You are on page 1of 28

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

,
appellee
,
vs
. VICTORIANODELA CRUZ y LORENZO
,
appellant
.

DOCTRINE:

The crime of Parricide is defined and punished under Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code(RPC), to wit:

Art. 246.
Parricide.

Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whetherlegitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shallbe guilty
of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of
reclusion perpetua
todeath.

It is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the
accused; and (3) thedeceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendantor other descendant, or the legitimate
spouse of the accused. The key element in Parricide


other thanthe fact of killing

is the relationship of the offender to the victim. In the case of Parricide of a


spouse,the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased
would be the marriagecertificate. In this case, the testimony of the accused that he
was married to the victim, in itself, is ampleproof of such relationship as the
testimony can be taken as an admission against penal interest.19 Clearly, then, it
was established that Victoriano and Anna were husband and wife.

Victoriano claims that Joel's testimony coincides with his own, which refers to the
slappingincident that occurred outside their house. It does not at all point to him as
the actual perpetrator of thecrime. Thus, Victoriano submits that Joel's testimony is
merely circumstantial.

FACTS:

Victoriano was charged with the crime of Parricide in an Information5 dated January
2, 2003,which reads:

That on or about the 18th day of August, 2002, in the municipality of Malolos,
provinceof Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the abovenamed accused, with intent to kill his wife Anna Liza Caparas-dela Cruz,
with whom hewas united in lawful wedlock, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniouslyattack, assault, use personal violence and stab the said Anna Liza
Caparas-dela Cruz,hitting the latter on her trunk and on the different parts of her
body, thereby inflictingupon her serious physical injuries which directly caused her
death.

HELD:

In the case at bench, evidence disclosed that appellant started beating his wife
outside theirhouse and was even the one who dragged her inside. This, to Our mind,
contradicts his theory that heonly pushed her so as to go out of the house to avoid

any further quarrel. Such incongruity whittles downappellant's defense that he did
not deliberately kill his wife.
People vs. Chua [G.R. No. 149538. July 26, 2004]
Facts: Prior to this case the accused was confined in a drug rehabilitation center for
drug dependents. He escaped from said facility. The trial court, thereafter, issued an
Order recommitting him to the center but he again escaped.

The accused appellant was charged with the murder of a 13 year old boy. The
accused was 17 at the time of commission.

The appellant, assisted by counsel, was duly arraigned and entered a plea of not
guilty.

After trial, the court rendered judgment convicting the appellant of the
crime charged. The court declared that the appellant was a minor when the crime
was committed; hence, was entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of
minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment affirming the judgment of the
trial court, but applied Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code and increased the
penalty to reclusion perpetua. Theappellate court considered the minority of
the appellant merely as a generic mitigating circumstance, and concluded that such
minority could not be considered a generic and a privileged mitigating circumstance
at the same time.

Issue: Whether the appellate court was correct in appreciating the


modifying circumstances.

Held: The Supreme Court modified the decision. The trial court convicted
the appellant of murder without stating the qualifying circumstance attendant to the
crime. The trial court also appreciated in favor of the appellant the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender and considered such minority as a mere
mitigating circumstance.

The crime was qualified by treachery. The victim, who was barely thirteen years old,
was helpless and unable to defend himself. His feet and hands were tied while
the appellant mauled and kicked him, and hit him with a piece of wood.
The appellant was so depraved that he even electrocuted the victim by placing a
live wire on the latters palms and burying him alive. By his detestable acts,
theappellant intended to exacerbate the suffering of the victim. Hence, cruelty
was attendant to the commission of the crime. However, cruelty is absorbed by
treachery.

The trial court and appellate court also erred in appreciating the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of theappellant. He was arrested by
the policemen not only for his involvement in the killing of the victim but also
because of the warrant for his arrest for robbery, and the recommitment order
issued by the RTC for escaping from the rehabilitation center.

The appellate court erred, likewise, in appreciating the minority of


the appellant merely as a generic mitigating circumstance. While under Article 13,
paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, minority is a mitigating circumstance, this
provision must be construed in relation to Article 68 thereof, which provides that
minority is a privileged mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of the
imposable penalty by one or two degrees, depending upon the age of the accused.
The minority of the accused is not merely a generic mitigating circumstance but is a
privileged mitigating circumstance. Furthermore, in determining the penalty to be
meted on the accused, the trial court must first consider any modifying
circumstance attendant to the crime.

