythe. old girl. He pulled out a knife and chased the 2 but went amok and stabbed 2 other people instead. 1999 Perez was a boarder who raped the 5-year-old niece of the boarding house's owner. The accused ordered the victim to remove her clothing & underwear. It is also unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice. a 14-yr. One man died while his other victim. The victim refused so she was threatened with her and her child's death. There was no treachery here. He was at a wedding party & argued with 2 guests. It is inconceivable that the naïve and innocent 5-yr.PEOPLE V. which corroborated the victim's testimony that she was raped. The accused raped the victim and threatened her again with death if she told anyone about the incident. old. It was done in the bodega of the house. PEOPLE V. An altercation precedes both incidents. A medical exam showed no lacerations but showed a reddening of the victim's labia majora. PEOPLE V. BARELLANO November 29. The accused was positively identified by witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime. For rape to be consummated. old victim could make up a story of sexual molestation. HELD: Guilty. Charged with murder. 4'11'' girl. full penetration is not necessary. Treachery was present since the victim was approached from behind. Accused denied the whole thing citing inconsistencies in the victim's testimonies in court and that the victim's mother put her child up to lying because of a grudge against the accused. SANTIAGO December 2. lived.

The victim also positively identified the accused and it is settled that the negative presence of sperm is immaterial in the crime of rape. is insufficient to overcome the positive identification made by the witness for the prosecution. MAGBANUA December 2. The testimony of minors of tender age will suffice to convict a person of a crime as long as it is credible. 1999 Accused was charged with raping his 9 year old daughter 17 times. alibi will not hold water. failed to discharge this burden. TUMARU December 2. just like alibi. Found guilty of murder. in order to exculpate himself. HELD: Denial. as suggested by appellant. Moreover. HELD: He was found guilty of only one count of rape.Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene. DE LEON December 3. old Miguel's testimony as he saw the crime occur. in the present case. she did not tell her that it was appellant who authored her pregnancy. PEOPLE V. later on. she named one Ricky Pacaul as the one who impregnated her. Appellant. It must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to merit acceptability. 1999 The victim was sexually abused continuously from the time she was13 years old until she got pregnant after 4 years of sexual abuse by appellant. The concern for the victim does not make him biased or unreliable. Witness Miguel's testimony was sufficient to convict the accused. Her bare statement that she was raped so many times on . It is but natural for the bereaved family to be concerned about the safety of the lone witness. PEOPLE V. The prosecution was based on 12-yr. However. When her mother noticed her pregnancy and asked her about the supposed father. Each and every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so that each of the 16 other rapes charged should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The sexual assaults usually took place at noontime when she was left alone with appellant while her mother went to town to buy their basic needs and while her brother and sisters were at the house of their grandmother which was far from their house. she claimed that she does not know any person by that name. they appealed saying that the judge erred in not holding witness Miguel's testimony as biased and imputing motive to the accused without any evidence. the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. And only later on when she moved to live with her aunt did she tell the truth about the crime. The fact that Miguel eventually stayed with one of the victim's widows does not prove bias. Denial is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the credible testimony of the witness that the accused committed the crime charged. She did not report the rape incidents to her mother because appellant threatened to kill her. HELD: Proof of motive is not crucial where the identity of the accused has been amply established. Instead. cannot save him. where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a heinous crime. He was convicted for all 17 charges of rape. her own father. His lame attempt to shift the blame to a certain Ricky Pacaul. The victim’s testimony was overly generalized and lacked specific details on how each of the alleged 16 rapes was committed. 1999 The accused shot and killed a municipal councilor and OIC in Kalinga Apayao. He denied the charge and his defense was that the charge was filed because his daughter was jealous of her father's affection for another sibling. PEOPLE V. who may not even exist. Penetration and not emission is the important consideration.

perpetrated with violence and force and the killing of said victim on occasion of the rape by immersing her in muddy water. HELD: Settled is the rule that the real nature of the crime charged is determined not from the caption or preamble of the Information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated. The accused was a suitor of the victim. He raised the defense of denial and alibi. LADRILLO December 8. HELD: ACQUITTED of rape based on insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt. Denial and alibi cannot overcome the amount of circumstantial evidence against the accused showing his carnal desire for the victim and his presence at the scene of the crime. PEOPLE V. The accused were convicted solely on the testimony of the prosecution witnesses HELD: Well-settled is the rule that on the issue of credibility of witnesses. but by the actual recitation of facts alleged in the Complaint or Information. Denial and alibi may be weak but courts should not at once look at them with disfavor. Witnesses saw the victim ride the accused's tricycle and also saw a tricycle similar to that owned by the accused at the place where the victim was found. He raised the defenses of denial and alibi and questioned the sufficiency of the information since it states that the crime was committed "on or about 1992". "ang sarap mong halikan". JUACHON December 6. particularly the sexual intercourse against the will of the victim. after. NABLO December 6. But then after. such being conclusions of law. attacked and killed the victim. The elements of said crime are clearly spelled out in the Information.certain weeks is clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish the guilt of accusedappellant insofar as the other sixteen rapes charged are concerned. if considered. if established to be the truth. Neither is proof of motive crucial since the identity of appellants has been established by eyewitnesses. The evidence on record suffices to support the judgment of conviction under scrutiny. appellate courts will not disturb the findings by the trial court. The victim's narration of the incident was also not credible . PEOPLE V. misinterpreted or misapplied by the lower court which. 1999 Juachon was a tricycle driver who was charged with Rape with Murder. especially when the prosecution evidence itself is weak. The facts recited in the Information constitute the crime of Rape with Homicide. 1999 The victim had just come from the barrio fiesta mass when the 5 accused. There are situations where an accused may really have no other defenses but denial and alibi which. The crime was alleged to have been perpetrated at the accused's residence when the accused was not even living in Abanico at that time. The crime was supposedly narrated by the victim 2 yrs. Juachon's slippers were also found there and he was heard to have told the victim the night before. PEOPLE V. The absence of a dying declaration is also unnecessary to convict the accused. he stripped naked and stripped the victim of his clothes and raped her 4 times during that one day. armed with bladed weapons. which was decisively in a better position to rate the credibility of witnesses after hearing them and observing their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. would affect the result or outcome of the case. may tilt the scales of justice in his favor. 1999 Facts: The accused asked the 8 year old victim to come to his house to pick lice from his head. This doctrine stands absent any showing that certain facts and circumstances of weight and value have been overlooked.

(b) the physical evidence of sexual abuse through sodomy committed against the victim. The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer beside the accused.PEOPLE V. FELICIANO December 8. As held by this Court in People v. HELD: Acquitted for lack of evidence. PEOPLE V. RALPH VELEZ DIAZ December 8. He started making sexual advances when she was 6 and finally had sexual intercourse with her 8 yrs. The Court is not persuaded by accused-appellant’s submission. been confused and bewildered by her experience that for more than half of her young life. is of no moment. He pleads insanity and pleads that he cannot be sentenced to death since the information filed didn’t mention the sodomy. as in the case of a daughter against her father. He was questioned before his counsel de officio arrived and even when his counsel was present. The trial court convicted him notwithstanding the exclusion of the extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant and the absence of any eyewitness to the crime because of: (a) the testimony of 10-year old Felbart that he saw his brother last alive in the company of accused-appellant. He was examined without counsel by police and even when counsel was given to him. His testimonies were inadmissible. later. his lawyer did not explain to accused-appellant the consequences of his action — that the sworn statement can be used against him and that it is possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail. SEVILLA December 8. HELD: Guilty. startling or frightful experience as heinous as the crime of rape and not every victim to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of mankind. Miranda. could have. duress or intimidation exerted upon him. 1999 Feliciano was charged with highway robbery and robbery with homicide. the lawyer did not advise him of the implications of his testimony. a rape victim’s testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having raped her. Accused pleads he is not guilty of murder since there was no evident premeditation. Furthermore. who was of a very tender age when the horrible events in her life began to unfold. (e) the fact that accused-appellant voluntarily confessed to the crime without any evidence of coercion. and. there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one has just been confronted with a strange. (c) the plea of insanity which only tended to negate liability but was an admission of guilt. she was shocked into utter insensibility. PEOPLE V. HELD: The crime committed by accused-appellant was murder even in the absence of the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation because treachery and abuse of superior strength were . He was beaten at the police station and was forced to sign a statement that he was responsible for several hold-ups in the area including the one where the victim was killed. Appellant questions the credibility of the victim's testimony since it took 8 yrs. before she complained of his acts. Myra. in all probability. (d) the reenactment of the crime by accused-appellant the details of which could not have been known to anybody but himself. He even received money from the police as payment for his services. 1999 Diaz was convicted of killing and sexually abusing a 12 year old boy. We also find that Atty. Chavez’s independence as counsel is suspect — he is regularly engaged by the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the services of counsel. 1999 The accused raped his 14 yr. old daughter. The fact that Myra did not complain to her mother or her aunts about the sexual abuses committed by her father against her for eight long years.

hence the offense cannot be considered as qualified rape. HELD: On the matter of the aggravating circumstance of "use of unlicensed firearm" in the commission of murder or homicide." but as a rule. Insanity must be proved. he left the restaurant together with his companions. Since the victim was an 11 yr old boy. he may not be sentenced to death.present . Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code . However.either of which qualified the crime to murder. Not encountering any resistance. But right after the crime was committed. she said she saw nothing. ALBERTO FLORES AND RODOLFO FLORES December 8. 1999 Appellant Ringor and his two companions entered a restaurant where the accused worked. He was sentenced to death because of the aggravating circumstances of use of a deadly weapon. the group ordered a bottle of gin. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Thereafter. Appellant approached one of the tables where Florida. what controls is not the designation of the offense but its description in the complaint or information. Simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. It is even more difficult to accept her explanation in committing these inconsistencies. The Information designated the crime as "murder in relation to RA 7610. In the case at bar. PEOPLE V. After seating themselves. HELD: The use of a deadly weapon was not alleged in the information. All that was proved by the psychiatrists was that accused was sexually perverted or that he was sick of pedophilia but such is different. even if there were aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy in attendance the appropriate penalty would still be reclusion perpetua under the law. 1999 The Flores brothers were convicted of murder on the testimony of the victim’s wife. PEOPLE V. night time and ignominy. A careful scrutiny of the records shows that the Information charged him only with murder qualified by treachery. a few minutes later he was back Appellant brandished a gun and menacingly entered the restaurant. appellant pulled Florida’s hair and poked a knife on the latter’s throat. both were present although treachery absorbs superior strength. appellant fired six successive shots at Florida who fell down. Thus. It should be noted that at the time accused-appellant perpetrated the offense. He brought her to an abandoned place where he raped her. the unlicensed character of a firearm used in taking the life of another was not yet an aggravating circumstance in homicide or murder. he thus proceeded to the kitchen where Florida worked. Without any warning. Night time and ignominy were present (sa pwet ba naman). ROLANDO ALFANTA December 9. 1999 Accused entered the place where the victim was sleeping with a bolo. December 9. it is difficult to reconcile the inconsistencies made by Marissa in her sworn statement and testimony in court. the restaurant’s cook was drinking beer. Ringor left thereafter. LORETO RINGOR. The wife says she saw the accused enter the victim’s home and one brother stabbed the victim while the other strangled him. there is raised a grave doubt on the veracity of the witness' account. Sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead. inserting his fingers and penis into her vagina and anus. the trial court erred in appreciating the same to qualify to death the penalty for the murder committed by accused-appellant. Stealthily approaching Florida from behind. HELD: Jurisprudence forewarns that when serious and inexplicable discrepancies are present between a previously executed sworn statement of a witness and her testimonial declarations with respect to one's participation in a serious imputation such as murder. JR. It failed to mention the commission of sexual abuse or "sodomy" on the victim. Florida stood up and pleaded with appellant not to harm him Appellant relented and released his grip on Florida. PEOPLE V. But. abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation.

JAIME QUISAY December 10. the crime is therefore punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. 1999 A 3 year old girl was found dead in a canal. The 9 year old victim was later found dead and half naked with lacerations in her vagina but no sperm. especially a daughter. i. Contusions were found on Mylene's face. 4 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code). Since the rape was committed with the use of a knife. The fact that no perineal laceration was found on the genital of the victim does not dispel a finding of rape. The slightest degree of penetration of the pudenda by a male sex organ suffices to consummate the crime of rape. He was charged with rape with homicide. ARNOLD DIZON December 10. it shall be applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed. a deadly weapon.e. death is the appropriate penalty. Amelia de Leon testified naturally. PEOPLE V. 1999 . The crime subject matter of the instant appeal was committed before the death penalty law. rupture of the hymen is not necessary. The presence of physical injuries on the victim strongly indicates the employment of force on her person. He put forth the defense that he was with the girl but she ran away and fell into the canal as an exempting circumstance (“Any person who. 1999 Accused supposedly raped his daughter in front of the latter’s own 2 year old daughter. etc. would subject herself and her family to the humiliation of a public trial and send her father to jail for the rest of his life if her accusation were not true. 7659 became effective so the penalty for the complex crime of rape with homicide should only be reclusion perpetua. the knife and the victim's torn clothes. The absence of sperm does not negate the commission of rape since the mere touching of the pudenda by the male organ is already considered as consummated rape. RONDERO December 9. nor is it necessary that the vagina sustain a laceration. HELD: The sole testimony of the victim sufficiently establishes the guilt of accused-appellant. Accused was the last person seen with the little girl. PEOPLE V. Jurisprudence is well-settled to the effect that for rape to be consummated. The physical evidence failed to support the version of accused-appellant that the victim Ainness Montenegro fell accidentally into the canal. Accused flatly denied the charge. especially when the victim is a young girl. 1999 The accused was seen by the victim’s father with an ice pick and washing his bloodied hands at the well. Republic Act No. He alleged that the prosecution evidence had not proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt because: (1) the evidence for the prosecution which consisted of the victim's sole testimony is insufficient. EDGARDO DE LEON December 10." PEOPLE V. (2) this testimony is inconsistent.”Par. No woman. and (3) the other pieces of vital evidence. Accused-appellant's claim that the charge against him was merely trumped up by Amelia cannot be believed. PEOPLE V. Hence. arms and thighs. spontaneously and positively.provides that in "all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty. were not presented to substantiate the victim's testimony. causes an injury by mere accident without fault or intention of causing it. He was convicted of homicide only. sides of the neck. HELD: Guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide. The victim had bruises only on the sex organ.. HELD: Guilty. while performing a lawful act with due care.

or mere introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum constitutes carnal knowledge. Cristina that she was thirteen years old but did not allege the relationship of the accused to the victim. The trial court erred in finding accused guilty of robbery. . And. FERNANDO CALANG MACOSTA December 14. On the other hand. But. this Court agrees with the trial court that rape was satisfactorily established by the prosecution. 1999 Accused. HELD: Guilty. if he is charged with simple rape only on which he was arraigned. it is perplexing how accused could vigorously deny that the alleged incident ever took place and in the same breath argue that if anything untoward happened it was because they were sweethearts. PEOPLE V. Being sweethearts does not prove consent by complainant to the sexual act. Accused pleaded not guilty. the information only alleged the minority of Ma. medical findings of injuries in the victim’s genitalia are not essential. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the charges against him.Accused supposedly entered the victims’ house. Sentenced to death. Old Ruel survived the massacre of his family and positively identified the accused as the perpetrator. accused denied the incident and said that he and the victim were even sweet hearts. and consequently. at knife point. or by using force upon anything. it must be proved that there was intent to gain & the taking of personal property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of any person. 1999 Accused invited herein complainant to catch shrimps at the side of the Magpayang River. All the time and while the accused-appellant was on top of her the knife was poked at her. HELD: Guilty of 1 count of rape with homicide. Accused denied the charges as fabricated. It is also well-settled that for a conviction of rape. Ruel’s testimony positively identifying the accused was enough to convict. 1994. Even the slightest touching of the female genitalia. In his testimony. Not that accused took something from the house. raped one of the occupants and stabbed all of them. and its veracity. The supposed inconsistencies in the victim's testimonies refer only to minor details and collateral matters which do not really affect either the substance of her declaration. forced his 13 year old daughter to undress and then raped her. in which case there is no evidence to prove that appellant raped Ma. For a person to be guilty of robbery. The seven (7) modes of committing rape introduced under RA 7659 which warrant automatic imposition of death penalty partake of the nature of a qualifying circumstance under the Revised Penal Code since it increases the penalty of rape to one (1) degree. Only 12 yr. Appellant cites the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and further contends that the medical findings reveal that the healed lacerations in the victim’s hymen were already existing prior to the alleged date of rape. accused-appellant should only suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus. PEOPLE V.The victim acceded but when they were at an uninhabited place. He tried to insert his penis but once the penis was in the mouth of her vagina she felt pain so she pleaded for his mercy not to deflower her and she continued crying and pushed him hard until she was able to be free. robbed them. Cristina on November 8. Ruel only testified that he saw accused opening their closets and throwing things on the floor. HELD: Guilty but reclusion perpetua only. 2 counts of homicide and 1 count of frustrated homicide. and be convicted of qualified rape punishable by death. the accused kissed and touched the victim. Victim also testified her father had raped her 4 times when she was in grade 4. Death was imposed upon accused after the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide aggravated by Rape. The Court has also ruled that a medical examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court that a conviction of rape is proper. It is unthinkable for a daughter to falsely impute the crime of rape against her own father if it was not real. Dwelling and Nocturnity. AGAPITO FLORES December 13. Charged with rape. a denial of due process.

HELD: Acquitted for failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt. react differently to given situations. 1999 Accused raped his then 15 yr. the crime of rape is committed against a victim under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is her step-parent. old. he was kicked by accused and 4 of his friends and then shot . as the assailant. Analyn reported the incident to her mother in the presence of appellant. and c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE V. 1999 Accused first raped his stepdaughter at knife point when she was 5 yrs. 1999 Victim was walking with his common law wife when he was invited for drinks by the accused. are extant in the instant case. RENATO RAMONAMON December 15. b) the facts from which the inferences are derived have been proven. Finally. That same night. Victim refused. Because of Analyn's tender age. accused returned to Zamboanga City to clear his name. the rape resulted in the dislocation of her legs and pelvic bones which caused her to become temporarily lame. has failed to allege any relationship between accused-appellant and his victim. victim's motive for accusing appellant is only so that her stepfather will not be suspected of being the father of the child. Direct evidence of the actual killing is not indispensable for convicting an accused when circumstantial evidence can sufficiently establish his guilt. HELD: Guilty. But accused had left for Manila already for several months and the victim supposedly only told her mother when it was obvious she was pregnant. Neither was she brought to the hospital for treatment. The averment that Analyn could have run away when accused-appellant started removing her panties hardly deserves consideration. when given the chance. She didn’t tell her mother about the incidents since the latter refused to believe her anyway. This is a strong indication of innocence. 1999 Victim was found in a canal with hack wounds in his nape and near death. Accused denied the charges. On the ground. All these requisites. Analyn's mother refused to believe her. immediately flee from their aggressors but others may become virtually catatonic because of mental shock But while the law holds that the death penalty shall be imposed if. The victim became pregnant and only then did she tell her mother about the crime. The victim supposedly told nobody of the crime since she feared for her life. not to mention the dying declaration of the deceased victim himself. PEOPLE V. LYNDON SANEZ December 15. old grandniece at gunpoint and threatened her with death if she told on him. He was found guilty of parricide. previous cases can tell us. HELD: Guilty but sentenced to reclusion perpetua only. however. She was raped 2 more times and only told her grandmother of the crime after accused tried to rape her a 4th time. An eyewitness also saw the accused dragging a body across the road and dumping it into the canal where the victim was found. CABALIDA December 15. PEOPLE V. He gave a dying declaration naming his own son. When the wife turned around. Different people. the accused.PEOPLE V. Most women might. The consistent rule has been that circumstantial evidence is adequate for conviction if: a) there is more than one circumstance. Second. among other instances. the information. she saw the accused shoot her husband with a sumpak twice. AUGUSTO TANZON December 15.

Although appellant merely held the victim while the other hit the latter. he is still guilty as a co-principal because of conspiracy where the act of one is the act of all. The victim died before arriving at the hospital. The rule is settled that in the absence of any fact or circumstance of weight and influence which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misconstrued as to impeach the findings of the trial court. assaulting. stoning and stabbing the victim is not fatal where the accused has been positively identified PEOPLE V. Siegfred G. HELD: Appellants assail the trial court's finding of conspiracy by pointing out alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses Salamanca and Paterna. the appellate courts will not interfere with the trial court’s findings on the credibility of the witnesses or set aside its judgment considering that it is in a better position to decide the question having heard the witnesses themselves during trial. was allegedly sprayed with bullets by the NPA. 1999 The 4 accused took the victim to an uninhabited area near a creek and hit the victim with stones and pieces of wood. paltik. mother of the Enojas. HELD: Gulilty. NICASIO ENOJA December 17. 1999 At the time of the incident. which is allegedly not worthy of belief. Where there is no concrete evidence to indicate that the witness against the accused has been actuated by any improper motive. ABORDO. Accused put up the defense of alibi and that the witness is not reliable. brother of the Enojas. Also. GILBERT DORIMON December 17. One of his classmates went to the police who frisked Dorimon and . Before that. the non-presentation by the prosecution of the items which the accused is charged of having armed himself with in attacking. Appellants allege that it was highly impossible for Pan to have witnessed the alleged commission of the crime as he was drinking all the time that afternoon until the time that he was informed of the victim's death. HELD: All guilty. ET. December 17. A witness saw the incident and positively identified the accused as the perpetrators of the crime. killing Romulo's daughter and son. Insular. Appellants contend that the trial court convicted them on the basis of the testimony of the lone eyewitness. Accused were positively identified by the witnesses and their testimony is sufficient to convict the accused. He was found guilty of murder. The victim was walking home with his wife when the accused blocked the couple and took terms shooting the victim. Hence. Accused also shot at thee wife who was able to flee. his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. PEOPLE V. the house of Romulo Enoja. Found in his possession was a 22 cal. the house of Catelina Enoja. PEOPLE V. 1999 The victim. Zamboanga del Norte. AL. A day before the incident. eyewitness Pan's straightforward testimony against the appellants was rightly accorded credence. The absence of sufficiently convincing evidence as to ill motives actuating the principal witness of the prosecution strongly tents to sustain the finding that no improper motive existed and. that he allegedly used to threaten a classmate who had defeated him in a basketball game at school. Hermogenes Pan. thus. The two testimonies constitute cumulative evidence on who participated in the shooting of Siegfred. Both witnesses pointed to all five accused-appellants. An eyewitness corroborated the wife’s version of the events.again by the accused with a short gun. was allegedly burned by the NPA. was a suspected commander of the "New People's Army" (NPA). the testimony given is ordinarily accorded full faith and credit. and absent any compelling reason to conclude otherwise. at Barangay Caraudan. appellant was an eighteen (18) year-old senior high school student at the Salug National High School of Salug.

1999 Appellant was charged with and found guilty of the crime of rape of a girl less than nine (9) years old. such fact was not established during trial. MERINO December 17. Force and intimidation not proven. HELD: Judgement set aside and case remanded for new trial. HELD: Acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Both are guilty of rape since although it was only Siervo who raped the 2 girls. In cases involving illegal possession of firearm. While the version of the defense is not entirely satisfactory. Appellant later changed lawyers after he found out that Ompong was not a member of the bar. Nocturnity. 1999 According to the prosecution. to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. aged 15 and 16. MORENO December 21. Accused put up the defense of denial and alibi. Being represented by a non-lawyer is a denial of due process. 1999 The 2 accused. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witness is generally accorded great respect. HELD: Acquitted due to insufficient evidence. entered the home of Ernesto Pagadian. The only reference to the non-possession of a license or permit of the appellant was when the trial judge propounded clarificatory questions to the officers who accosted appellant and nothing else. One year later. the act of one is the act of all. must have purposely been sought to facilitate the commission of the crime or to prevent recognition of the perpetrator. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty under the advice of a certain Ompong. Supposed victim’s actuations before and during the alleged sexual assault did not show the kind of resistance expected of a young woman defending her virtue and honor. Both accused were positively identified by the private complainants. Dorimon said he merely found the gun at the back of the school. the requisite elements are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have he corresponding license or permit to possess. PEOPLE V. Merino did nothing to stop it. HELD: Guilty. PEOPLE V. one of the victims saw one of the accused at a market and reported such to the NBI who subsequently arrested him and his coaccused. The RTC found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. December 21. There was conspiracy because both of them acted as one in their greed and lust. JR. as in any criminal prosecution. JANUARY 2000 . with 4 John Does. He held a bolo to her body and succeeded in raping her. The State must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense.found the gun. While the information alleged that the appellant did not possess any license or permit to carry. There was no hesitation on their part to point to the accused as the culprits. accused entered the secluded house of his 14 year old cousin who was alone in the house. robbed him and raped his 2 minor daughters. A much more vigorous opposition to the assault on her virtue is only to be expected of an inexperienced victim on the threshold of womanhood. In a conspiracy. PEOPLE V. She said nothing until her mother noticed her swelling belly and it was determined that she was pregnant. SANTOCILDES.

in this case the discovery of the body of the victim. VICENTE VALLA January 24. They finally found Dyesebel. 2000 On appeal is the Quezon RTC's decisions dated March 29. and even "offered" his daughter in exchange for the victim. be a startling occurrence. Accused-appellant must therefore prove with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place and approximate time of commission of the felony. and (3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances. Corpus delicti only means that there should be some concrete evidence tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the confession. Pines. Venues of rape have been inside a house where there were other occupants." There are three requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae: (1) that the principal act. (2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy under Article 14. As to the crime committed. since "homicide" is herein taken in its generic sense. The trial court found Valla guilty of the crime of "rape with homicide. Rudy Cortes y Caballero. appellant had admitted to raping and killing the victim. was passing by a ricefield near the road when she heard a voice coming from the direction of the forested area. RUDY CORTES January 24. The Rules do not require that all the elements of the crime must be clearly established by evidence independent of the confession." Hence. Note that his extrajudicial confession is corroborated by the corpus delicti as required by Section 3 of Rule 133. HON. Allarey and his companions immediately confronted appellant who. 1993 convicting Valla of the crime of rape with homicide. BONIFACIO MACEDA January 24. in this case. appellant had begged for forgiveness immediately after the body was found. Her body was found near the river with her neck blackened and her vagina bloodied. 17 of the Revised Penal Code should be appreciated considering that the medico-legal officer testified that the pubic area of the victim bore blisters brought about by a contact with a lighted cigarette. the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the special complex crime of "rape with homicide. Neither does the Court find convincing the claim of delay on the part of the victim in reporting the sexual assault against her. The statement of the accused asking for forgiveness and even offering his own daughter in exchange for his crime may also be regarded as part of the res gestae under Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Res gestae means "things done. the present appeal. out of remorse. HELD: More importantly. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. the declaration of appellant acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him under Section 33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. the res gestae." and not "rape with murder" as designated in the Information. HELD: Time-honored is the rule that alibi is inherently weak and easily contrived. the Court has consistently held that lust is no respecter of time and place. cannot be taken against the victim. which quantum of proof he failed to come forward with. In a long line of rape cases. No. in this case. of the crime of rape committed against Analiza Germina y Banculo. 2000 Before the Court for automatic review is the Decision of the Masbate RTC convicting the accused-appellant. This Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence. PEOPLE V. sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death. PEOPLE V. 2000 . a twelve-year old girl. admitted that he raped and killed.PEOPLE V. in a room adjacent to where the victim’s family members were sleeping or even in a room which the victim shares with the sister of the offender. and rape can be and has been committed in even the unlikeliest of places.

1990 decision holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of August 8. and three (3) counts of attempted murder. Deogracias del Rosario. del Rosario was appointed judge. 1866. PEOPLE V. while in detention. and double jeopardy will not lie. Isabela guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of murder. Atty. the latter is penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Hence.) No. frustrated murder and attempted murder under an Information that charges them with qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder in violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree (P. when a person indicted for an offense is arrested. he is prosecuted for a second offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof or any other offense.This case stems from denial by the SC of the People’s motion seeking reconsideration of our August 13. and murder or homicide. are offenses different and separate from and independent of. At that time. It was howevere found that the order was not strictly complied with because Javellana was not detained in the residence of Atty. Under Sec.D. By such arrest. 1866? HELD: At the time the trial court promulgated its judgment of conviction in September 1990. The trial court’s order specifically provided for private respondent’s detention at the residence of Atty. unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. it had already been six (6) months since We held in People v. However. or hold office. each other. he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. del Rosario. the prosecution for one will not bar prosecution for the other. when Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private respondent Javellana with the obligation "to hold and detain" him in Atty. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation. double jeopardy lies when after the accused has pleaded to the first offense charged in a valid complaint or information and he is subsequently convicted or acquitted or the case against him is dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction. Issue: Whether or not appellants may be properly convicted of murder. 3350-3355. which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. To state otherwise is to contradict Tac-an and its progeny of cases where We categorically ruled out the application of double jeopardy in the simultaneous prosecution for murder or homicide . LEON LUMILAN January 25. he ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the custodian under the same undertaking. del Rosario’s residence in his official capacity as the clerk of court of the regional trial court. on the other. including engaging in the practice of law. 2000 Accused-appellants Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia were found by the RTC of Ilagan.D. under an Information charging them and accused Fred Orbiso with the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder. HELD: Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases against him. The trial court gave Atty. As a matter of law. It cannot be said that murder or homicide necessarily includes or is necessarily included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide. While the former is punished under a special law. whether or not homicide or murder resulted from its use. He went about his normal activities as if he were a free man. Del Rosario. he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. two (2) counts of frustrated murder. Tac-an that the unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm or ammunition. private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be held as detention prisoner in said residence. Consequently. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. 7 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court.) No. during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Antique RTC. 1989 giving custody over private respondent Avelino T. elective or appointive. in violation of Presidential Decree (P. sufficient reason was shown why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. on one hand.

an accused charged in the Information with homicide or murder may not be convicted of qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide.D. In point is the following provision of the Revised Penal Code: ART. unless such other offense was both established by evidence and is included in the offense charged in the Information. Analyn is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious when she was raped by accusedappellant. 4. 8294. where the penalty for illegal possession is increased to reclusion perpetua or death by the attendance of homicide or murder. i. or abduction. No. In every case to support the offspring. Court of Appeals. 2000 Complainant Analyn Villanueva and the accused "Boy Ising" were.and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide against same accused involving the same fatal act. seduction. To acknowledge the offspring. 2. for the latter is not included in the former. The trial court gave full faith and credit to the testimony of the victim. As months passed. with only support for the offspring as part of the sentence. which used to be a distinct offense. Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that an accused may not be convicted of an offense other than that with which he is charged in the Information. Analyn. Proof of force and intimidation is not required if the victim is "deprived of reason" or suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency since the same deprives the victim of the natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood. and an opportunity to controvert the evidence for the complainant is accorded him. Analyn then narrated her horrific experience in the hands of accusedappellant. who merely finished grade two. It is well-settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape. HELD: In this appeal. No. To indemnify the offended woman. (Underscoring ours) xxx xxx xxx The aforecited provision of law is qualified by jurisprudence to the effect that "acknowledgment is disallowed if the offender is a married man. which obliterated the now obsolete concept of qualified illegal possession of firearms or illegal possession of firearms in its aggravated form. ESTEBAN ARLEE January 25. We observe that the Information charging appellants with Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder. Analyn’s belly started to swell and when asked about her bulging stomach. the accused contends that the subpoenas directing submission of counteraffidavits for purposes of preliminary investigation.Boy Ising raped Analyn by poking a knife to her side. the trial court may not validly convict an accused for the former crime under an Information charging the latter offense.. Accused-appellant therefore. Since murder or homicide neither includes or is necessarily included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide. unless the law should prevent him from so doing. Sec. qualified illegal possession of firearms. there is no more need for the prohibition against acknowledgment of the offspring by an offender who is married. In Mercado vs. No further positive act is required of the parent as the law itself provides the child’s status as illegitimate. 3. were not received by him since the same were sent to his former residence at A. 1866. twenty-six years of age." Being a mentally retarded woman. this Court reiterated the rule that the New Rules on Criminal Procedure "does not require as condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings (in the preliminary investigation) the presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were made. shall also be sentenced: 1. 1 of P.A. The obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves or by employing dilatory tactics. maintains that he was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation. Bayani. no longer exists in our statute books. . Neither is the Court persuaded by accused-appellant’s submission that he cannot be required to acknowledge and support the child begotten by him with Analyn. Therefore. Analyn readily confessed to her mother that Boy Ising was responsible therefor. as amended by R. 345.Persons guilty of rape. . Conversely. as opined in People vs. because of the elimination by the Family Code of the distinctions among illegitimate children. was 26 years old but with a mental capacity of a eight-year old child. In fact. violates Sec. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. Analyn. Del Rosario Street and not to Dalahican Street where he moved to."However. PEOPLE V.e.

No direct proof is necessary to show that conspiracy exists among the assailants. existing laws and jurisprudence. choked and strangled him. both for murder. However. ARMANDO GALLARDO January 25. Hence. PEOPLE V. While waiting at the store. Rogelio Abunda and his three-year old daughter Julie were shot while they were sleeping on the floor of their house at Barangay Bagombong. Shortly. it being necessarily absorbed treachery. Community of criminal design may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before. JOVITO BARONA January 25. both of which are present in the case at bar: 1. Dimapilisan saw Celedonio come out of the house of Jovito. The collective action of the four appellants readily shows that there was a concurrence in their evil design in perpetrating the crime. there is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the four accusedappellants. Likewise established with certainty is that the appellants’ concerted actions were indicative of their conspiracy. together with Jessie Micate. The victim was found to have sustained seven (7) gunshot wounds in the chest. left and right thighs.) employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself. The trial court convicted the accused thus this appeal. and (4) the confession must be in writing. They were investigated by Police Investigator SPO4 Isidro Marcos. Dimapilisan was told by Pinang that Celedonio was in the house of appellant Jovito. he saw the four appellants follow Celedonio. to retaliate. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA January 25. Eduardo Dimapilisan was requested by his sister to fetch her husband Celedonio Baron at the store of a certain. Evidently. Roberto held. (2) the confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. The excessive force was out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked. the offender in a rape case who is married should only be sentenced to indemnify the victim and support the offspring. and 2. and they gave statements admitting that they. the circumstance of abuse of superior strength cannot be appreciated separately. this appeal. 2000 At around seven o'clock in the evening of July 25. The trial court rendered decision finding accused Armando Gallardo y Gander and Alfredo Columna y Correa guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder qualified by evident premeditation and aggravated by treachery and sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua.under Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code. When he arrived at the store. 2000 On July 28. abdomen. Treachery requires the concurrence of two conditions. 2000 At about 8:30 o'clock in the evening on June 26. (3) the confession must be express. He was able to clearly identify his brother-in-law because of the electric light from the store and the lamp in Jovito's house. killed Edmundo Orizal. PEOPLE V.) deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. HELD: Under rules laid by the Constitution. a confession to be admissible must satisfy all four fundamental requirements. back. namely: (1) the confession must be voluntary. It would have been different if the accused were merely asked if they were waiving their Constitutional rights without any explanation from the assisting counsel. 1988. HELD: The stabbing and the shooting rendered the victim weak and defenseless. 1995. and two (2) grazing wounds on the left arm and back. during and after the commission of the crime. PEOPLE V. While the latter was walking. Their superiority in number and the fact that they were armed with a bladed weapon and a gun shows that treachery was attendant in the commission of the crime. 95-6021 and Criminal Case No 95-6047. The two suspects Armando Gallardo and Alfredo Columna were brought to the Tuguegarao Police Department. much less. 1991. . if there be any. All these requirements were complied with. Cresenciano "Sonny" Enolva y Alegre was charged in Criminal Case No. Edmundo Orizal was found dead in the rest house of Ronnie Balao.

