This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2007
2006 Criminal Law Case Digests
EVANGELINE LADONGA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 141066. February 17, 2005
Facts: In 1989, spouses Adronico and Evangeline Ladonga became Alfredo Oculam’s regular customers in his pawnshop business. Sometime in May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a P9,075.55 loan from him, guaranteed by United Coconut Planters Bank (UCPB) Check No. 284743, post dated to July 7, 1990 issued by Adronico; sometime in the last week of April 1990 and during the first week of May 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained an additional loan of P12,730.00, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 284744, post dated to July 26, 1990 issued by Adronico; between May and June 1990, the Ladonga spouses obtained a third loan in the amount of P8,496.55, guaranteed by UCPB Check No. 106136, post dated to July 22, 1990 issued by Adronico; the three checks bounced upon presentment for the reason ―CLOSED ACCOUNT‖; when the Ladonga spouses failed to redeem the check, despite repeated demands, he filed a criminal complaint against them. While admitting that the checks issued by Adronico bounced because there was no sufficient deposit or the account was closed, the Ladonga spouses claimed that the checks were issued only to guarantee the obligation, with an agreement that Oculam should not encash the checks when they mature; and, that petitioner is not a signatory of the checks and had no participation in the issuance thereof. The RTC rendered a joint decision finding the Ladonga spouses guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22. Petitioner brought the case to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction of petitioner. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner who was not the drawer or issuer of the three checks that bounced but her co-accused husband under the latter’s account could be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as conspirator.
Apparently. the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner performed any overt act in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. 2005 Facts: Before us is the Motion for Reconsideration filed by herein accused-appellant of our Decision dated 24 October 2003 in G. is not enough to constitute one as a party to a conspiracy.‖ To be held guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy. Case No. No. we adjudged him guilty only of attempted rape. we modified the ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). . Gumaca.R. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES G. Quezon. No. not by conjectures. Article 8 of the RPC provides that ―a conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. We.R. acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate. Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. the only semblance of overt act that may be attributed to petitioner is that she was present when the first check was issued. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. Even knowledge. January 31. but by positive and conclusive evidence. upheld the ruling of the court a quo with regard to Crim. 152758. In the present case. In said decision. we sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the ultimate penalty of death. 152589 and No. Branch 61. 8353 and for this. however. The overt act or acts of the accused may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself or may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the criminal plan. Case No. Conspiracy must be established. 6637-G finding accused-appellant guilty of incestuous rape of a minor under Art. However. this inference cannot be stretched to mean concurrence with the criminal design. absent any active participation in the commission of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. 6636-G finding accused-appellant guilty of rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code and instead. in Crim. the accused must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the complicity.Held: The conviction must be set aside. 152589 & 152758.
Article 366 of the Revised Penal Code states: ―(a)ny person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon the other person of either sex. a fundamental difference between the two. 6636-G. In rape.There is an attempt to commit rape when the offender commences its commission directly by overt acts but 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. establish beyond doubt that the latter intended to ravish his very own flesh and blood. shall be punished by prision correccional. Accused-appellant. however. In this case. rape and acts of lasciviousness have the same nature. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. No. Case No.R. There is. Held: After a thorough review and evaluation of the records of this case. there is the intent to lie with a woman whereas this element is absent in acts of lasciviousness. 139987. we find no sufficient basis to modify our earlier decision convicting accused-appellant of attempted rape in Crim. then proceeded to kiss the latter and he likewise touched her breasts until finally. who was similarly naked as private complainant. under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article. he rendered private complainant unconscious by boxing her in the stomach. As vividly narrated by private complainant before the trial court. taking advantage of the cover of darkness and of the absence of his wife. Upon the other hand. FLOR VS.Issue: Whether or not the accused committed attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness. they are indisputably overt acts executed in order to consummate the crime of rape against the person of private complainant. Naga City. the series of appalling events which took place on the night of 18 March 1998 inside the humble home of private complainant and of accused-appellant. Branch 20. SALVADOR D. These dastardly acts of accused-appellant constitute ―the first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made.‖ Far from being mere obscenity or lewdness. 2005 Facts: Information for libel was filed before the RTC.‖ As explained by an eminent author of criminal law. against the . removed her (private complainant’s) clothing and thereafter placed himself on top of her. March 31. accused-appellant.