In this case, the appellant was seventeen years old when hecommitted the crime.
Hence, the imposable penalty must be reduced by one degree, conformably to
Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code. The imposable penalty for murder is reclusion
perpetua to death under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amendedby
Republic Act No. 7659. One degree lower than reclusion perpetua to death is
reclusion temporal, conformably to paragraph 2, Article 61, in relation to Article 25
of the Revised Penal Code.

To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty, reclusion temporal should


be reduced by one degree, prision mayor, which has a range of from six (6) years
and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. There being no
modifying circumstances attendant to the crime, the maximum of the indeterminate

penalty should be imposed in its medium period. The minimum of the indeterminate
penalty should be taken from the full range of prision mayor.

SEA LION FISHING CORPORATION VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINESG.R. No.


172678, March 23, 2011

FACTS:
In response to fishermen's report of poaching off Mangsee Island in Balabac,
Palawan, a combinedteam of Philippine Marines, Coast Guard and
barangay
officials conducted search and seizureoperations therein. There they found F/V Sea
Lion anchored three nautical miles northwest of Mangsee Island. Beside it were five
boats and a long fishing net already spread over the water. Theteam boarded the
vessel and apprehended her captain, a Filipino, and a crew composed of
threeFilipinos and three Chinese. Also arrested were 17 Chinese fishermen aboard
F/V Sea Lion. TheProvincial Prosecutor of Palawan dismissed the charges except
those against the 17 Chinesefishermen.

This was after it was found out that the crew of F/V Sea Lion did not assent to the
illegalacts of said 17 Chinese fishermen who were rescued by the crew of the F/V
Sea Lion from adistressed Chinese vessel. The prosecutor concluded that the
crew, unarmed, outnumbered andhampered by language barrier, acted only out of
uncontrollable fear of imminent danger to their livesand property which
hindered them from asserting their authority over these Chinese nationals.With the
crew of F/V Sea Lion now exculpated, F/V Sea Lion was thus, recommended to be
releasedto the petitioner upon proper showing of evidence of its ownership of the
aforesaid vessel. Petitioner,however, failed to act in accordance with
said Resolutions.The Seventeen (17) accused were found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt as principals for the crimeof Violation of Section 88, sub-par. (3) of R.A. 8550
and sentenced them to suffer an imprisonment of FIVE (5) YEARS TO SIX (6) YEARS,
SIX (6) MONTHS AND SEVEN (7) DAYS. The Fishing VesselF/V Sea Lion I as well as
the fishing paraphernalia and equipments used by the accused incommitting the
crime was ordered confiscated in favor of the government.The petitioner filed a
Motion for Reconsideration to delete from said Sentences the confiscation of F/VSea
Lion but was denied by RTC and CA, thus this petitioner was filed.Petitioner
contends that F/V Sea Lion should be released to it because it is the registered
owner of said vessel and her captain and crew members were not among those
accused of and convictedinvoking Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code. The OSG

contends that even if Article 45 of theRevised Penal Code is applicable, still the
present petition must fail due to petitioner's failure topresent its third-party claim
at the earliest opportunity.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the confiscation of F/V Sea Lion was valid.

HELD:
YES. The petition has no merit.The CA did not find either lack or error of jurisdiction
or grave abuse of discretion. There was
no jurisdictional error because based on the Informations, the offenses were commit
ted within theterritorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The penalties imposable under
the law were also within
its jurisdiction. As a necessary consequence, the trial court had the authority to dete
rmine how thesubject fishing vessel should be disposed of. Likewise, no grave abuse
of discretion attended theissuance of the trial court's order to confiscate F/V Sea
Lion
considering the absence of evidenceshowing that said vessel is owned by
a third party
. Evidently, the remedial relief pursued by thepetitioner was infirm and
improper.Significantly, the lack of any factual basis for the third-party claim of
ownership was not cured at allwhen the petitioner filed its motion for
reconsideration before the trial court. At that point, evidenceshould have been
adduced to support the petitioner's claim (so that a new trial or reopening of thetrial
on the confiscation aspect should have been prayed for, rather than a mere motion
for reconsideration.) There is firstly the factual issue - to be proved by proper
evidence in order to beproperly considered by the court - that the vessel is owned
by a third party other than the accused. Article 45 required too that proof be
adduced that the third party is not liable for the offense.
After the admission by the accused through their guilty plea that the vessel had
been used in the commission of a crime
, we believe and so hold that this additional Article 45 requirement cannot be simply
inferredfrom the mere fact that the alleged owner is not charged in the same case
before the court.Given the absence of any admissible evidence of third-party
ownership and the failure to comply withthe additional Article 45 requirement, the
court's order to confiscate the F/V Sea Lion pursuant
to Article 87 of R.A. No. 8550 cannot be incorrect to the point of being an act in grav
e abuse of discretion