We find abundant evidence of this fact in this case. through the testimony of the victim's mother. ZOILO BORROMEO January 27.00 and the costs of suit. Further amended by Republic Act No. (b) the accused kidnapped or detained the victim and deprived him of his liberty. ALFONSO BALGOS January 26. PEOPLE V. the imposition of the death penalty is obligatory if the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person. there is no dispute that the victim was six (6) years of age when the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her. There is no question that the elements of kidnapping for ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the accused is a private individual. otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law. TITO ZUELA January 28.000. The court did not err in ruling that the alibi of the accused that he was drunk and asleep in his house at the time that the shooting occured will not lie against the positive identification of Lorlita and Pedro Abunda. The victim's age was duly established by the prosecution. 2000 . and further corroborated by Crisselle's Certificate of Live Birth. there was deprivation of the child's liberty and that it was the intention of the accused to deprive the mother of the child's custody. 7659. PEOPLE V. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No. 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. It is doctrinal that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record some fact or circumstance of weight and substance which has been overlooked or the significance of which has been misinterpreted. In this case. still under the same provision of law. We find no such basis. The court a quo also found Lorlita credible. evidence to show that in taking the child. HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect the same. the imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if the victim is a minor. In the present case. PEOPLE V. the question that needs to be addressed is whether there is. Borromeo alias "Sonny" guilty of kidnapping a minor for ransom and sentenced him to death and to pay the offended parties moral damages of P250. Assuming arguendo that minority was not proved." complete with details of the incidents that could not have been the product of coaching from anyone. 2000 The accused-appellant denied raping Crisselle but claimed that he only inserted his left index finger into her vagina because he was sexually aroused at that time. The trial court found that the testimony of Pedro Abunda was rendered in a "very straight forward manner. And if the person detained is a child.HELD: It has been held that delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation will not necessarily impair the credibility of the complaining witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. (c) the deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal. This was certainly so in this case. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape and not just acts of lasciviousness? HELD: The trial is court correct in imposing the supreme penalty of death on the accused-appellant." the penalty of death shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a child below seven (7) years of age. As provided for in Art. 2000 The RTC of Pasay City found the accused Zoilo A. The trial court convicted accused. and. the minority of Kenneth Hernandez was never disputed. 8353. Criselda Fuentes.

1994 and finding the offender to be the common-law spouse of Marites’ mother. but the waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of counsel. the Court said that "when the accused talked with the mayor as confidant and not as a law enforcement officer. his uncounselled confession did not violate his constitutional rights. but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime. 2000 Appellant Domingo Brigildo was acquitted of the charge of attempted rape. This would preclude an anomalous situation where. in writing and in the presence of counsel . And in the recent case of People vs. There was no evidence that Maximo executed a waiver of his right to counsel.that is. In other words. Andan. from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. we are constrained to rule that Maximo Velarde’s extra-judicial statement is inadmissible in evidence." The trial court. this court imposes upon the same Domingo Brigildo the mandatory penalty of DEATH. But the trial court found him guilty of two counts of rape. not elicited through questioning by the authorities.The case is an appeal of accused Maximo Velarde y de los Reyes. in turn. Br. unless he waives the right.Nevertheless. In Andan. the defect in the confessions of Tito and Nelson was not cured by their signing the extra-judicial statements before Judge Bagalacsa. "the moment there is a move or even urge of said investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time. declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Libmanan. When arraigned. The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Finding the victim Marites Belic to have been below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape on March 30. therefore. correctly gave evidentiary value to Romualda’s testimony. from said suspect. Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings in connection with the robbery. assisted by counsel. An uncounselled extra-judicial confession without a valid waiver of the right to counsel . . DOMINGO BRIGILDO January 28. pleaded not guilty to the charges. PEOPLE V. finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide. The lower court rendered its decision finding the accused Domingo Brigildo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE (as) defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. In light of these facts. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense." Treachery was not alleged in the information but the suddenness of the assault upon Hegino and Maria from behind was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Camarines Sur. the infirmity of accused-appellants’ sworn statements did not leave a void in the prosecution’s case. he should then and there be assisted by counsel. as amended by Republic Act 7659. As such. embracing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death. Such declaration to a private person is admissible in evidence against accused-appellant Maximo pursuant to Rule 130. Issue: Whether or not the extra-judicial confessions were executed in accordance with the provisions of the 1973 Constitution? HELD: The right to counsel attaches the moment an investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information on the crime from the suspected offender. Contrary to the ruling of the trial court. Accusedappellant Maximo repeated the contents of his sworn statement to Romualda Algarin who. The trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged in the information.. Nelson Garcia y Temporas and Tito Zuela y Morandarte from the decision of the RTC. the Court reiterated the doctrine enunciated in the Maqueda case. related these in court.is inadmissible in evidence. treachery may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. appellant Domingo Brigildo. Section 26 of the Rules of Court stating that the "act. robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with multiple killings would be. for which he was twice sentenced to death. Treachery exists when an adult person illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement. 24.

with the trial court’s finding of cruelty. she almost always says all that has to be said. 2000 The case is an appeal from a decision of the RTC of Pinamalayan finding the accused guilty of murder and guilty of illegal possession of firearms. JESUS TANAIL January 28. Consequently. Contrary to the contention of the accused-appellant that inconsistencies materially affected the credibility of the witnesses. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design. we rather view the minor inconsistencies as indicative of truth. 2000 Accused Jesus Tanail y Borbe has appealed from the decision of the Bulacan RTC finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the phallus is already enough to consummate the crime of rape. that the alleged penile penetration of private complainant’s vagina had not been shown with indubitable proof." It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist’s threats on their lives. especially its assessment on the credibility of witnesses.. or unconsciousness. are not to be disturbed on appeal. (2) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two (2) persons are involved. deportment and manner of testifying. she recounted how she had been sexually abused by the accused in a "dog-style manner. intimidation. Phallic intrusion necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest contact under circumstances of force. Such accusation is difficult to prove but even more difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove it. however. it may be inferred from the conduct of all the accused before. the accused can be convicted on the sole basis thereof. In between sobs and tears. But even assuming for argument’s sake. the Court has repeatedly ruled that when a victim says she has been raped. this Court has ruled consistently. conduct. HELD: The court found no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. So long as the victim’s testimony meets the test of credibility. that penetration is not an essential element of rape. concerted action and community of interest. ROMENCIANO RICAFRANCA January 28. The trial court is in a better position than the appellant court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence because of their unique opportunity to directly observe the witness’ demeanor. In addition. The court a quo rejected the accused’s defense of denial and alibi. We disagree. Delay in making a criminal accusation does not impair the . the Court has consistently observed the following long-standing guidelines: (1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility. PEOPLE V. even without the rupture of the hymen is already rape. there must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before he was killed. The testimony of the victim leaves us no doubt that her mother’s common-law husband had raped her. Issue: Whether or not the Court erred in disregarding the fact that the evidence of the prosecution did not overcome the time-honored presumption of innocence of the accused in criminal cases? HELD: We advert to that all-too familiar rule that findings of fact of the trial court.HELD: In reviewing rape cases. PEOPLE V. the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. The test for determining the presence of cruelty is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim’s suffering. Marites testified with candor and in a straightforward manner. during and after the commission of the crime. It said that this could not prevail over the positive identification of the accused. and (3) The evidence of the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

allowed 3 men to board the tricycle. Tolentino found out that Leovido had been stabbed by one of the three men who boarded the tricycle. which crime was attended with the qualifying circumstances of treachery. although it appears that it was one of appellant’s co-accused who dealt Leovido the death blow. In any case. and Arturo Punzalan were charged with murder HELD: For the defense of alibi to prosper. alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellant by an eyewitness to the stabbing incident. ALBERTO BLANCO Y SEÑORA February 1. Only Pablo appealed. both passengers jumped out the moving tricycle. PEOPLE V. The the severity of the assault during the first incident of stabbing had already rendered the deceased completely defenseless. PEOPLE V. a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. JALOSJOS February 3. abuse of superior strength. Appellant failed to demonstrate either scenario. in fact. The lapse of three (3) months prior to the criminal accusation for rape is not sufficient to show that the charge of rape is doubtful. 2000 Edgardo Tolentino and Arnel Leovido were riding a tricycle. He was easily overtaken by the three brothers who mercilessly stabbed him to death. Since treachery has already been appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. Blanco. who has no improper motive to testify falsely. Leovido died. Romeo G. appellant performed acts to carry out the felonious killing complained of. RTC found them guilty. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. PEDRO LUMACANG February 1. had little opportunity to run far. The accused-appellant filed this motion . Where there is absence of strong and convincing evidence. for which he should be held answerable. Thus. During the trip. at the time the malefactors were committing the crime. the failure of the victim to immediately report a rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Without warning. 2000 Brothers Lumacang went out on a drinking spree with 2 friends and the deceased Elmer Salac. appellant must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was perpetuated but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the approximate time of its commission. their actions showed a unity of purpose among them. FEBRUARY 2000 PEOPLE V. Sensing that something was wrong. the driver. HELD: The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part. methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specifically to insure execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. and engaged in a different route than that intended by Tolentino and Leovido. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person employing means. accelerated its speed. and generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime. After they jumped. There is conspiracy where. That he was able to run away to seek succor does not negate the presence of alevosia because the wounded victim. 2000 The accused-appellant.credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. Pedro unsheathed his hunting knife and stabbed Elmer Salac. They were charged with murder. For night time to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance it must be shown that the accused had purposely sought such period to facilitate the commission of the crime or to prevent its discovery or to evade the culprit's capture. abuse of superior strength should not have been considered separately inasmuch as it is absorbed in treachery. Alberto Blanco.

However. Does membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general? HELD: True. (c) the declarant was at that time competent as a witness. this Court accords respect. A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony. the trial court is clearly in a better position to determine the weight to be given to their respective testimonies. PEOPLE V. because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim. including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense. The statutory rapes were committed when Shellome was only eleven (11) years old while the simple rape was perpetrated when she was already twelve (12). may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry. (b) at the time the declaration was made. 2000 Appellants Nicanor Llanes and Leandro Llanes were charged with the crime of murder in the RTC. election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. The relationship of the victim to the perpetrator magnifies this terror. The pattern of instilling fear. to these findings of fact made by the trial court. All these requisites have been met in this case. Shellome Nicolas y Dalisay. even finality. PEOPLE V. coercion exercised upon a person to prevent the free exercise of his power of locomotion. 2000 MELANDRO NICOLAS y FAVELLA was convicted by the court a quo of two (2) counts of statutory rape and one (1) simple rape committed against his own daughter. MAGDATO February 7. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class. viz: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death. Having observed the manner. NICOLAS February 4. In the exercise of suffrage. HELD: We strongly sustain his conviction. The essential requisites for the admission of a dying declaration under Section 37 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court are. a free people expects to achieve the continuity of government and the perpetuation of its benefits. LLANES February 4. conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand. utilized by the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission. The fact that witnesses Arevalo and Valenzuela gave varying testimonies as to the dying declaration of the victim does not indicate that they are lying. as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. PEOPLE V. considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory. is evident in virtually all cases that have reached this Court. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. HELD: The declaration of a dying person.asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman. the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law. Unless there is a clear showing that it overlooked certain facts and circumstances which might alter the result of the case. It is a well-settled rule that different witnesses testifying on the circumstances of a criminal event would naturally differ in various details. 2000 . The rule is settled that this Court does not generally disturb the findings of fact of the trial court. inspite of its importance. made under a consciousness of an impending death. and (d) the declaration is offered in any case wherein the declarant’s is the subject of inquiry. Imprisonment is the restraint of a man’s personal liberty. the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending death. The election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement.

None was established in this case. flee. methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. HELD: We find to be correct the penalty of death imposed by the trial court for each of the six (6) crimes of qualified rape. HELD: Well-settled is the rule that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great weight and respect. Such penalty is justified under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. . The prosecution’s case rests primarily on the testimony of two witnesses who claimed to have personally witnessed the killing. however. We cannot sustain. 2000 Accused-appellant Cornelia Suelto alias Rogelia Suelto appeals from the judgment rendered by the RTC finding her guilty of the murder of Isabel Ruales. in the absence of a clear showing that some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked. This may be awarded without need of proof other than the commission of the crime.We hold that accused has failed to establish her alibi by clear and convincing evidence. 126097. ALFREDO CABANDE G. the alibi must receive credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses. 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos. the SC found no reason to reverse or modify the trial court’s assessment.A.R. as amended by R. ascendant.A. Bulacan (Branch 16) in a Criminal Case. finding him guilty of two counts of murder and sentencing him to two terms of reclusion perpetua. guardian. The informations for rape in these cases explicitly allege that CHERRY ANN is the daughter of PEPITO and she was only twelve (12) years old when he committed the rapes in question. 2000 Appellant Alfredo Cabande appeals the July 24. inter alia. As the solicitor general pointed out. Â h Y HELD: Alibis are generally considered with suspicion and are always received with caution. The mere fact that there was a feud between appellant and the victims did not necessarily prove that the attack was expected. (2) presence of qualifying circumstances and (3) damages. February 8. In line with current jurisprudence. we affirm the award of indemnity ex delicto to the heirs of each victim in the sum of P50. the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) that it would thus be physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. the following attendant circumstances: 1. The Court addressed the following matters: (1) sufficiency of the prosecution evidence. which are awarded only in the presence of one or more aggravating circumstances. as amended by Section 11 of R. Thus. CORNELIA SUELTO G. not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable. Furthermore. but also because they can be easily fabricated. No. Therefore. what was decisive was the suddenness of the attack which made it impossible for the victims to retaliate. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. 7659.000 or a total of P100. the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with.R. February 8.000. 7659. PEOPLE v. the award of exemplary damages. There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means. The accused appealed that the State did not correctly appreciate the evidence of the accused. 132747. No. for alibi to serve as a basis for acquittal. misunderstood or misapplied. No. or defend themselves. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent. PEOPLE v. stepparent.Before us for automatic review of the Criminal Cases finding accused-appellant Pepito Alama Magdato (hereafter PEPITO) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of rape committed on her 12-year old daughter Cherry Ann Magdato.

Recruitment is a legal term. In support of his appeal. HELD: Accused-appellants’ defense of "frame-up" does not convince us of their innocence. 123541. No. He may merely give such an impression in order to induce an applicant to tender payment for fees. or any practice enumerated under Art. PEOPLE v. GOMEZ G. No.k.R. Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. The more significant issue at hand is whether the culpability of accused-appellant for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.R. the accused undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Art. this Court has held that there is illegal recruitment when one purports to have the ability to send a worker abroad although without the authority or license to do so. individually or as a group. Philip Roger Lacson or Roger Eleazar Gomez with illegal recruitment in large scale resulting in economic sabotage. there are three (3) elements which constitute illegal recruitment in large scale. To prove this. the accused was charged with selling and delivering more or less 2. 2000 On 29 December 1995 an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque charging Rogelio Gomez y Reyes a. ALFREDO ENTILA G.a.800 grams of dried marijuana. the accused does not comply with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. PEOPLE v. He claims that no buy-bust operation was conducted and that the accusation against him was all part of a frame-up. 34 of the Labor Code. employing means. BARITA alleges that the prosecution evidence is replete with numerous flaws and glaring inconsistencies. 135368. either locally or overseas. 13. Article II of Republic Act 6425. DIOLO BARITA G. 131946-47. February 8. HELD: Anent the first issue. Denver Golsing (GOLSING) and Dionisio Cuison (CUISON) were charged with violation of Section 4. and third. methods. Such defense has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but difficult to prove and is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. PEOPLE v. 2000 The RTC found appellant Alfredo Entila alias "Bogie" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. (b). First. February 9. 2000 Diolo Barita (BARITA). otherwise the objection is deemed waived. Under the Labor Code. Any person who sells or acts as a broker in the sale of marijuana shall be punished with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos if 750 grams or more of marijuana is sold.The trial court found that the killing of Isabel Ruales by accused was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. HELD: . par. the accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons. its meaning must be understood in the light of what the law contemplates and not of common parlance. particularly with respect to the securing of a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers. Nos. second. He contends in his appeal that the trial court erred in rendering a decision against him. On several occasions. or forms which tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. such fact does not in any way blot out his liability for illegal recruitment. BARITA denies any participation in the alleged sale of marijuana. Although accused-appellant initially might not have done anything to encourage individuals to apply to him for employment abroad. February 8. we have consistently ruled that any objection to the warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea.R.

PEOPLE v.R. HELD: As between a writing or document made contemporaneously with a transaction in which are evidenced facts pertinent to an issue. JOEY BARCELONA G. He interposed this appeal claiming that the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the testimony of complaining witness. the trial court relied on the oft-cited rule that denial. 6425: sell and/or deliver to PO2 ELLONITO APDUHAN.Having been raised as an affirmative defense. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted because all that is required is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind. as his line of defense. . and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. This accused-appellant failed to do. While the Court has upheld the defense of consensual sex in some cases. No. February 9. the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence. was charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b) Art. There are nonetheless settled pronouncements of this Court to the effect that where an accused sets up alibi. it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused. showing that the alleged rape was actually sex by mutual consent. the "sweetheart theory" must be established by convincing proof. to disprove. the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. a 17 year old minor. PEOPLE v. it is enough that the male organ touches the female external genitalia for there to be carnal knowledge. 125341. No. Maria Corazon Dampil (Corazon) was 15 years old at the time she was allegedly raped.R.In convicting the appellant. Furthermore. Art. 114261. The Court has repeatedly held that rape is committed when intimidation is used on the victim and the latter submitted against her will because of fear for her life or personal safety. 2000 Barcelona was charged with the rape of Dolly Maglinte. (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved. in relation to Section 4. HELD: It is well-settled that full penile penetration is not necessary in order to consummate the crime of rape. 2000 Appellant Berly Fabro y Azucena. the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility. . When there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the complainant to testify against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime. is a weak defense since it is easily fabricated or concocted.R. when admitted as proof of these facts. ALFREDO ARAFILES G. and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship. 128814. who acted as poseur-buyer. one (1) kilo of dried marijuana leaves. is ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of greater probative value than oral testimony of a witness . the courts should not at once look at the same with wary eyes for taken in the light of all the evidence on record. II of Republic Act No. together with her common-law husband Donald Pilay y Calag and Irene Martin. IV. 2000 The accused was charged withed rape. or denial for that matter. like alibi. No. HELD: In adjudging rape cases. as in the instant case. February 9. this was on the basis of strong evidence. consisting of letters and the testimonies of witnesses. the defense of alibi or denial may assume significance or strength when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness. Accused-appellant is her uncle. BERLY FABRO G. PEOPLE v. February 10. it may be sufficient to reverse the outcome of the case as found by the trial court and thereby rightly set the accused free. though innocent.

and would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case. The reason behind this is obvious. there was no necessity to shoot because. and (c) the surrender is voluntary. In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be appreciated. however. and we find no reason to alter the findings of the trial court in regard to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies. misapprehended or misinterpreted. PEOPLE v. In this case. unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked. as in the case of Section 21 of Republic Act 6425.R. 6425 punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the offense of selling. HELD: In the present case. For this justifying circumstance to be appreciated. While the rule is that a mere conspiracy to commit a crime without doing any overt act is not punishable. The SC has carefully perused and considered the records of this case. according to him. 2000 Two separate Informations were filed against ALAGON and RAFAEL. February 10. It is clear that Section 21 (b) of R. precluded his escape. 2000 The RTC convicted Eulogio Ignacio of murder. 1994. the accused has the burden of proving unlawful aggression on the part of the victim and reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. ALAGON points out. The said court qualified the killing to murder because of the presence of treachery. The case for the prosecution is woven mainly on the testimony of Remedios Punzalan. clear and convincing evidence that he had acted in lawful defense of the landowner’s property. (2) the offender surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent. distributing and transporting of dangerous drugs. he merely suspected him of doing so. that failure to present the marked money is of no great consequence.R. There is conspiracy where. because of an acknowledgement of guilt or because of a wish to spare them the trouble and the expense concomitant to the search and the capture of the accused. as in the present case. The Dangerous Drugs Law punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the prohibited drug seller. There was no legal reason for him to shoot the victim. however. a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. like the crime itself. HELD: As a general rule. EULOGIO IGNACIO G. There is treachery when the accused unexpectedly and deliberately shoots an unarmed minor who is thus not in a position to put up a defense or to inflict harm on the former. Accused-appellants ALAGON and RAFAEL had denial for their defense. 134568. No.The trial court ruled that appellant failed to prove by credible. In fact. It should be stressed that appellant’s conduct cannot be justified as a lawful defense of property rights. an unarmed minor at the time of the incident. February 10. The defense must show an intent to surrender unconditionally to the authorities. No. he did not even see the victim steal the crabs. It must be stressed. the victim was already running away when hit. 126536-37.as to such facts based upon memory and recollection. human memory is fallible and its force diminishes with the lapse of time. must be . CARLIE ALAGON G. the first requisite was not proven. the exception is when such is specifically penalized by law. Conspiracy herein refers to the mere agreement to commit the said acts and not the actual execution thereof. by their presence in his house. PEOPLE v.A. their actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose among them. we find ample evidence that appellant did shoot the victim. charging them with two counts of murder for the deaths of Elarde Magno and Isidro Barcelona. the defense must clearly satisfy three requisites: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested. Furthermore. both dated February 2. assuming that unlawful aggression was proven. because he was not attacked by the victim. delivering. the factual findings of trial courts deserve respect and are not disturbed on appeal. Conspiracy was not duly proven. Conspiracy as crime should be distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability the latter being applicable to the case at bar. at the time the malefactors were committing the crime. that this rule does not apply when the judge who penned the decision was not the same one who had heard the prosecution witnesses testify. Voluntary surrender is not appreciated even if the accused submits himself to the members of the barangay tanod who. Conspiracy.

affording the hapless. HELD: The evidence proving the use of force by the accused-appellant is overwhelming. HELD: Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed. A sweetheart can not be forced to have sex against her will. Existence of conspiracy must be clearly and convincingly proven. The threats made by accused-appellant scared her. February 15. deliberate and unexpected manner.R. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift. only one penalty shall be imposed on the accused. appellant JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms. Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first. not as a separate crime. PEOPLE v. 1997. treachery attended the commission of the crime since the attack. as only a single crime (homicide or murder with the aggravating circumstance of illegal possession of firearm) is committed under the law.R. which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms. No. but merely a special aggravating circumstance. 120646. The prosecution presented Kristine. giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person. this fact alone is not exculpatory. Dando ("accused-appellant") guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses in criminal cases and it should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution. 1866. The onus probandi of establishing these elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution. February 10. whose face was covered by a handkerchief. accused-appellant. and second. Laguna finding PO3 Apolinar E. PEOPLE v. Accused-appellant’s sweetheart theory can not stand in the light of Kristine’s positive assertions that he raped her. and this presupposes knowledge on his part of such criminal design. 8294 on June 6. was amended on June 6. This amendment has two (2) implications: first. . the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. Kristine also adequately explained why she did not immediately report to the police authorities. In the case at bar. No. approached the victim. Aside from lowering the penalty for said crime. was no less sudden and unexpected. the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate offense. February 14. JULIAN CASTILLO G. Love is not a license for lust. Even assuming that accused-appellant and Kristine were lovers. 2000 This is an appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court. and shot him. second. but merely as a special aggravating circumstance. who was merely standing by the gate in front of his house. 2000 With the passage of Republic Act No.D. such use shall be considered as a special aggravating circumstance.R. ROMMEL BALTAR G. Branch 33. 8294 also provided that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. the existence of the subject firearm. PEOPLE v. The victim was undoubtedly caught unaware and had no chance of putting up any defense. 130341. HELD: P. She relayed that on four separate incidents Baltar came to her house and forced her to have iintercourse with him. The accused must be shown to have had guilty participation in the criminal design entertained by the slayer. although frontally. No.A. Siniloan. unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape this case. 2000 Three criminal complaints were filed by Kristine against Rommel Baltar. 131592-93. Accused-appellant can not also dismiss the complaints against him as merely instigated by Kristine’s mother. APOLINAR DANDO G.proven beyond reasonable doubt. R. 1997 by Republic Act 8294. Clearly. the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered.

candid. the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. HELD: While denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases bare denials can not overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. After the accused testified on how he raped his daughter.When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense. management or direction of their business shall be liable. No. regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance." (emphasis supplied) To breathe life into this rule.PEOPLE v. MANGILA accused her father.R. and (3) inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he so desires. the trial court entertained the erroneous notion that the alleged intoxication of accused would lessen his liability. Bulu Chowdury and Josephine Ong were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale. it shall be imposed despite any mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending its commission. ABUNDIO MANGILA y PAREÑO. ELRANIE MARTINEZ G. The trial court also failed to explain to him that as the penalty of death is indivisible. straightforward and consistent. 2000 Death is the most severe penalty for crime. This fact actually bolsters her credibility. She had no motive to falsely implicate accused-appellant. PEOPLE v. She had positively identified accused-appellant as her malefactor and established all the elements of the offense. Melina’s testimony is clear. Apparently. Pleas of guilty to capital offense. February 15. reception of evidence . 130203-04. Here. In case of juridical persons. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf. It is imposed in incestuous rape. BULU CHOWDURY G. of two (2) counts of RAPE. 130606. the officers having control. That the physical examination yielded no conclusive evidence that she had been raped does not affect her credibility. HELD: The last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) states who shall be held liable for the offense. Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: "Section 3. No. we made it mandatory for trial courts to do the following: (1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused's plea. It is not shown that accused was informed of the effect of the concurrence of the special qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim and his parental relationship to her. PEOPLE v. allegedly committed as follows: HELD: Section 3. (2) require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability. February 15. sixteen (16) year old MADRILYN D. No. thus: "The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals. It did not conduct a searching inquiry on whether accused understood the legal consequences of his admission of guilt. accomplices and accessories. February 15." . In the case at bar. The lack of tell-tale signs of rape on her private part can be explained by the fact that she is a married woman with four children. he was not apprised that his crime is punishable by death. The records show that the trial court failed to comply to the letter with these guidelines.R. 2000 In November 1995.R. ABUNDIO MANGILA G. 129577-80. 2000 This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC finding accused-appellant Elranie Martinez guilty of rape of Melina and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

114740. Although the crime took place at around 11:00 in the evening. with knowledge of the business. has no application in criminal cases. The law of agency. the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means. I have not done anything wrong! " Further. only by and through its human agents.000. might affect the result of the case. imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.R. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime. HELD: The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present.R..e. The concerted actions of the four accused showed their intent to kill the . An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal. appellant deliberately or consciously adopted the means of attack as shown by the fact that he even wrapped the gun inside a jacket prior to shooting the victim. he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer. February 15. The employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as principal if. and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow the offender to reflect on the consequences of his act. the store/house where the incident occurred was sufficiently lighted by a fluorescent lamp. its purpose and effect. The attack was not only sudden. unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that if. and no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commission of a crime upon the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party. PEOPLE v. together with his if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. 2000 On appeal is the decision the RTC convicted accused-appellant Rodel Quijon and accused Gregorio Tolibas of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. as the victim even cried out in surprise "Why are you firing at me. (1) that at the time of the attack. considered. appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. we are guided by the tenet that "when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses. evident premeditation cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the following elements were not duly proven: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime. HELD: Once more. The corporation obviously acts. or (2) that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime. ROGELIO GALAM G. to indemnify the widow of the victim in the amount of P30. considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question. i. the persons who may be held liable for illegal recruitment are the principals. GREGORIO TOLIBAS G. It has been held that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to commit a crime. Nor can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be appreciated. (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination. For conspiracy to exist. No. 103506. it was unexpected. for the prosecution failed to demonstrate (1) that the malefactor particularly sought or took advantage of the darkness to commit the offense. and it is their conduct which the law must deter. No. as applied in civil cases. however slight his contribution may be. having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. 2000 On appeal is the decision of the RTC convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder. and can act. February 15. However. method or form of attack employed by him.00 and to pay the costs. PEOPLE v. accomplices and accessories. and there were still people milling around because of the dance held at a nearby plaza. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission.As stated in the first sentence of Section 6 of RA 8042. he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion.

The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in this case as the two conditions therefore were proved: (1) that at the time of the attack. 2000 Rodolfo Bato alias "Rudy Bato" is charged of rape and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. The crime committed is statutory rape. the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation alleged by the prosecution was not proved clearly and convincingly. Third. February 15. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape. 7659. Jacinto Castillo. and (2) that the woman is below twelve (12) years of age. The Information was later amended when Leonardo Valenzuela was identified as one of the assailants. The two (2) elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman. the basis of the conviction by the trial court was the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses. a minor of nine (9) years old. RODOLFO BATO G. it cannot be said that there was sufficient lapse of time between such determination to commit the crime and its execution so as to allow the assailants to reflect upon the consequences of their actions. method or form of attack employed by him. February 16. This Court has held that if the woman is under twelve (12) years of age. Considering that the attack was made about two minutes after the initial altercation. 2000 .victim. PEOPLE v. we have held that where a killing was preceded by an argument or quarrel. HELD: Neither is the absence of spermatozoa in Delia’s genitalia fatal to the prosecution’s case. 1993. not only because force is not an element of statutory rape but the absence of free consent is presumed when the woman is below such age. otherwise the objection is deemed waived. No. HELD: First. to the damage and prejudice of the latter. February 17. appellant Cielito Buluran and three (3) John Does were charged with the crime of murder. finding conspiracy and treachery. CIELITO BULURAN G. GALLARDER G.R. against her will. the trial court. then the qualifying circumstance of treachery can no longer be appreciated since the victim could be said to have been forewarned and could anticipate aggression from the assailants. The important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the unlawful penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ. Upon arraignment. proof of force and consent becomes immaterial. R.R." PEOPLE v. On February 4. rendered judgment convicting appellants of murder. On numerous occasions. Moreover. No. and Gloria Castillo. He raped Delia Hernandez. Second. as amended by Section 11. 2000 On May 20. The SC found that no treachery attended the killing. the right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment. Sexual congress with a girl under twelve (12) years old is always rape. Artemio Avendaño. Treachery absorbs the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength so the same need not be appreciated separately. nevertheless. There is no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation since neither one executed an extrajudicial confession or admission. 113940. both accused entered pleas of not guilty. The failure to accord appellants their right to preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the information nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court. No. A. 133025. the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offenders consciously adopted the particular means. 1994. defined and penalized under paragraph 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.R. 134939. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea. In this case. PEOPLE v. Appellants are estopped from questioning the validity of their respective arrests since they never raised this issue before arraignment. While the right to preliminary investigation is a substantive right and not a mere formal or technical right of the accused.

we find that treachery attended the commission of the offense. and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on the occasion of rape it is settled in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offense. Evident premeditation was not proven by the prosecution. February 17. The prosecution is not always tasked to present direct evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction. and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. hence the crime is murder. appellant and another person held the hands of the victim to enable their companion to stab him while he was in a defenseless position. No. February 17. two conditions must be shown: (1) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate. PEOPLE v. RADEL GALLARDE G. As to the crime committed. 115687.On 24 June 1997.000. Although it is true that the term "homicide" as used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood in its generic sense. thus enabling their third companion to stab the victim. Appellant’s act of holding the right arm of the victim. 133025. It is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information. Minor and inconsequential flaws in the testimony of the witness strengthen rather than impair his credibility. the accused can be convicted of the other.00. the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently alleged and proved. shows that they acted together with one purpose and design to kill the victim. Held: A reading of the accusatory portion of the information shows that there was no allegation of any qualifying circumstance. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. while another held the left arm. HELD: We have long held that "the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear.R. A reading of the accusatory portion of the information shows that there was no allegation of any qualifying circumstance. No. the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily absolve an accused from any criminal liability. Otherwise. it is already absorbed in treachery and need not be appreciated separately. As to appellant’s participation in the killing. While abuse of superior strength was alleged in the Information. PEOPLE v. straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court.In this case. imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. REYNALDO QUILLOSA G. 2000 The RTC convicted Quillosa of the murder of Ambrosio Ilocto. In rape with homicide. 2000 This is an appeal from the judgment of the RTC finding accused-appellant Radel (hereafter GALLARDE) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. HELD: We sustain GALLARDE’s contention that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder in an information charging him of rape with homicide.R. For treachery to be present. GALLARDE was charged with the special complex crime of rape with homicide of a minor. the Court in previous cases have held that holding the hand of the victim to render him immobile while he is being stabbed amounts to an act of indispensable cooperation without which the crime would not have been accomplished. and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on the occasion of rape it is settled in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is . Although it is true that the term "homicide" as used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood in its generic sense. and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of P50. in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to support the charge of rape. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged.

131872-73. Our doubt on the commission of rape is based on the fact that there is at all no convincing proof that the laceration of the vagina and the rupture of the hymen of EDITHA were caused in the course of coitus or by a male organ. or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design. a concert of action and a community of interest. the accused can be convicted of the other. direct proof of their culpability is not necessary when circumstantial evidence would suffice.charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offense. PEOPLE v. . 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 95) in a Criminal Case finding them guilty of illegal possession and sale of shabu and sentencing each of them to two counts of reclusion perpetua. The rules on evidence and precedents sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence. HELD: In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The requisites thereof are: (1) there is more than one circumstance. In rape with homicide. RAMIL DACIBAR G. We have held that conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts charged. 2000 On appeal is the decision dated January 25. as in the present case. imposing upon them the amended penalty of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. all of which indubitably point to or indicate a joint purpose. during and after the commission of the crime. No. It is well settled that the absence of spermatozoa in or around the vagina does not negate the commission of rape. as long as the following requisites are present: (1) there must be more than one circumstance. 111286. the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently alleged and proved. (2) the inference must be based on proven facts. It is an established rule that direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy. the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants’ unfounded allegations and speculations. also known as Willy Tan challenging the October 16.R. it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. On the contrary. 1993 of the Regional Trial Court finding appellants guilty of the crime of murder. and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt of the guilt of the accused. CHEN TIZ CHANG G. (2) such possession is not authorized by law and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. it may be deduced from the mode. as in Boco. the rule is that conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct or circumstantial evidence. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. In the absence of direct proof thereof.R. method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated. The importance of circumstantial evidence is more apparent in the prosecution of cases of rape with homicide. which vary according to the purpose accomplished. We are not persuaded by the argument that the samples examined were not taken from the drugs seized. the prosecution witnesses were able to establish these elements. Here. and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. PEOPLE v. Verily. February 17. instead of life imprisonment. February 17. Otherwise. Thus. concerted action and community of interest. but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts. as it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before. it must be shown that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug. in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to support the charge of rape. 2000 Before the Court is an appeal by Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San. Appellants’ behavior during the entrapment showed that there was conspiracy between them and a third person who got away with the buy-bust money. conditions and circumstances. HELD: While the principal witnesses for the prosecution did not actually see appellants shoot and kill the victim. Nos. the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses fairly established that the shabu taken from the appellants is the same substance examined by the forensic chemist and later presented as evidence in court. as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself.