or to blacken the memory of one who is dead. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court under R. in the Bicol Region comprised by the Provinces of Albay. Issue: Whether or not the questioned news item is libelous. without justifiable motive and with malicious intent of impeaching. discredit. 4363. discrediting and destroying the honor. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. First are those which are classified as absolutely privileged which enjoy immunity from libel suits regardless of the existence of malice in fact. unlawfully and feloniously. status. integrity. or any act. No. or contempt of a natural person or juridical person. 1986. or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor. The other kind of privileged matters are the qualifiedly or conditionally privileged communications which. The trial court found the petitioner guilty. a local weekly newspaper circulated in the Bicol Region. The Court of Appeals likewise upheld the decision of the trial court.P.petitioner and Ramos who were then the managing editor and correspondent. write. Blg. may be susceptible to a finding of libel provided the prosecution establishes the presence of malice in fact. real or imaginary. with banner headline and front page news item read by the public throughout the Bicol Region ―VILLAFUERTE’S DENIAL CONVINCES NO ONE‖. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. It states: On or about the 18th day up to the 24th day of August. of the local weekly newspaper Bicol Forum. or of a vice or defect. publish and circulate an issue of the local weekly newspaper BICOL FORUM throughout the Bicol Region. respectively. Masbate. condition. and the Cities of Iriga and Naga. and to expose him to public hatred. edit. of the Bicol Forum. 129. good name and reputation of the complainant as Minister of the Presidential Commission on Government Reorganization and concurrently Governor of the Province of Camarines Sur. Sorsogon. Philippines. and B. respectively. unlike the first classification.‖ The law recognizes two kinds of privileged matters.A. The exceptions provided for in Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code fall into this category. Held: No. Camarines Sur. omission. did then and there willfully. and Camarines Norte. The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Libel is defined as ―a public and malicious imputation of a crime. the above-named accused who are the news correspondent and the managing editor. ridicule and contempt. Catanduanes. .
were both acquitted. Nenita Aguil and Mahmud Darkis. Issue: 1) Whether or not there was unlawful intent on the appellant’s part. respectively. Sulu. conspiring and confederating with MAHMUD I. or more commonly known as technical malversation. being then the Administrative Officer V of the said school. Only appellant was found guilty and sentenced by the Sandiganbayan in its decision. NO.Appellant’s co-accused. 2005 Facts: Convicted by the Sandiganbayan in its Crim. 1989 or sometime prior or subsequent thereto. appellant was charged under an Information which pertinently reads: That on or about November. ABDULLA versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. persistently pleas innocence of the crime charged. also a public officer. of the Sulu State College. apply for the payment of wages of casuals. to the Judiciary – to any or all the agencies of Government – public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy.000. NORMA A. or set of officials. appellant Norma A. the Sandiganbayan amended appellant’s sentence by deleting the temporary special disqualification imposed upon her. Abdulla is now before this Court on petition for review under Rule 45. being then the President and cashier. AGUIL.Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. both public officers. to the damage and prejudice of public service . to the Legislature.00). while in the performance of their functions. . in Jolo. DARKIS. Case No. 150129 April 6. Upon motion for reconsideration.R. the amount of FORTY THOUSAND PESOS (P40. and as such by reason of their positions and duties are accountable for public funds under their administration. Along with Nenita Aguil and Mahmud Darkis. Still dissatisfied. now before this Court. Rising superior to any official. appellant. without lawful authority. to the Chief Executive. which amount was appropriated for the payment of the salary differentials of secondary school teachers of the said school. did then and there willfully. ABDULLA and NENITA P. 23261 of the crime of illegal use of public funds defined and penalized under Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. the above-named accused: NORMA A. the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. unlawfully and feloniously. Philippine Currency.