PEOPLE VS VILLANUEVA Y MARQUEZ


People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Villanueva y Marquez
G.R. No. 172697
September 25, 2007

Facts:
On January 21, 2000, upon going home, appellant Reynaldo Villanueva,
brought hotdogs that he cooked since he was hungry. When his mother asked if she
could have some, appellant got irked because he did not have breakfast and lunch.
His mother got scared of him and ran away. Appellant was so peeved that he
wanted to give vent to his anger. After finishing his food, he went to his mothers
room. It was this point that the appellant committed the crimes.
Appellant killed his niece Angelica Villanueva by boxing her on the head and
kicking her several times on the different parts of her body, which cause her death.
Appellant also mauled his nephews Rexie and Enrique Villanueva.
Consequently, appellant was charged with murder, frustrated murder and
attempted murder by the trial court.
Appellant pleaded insanity.

Issue:
Whether or not the defense of insanity can exempt the accused of criminal
liability.

Ruling:
No. The supreme court held that proof of existence of some abnormalities in
the mental faculties will not exempt the accused from culpability, if it was shown
that he was not completely deprived of freedom and intelligent.
Appellants recollection of the events prior to the crimes and his emotions
afterwards indicate that he was sane before, during and after the commission of the
crimes. The report also states that appellant felt guilty about Angelicas death and
apprehensive of being I jail for longer time. A feeling of remorse is inconsistent with
insanity, as it clear indication that he was conscious of his act.

PEOPLE V. VILLANUEVA
FACTS: On Sept. 4, 1959, the Chief of Police of Alaminos, Laguna, charged SImplicio
Villanueva with crime of Malicious Mischiedf, before the Justice of the Peace Court of
said Municipality. Said accused was represented by counsel de oficio, but later on
replaced by counsel de parte. The complainant in the same case was representry
by City Attorney Ariston Fule of San Pablo City, having entered his appearance as
private-prosecutor, having secuting the permission of the the Secretary of Justice.
Counsel for the accused presented a Motion in inhibit Fiscal Fule from Acting as
Private prosecutor in this case, this time invoking sec. 32, Rule 127, now sec. 35,
Rule 138, Revised Rules, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

ISSUE: Whether of not Atty. Fule violate sec. 32 of Rule 127 now Sec. 35, Rule 138,
revised Rules of Court, which bars certain attorneys from practicing.

RULING: The Court holds that the appearance of Attorney Fule did not constitute
private practice, within the meaning and contemplation of the Rules. Practice is
more than isolated appearance, for it consists in frequent or customary action, a
succession of acts of the same kind. The word private practice of law implies that
one must have presented himself to be in the active and continued practice of the
legal profession and that his professional services are available to the public for
compensation, as a source of his livelihood or in consideration of his said services. It
has never been refuted that City Attorney Fule had been given permission by his
immediate supervisor, the Secretary of Justice, to represent the complainant in the
case at bar, who is a relative.
FACTS:
On June 30, 1998, Kathylyn Uba stayed in hergrandmother

s (Isabel Dawang

s) house, despite herintention to go forth Tuguegarao City, as her otherformer

s housemate-relatives left in the morning. At10:00 am, accused-appellant Joel Yatar


was seen at theback of the same house where Kathylyn stayed duringsaid date. At
12:30 pm, Judilyn, Kathylyn