Although the triggerman fired the shot from outside the house. Although there is no direct evidence linking appellant to the arson.R.e. a threeyear-old child. if considered. a fire because of criminal agency. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death is unconstitutional. 126351. February 21. although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from without. On a final note. would materially affect the result of the case. that is. February 18. February 18. 132217.000.R. Four (4) members of the Court. proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus delicti. it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense. the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50. which provides the rules for the application of indivisible penalties. The assessment of credibility of witnesses is primarily the function of the trial court. HELD: Accordingly. In this case.00 as moral damages. In People v. although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v. The attendance of these aggravating circumstances is not contested by the accused-appellant. No. The information filed against TOREJOS specifically alleges that he raped MARY CRIS. It is well established in this jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which.A. RAUL ACOSTA G. HELD: Arson is defined as the malicious destruction of property by fire.000. 129056. In prosecutions for arson.00) as moral damages. PEOPLE v. LIBERATO MENDIONA G. appellant was correctly meted the supreme penalty of death since the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry attended the commission of the rape. reclusion perpetua to death. his victim was inside. we find the trial court correctly held that the following circumstances taken together constitute an unbroken chain of events pointing to one fair and logical conclusion. it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages . the range of penalty imposable on appellant is composed of two indivisible penalties. nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed. 2000 Before this Court for automatic review is the decision finding accused-appellant Liberato "Renato" Mendiona guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death and to pay the complainant. He interposes this appeal because he claims that the trial court erred in finding him guilty basing its conclusion merely on circumstantial evidence. we explained that "x x x the award authorized by criminal law as civil indemnity ex delicto for the offended party x x x is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape. it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house. 2000 Accused was charged with arson.The trial court was correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Echegaray that R. i. PEOPLE v. No. that accused started the fire which gutted the house of private complainant. and (2) the identity of the defendants as the one responsible for the crime. Maricel Capongcol. 2000 Accused-appellant Bonifacio Torejos y Pañares @ Boning was convicted for raping a threeyear-old child and was meted the supreme penalty of death. Following Article 63 (1)of the same Code. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered. HELD: Accused-appellant's attempt to discredit ROSALIE is unconvincing.R. we agree with the trial court in holding him guilty thereof in the light of the following circumstances duly proved and on record. BONIFACIO TOREJOS G. we correct the trial court’s erroneous classification of the award of P50. PEOPLE v. No. Prades. We therefore affirm the judgment of the RTC imposing the death penalty for being in accordance with law..

the civil indemnity to be awarded to the complainant should be seventy five thousand pesos (P75. Only De Guzman. RENATO DE GUZMAN G. February 22.R. March 15. nonetheless. for mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability. HELD: The requirements for the discharge and utilization of an accused as a state witness are enumerated in Rule 119. 118670. He must show that he was completely deprived of reason when he committed the crime charged. (b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed.00 if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by law. PAMBID G. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it. such error would not affect the competency and the quality of the testimony of the defendant. Section 9 of the Rules of Court.000. MARCH 2000 PEOPLE V. the presumption under Art. The order for his discharge may only be recalled in one instance. (c) The testimony of the accused can be substantially corroborated in its material points. 800 of the Civil Code is that every man is sane. this Court does not subscribe to the suggestion of the defense that Mosqueda’s testimony should be disregarded. 2000 Renato de Guzman. Mosqueda was discharged and was utilized as state witness. 2000. Although the trial court may have erred in discharging the accused. Ramos and Mosqueda were apprehended. and (e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude. This issue has long been settled. (d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty. No. 124453.which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion. PEOPLE v.R. Applying the foregoing rulings. Accused pleaded not guilty on the ground of insanity. the three accused entered a plea of "not guilty. Direct Evidence v. Once his discharge is effected. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability. PEOPLE V. 2000." At the trial and upon motion of the prosecution. viz: (a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested.00). 130602. While this Court agrees that some of the requirements under Section 9 of Rule 119 for the discharge of Mosqueda to become state witness were not strictly and properly met. No. the legal consequence of acquittal follows unless the accused so discharged fails or refuses to testify pursuant to his commitment. While Art." Further. unless he has acted during a lucid interval. No. When they were arraigned. Defense of insanity Facts: A man diagnosed of schizophrenia and mild mental retardation raped a six-year old girl. FRONDA G. March 15. Circumstantial Evidence . our more recent rulings hold that the indemnification for the victim shall be in the increased amount of P75. Ancheta remains at-large. and that is when he subsequently fails to testify against his co-accused. The discharge of an accused under these circumstances is not reversible. Marciano Ramos.000. Frederick Mosqueda and Paquito Ancheta were charged with Robbery with Homicide and were found guilty. HELD: Accused-appellant’s plea of insanity is unacceptable. except the testimony of the accused.R.

which is "the proof of facts from which taken collectively the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence. March 16. PEOPLE V. 2000. as the guilty person. Under the Rules of Court. as jurisprudentially formulated. for in either case. the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.R. his conviction may only be set aside when the improvident plea of guilt was the sole basis for the condemnatory judgment. which is "that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption". No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct. 131814. No. however. However. Aggravating circumstance – robbery with homicide Circumstantial evidence HELD: The proper designation of the crime committed is robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. to the exclusion of all others. MACARSE G. 2000. Or. since the trial court extensively received evidence in determining the guilt of the accused. for our rules make no distinction between direct evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred.e. 133226. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. loses its significance for the simple reason that the conviction of the accused was based on the evidence proving his commission of the offense charged and not on his admission in open court.R.Facts: Three students were convicted of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act after they allegedly delivered a brick of marijuana to policemen who posed as buyers. Moreover. in contrast to circumstantial evidence. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. i. the manner in which the plea of guilt was made.R. FABON G. dwelling is also considered aggravating in cases such as this primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. HELD: To be caught flagrante delicto necessarily implies positive identification by the eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Circumstantial evidence is defined as that which indirectly proves a fact in issue. 121780. whether improvidently or not. circumstantial evidence is sufficient to convict an accused if the following requisites concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance. a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused. HELD: The record discloses the failure of the lower court to make a searching inquiry on whether the accused’s admission of guilt was voluntarily made and whether he understood the legal implications of such admission. March 15. Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or intimidation because this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. ARIZAPA G. March 17. Improvident plea of guilt Facts: Accused was sentenced to death after being convicted of incestuously raping his stepdaughter." Circumstantial evidence. 2000. Under Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Revised Rules on Evidence. the circumstances proven must be consistent with each other and consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty. is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence. No. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved. Such is a "direct evidence" of culpability. circumstantial evidence would be sufficient for conviction if the following concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance. No. PEOPLE V. the trier of fact must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code that applies. PEOPLE V. . When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt..

therefore. to be valid and effective. Nos. If he decides not to retain a counsel of his choice or avail of one to be provided for him and. SAPAL G. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.R.g. Irregularities in arrest Conviction based on proof beyond reasonable doubt Accused-appellant was arrested based on a warrant issued against him after he failed to attend his arraignment. it is not enough that the subject is informed of such right. March 17. March 17.e. He impugned the validity of his waiver of counsel and extrajudicial confession and denied conspiracy and the attendance of treachery. and contemplates effective communication. what the person under interrogation may or may not do -. In further ensuring the right to counsel. 122510-11. Since it is comprehension that is sought to be attained. the former must also explain the effects of such provision in practical terms -. Extrajudicial Confession Conspiracy Treachery Facts: Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of Murder. must be a lawyer. and that the prosecution failed to show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. intelligence. and (b) physical impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime. chooses to waive his right to counsel. His main defense was alibi.R. or it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. he should also be asked if he wants to avail of the same and should be told that he could ask for counsel if he so desired or that one could be provided him at his request.. employing means. PEOPLE V. No.and in a language the subject fairly understands. the degree of explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the education. Article III of the 1987 Constitution. It is not enough for the interrogator to merely repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of Section 12. such waiver. To establish the existence of a conspiracy. HELD: . which results in the subject’s understanding of what is conveyed. MANRIQUEZ G. which means that no opportunity was given to the latter to do so. 124526. HELD: For alibi to be believed. The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain. direct proof is not essential since it may be shown by facts and circumstances from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged. who. 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. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. Waiver of Counsel. 2000. and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. He contends that certain irregularities attended his arrest. PEOPLE V. 2000. under prevailing jurisprudence. must still be made with the assistance of counsel. HELD: One’s right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.Defense of alibi Facts: Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of Highway Robbery with Homicide. the following must be shown: (a) presence of accused-appellant in another place at the time of the commission of the offense.

SAN DIEGO G. it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person. one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other or others may be compatible with the finding of guilt. to be valid.. the undue delay in preparing the documents relating to the arrest of accused and his wife and in delivering them to the proper authorities for inquest. and also to prevent the person arrested from destroying the evidence within his reach. HELD: The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the exception. 129297. though innocent.. No. the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. and things that may be seized from him are limited to "dangerous weapons" or "anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. accused is deemed to have waived his right to question the irregularities attending his arrest for his failure to raise the same at the opportune time. the shabu seized by the NARCOM operatives. which cannot legally be possessed by the accused under the law. courts are guided by the following considerations: 1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility. CHE CHUN TING G. can and must be retained by the government to be disposed of in accordance with law. e. before he entered his plea. The test of sufficiency of force or intimidation in rape is whether it produces a reasonable fear in the victim that if she resists or does not give in to the sexual demands of the accused. the peculiar factual circumstances surrounding the case. effectively destroy the presumption of regularity in the performance by Gomez and his colleagues of their duties. Thus." With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search. 2000. the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested. Rape – jurisprudential guidelines HELD: In rape cases." PEOPLE V. He contends that the shabu is inadmissible in evidence as it was seized without a valid search warrant. Warrantless searches and seizures Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine Accused-appellant was charged and convicted for dispatching in transit and having in his possession large amounts of shabu. Such being the case. March 17. and 3) The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Stated otherwise. the things seized on the occasion thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. the police authorities’ failure to comply with the clear directive of the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Barrios. 2000. objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure." However.Admittedly. It is well-settled that "where the circumstances shown to exist yield two or more inferences. the "fruit of a poisonous tree. It must be stressed that the purposes of the exception are only to protect the arresting officer against physical harm from the person being arrested who might be armed with a concealed weapon. the presumption of regularity cannot be made the sole basis of the conviction of accused. to disprove the same.e. the court must acquit the accused: for the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction. and the failure of the law enforcers to provide accused with a counsel during the custodial investigation. 2) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved. March 21. Nonetheless.g. the threat would be carried out. time and place of the arrest.R. As a consequence of the illegal search. As to subject. The exception therefore should not be strained beyond what is needed in order to serve its purposes. the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject. 130568-69. i. They are regarded as having been obtained from a polluted source. or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. . PEOPLE V. the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect.R. Nos. it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest.

she says in effect all that is necessary to show rape has been committed. PEOPLE V. No. It is enough that there is proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum. For this defense to prosper. 2000. thus. What is essential is that there be penetration of the sexual organ. JR. HELD: In rape cases. March 22. (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually involved. the offended party most often being the only one available to prove directly the commission of rape. the defendant must prove not only (1) that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but (2) it must be likewise demonstrated that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission. Appeal of an accused-escapee HELD: The general rule is that a party appealing who flees the jurisdiction. meanwhile keeping out of the reach of justice and preparing to render the judgment nugatory or not. the escape of . HELD: The defense of alibi interposed by the accused-appellant hardly deserves any serious consideration. the escapee loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court. March 22.PEOPLE V. March 27. For alibi to prosper. No. G. 133434. 2000. He interposed the defense of denial and alibi. Statutory rape HELD: The gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years of age. Be that as it may. we have held that the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge of rape. he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court. Likewise. pending the appeal. The credibility of the complainant is. March 21. no matter how slight.R. though innocent. Furthermore. 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. MAMALIAS G. and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. that not only has he been at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but that it would have also been physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time thereof. ADILA. the accused must prove. at his option. the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. Defense of alibi Accused-appellant was charged and convicted for incestuously raping his 11-year old stepdaughter. 2000. DEDACE G. 2000.R. for the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the complainant's testimony if the same meets the test of credibility. to disprove. it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused. among other things. 132551.R. when the complainant in a rape case. testifies that she has been raped. No. three well-known principles guide the Court. PEOPLE V. it is unnecessary to show to what extent penetration of the woman's body has been made. It is well-settled that complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not necessary to consummate rape. of utmost importance. more so if she is a minor.R. No. Therefore. SAPINOSO G. 122540. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential for the offense of consummated rape. namely: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility. PEOPLE V. is in contempt of the authority of the court and of the law and places himself in a position to speculate on the chances for a reversal. Moreover. 128073.

She contends that her conviction was erroneous because the court never acquired jurisdiction over her person. March 28. 2000. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense.R. MERIS G. (b) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime.an accused-appellant during the pendency of his appeal will not necessarily prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction in exceptional cases. qualifications. Jurisdiction over person of the accused Estafa Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. influence. fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof. or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and .R. business or imaginary transactions. it is even more difficult for the person accused. against her will.R. HELD: Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by arrest or voluntary appearance in court. Hence. the fact that the arrest was illegal is not sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid judgment. Rape – jurisprudential guidelines HELD: The Court has laid down certain guiding principles in reviewing rape cases. the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution. 131472. if objections based on this ground are waived. or falsely pretends to possess power. burden of proving victim’s minority The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. "if resistance would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation. as her arrest was illegal. to wit: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove. credit." It is sufficient that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused. PEOPLE V. to disprove the charge. MITRA G. Consequently. and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Rape – physical resistance HELD: It is well-settled that "physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself.R Nos. Estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name. March 28. although innocent. to the rapist’s advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. agency. and that the prosecution failed to establish estafa. 133146. No. the offended party suffered damages. granting arguendo that accused-appellant’s arrest was defective. It should be stressed that the question of legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. March 27. 2000." PEOPLE V. something far worse would befall her at the time she was being molested. 2000. PEOPLE V. 130669. Rape – physical resistance. As pronounced by the Court. CULA G. The technicality cannot render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to the culpability of the accused. No. TIPAY G. such is deemed cured upon her voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. then offering none at all does not mean consent to the assault so as to make the victim’s submission to the sexual act voluntary. 2000. No. and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit. PEOPLE V. property. March 28. only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape. 117145-50 & 117447.

March 30.R. CABINGAS G. (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.R. 2000. No. treachery Accused appellant was charged and convicted of murder and frustrated murder.she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety. PEOPLE V. The record of the case is bereft of any independent evidence. PEOPLE V. No. Treachery exists where the attack was perpetrated suddenly and without warning. Self-defense. 129288. Robbery with homicide Accused-appellants were charged and convicted of the complex crime of robbery with homicide. March 28. March 30. the courts are guided by the long-standing rule that penetration is not essential for conviction of the culprit. accurately showing private complainant's age.R. HELD: . AQUINO G. by the accused’s penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape. Mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda. 115990. No. and the fact that her hymen is still intact does not negate its commission. They contend that they should have been convicted of homicide only. There is treachery when two conditions concur. 2000. BARREDO G. At all events. 2000. 123112. 133832. such as the victim's duly certified Certificate of Live Birth. to wit: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. CAVERTE G. March 28. Rape with a feeble-minded person HELD: Sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman is rape. No. HELD: There is self-defense when the following elements concur: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person injured or killed by the offender. 79679. so to speak. the one making a defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor. subsequent to or committed at the same time. 2000.R. The offense charged is within the contemplation of paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. the important consideration is that there be a nexus between the robbery and the killing whether prior. and (2) deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. No. March 30. in robbery with homicide. 2000. PEOPLE V. PEOPLE V. like when the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman deprived of reason. PEOPLE V. In any event.R. HELD: The elements of the crime were proved beyond reasonable doubt. BALTAZAR G. and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. It is a doctrinal rule that when an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists. it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. Rape HELD: In rape cases.

to be an effective counsel "[a] lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client. the SC held that rape was consummated from the moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim since by it he attained his objective. concert of action or community of interest. for conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused prior to.e. 2000. 129433. Direct proof is not essential. was sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape. promise or reward. We ruled then that perfect penetration was not essential. even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina. duress. The counsel. March 30. Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. While the initial choice in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators. 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. First." When.] a certain result has been proven. Extrajudicial confessions Conspiracy. We distinguished consummated rape from attempted rape where there was no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution were performed as the offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. No. 3.] in writing. March 30. No. CAMPUHAN G. any penetration of the female organ by the male organ. Any penetration. rather. treachery HELD: For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible." In this case the prosecution presented other evidence to prove the two elements of corpus delicti. There is treachery "[w]hen the offender commits any of the crimes against persons. Here we find the following duly established beyond reasonable doubt.] voluntary. Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a]n extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction. All the elements of the offense were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything that might incriminate him but. however. "[a]n extrajudicial statement satisfies the requirements of the Constitution. to wit: a.] express. The Court further held that entry of the labia or lips of the female organ. and 4.R. is enough to raise the crime to its consummated stage.R. BASE G. was sufficient.The more pressing issue is whether all the elements of rape as alleged in the Information were duly proved by the prosecution. Verily. The defense has the burden of proving that it was extracted by means of force. PEOPLE V. The inference that may be derived therefrom is that complete or full penetration of the vagina is not required for rape to be consummated. it must be: 1.] made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel. unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. 2. PEOPLE V. The fact that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not mean it can not also be appreciated if the attack is frontal. Such acts must point to a joint purpose. it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. 109773. employing means. a man has died. Orita. appellant had carnal knowledge with the victim. as in this case. in whatever degree. Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and the victim is unarmed." The essence of alevosia is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the victim’s part. it constitutes evidence of a high order because of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. having performed all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. Stages of rape In the case of People v. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former’s appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. however slight. 2000. and 2. . should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth. i.] some person is criminally responsible." Section 3. during or subsequent to the incident.

cannot be gainsaid because where entry into the labia or the lips of the female genitalia has not been established.. even if there be no rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina. Thus. had a limp or flaccid penis. to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface. the coitus was against her will and without her consent. which are required to be "touched" by the penis. it need not be overpowering or irresistible. the touching must be tacked to the penetration itself." Nowhere is it required in our law or jurisprudence. As the labias. it can only be attempted rape. We have held countless of times that "the force or violence required in rape cases is relative. BALTAZAR G. it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed in accomplishing the crime be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ. . the process of penile penetration. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Thus. Where the accused failed to achieve an erection. and not merely stroked the external surface thereof.g. appellant had carnal knowledge with the victim. stroking or grazing of organs. we have held that "a medical examination of the victim. are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface. Here we find the following duly established beyond reasonable doubt. the crucial doctrinal bottom line is that touching must be inextricably viewed in light of." For rape to exist. or as an essential part of. if not acts of lasciviousness. however slight. the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. or the mons pubis. the Court nonetheless held that rape was consummated on the basis of the victim's testimony that the accused repeatedly tried. Appellant insists that "the complainant did not offer any tenacious resistance to the alleged sexual assault. While the entry of the penis into the lips of the female organ was considered synonymous with mere touching of the external genitalia. In other words. When applied. carnal knowledge took place by using force or intimidation. touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ. to insert his penis into her vagina and in all likelihood reached the labia of her pudendum as the victim felt his organ on the lips of her vulva. it is enough that it has enabled the offender to consummate his purpose or to bring about the desired result. in relation to. e. at most.. The law does not impose upon the rape victim the burden of proving resistance. PEOPLE VS. Thirdly.R.. the crime committed amounts merely to attempted rape. No. 2000. Elements of Rape Evidentiary value of medical examinations HELD: The more pressing issue is whether all the elements of rape as alleged in the Information were duly proved by the prosecution. as well as the medical certificate. but in vain. 115990. to warrant a conviction for consummated rape.But the Court in Orita clarified the concept of penetration in rape by requiring entry into the labia or lips of the female organ. labia majora. as in this case. for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. or an oversized penis which could not fit into the victim's vagina. The victim's failure to resist the accused's assault successfully and to escape when the opportunity presented itself should not be construed as a manifestation of consent. there can be no consummated rape. and not just mere touching in the ordinary sense. unequivocal and credible. The importance of the requirement of penetration. labia minora. Second." A medical examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the evidence on hand convinces the court that a conviction for rape is proper. that a woman must offer "tenacious" resistance to a sexual assault.e. Thus we have held that physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon her and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for her life and personal safety. a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. however. is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear. March 31. i. First. or that the penis of the accused touched the middle part of her vagina. a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina. touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact. Insofar as the evidentiary value of a medical examination is concerned. etc. hence.

the task in every case is determining whether the particular acts established by the requisite quantum of proof do reasonably yield that inference. is sufficient to convict the accused as in this case. SUITOS G. 2000. Cupino and Dejoras were charged and convicted for conspiring to commit murder. it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused. acts that yielded the reasonable inference that the doers thereof were acting with a common intent or design. he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.R. HELD: Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself through clear and convincing evidence. No. No. conspiracy exists in a situation where at the time the malefactors were committing the crime. Rape . No.R. not merely by conjecture. He argues that the Information filed against him failed to state that he is the stepfather of the victim. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Defense of alibi Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of murder. though innocent. AMIGABLE G. For that matter. No.PEOPLE VS. Medical examination/findings – evidentiary value in rape cases HELD: Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. the accused should prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission. 2000. HELD: For alibi to prosper. complicity was established by proof of acts done in concert. March 31. April 5." PEOPLE VS. 133857. if credible. March 31. DELOS SANTOS G. his relationship with the victim may not be considered as a qualifying circumstance to justify the imposition of the death penalty. and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. March 31. the medical examination of the victim is not an indispensable element for the prosecution of the crime as her testimony alone. in crimes against chastity. to disprove. 125280.R. 121906. PEOPLE VS. Hence. In a great majority of cases.R. March 31. 125688. 123113. hence. Therefore. i. 2000. PEOPLE VS.R.. ABALDE G. the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. their actions impliedly showed unity of purpose among them. 2000. the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility. 2000. No.guidelines HELD: In the disposition of rape cases.e. . Qualifying circumstance – alleged in the information Accused-appellant was sentenced to death after he was convicted of raping his stepdaughter. CUPINO G. (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually involved. a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. His defense was one of alibi. APRIL 2000 PEOPLE VS. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy.

PEOPLE VS. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. Section 12 (1) Art III of the Commission states that "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. the remedy lies with the legislature. It has been repeatedly held that custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. PEOPLE VS. are in the nature of qualifying circumstances. No. REGALA G. No.R. Robbery with rape Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of robbery with rape. As squarely expressed in Article 267. does not extend to a person in a police line-up because that stage of an investigation is not yet a part of custodial investigation." Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. 129970.HELD: The circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act 7659 the attendance of any which mandates the single indivisible penalty of death. robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. and the duration of the detention is not material. The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours does not alter the nature of the crime committed. R. He contends that the identification made by the private complainant in the police line-up is inadmissible because the appellant stood at the line-up without the assistance of counsel. and that the money given to them was not ransom money but was given in exchange for their dropping of the charges of rape against private complainant." Thus the prohibition for custodial investigation conducted without the assistance of counsel. However. April 5. The crime of kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of liberty whether he is placed in an enclosure or simply restrained from going home. PAVILLARE G. April 5. The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up has been held to be outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel because it involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely investigatory in nature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. HELD: It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. HELD: The accused-appellant’s defense is without merit. It has also been held that an uncounseled identification at the police line-up does not preclude the admissibility of an in-court identification. 2000. he must be provided with one. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. 2000. above-quoted the penalty of death is imposable where the detention is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. Police line-ups Kidnapping with ransom Accused-appellants were charged and convicted of kidnapping for ransom for abducting an Indian national. Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional mandate is inadmissible in evidence. instead of the standard penalty of reclusion perpetua to death prescribed in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. The prohibition however. . 130508.

It is equally settled that a variance of a few months between the time set out in the indictment and that established by the evidence during trial has been held not to constitute an error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score. without a flaw and remembering even the minutest details which jibe beautifully with one another.e. knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation. Therefore.. Hence. (b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. complicity was established by proof of acts done in concert. the task in every case is determining whether the particular acts established by the requisite quantum of proof do d.R. concerted action and community of interest.. 2000. The sole reliable testimony does not show complicity among the appellants before. On importance of physical evidence Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth. Nos. acts which yield the reasonable inference that the doers thereof were acting with a common intent or design. ALVERO G. c. not merely by conjecture.R. 122290(6 April 2000) . The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is proper. but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will permit. BAGO G. and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. G. 134536-38. the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant should not be considered as aggravating. in many occasions.e. On Conspiracy For conspiracy to exist.R. and. HELD: a. In a great majority of cases. he concurs with the latter in his purpose. (c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. b. ET AL.In view of the foregoing. No. No. April 5. relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. On being an accomplice The following requisites must concur in order that a person may be considered an accomplice: (a) community of design. i. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy. this Court has. i. he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity. lays herself open to suspicion of having been [coached] or having memorized statements earlier rehearsed. proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a conditionprecedent. Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. conspiracy exists in a situation where at the time the malefactors were committing the crime. HELD: The allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not important in a prosecution for rape. In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design. ROCHE. 115182(6 April 2000) Accused-Appellants were charged and convicted of murder based on testimonies of witnesses which contradicted each other and was inconsistent with the physical evidence. PEOPLE V. Rule 110. their actions impliedly showed unity of purpose among them. PEOPLE V. This is because the precise time of the commission of the crime is not an essential element of rape and it has no substantial bearing on its commission. Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself through clear and convincing evidence. or after the commission of the crime. On oral testimony of witnesses A witness whose testimony is perfect in all aspects. a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. PEOPLE VS. during.

HELD: a.R. but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years or reclusion temporal. and was sure that they took the victim’s clothes. depending upon the absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance. and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things. RAMOS G. if the value of the thing stolen exceeds P22. as a consequence or on the occasion of such robbery. it is necessary that it be clearly established that a robbery has actually taken place.R. In order for the crime of robbery with homicide to exist. No. HELD: Clearly. that is. it is more so when the accusing words are said against a close relative. On the aggravating circumstance of use of superior strength There was a clear and notorious disparity of force between the victim and the aggressors as the former was unarmed and alone. Thus. HELD: A rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of having raped her.000. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery. (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner. Earlier and long-standing decisions of this Court have likewise held that when a woman testifies that she has been raped. On the crime of robbery with homicide. it is necessary that the robbery itself be proven conclusively as any other essential element of a crime. PEOPLE V. (4) the taking was done with intent to gain. and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.000. The witness is alleged to be biased against the appellant since he has a grudge against the latter. 130611(6 April 2000) Appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide. The felons took advantage of their collective strength to overwhelm their comparatively defenseless victim. the penalty next higher by two degrees shall be imposed. PEOPLE V. which she sold. 121203(12 April 2000) The appellant is a policeman who was positively identified by a witness to be the killer of the victim. as in the case of a daughter against her father. No. based on the testimony of a lone eye-witness who saw how he and his co-accused killed the victim. When the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence. if that crime of theft is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances which convert the taking into qualified theft. (2) the property belongs to another. SUZA G. 120280 (12 April 2000) The appellant was convicted of raping his own 10-year old daughter and relies solely on the defense of denial of the said accusation against him. It is well settled that in order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide. ASPIRAS G. accused is guilty of qualified theft.00. to wit: (1) there was a taking of personal property. reclusion perpetua. the killing of the victim would therefore.R. and that.00. money and other wares. the penalty shall be prision mayor in its maximum period and one year for each additional P10. at least. she says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed. b.Appellant was accused and convicted of the crime of qualified theft through taking cold-rolled steel from the company which he is employed as a leader in the cutting department. However. it was held that "an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him. This is true when made against any man committing the crime. who was gun-downed during a political rally. No. and not the complex offense of robbery with homicide. a homicide be committed. In the crime of theft. when all the elements of theft were established. HELD: . be classified either as a simple homicide or murder. PEOPLE V.

As to damages awarded Only actual expenses supported by receipts shall be granted as actual damages. On the essence of treachery There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person. b. On the claim of defense of relative As correctly pointed out by the trial court. Even a frontal attack can. causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act. and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented . The swift and unexpected attack by accused-appellant rendered the victim helpless. ineluctably qualified the crime with treachery. and stabbed her to death 13 times. BALLENAS G. methods. HELD: a. As to future earnings of the victim. be treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed. The rule that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not mean it cannot be appreciated if the attack is frontally launched. b. The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when there is carnal knowledge with the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation. FRANCISCO G. for even if the prosecution evidence is weak it cannot be disbelieved if the accused has admitted the killing. b. 124299(12 April 2000) The appellants abducted a 19-year old girl from her dwelling. No. In People v. without the slightest provocation from the victim who was unarmed and has no opportunity to defend himself. HELD: a.R. it must have been deliberately taken by the perpetrator to augment the wrong they committed. Whether the accused indeed committed forcible abduction with rape The accused committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 342 and 48 of the same Code. The suddenness of the shooting. The aggravating circumstance of cruelty is present when "the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission". therefore. 121682(12 April 2000) Appellant was convicted of the crime of murder qualified by the aggravating circumstance of treachery and pleads the justifying circumstance of defense of relative. (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. raped her several times. PEOPLE V. Belaro. PEOPLE V. it is computed by multiplying the years for which the victim could have worked with his employer were it not for his death by his annual gross earnings. the Court explained that the essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. nocturnity cannot be appreciated. The two elements of forcible abduction are (1) the taking of a woman against her will and (2) with lewd designs. employing means.There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually.R. On the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and cruelty For the court to consider nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. anyone who admits the killing of a person but invokes the defense of relative to justify the same has the burden of proving these elements by clear and convincing evidence. As to credibility of a witness The credibility of a witness could not be affected by an alleged grudge where said witness was not discredited on cross-examination.a. not being necessary for its completion. It has been held that when the scene of the crime was sufficiently illuminated by a lamp.

No. 3. b. qualified by treachery. As to the aggravating circumstance of Abuse of Superior Strength . In the absence of any evidence of the planning to kill or when the plan was conceived.] the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. method or manner of execution affording the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate.] an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. This positive identification of accused-appellant will prevail over the defense of alibi and denial of accused-appellant. and abuse of superior strength. As to abuse of superior strength Abuse of superior strength requires. No. In order that alevosia may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. 2. In the case at bar. at base. the fact that both accused-appellants were armed with bladed weapons while their victim was unarmed and defenseless does not make the attack treacherous. PEOPLE V. PEOPLE V. As to evident premeditation Like treachery. RAZONABLE G. there must be a situation of strength notoriously selected and made use of by the offender in the commission of the crime. and c.R.] the malefactor employed means. the requisites of evident premeditation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. 125292(12 April 2000) Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of rape. 2000) Appellants. there is no basis for appreciating evident premeditation. 128085-87(12 April 2000) Appellant was charged and convicted of murder for hacking to death a neighbor. no matter how logical and probable they might be would not suffice to establish evident premeditation. b.R.] an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination. b. both armed with Balisongs attacked and killed their unarmed victim.] sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon the consequences of their act. a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactor to take advantage thereof. there was no evidence of the planning and preparation to kill the victim. Besides the inequality of comparative force between the victim and the aggressor. As to the aggravating circumstance of Treachery There is treachery when the offenders commit any of the crimes against persons employing means.] the means. for the defense of alibi to prosper.] the time when the accused determined to commit the crime. and c. ORIO G. In fact. The requisites of evident premeditation are: a. Besides. after he was positively identified by his victim in a 20-man police line-up. However. evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. HELD: Amidst the sea of faces before her. No. They were charged and convicted of murder qualified by treachery. viz : a. no attempt was ever made to establish the requisites of evident premeditation. it must be shown that : a. 128821(April 12.] sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon the consequences of their act.PEOPLE V. and b. the victim readily pointed out accused-appellant as her attacker. 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. twice. Supreme Court held that the aggravating circumstance were not proven by conclusive evidence. HELD: a.R. HELD: 1. accused-appellant must show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. evident premeditation. As to the aggravating circumstance of Evident Premeditation Mere presumptions and inferences. ROJAS G. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself. method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender.

2000) The appellant was convicted of raping a 23-year old mental retardate with a mind of a 4-year old girl. It need not be proved by direct evidence but may be inferred from the acts of the accused. The appellant argued that the victim did not resist his alleged sexual assault. What is the importance of credibility of the victim in rape . ANTOLIN G. In the present case. or inferred from the acts of the accused which point to a joint purpose and design. 2000) The appellant is the step grandfather of the victim who at her tender age was repeatedly raped by the appellant. No. and that they were united in its execution. 133880(April 12. Finally. PEOPLE V. HELD: Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. and finally. for in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. 133647(April 12. Whether direct evidence is necessary to prove conspiracy. the rest of the assailants' companions ganged up on the helpless victim by successively stabbing and hitting him. Coming now to the instant case. PEOPLE V. there is no need to determine who among the accused delivered the fatal blow. Appellants questioned their conviction of murder and the liability imposed on each of them. concerted action.R.R. PEOPLE V. All these acts sufficiently prove that they conspired to kill victim. flowed by Tony stabbing the victim. Since conspiracy has been established. PEOPLE V.R. appellant did apply sufficient force and intimidation to consummate his lustful desire. since she did not even scream. 133647(April 12. however. No.R. No. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. 2000) The appellants assails the ruling of the court finding that conspiracy attended their attack to the victim. the stabbing of the victim by TONY – clearly manifest the existence of a common intent among the three accused to commit the crime. at base. BAER G. attended the killing of Domingo Francisco. All of the accused are liable as principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation. 2000) The victim was held by Danny and Tony while Eddie delivered several blows. there must be a situation of strength notoriously selected and made use of by the offender in the commission of the crime. while DANNY and TONY were holding Ricky.Abuse of superior strength. Whether there is conspiracy between the appellants HELD: Conspiracy exists when two or more person come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. As to the amount of force required to constitute rape HELD: In rape cases. ADOC G. Besides the inequality of comparative force between the victim and the aggressor. a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactor to take advantage thereof. REYES G. the successive acts of the accused – the blow delivered by EDDIE. It is sufficient that the accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense. One started the attack with an utterance coupled with the actual stabbing of victim. It merely has to be enough to successfully carry out the assailant’s carnal desire. and community of interest. that they had the same purpose or common design. followed immediately by the infliction of a second blow by DANNY. the force applied need not be irresistible. The appellant questions the credibility of the victim since she is the sole witness against him. No. 130333(April 12. since it is not clear who inflicted the fatal wound. Abuse of superior strength requires. The actuations of the appellants clearly established a conspiracy.

(c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to selfdefense. No. The exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation was reached arbitrarily. although a woman may be viewed by the public as unchaste or impure she can still be raped as she is still free to refuse a man's lustful advances. the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence.HELD: In a prosecution for rape the complainant’s credibility becomes the most important issue since her testimony alone is sufficient for a verdict of conviction. alibi must strictly meet the requirements of . or when the trial court overlooked. but also extremely doubtful by itself. and. it must clearly appear that the method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with a special view to the accomplishment of the act without risk to the assailant from any defense that the party assailed might make. to wit: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. 117802(April 27 2000) What is required to establish the defense of alibi? Alibi is one of the weakest defenses an accused can invoke. By this admission. In proving these elements. The victim's character in rape is immaterial.repeated rule that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly considered as important indicia which disprove a plea for self-defense because they demonstrate a determined effort to kill the victim and not just defend oneself. PEOPLE V. Indeed. stance.R. in treachery. HELD: Two important doctrines on rape • The moral influence of a father over his daughter suffices to establish rape.R. misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could affect the result of the case. what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate. 117324(April 27. (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. To prosper. and the courts have always looked upon it with caution. PEOPLE V. GUIWAN G. considering that it is in a more advantageous position to determine the issue as it heard the witness and observed his deportment during trial. He can no longer assail the weakness of the evidence against him simply because it cannot be disbelieve after his open admission of responsibility for the killing. if not suspicion. PEOPLE V. the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must now establish with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of this justifying circum. a plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence. Whether or not the appellant is entitled to the justifying circumstance of self-defense. • At any rate. LEGASPI G. It is well established that when the credibility of a witness is questioned. HELD: The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and of its authorship. PEOPLE V. FRAGA G. 2000) The victim was the biological daughter of the appellant who was raped several times by the latter and was only able to disclose such bestial acts after two years. No.R. 134130-33(April 12. No. No. ESTROCO G. not only because it is inherently unreliable but likewise because it is rather easy to fabricate. after they came back the accused with his CAFGU firearm went to the house of the victim and shot him to death. While a victim may have been warned of a possible danger to his person. the appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court. It is an oft.R. The appellant raises the defense of self-defense. 111941(April 27 2000) In order to appreciate allevosia. 2000) The appellant had an altercation before they embarked to go out to sea.