The Court notes that there is no particular appropriation for salary differentials of secondary school teachers of the Sulu State College in RA 6688. Settled is the rule that conviction should rest on the strength of evidence of the prosecution and not on the weakness of the defense. Appellant herein. There is no dispute that the money was spent for a public purpose – payment of the wages of laborers working on various projects in the municipality.00) released by the DBM for salary differentials. The presumption of criminal intent will not automatically apply to all charges of technical malversation because disbursement of public funds for public use is per se not an unlawful act. this Court has no basis to affirm appellant’s conviction.000. The Sandiganbayan’s improper reliance on Sec. for the payment of the terminal leave benefits of other school teachers of the Sulu State College. who used the remainder of the forty thousand pesos (P40. Acquittal is thus in order. . 2. Here.000. 5(b) of Rule 131 does not save the day for the prosecution’s deficiency in proving the existence of criminal intent nor could it ever tilt the scale from the constitutional presumption of innocence to that of guilt. as here. The third element of the crime of technical malversation which requires that the public fund used should have been appropriated by law.00) allotment for payment of salary differentials of 34 secondary school teachers is not an ordinance or law contemplated in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code.2) Whether or not the essential elements of the crime of technical malversation is present. It is pertinent to note the high priority which laborers’ wages enjoy as claims against the employers’ funds and resources. In the absence of criminal intent. Absent this required quantum of evidence would mean exoneration for accused-appellant. is therefore absent. The authorization given by the Department of Budget and Management for the use of the forty thousand pesos (P40. Held: The Court must have to part ways with the Sandiganbayan in its reliance on Section 5 (b) of Rule 131 as basis for its imputation of criminal intent upon appellant. cannot be held guilty of technical malversation in the absence. appellant cannot be said to have committed an unlawful act when she paid the obligation of the Sulu State College to its employees in the form of terminal leave benefits such employees were entitled to under existing civil service laws. In fine. of any provision in RA 6688 specifically appropriating said amount for payment of salary differentials only. the third and fourth elements of the crime defined in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code are lacking in this case.
of any arbitrariness or oversight of facts or circumstances of weight and substance. the above-named accused. may be committed in two ways: first. did then and there willfully. No. shall attack. allegedly committed. Unquestionably. as here. as follows: That on or about the 20th day of March. EDWARD M.R. The trial court convicted petitioner of the crime of direct assault. are final . while engaged in the performance of official duties. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. by then and there challenging the latter to a fistfight and thereafter grappling and hitting the said policeman on his face. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. Municipality of La Trinidad. knowing him to be a policeman. by any person or persons who. employ force. shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition. unlawfully and feloniously attack. 1993. Province of Benguet. what with reality that it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses first-hand and to note their demeanor. and attitude while testifying. LEYGO. thus injuring him in the process while the latter was actually engaged in the performance of his official duties. or (b) when the offender is a public officer or employee. 1993. absent. Its findings on such matters. a crime against public order. in the Regional Trial Court at La Trinidad. or (c) when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority. 2005 Facts: On May 6. Shilan. Benguet an information for direct assault was filed against petitioner. or on occasion of such performance. Held: Direct assault. conduct. Philippines. by any person or persons who. and second. which is the more common form of assault and is aggravated when: (a) the assault is committed with a weapon. Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial court. In any event. 138553. without a public uprising. June 30. without a public uprising.ENRIQUE ―TOTOY‖ RIVERA Y DE GUZMAN VS. or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents. employ force and seriously resist one Lt. petitioner’s case falls under the second mode. at Tomay. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. this Court has said time and again that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is best undertaken by the trial court.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner acted in self-defense. Petitioner invoked self-defense. he was suddenly hacked at the back with bolo which was more that 1 foot long. When he did not see anybody.and conclusive upon this Court and will not to be disturbed on appeal. the petitioner thereby submitted having deliberately caused the victim’s injuries. 