s first cousinsaw Yatar, who was then wearing a white shirt with collarand black
pants, descended from the second floor andwas pacing back and forth at the back
of IsabelDawang

s house, Judilyn didn

t find this unusual sinceYatar and his wife used to live therein. At 1:30 PM,
Yatarcalled upon Judilyn, telling the latter that he would notbe getting the lumber he
had been gathering. This time,Judilyn noticed that Yatar is now wearing a black
shirt(without collar) and blue pants; and noticed that thelatter

s eyes were

reddish and sharp

. Accused-appellantasked about the whereabouts of Judilyn

s husband, asthe former purports to talk with the latter. Then, Yatarimmediately left
when Judilyn

s husband arrived. In theevening, when Isabel Dawang arrived home, she foundthe
lights of her house turned off, the door of theground floor opened, and the
containers, which sheasked Kathylyn to fill up, were still empty. Uponascending the
second floor to check whether theteenage girl is upstairs, Isabel found that the
doortherein was tied with rope. When Isabel succeededopening the tied door with a
knife, and as she groped inthe darkness of the second level of her house, she
feltKathylyn

s lifeless and naked body, with some intestinesprotruding out from it. Soon after,
police came to thescene of the crime to provide assistance. Therein, theyfound
Kathylyn


s clothes and undergarments beside herbody. Amongst others, a white collared shirt
splatteredwith blood was also found 50-meters away from Isabel

shouse.Meanwhile, semen has also been found uponexamination of Kathylyn

s cadaver. When subjectedunder DNA testing, results showed that the


DNAcomprising the sperm specimen is identical to Yatar

sgenotype.Yatar was accused of the special complex crime of Rapewith Homicide


and was convicted for the same by theRegional Trial Court of Tabuk, Kalinga.
Thereafter, hemade an appeal to the Honorable Supreme Court inorder to assail the
court a quo

s decision.On appeal, Yatar avers that: (1) the trial court erred ingiving much weight
to the evidence DNA testing oranalysis done on him, in lieu of the seminal fluid
foundinside the victim

s (cadaver) vaginal canal; (2) the bloodsample taken from is violative of his
constitutional rightagainst self-incrimination; and the conduct of DNAtesting is also
in violation on prohibition against ex-postfacto laws.
MAIN ISSUE
Whether or not the result of the DNA testing done onthe sperm specimen may be
used as evidence for Yatar

sconviction?
HELDNoteworthy is the fact this case was decided on 2004,which was
three (3) years before the Rules on DNAevidence took effect.
The Supreme Court in this case ruled based on the UScase of Daubert vs. Merrell
Dow as a precedent. In thesaid US jurisprudence, it was ruled that
pertinentevidence based on scientifically valid principles could beused, so long as
the same is RELEVANT and RELIABLE.Hence, it was called then as the

DAUBERT TEST
PEOPLE V. REYNALDO DE VILLA
GR 124639; Feb1, 2001
Accused was charged of raping a 12yr old minor who is his niece by affinity.
ISSUE:
Nature of Rape: Penalty; Whether the death penalty should be imposed
HELD:
SIMPLE RAPE! RECLUSION PERPETUA! Although, art. 335, RPC says, death penalty
shall be imposed when the victim is under 18 and the offenderis a relative by
affinity within the third civil degree 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, Dec1,
2000). IN THIS CASE, the prosecution failed to allege the relationship of the accused
with the victim, Thus the accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape punishable
by death but only simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE V. FERNANDEZ
GR 137647; Feb.1, 2001
Accused was charged of raping the 15yr old daughter of his common law spouse.
HELD:
SIMPLE RAPE! RECLUSION PERPETUA! Although art.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 having been charged only of
simple rape in the information, the accused is held guilty only of simple rape with
the penalty of reclusion perpetua
vPEOPLE V. REYNALDO DE VILLA
GR 124639; Feb1, 2001
Accused was charged of raping a 12yr old minor who is his niece by affinity.
ISSUE:
Nature of Rape: Penalty; Whether the death penalty should be imposed
HELD:

SIMPLE RAPE! RECLUSION PERPETUA! Although, art. 335, RPC says, death penalty
shall be imposed when the victim is under 18 and the offenderis a relative by
affinity within the third civil degree 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, Dec1,
2000). IN THIS CASE, the prosecution failed to allege the relationship of the accused
with the victim, Thus the accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape punishable
by death but only simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE V. FERNANDEZ
GR 137647; Feb.1, 2001
Accused was charged of raping the 15yr old daughter of his common law spouse.
HELD:
SIMPLE RAPE! RECLUSION PERPETUA! Although art.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 having been charged only of
simple rape in the information, the accused is held guilty only of simple rape with
the penalty of reclusion perpetua

PEOPLE V. LAUT, ET AL.