In this case. we have consistently ruled that it does not suffice to prove that the accused was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime. Whether or not the testimony of the lone witness was sufficient. in most cases. Similarly. 117954(April 27. PEOPLE V. 130188 (April 27. he acknowledged his guilt and was sorry for them. 2000) The appellant fired his rifle at the victim causing the latters death. ACURAM G. The accused must clearly establish that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime. His cousin was later found dead.R. No. 2000) The lone witness saw the appellant running out of the house of his cousin. or to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of stolen property. the witness only testified that the appellant fled the scene of the crime in a rush with a gun. jurisprudence dictates that the element of physical impossibility be clearly shown. CASTILLO G. As a lone circumstantial evidence. he was ordered not to leave camp. HELD: Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and capture. VILLA G. a feeling of remorse is inconsistent with insanity. strongly indicates guilt.R. or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy. as long as the motive of the offender (in killing a person before the robbery) is to deprive the victim of his personal property which is sought to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition. 2000) The appellant shot the victim who later died. After charges were filed and his commanding officer was told of the incident. The appellant was convicted of murder.R. Thus. after a shot was heard. What constitutes robbery with homicide? In this specie of offense. the phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another. it does not suffice as plurality of circumstantial evidence is required before guilt beyond . No. Whether the appellant is entitled to the defense of insanity HELD: No. where he surrendered." Similarly. however. No. The fact that immediately after the incident (accused) thought of surrendering to the lawenforcement authorities is incontestable proof that he knew that what he had done was wrong and that he was going to be punished for it. For this purpose overt acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself. or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime. Flight. After such incident the appellant surrendered to his commanding officer and pleaded guilty before the court but claimed the defense of temporary insanity. No. is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as contemplated by law. Being restrained by one's superiors to stay within the camp without submitting to the investigating authorities concerned. What is the proof necessary to establish conspiracy? Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself. it was appellant's commanding officer who surrendered him to the custody of the court. 129899(April 27. as it is a clear indication that he was conscious of his acts. the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.time and place. PEOPLE V. PEOPLE V.

Erwin Gesmundo was only 15 years old at the time of his death and was earning a daily wage of P100. In several cases the Court realized that there was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be considered as aggravating circumstance. The testimony of the victim’s wife as to earning capacity of her murdered husband. 132470(April 27. "exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered aggravating. Since the existence of a conspiracy does not prevent the appreciation of a mitigating circumstance exclusively in favor of the co-conspirator to whom such circumstance may relate. accused-appellants should be awarded the additional amount of P50. PEOPLE V. Consequently. Under .R. who brought her to his house. the non-presentation of evidence to support the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity did not prevent the Court from awarding said damages. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive. What constitutes civil liability arising from a crime The civil liability of accused-appellants for indemnity for death and actual and moral damages. 2206 of the Civil Code. 2230 of the Civil Code. Exemplary Damages. In People v. 2000) The victim was abducted by the appellant.00 as moral damages. It further observed that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Art. in accordance with recent decisions of this Court. BAUTISTA G. The appellant was convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. When they arrived at the appellant’s house the victim was divested of her jewelry and other valuables. Thus. who was then 48 years old and was earning P200. 131840(April 27. Whether the liability of each co-conspirator should be always equal. (b) the victim was employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws. afterwhich she was raped several times. 132252(April 27 2000) As a rule. One of the co-conspirators surrendered voluntarily.R. the remedy lies with the legislature.00 as a construction worker. documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity. MUYCO G. As in People v. no documentary evidence is available. is solidary and not joint as ruled by the trial court. 13 of the same Code which enumerates the mitigating circumstances where analogous circumstances may be considered. Under Art. No. however.00 a day as a tricycle driver. Moral Damages. No. to him alone. Whether multiple rape can be considered as an aggravating circumstance." PEOPLE V. Under Art. unlike in Art. PEOPLE V. Verde. HELD: No. the motive of accused-appellant is a key element in the web of circumstantial evidence. the spouse. legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the deceased are entitled to moral damages "for mental anguish by reason of the death of the deceased. 2000) The appellants were convicted for conspiring to murder the victim. HELD: No. No.R. To be able to claim damages for loss of earning capacity despite the nonavailability of documentary evidence. sufficed to establish the basis for such an award. SULTAN G.reasonable doubt may be inferred from such indirect proof. there must be oral testimony that: (a) the victim was self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under the current labor laws and judicial notice was taken of the fact that in the victim’s line of work. In that case. Verde. To fully dispose of this issue. hence. this Court is inclined to grant the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity despite the absence of documentary evidence." The victim’s widow testified that she suffered pain from the death of her husband. the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.000.

unbiased witness. It is settled jurisprudence that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses lies within the province and expertise of the trial courts.Alibi.What is decisive is that the execution of the attack mde it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.There was treachery as the victim was caught by surprise and defenseless when accused made his stealthful approach from behind and lunged a knife into the victim's chest. 63.he was 71 years old and his left hand was extended as if in supplication and surrender but the accused shot him nonetheless.He stabbed the victim in the chest and attacked the two others who were able to escape. the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof x x x x 2. weakens in the face of positive identification by one credible.Absent any showing of abuse of discretion or that trial courts overlooked material and relevant facts which could affect the outcome of the case.Where the locus criminis afforded good visibility and where no improper motive can be attributed to the prosecution eyewitnesses for testifying against the accused.this view. Applying Art. par. After. Spp MAY 2000 PEOPLE V TANOY GRNo 115692 May 12. the additional rape committed by accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating circumstance.Witnesses are weighed. such that the testimony of a single. .He allegedly approached the victim and two others while they were waiting for a jeepney. was raped by the appellant in the tobacco field in four occasions.If they were grappling for possession of the gun then the envelope containing his complaint should have fallen. (w)hen there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed.2000 Accused was convicted for murder by the lower court. HELD: Conviction affirmed. HELD: The shooting was intentional as shown by the location and nature of the wounds. PEOPLE V DE LEON GRNo-124338-41 May 12." the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on accused-appellant. the victim went to the police station. The deceased did not expect any attack coming from the accused when he went to the police station. Appellant avers he was on the field with his wife. their findings are accorded great weight and respect. The victim therein found the appellant who is a policeman. (2). a few exchanges appellant shot the victim with an armalite hitting him in the chest. a ten year old girl.though supported by the testimonies of friends.2000 The victim. the lesser penalty shall be applied. PEOPLE V AVILLANA GRNo119621 May 12. There is also treachery in the commission of the crime.His place was only 1 kilometer from the scene. The testimony of the sole witness is upheld. He alleges that they were grappling for the gun before the "accident" occured thus he is entitled to an exempting circumstance under par 4 Art 12. of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "(i)n all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties.The victim was totally defenseless when he went out of his hiding place(went behind a cemented wall when the accused pointed the gun). Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person.2000 After a prior incident.It would be highly inconceivable for a retired PC colonel to hold the barrel of the gun pointing towards him while grappling for its possession. then his version of the offense deserves much weight. not numbered. Also a brown envelope remained tucked under his arm and was bloodied after he was shot./there is no showing that the implication by the witness was illmotivated. trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict.

There must be moral certainty that the accused is guilty.Rape can be committed without damaging the apparel of the victim. bare denials cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. 132319 May 12.R.Delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of pysical violence.None of the witnesses declared that he exhibited any of the symptoms associated with schizophrenia immediately before or simultaneous with the stabbing incident. causing her death. In the witness stand he denied having identified the assailant and clarified that he only heard rumors on who was the killer from his townmates.Appellant's alibi may be the weakest of all defenses.-132544 May 12.Nonetheless. PEOPLE V MADARANG Gr. the testimony commands greater weight. Two weeks later he executed an affidavit pinpointing the appellant. PEOPLE V PO1 MAING GRNo122112 May 12. PEOPLE V DEQUITO G.he enjoys the presumption of innocence.He only based his testimony from rumors. making his act involuntary.The issue of insanity is a question of fact.w/c would.e. cannot be taken against the victim. He caught up with her and forced himself on her. however strong. or that there is total deprivation of the will. he hopes.The witness reported the incident that the victim was gunned down by an unidentified assailant.HELD: While denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases.Without any testimony positively identifying accused as the gunman nor any evidence directly linking him as the author of the crime. No. that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme sychologiccal terror. the appellant cannot be convicted of the murder.Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.2000 Appellant was convicted of parricide for stabbing his wife.He insists that he was deprived of intelligence . HELD: Despite his familiarity with appellant's figure. he was released. such as a psychiatrist. HELD: A torn underwear is not indispensable to prove the crime of rape.The state or condition of a man's mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior.His psychiatric evaluation revealed he was suffering from schizophrenia but after two years in the National Center for Mental Health his condition improved thus.It is fear.. 2000 The victim was shot four times with a witness standing three meters away.The proof must relate to the time preceding or coetaneous with the commisssion of the offense with which he is charged.Mere suspicions or conjectures.The victim testified that appellant already started to remove her clothes but she ran away. HELD: In the Philippines. can never become substitutes for this required quantum of proof.The . thus he did not have first-hand knowledge of the identity of the assailant. the accused is deprived of reason.i. numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.The prosecution must rest on the strength of its evidence and not rely on the weakness of the defense.Establishing one's insanity requires testimony of an expert witness. he acted without the least discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern.2000 A fifteen year old girl was raped by the common-law husband of her sister in the field. when there is an inconsistency between affidavits and the testimony of a witness in court. the appellant was boxed and kicked by the victim before. which can only be overcome by reasonable doubt.Also. the courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act. Appellant alleges he was in a state of insanity and claims he had no recollection of the stabbing incident.His testimony was pure hearsay and has no evidentiary weight.The appellant was in a mosque only 5oo meters away and there was motive. this weakness ought not be used as proof of his guilt.Also schizophrenics have lucid intervals during which they are capable of distinguishing right from wrong. the witness still failed to identify the assailant of the victim. No. springing from the initial rape.

The lack of objection of appellant to the introduction of the constitutionally proscribed evidence did not satisfy the burden of proof which rested on the prosecution. she was dependent on him.2000 Two persons were kidnapped and brought to a forest area where they were killed. Since the offense were committed prior to RA7659 on Deceber 31. PEOPLE V OBRERO G. Issue:W/N guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. the independent counsel cannot be a special prosecutor. 2000 Appellant was convicted of robberry with homicide. Sec 34-36 of Rule 132 govern. counsel for the defendant did not object to the offer of victim's testimony. said cases were dismissed. However. does not affect the credibility of the witness. there is no evident premeditation.However. While there is evidence to the homicide consisting of the corpus delicti. HELD: The extrajudicial confession was invalid. Also. if sufficiently explained. the rule now is: where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention. after learning that one of the suspects have died.delay in reporting the incident can not diminish her credibility.The issue is whether such is valid.In this case. No.R.-110220 May 18.2000 Bunao.Appellant threatened that he would leave the victim's sister if the victim reported the incident. No.However.Also. PEOPLE V TOLEDANO G. private or public prosecutor. regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought."Since in this instance the purpose of the appellant and his companions when they kidnapped the victims was to kill them the two counts of complex crime of kidnapping with murder is valid.The bodies were set afire while in a pit then buried in the same spot.Ten years later. reported the incident and the bodies were then exhumed. As held in P v Bandula.-122142 May 17. the prosecutor's error in stating that what was being tried was the last rape committed in July in his offer of proof did not prejudice the rights of the appellant. Acquitted of robbery with homicide.Thus. Atty de los Reyes was not an independent counsel being the PC Captain and Station Commander. the helper.Our consistent doctrine is that delay in reporting a rape. the maximum penalty shall be imposed. while a member of Sangguniang Bayan. to allow the offender to reflect on the consequence of his act. there is no evidence of the robbery except the confession. Appellants were convicted of kidnapping with murder.R. 1993 thus said law amending Art267 of the RPC providing: "when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts. municipal attorney or counsel of the police whose interest is adverse to the accused. PEOPLE V RIMORIN GRNo-124309 May 16.He executed a written confession as a result of a custodial ivestigation. her parents were absent. There was also treachery as the victims' hands were tied behind their backs when they were killed.there was no showing by the prosecution of the 1)time when the offender determined to commit the crime 2)act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination3)sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof. the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under the last paragraph of Art267as amended by RA7659. Also the information is sufficient alleging therein that rape was committed on or about the month of July 1996.A helper of the suspects and the families of the victims were threatened with retaliation if they reported the incident.Two administrative cases were filed against against him violating RA3019 and R6713 with the Ombudsman. HELD: The trial courts are in the best position to view the witness' demeanor and deportment during the trial. The perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights is inadequate to transmit information to the suspect. entered into a lease contract covering 2 public market stalls. Art IIISec12(1) requires an independent and competent counsel of the suspect's choice. An information for violation . as ruled in P v Ramos 297SCRA618.

b)reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it.The victim was able to run away bu the accused caught up with him. No. PEOPLE V BABERA G.Evidence must positively show that there was a previous unlawful and unprovoked attack on the person of the accused which placed him in danger and justified him in inflicting harm upon his assailant hrough the employment of reasonable means to repel the aggression. the appellant uttered "Ano pare.LGC of 1991.The nature. case the appellant attacked the victim while the latter was fanning charcoal. The first element is lacking. Also. However.The mere fact that the accused learned that Vulpangco was pestering his sister a week before the killing is insufficient to prove evident premeditation beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: Since the participants are usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature.The RTC.Even considering he was able to wrest the knife away from Vulpanco and stab him on the chest. He raped a 17 yr old having moderate retardation with the use of a balisong. c)lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. PEOPLE V SARAGINA G. Also. victim's niece shouted "Tiyong Takbo". factual findings of the trial court are generally sustained on appeal unless arbitrary or baseless. The second element is also absent.Treachery cannot be appreciated when the victim was aware of the attack against him and was even able to flee even though briefly from his attacker. Zambales which prohibits gov't officials from engaing in any business transaction with the local gernment unit.Together with two more persons. he still ran after the victim and stabbed him againin the face. May 30. there was no treachery because before he attacked. which replaced BP337 reenacted in its Sec89 the legal provision of Sec 41 of BP337.It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that administrative law that administrative cases a independent from criminal actions for the same act or omission. dismissed the criminal case on the ground of the dismissal of the administrative cases. the burden of proof was shifted to the appellant to establish the elements thereofa)unlawful aggression on the part of the victim.-130609. He admits the incident but claims it was selfdefense. sincere and straighforward manner. the conviction or acquittal of the accused would virtually depend on the credibility of the complainant's testmony. umpisahan na natin?".R.of Sec41(1) in relation to Sec221 of BP337 was filed against respondent before the RTc of Iba. The trial court observed that the victim remained consistent and answered in a frank.-128281 May 30. upon motion of the accused. HELD: There is nothing in the law(Art 89RPC) which states that exoneration from an administrative charge extinguishes criminal liability.Thus. RA 7160. the act committed before the reenactment continuous to be a crime. who uttered malicious remarks and showed his private part to the appellant's sister a week earlier. In this.Also.The prosecution failed to adduce evidence showing when and how the accused planned and prepared to kill Vulpangco. PEOPLE V FRANCISCO The appellant was convicted of frustrated murder.R. he assaulted and stabbed Ariel while seated in the driver's seat of a jeepney.2000 Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape. there is o evident premeditation. No.2000 Accused stabbed and klled a Vulpangco. HELD: Because of this claim. HELD: . location and number of the wounds belie appellant's defense.

to the rapist's advances because of fear for her life and personal safety. or it may consist of moral assistance to his conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime.One's overt act. to be shown in pursuance of the conspiracy. by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy. the two John Does pulled the victim out of the jeepney. somehing far worse would befall her at the time she was being molested.It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design. The location of the stab wounds (stomach) manifest his intention to kill thus contradicting his claim of not intending to commit so grave a wrong.The evil in man has no conscience.In a case.-124976 May 31. PEOPLE V BALORA G.it is sufficient that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused. No.Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. its presence could not be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the crime. The lack of aversion in the information of "intent to kill" does not not make it insufficient. HELD: Appellant avers that the victim could not be made to lie on the floor there being a toilt bowl in the middle an the cubicle was too small. In P v Luzorate we held that intimidation was addressed to the mind of the victim and therefore subjective. The mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation must immediately preceded the act and that it was adequate to excite a person to commit a wrng. . Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself.The information more than substantially satisfies the requirement of designating the offense of frustrated murder considering that it contains the acts constituting the felony.Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances. the limp suffered by him due to polio has not been shown to restrict his means of action.R.After the incident.When a victim become paralyzed with fear. her failure to take advantage of the early opportuniy to escape does not automatically vitiate the credibilityoher account. the name of the crime by statue and the stage (frustrated) of the commission of the crime by definition. he was captured by the guards and mobbed by the other watchers. which has similar import with the phrase herein. defense or communication with his fellow beings as required by Art 13(8). concerted action and community of interest.The beast in him bears no respect for time and place.It is not necessary to show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out. may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself. there being no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange.The appellant went over the divider and banged the head of the victim on the wall. startling or frightful experience. 2000 The victim was raped inside the cubicle of the women's restroom of the cinema theater of Manuela Complex.It would be unnatural and illogical for him to impute the crime to an innocent person and let the culprit escape prosecution. against her will. does not have conclusive conspiratorial meaning for the supposedly damning utterances are susceptible of varied inerpretations. As to Antonio his participation was limited to shouting "heto na sila". driving him to commit rae anywhere--even in places where people congregate. which must accordingly be proportionate in gravity. he was stabbed by the appellant.As the victim was getting down.In this case. As to Ricardo's physical disability. we ruled that the phrase "andiyan na".The mere fact that the principal witness was the victim of the crime does not make him a biased witness and does not make his testimony incredible. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to do it.An information is sufficient if it states the designation of the offense by statute.Besides the absence of the averment of intent to kill may be inferred from the allegation that the stab wound would have caused the death of the victim. she cannot be expected to think and act coherently.Complainant cannot be faulted for not taking any action inasmuch as different people react differently to a given type of situation.

2000 This is a case of incestuous rape. appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court for it is in a better position to decide the question. the stabbing could only be describes as trechearous. having heard the witnesses and obsereved their deortment and manner of testifying. PEOPLE V ALICANTE G. PEOPLE V MAGAT G.R. and that then the burdeen is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention.It has been decided. The actor in the affidavit of desistance. even when construed as pardon in so-called private crimes is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal case once the action has been instituted. that no constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the Sate fo some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt. was the mother.The rule is that the elements of minority of the victim and her realtionship to the offender must concur.A freshly broken hymen is not a essential element of rape.The failure toa llege on of these elements precludes the imposition of the death penalty. HELD: The fact of minority of the victim was not stated in the Information.-130026 May 31.2000 The appellant.-127026-27 May 31.Thus. No. it cannot be given weight. As the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from behind with no weapon to resist it. In criminal jurisprudence.Also. raped his 13 yr old daughter fifteen times impregnating her. when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses. PEOPLE V TRAYA G. No. an affidavit of desistance by itself. HELD: The purpose of a formal offer is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes fro which the proponent is representing the evidence. HELD: We uphold the testimony of the witness.R. 2000 While playing mahjong the victim was suddenly attacked from behind with a bolo by Sanches and stabbed by the appellant. No. he pleaded guilty but bargained for a lesser penalty for each case.The Court has consistently upheld that the presumptio hominis that a young filipina will not charge a person with rape if it is not true.As it is the victim herself who testified.-129052 May 31.There are are exceptions:a)when patent inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses are ignored by the trial court.As the attack waas synchronl. treachery was evident.Upon arraignment.Only the relationship of the victim as daughter of the offender was alleged therein. There being no allegation of the minority of the victim in the Information. does not go against theconstitutional presumption of innocence. sudden and unexpected. to state the reason for the presentaiton of said witness is to state the obvious.In the absence of proof to the contrary and by the defense's failure to impugn the credibility of prosecution witness Ignacio. a father. Sec 11 RA7659 applies the offender being a parent.Thus the penalty of death is to be imposed PEOPLE V MENDOZA GRNo-128890 May 31. or b) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.R. in case of statutory crimes. 2000 This is a case of incestuous rapeTwo informations were filed against appellant. he cannot be convicted of qualified rape as he was not informed that he is being accused of qualified rape. as worded.Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse.The mother of the complainant and the public prosecutor agreed and an order was issued the same day .But the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength since this is deemed absorbed in treachery.

Two months later.R. Whatever procedural infirmity in the arraignment of the accused was rectified when he was re-arraigned and entered a new plea. PEOPLE V MAMAC G.2000 Appellant woke up the victim by poking her with along stick while lying alongside her brother and sister. waived the errors in procedure. relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.The word "step".Appellant was rearraigned and he entered a plea of not guilty. HELD: We have long recognized that different people react differently to a given type of situation and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange. he entered anew a plea of guilty.Here the reduction of the penalty is only a consequence of the plea of guilt to a lesser penalty. if the present rule. the cases were revived at the instance of the complainant on the ground that the penalty was too light. if accused enters a plea of guilty the trial courts are now enjoined to conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea.At most he is a common law husband of Bernadette's grandmother thus not a parent.The only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the Rules is when the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense.Appellant brought her to the bank of the river and raped her there while sticking the bolo at her.It must be alleged to properly inform the acused of the nature and cause of accusation against him in order not to violate due process.Thus only recusion perpetua may be imposed.Appellant cannot claim that the victim had no reason to be cowed outside by his mere act of stabbing her with a stick or mere brandishing of the bolo. The information does not charge appellant with qualified rape and he cannot be sentenced to death. aqualifying aggravating cannnot be proved unless alleged in the information.2000 Appellant raped the daughter of his common-law wife.It is the essence of a plea of guilty that that the accused admits absolutely and unconditionally hid guilt and responsibilty for the offense imputed to him.The appellant did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape charges and only baargained for a lesser penalty. thus he cannot be considered as a step-grandfather. No.When she opened the window.This is erroneous because by pleading guilty to the offense charged.Unlike a generic aggravating circumsance which may be proved even if not alleged. she saw appellant brandishing a bolo and ordered her to go dwon.startling or frightful experience.-131843 May 31. an accused may not foist a conditional plea of guilty on the court by admitting his guilt provided that a certain penalty will be meted unto him.He now appeals on the ground that there was double jeopardy upon the re-arraignment and trial on the same information. Under the present rule. No. accused should be sentenced to the penalty to which he pleaded.imposing tenyears imprisonment for each case. The appellant is not a step-grandfather. HELD: The first order issued by the trial is void ab initio on the ground that the accused's plea is not the plea bargaining contemplated by law and the rules of procedure. ascendant. double jeopardy will not lie.There is no relationship by affinity between Bernadetted and appellant.After three months. guardian. to require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and precise degree of culpability.The court then imposed the enalty of death. Since the judgment of conviction is void. .he co-habited and lived with the materialgrandmother of Bernadette without the benefit of marriage.-130332 May 31.Sec 2 Rule 116 (note that there is a new set of Rules of Criminal Procedure).R.Hence. is repugnant to blood relationship and is indicative of relationship by affinity. when used as a prefix in conjunction with a degree of kinship.he did not question the procedural errors in the first arrraignment and having failed to do so. and to ask if he so desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so. .He did not plea bargain but made conditions on the penalty to be imposed. PEOPLE V DECENA G. step-parent.

whenkilled.The defense should have introduced evidence of a verage travel time as of that day from between the two points---and it should have done so during the trial. the victim was not in a position to put up any form of defense. There was treachery. the accessibility between these two points---in the instant case. No. the danger to accused has already ceased.HELD: The minority and the relationship of the complainant to the accused must be alleged in the information in order to convict the appellant of qualified rape. the killing is with treachery because in such cases. and if indeed he was able to leave the prison premises it is unbelievable that an escaped convict would return to prison.Thus. with two other persons.2000 Appellant stabbed the victim while in a drinking session.A convicted felon is not disqualified by the Rules of Evidence from testifying in Court. otherwise. but more importantly. The burden is upon the accused to present credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime. He alleges that it was self-defense.It would be a denial of due process.R. otherwise. how this distance translate to hours of travel. 2000 The appellant. No. PEOPLE V COTAS G. because it remains for the defense to prove the relative accessibility of accused from the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed.The judgment of conviction did not rest on the alleged confession made by Obosa.First. he could not have participated in the ambush.Qualifying circumstances under Sec11 of RA7659 must be alleged with particularity in the information to be proved and used in the imposition of the penalty. the defende has no longer any right to kill or wound the former aggressor.It is a settled rule that when unlawful aggression ceases. this alone will not suffice for purposses of proving an alibi. The appellant's defense is that as aprison inmate who based on prison records was inside the compound of the Nat'l Bilibid Prisons Prisons on the date and time of the incident.Treachery is present for the car was shot at while it was slowing down as it approached a corner ensuring the accomplishment of the attack and eliminating any risk from possible defenses that the victim may put up. HELD: The cited circumstances do not present a physical impossibility for the appellant to have participated in the commission of the crime. Appellant's objection to the admissibility of the testimony of an inmate that the accused confided his participation in the crime is without merit.-132069 May 31. although geographical distances may be taken judicial notice of.It is settled that if the victim. not on appeal. the log book presented in court referred only to the south gate.R. PEOPLE V OBOSA G.132043 May 31.The Director of the Bureau of Prisons testified that Obosa was given preferential treatment in prison and was allowed to park his vehicle inside the prison compound despite prohibition. was sleeping or had just awakened. if he is charged with simple rape but convicted of its qualified form punishable by death although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment was not aleged in the indictment under which he was arraigned. No.R. waylaid former Secretary of Local Government Jaime Ferrer and his driver. . an alibi may not prevail over the positive testimony and clear identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. HELD: Physical ipossibility in relation to alibi takes into consideration not only the geographical distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was at. it is clear that at the time was killed.2000 Appellant stabbed the victim whiles sleeping. retaliation and not self-defense is committed. HELD: Even Assuming that the victim was the aggressor. PEOPLE V GOMEZ G.-132171May 31.

friends and even those not related to the offender. here used in a generic sense is committed.The utterance of the victim did not sufficiently identify the appellant.Also.-133109 May 31.2000 The victim was found bleeding while lying face down on the floor.Such degree of proof does not mean excluding the possibility of error. HELD: The unexplained possession of stolen articles gives rise to apresumption of theft. No. the logical conclusion is that no improper motive existed and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. the presence of treachery is not discounted by the fact that the killing was effected by a single stab wound or that the attack was frontal---for as long as the method employedtended directly and especially to ensure the execution of the crime without risk of defense or retaliation of the offender." HELD: It is axiomatic that the prosecution bears not only the onus to show that a crime has been committed but also to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the person or persons who should be responsible therefor. if for any motive there is a possibility that a witness might have been prompted to testify falsely. 2)property taken belongs to another.The homicide may precede the robbery or may occur after the robbery. as producing absolute certainty.R. unless it is proved that the owne of the articles was deprived of possession by violence. The conclusion that accused was the same person referred to by the prosecution has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.The lower court relyed solely on the testimony of victim's father. in which case the presumption becomes one of robbery. He was with the other perpetratorsin a taxi which was stopped in a routine inspection.On the other hand.former pakyaw worker. intimidation. PEOPLE V CONTEGA G. HELD: The rule as to motive and how it affects the witness' credibility is: absent evidence to show any reason or motive why witnesses for the prosecution should have testified falsely.Only when the conscience is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the person on trial should the sentence be for conviction.He was apprehended after admitting the crime.2000 Appellant was convicted of robbery with homicide. "Rogelio.The prosecution has not eliminated the possibility that another piecemeal worker with the name "Rogelio" was employed by the Barbas. and 4)on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof the crime of homicide. Alibi is a weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and concoct between relative.R.-101335 June 8. 3)the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi. No.What is essential is that there an intimate connection between robbery ad the killing whether the latter .2000 The appellant was convicted of homicide. it is necessary that the robbery itself be established as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime. the prosecution need only to prove these elements: 1)the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person. P V LEONARDO G. In order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide.Only moral certainy is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. When asked who his assailant was he answered. No. it is basic in criminal law that the prosecution has the obligation of proving beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the malefactor and his participation in the crime or offense charged. JUNE 2000 PEOPLE V ROBLES G. courts should be on guard in assessing the witness' credibility.In robbery with homicide cases.-133579 May 31.R.

since such portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited. it must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefacto to take advantage thereof. it was not all apparent that the appellant consciously adopted that particular means. and undergo the humiliation of a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.R. Abuse of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked to defend himself. No. this shows that the latter was powerless to offer resistance thereby admitting his inferiority and superiority of the defendant.2000 The victim was hacked with a bolo and was decapitated by the appellant.It is highly improbable for a woman. it is not required that the entire testimony be rejected. HELD: Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not impair the witness credibility. its relative significance depends largely on the attending circumstances and the discretion of the trial court. The mere fact that the victim was running away from the appellant who was wielding a bolo shows that the victim was aware of the danger to himself. Before it may be appreciated.2000 This is a case of incestuous rape.R. and it was not shown that there was such intended prevarication. PEOPLE V MUMAR G. Even where a witness is found to have deliberately falsified the truth in some particular.R. PEOPLE V ANTONIO G.It is sufficient that all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent to do harm to the victim. thus negating the suddenness of the attack for which reason treachery cannot be appreciated. especially one of tender age.be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time. Although visibility is an important factor in the identification of a criminal offender. HELD: The absence of illumination in the place of the commission of the crime does not detract from the positive identification by Margie of the appellant as her assailant. or while the rapist's spouse are asleep.A daughter would not accuse her own father of such unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been aggrieved.In the case at bar. PEOPLE V MONIEVA G. HELD: A direct proof to show that the accused had come to an agreement to commit a felony is not necessary.2000 The victim was shot while his back was turned towards his assailants.127131 June 8.-123155 June 8.The rule is that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on occasion of the robbery. unless it clearly appears they endeavored to prevent the homicide.123912 June 8.-122473 June 8. No. allow a gynecologic examination. 2000 The 15 yr old complainant was rape by the appellant. the . or in a small room where other family members also slept. all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the crime of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide.R. to concoct a brutal tale of ravishment. No. HELD: Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone.The prosecution is of the opinion that since the appellant was armed with a bolo and was chasing the unarmed victim who was trying to flee. PEOPLE V CAMBI G.This is mere conjecture. No.

Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.When applied. Right after the incident. It makes the court wonder if the 3 supposed eye witness directly saw the actual killing in this case. Three high school students testified for the prosecution and claimed that they actually saw the accused in flagrante delicto actually striking and submerging the head of the victim in the river. therefore.Some may shout.It has been this Court's observation that it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which he crime was committed.It is enough that it has enabled the offender to consummate his purpose to bring about the desired result. Relationship per se does not automatically discredit a witness. ROMEO CAPILI G.R. In fact. OSCAR CARILLO G.Also. Prosecution presented a second cousin of the victim as its main witness. There can never be a better gauge by which a witness’ testimony may be evaluated and analyzed than the ordinary common human experience. 134938 The 3 accused were charged with murder. NO. The prosecution presented one eyewitness. the former should prevail. some may faint. 130588 Accused was convicted of murder. it need not be overpowering or irresistible. PEOPLE V. to which they readily acceded. actually defying sound reasons for 3 young students. and some may be shocked into insensibility. accused apparently saw them by the riverbank and offered them a ride across the river. . NO. the court cannot accept as true the affidavit of Candare owning sole responsibility for the crime. 129528 Oscar Carillo together with Eduardo Candare were accused of murder. PEOPLE V. is sufficient to convict. the defense has not presented any evidence that witness was impelled by dubious or improper motives. it is rather unnatural. NO. Moreover. The force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative. HELD: Physical evidence ranks high in the hierarchy of evidence. Accused questions trial court’s appreciation of the credibility of the prosecution witness as unbelievable and biased. if found credible and positive. RUFINO TESTON & ROGELIO GACO G. The testimony of a single prosecution witness. HELD: The trial court’s evaluation of a witness’ trustworthiness is entitled to highest respect for it has the distinct opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness and to determine whether he is telling the truth. to allow themselves to be ferried by an adult male whom they have just recently witnessed kill and drown a helpless and unsuspecting victim.assailant was well known to Margie as the former was her employer. As physical evidence is compatible with the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but inconsistent with the claim of the defense witnesses. kinship by blood or marriage to the victim would deter one from implicating innocent persons as one’s natural interest would be to secure conviction by the real culprit. In this case. for the truth is not established by the number of witnesses. to say the least. it must be presumed that he was not so moved.R.R. HELD: Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. the voice of the appellant was heard when he uttered threats against the complainant. The defense interposed self-defense. while others may openly welcome the intrusion. PEOPLE V. For the same reason. The physical evidence shows that the death of the victim was caused by 2 stab wounds probably caused by 2 separate instruments. Candare executed an affidavit admitting sole responsibility.It is not even necessary that the offender be armed with a weapon. but by the quality of their testimonies.

the burden of proof immediately shifts from the prosecution to the defense. As long as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy. The conduct should point to a joint purpose and design. during and after the commission of the crime. The trial court noted that the victims had no sufficient opportunity to recognize the acquitted accused.R. NO. Whenever the accused admits inflicting a fatal injury on his victim and invokes self-defense. Appeal assails the criminal complaint which was not under oath and is therefore void. HELD: Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. Also. HELD: On the credibility of witnesses.R. DOMINADOR HISTORILLO G. there is nothing irregular with the acquittal of one of the supposed co-conspirators and the conviction of another. One of the accused was acquitted and so the accused questions his conviction because in as much as conspiracy was not proved by the prosecution. Hence. the evidence proved only the existence of a conspiracy but not the culpability of the appellant. PEOPLE V. concerted action and community of interest. NO. The evaluation of evidence reveals that the same is true insofar as the appellant is concerned. 111734-35 Spouses Castillo were convicted as conspirators in the kidnapping for ransom of Wilhelmina. MACARIO U.R. the spouses referred the main perpetrator to the victim. The 2 accused are both her sales agents on commission basis. which is contrary to common practice. PEOPLE V. JOSE GERAL ALIAS “JOSE” G. The evidence established beyond doubt the existence of conspiracy to rub. Generally.Besides. conspiracy is a joint offense as one person cannot conspire alone. the commission of a crime is through the joint act or intent of 2 or more persons. the appellant should likewise be acquitted. NO. appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court. 130408 Appellant was convicted for raping his 12 year old daughter and was sentenced to death. the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence or deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. one defendant may be found guilty of the offense. PEOPLE V. However. Here. 127841 The accused was convicted for Robbery with Homicide in an information alleging conspiracy. HELD: By its nature. patent inconsistencies in and between appellant’s testimony and those of his witnesses only undermine appellant’s defense. PEOPLE V. The perpetrator who posed as buyer did not even inform the seller who referred him. He assails the credibility of the prosecution witness and the sufficiency of evidence against him. it does not follow that one person alone cannot be convicted when there is a finding of conspiracy. EPIE ARLALEJO G. 122283 Accused was convicted of murder. The victim is a businesswoman engaged in the real estate business. conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed as the mere act of conspiring is not by itself punishable. It may be inferred from the conduct of all accused before. In conspiracy. In the case at bar. Moreover. . credibility of witness is no longer the issue since self-defense was invoked as justifying circumstance.R. it is incorrect to state that the accused was acquitted because conspiracy was not proved. However. The 2 accused hoisted the defense of denial and alibi. CASTILLO G. NO.