1994. By invoking self-defense. Appellant also hit him with a guitar causing Romeo to sustain an injury on his forehead. he proceeded towards the road. Romeo C.152358. the latter having heard somebody shouting invectives at her husband. Boringot was awakened by his wife Aida. the confluence of the three essential requisites for complete self-defense: (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. Held: The petitioner was burdened to prove. He looked back at his assailant and he recognized him to be appellant Conrado whom he knew since the 1970’s and whose face he clearly saw as light from the moon illuminated the place. Appellant went on hacking him. The burden of proof is shifted to him to prove with clear and convincing all the requisites of his affirmative defense. FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE. No. viz: ―You ought to be killed. Upon passing by a coconut tree.R. you devil. including ears and the head. He must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not the weakness of that of the disbelieved after the petitioner admitted inflicting . (b) reasonable means used by the person defending himself to repel or prevent the unlawful to repel or prevent the unlawful aggression. (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. he sustained 11 wounds. with clear and convincing evidence. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.ESSENTIAL REQUISITES FOR COMPLETE SELFDEFENSE CONRADO CASITAS VS. All in all. February 5. appellant was shouting invectives at him. The trial court rejected petitioner’s plea of self-defense and convicted him of frustrated homicide.‖ So Romeo stood up and peeped to see who was outside. hitting him in different parts of the body. 2004 Facts: Early in the morning of August 25. While hitting him.
when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes on Nov.the mortal injuries on the victim. 1990. stating that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes. 1986. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS G. BIGAMY. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage. Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner. 10. PENALTY VERONICO TENEBRO VS. This would have bolstered his claim that he hacked the victim to defend himself. EFFECT OF DECLARATION OF NULLITY OFSECOND MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY. Tenebro admitted having married to Villareyes and produced two children. this one with a certain Nilda Villegas. Petitioner never surrendered voluntarily to the police and admitted that he had injured the victim. 150758. claiming that no marriage ceremony took place. During trial. He alleged that he signed a marriage contract merely to enable her to get the allotment from his office in connection with his work as a seaman. she verified from Villareyes whether the latter was indeed married to the petitioner. he denied that he and Villareyes were validly married to each other. Tenebro showed Ancajas a photocopy of a marriage contract between him and Villareyes. 2004 Facts: Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with Leticia Ancajas on April 10. The number. The two were wed by a judge at Lapu-Lapu City. petitioner contracted yet another marriage. the petitioner failed to prove his affirmative defense. 1993.R. The petitioner did not do so. On January 25. ELEMENTS. Witness for the petitioner testified that the wounds sustained by petitioner could not have been caused by bolo. In this case. Invoking this previous marriage. Villareyes confirmed in handwritten letter that indeed Tenebro was her husband. February 18. No. The two lived together continuously and without interruption until the later part of 1991. petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he shared with Ancajas. However. The trial . nature and location of the victim’s wounds belie the petitioner’s claim that the said wounds or the victim were inflicted as they duel with each other.
Pertinently. Issues: (1) Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of bigamy. No. both documentary and oral. and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. 2003 Facts: On March 16. A plain reading of the law. the elements of the crime of bigamy are: (1) that the offender has been legally married. petitioner is guilty of the crime of bigamy. ET. The prosecution sufficient evidence. (2) What is the effect of declaration of nullity of the second marriage of the petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity? Held: (1) Yes.court found him guilty of bigamy. (2) A second or subsequent marriage contracted during subsistence of petitioner’s valid marriage to Villareyes. AL. petitioner’s marriage to Ancajas would be null and void ab initio completely regardless of petitioner’s psychological capacity or incapacity. or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings‖. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void. the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. proved the existence of the marriage between petitioner and Villareyes. Apirl 24. They . (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage. (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or. would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. therefore. Article 349 of the RPC criminalizes ―any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved. KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. 137182. the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code. ABDILA SILONGAN.R. Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code. businessman Alexander Saldaña went to Sultan Kudarat with three other men to meet a certain Macapagal Silongan alias Commander Lambada. 1996. G. in case his or her spouse is absent.