GR 137751; Feb1, 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; MURDER! The killing was qualified by abuse of superior strength.

PEOPLE V. BAYOD
GR 122664; Feb 5, 2001
Accused was charged with murder and frustrated homicide
HELD:

Accused is GUILTY of MURDER and FRUSTRATED MURDER not frustrated HOMICIDE.


There was intent to kill and treachery, accused and his companions ganged up with
advantage in number and strength, in both instances; a felony is frustrated when
the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a
consequence which nevertheless, do not produce it by reason or causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator. In this case, timely medical attention.

PEOPLE V. BAYANG
GR 134402; Feb 5, 2001
Accused was charged of robbery with homicide
HELD:
GUILTY and sentenced to reclusion perpetua under art. 294, RPC. Although there
were NO eyewitness accounts of the robbery with homicide, the circumstantial
evidence presented was sufficient to convict. Under the revised rules on evidence,
circumstantial evidence is sufficient, when a) there is more than one circumstance;
b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; 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, not
absolute certainty, is what the fundamental law requires.

PEOPLE V. PABILLANO
GR 108618; Feb.6, 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; Alibi is a weak defense. It should be rejected when the identity of the
accused is sufficiently and positively established by eyewitnesses to the offense.
Note there is no law that a police line-up is an essential requisite to proper
identification.

PEOPLE V. LOYOLA
GR 126026; Feb.6, 2001

The trial court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua for the
rape of a 16yr old girl while aboard a bus.
HELD:
Accused is guilty and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The defenses of alibi
and denial by the accused were found unavailing in the face of positive and credible
testimony of prosecution witnesses. Note, no young Filipina of decent repute even in
modern times, would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth.
Accused was not able to prove that he and the victim were indeed lovers. Likewise,
the claim of lack of force or intimidation cannot prevail. 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, the threat would be
carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount
to consent to sexual assault. Lastly, an offer of marriage which occurred in this case
is an admission of guilt.

PEOPLE V. RAYOS
GR 133823; Feb.7,2001
Accused was charged of raping a 9yr. 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,
the penalty is death. ! The guilt of the accused was established through
circumstantial evidence, taken in entirety unmistakably pointing to guilt.
Circumstantial evidence may be resorted in the absence of eyewitnesses and is
sufficient for conviction if, a)there is more than one circumstance; b) the facts from
which that inferences were derived are proven; and c) the combination of all
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE V. FRANCISCO
GR 135200; Feb.7,2001
The trial court found the accused guilty of qualified rape sentencing him to death for
raping his daughter.
HELD:

SIMPLE RAPE with the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua; The prosecution failed to
allege the qualifying circumstance of relationship between the accused and the
victim in the information. This is not a mere technicality but a concept of due
process as provided in the Constitution.

PEOPLE V. CORDERO
GR 136894-96; Feb.7, 2001
Accused, a 63-yr-old was charged of 3 counts of rape of the Nana sisters, one was
13 and the other 15.
HELD:
GUILTY and sentenced to reclusion perpetua on each information charged. The
assertions of the accused cannot stand against the testimonies and positive
identification of the two rape victims. Alibi is weak and age is not a determinant of
the inability to have carnal knowledge rather it is impotency, which nonetheless
should be proven by the defense.

PEOPLE V. RONDILLA
GR 134368; Feb.8,2001
The accused was sentenced to death by the trial court in accordance with art 335 of
the RPC for raping his own daughter.
HELD:
The accused is guilty but only of simple rape for the prosecution merely charged
him of simple rape. Nonetheless he is guilty and was sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. Hardly can any defense stand a chance against the unimpeached
testimony of the young victim in great detail the sexual assault. The testimony is
even given greater weight when the victim accuses a close relative.