By depriving appellant of mental examination. The court should have at least ordered the examination of the accused. The want of an oath is a mere defect of form which does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant on the merits. MARCELO NAVA JR. the trial court took it solely upon itself to determine the sanity of the accused. 130490 Accused was convicted of murder and slight physical injuries. Since the charge of rape in the complaint is not in its qualified form so as to fall under the special qualifying circumstance stated in section 11 of RA 7659. VENANCIO FRANCISCO G. In imposing the penalty. NO. the penalty of death was also questioned as the information does not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender.prosecution failed to establish the use of force in the occasion of the crime. He was sentenced to death and made to pay civil indemnity only. . The trial court imposed penalty of reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua medium. the father’s moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation. Moreover. G. HELD: Case remanded for the conduct of a proper mental examination to determine competency to stand trial. The trial judge however is not a psychiatrist or psychologist or some other expert equipped with the specialized knowledge of determining the state of a person’s mental health. PEOPLE V. 130487 Accused was convicted for murder and sentenced to death. The information does not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender.R. HELD: A complaint presented by a private person when not sworn by him is not necessarily void. Both were denied without subjecting accused to mental examination. Although RA 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua to 20 years and 1 day to 40 years. In the case. Further. the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed. the trial court effectively deprived appellant of a fair trial and the proceedings before the court are therefore nullified. The absence of direct proof however. especially in the light of the latter’s history of mental item.R. ROBERTO ESTRADA G. The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving the resistance where there is intimidation. 130509-12 Accused was convicted of 4 counts of rape of his 13 year old daughter. there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. PEOPLE V.R. the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua remains an indivisible penalty. Age and relationship are special qualifying circumstances that changes the nature of simple rape by producing a qualified form punishable by death. There are 2 distinct matters to be determined under this test (1) whether the defendant is sufficiently coherent to provide his counsel with information necessary or relevant to constructing a defense and (2) whether he is able to comprehend the significance of the trial and his relation to it. the trial court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law stating that RA 7659 (An act to impose the death penalty on certain heinous crimes) made the penalty of reclusion perpetua divisible. the test is found in the question whether the accused would have a fair trial with the assistance which the law secures or gives. HELD: Notwithstanding RA 7659. The determination of whether a sanity investigation or hearing should be ordered rests generally in the discretion of the trial court. NO. He who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. Defense interposed insanity with proof of his history of mental illness filed for suspension of arraignment and suspension of proceedings. in a crime of rape committed by a father against his own daughter. does not entirely discount the probability that accused was not of sound mind at that time. In passing the question of the propriety of suspending the proceedings. It remains as an indivisible penalty. PEOPLE V. NO.

it shall only be considered as an aggravating circumstance. (4) the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide. murder or parricide in which the decedent was the victim. the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death. An award of 50. PEOPLE V. Although it may not be ascertained from the written statement whether the victim was speaking with a consciousness of impending death. HELD: When the age and the relationship are not alleged in the information. ANGEL RIOS G. HELD: Homicide and not murder. If the qualifying circumstance is not alleged but proved. Treachery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 132632 Accused was convicted of murder. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape.R. it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion.000 as moral damages for each of the counts of rape is granted in recognition of the victim’s injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape and to warrant per se an award of moral damages. PEOPLE V. such should not be considered as special qualifying circumstances that will change the nature of simple rape and punish offender with the penalty of death. (2) at the time it was made. Dwelling was correctly considered aggravating. It is a denial of the right of an accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him and consequently a denial of due process if he is convicted of a crime in its qualified form notwithstanding the fact that the information on which he was arraigned charges him only of the crime in its simple form by not specifying the circumstance that qualifies the crime. PEOPLE V. HELD: The statement was considered as a dying declaration and is admissible in evidence as part of the res gestae. The victim was brought to the hospital and subjected to an operation. The crime was preceded by a heated argument. NO. The word dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms part thereof. NO.R. He was sentenced to death despite the fact that the information does not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender. The requirements for the admissibility of an ante-mortem statement are: (1) it must concern the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death. Qualifying and aggravating circumstances before being taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of the penalty to be imposed must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as that which establishes the commission of the act charged as a criminal offense. WILSON DREU . (3) the declarant was competent as a witness. 130593 Accused was convicted for raping his 16 year old daughter. JOEL TANEZA G. He died a day after giving his statement. PEOPLE VS ROMEO ARILLAS G. the degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death supervened shortly afterwards may be considered as substantial evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full realization that he was in a dying condition. The accused left and came back minutes after the altercation and stabbed victim at the latter’s terrace. He was interviewed and he named the accused as his assailant.HELD: Crime is only simple rape since the information does not allege the age of victim and her relationship with he offender.R. NO. 121668 Accused was convicted of murder for shooting a bakery delivery man.

R. 124670 Accused was convicted of murder. an offer of marriage is an admission of guilt. to the exclusion of all others. PATROLMAN DOMINGO BELBES G. 2 requisites must concur: (1) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty. 126282 Accused was convicted of rape. although innocent to disprove the charge. HELD: When a victim of rape says that she has been defiled. In rape cases. the testimony of the complainant must stand or fall on its own merits and should never be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. HELD: The “sweethearts defense” cannot be appreciated as the defense failed to come up with convincing proof. PEOPLE V. The accused interposed alibi as defense. He offered marriage but was rejected. the accused bears the burden of proving that he and the complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship.G. when the victim was already 20 years old. NO. fulfillment of a duty. Indeed. PEOPLE V. 133921 Accused was convicted of rape.R. The conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence because there was no eye witness to the actual killing of the victim. The charge was filed 12 years after the alleged incident. However. HELD: A judgment of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance. second requisite here was not proved since killing need not be a necessary consequence of his duty. The guilt of the accused was also established by the fact that he offered marriage to the complainant after the incident was reported to the authorities. Where the accused admits to killing the victim in self defense. FELIPE HOFILENA G. As a rule in rape cases. 124977 Accused was convicted of murder. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of . (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. it is even more difficult for the person accused. ROLANDO FLORES G. as the guilty person. For a person not to incur criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty. JOHNNY DELA CRUZ G. The long delay of the complainant in reporting the incident makes it difficult for the court not to have compelling doubts on the veracity of her episode. He interposed self-defense and that he acted in the HELD: Self defense cannot be appreciated. The corollary rule is that the circumstances proven must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused. the burden of evidence shifts to him. NO. 134772 Accused was convicted of raping a 12 year old girl. NO. (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office. NO. Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt not proven. NO. PEOPLE V.R. He interposed the defense that he and the victim was sweethearts.R. HELD: An accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove.R. (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE V.

credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. In the absence of strong and convincing evidence, alibi could not prevail over the positive testimony of the victim, who had no improper motive to testify falsely against him. PEOPLE V. HENRY FLORES G.R. NO. 116794 Accused was convicted of murder. Only one eyewitness was presented. HELD: The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to produce a conviction. PEOPLE V. HERMOGENES FLORA G.R. NO. 125909 The 2 accused (Hermogenes and Edwin) were convicted for the murder of Emerita and Ireneo and the attempted murder of Flor. The 2 were found to have conspired to kill Ireneo. However, during the commission of the crime, Emerita was also killed and Flor hit by a bullet. HELD: Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts done outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. Evidence only shows conspiracy to kill Ireneo and no one else. Hence, both can be convicted for the murder of Ireneo. However, only Hermogenes who fired at Emerita and Flor can be convicted for the murder of Emerita and Flor respectively. PEOPLE V. EDDY PANEZA G.R. NO. 131829 The 3 accused were convicted of highway robbery. They assert that they cannot be convicted of highway robbery as the crime was not committed by at least 4 persons as required in Article 306 of the Revised Penal Code. HELD: Highway robbery is now governed by PD No. 532, otherwise known as Anti-Piracy and AntiHighway Robbery Law of 1974. It is no longer required that there be at least 4 armed persons forming a band of robbers. The no. of offenders is no longer an essential element of the crime of highway robbery. PD 532 only requires proof that persons were organized for the purpose of committing highway robbery indiscriminately. The robbery must be directed not only against specific, intended or preconceived victims but against any and all prospective victims. PEOPLE V. JUDGE ESTRELLA ESTRADA G.R. NO. 124461 Motion for the return of seized goods on the ground that the warrant was illegal. Further, the seized medicines were found genuine but were only illegally imported. HELD: Even if the medicines were genuine if the seller has no permit from the appropriate government agency, the drugs or medicines cannot be returned although the search warrant was declared illegal. PEOPLE V. MARIANO AUSTRIA G.R. NO. 123539 Accused, 82 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, was convicted of the crime of rape. He raises as defense the 2 week delay in reporting the offense and his alleged impotency. HELD:

Delay or vacillation in criminal accusations do not necessarily impair the complainant’s credibility if such delay is satisfactorily explained. It is not uncommon to conceal rape because of rapist’s threats to life, fear of public humiliation and lack of courage. Silence is not an odd behavior of a rape victim. The presumption is always in favor of potency. Impotency is considered an abnormal condition and should not be presumed. The doctor’s testimony stated that his sex organ was diseased but never was there even a hint that accused was impotent. The trial court also observed that accused was still strong, agile and capable of committing the sexual act and seriously doubts that he is 82 years old. PEOPLE V. ABDULAJID SABDANI G.R. NO. 134262 The accused was convicted of murder. He interposed self-defense as defense. HELD: The accused who invokes self-defense admits authorship of the killing and therefore the burden of proof shifts to him who must then establish with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of self-defense. Accused failed to prove unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression presupposes not merely a threatening/intimidating attitude, but an actual and sudden attack or an imminent danger thereof, which imperils one’s life or limb. In the case at bar, there was no sign that victim was armed other than the fact that his hands were tucked inside his shirt. Accused did not ascertain whether victim was really armed, or warn him to drop his weapon. PEOPLE V. ROLANDO TABANGGAY G.R. NO. 130504 Accused was convicted of raping his 2 minor children. He was sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of death. HELD: Penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua. The victim’s minority was not sufficiently proved. In accusations involving incestuous rape, the relationship of the accused with the offended party as well as the latter’s age must be alleged in the information and proven by the prosecution with competent evidence during their trial. A bare photocopy of the victim’s birth certificate which is neither certified nor offered formally in evidence is not sufficient proof of the victim’s age. PEOPLE V. PEPE LOZADA G.R. NO. 130589 As Danilo Morin and his cousin were walking one evening, Lozada followed from behind and shot Morin to death. Lozada was convicted of murder appreciating treachery as a qualifying circumstance. HELD: Affirmed. There was treachery since Morin was unsuspectingly shot from behind. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk to himself. The 2 conditions for treachery to be considered as qualifying circumstance are: (1) employment of means, methods and manner of execution to ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim; (2) and the deliberate adoption of such means, methods and manner of execution. PEOPLE V. ARMANDO REANZARES G.R. NO. 130656 Accused was held guilty of highway robbery with homicide. defense. He questions credibility of witness. Accused interposed alibi as

HELD: For alibi to be believed it must be shown that: (a) the accused was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense; and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime

scene. This was not shown here. However, he cannot be held liable for highway robbery. Conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were organized for the purpose of committing it indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case that the accused and his cohorts organized themselves to commit highway robbery. Neither is there proof that they attempted to commit robbery as to show the “indiscriminate” perpetration thereof. On the other hand, what the prosecution established was only a single act of depredation is not what is contemplated under PD 532 as its objective is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another. Accused should be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide as the allegation in the information are enough to convict him therefore. PEOPLE V. REYNALDE LAZARTE G.R. NO. 130711 Accused was convicted of the crime of murder. Accused interposed self-defense. HELD: In instances where an accused acknowledges full responsibility for the death of the victim but claims self-defense, the burden of evidence is transferred to the accused to prove that his taking of a life was justified and that he did not incur any criminal liability for the same. In order that he may be acquitted, the accused must prove that the 3 circumstances are present, namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. Unlawful aggression was not proven. The alleged revolver used by the victim was not even presented in evidence. Further, accused did not even voluntarily surrender and opted to remain silent about the incident. A person claiming self-defense would have reported the incident to the police as he has nothing to hide. As to civil liability, aside from the ordinary indemnity of P50,000 accused is obliged to compensate the heirs of the victim for the latter’s lose of earning capacity and pay the heirs of the victim moral damages for the mental anguish suffered by them. PEOPLE V. ERNESTO SANTOS G.R. NO. 131103 & 143472 Accused was found guilty of 2 counts of rape of his 14 year old daughter. The information alleges that the crime was committed on or about sometime in 1988 and 1989. He avers that such allegations are indefinite and have deprived him of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. HELD: It is too late for the accused to question the form or substance of the information in these cases since he did not move to quash the information before he was arraigned. Further, in the crime of rape, the date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime. PEOPLE V. PACITA ORDONO G.R. NO. 132154 The 2 accused were convicted of the special complex crime of rape with homicide attended with conspiracy on the bases of their extra judicial confession. An interview with a radio announcer was also done where the 2 accused accepted responsibility for the crime. They now assail their conviction as their confession was attended by infirmities’ i.e. mainly the lack of counsel to assist them during custodial investigation. HELD: The absence of counsel renders the extra judicial confession inadmissible. The presence of the mayor, municipal judge and the family of the accused during the confession did not cure the defect. However, statements spontaneously made by a suspect to a news reporter on televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. By analogy, statements made by herein accused to a radio announcer should likewise be held admissible. The interview was

122477 Accused was convicted of murder. If the same are not pleaded. AGAPITO LISTERIO G. The amount of loss of earning capacity is based mainly on 2 factors: (1) the number of years of which the damages shall be computed. NO. He assails credibility of the witnesses. without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over alibi and denial which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. However. NO. had no earning capacity at the time of award. 122099 The accused was convicted of murder and frustrated murder committed with conspiracy. 137270 The accused was convicted of the crime of rape with the use of force. PEOPLE V. As appellant did not consciously adopt the means of attack. PEOPLE V. 132379-82 The 2 accused. JULY 2000 PEOPLE V. 2206 of the Civil Code. He assails the testimony of the witness as insufficient to convict him of her crime charged. He presented a letter written by the victim asking for money from the accused since she was leaving town.R. never on the weakness of that of the defense. HELD: . NO. and (2) the rate at which the losses sustained by the respondent should be fixed.000 in accordance with Art.R. aside from the civil indemnity in the amount of P50. stepfather and step grandfather of the victim. however. but are proved. Accused used sweetheart defense. and thus.R. such indemnity shall be assessed and awarded by the court. PEOPLE V. Appellant’s stabbing of the victim was done on an impulse. does not allege the relationship of the accused with the victim. Conviction always rests on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence. ARNOLD RATUNIL G. NO. EDISON ARELLANO G. Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter. appellant should be convicted of homicide not murder since treachery was not established. were convicted of rape and sentenced to suffer supreme penalty of death. treachery cannot be appreciated. The information. they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances. HELD: Positive identification. BENIDO ALCARTADO G. the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with great caution. for the crime is usually known only to her and to her rapist. HELD: In a rape case. HELD: The absence of the allegation of relationship in the information converted the crime to simple rape which is not punishable by death.not in the nature of an investigation. where categorical and consistent.R. unless the deceased on account of permanent and physical disability not caused by the defendant. the uncounselled confession did not violate accused’s constitutional rights. As regards the monetary award. The dubious behavior of the alleged victim after the rape detracts from her credibility and creates reasonable doubt that may lead to the acquittal of the accused.

R. Appellant contends that the trial court never acquired jurisdiction over the case because the complainant was signed and filed by the chief of police and not by the complainant. In the instant case. the offended party can initiate a prosecution for rape even if she is a minor. Said provision is not determinative of the jurisdiction of courts over the private offenses because the same is governed by the Judiciary law. HELD: Pursuant to Section 5. PEOPLE V. PETRONIL CASTILLO G. Further.R. the description of the criminal was detailed and fitted the accused. PEOPLE V. such that the testimony of a single. PEOPLE V. To establish the existence of a conspiracy. The records do not show how witness described appellant and which description enabled an anonymous person to point at appellant as the one who stabbed the victim. the crime was committed when a dance was being held. 130205 Accused was convicted of raping the 9 year old daughter of his live-in partner. The complaint required in Art 344 is but a condition precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties. KENNETH CANEDO G. NO. HELD: Accused acquitted on reasonable doubt. or it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. No woman would come out in the open. Although the victim in this case is no longer a minor. In the absence of these critical details of description. not the RPC. Once the violation of the law becomes known through a direct original participation initiated by the victim. we cannot adjudge whether the appellant was correctly and properly identified. All theses circumstances should make the identification of appellant difficult and we should be extra careful in evaluating witness’ testimony. Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. Conspiracy was also proven. Positive identification of malefactors should not be disregarded just because the name of some of them were supplied to the eyewitness. not numbered. NO. But in such cases. He assails the credibility of testimony since there are inconsistencies with the executed affidavit. 128382 Accused was convicted of murder. the requirement of Art 344 of the RPC to the effect that the offense of rape shall not be prosecuted excerpt upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents are satisfied. The fight was a rumble. unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. Court defer to the lower court’s findings consistent with the principle that the trial judge is the best and the most competent person who can weigh and evaluate the testimony of witnesses. direct proof is not essential since it may be shown by facts and circumstances from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged. 124391 Accused was convicted of raping a mentally retarded girl. these reliable details which could provide a good index for identification are missing. HELD: . trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused. If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect. ELMER YPARRAGUIRE G. conspiracy can be established.It is well settled that witnesses are to be weighed. The trial court found the witness’ testimony as candid and straightforward. participated in by a lot of people. inform the authorities of the injustice done to her. NO. The complaint simply starts the prosecutory proceeding but does not confer jurisdiction on the court to try the case.R. it is undisputed that she is a mental retardate and suffering from physical deformity. unless her purpose is to redress the wrong done against her honor. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.

the crime committed can only be homicide. ROBERT ARANETA G. the appellant’s uncorroborated defense of denial and alibi must fail. Applying this. his alibi cannot be appreciated. PEOPLE V. a charge . Our jurisprudence is exemplified by the holding that where 3 armed persons attacked the defenseless victim but there was no proof as to how the attack commence and treachery was not proved. (2) the witness degree of attention at that time. They also content that their identification in the police line up was a violation of their constitutional right and thus inadmissible. ROSENDO MENDEZ G. Thus. 130594 Accused was convicted of carnapping with homicide. it is sufficient that she was positive as to his physical identity as a participant in the shooting of her son from her personal knowledge for purposes of identifying him in the present case. NO. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out of court identification of suspects. Ergo.R. treachery and evident premeditation were not established. Considering that the victim when assaulted was unarmed. HELD: The failure of the information to state that the accused raped the victim “through force or intimidation” is not a fatal omission in this case because the complaint alleged the ultimate fact that the accused raped the victim “by means of force”. He assails the defective information. there was no violation of constitutional right. (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification. HELD: The appellant’s claim that witness was mistaken in naming him as “Gilbert Araneta” and not “Robert Araneta” does not destroy her credibility and is not sufficient to exculpate him. HELD: Alibis are generally considered with suspicion and are always received with caution. The witnesses positively identified the 3 accused inside the jail. Appellant’s defense is alibi and denial. However. courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors: (1) he witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. 132546 Accused was found guilty of raping his 16 year old step daughter. therefore. Ex parte affidavits are generally considered incomplete and inaccurate and will thus not prevail over a witness statements on the stand. he was therefore no match to his 3 adversaries who were all armed with handguns. the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime and (b) that it would be physically impossible for him to have her at the scene of the crime. for alibi to serve as a basis for acquittal. Given the positive identification made by the lone prosecution witness. The 3 accused were in the company of other inmates. He anchors his defense on mistaken identity and denial and alibi. they were in a group. the fact that there were 3 armed assailants would constitute abuse of superior strength. not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable. the appellant could have readily ascertained that he was being accused of rape committed through force. Abuse of superiority was however established. NO.R. (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. NO. (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness. but also because they can easily be fabricated. For even assuming that the accused real name is Robert.R. 137604 The accused was convicted of the crime of murder. such omissions did not diminish nor affect her credibility as a witness. not murder. PEOPLE V. So at the outset. ORLIE SULTAN G. Since accused was unable to present witnesses to corroborate his testimony.Although there are omissions in the affidavit. PEOPLE V.

more so if she is a minor. appellant’s alibi and self-serving denial cannot prosper. NO. the witness’ testimony is even double or multiple hearsay since it is based upon “third hand” information related to the witness by someone who heard it from others. Multiple hearsay is no more competent than single hearsay. HELD: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was appellant who perpetrated the killing.R. Motive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is suspect. HELD: Established is the rule that testimonies of rape victims especially of child victims are given full weight and credit. Section 36 of Rule 130 provides that a witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge that is.R. PEOPLE V.R. Appellants point out that they have no reason to assault the deceased since they had never any quarrel with the victim. ROBERT FIGUEROA G. The child’s competence as a witness are: (a) capacity of observation. NO. he should likewise be acquitted. He assails credibility of witness and interposed alibi as defense. (c) capacity of communication. the appellant can be held liable only for simple rape. whether orally or in writing. The information given by the witnesses at the identity of appellant is hearsay. He interposed alibi ad defense. FERNANDO DIASANTA G. 128108 Accused was convicted of the crime of rape committed against his 12 year old daughter. However. They also assail the credibility of the child witness. The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told him. PEOPLE V. In fact. (b) capacity of recollection. He contends that since his alleged coconspirator was acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence to prove that she conspired with him. PEOPLE V. RAELITO LIBRANDO G. she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. It is also well-established that any child regardless of age can be competent witness if he can perceive and can make known his perceptions to others and that he is capable of relating truthfully facts for which he is examined. The child’s lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. 124514 Accused was convicted of murder. HELD: . NO. PEOPLE V. 134056 Accused was convicted of violating Sec 14-A of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 972 – Unauthorized manufacture of regulated drugs.that sufficiently complies with Art 335. HELD: While it is true that they have no motive to assault the deceased. except as otherwise provided in the rules. nevertheless. which are derived from his own perception. BERNARDINO CARANGUIAN G.R. when in truth the actual relationship of the appellant with the victim is that of stepfather and stepdaughter. since the information alleges that the victim was his daughter. says that she has been rapes. Well settled is the rule that when a woman. Considering the categorical and unequivocal testimonies of the victim and an eyewitness. 132251 The accused were convicted of murder. it is hornbook knowledge that crimes have been attributed to persons who appear to have no reasons for committing them as long as they have been clearly identified as the offenders. NO.

It is settled that since a medical certificate involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an expert witness. 133985 Accused was convicted of raping a 7 year old girl. it could not be given weight nor credit unless the doctor who issued it be presented in court to show his qualifications. PEOPLE V. 129593 143533-35 Accused was convicted of 2 counts of illegal recruitment and 2 counts of estafa. indicate appellant’s intent to deceive and defraud at the time he issued the check. One of the accused is a youth offender and was thus placed under the custody of DSWD. 125550 Accused was convicted of the crime of robbery with multiple rape. In any case. He insists that the “stop payment” order was made in good faith and was not meant to evade payment of the debt. NO. EVANGELINE ORDONO G.R. taken together. NO. It follows then that if the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy. PEOPLE V. The testimonies of complainant corroborated each other and were buttressed by other prosecution witnesses.R. HELD: To be convicted for illegal recruitment. appellant’s criminal liability in this case must be judged on the basis of his own acts as established by the quantum of proof required in criminal cases.R. HELD: Despite his denials during testimony. LEONCIO ALIVIANO G. DSWD recommended that the case of the accused be dismissed and his custody be transferred to his father after taking into account the minor’s performance in the rehabilitation center. medical certificate is not indispensable to prove the commission of rape. of which are recoverable from the same bank account. 2 elements must concur: (1) the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers. Appellant contends that his conviction should be reversed because the element of fraud or deceit was not proven. he immediately ordered the drawee bank to stop its payment. NO. and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of “recruitment and placement”. It is merely a corroborative evidence. PEOPLE V. These were also established in the case. He interposed denial and assails the admissibility of the medical certificate since the doctor who prepared it was not presented. The indeterminate sentence law must also be applied. The lone testimony of the complainant which is credible and free from serious and material contradictions is sufficient to warrant the conviction of appellant. Then knowing that the balance is not sufficient to cover complainant’s check. NO. it is obvious that appellant was aware at the time he made the postdated checks for several creditors that he would have several debts maturing at the same time. The 2 elements were proven. These circumstances. PEOPLE V. the alleged conspirators should be held individually responsible for their own respective acts.Once a conspiracy is established. and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused by offended party. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit.R. 133028 Accused was convicted of estafa. Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth. the act of one is the act of all. Accordingly. and each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes committed by the other conspirators. HELD: . LUDIGARIO CANDELARIO G. HELD: Concededly. MEYNARD PANGANIBAN G. the subject medical certificate cannot be given any probative value.

HELD: The testimony of a sole witness. testimony taken at the trial on the merits of the case where the adverse party has the . it is possible for appellant to be present at the scene of the crime. PEOPLE V. Where the DSWD recommends the discharge of a youthful offender. PEOPLE V. For the defense of alibi to prosper. HELD: A witness who testified in a categorical. He points inconsistencies between the witness’ testimony and her declarations during preliminary investigation. While transcripts of a preliminary investigation may form part of the records of the case.R. 118967 Accused was convicted of murder. The youthful offender however is not to be tries anew by the trial court. it is essential that he can show physical impossibility for him to be at the locus criminis.R. Defense interposed denial and alibi. When the accused was positively identified by the victim who harbored no ill motive against the accused. PEOPLE V. misapprehended or misapplied. HELD: For alibi to be tenable. NO. FEDERICO ULGASAN G. He assails the credibility of witness. Here. 131824-26 Accused was convicted of 3 counts of rape committed against an 11 year old girl. The inquiry is not a criminal prosecution but is rather limited to the determination of the offender’s proper education and his moral and social fitness to re-join the community. He questions sufficiency of evidence to HELD: As a rule. PEOPLE V.R. Recommendation alone is not sufficient to warrant the release of a youthful offender.The Final Report and Recommendation of the DSWD should be referred to the RTC for its appropriate action and disposition. NO. malicious and oppressive prosecution. NO. He interposed alibi as defense. warrant conviction. Accused interposed denial and alibi. should not be equated with testimonies before the court. the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is binding on appellate courts. 137276 Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide. the court a quo committed serious lapses which warrant the acquittal of the appellant. 130587 Accused was convicted of kidnapping with murder. He questions credibility of sole witness and testimonies being insufficient to sustain conviction. the defense of alibi must fail. ROLDAN BOHOL G. accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime. absent any fact or circumstance of weight and substance that may have been overlooked. if found convincing and credible by the trial court is sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. straightforward. ERNESTO DELA CRUZ G. spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness. the alleged place where the accused was at the time of the crime was only 40 meters from the place where the victim was shot. Declarations at the preliminary investigation which are conducted to determine the existence of a probable cause and to secure the innocent against hasty.R. NO. It was not physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time of the shooting. In this case. In the case at bar. it is the trial court before whom the report and recommendation is subject to judicial review. MARCOS MUCAM G.

In this case. they are inferior to testimony given in court and whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court. not having been ascertained. It is not only the sudden attack that qualifies a killing into murder.R. Be that as it may. PEOPLE V. sworn statements that are taken ex-parte are generally incomplete and therefore. only 1witnes was presented. VALENTIN MATIBAG G. ROLANDO BAYBADO G. Previous statements cannot serve as bases for impeaching the credibility of a witness unless his attention was first directed to the discrepancies and he was then given an opportunity to explain them. BERNARDO DAROY . The veracity of her statements. A sudden and unexpected attack would not constitute alevosia where the aggressor did not consciously adopt a mode of attack intended to penetrate the homicide without risk to himself. should not have been given any probative value at all. However. There was no treachery. It is only when no reasonable explanation is given by a witness in reconciling his conflicting declarations that he should be deemed impeached.R. HELD: Affidavits or statements taken ex-parte are generally considered incomplete and inaccurate. He interposed alibi as defense. inconsistencies between the declaration of the affiant in his sworn statements and those in open court do not necessarily discredit said witness. Thus. Similarly. PEOPLE V. Further. 128900 Accused was convicted of murder. HELD: Their extrajudicial statement of the witness who was not placed in the witness stand should not be considered because it deprived the defense of its right to cross-examination. it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. PEOPLE V. discrepancies between statements made on the witness stand and those in an affidavits are generally subordinated in importance in open court declarations because they are often times not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired. 110515 Accused was convicted of murder. He questions credibility of witness because the latter’s first statement differed with his succeeding statements and his testimony in open court. It was a spur of the moment crime. NO. where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies.full opportunity to cross-examine the witness and to ferret out the truth. The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the experience of mankind. All the evidence shows was that the incident was an impulse killing. deserves more credence. HELD: For evidence to be believed. PEOPLE V. 132136 Accused was convicted for raping his own daughter. There must be a conscious and deliberate adoption of the mode of attack for a specific purpose. Information however failed to allege the minority of the complainant. her testimony is merely corroborative and its exclusion will not affect the finding of guilt of the accused. NO. Accused however is guilty only of simple rape as there was no allegation as to the minority of the complainant. the testimony commands greater weight. Moreover. by nature. in an appeal.R. ALBERTO ANTONIO G. Whatever is repugnant to these standards becomes incredible that lies outside pf judicial cognizance. the testimony of appellant barely meets the minimum standard of credibility. Statements from 2 witnesses were taken.. NO. findings of trial court are entitled to and given the highest degree of respect.

NO. The same degree of proof required to establish the crime is necessary to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy. conduct and attitude at the trial. The conviction of the 2 accused was based largely on the alleged dying declaration of the victim made to 2 witnesses of the prosecution and the apparent weakness of their defense. Defense challenges the HELD: Despite non presentation of POEA officer to testify. consequently. A conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. hence. NO. PEOPLE V. (3) the declarant was competent as a witness. acquiescence or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a conspirator. (2) at the time it was made. the burden of proof rests upon him who alleges the contrary. conspiracy must be proven in the same manner as any element of the criminal ct itself. NO. Public documents are entitled to presumption of regularity.G. demeanor. (4) the declaration was offered in a criminal case for murder. Defense questions the credibility of witnesses. there must be proof that 2 or more persons agreed to commit the crime. To establish conspiracy. the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death. HELD: Court is not convinced that conspiracy to defraud complainant was proven.R. However. It is the unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. POEA certification is a pubic document issued by a public officer in the performance of an official duty. sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. The requirement are: (1) it must concern the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death. HELD: Dying declaration is one of the exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility of hearsay evidence. PEOPLE V. In the instant case. 118942 The accused was convicted of murder. it is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. absent any active participation in the commission of the crime. Defense interposed alibi as defense. 130742 Accused was convicted of estafa. with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. it must be shown to exist s clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. The matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed or carried out by a trial judge. ANTHONY MELCHOR PALMONES G. 132289 Accused was found guilty of illegal recruitment in large scale. And to be he basis of conviction.R.R. NO. ANICETA AQUINO G. it was not established by the prosecution that the statements of the declarant were . HELD: Well-entrenched is the tenet that this Court will not interfere with the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses absent any indication or showing that the trial court has overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion. the POEA certification will suffice to prove that she has no permit to engage in the business. 136303 The accused were convicted of murder. who. homicide or parricide where the declarant was the victim. that is. mere knowledge. unlike appellate magistrate. Trial court found conspiracy on the acts of the accused appellant of facilitating and initiating the meeting between the other 2 accused and the complainant and in convincing the latter to sell rice to the former and following it up till the delivery of the same. PEOPLE V. BETH BANZALES G.R. can weigh such testimony in light of the accused’s behavior.

ROLANDO CARDEL G. DOMINADOR GUILLERMO G. rather than from a deliberate act of will. is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Conspiracy was not proven. Also. He was sentenced by the trial court to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death. They boxed and stabbed a snatcher who was caught while running with the loot. Defense interposed alibi.R. or after the commission of a crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the occasion ands there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. It has been the rule that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. NO. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. if an accused is found guilty of a felony for which the law prescribes a penalty composed of 2 indivisible penalties. the trial court judge has to impose one or the other. in itself. In order to admit the statements as evidence part of res gestae. It is axiomatic that the prosecution must establish conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: Under Art. the lesser penalty of Reclusion Perpetua should be imposed. the appellant does not appear to have consciously adopted the mode of attack to facilitate the killing of the victim without risk to himself. Res gestae refers to those exclamations and statements made by either the participants. No proof to this effect was ever presented by the prosecution. Abuse of superior strength may not be appreciated to qualify the killing to the crime of murder for the reason that the same is not alleged in the information. the element of spontaneity is critical. The existence of conspiracy is never presumed. The burden must be discharged by it on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense or the lack of it. Where treachery is alleged. Hence. The overriding consideration is not . NO.R. Defense interposed alibi. PEOPLE V. appellant will be separately adjudged according to the extent of their individual participation in the commission of the crime charged in the information. The “onus probandi” in establishing the guilt of an accused for a criminal offense lies with the prosecution. ARIEL PEDROSO G. PEOPLE V. HELD: The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellants by the prosecution witnesses. not both. thus negating the existence of treachery. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. or spectators to a crime immediately before. It cannot be presumed or concluded merely on the basis of the resulting crime. 111292 The accused were convicted of murder.R.made under the consciousness of impending death. the manner of attack must be proven. The fact that the victim had a stab wound at the back is not. The stabbing was the result of a rash and impetuous impulse of the moment. HELD: Prosecution witness’ inconsistencies are more than enough to engender some doubt as to the guilt of the appellants. Neither may the alleged statements be admissible as part of the res gestae. NO. Since no aggravating circumstance was alleged in the information and since neither was any mitigating circumstance established by the defense. 105582 The accused were convicted of murder. during. Conspiracy. or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who are to act in judgment. victims. 125128 The accused was convicted of robbery with homicide. treachery and abuse of superior strength were found by the trial court. Treachery was also not present. PEOPLE V. indicative of treachery.

R. Accused’s acts of not confronting their accuser goes against the principle that the first impulse of an innocent man when accused with wrong doing is to express his innocence at the first opportune time. It is settled that where the evidence of the prosecution is itself feeble.R. PEOPLE V. JIMMY ANTONIO G. The prosecution presented evidence to show that a notice of dishonor had been sent to appellant. otherwise. Conviction was rendered based on the testimony of he eyewitness. (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check. (3) the payee has been defrauded. Inconsistencies irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds to reverse the conviction.R.whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. ALEJANDRO SURILLA G. HELD: . such must refer to significant facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of the accused. ERNST GEORG HOLZER G. In this case. The drawer of the dishonored check is given 3 days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to deposit the amount necessary to cover the check. HELD: Trial court relied on the weakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the prosecution evidence. LIBERATO GIGANTO. by emphasizing that alibi is a weak defense. PEOPLE V. appellants were at large for 5 years. The inconsistencies pointed out cannot overthrow the trial court’s conviction. the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. HELD: Credible. The defense interposed alibi. Flight indicates guilt. PEOPLE V. HELD: The elements of estafa involved in this case are: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance.R. 128149 The accused was found guilty of 3 counts of rape. Otherwise. The complainant actually knew at the time of the issuance of the check that it was not funded and that the money to cover it was still to come from Switzerland. the accused would be put in the difficult position of proving his innocence even where the prosecution’s evidence is vague and weak. no evidence of deceit accompanied the issuance of the check. a prima facie presumption of deceit will arise which must then be overcome by the accused. Appellants make issue of the trial. 132323 The accused were convicted of estafa. 123077 The accused were convicted of murder. Further. particularly as to the identity of the accused as the author of the crime. NO. NO. 129164 The accused was found guilty of the crime of rape committed against his 14 year old daughter. the defense of alibi assumes importance and acquires commensurate strength. NO. natural and convincing testimony of the victim is sufficient basis to convict. Appellants contend that their liability is only civil and not criminal since the check was issued only to secure the loan they obtained from complainant and that there was no deceit on their part because they duly informed the complainant that the check was not yet funded. It must rely on the strength of its evidence and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases. For a discrepancy in testimony to acquit. The prosecution cannot profit from the weakness of the appellant’s alibi. court’s reliance on the victim’s testimony. NO. SR. PEOPLE V. G.