The victims were then transferred from one place to another. 15 armed men appeared. Alexander identified all the abductors including the brothers of Macapagal. The business transaction was postponed and continued in the afternoon due to the death of Macapagal’s relative and that he has to pick his brother in Cotabato City. Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. The kidnappers demanded P15. he was made a letter to his wife asking her to pay ransom of twelve million. at least one overt act of demanding ransom must be made. TRUST RECEIPTS LAW . but the amount was reduced to twelve million. Then at around 8:30 PM. The two other victims managed to escape but Alexander was released after payment of ransom. they were tied up. Held: No. a person named Mayangkang himself would write to Alexander’s wife. 000. At the mountain hideout where Alexander was first taken. Issue: Whether it is necessary that there is actual payment of ransom in the crime of Kidnapping. In this case. but nothing more was done to them. as they headed to the highway. ESTAFA. But on several occasions. They made Alexander write a letter to his wife for his ransom. Also Mayangkang himself wrote more letters to his family threatened the family to kill Alexander if the ransom was not paid. Alexander and his three companions were ordered to go out of the vehicle.000 from Alexander’s wife for his release. it is necessary that there is actual payment of ransom in the crime of Kidnapping. The trial court convicted Macapagal and his companions of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom with Serious Illegal Detention. The four victims were taken to the mountain hideout in Maguindanao. Macapagal and Teddy were also tied and blindfolded. It is not necessary that there be actual payment of ransom because what the law requires is merely the existence of the purpose of demanding ransom. and blindfolded.arrived in the morning and were able to talk to Macapagal concerning the gold nuggets that purportedly being sold by the latter. Suddenly. the records are replete with instances when the kidnappers demanded ransom from the victim. For the crime to be committed.
April 29. The Trust Receipts Law punishes dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to prejudice the public order. The trial court convicted Ong of two counts of estafa for violation of the Trust Receipts Law. for funds or property held in trust is evidence of conversion or misappropriation. that the failure to account. When the trust receipts became due and demandable. the Bank suffered prejudice for neither money nor the . executed two trust receipts acknowledging receipt from the Solid Bank Corp. Held: Yes. but also to the public interest.000. There is no requirement to prove intent to defraud. or (2) return the goods covered by the trust receipts if the good are not sold.500 and P 2.EDWARD ONG VS. 119858. Issue: Whether the appellant is guilty of two counts estafa for violation of the Trust Receipts Law. The mere failure to deliver proceeds of the sale or the goods if not sold constitutes a criminal offense that causes prejudice not only to the creditor. COURT OF APPEALS G. The Trust Receipts Law is violated whenever the entrustee fails to: (1) turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods. ARMAGRI failed to pay or deliver the goods to the Bank despite several demand letters. It is well-settled doctrine long before the enactment of the Trust Receipts Law. upon demand. he is guilty for failure by the entrustee to account for the goods received in trust constitutes estafa. 2003 Facts: Petitioner Edward Ong. mere failure by the entrustee to account for the goods received in trust constitutes estafa. 050. The mere failure to account or return gives rise to the crime which is malum prohibitum. representing ARMAGRI International Corporation (ARMAGRI). In addition. No. ARMAGRI failed tom pay or return the goods despite repeated demands by the Bank. The Bank released the goods to ARMAGRI upon execution of the trust receipts and as part of the loan transactions of ARMAGRI. Under the law. The Bank had a right to demand from ARMAGRI payment or at least a return of the goods.532. he bounded himself to any increase or decrease of interest rate in case Central Bank floated rates and to pay any additional penalty until the trust receipts are fully paid. of goods valued at P 2.R. Evidently.