PEOPLE V. NAVARRO
GR 132696 Feb.12,2001
Accused was convicted by the trial court for the crime of murder with the use of an
unlicensed firearm.
HELD:

GUILTY! Trial court Affirmed and the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
The crime was murder because the killing was attended with treachery. There was
no opportunity for the deceased to retaliate or defend himself, the particular means
employed which was the use of a motor vehicle, and, the circumstance of nighttime,
all point to the nature of the killing. On the issue of the firearm, there can be no
separate conviction for the illegal use of a firearm. As the law now stands, this is
merely considered as an aggravating circumstance (P.D. 1866 as amended by RA
8294). Since the death penalty was not yet effective at the time of the offense, the
penalty is reclusion perpetua. The original penalty for murder was reclusion
temporal but since there was an aggravating circumstance of the use of an
unlicensed firearm, the penalty was raised to reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE. V. OPTANA
GR 133922; Feb.12,2001
4 information for the violation of the sec. 5 RA7610 (Special Protection of Children
against Child Abuse) and 4 informations for rape were filed against the accused.
HELD:
The SC affirms the decision of the trial court convicting the accused for one incident
of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and one charge violating RA7610,
sentencing him to suffer 8yrs and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum to 17 yrs. and
4mos of reclusion temporal as maximum. The other informations failed to be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, 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. This is not allowed by
RA7610. It specifically provides that in instances where the victim is under 12, the
case should fall under art. 335 of the RPC, thus only cases where the victim is over
12 but under 18 can fall under this law. In the case at bar, 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 concept of non-multiplicity of
suits, and the evidence presented. Thus, 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).

PEOPLE V. VELASCO
GR 128089; Feb13,2001
The accused was indicted for parricide under art 246 of the RPC for the killing of his
wife.

HELD:
The accused is guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Parricide
is committed when 1) a person is killed; 2)the deceased is killed by the accused;
3)the deceased is theor the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element is
the relation of the offender to the victim. In case of a marital relationship the best
evidence is the marriage certificate. The own testimony of the accused as married
to the victim may also be taken as an admission against penal interest. The case
was proved through circumstantial evidence sufficiently establishing the malefactor,
destroying the presumption of innocence, and fulfilling the standard of moral
certainty. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted in the absence of eyewitnesses
and is sufficient for conviction if, a)there is more than one circumstance; b) the facts
from which that inferences were derived are proven; and c) the combination of all
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Further,
a conviction based on such can be upheld if the circumstances established would
lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of
all others, as the author of the crime.

PEOPLE V. PEREZ
GR 134756; Feb.13,2001
Accused was found guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua by the
trial court.
HELD:
Accused is guilty of murder. A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery.
Although the shots were taken facing the accused, according to witnesses, the
victim was eating merienda with her back turned to the accused when he came; the
victim only stood and faced him after he cursed her. The accused deliberately
sought the manner of the attack, going to the victims barangay, armed with a
pistol, approaching the victim from behind and shooting her at close range.
Treachery was present. The attack was sudden and the victim was defenseless, had
no opportunity to escape, and lastly, there was no risk to the accused when he fired
his gun.

PEOPLE V. GUZMAN
GR 117952-53; Feb.14,2001
The accused was found guilty by the trial court of violating RA 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972).

HELD:
The accused is GUILTY. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto, possessing an
unlicensed firearm. The search conducted thereafter was valid. It was within the
immediate control of the arrested person. Likewise, the drugs and paraphernalia
obtained where in plain view of the police when the accused was arrested. Quoting
PEOPLE v. Khor, 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; 2) such possession is not authorized by law; and 3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug. All elements concurring, the accused is thus
guilty. Lastly, the accused failed to quash the information against him before
arraignment thus he is estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest.

PEOPLE V. YBANEZ
GR 136257; Feb.14, 2001
Accused was charged of raping a 10yr old girl who is the daughter of his common
law spouse. He was sentenced to death by the trial court.
HELD:
Accused was sentenced by the SC to reclusion perpetua convicting him only of
simple rape. The prosecution failed to indicate the relationship of the accused to the
victim in the information thus merely charging Ybanez of simple rape. Convicting
the accused of an offense not specifically charged in the complaint is a violation of
his right to due process.