134777-78 Accused was found guilty of murder and frustrated murder. the contract of sale was not consummated and inevitably. which can be awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the victim. . appellant’s denial of the commission of the crime and imputation of the same to another person is demolished to obscurity. his bare denial amounts to nothing more than negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. Flight is an implied admission of guilt and his desire to evade responsibility therefore. NO. 130500 & 143834 The accused was found guilty of 2 counts of rape against his 15 year old daughter of his common law spouse. the imputation of the crime to another malefactor was heard of only during his testimony. PEOPLE V. (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only 2 persons are usually involved. Considering that there was no payment made.R. ROLAND MOLINA G.R. there being one aggravating circumstance. and was never raised before the police authorities during the investigation.000 may be awarded in both murder and frustrated murder case pursuant to Art 2230 of the New Civil Code. which was further corroborated by an eyewitness to the scene. NO. Besides. what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of illicit drug took place between the seller and the poseur-buyer. In every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. PEOPLE V. the court can only grant such amount for expenses if they are supported by receipts.R. the payment of the contract price is essential to consummate the transaction. Clearly. Further. Here. 133568 Accused was found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1072. She theorizes that in a contract of sale. prevailing jurisprudence sets the civil indemnity for death in the amount of P50. the accused escaped from jail and was only recaptured. Moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses resulting in physical injuries but there must be a factual basis for the award. As to the amount of damages. Death penalty however cannot be imposed because relationship of complainant with the accused was not alleged in the information. FEDERICO CAMPANER G. The absence of the marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. exemplary damages in the amount of P30. HELD: As weighed against the positive identification of accused by one of his victims. It punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused. Appellant questions judgment of conviction because there was no showing that a sale of prohibited drug took place.000. Accused denied commission of the crime and imputed the same to another person. HELD: Under Sec 4. and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. With respect to actual damages. and the absence of any showing of illmotive on their part other than their quest for justice. PEOPLE V. the accused cannot be convicted for the illegal sale of prohibited drug. the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. the trial court’s finding as to the credibility of the complainant’s testimony deserve respect. She argues that the prosecution has failed to establish that money or specifically “marked money” was paid or exchanged hands between her and the supposed poseur-buyer. As to exemplary damages. SALVACION CAPARAS G.There are 3 guiding principles in rape cases: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility. the act of selling or acting as broker in a sale of marijuana and other prohibited drugs consummates the crime. though innocent to disprove. NO.

for alibi to be validly invoked. absence of threats does not negate the charge of rape.R.R. rather than weaken.R. He contends that there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt to warrant his acquittal. It is such a doubt that a reasonable man may entertain after a fair review and consideration of the evidence.HELD: In evaluating the credibility of rape victims. On the contrary. the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists. Although it is true that there were no physical injuries found in the victim’s body. Accused executed an extrajudicial confession. PEOPLE V. and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit. HELD: “Reasonable doubt” is not a mere guess that the appellant may or may not be guilty. he should be exonerated. resulting to moral ascendancy of the former over the latter. these mistakes in fact strengthen. He questions the credibility of witnesses. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and if her testimony meets the test of credibility. especially one who is of tender age. his open court testimony is . PEOPLE V. no law nor jurisprudence holds that non-flight per se is conclusive proof of his innocence. But. as the witness is narrating the details of a harrowing experience. JAIME BALACANO G. However. 112449-50 Accused was convicted of (1) robbery with rape and (2) highway robbery. When a victim says she has been raped. 127156 Accused was found guilty of the crime of rape committed against his 14 year old step daughter. PEOPLE V.R. So long as the testimony is consistent on material points. absence of bodily threats does not matter where there is an existing relationship between the appellant and the victim. slightly conflicting statements will not undermine the witness’ credibility nor the veracity of her testimony. NO. NO. He contends that since he did not flee from his residence. RICARDO TORTOSA G. the Court has ruled that the lone testimony of the victim may suffice to convict the rapist. PEOPLE V. in rape cases. HELD: The trial court did not err in giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witness. RAMIL SAMOLDE G. death cannot be imposed since the relationship of the complainant with the accused was not alleged in the information. However. Further. He also admitted in open court to the commission of the crime. NO. time and again. 128551 Accused was convicted of murder. It is a state of mind engendered by insufficient proof. HELD: It is true that the flight of an accused is competent evidence against him tending to establish his guilt. the complainant’s credibility as they erase suspicion that the testimony is rehearsed. Further.116739 Accused was convicted of murder. However. The record is bereft of any evidence to show that the witnesses had improper motive to testify falsely against appellant and the rule is well settled that absent evidence showing any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perjure. the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. MARCELINO SAN JUAN G. HELD: Extrajudicial confession of accused is not admissible in evidence. the court has repeatedly held that it is not unnatural for inconsistencies to creep into the testimony of a rape victim. the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but must also establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime. NO. He was not informed of his constitutional right before his statements were taken.

her testimony should not have been given credence by the trial court. Defense argues that prosecution failed to establish the identity of the assailant. The phrase “deprived of reason” has been construed to include those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency or some other form of mental retardation. treachery was properly appreciated. Further. he contends that victim consented with the sex. Further. However. easy to fabricate and highly unreliable. AUGUST 2000 PEOPLE V. Accused is to be convicted under Art 335 par 2. complainant showed that she was qualified to be a witness. OSCAR MANSUETO G. NO. He contends that as complainant is schizophrenic. She could perceive and was capable of making known her perceptions to others. PEOPLE V. HELD: In cases where the victim is raped in a state of unconsciousness. those who are feebleminded although coherent.R. The victim was raped when unconscious. 135196 The accused was convicted of murder. Defense interposed denial and alibi. ERIC BAID G. NO. 126648 Accused was convicted of rape.R. NO. HELD: Alibi is an inherently weak defense. it should be stressed that complainant was in no position to give her consent. the defense of alibi is so weak. NO. he accused must not only prove that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. His subsequent allegation that he was given money to accept culpability deserves scant consideration. The mode of attack ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the accused. Further. 133246 Accused was convicted of murder. The presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted to do so by truth and conscience. What is important is that the victim was attacked even before he and his companions could get out of the tricycle. FRANCISCO VILLANOS G. 129667 Accused was convicted of rape committed against a mental patient. Judicial confession constitutes evidence of a high order. HELD: Notwithstanding her mental illness. the fact of sexual assault and the identity of the assailant can be established from the events preceding or following the .R. rape of a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. accused went into hiding. For said defense to prosper. ANTONIO DE LA TONGGA G.enough to convict him. PEOPLE V. In order to prosper. Although complainant herself admitted that she agreed to have sex with him after he gave her a stick of cigarette. Further. it must be so convincing as to preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime.R. HELD: The finding of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses deserves respect. this was not shown here. PEOPLE V. Her testimony indicates that she could understand questions particularly relating to the incident and could give her responsive answers to them. Flight has been held to be an indication of guilt. The fact that the victim had been forewarned by somebody against possible attack does not negate the presence of treachery.

Even if the victim was not familiar with the precise date of the commission of the offense and the time of its occurrence. Under the circumstances. with clear and convincing evidence must establish all the following requisites: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. In the case at bar. RAMWELL LOMIBAO G. this fact does not convince the court that she was not raped by him. A judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained only when the circumstances proved form an . admits being the author of the killing. unless it be clearly shown that the latter could have overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily the facts and circumstances of significance in the case. PEOPLE V. Defense assails credibility of prosecution’s lone witness. The absence of convincing evidence showing any improper motive on the part of the principal witness for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive exists. 135855 Accused was convicted of raping his 11 year old daughter. by setting up self-defense. death sentence cannot be imposed in the absence of the qualifying circumstance. BLAS ROSARIO G. HELD: Assessment of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competence of the trial courts. The denial of the accused cannot prevail over the categorical testimony of the victim that he raped her. and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. A positive identification of the accused made by an eyewitness prevails over such a defense. 113446 Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide. (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. ELMER FEGIDERO G. However. elements are present: (1) there is more than one circumstance. He was committed based on circumstantial evidence.R. since relationship was not alleged in the information. conviction is inevitable because the accused. NO. 122769 Accused were convicted of murder. But this is of little consequence as the same is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. PEOPLE V. NO.R.R. Appellate courts will not disturb the credence. True. HELD: Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. PEOPLE V. Upon failure to establish these requisites. PONCIANO AGLIPA G. the findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence. who. Defense interposed self-defense. HELD: Defense of alibi is the weakest of all defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove. NO. NO. it suffices that the victim was found to have been unconscious at the time the offender had carnal knowledge of her. HELD: The burden of proof shifts to the person invoking self-defense. 130941 Accused was found guilty of murder and frustrated murder. accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of the witnesses. The date of commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.victim’s loss of consciousness. (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it. PEOPLE V. Circumstantial evidence suffices to convict if the ff. or lack of it. (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense. Defense interposed denial. there was no test conducted to determine the presence of any sedative or drug in the drinks given to the victims which caused them to lose momentarily control of their faculties.R.

The lone testimony of the victim. the combination of all the circumstancial evidence presented established the participation of the accused in the robbery and death of the victim. physical evidence of bruises and scratches on her face or arms which were allegedly pinned behind her back would have spoken louder than words.unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused. in the case at bar. although it was established during the trial that the victim was only 11 years old at the time the crime was committed. PEOPLE V. It is not an element of . if the person detained is a child. In the case at bar. PEOPLE V.R. Two days after the taking of the child.R. CRISPIN CANONIGO G. For there to be kidnapping.R. The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is in having carnal knowledge with a girl under 12 years of age.R. 133649 Accused was convicted of statutory rape committed against an 11 year old girl in full view of the latter’s 5 year old sister. however. straightforward. JOCELYN ACBANGIN G. HELD: There is an absence of physical evidence to corroborate victim’s claim of resistance. PEOPLE V. it is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure. she was treated well. is enough basis for the accused’s prosecution and conviction. HELD: In cases of kidnapping. the information filed against the accused charged him with having carnal knowledge of a girl who is 12 years of age. True. Further. The intention to deprive the child’s parents of her custody is indicated by the accused’s hesitation for 2 days to disclose the whereabouts of the child and more so by her actual taking of the child. DELANO MENDIOLA G. In the case a bar. spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent is a credible witness. PEOPLE V. trial court erred in considering this as statutory rape. the attendant aggravating circumstance that the victim was raped in full view of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity was not alleged in the information filed against the accused. NO. as in this case. NO. It is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. she informed the child’s parents of the whereabouts of the child. 134679 Accused was convicted of rape. BERNALDO DOCDOC G. Death was imposed. The child in this case was deprived of liberty. where the victim’s narration of the rape incident is open to doubt and does not jibe with human experience. to the exclusion of all others. which if credible and free from any serious and material contradictions. NO. HELD: A rape victim who testifies in a categorical. the law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance where force was used on her. HELD: Death cannot be imposed. the question is whether there was actual deprivation of the child’s liberty and whether it was the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the custody of the child. Accused’s motive at this point is not relevant. To effectively prosecute for statutory rape. its elements must be set out in the complaint or information to apprise the accused of the crime of which he is being charged. Verily. there is still kidnapping. In the case at bar. However. 134846 Accused was convicted of raping his 5 year old daughter. NO. as the culprit. 117216 Accused was convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

R. Further. a mental retardate who has the ability to make known her perceptions is still a competent witness. NO. It was not physically impossible therefore. (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this case. rape the victim and go back to his work.the crime. To be a competent child witness. (b) capacity of recollection. the following must be met: (a) capacity of observation. VIVENCIO LABUGUEN G. NO. He was convicted based on circumstantial evidence. AGAPITO AGRAVANTE G. PEOPLE V. (c) capacity of communication PEOPLE V. PEDRO DUCTA G. PEOPLE V. for the accused to be at the crime scene. HELD: State of mental retardation of a victim of rape can be established by evidence other than the medical findings of a specialist. The testimony of the child is also credible. 119955 Accused was convicted of raping a 14 year old retardate. 120672 Accused was found guilty of estafa. NO. MARIO MYRNO TAN G. A witness’ young age will not deter him or her from being a competent and credible witness.R. PEOPLE V. Appellant contends that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove that the merchandise he ordered were delivered to and received by him or his authorized . 127849 Accused was convicted of robbery with homicide. the crime was consummated. So also. HELD: Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) there is more than one circumstance. In this case. The term “deprived of reason” has been construed to include the feeble-minded although coherent and those suffering from mental deficiency or some form of mental disorder. the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses spawn and generate facts which constitute an unbroken chain of events leading to the inevitable conclusion of guilt on the part of the appellant. HELD: A mental retardate is not for this reason alone disqualified from being a witness. The fact that she later on felt remorse and showed the child’s parents where the former was. the court has said that a woman need not be completely deprived of reason for sexual intercourse by a man with her to constitute the crime of rape. cannot absolve her. NO. PEOPLE V. the victim was able to intelligently make known such perceptions or narrate them truthfully despite the grueling examination by both prosecutor and defense counsel. He contends that victim’s testimony is unreliable because of her mental capacity or state of mind. 134608 Accused was convicted of raping a 43 year old retarded woman. At that point.R. HELD: Not only was accused’s alibi weak. 132062 Accused was convicted of raping a 10 year old child.R. POTENCIANO ARCO G.R. Defense interposed denial and alibi. it also did not rule out the possibility of his having committed the crime. Defense interposed alibi. (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. NO.

PEOPLE V. HELD: Conspiracy exists when 2 or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy and treachery were found by court.R. the accused escaped from jail. there is no ample proof that appellant or his representatives ever received the merchandise. NO. appellant cannot be held guilty of estafa. HELD: Basic is the rule that alibi which is easy to concoct cannot prevail over the positive identification by the witnesses. The contract of purchase and sale is reciprocal and from it arises not only the obligation to deliver the thing but also that of paying the price. he argues. if such testimony meets the test of credibility.R. Appellant interposed the defense of denial and alibi. He cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Court to seek a review of his conviction after he has made a mockery of the judicial process by escaping from prison. HELD: Art 315 (2)(d) of the RPC penalizes any person who shall defraud another by postdating a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender has no funds in the bank. Treachery was also correctly appreciated as the method employed in the execution of the crime ensured no risk to the assailants arising from the defense which their victims might put up. In this case. 123853 Accused was convicted of murder. he cannot be held liable for estafa since he was not able to obtain the goods from the private complainant by means of the check he issued. PEOPLE V. standing alone. As such.representatives. PEDRO GABIANA G. HELD: His appeal should be dismissed. However. NO. PEOPLE V. Defense questions adequacy of evidence and finding of treachery. can be made the basis of accused’s prosecution and conviction. this does not affect the review in criminal cases where death penalty had been imposed because review in such case is not only automatic but also mandatory. The matter of accuracy of the identification by the victim of the offenders is a factual issue resolved by the trial court which should be given weight . On appeal to CA. NO. 129217 The 2 accused were convicted of murder. Since no damage was sustained by complainant in as much as appellant received nothing of value from the complainant. What is more. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. IAN CONTRERAS G. He had no obligation to pay or to make good the issued check. his testimony. PEOPLE V. AGUSTIN AGPAWAN G. FELIX ANTIDO G. 137123-34 Accused was convicted of raping several children.R. 123543 Accused was convicted of raping an 11 year old girl. HELD: One of the witnesses is a victim himself having been stabbed by the appellant. Thus. The transaction between the parties here is in the nature of contract of sale. Conspiracy was established in the instant case by the concerted and synchronized actions of the accused and his companions in carrying out the ambush. appellant utterly failed to prove that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of his commission. NO.R.

He contends that death penalty should not be imposed since the information accuse him of rape under Art 335 par 3 which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. HELD: Conviction of appellant for statutory rape absent any allegation in the information that the complainants were below 12 years old at the time of the rape and not for rape through force or intimidation which was the method alleged would violate the right of the appellant to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him. but from the actual recital of facts alleged in the body of the information.on appeal. An unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia and the fact that the act was frontal does not preclude the presence of treachery. when the accused invokes self-defense. In the case at bar. . However. The victims testified that appellant was not able to insert his penis into their vagina because they kept on moving in an effort to evade the sex organ of the appellant. NO. Lack of penetration cannot exculpate appellant. Accused invoked self-defense. In incestuous rape. PEOPLE V. The real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the law allegedly violated. HELD: What is controlling in an information should not be the title of the complaint. by and large. he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution’s evidence. thus cannot be given weight. although the prosecutor established that complainants were below 12 years old at the time of the rape. The information indicted him for the crime of rape with force and intimidation under par 1 of Art. PEOPLE CARLOS MENEQUE G. was not sufficiently alleged in the information. 123156-59 Accused was found guilty of statutory rape for raping his own daughters. but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein cited.R. The slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or labia of the pudendum constitutes rape. it could not be disbelieved after the accused’s open admission of responsibility for the killing. HELD: A plea of self-defense automatically shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense since such a plea means that the accused admits to having performed the criminal act. Convicting appellant of a crime not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the offense alleged would be unfair and underhanded. nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated. which right is granted by the Constitution. PEOPLE V. mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor. the absence of violence or offer of resistance by the victim would not matter because of the overpowering and overbearing moral ascendancy by the father over his daughter. appellant’s testimony is uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence. they recounted that the penis of appellant touched the lips of their vagina and they felt pain in the process. these being. the relationship to the victim. Settled is the rule that complete penetration is not essential. but disclaims legal liability on the ground that his life had been exposed to harm first before he committed the act in defense of himself. for even if the latter were weak. the force or intimidation employed by the culprit and resistance put up by the victim are not necessary for the conviction of the perpetrator. 129964-65 Accused was convicted of 2 counts of murder. apart from self-serving statements.R. NO. 335. 132045 Accused was convicted of raping his 9 year old niece. However. RENATO PUZON G.R. while proven by competent evidence. Thus. unless there are convincing indications that certain facts or circumstances of weight and significance have been overlooked. ROBERTO BANIHIT G. However. NO.

In their defense. He contends that accused and complainant were actually lovers. 133999-4001 Accused was convicted of 3 counts of rape committed against the 11 year old daughter of his common law wife. PEOPLE V. 2 elements must be established to hold the accused guilty of rape: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman. when taken without the assistance of counsel without a valid waver of such assistance regardless of the absence of coercion. NO.R. whether verbal or non-verbal.R. a careful examination of the evidence on record shows that while the prosecution witnesses differ in their narration of trivial details like those mentioned on appeal. or the fact that it had been voluntarily given.R. A suspect’s confession. The charge is only rendered doubtful if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. HELD: It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may notice while the other may not observe or remember. However. He assails delay in filing of complaint and interposed alibi as defense. In fact. Her consent to the intercourse is involuntary because she is considered to have no will of her own. it could not be readily dismissed after the accused had openly admitted his responsibility for the killing. Proof of consent of the woman is immaterial. CESAR MELENDRES G. MARIO LACBAYAN G. who is neither police officer nor a law enforcement agent is admissible. HELD: In rape cases falling under Art 335 (3) – when the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented.R. An extrajudicial confession was made. HELD: By itself. SEGUNDO CANO G. the onus probandi to show that the killing was justified shifts to him. HELD: Extrajudicial statement is inadmissible because of violation of constitutional rights during custodial investigation. jurisprudence even warns against a perfect dove tailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and rehearsed. Even if the prosecution’s evidence was weak. ALBERTO DANO G. even if appellant’s confession were gospel truth. They assail the credibility of prosecution witnesses by pointing to alleged inconsistencies. (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. 125006 The 2 accused were convicted of murder. Finally. is inadmissible in evidence. his statements made to the barangay captain. NO. When an accused invokes self-defense. 117690 Acused was convicted of murder. . NO. Sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years old is statutory rape. PEOPLE V. delay in prosecuting rape is not an indication of fabricated charges. NO. 130631 Accused was convicted of 2 counts of rape committed against his 15 year old daughter. SEPTEMBER 2000 PEOPLE V.PEOPLE V. they did not waver in their identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. appellants denied any knowledge of the incident. Defense interposed self-defense.

(2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only 2 persons are usually involved. Defense put up denial and alibi.R. There is no showing of improper motive. is sufficient to produce a conviction. but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent. the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with extreme caution. PEOPLE V. HELD: There are 3 guiding principles in reviewing rape cases: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility. though innocent. PEOPLE V. Even if the complainant is less than chaste.R.R. Appellants likewise failed to show any ill-motive on the part of the witness. The moral character of the victim is immaterial in rape cases. ARMANDO JUAREZ G. He questions credibility of complainant. He questions the credibility of the testimony of the HELD: There are 3 guiding principles in the review of rape cases: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy. there is nothing to show that the victim was moved by any ill motive to testify falsely against the accused. Equally unquestionable is the principle that as long as the complainant’s testimony meets the test of credibility. PAUL LAPIZ G. (2) considering that in the nature of things. For even a prostitute can be the victim of rape. complainant. it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused. NO. NO. The presence of the appellants at the crime scene immediately after the victim was raped indicates strongly that they were the culprits. alibi might be aptly considered only when an accused had been shown to be in some other place at the crucial time and that it would have been physically impossible form him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime. this fact would not detract from the fact that appellant violated her. if credible and positive. In his defense. HELD: Alibi is a weak defense which becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification of appellants by the prosecution witness. NO. 129239 Accused was convicted of rape. JIMMY DAGAMI G. HELD: The testimony of a single witness. She did not know them before the fateful evening. 123111 Accused was found guilty of murder. he denied responsibility and pointed to a certain person as the real culprit. to disprove. . the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit. As long as the victim’s testimony measures up to the standard of credibility. 128158 The accused were found guilty of rape. the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution.PEOPLE V. and (3) the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Her honest and straightforward testimony deserves full faith and credence. Also.R. One eyewitness was presented by prosecution. ROBERTO BANIGUID G. PEOPLE V. Denial and alibi unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence bearing no real weight in law and jurisprudence. NO. only 2 persons are usually involved in the crime of rape. and (3) evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and should not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Moreover. the fact that she had sexual relations with other men would not destroy or affect her credibility. 137714 Accused was found guilty of raping his minor daughter. the accused may be convicted on its basis.

129208 Accused was convicted of 2 counts of rape. NO. FAUSTINO CAMPOS G. 137659 Accused was convicted of raping a 22 year old retardate woman. HELD: The general rule in criminal cases is that the conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases lie heavily on the sound judgment of the trial court which is accorded great weight and respect. In fact. And a finding that the victim’s hymen is intact. The accused may be convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that her testimony is clear. Further. In this case.R. NO. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms.PEOPLE V. 126402 Accused was convicted of rape.R. it is not necessary that the act was committed with genital injury. He questions credibility of complainant. LITO ROSALES G. NO. a medial examination is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape. .R. EDGARDO ALORO G. HELD: RA no. PEOPLE V. Equally settled is the principle that when a woman declares that she has been raped.R.R. in proving rape cases. He was convicted on the basis of the lone testimony of the victim despite lack of physical injuries. AMADEO TRELLES G. if the person is held liable for murder or homicide. he was also convicted for illegal possession of firearm. where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed M14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant. 133373-77 Accused. Neither can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault. PEOPLE V. convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of this. HELD: It is doctrinally settled that the lone testimony of a rape victim. NO. PEOPLE V. 72 years of age. as in this case. but not a separate offense. she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been raped and where the testimony passes the test of credibility. Furthermore. positive. NO. He raises the credibility of complainant’s testimony. abrasions or contusions. by itself. the accused can be convicted on the basis thereof. illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance. PEOPLE V. 136149-51 The accused was convicted of the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing an M14 rifle to police men who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant. In fact. WALPAN LADJAALAM G. was convicted of 5 counts of rape committed against 2 minors. Medical findings only serve to corroborate the testimonies of the victims. is sufficient to convict if credible. there can be rape even if the medical examination shows no vaginal laceration. HELD: Medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. there is nothing that would warrant a deviation from the general rule. Further. he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. does not disprove rape. if not conclusive effect. He insists in his appeal that he could not be convicted considering that the medical examination showed that the complaining witnesses suffered no lacerations. Hence. provided that the person arrested committed “no other crime”.

NO. The conviction hinges on the testimony of 2 prosecution witnesses. for even if it were weak. It has been observed that the most positive testimony of a witness may be contradicted on the fact that the testimony is contrary to common observation or experience or the common principles by which the conduct of mankind is governed. The identification of the perpetrator of the crime bears heavily on the reasonableness or probability of the testimony of the prosecution witness. which was the fatal shot was uncalled for and therefore was no longer a necessary consequence of appellant’s due performance of duty.HELD: A mental retardate or a feebleminded person is not. and the courts can only give conformity to the quotidian knowledge. (2) that the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office. The voluntary confession of ownership of marijuana was in violation of the custodial rights because of the absence of competent and . EDGAR BACALSO G. having admitted the killing. The second shot.R. there can be no conviction without the identity of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained. 132547 Accused was convicted of murder.R. he must suffer all the consequences of his malefaction. It is now universally accepted that intellectual weakness. There is unfortunately. no matter what form it assumes. Thus. HELD: Preliminarily. only an incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty can be appreciated.. SPO1 ERNESTO ULEP G. her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. observation and experience of man. ABE VALDEZ G. To justify the incident as fulfillment of a duty. per se. He must establish clearly and convincingly how he acted in the fulfillment of his official duty and/or in complete self-defense. no single test to determine with all exactitude the probity of testimony. and (2) to establish with the same quantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefore. He has to rely on the quantitative and qualitative strength of his own evidence. the accused assumed the burden of proving legal justification therefore. disqualified from being a witness. A close scrutiny of the accounts given by the witnesses produce a serious doubt as to the veracity of the malefactor’s identity almost as if it were merely contrived to pin the liability of the crime upon appellant. 2 requisites must concur: (1) that he acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or an office. 129296 Accused was found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. PEOPLE V.R. the task of the prosecution is always two-pronged: (1) to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged. HELD: In every criminal case. is not a valid objection to the competency of a witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to. not on the weakness of the prosecution. An extrajudicial HELD: The marijuana plants seized were product of an illegal search because of the absence of search warrant and are therefore inadmissible in evidence. otherwise. 129055 Accused was convicted of the complex crime of double murder with frustrated murder. it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing. PEOPLE V. NO. for even if the commission of the crime is given. He interposed self-defense and justifying circumstance of fulfillment of a duty. confession was made as to the ownership of marijuana plants. The courts are not required to believe that which they judicially know to be incredible. PEOPLE V. NO.

HELD: There are 2 elements of arson: (1) that there is intentional burning. 122110 Accused was convicted of arson and murder. EFREN TEMANEL G. The victim was the sister of the common law wife of the accused. the prosecution’s remaining evidence did not even approximate the quantum of evidence necessary to warrant appellant’s conviction. ELMEDIO CAJARA G. HELD: Although the circumstance of relationship by affinity within the third civil degree was alleged in the information.independent counsel. Here.R. FERIGEL OLIVA G. PEOPLE V. Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimonies of the witnesses. and thus. It refers to the fact that a crime has actually been committed. The defect is deemed waived. during trial. Without these.R. The accused and the victim cannot be said to be related by affinity within the third civil degree at the time of the commission of the crime. corpus delicti of the arson and murder was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt. the fact of age was not proven. HELD: While flight indicates guilt. NO. Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime. PEOPLE V.R. OSCAR NOGAR G. NO.R. 97138-39 The accused were convicted of Robbery with Homicide. Hence. Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecution for felonies and offense. PEOPLE V. non-flight does not mean innocence. if credible. 132725 . NO. the presumption of innocence on his favor stands. Can the accused be convicted of simple rape when the charge against him was for statutory rape? HELD: It is too late to assail the duplicitous character of the information as no objection was raised in a motion to quash before a plea to the information is made. The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness. They contend that in as much as they were the only ones apprehended and held for trial. ARMANDO QUILATAN G. In arson. PEOPLE V. the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. NO. In sum. PEOPLE V.R. their non-flight should have been considered as indication of their innocence. 133946 Accused was convicted of statutory rape committed against a 9 year old girl. However. evidence for the prosecution clearly showed the lack or absence of such circumstance to qualify the rape because the accused and the sister of the victim were common law husband and wife and were not legally married at the time of the tape. may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. NO. 122498 Accused was convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death. inadmissible too. both the object evidence and the testimonial evidence as to the appellant’s voluntary confession of ownership of the prohibited plants relied upon to prove appellant’s guilt failed to meet the test of constitutional competence. (2) that what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling.

This fact is of no moment for a possession thereof could have reached this person for a number of reasons. No.Accused was convicted of incestuous rape committed against his 13 year old daughter. . Issue: W/N the doctrine of P v Quijada stating that qualified illegal possession of firearms and homicide are distinct and separate offenses is still followed. when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. the criminal case against him. For alibi to prosper it must be shown that it was physically impossible to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (place of alibi was only 5 minutes away). should be dismissed.126048 Sept. the victims may file a separate civil action against his estate. Even if there are flaws in the testimony as to who stabbed the victim is immaterial because conspiracy was proven. Such was only obtained from the police investigators handling the case. appellant's defense of alibi and denial must fail. HELD: No Applying the new law RA8249 in P v Molina the Court has declared that under the amendment in said law that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed forearm. PO2 RODEL SAMONTE G. as may be warranted by law or procedural rules. as in this case. and alibi becomes worthless in the face of positive identification of the accused. 2000 There was a shooting incident resulting to the death of Perez.R. PEOPLE V. He questions credibility of the complainant.123299 Sept. it is merely hearsay. For this reason. No. not the appeal. HELD: In the light of positive identification. The precise modality or extent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all.R. it must be added that his civil liability may be based on sources of obligation other than delict. Later a tabloid reported that his gun was found with a killed hold-upper not a party to the case. They masqueraded as passengers. Accused was detailed in the Mayor's Office. 2000 This is a hold-up but a passenger was a policeman. pulled out their knives simultaneously. 29. However.R. HELD: The death of the appellant pending appeal and prior to the finality of conviction extinguished his criminal and civil liabilities (civil liability ex delicto) arising from the delict or crime. His revolver and a 38 palter was taken from him. Positive testimony is stronger that negative testimony. He was stabbed. PEDRO ABUNGAN G. Hence. CARUNGAL AND ESPINOSA G. HELD: The bare denial of the accused cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. The authors of the newspaper reports had no personal knowledge of the identity of the perpetrators. Branch 9 acquitted him of the crime of homicide but Branch 3 found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms aggravated by homicide under PD1866. As to the report of the gun. such use of the same should only be considered as an aggravating circumstance. is a negative and self-serving evidence which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters. He died pending appeal. NO. 136843 Accused was convicted of murder. Denial. It is no moment that an accused has not taken part in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime. positioned themselves strategically inside the jeep. PEOPLE V.29. concertedly inflicted stab wounds upon learning that he was a policeman. PEOPLE V.

man should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.2)she has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere. he was granted a rearrangement and retrial. 29. Also as Justice Pun said. generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. 2000 Appellant was found guilty of parricide. No treachery. PEOPLE V. 2000 Appellant was convicted of murder for shooting the victim after a prior street altercation that erupted when the parties' vehicles collided.4)she has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent and omniscient. it is not unlikely that she would succumb to her helplessness and fail to perceive possible solutions to the problem than to injure or kill her batterer. The approval was pursuant to Proc. OCTOBER 2000 PEOPLE V.3)she fears for her life and/or the children's lives. the Court granted his Urgent Omnibus Motion and allowed him to undergo mental and neuralgic other examinations to determine that he was a deaf-mute. This action is justified on the rule that only upon proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt may an accused to consigned to a lethal injection chamber. When the witnesses did not see how the attack was carried out and cannot testify how it began. or as conclusively as the killing itself. Based on that finding and that he was unaided in the trial. while amnesty is granted to classes of person or communities who may be guilty of political offenses.PEOPLE V. No 347 granting amnesty to all persons who shall apply who have committed crimes on or before June 1 1995 in pursuit of their political beliefs. His application for amnesty was approved and one of the acts listed in the resolution of the Nat'l Amnesty Commission is the killing of the victim in this case.129371 OCT. Treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did . Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted. which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned. while amnesty by Proclamation of the CE with the concurrence of Congress is a public act of w/c the courts should take judicial notice. 2000 Accused was found guilty of murdering a fellow member of the NPA. She is seized by fear of an existing or impending lethal aggression and thus would have no opportunity beforehand to deliberate o her acts and to choose a less fatal means of eliminating her sufferings. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. it abolishes or forgives the punishment thus it does not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office or right of suffrage unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon and it in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence (Art 36). JOSE PATRIARCA G. HELD: Only Homicide. No. 4. the trial court cannot presume from the circumstances of the case that there was treachery.-135891 Sept. HELD: There are four characteristics of the syndrome:1)woman believes that the violence was her fault.135457 Sept. In P v Pares.29. She now requests an examination by psychologists to determine her state of mind then under the ground of the "battered woman syndrome". Accused now appeals on the ground that the crime of murder is an offense committed in pursuance or in furtherance of rebellion. SANTIAGO GRNO. because the courts take no notice thereof. Petition granted.R. Trapped in a cycle of violence and constant fear. after a final conviction of appellant therein. HELD: The court acquitted the appellant. Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive. It is a private act. Pardon is granted to one after conviction. GENOSA GRNo.

unlike a mature woman. treachery cannot be considered a qualifying circumstance. which creates the doubt whether he has acted as principal or an accomplice.-131942 October 5. The fact that the victim has 7 hacking wounds does not conclusively demonstrate cruelty. Since the lone witness failed to witness the initial attack inflicted upon the victim. However. affording the unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist. 2000 An old woman was hacked to death by appellant because of a land dispute. LOPEZ GRNo. can not be expected to have the courage and intelligence to immediately report a sexual assault committed against her especially when a death threat hangs ver her head. and armed with a deadly weapon. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning and in a swift. 2000 A case of rape of an eight-year old. Abuse of superiority was proved. BAWANG GRNo. HELD: The fact that the hymen is intact does not prove absence of sexual intercourse and the presence of laceration does not prove defloration. A young girl. The exercise of a lawful right cannot be a proper source of obfuscation that may be considered a mitigating circumstance. in the prime of his life. it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the victim was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. deliberate and unexpected manner. The accused was a 22-year old male.-134539 November 15. Records are bereft of evidence showing the accused continued to hack the victim when she was already dead. A 15-minute interval is not sufficient time for the accused to coolly reflect on their plan to kill the victim. HELD: It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their virtue because of the threat on their lives. 2000 A case of incestuous rape. The hymen may be lacerated due to some other causes not sexual intercourse. or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. PEOPLE V. All the elements of evident premeditation must also be proven. The lack of complete evidence of conspiracy. The deceased had no inkling whatsoever of the murderous intent of the accused. The act of victim demanding the family of appellant to vacate her land was not unlawful or unjust. Passion or obfuscation to be appreciated must arise from lawful sentiments. to avoid or escape.not see the commencement of the assault. 30 minutes was held also insufficient time between determination to commit and the execution is insufficient for full meditation on the consequences of the act. In one case. abuse of superiority is absorbed therein. She was unarmed. implies the court to resolve the question in favor of the accused. The test is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by committing another wrong not necessary for its commission. The number of wounds does not per se give rise to cruelty.-132168 October 10. We cannot reject the testimony of victim on the ground that her 3 other companions were not awakened by her groans while . NOVEMBER 2000 PEOPLE V. Since aloveosia is already appreciated as a qualifying circumstance. or inhumanely increased the victim's suffering. BALMORIA GRNo. HELD: There was treachery. The qualifying circumstance provided by RA7658 for the imposition of death penalty is present in the information--minority and relationship having been averred. Accused suddenly and unexpectedly grabbed the hair of the deceased and simultaneously hacked her to death. In this case. no evidence was given--not even a Certificate of Live Birth. PEOPLE V. Premeditation to kill must be plain notorious and sufficiently proven by the evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill. Liability of one whose participation in crime was limited to driving for the killers is only that of an accomplice.