bruises and lumps on different parts of her body. or any of his ascendants. Armando was drinking when Leah admonished him not to do so. Held: Yes. whether legitimate or illegitimate. or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant. Leah then fled to the house of Felia Horilla but Armando ran after her and herded her back to their house. shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death. (2) the deceased is killed by the accused. Leah was then banged on the wall by Armando. a member of the Philippine National Police. Issue: Whether the trial court correctly convicted the accused. Armando continued to beat her up. 1996. the trial court correctly concluded that the injuries sustained by Leah that caused her death were the consequence of the appellant’s deliberate and intentional acts. Their covertures were marred by violent quarrels. The prosecution is mandated to prove the following essential elements: (1) a person is killed. On August 15. Even as Leah was already lying prostrate. or his spouse. or child. mother. PARRICIDE.goods were turned over the Bank. They had three children. Leah fell again to the ground and lost her consciousness. The prescribed penalty for the . whether legitimate or illegitimate. and (3) the deceased is the father. ELEMENTS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. Then he pushed and kicked Leah on the left side of her body which caused her to fall on the ground. The trial court convicted Armando of parricide. No. PO3 ARMANDO DALAG G. or descendants. April 30.R. or the legitimate spouse of the accused. 2003 Facts: Armando Dalag. with Leah always at the losing end. Their marriage was far from idyllic. 129895. punching her on the different parts of her body. mother or child. Each time the couple had a quarrel. was lawfully married to Leah Nolido Dalag. The crime of parricide is defined by Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code thus: Any person who shall kill his father. she sustained contusions.
while her mother was out selling fish. An information is valid as long as it distinctly states the elements of the offense and the acts or omission constitutive thereof. 2003 Facts: Sometime in 1998. In statutory rape. Issue: Whether time is an essential element of statutory rape. INFORMATION. Held: No. TIME NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.R. April 30. appellant dragged her towards the room and raped her. the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate. time is not an essential element of statutory rape. time is not an essential element. ten-year old Richelle Cosada was told by appellant Benjamin Hilet. It is not necessary to state the precise time when the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. 146685-86. even if no force or intimidation was used or she was not otherwise deprived of reason. the common law husband of her mother not to go to school and watch the house. in a prosecution of rape. INFORMATION. BENJAMIN HILET G. Richelle saw appellant sharpening his bolo. Moments later. No. not the time of its commission. Thus. STATUTORY RAPE.crime is reclusion perpetua to death. STATUTORY RAPE. The trial court convicted the appellant guilty of two counts of statutory rape. What is important is the information alleges that the victim is a minor under twelve years of age and the accused had carnal knowledge of her. LOZADA . At about 10 AM. The latter asked their neighbor to report the incident to the police. The key element in parricide of a spouse. the material fact or circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of rape. The exact date of the commission of a crime is not an essential element of rape. 1999. Richelle finally confided to her mother. She kept the afternoon of March 17. TIME IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS.
province of Leyte. GUILTY beyond reasonable . They have agreed to pursue it the next day. which the accused had provided herself for the purpose. MARIVIC GENOSA G. accused Marivic Genosa. hit and wound BEN GENOSA. Held: The SC ruled that all the elements were present. someone is killed. 135981. and the complex crime of robbery with homicide arises when by reason or on the occasion of robbery. inflicting several wounds which caused his death.Facts: Reynaldo Diaz. All these elements have satisfactorily been shown by the prosecution. September 29. The following day. at Barangay Bilwang. he learned over the radio that a lifeless body of Rosita was found in a remote area. Diaz excused himself on the pretext that he would get a weapon but he delayed himself and the plan was not implemented that night because of the delay. Municipality of Isabel. They planned to wait Rosita Sy as she would normally leave her drugstore between 10:30 and 11 PM. with intent to kill. They have also planned to kill Rosita Sy. 2000 Facts: On or about the 15th day of November 1995. upon realizing that Sy would be killed. The lower court found the accused. did then and there willfully. Thereafter Belleza Lozada arrived. with the use of a hard deadly weapon. Issue: Whether or not all elements of a Robbery with Homicide are present to constitute a penalty of death. Diaz deliberately stayed away from their meeting place the next day. ―BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME‖AS A VIABLE PLEA WITHIN THE CONCEPT OF SELF-DEFENSE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. went to a coffee shop to meet Ronnie Sanchez and this Sanchez disclosed to Diaz his plan to rob Rosita Sy. The taking with animo lurid or personal property belonging to another person by means of violence against or intimidation of person or using force upon thing constitutes robbery. a tricycle driver. unlawfully and feloniously attack. No. Marivic Genosa y Isidro. her legitimate husband.R. with treachery and evident premeditation. assault.