It must be received with caution because. he could not offer resistance nor attempt to escape from their sudden and unexpected attack.-121769 November 22.97472-73 Nov. In any even the proof of motive is not indispensable for conviction when there is positive identification. as is usual with human nature.-135413-15 November 15. The accused act of mauling the victim and thereafter handling the bolo to his brother who hacked the victim.3)the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. a culprit. There was treachery. PEOPLE V. the reduction of the indeterminate penalty for the frustrated murder case shall affect not only the appellant but also those who withdrew their appeal. . ALVAREZ GRNo. HELD: A conviction based on circumstantial evidence is proper if:1)there is more than just one circumstance in attendance. Hence. Thus. Motive assumes significance only when there is no showing of who the perpetrator of the crime might be.she was being raped. 2000 Appellant was convicted of murder after shooting the victim with a bardog--a locally made shotgun. Victim was unaware of the evil design of the accused and his group who concealed themselves behind colon grasses. HELD: It is well-settled that the testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or co-conspirator imputing the blame for the killing and implicating his co-accused cannot by itself and without corroboration. Conspiracy was present. It is not impossible to commit rape in a small room even if there are several persons in it. PEOPLE V. is likely to put to blame as far as possible on others rather than himself. The reason for the above cited rule is that the testimony of a co-conspirator proceeds from a polluted source. Since no eyewitness was presented and no evidence was shown on how the killings transpired the aggravating and qualifying circumstances cannot be appreciated. 2000 Facts: The hotel guests and manager were stabbed to death in a room.-122819 Nov 20. Being unarmed. the defense of alibi must fail.2)the facts from which inferences can be derived are adequately proven. the assailants one after the other shot at the victim.R. CASTURIA GRNo.20. HELD: If the accused was positively identified by the victim himself who harbored no ill motive against the former. be considered as proof to a moral certainty that the latter had committed or participated in the commission of the crime. 2000 A case of murder and frustrated murder. MOYONG GRNo. PEOPLE V. PEOPLE V. These circumstances must be consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime sought to be established and can lead to no rational assumption that may be congruent with the innocence of the accused. The settled rule is that testimony of a witness ma be believed in part and disbelieved in part as the corroborative evidence or improbabilities of the case may require. it is required that the testimony be substantially corroborated by other evidence in all its material points. An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not effect those who did not appeal. Appellant was caught while fleeing the establishment with stained clothes. It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose. confessing a crime. No. 2000 Appellant was convicted of murder. HELD: For conspiracy to exist it does not require an appreciable period lapsed prior to the occurence. PACANA G. except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.

2000 Appellant used a toy gun in abducting and raping the victim. art. natural. convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.335 of the RPC says that death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under 18 and the offender is .the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. 2001 Accused was charged of raping the 15yr old daughter of his common law spouse. it is presumed that no such motive exists.is a relative by affinity within the third civil degree. 2001 The three accused were charged of murder HELD: GUILTY! The Defense of self-defense and alibi was outweighed by the positive and categorical eyewitness accounts corroborated by the extent of hack wounds on the victim. In the absence of such motive.. the accused is held guilty only of simple rape with the penalty of reclusion perpetua PEOPLE V. REYNALDO DE VILLA GR 124639. BAYOD GR 122664. FEBRUARY 2001 PEOPLE V. FERNANDEZ GR 137647. Appellant imputes no ill motive towards the victim to falsely accuse him.. death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under 18 and the offender. GR 137751. in both instances. the court may rely solely on the testimony of the victim provided such testimony is credible.. Feb. Dec1. having been charged only of simple rape in the information. a felony is frustrated when the offender . RPC says. LAUT. To support a conviction for rape. A complainant's act in immediately reporting the commission of rape is a factor in strengthening her credibility. 2001 Accused was charged of raping a 12yr old minor who is his niece by affinity. ISSUE: Nature of Rape: Penalty. MURDER! The killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength. rape is committed with the least possibility of being seen by the public.1. Thus the accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape punishable by death but only simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.. Feb1. Feb 5. VELASQUEZ GRNo. By its nature. the prosecution failed to allege the relationship of the accused with the victim. HELD: The mere fact that Karen did not attempt to escape when the opportunity resented itself should not be construed as a manifestation of consent and does not necessarily negate her charge of rape or taint her credibility considering the accused employed force and intimidation. 2000). 23.-137383-84 Nov. There was intent to kill and treachery. such circumstances (minority and relationship) are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which should be alleged in the information and proved at the trial (Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. PEOPLE V.PEOPLE V. ET AL. 335. Whether the death penalty should be imposed HELD: SIMPLE RAPE! RECLUSION PERPETUA! Although... accused and his companions ganged up with advantage in number and strength. PEOPLE V. IN THIS CASE. Feb1... 2001 Accused was charged with murder and frustrated homicide HELD: Accused is GUILTY of MURDER and FRUSTRATED MURDER not frustrated HOMICIDE. HELD: SIMPLE RAPE! RECLUSION PERPETUA! Although art.

and c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE V. Feb 5. Note. Feb.7. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted in the absence of eyewitnesses and is sufficient for conviction if. The TEST is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that is she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused. It should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the offense. when a) there is more than one circumstance. offering none at all does not amount to consent to sexual assault. ! The guilt of the accused was established through circumstantial evidence. the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to convict. Alibi is a weak defense. 2001 Accused was charged of robbery with homicide HELD: GUILTY and sentenced to reclusion perpetua under art. and c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In affirming convictions beyond reasonable doubt the degree of proof required is NOT proof that excludes all possibility of error but only moral. the claim of lack of force or intimidation cannot prevail. Feb. PEOPLE V. In this case. the penalty is death. the threat would be carried out. Accused was not able to prove that he and the victim were indeed lovers. old girl HELD: Accused is guilty and sentenced to DEATH in accordance with art 335 of the RPC (as amended by RA 7659) or where on the occasion of a rape homicide was committed. circumstantial evidence is sufficient.2001 . PABILLANO GR 108618. Feb. Although there were NO eyewitness accounts of the robbery with homicide. Lastly. 294. PEOPLE V. timely medical attention. would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. 2001 Accused was found guilty of the complex crime of robbery with homicide by the trial court HELD: Accused are guilty or robbery with homicide and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. LOYOLA GR 126026. Note there is no law that a police line-up is an essential requisite to proper identification. no young Filipina of decent repute even in modern times. The defenses of alibi and denial by the accused were found unavailing in the face of positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses. FRANCISCO GR 135200. RAYOS GR 133823. RPC. 2001 The trial court sentenced the rape of a 16yr old girl while aboard a bus. BAYANG GR 134402.2001 Accused was charged of raping a 9yr.7.6. do not produce it by reason or causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence which nevertheless. accused to reclusion perpetua for the HELD: Accused is guilty and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Under the revised rules on evidence. Likewise. Where resistance would be futile. a)there is more than one circumstance.6. an offer of marriage which occurred in this case is an admission of guilt. not absolute certainty. b) the facts from which that inferences were derived are proven. taken in entirety unmistakably pointing to guilt. Feb. PEOPLE V. b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven. is what the fundamental law requires. PEOPLE V.

The other informations failed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. charging the accused with two different offenses for the same act committed on the same date against the same victim is erroneous and illegal except where the law itself so allows.8. and. this is merely considered as an aggravating circumstance (P. thus only cases where the victim is over 12 but . On the issue of the firearm. the case should fall under art. Feb. one was 13 and the other 15. HELD: GUILTY and sentenced to reclusion perpetua on each information charged. PEOPLE V. HELD: The accused is guilty but only of simple rape for the prosecution merely charged him of simple rape. PEOPLE V.2001 Accused was convicted by the trial court for the crime of murder with the use of an unlicensed firearm. all point to the nature of the killing. Likewise. which nonetheless should be proven by the defense. the circumstance of nighttime. It specifically provides that in instances where the victim is under 12. 5 RA7610 (Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse) and 4 informations for rape were filed against the accused.D. and 4mos of reclusion temporal as maximum. 2001 Accused. sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and one charge violating RA7610. Alibi is weak and age is not a determinant of the inability to have carnal knowledge rather it is impotency. OPTANA GR 133922. The crime was murder because the killing was attended with treachery. the penalty is reclusion perpetua. a 63yr old was charged of 3 counts of rape of the Nana sisters.2001 The accused was sentenced to death by the trial court in accordance with art 335 of the RPC for raping his own daughter. HELD: GUILTY! Trial court Affirmed and the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The original penalty for murder was reclusion temporal but since there was an aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm. 335 of the RPC. The assertions of the accused cannot stand against the testimonies and positive identification of the two rape victims. This is not allowed by RA7610. HELD: SIMPLE RAPE with the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. there can be no separate conviction for the illegal use of a firearm.The trial court found the accused guilty of qualified rape sentencing him to death for raping his daughter. The prosecution failed to allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship between the accused and the victim in the information. CORDERO GR 136894-96.2001 4 informations for the violation of the sec. PEOPLE V. Hardly can any defense stand a chance against the unimpeached testimony of the young victim in great detail the sexual assault. PEOPLE. There was no opportunity for the deceased to retaliate or defend himself.7. As the law now stands. Feb. This is not a mere technicality but a concept of due process as provided in the Constitution. V. sentencing him to suffer 8yrs and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum to 17 yrs. HELD: The SC affirms the decision of the trial court convicting the accused for one incident of rape. RONDILLA GR 134368.12. the particular means employed which was the use of a motor vehicle. NAVARRO GR 132696 Feb. the penalty was raised to reclusion perpetua. Since the death penalty was not yet effective at the time of the offense. Feb.12. Nonetheless he is guilty and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. 1866 as amended by RA 8294). The testimony is even given greater weight when the victim accuses a close relative.

armed with a pistol. 3)the deceased is the. PEOPLE V. Parricide is committed when 1) a person is killed. going to the victim's barangay. All elements concurring. approaching the victim from behind and shooting her at close range. and c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.2001 Accused was found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the trial court. In case of a marital relationship the best evidence is the marriage certificate. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto. PEOPLE V.2001 The accused was indicted for parricide under art 246 of the RPC for the killing of his wife. where the accused was charged for several occasions of rape and abuse the conviction or acquittal on the informations was based on the age of the child. The attack was sudden and the victim was defenseless. Lastly. a conviction based on such can be upheld if the circumstances established would lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused. Although the shots were taken facing the accused. Quoting PEOPLE v. HELD: The accused is GUILTY. the accused is thus guilty. Further. only one rape case prospered (incident when the child was below 12) and one violation of RA7610 (when the child was above 12 but below 18).14. Feb. The search conducted thereafter was valid. YBANEZ GR 136257. and lastly. Likewise. He was sentenced to death by the trial court.. 2001 Accused was charged of raping a 10yr old girl who is the daughter of his common law spouse. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted in the absence of eyewitnesses and is sufficient for conviction if. The own testimony of the accused as married to the victim may also be taken as an admission against penal interest. HELD: Accused is guilty of murder. the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: 1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified as a prohibited drug. Feb. 2) such possession is not authorized by law. The key element is the relation of the offender to the victim. PEREZ GR 134756. the drugs and paraphernalia obtained where in plain view of the police when the accused was arrested. VELASCO GR 128089. PEOPLE V. there was no risk to the accused when he fired his gun. the concept of non-multiplicity of suits. A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. the victim was eating merienda with her back turned to the accused when he came.or the legitimate spouse of the accused. as the author of the crime..14.13. Khor. The accused deliberately sought the manner of the attack. Feb. and fulfilling the standard of moral certainty.2001 The accused was found guilty by the trial court of violating RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). PEOPLE V. and 3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. In the case at bar.under 18 can fall under this law. GUZMAN GR 117952-53. Thus. the accused failed to quash the information against him before arraignment thus he is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest. . b) the facts from which that inferences were derived are proven. and the evidence presented. had no opportunity to escape. It was within the immediate control of the arrested person. The case was proved through circumstantial evidence sufficiently establishing the malefactor. according to witnesses. Feb13. Treachery was present. a)there is more than one circumstance. the victim only stood and faced him after he cursed her. to the exclusion of all others. HELD: The accused is guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. possessing an unlicensed firearm. 2)the deceased is killed by the accused. destroying the presumption of innocence.

15. Such information was formally included in the charge. The penalty prescribed by the trial court was also correct. The moment the accused¹s penis knocks at the door of the of the pudenda it suffices to constitute the crime of rape. Originally he could have been convicted of illegally possessing a firearm separately from his conviction on the killing that occurred as a consequence thereof. Under art335 of the RPC. NAAG GR No. gave evidence of common intent to kill the victim. the possession of an unlicensed firearm has become merely an aggravating circumstance to a murder or homicide charge. AVECILLA GR117033. Old stepdaughter. Facts show that the primary intent of accused was to rape the victim and not to rob her. Feb. Both circumstances. Conspiracy was also present. as in this case. The only essential point is to prove the entrance or at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum. There was abuse of superior strength shown through superiority in number and the use of arms. all the accused.HELD: Accused was sentenced by the SC to reclusion perpetua convicting him only of simple rape. HELD: The accused are guilty of murder. sparing him of two separate convictions. PEOPLE V. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression. B. To take advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked to defend himself. and feloniously with intent to kill. Feb. The witness is credible and there was indeed force and intimidation in the act. ISSUE: Conviction and Retroactivity of RA8294 (An act Amending the Provisions of PD 1866) HELD: SC dismissed the case. In rape cases. minority and relationship was indicated in the complaint. TUMANON GR 135066. possess and carry an unlicensed firearm. PAGDAYAWON GR 130522.2001 Accused. unlawfully. With the passage of RA 8294 in 1997 amending PD1866. 2001 The accused were charged on murder. It is not necessary that there be a previous plan or agreement to commit the assault. penal laws have prospective effect EXCEPT where the new law will be advantageous to the accused. The trial court sentenced the accused to death. Feb. Feb.15. HELD: The accused is guilty. accused willfully. 15.15. by their acts. PEOPLE V. PEOPLE V. the crime of taking away the property is theft and not robbery because of the absence of violence and intimidation. Moreover. Convicting the accused of an offense not specifically charged in the complaint is a violation of his right to due process. PEOPLE v. and actually killing a victim as a consequence. 136394. so that the act of one becomes the act of all and all of them will thus be liable as principals. The prosecution failed to indicate the relationship of the accused to the victim in the information thus merely charging Ybanez of simple rape. . Accused is guilty of separate crimes of rape and theft. 2001 Accused was charged of qualified illegal possession of a firearm. death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under 18 and the offender is the stepparent of the victim. As a general rule. a police officer was charged of raping his 11yr. which happened in 1991. what is material is that there is penetration no matter how slight. 2001 Accused was charged and found guilty by the lower court of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. ISSUE: Was there rape? Was he guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape? HELD: There was rape.

Accused-appellants committed acts of recruitment and placement. 137185-86. can not sway judgement. transporting. enlisting. or any prohibited practices enumerated under Art 34 of the Labor Code. Art. Under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code. 38 . the death penalty shall be imposed when rape is committed against a victim who is under 18 years of age. ISSUE: Is the absence of spermatozoa in the victim¹s genitalia negate rape? Do minor inconsistencies in victim¹s testimonies destroy credibility? HELD: Absence of spermatozoa in the victim¹s genitalia does not negate rape. victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident. But these circumstances must be alleged in the complaint or information. Feb 19. ISSUE: Did the RTC err in disregarding their defense of denial and in finding them guilty of the offense charged. these are badges of truthfulness and candor for they erase the suspicion the testimony was rehearsed. PEOPLE v.PEOPLE v. 115079. They were also not authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment as certified by the DOLE. or advertising for employment. or procuring workers. and the offender among other circumstances. Otherwise. as for appellant¹s claim that the victim did not suffer complete lacerations and other signs of physical violence. revoked or cancelled by the POEA or the Sec. or whose license or authority has been suspended. second. of Labor. suffice it to say that even the absence of hymenal laceration does not rule out sexual abuse. Feb 15. Nor is it necessary for the victim to suffer external injuries in order for the crime of rape to be established. hiring. utilizing. the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13 (b). He can only be convicted of simple rape the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua. MACAYA GR No. Further. 2001 The accused-appellants were charged and found guilty by the RTC of illegal recruitment committed in a large scale resulting to economic sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment. 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Feb 19. ALBIOR GR No. he cannot be punished for a graver offense than that with which he is charged. NAVARRA GR No. They are self-serving statements and are inherently weak. is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. promising. HELD: NO. that any person or entity which in any manner. and includes referrals. such as promises to the complainants of profitable employment abroad and acceptance of placement fees. contracting. contract services. Also. without clear and convincing evidence to support them. 119361. 2001 Accused was charged and found guilty by the lower court of rape and was sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua. recruitment and placement refer to. PEOPLE v. HELD: Denials. the offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment or placement of workers. Decision of lower court affirmed. offers or promises for a fee employment to 2 or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment or placement. locally or abroad. for profit or not: Provided. As for the minor inconsistencies. Illegal recruitment has 2 essential elements: first. Under Art. any act of canvassing. The accused was charged only with simple rape. corporation or entity without a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment or placement from the Secretary of Labor. even if the minority of the victim and the relationship of the victim and the accused are established during the trial. especially when the victim is of tender age. A non-licensee or non-holder of authority means any person. 2001 Accused was charged of raping the two children of his common-law spouse in two separate complaints and was found guilty in both cases and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in one case and death in the other.

(b) of the Labor Code provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the following qualifying circumstances exists: first, when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate; second when it is committed in a large scale, committed against three or more persons individually or as a group. PEOPLE v. BLAZO GR No. 127111; Feb 19, 2001 Accused was charged and found guilty of rape and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. ISSUE: Whether the prosecution proved the accused¹s guilt beyond reasonable doubt? HELD: Delay in criminal accusation is not an indication of a fabricated charge, if such charge is satisfactorily explained. A young girl, such as the victim in this case, cannot be expected to have the courage and intelligence of a mature woman to immediately report her defilement, especially when accompanied by a death threat. A medical examination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case. Lacerations of the hymen, while considered as the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of a penile invasion, are not always necessary to establish the commission of rape, where other evidence is available to show consummation PEOPLE v. MURILLO GR No. 128851-56; Feb 19, 2001 Accused were charge and found guilty of rape and were sentenced to death. ISSUE: Whether the penalty of death was correct? HELD: NO. The death sentence given to the accused was based on the following attendant circumstances: first, the victim is under the custody of the police or military officers, and second, when committed by and member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency. To merit the punishment of death, these circumstances must be properly alleged in the information. For the prosecution¹s failure to do so, these circumstances cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances, therefore the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE v. MOLINA GR No. 133917; Feb 19, 2001 Accused were charged and found guilty of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for having in their possession 946.9 grams of marijuana and were sentenced to death. HELD: NO. Accused-appellants manifested no outward indication that would justify their arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused-appellants could not be said to be committing, attempting to commit, or have committed a crime. There was no probable cause in arresting the accused thus making the arrest illegal. Because the arrest was illegal, so was the search made by the police officers. This being the case, the evidence is inadmissible and the accused are found not guilty of the alleged offense. PEOPLE vs AWING GR No. 133919-20; Feb 19, 2001 Accused was charged and found guilty of 2 counts of rape against his stepdaughter. ISSUE: Whether the lower court gave him the correct sentence of death? HELD: NO. Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 7659 imposes the death penalty when the rape victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the victim¹s parent. Both the age of the offended party and the filiation or kinship with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation against him. In this case, complainant¹s age n the accusatory portion of the informations were omitted, hence appellant was only charged of simple rape and not qualified rape. The proper penalty to be imposed to the appellant is reclusion perpetua and not death. PEOPLE v. TOLENTINO GR No. 139834; Feb 19, 2001 Accused was charged and convicted for committing the crime of rape. HELD: Victim will not go through the humiliation if it is not to seek justice, hence her testimony is credible. Also, there was no showing that the victim was impelled by ill motive to testify against the accused. Conviction for rape may be based on circumstantial evidence when the victim cannot testify on the actual commission of the rape because she was unconscious when the act was committed, provided that one circumstance is duly proved and the totality or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proven lead to no other logical conclusion than accused¹s guilt. PEOPLE v. MUSTAPA GR No. 141244; Feb. 19, 2001 Accused was charged and found guilty of violating Sec. 16 of RA No 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. ISSUE: Whether the court erred in not appreciating the accused¹s testimony denying ownership of bag containing shabu? HELD: Lower Court¹s decision affirmed. Denial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The defense of denial or frame-up, like alibi, has been viewed by courts with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Also, issues raised by the defense are factual and involves credibility of witnesses, a matter addressed to the trial court because it is in a better position to decide such questions. It is a well-entrenched doctrine that the trial court¹s findings are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. Also, minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses refer merely to minor details and does not impair the credibility of witnesses. Witnesses are not expected to remember everything that happened in exact detail, since a long time has already lapsed. PEOPLE v. CONSEJERO GR No. 118334; Feb 20, 2001 Accused-appellant was charged and found guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. ISSUE: Whether accused-appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

HELD: The circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair conclusion, that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances or a combination thereof should point to overt acts of the appellant that would logically lead to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty. Rule 113, Sec 4 of the Rules of Court provides the requisites for the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence: a) there is more than one circumstance; b) facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and c) combination of all the circumstances is such to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. However, the crime committed was not robbery with homicide; in this case, the primary purpose of the accused was not to rob but to take the life of the victim, the taking of property came only as an afterthought subsequent to the killings. The crimes committed are separate offenses of homicide, murder, and theft. PEOPLE v. TIO GR Nos. 132482-83; Feb 20, 2001

Accused was charged and found guilty of committing the crime of murder qualified by treachery and with the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. ISSUE: Whether relationship of witnesses to the victim affects their credibility? HELD: NO. Relationship per se does no give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of the witnesses. The eyewitnesses were not shown to have any ill feeling or resentment against the appellant as to prevaricate and impute upon him a heinous crime. Besides, there is also a mere chance witness that pointed to the appellant as the assailant and whose account of the incident coincided with the accounts of the other witnesses. Moreover, the eyewitness accounts of the prosecution witnesses not only reinforced and corroborated each other but were also confirmed by the physical evidence. PEOPLE v. ENDINO GR. No. 133026; Feb 20, 2001 The crime of murder was charged against accused Endino and accused-appellant Galgarin. Galgarin was arrested and convicted for the crime of murder qualified by treachery, while on the other hand Endino remained at large. HELD: Admission of videotaped confessions is proper. The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused-appellant unburdening his guilt willingly, openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. Such confession does not form part of custodial investigation, as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public. PEOPLE v. DE LEON GR No. 124297; Feb 21, 2001 Accused-appellant was charge and convicted of several counts of the crime of rape and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. HELD: GUILTY. Rule 110, Sec. 11 provides that it is not necessary for the information to allege the exact date and the time of the commission of the crime is such is not an essential ingredient of the offense. In the crime of rape, the date of the commission is not an essential element. The delay in reporting the crime committed can also be attributed to the tender age of the victim and the moral ascendancy of the accused over the victim. Oftentimes, a rape victim's actions are moved by fear rather than by reason, and because of this, failure of the victim to report the crime immediately is not indicative of fabrication. Also, victims are not expected to recall the exact and accurate account of their traumatic experiences. However, accused cannot be sentenced to death because the information against him failed to allege victim¹s minority and her relationship to the accused. RA 7659 enumerates the circumstances that justify the imposition of the death penalty. Consistent with the accused¹s right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him, these circumstances must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information and proven during the trial. Accused is guilty only of simple rape and sentenced only to reclusion perpetua on each count of rape. PEOPLE V. ZUNIEGA GR 126117; Feb. 21,2001 Accused was charged for the murder of a certain Aujero. HELD: Accused is guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua (since the accused was found guilty by the trial court prior to the effectivity of the death penalty law the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua). The facts show that the accused perpetrated the crime in such a way that he easily rendered his victim totally defenseless, with no opportunity to escape or defend himself, and without the slightest provocation. NOTE: 1)The circumstance that the judge who penned the decision did not personally hear the testimonies of witnesses does not disturb the decision more so when the judgment is supported by evidence on record such as the transcript of stenographic notes. 2) Failure of a witness to reveal at once the identity of the perpetrator of

134529. of age. MANALO GR 135964-71. The court also found that there was conspiracy. HELD: The accused were guilty of murder and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. the crime was considered as only simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua. 21. Feb. concerted action. particularly when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself to the rapist's will for fear for life or personal safety. 21. FERNANDO SABALAN G. The delay was due to fear. even finality. No. as inferred from the acts of the accused before.R. and meted out with the supreme penalty of death.. 2)The testimony of the mother of the 2 yr. the information against the accused being different from what was actually proven. the threat would be carried out.a felony does not impair the credibility of the witness more so if the delay has been adequately explained.335 of the RPC. The accused alibi cannot prosper against positive identification of prosecution witnesses. Accused was convicted of incestuous rape (raped 12-yr old daughter). February 26. PEOPLE V. unless it is shown that it was tainted with arbitrariness or there was an oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. Feb. and concurrence of sentiments.. According to art. which are indicative of a joint purpose. HELD: SC found the accused guilty of acts of lasciviousness and simple rape which modified his sentence for the rape to reclusion perpetua. It must be stressed that the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. 3) The penalty for the rape is reclusion perpetua since the court found the marriage of the accused to the victim's mother as doubtful. BOLIVAR GR130597. 2001 Accused was found guilty by the trial court of Acts of Lasciviousness against his 2 yr. VELASQUEZ GR132635 & 143872-75. during and after the crime. Old child/victim is sufficient considering the victim's age and the medical examination conducted. such as due to fear of a great danger to his life and/or his family.. 2) The three yr.1)The sole testimony of the victim is sufficient. PEOPLE v. HELD: The accused is guilty and is sentenced to death. the trial court's assessment is entitled to great weight. It suffices that the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused-appellant. He was sentenced to death for the rape. PEOPLE V. One was 6 yrs. 21. Feb. The settled rule is that when the issue involves the credibility of a witness. delay in the filing of a complaint does not necessarily mean that the charge was fabricated. and 2)the accused must demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. 2001 Accused was charged of 8 counts of rape of two minors (4 counts of rape for each child). HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. NOTE: (A)On the 1st charge: acts of lasciviousness. 1)By failing to invoke the lack of a preliminary investigation during the trial. but lowered the penalty to reclusion perpetua. PEOPLE V. old granddaughter and the crime of Rape against his alleged stepdaughter who is a minor. the death penalty shall be imposed if rape is committed on a child below seven yrs. 2001 Three accused were charged of murder. the court deems that the accused has waived the same. B) On 2nd charge: rape of his alleged minor stepdaughter. 2001. old and the other 7. that the relationship of the accused to the victim is one of daughter of a common law spouse.. For alibi to prosper 2 requisites must concur: 1) accused must prove that he was at another place at the time of the crime. .

PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. It is not enough that the relationship was subsequently proved during the . so that the act of Visaya became also the act of appellant Ocampo. positively identified accused-appellant as the assailant. and sentenced to seventeen (17) years. 2001. PEOPLE v. four (4) months. With regard to the circumstance of treachery. manifested a common intent or desire to kill the victim. HELD: With regard to the first criminal case. Accused's alibi cannot overcome the eyeball testimonies. February 28. He was also found guilty of attempted rape in the other case. Vilma and Maricris. it exists when the offender employs means. is insufficient to prove the minority of the victim. Moreover. the act of one becomes the act of all. EDGAR CAWAYAN y CRUZ G. Two witnesses. The trial court found accused guilty of raping his 11-yr old daughter and sentenced him to death. 128117. RAYMUNDO VISAYA G. although the Information did properly allege the complainant's minority. In the case at bar.R. it is likewise essential that he can show physical impossibility for him to be at the locus delicti.R. HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. it failed to specify the relationship between the complainant and accused-appellant. the evidence showed that the unsuspecting victim was completely unprepared for the unexpected attack as he was facing a wall and totally deprived of a chance to ward off or escape from the criminal assault. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. and meted out with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. February 28. methods. The prosecution was able to establish that accused and the other suspects. during or after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other. He was sentenced to the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. by their acts at the time of the aggression. evincing a common purpose or design. HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. especially since it has not been shown that it was impossible for him to be physically at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. No.Accused was meted out with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In the case at bar. since the special circumstance of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender was not alleged and proven. and each of the accused will thereby be deemed equally guilty of the crime committed. and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal maximum. 2001. It is well settled that conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. the SC convicted the accused of simple rape. however. there was no independent evidence presented by the prosecution that could accurately show her age. the information alleged the special qualifying circumstance of relationship and minority. it is not enough that the accused can prove his being at another place at the time of its commission. For the defense of alibi to prosper. Accused was found guilty of murder attended by the generic aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party (morada).R. We have held that the minority of the victim must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Besides the bare declaration of the victim as to her age. but offset by the alternative mitigating circumstance of intoxication. or forms in the execution of the offense which tend directly and specially to insure its execution. punishable by reclusion perpetua. No. No. In the case at bar. THE PEOPLE v. 133695. In such case. 2001 Accused was convicted of murder (with circumstances of treachery and conspiracy). their coordinated escape from the crime scene when somebody shouted "sibat na" confirmed the existence of conspiracy. DANIEL MAURICIO Y PEREZ G. 136967 February 26. The prosecution evidence. The presence of the element of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by their conduct before. Failure to sufficiently establish the victim's age will bar any finding of rape in its qualified form.

otherwise the death penalty cannot be imposed. It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. PEOPLE v. robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. 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.R. such a relationship was also shown by the testimonies of witnesses. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.trial. No.R. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH. In this case. aggravated by the fact that the victim was the minor daughter of the accused. Whether accused indeed intended to commit the crime of rape cannot be seen merely from this particular act. the birth certificate or any other official document proving minority serves no other purpose than to corroborate the testimonies of the competent witnesses and the categorical finding of the trial court. the remedy lies with the legislature. However. HELD: . No. Both relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to qualify the crime as punishable by death. The second circumstance to be established is the relationship of the accused to the complaining witness. Nos. In this case. PEOPLE v. FILOMENO SERRANO G. 135231-33 February 28. then such fact is deemed established with certainty. CASTANITO GANO G. 137480 February 28. 134373 February 28. HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. With regard to the second criminal case. and sentenced to the penalty of death. 2001 The accused was convicted of 3 counts of rape (rape of his 12-yr old stepdaughter). but imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.R. 2001 Accused was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide. Since the allegation of minority (twelve 12 years old) in the Informations was established by the complainant herself. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. The core issue now before us is whether the three (3) killings should be appreciated as separate aggravating circumstances to warrant the imposition of the penalty of death. the SC ruled that the evidence on record cannot sustain a conviction for attempted rape. Thus. it would be stretching the imagination to construe the act of the accused of throwing the victim to her bed as an overt act that will "logically and necessarily ripen" into rape. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances. The external act must have a direct and necessary connection with the crime that the accused intended to commit. and sentenced to death for each count. In qualified rape. HELD: The SC found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide. BLESIE VELASCO G. Applying the above definition to the facts of the case. who is considered competent to testify on her age as it constitutes an assertion of family tradition. 67 and by the open admission of the accused as well as the categorical finding of the trial court. 2001 Accused was convicted for the crime of rape. the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must both be alleged and proved with certainty. accused should be acquitted of the charge of attempted rape.

gesture. as in this case. It is settled that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded the highest respect because the trial court had the opportunity to observe the facial expression. natural. All that is necessary is that the force or intimidation employed against complainant enabled the assailant to effect sexual penetration. PEOPLE v. competent to determine whether or not the witness is telling the truth. 1983. First. and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. to fifteen (15) years. Third. and that she was born on June 13.The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. and the certificate of live birth of victim indicating therein that she was the second child of accusedappellant and Adeluisa ("Adel") Biato Agos. there being the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship. it is not required that the victim of rape resists her assailant unto death. Sixth. The absence of fresh injuries in complainant's private part does not negate rape as proof of hymenal lacerations is not an element of rape.R. It is not unnatural for a criminal. the prosecution is not bound to present witnesses other than complainant herself. 2001. 2001. HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. To be sure. settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the testimony of witnesses is entitled to great respect. to desist from leaving the place where the crime was committed to feign innocence. The testimony of complainant complied with such standards. In rape cases. in every instance. In the first criminal case. Accused-appellant's contention that he and complainant were lovers is not worthy of any consideration at all. The SC agreed that it has been duly established that the victim is the daughter of accused-appellant and that she was only thirteen years old at the time of her sexual assault. and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. the trial court's factual findings will not be disturbed by the appellate court. the trial court took into consideration the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced. it is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper. both of reclusion temporal. With regard to the credibility of witnesses. 137946. The SC found no reason to reverse the findings of the trial court that complainant was raped.R. as accused-appellant may be convicted solely on the testimony of complainant. He presented no witness to corroborate his claim. as minimum. in each of the forty-five (45) cases and to pay the costs of the suit. REFORMADOR VIDAL y BALLADARES G. THE PEOPLE v. February 28. provided the same is credible. Furthermore. the fact that the accused did not flee is a proof of his innocence. With regard to the defense of alibi. 138146-91. Accusedappellant never disowned this relationship when he was put on the stand during the trial. February 28. there must be proof not only that the accused was at some other place at the time the crime was committed . the converse does not necessarily mean innocence. There is no rule that. Unless shown that it has overlooked some facts which would affect the result of the case. SANDY HINTO y BUENO G. accused was found guilty of the crime of rape. Fifth. convincing. Nos. Accused was found guilty of the crime of rape. The SC found the contentions to be without merit. There was likewise no competent evidence presented by accused-appellant to rebut the documents presented by the prosecution. the alleged inconsistency is minor and inconsequential in nature and does not detract from the fact that complainant was raped. Second. In imposing the penalty of death. and voice tone of a witness while testifying and. While it is true that flight raises the presumption of guilt on the part of an accused. Proof of these circumstances are the marriage contract between accused-appellant and Adeluisa ("Adel") Biato Agos. HELD: The SC upheld the decision of the lower court. He was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years. and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. as maximum. therefore. Fourth. The failure of complainant to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not imply her submission to accused-appellant's desires. No. He was also found guilty of 45 counts of acts of lasciviousness. The issues raised by accused-appellant boil down to a question of the credibility of the complainant's testimony.

It was also proven during the trial that accused-appellant is the common-law spouse of the victim’s mother. 266-B in relation to Art. par. No.A. However. In this case. par. In this case. and not by any hard and fast rule. it is erroneous for accused-appellant to contend that no rape was committed because the prosecution failed to prove that the mental age of the victim was equivalent to a girl below 12 years old.R. threat. Considering the foregoing. the imposable penalty is death. Accordingly. The SC held then that the use of an unlicensed firearm in a killing results in two separate crimes — . as amended by R. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code.D. as evidenced by his own admission in open court. constitutes rape. 2001 Accused was convicted for the crime of rape of a mental retardate. be alleged in the information because it is a qualifying circumstance which increases the penalty and changes the nature of the offense. The intimidation must be judged in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. hence. PEOPLE v. It must be stressed that complainant in this case does not possess the intelligence of an average individual. accused-appellant must be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of simple rape. as amended. EDGARDO MACEDA G. Indisputably. 266-A. 266-A. Be that as it may. Under Art. of the Revised Penal Code. accused-appellant knew of the mental condition of the victim prior to and at the time of the incident. 7(1) of the Revised Penal Code. even if accomplished without the use of force or intimidation. and. accused-appellant cannot be meted the death penalty. In these cases. but only as a generic aggravating. Her birth certificate was offered as evidence in this case. as amended. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. HELD: Appellant was convicted of "illegal possession of firearms resulting to the death of the victim. (1). this fact was not alleged in the information. The force necessary in rape is relative. if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. the information for rape alleges that the victim was under 18 years of age at the time she was raped and that accused-appellant is the common-law spouse of her mother. ROBERT NUÑEZ y LAGASCA G. March 1.R. This circumstance must. MARCH 2001 PEOPLE v. Furthermore. 1866 in relation to the 1987 Constitution the court sentences the said accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and with costs. circumstance. 335. Therefore. the existing jurisprudence was People v. Under Art. under Art. however. under Art. her mental faculties are different from those of a fully-functioning adult. the penalty is increased to death." At the time of the commission of the crime. even if it was proved. It must be emphasized that this requirement is necessary if the charge is statutory rape under Art. 7659. 1(d). To begin with. Accused was found guilty of Illegal possession of firearm resulting to the death of the victim and pursuant to P. 112092. it cannot be appreciated as a qualifying. 266-B (10) of the RPC. Quijada. HELD: With regard to the contention of accused that the prosecution failed to prove that force or intimidation was used against complainant. the degree of force or intimidation needed to overwhelm her is less than what it would take to frighten an ordinary woman. the trial court erred when it imposed the penalty of death on accused-appellant under Art. complainant was deprived of reason. the SC found the contention to be unmeritorious. 34 the crime of rape may be committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force. the SC was constrained to affirm the death sentence imposed by the trial court on accused-appellant. 2001. No. having sexual intercourse with her. simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua.but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. 266-A (1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code. par. 138805 February 28. while accused-appellant admitted that he knew complainant to be a mental retardate. 266-A. or intimidation. When rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim's mental retardation. par. True enough.

A.R. the penalty should be imposed in its medium period. PEOPLE v. A band consists of at least four armed malefactors acting together in the commission of an offense. No. together with its accessory penalties. In the present case. 7659. 27 which lowered the penalties for illegal possession of firearms. He was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. Even if such . third par. ET AL. Further. for homicide or murder. absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which. The circumstances under the amendatory provisions of R. Section 1. PEOPLE v. No. are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which can not be proved as such unless alleged in the information. There was no showing that appellants deliberately employed means which would cause more suffering or humiliation to the victim. Section 11. 126019 March 1. the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. thus qualifying the killing to murder. HELD: The SC found accused guilty.00. 123069 March 1. or reclusion perpetua. whereas the victim was unarmed and utterly defenseless. 8294. did not sustain the trial court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of band and ignominy. and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. No. Clearly. however. however. should be applied retroactively. The SC found appellants guilty of the crime of murder. appellant should only be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms. The Court held that accordingly. No. However. For this reason. Nevertheless. Neither did the prosecution prove the existence of ignominy. and sentenced them each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs. When appellants attacked the victim. The Court. 8294 provides — If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm. 2001 The trial court found both Pedro Saspa and Rafael Sumiling principally liable for the murder of Isidro Hayo. 8294.000. while the guilt of the accused-appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt. if considered. Hence.A. As in most rape cases.A. the SC has consistently held that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of complainant's testimony is entitled to great weight. Congress passed Republic Act No. The lowered penalties as provided in R. No. which is a circumstance that adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. The Court said that when a victim of rape says she has been defiled. In the absence of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances. In the meantime. the evidence as to the homicide and frustrated homicide cases were neither adopted nor presented before the trial court trying the illegal possession case. The prosecution failed to prove that there were at least four armed men — Thelma testified that three of Isidro's assailants were armed. and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50. not to mention that he was taken by surprise by the swiftness of the assault. such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.R. but sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua instead of death. while Sulpicio did make any declaration as to how many of his son's attackers were actually armed. HELD: The SC affirmed the trial court's holding that appellants employed superior strength in the execution of the crime. there were four cases filed against appellant which were all separately tried. MARIO CALDONA y LLAMAS G.one for the aggravated form of illegal possession of firearm and two. the Court finds the imposition of the death penalty against him unwarranted. PEDRO SASPA. they had the advantage of numerical superiority and were carrying high-powered firearms. accused-appellant assails the credibility of the victim. G. 2001 Accused was found guilty of raping his 15-yr old daughter. At the time the crime was committed the penalty for death was reclusion temporal in the maximum period to death. being favorable to the accused. there is a dearth of evidence on record to support the finding of homicide and/or frustrated homicide. would affect the outcome of the case. of R. there was a notorious inequality between the strength of the victim and his assailants. she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility.

is sufficient to establish victim’s age. No. furthermore. The victim. At the time of the fatal attack. namely the victim's minority and the relationship between the victim and the culprit. The concurrence of the two special qualifying circumstances. the SC held that it was amply and sufficiently proven in this case. without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. treachery exists when the accused employs. RODELIO PERALTA G. In crimes against persons. were categorically affirmed by Elizabeth Nardo. coupled by her mother's testimony. While the stab wound appears frontal. both accused-appellants fled and were apprehended only after more than nine (9) years from the filing of the criminal case in court. PEOPLE v. For humanitarian reasons. while the qualifying circumstance of relationship has been alleged in the Information. however.R. The Information sufficiently alleges that accused-appellant is the father of the victim. In addition. This was presented by her mother. With regard to the issue of conspiracy. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO . the victim was not in a position to defend himself and accused-appellants consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means. in lieu of her Certificate of Live Birth. When accused-appellant Quiambao told Peralta to stab the victim. In the instant case. HELD: The SC found accused guilty. and forms which directly and specially ensure its execution. methods. methods or forms of the attack employed by him. the victim’s birth date and her relationship to accused-appellant were shown by her Certificate of Baptism. PEOPLE v. the SC also agreed with the lower court. the qualifying circumstances should be duly proved during the trial. the victim's mother and the most competent witness. was not alleged in the Information. are sufficient to establish the existence of a common design among accused-appellants to commit the offense charged. namely. HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. 131637 March 1. The baptismal certificate. minority.circumstances are proved. No. With regard to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery. and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. accusedappellant can neither be convicted for qualified rape nor could the death penalty be meted upon him because to do so would be to deprive him of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. the death penalty can not be imposed where the sane were not properly alleged in the Information. The manner of attack was duly proven and the infliction of the stab wound was the result of a deliberate act. 2001 Accused was found guilty of the crime of murder. qualified by treachery as charged in the Information and sentenced to suffer the penalty reclusion perpetua. The SC held that these requirements were met in this case. 2001 Accused was found guilty of raping his 14-yr old daughter. Elizabeth. these must be properly pleaded in the indictment. increases the penalty of rape to one (1) degree. which was destroyed by fire. These acts taken together. means. however. After the stabbing. ALFREDO NARDO G. the victim was stabbed on his chest. These elements. 133888 March 1. it is devoid of any averment on private complainant's minority. Since one of the twin requirements mentioned.R. at that moment was unaware of what would befall him and was not given an opportunity to defend himself or retaliate. thus resulting in the imposition of the death penalty. In order to be appreciated as qualifying circumstances. accusedappellant Peralta yanked the left shoulder of Ramon and immediately stabbed the latter on his chest. PEOPLE v. Accused-appellants approached the victim from behind. and that the latter was fourteen (14) years old at the time of commission of the rape. the trial court recommended that the DEATH penalty be commuted to RECLUSION PERPETUA. it was shown that accused-appellants came from behind and yanked the victim's shoulder in order to inflict the fatal blow. the victim was standing in front of the parlor while waiting for his wife. To rule that treachery exists in the commission of the crime it must be shown that at the time of the attack. and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. However. Moreover.

7659. at most.e. In the second place. and 3. A thorough evaluation of the records will show that accused-appellant should only be convicted for acts of lasciviousness and not for consummated rape. Neither may the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men be appreciated in this case. and P100. in each count of Acts of Lasciviousness. The trial court found that during the shooting. Likewise. Pursuant to Article 63. the use of a motor vehicle cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance. The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.R. prestige and ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his purpose. i. 135667-70 1 . Nos. and 2) that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. In the absence of proof that advantage was taken by appellant.R. BALTAZAR AMION y DUGADUGA G. It also ordered him to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of P50.G.000. it can only be attempted rape. to four (4) years six (6) months and ten (10) days of prision correccional maximum as maximum. the requisites of this aggravating circumstance are: 1) that armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime. HELD: The SC held that with respect to the attendant circumstances.000. In view of the absence of aggravating circumstances and the presence of one mitigating circumstance. the penalty imposed by the trial court should be modified. The accused was sentenced to suffer the MAXIMUM PENALTY OF DEATH.000.00 as civil indemnity. A. this aggravating circumstance contemplates more than one armed man.00 for exemplary damages. The following ordinary aggravating circumstances were present in the commission of the crime: 1. directly or indirectly. when the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and . accused-appellant was sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of four (4) months and twenty (20) days of arresto mayor maximum as minimum. the public official must use his influence. No. March 1. in case of two indivisible penalties. Use of motor vehicle which facilitated the commission of the crime. PEOPLE v. Accused-appellant was further directed to pay the private complainant P30. March 1. HELD: The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness. The SC took however to its finding that statutory rape was committed by him on 5 June 1993. it found him guilty of three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correctional in its maximum period for each count. qualified by treachery. Accused was found guilty as Principal by Direct Participation of the crime of Murder. 2001. the aggravating circumstance of abuse of position could not be properly appreciated against him.00 for moral damages.000. in each of the four (4) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness. P20. The SC also did not agree that the fact that accused-appellant used his service firearm in shooting Vaflor should be considered as an aggravating circumstance as he took advantage of his public position. as the police vehicle used to reach the Sanicas residence was not used directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act.00. The SC found accused guilty of 4 counts of acts of lasciviousness. 140511. as the use of the plural form easily suggests. if not acts of lasciviousness. and to pay the costs. it is clear from the evidence that the accused-appellant carried out the killing all by himself and did not rely on his companion for assistance. aggravated by obvious ungratefulness. touching of either the labia of the pudendum by the penis. There is present only one (1) mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. In the first place. The SC held that absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ. 2. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Abuse of public office due to the use of his service firearm in the killing. The penalty for murder Under Article 248 is reclusion perpetua to death. P40. 2001. there can be no consummated rape.00 for moral damages. Neither circumstance was proven present.000. There is authority to the effect that for public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. an armed companion was on board the patrol car pointing his rifle in the direction of Dejoras. Aid of armed men in the commission of the crime.

the lesser penalty shall be applied. his attempts to cast ill motive on private complainant or her family for fabricating the charge of rape against him have no evidentiary weight. Appellant is the common-law husband of the victim's mother.R. No. They had the same purpose and were united in its execution. allow a medical examination of her genitalia. 124686. Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose. Their move initially was in the guise of a conciliatory overture. March 5. However. 2001.A. 113265. An unexpected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia. No. PEOPLE v. as the elements of the former were not proven. Moreover. HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. Against said positive identification. MANUEL PEREZ y MAGPANTAY G. G. Her testimony is supported by the results of the medico-legal examination conducted upon her at the police crime laboratory. PEOPLE v. and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals. Perforce. 2001. Accused was found guilty of raping a 12-yr old. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Hence the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua. 2001 . 7659. 234 SCRA 555. the offense committed by appellant and his coaccused Bakunawa is murder. Simon. 127158 March 5.R. Even if it was Bakunawa who inflicted the fatal wound. ET AL. the SC held that the trial court correctly sentenced appellant to reclusion perpetua. ROQUE "UKING" ELLADO G. Conspiracy exists at the time of the commission of the offense. Private complainant testified as to how appellant had carnal knowledge of her. No. the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength alleged in the information to be attendant cannot be appreciated. 1993. all because her maternal relatives want her mother to separate from her common-law spouse. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. As treachery attended the killing of the victim. Appellant was convicted of the crime of murder. As to the penalty imposed. she positively pointed to appellant in open court as the person responsible for her defilement. for he does not even deny that he was with the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. HELD: Having examined the entire record. conspiracy is evident. The SC held that both of the accused acted in concert in the assault on the victim. It served to cover their nefarious plot. liability also exists on the part of appellant notwithstanding nonparticipation in every detail in the execution of the crime. March 5.R. appellant's conviction must stand. 1990 or way before the restoration of the death penalty for cases of qualified rape by virtue of R. No. JULIO HERIDA. The death penalty law took effect only on December 31. appellant's puerile defense of denial will not hold water. Note that the rape complained of in this case took place on May 31.there is no aggravating circumstance. to insure the success of the attack. It would be most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story of rape by her mother's common-law spouse. 569 (1994). as per the Court’s holding in People v. The SC also held that the acts of appellant indicate that he and Bakunawa had planned the attack in a manner that would catch the victim unaware. PEOPLE v. and subject herself to a public trial and possible ridicule. Moreover. The deceptive manner by which the two accused fatally assaulted the victim shows that they had intended to catch him off guard. The carnal knowledge took place under circumstances of violence and intimidation. Their actuation could only point to the existence of a pre-conceived plan to maim and kill the victim. the SC found that the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution proved beyond doubt all the elements of rape. and the latter is deemed absorbed by treachery.

Where the attack was not treacherous. it is immaterial who inflicted the fatal blows. Neither the victim nor his family had any opportunity to put up any defense. 2001 Accused was convicted of the crime of murder. The prosecution has effectively shown that the shooting was calculated as to ensure the infliction of the fatal wounds without giving the victim and his family any opportunity to put up a defense. Clearly. the conclusion by the trial court that evident premeditation qualified the killing of Delara is devoid of any factual mooring. no indicia whether the attack was so sudden and unexpected that it afforded the victim no chance to defend himself. all three attackers pursued him. JOMER CABANSAY y PALERMO G. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In the instant case. Neither is there proof to show how appellant and the other two assailants planned the killing of the victim. The mode of attack was executed in such a manner that retaliation was not possible. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as clearly as the killing itself.Accused was found guilty of the crime of murder. the number of aggressors would constitute abuse of superior strength. There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance. while Rene and Edmund were hacking and stabbing the victim. ALFREDO IBO G. No. March 6. appellant was with them. HELD: The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. however. treachery cannot be established from the circumstances. PEOPLE v. Evidently. qualifies the killing as murder. no matter how minimal his participation. In conspiracy. There was absolutely no showing from the testimony of the witness how the attack commenced. the trial court characterized the method of attack as deliberately and consciously adopted by the three attackers. . In finding the killing aggravated by evident premeditation. Accused Jamila. the following must be proven: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the crime. pounding him with a concrete hollow block. Treachery cannot be presumed. The victim did not even have an inkling of the danger to his life. and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. the aforementioned acts point to a common purpose. and community of interest among the assailants. therefore. 132353 March 5. HELD: The SC agreed with appellant that nowhere in the assailed judgment is it shown how the trial court arrived at its conclusion that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery. the SC held that the trial court correctly sentenced accused-appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. there is no showing of the time when appellant and his confederates decided to commit the crime. With regard to the issue of conspiracy. Abuse of superior strength. was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of this information. is as guilty as the principal perpetrator of the crime. there was a transparent manifestation of their common sentiment to inflict harm and injury upon the victim. appellant was performing overt acts. The court found that there was treachery in the taking of the life of the victim as without any warning. Nor is there any evidence showing how much time elapsed before the plan was executed. (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination. on the other hand. The qualifying circumstance of treachery having been likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt. Absent all these. At the time of the commission of the crime in 1995. the penalty for murder was reclusion perpetua to death. the accused-appellant is guilty of the crime of murder. No.R.R. Second. which directly or indirectly contributed to the execution of the crime. First. 2001. PEOPLE v. For evident premeditation to be appreciated. accused-appellant suddenly and unexpectedly shot the victim in front of his family right in his own home. 138646. the attack against him being sudden and unexpected. after the victim somehow managed to fend off his attackers and flee. concert of action. A conspirator.

There was no proof or showing of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime. it would be that authored by the accused which resulted in the death of Castillo. HELD: With regard to the claim of self-defense of Samudio. abuse of superior strength and disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of his rank. the accused voluntarily surrendered to him. presupposes an actual. the qualifying circumstance of treachery was established by the prosecution witness who testified that he and the victim. The location of the wound indicates that the victim was stabbed by the accused from the back. They posed no threat or danger to the accused. he failed to discharge this burden convincingly for he did not adequately support his allegation of self-defense. 126168. Neither can abuse of superior strength be appreciated. who was shocked by the suddenness of the attack. After the victim fell to his side. The prosecution failed to establish proof of the specific facts demonstrating that Samudio's act of . all the essential elements thereof must be adequately proven by the accused. the SC held that the trial court failed to make a finding as to the existence of any of these qualifying circumstances. for. No one corroborated his testimony that the aggression was initiated by the victim. to allow the offender to reflect on the consequence of his act. Absent the element of unlawful aggression. None of these elements of evident premeditation can be fairly inferred from the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case at bar. After considering in his favor the mitigating circumstance of surrender. did not see the initial stage and particulars of the attack on the victim. were conversing and sorting "bulang" when the accused suddenly and without provocation stabbed the victim. Inevitably. we mentioned that for self-defense to prosper. All of the accused-appellants were found guilty of the crime of murder. was likewise stabbed by the accused three times. and subsequently. HELD: The accused admits the killing of the victim but denies any liability by invoking self-defense. the theory of self-defense is not tenable. The prosecution did not present any direct proof that there was a deliberate intent on the part of the accused-appellants to take advantage of the obvious inequality of force between the victim and the accused-appellants. the SC held that it was duly proven by the prosecution. his testimony is self-serving. the first of these three essential elements. the latter and his companions were conversing and sorting "bulang". If there is any aggression present in this case. Taking into account the version of the prosecution. the accused-appellant made a follow-up thrust. PEOPLE v. the prosecution failed to establish the attendance of evident premeditation. An accused who invokes self-defense has to rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. being a barangay captain" alleged in the information is likewise unavailing. At the outset. In this case. sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of the person defending himself. evident premeditation. it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing. No. the accused was sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua. Prosecution witness SPO4 Patrocinio Abesia himself testified that the mother of the accused interceded for the latter's surrender. 2001. The qualifying circumstance of "disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of his rank.R. and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit and the execution thereof. together with two other companions. Similarly. It is alleged in the Information that the killing was qualified by treachery. March 7. In the instant case. Thus. the result would be the conviction of the accused springing from his own admission that he killed the victim. Anent the qualifying circumstance of treachery. ANTONIO SAMUDIO G. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. even if the latter were weak. the theory of self-defense of the accused collapses. When the accused stabbed the victim. Without this element. The witness. treachery cannot be appreciated considering that the only eyewitness to the actual stabbing. Mere superiority in number is not enough to constitute superior strength.Accused was found guilty of the crime of murder. (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination. Unlawful aggression. However. The SC held that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated by the trial court. there can be no successful invocation of self-defense.

which was the offense proved. Nonetheless. there is a dearth of evidence to establish evident pre-meditation as either a qualifying or generic aggravating circumstance. March 7. Likewise. that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in Samudio's favor. Although the deceased sustained five wounds. Taking into account the qualifying circumstance of the minority of the victim and her relationship to accusedappellant. (b) the offender surrender himself to a person in authority. responsibility therefor can be established by the totality of the duly proven facts that yield an inevitable conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused. the crime committed is not murder. 2001 Accused was convicted of three (3) counts of rape for raping his 13-yr old niece.killing the victim was deliberately intended to disregard or insult the respect due him on account of his rank as a barangay captain. it is well-settled that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. PEOPLE v. did not see its inception and the details as to how it progressed. as maximum. Even if there is no eyewitness to the crime. the failure of the prosecution to prove the existence of conspiracy does not eliminate any criminal liability on the part of the other accused-appellants. It appears. they are liable as accomplices. As observed by the OSG. To support a conviction based on circumstantial evidence. To be thus considered. some of which were at the back. They held that the "(i)ntimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. While the witnesses may have testified regarding incidents prior to the killing. Accused was found guilty of the crime of murder. and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt.R. to fourteen (14) years. (a) the offender had not actually been arrested. (b) the facts from which the inference of guilt is based must be proved. the concurrence of the following requisites is essential: (a) there must be more than one circumstance. The acts of Samudio vis-a-vis those of his co-accused failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy. three (3) requisites must be proven. eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum. No. there is no evidence that appellant had ever conceived or expressed a resolve to kill the victim. The trial court also found accused-appellant guilty of attempted rape. Conviction may still be proper if factual circumstances duly proven by the prosecution constitute an unbroken chain which lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty to the exclusion of all others. Appellant cannot be held liable for the crime of murder as charged in the information. HELD: The SC noted that appellant faults the trial court for its reliance on circumstantial evidence. Absent any of the above qualifying circumstances. the lower court meted three (3) death penalties pursuant to RA 7659. ERNESTO ICALLA y INES G. HELD: The SC said that the victim’s failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts of the accused-appellant. and sentenced him to serve an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum as minimum. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. namely. CONRADO SALADINO Y DINGLE G. it is therefore enough that it . but only for homicide. 136173. PEOPLE v. the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to completely establish the existence of conspiracy among the accused. and (c) the surrender was voluntary. 137481-83 & 138455 March 7.R. The offense committed is not murder. There being no eyewitness to the killing or evidence on the mode of attack adopted by appellant. Although they could not be convicted as a co-principal. however. but only homicide under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code which is punishable by reclusion temporal. Nos. treachery could not be appreciated in this case as a qualifying circumstance. 2001. this fact by itself does not constitute treachery which would qualify the killing to murder. there is no evidence as to the manner in which the assault was made or how the stabbing began and developed. It bears stressing that conspiracy must be proved as convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself. However. Since the sole prosecution witness to the actual killing.

although the prosecution did prove complainant's minority and relationship to accused-appellant." In the case at bench. Ramos 20 the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender. March 8. 2001 Accused was found guilty for 5 counts of rape. the trial court apparently relied on the 1st special circumstance introduced by R. in imposing the death penalty. The SC held that the trial court likewise correctly imposed the amount of P25. 2001. that of uncle and niece. for two of the charges. the aggravating circumstances of relationship. otherwise. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law. punishable by reclusion perpetua. However. However.produces fear — fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. he can only be convicted of simple rape. And be that as it may. eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum as maximum. Therefore. EUGENIO MANGOMPIT G. The proper penalty for rape in the attempted stage should be two (2) degrees lower than the penalty for consummated rape. if resistance would nevertheless be futile because of a continuing intimidation. he cannot be sentenced to the supreme penalty of death. the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender should be specifically alleged in the information conformably with the right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. the death penalty cannot be imposed because both of these qualifying circumstances were not alleged in the information. Nos. or a total of P125. 7659. Both relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to qualify the crime as punishable by death. Accordingly. Even though the minority of Marites and her relationship with accused-appellant were proven beyond doubt. He was found guilty for raping his 16-yr old niece. PEOPLE v. being special qualifying circumstances should be alleged in the information.A. To hold otherwise would deny accusedappellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. In the case at bar. or prision mayor.000. despite the five (5) counts of rape committed by accusedappellant. "(I)n criminal offenses. HELD: The SC found the accused guilty. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death for each count. dwelling. Dwelling was likewise proven as it was shown that the five incidents of rape were all committed inside the house of the family of the victim where accused-appellant was staying as a houseguest. as and by way of exemplary damages. Under Article 2230 of the New Civil Code. the maximum imposable penalty should be taken from prision mayor in its medium period and the minimum from prision correccional. Such threat is sufficient intimidation as contemplated by our jurisprudence on rape. . and. the lower court erred in imposing the death penalty.R. The imposition of an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum as minimum. No. ARNEL MATARO G. 130378. exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. the penalty of death imposed by the trial court should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. In People v. but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count. nighttime were proven to have attended the commission of the crime. that of minority of the victim and relationship with the offender. Relationship. the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was likewise proven in two of the five rape incidents as it was shown that accused-appellant waited until late in the night when the other family members were in deep slumber before consummating his carnal desire for the victim. 139962-66 March 7. to fourteen (14) years." The failure to shout or offer resistance was not because she consented to the deed but because she honestly believed she would be killed if she shouted or resisted. in attempted rape is also erroneous.000 for each count of rape. Finally. In the case at bench. Thus. the death penalty cannot be imposed. then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. It is not enough that the relationship was subsequently proved during the trial.R. was proven by the testimony of the victim and by the admission of accused-appellant himself. it failed to implead both minority and relationship in the four (4) Informations filed against accused-appellant.00.

In the instant case. the prosecution's whole case collapses for such familiarity was its very foundation. The prosecution has also failed to establish any motive on the part of the accused-appellant to kill the deceased. Moreover. the conclusion of trial courts regarding the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. The SC therefore affirmed the ruling of the lower court. Accused-appellant invoked alibi. the victim had already dismissed the appellants after they talked to him. But equally fundamental is the axiom that evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. this Court is constrained to rule for an acquittal. The basis of her identification of accused-appellant as the victim's assailant was precisely her purported familiarity with accused-appellant. as repeatedly stressed. There was treachery in this case since. 134279 March 8. Jr. She did not pick him out of a police line-up nor did she provide the police with a description of the assailant. but made modifications with the costs to be paid by the accused.Accused-appellants were found guilty for the crime of murder. which he failed to corroborate with other evidence. In the face of doubts regarding the familiarity of the witness with the alleged assailant. however. these requirements were met. The conditions of visibility being favorable and these witnesses not appearing to be biased. where the prosecution's evidence is weak or just as equally tenuous. HELD: The accused appellants invoke the "equipoise" rule because their guilt had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. PEOPLE v. The SC also held that the trial court did not err in qualifying the killing as murder. Teehankee. alibi need not be inquired into. as in this case. The SC said that it has enumerated the requisites for credible identification in the case of People v. Nevertheless. appellate court should accord to the factual findings of trial courts and their evaluation great weight and respect concerning the credibility of witnesses. proof of the same becomes relevant and essential when. 249 SCRA 54 (1995) as follows: 1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime. alibis should be considered with suspicion and received with caution.. there is no question that both witnesses had the opportunity to view the incident as it unfolded before them with a degree of attention that allowed them to take in the important details and recall them clearly. and to pay the costs HELD: The SC held that the inconsistencies in Rowena Junio's testimony do not refer to incidental or collateral matters. 2001 Accused was found guilty of the crime of murder. this circumstance would not sustain his conviction. As a rule. RICKY ROGER AUSTRIA G. the distance of the witness from the scene and the visibility conditions thereat assume greater significance. In all criminal cases.R. And. Considering the apparent unreliability of the evidence proffered by the prosecution. and both were sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim. They shot the victim when the latter had his hands raised. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law. the identity of the assailant is in question. No. but also because they can easily be fabricated. and 6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable. 2) witness' degree of attention at that time. all doubts should be resolved in favor of . as testified to by prosecution witness Fernandez. The prosecution did not show. the motive of the accused is immaterial and does not have to be proven. considering her distance from the scene. She pointed to accused-appellant because she allegedly knew him prior to the killing. 5) the length of time between the crime and the identification. whether the intensity of the defective lamp was sufficient to enable the witness to see accused-appellant's face. 18 The Court held that in their view. 3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness. If the witness was not at all familiar with accused-appellant. The victim was deliberately allowed to enjoy a false sense of security. While generally. 4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification.

The alleged inconsistency between the testimony of Eliza (victim) and Emma. Such minor inconsistencies even manifest truthfulness and candor and erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. RODOLFO VILLADARES G. First. In fact. must concur. Conviction. and acquitted the accused on ground of reasonable doubt.the accused on the principle that it is better to liberate a guilty man than to unjustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proven by the required quantum of evidence. that the latter testified that Eliza shouted. but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Second. even if the Information alleged both. In this case. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. These two circumstances. as corroborated by her sister Emma is sufficient to convict. HELD: Accused-appellant maintains that he should only be convicted for acts of lasciviousness because there was no sexual intercourse. Full penetration of the victim's genital organ is not required in order to sustain a conviction for rape. HELD: Accused assails the credibility of the witness and the supposed inconsistencies in the testimonies. competent to determine whether or not the witness is telling the truth. Campuhan. the testimony of Eliza. In any event. Third. that is. gesture and tone of voice of a witness while testifying and therefore. In the case under review. 137649 March 8. 2001. and that a victim's testimony alone if credible is sufficient to convict the appellant of the crime. The SC found the accused guilty. if only one is proven during trial. it is said. In the Information that was filed. 1996 by accused-appellant. and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. EFREN VALEZ G. the SC found that evidence is wanting as to the special qualifying circumstance of minority.R. otherwise. so long as there was an attempt to insert. with or without the medical certificate. March 12. 136738. the death penalty cannot be imposed. It is doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded with highest respect because the trial court had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial expression. must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of guilt that we find here to be wanting. And. This Court has ruled that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. PEOPLE v. the accused being the husband of complainant's half-sister. Accused was found guilty of raping a 12-yr old girl. The inconsistencies in Emma's statement before the police authorities and her testimony in open court cannot detract from Eliza's testimony that she was raped on July 20. even without rupture of the hymen. as special qualifying circumstances. Minority and relationship under the first paragraph are special qualifying circumstances which qualify rape to warrant the mandatory penalty of death. it was indicated that there was abuse of confidence and trust. As such. No. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. The SC held that it is well-settled that where the accused tried to insert his penis into his victim's vagina. we find that Emma's testimony in court sufficiently corroborates that of Eliza on material points. the same must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself. No. Discrepancies and/or inconsistencies between a witness' affidavit and testimony in open court do not impair credibility as affidavits are taken ex parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching inquiries by the investigating officer. 2001 Accused was found guilty of raping a 12-yr old girl. there is no issue as to whether or not there was insertion or penetration which calls for a fine distinction between mere brushing or "epidermal contact" and actual touching or sliding into the female organ as enunciated in the case of People v. Lastly. they must both be specifically pleaded in the Information and proven during trial.R. The SC still affirmed the ruling of the lower court. that was all that was necessary to commit consummated rape. undoubtedly. rape is considered to have already been consummated. is trivial and cannot affect the veracity of their testimonies. The SC reversed the decision of the lower court. minority and relationship. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility. The only proof as to the minority of the complainant is her testimony .

000. and (3) that the accused committed the unlawful acts against three (3) or more persons. Accused was convicted of illegal recruitment committed in large scale by a syndicate. (2) that the accused had not complied with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment. individually or as a group. This notwithstanding. and considering that she admittedly had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment. In this case. accused was the one who informed complainants of job prospects in Korea and the requirements for deployment. as maximum. HELD: The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are: (1) that the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as defined under Article 13 (b) or in any prohibited activities under Article 34 of the Labor Code. Moreover. and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. Despite the fact that she was just an ordinary employee of the company. NELLIE CABAIS Y GAMUELA G. eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor. was presented by the prosecution to establish complainant's minority at the time of the incident. accused-appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants. 14000-R. the death penalty cannot be imposed. either locally or overseas. She also received money from them as placement fees. She was also convicted for two counts of estafa. together with his employer. her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the corporate officers in undertaking illegal recruitment activities. The mother of the complainant and mother in-law of the accused also testified that accused-appellant is his son-inlaw. Since the recruitment involves three or more persons. (b) in Criminal Case No. and costs. The elements of estafa are: (a) that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit.R. as minimum. 2001.during direct examination that she was 13 years old and a Grade VI student. March 16. accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code with life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos. accused-appellant did not possess any license to engage in recruitment activities.00 as actual damages. as evidenced by a certification from the POEA and the testimony of a representative of said government agency. to seven (7) years. Complainants were successfully induced .000. evidenced by receipts signed by accused Cabais and accused Forneas. eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days of prision mayor.00 as actual damages. All of the complainants testified that they personally met accused-appellant and transacted with her regarding the overseas job placement offers. Complainants parted with their money. Her acts constituted recruitment. Thus. As to filiation. Accused-appellant contends that she was not involved in recruitment but was merely an employee of a recruitment agency. to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional. as minimum. Thus. No other proof. the Court notes that the circumstance of relationship by affinity within the third civil degree was properly alleged in the Information which stated that accused-appellant "is the husband of complainant's half-sister and likewise duly proven during trial. Moreover. to six (6) years. the accused himself admitted that the victim is his sister-in-law. and costs. as maximum. Nancy Oidi. particularly with respect to the requirement to secure a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers. if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. accused-appellant contends that she is not liable for the offenses charged because she did not appropriate for her own use the money given to her by complainants as placement and passport fees. in the amount of P21. and sentenced to (a) in Criminal Case No. and to indemnify the offended party Joan Merante. to six (6) months and one (1) day of prision correccional. 13999-R. accused-appellant misrepresented herself to complainants as one who can make arrangements for job placements in Korea. Even complainant's mother failed to testify as to her daughter's age on the witness stand. PEOPLE V. As to the charges of estafa. in the amount of P40. accused-appellant Cabais' contention under such ground is untenable. Complainant herself declared that accused-appellant was the husband of her elder sister. and to indemnify the offended party. and (b) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third person. for failure of the prosecution to establish minority by proof beyond reasonable doubt. No. the fact that the money was appropriated by accused for her own use is not an element of the crime of estafa. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal. Furthermore. From the foregoing. 129070. accused-appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment.

the precise extent of participation of each accused in the crime is secondary and the act of one may be imputed to all the conspirators. 133815-17. They were also found guilty of illegal possession of firearms. It may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated. therefore. during or after the commission of the crime. The Court. four (4) months and twenty (20) days of prision correctional sic. causing them damage and prejudice. at first blush. yield to it because Fajardo did not say that paltiks can in no case be issued a license or a permit. although they did not actually take part in the homicide. is illegally manufactured as recognized in People v. all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. This appears to be. Fajardo. and cannot be issued a license or permit. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of four (4) years. and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The SC held that the trial court. and that proof that a firearm is a paltik dispenses with proof that it is unlicensed. there were several circumstances immediately before. however. The Court agrees with accused-appellants and the Solicitor General that the prosecution in this case failed to prove the second element. accused-appellant is guilty of estafa. a very logical proposition. PEOPLE V. In cases involving illegal possession of firearm. EDGARDO LIAD G. HELD: The Court finds that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a conspiracy between accused-appellants and the deceased. 2001. direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. Where conspiracy is shown. it is no longer necessary to prove that it is unlicensed.R. In conspiracy. Facts: Accused-appellants were found guilty as principals by direct participation of the crime of robbery with homicide. the requisite elements are: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of the robbery. . or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such point to a joint purpose and design. did not err in convicting accused-appellants of robbery with homicide. Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before. and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. March 22. during and after the robbery indubitably which show that the perpetrators were one in their purpose to rob the victim. Consequently. Nos. concerted action and community of interest. In this case.to part with their money. nine (9) months and eleven (11) days to five (5) years. The latter is a negative fact that constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession. The SC does not agree with the contention of the Solicitor General that since a paltik is a homemade gun.