Two of them were girls and named. February 6. The court.Norelyn and Doneza. Under the existing facts of the present case. Third. Issue: Whether or not the ―battered woman syndrome‖ as a viable plea within the concept of self-defense is applicable in this case. Teodora left Vivencio and kept custody of their fpur children. at the time of the killing. Second. the batterer must have posed probable—not necessarily immediate and actual—grave harm to the accused. On appeal. from her batterer and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life. was gathering firewood with the appellant Levi in his farm.R. While they were nearing a guava tree. First. Taken altogether. She also had a bruise in the middle portion of her right leg. No. not all of these elements were duly established. the appellant suddenly boxed her on the stomach. however. ―TOUCHING‖ WHEN APPLIED TO RAPE CASES PEOPLE OF TH PHILIPPINES vs. however. based on the history of violence perpetrated by the former against the latter. these circumstances could satisfy the requisites of self-defense. the final acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in the battered person’s mind an actual fear of an imminent harm. 2004 Facts: The spouses Vivencio and Teodora Brigole had four children. The appellant warned not to tell her . the appellant alleged that despite the evidence on record of repeated and severe beatings she had suffered at the hands of her husband. Sometime in 1995. each of the phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two battering episodes between the appellant and her intimate partner. Held: No. Norelyn. She had a terrible headache and felt pain in her vagina. LEVI SUMARAGO G. 140873-77.doubt of the crime of parricide and sentenced the accused with the penalty of DEATH. We now sum up our main points. is not discounting the possibility of self-defense arising from the battered woman syndrome. RAPE. who was barely ten years old. Then. She had her clothes when she woke up. Norelyn lost consciousness. the lower court failed to appreciate her self-defense theory. her act of killing her husband was equivalent to self-defense. She claimed that under the surrounding circumstances. Teodora and Levi started living together as husband and wife.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charged. Held: Yes. she says in effect all that would necessary to show rape did take place. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime rape and sentenced him to death. For the accused to held guilty of consummated rape. is enough insofar as the consummation of the crime of rape is concerned. 20 the accused achieves the act through force or intimidation upon the victim because the latter is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.mother about it. However. The prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits. This Court has ruled that when a woman states that she has been raped. A finding of guilt of the accused for rape may be based solely on the victim’s testimony if such testimony meets the test of credibility. the testimony of the victim must be scrutinized with extreme caution. Carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused may be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence that rape had been committed and that the accused is the perpetrator thereof. the accused is guilty of the crime charged. otherwise he would kill her. The mere entry of his penis into the labia of the pudendum. the brevity of time that the appellant inserted penis into the victim’s vagina is of no particular importance. The credibility of Norelyn and the probative weight of her testimony cannot be assailed simply because her admission that it took the appellant only short time to insert his penis into her vagina and to satiate his lust. The sexual assaults were repeated several times so she decided to tell her sister and eventually her mother. Corroborating testimony frequently unavailable in rape cases is not indispensable to warrant a conviction of the accused for the crime. the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that: 1) there had been carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused. POSTED BY UNC BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2007 AT 3:20 AM NO COMMENTS: Post a Comment Newer PostOlder PostHome . even if only for a short while.
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom) BLOG ARCHIVE o ▼ 2007 (9) ▼ January (9) 2006 Bar Operations Commission Team Research 2006 Taxation Case Digests 2006 Remedial Law Case Digests 2006 Criminal Law Case Digests 2006 Labor Law Case Digests 2006 Legal Ethics Case Digest 2006 Political Law Case Digests 2006 Mercantile Law Case Digests 2006 Civil Law Case Digests ABOUT ME UNC BAR OPERATIONS COMMISSION 2007 VIEW MY COMPLETE PROFILE .
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.