PEOPLE V. AVECILLA
GR117033; Feb.15, 2001
Accused was charged of qualified illegal possession of a firearm; accused willfully,
unlawfully, and feloniously with intent to kill, and actually killing a victim as a
consequence, possess and carry an unlicensed firearm.
ISSUE:
Conviction and Retroactivity of RA8294 (An act Amending the Provisions of PD 1866)
HELD:
SC dismissed the case. Originally he could have been convicted of illegally
possessing a firearm separately from his conviction on the killing that occurred as a
consequence thereof, which happened in 1991. With the passage of RA 8294 in

1997 amending PD1866, the possession of an unlicensed firearm has become


merely an aggravating circumstance to a murder or homicide charge. As a general
rule, penal laws have prospective effect EXCEPT where the new law will be
advantageous to the accused, as in this case, sparing him of two separate
convictions.

PEOPLE V. PAGDAYAWON
GR 130522; Feb.15,2001
Accused, a police officer was charged of raping his 11yr. Old stepdaughter. Both
circumstances, minority and relationship was indicated in the complaint. The trial
court sentenced the accused to death.
HELD:
The accused is guilty. The witness is credible and there was indeed force and
intimidation in the act. The penalty prescribed by the trial court was also correct.
Under art335 of the RPC, death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under
18 and the offender is the stepparent of the victim. Such information was formally
included in the charge.

PEOPLE V. B. TUMANON
GR 135066, Feb.15, 2001
The accused were charged on murder.
HELD:
The accused are guilty of murder. There was abuse of superior strength shown
through superiority in number and the use of arms. To take advantage of superior
strength is to use force out of proportion to the means available to the person
attacked to defend himself. Conspiracy was also present. It is not necessary that
there be a previous plan or agreement to commit the assault. It is sufficient that at
the time of the aggression, all the accused, by their acts, gave evidence of common
intent to kill the victim, so that the act of one becomes the act of all and all of them
will thus be liable as principals.

PEOPLE v. NAAG
GR No. 136394; Feb. 15, 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. In rape cases, what is material is that there is penetration no
matter how slight. The only essential point is to prove the entrance or at least the
introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum. The moment the
accuseds penis knocks at the door of the of the pudenda it suffices to constitute
the crime of rape. Accused is guilty of separate crimes of rape and theft. Facts show
that the primary intent of accused was to rape the victim and not to rob her.
Moreover, the crime of taking away the property is theft and not robbery because of
the absence of violence and intimidation.

PEOPLE v. MACAYA
GR No. 137185-86; Feb 15, 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.
HELD:
NO. The accused was charged only with simple rape. Under Art. 355 of the Revised
Penal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed when rape is committed against a
victim who is under 18 years of age, and the offender among other circumstances,
is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. But these circumstances
must be alleged in the complaint or information. Otherwise, even if the minority of
the victim and the relationship of the victim and the accused are established during
the trial, he cannot be punished for a graver offense than that with which he is
charged. He can only be convicted of simple rape the imposable penalty for which is
reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE v. ALBIOR
GR No. 115079; Feb 19, 2001
Accused was charged and found guilty by the lower court of rape and was
sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE:
Is the absence of spermatozoa in the victims genitalia negate rape? Do minor
inconsistencies in victims testimonies destroy credibility?
HELD:
Absence of spermatozoa in the victims genitalia does not negate rape. Further, as
for appellants claim that the victim did not suffer complete lacerations and other
signs of physical violence, suffice it to say that even the absence of hymenal
laceration does not rule out sexual abuse, especially when the victim is of tender
age. Nor is it necessary for the victim to suffer external injuries in order for the
crime of rape to be established. As for the minor inconsistencies, these are badges
of truthfulness and candor for they erase the suspicion the testimony was
rehearsed. Also, victims are not expected to have a total recall of the incident.

PEOPLE v. NAVARRA
GR No. 119361, Feb 19, 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.
ISSUE:
Did the RTC err in disregarding their defense of denial and in finding them guilty of
the offense charged.
HELD:
Denials, without clear and convincing evidence to support them, can not sway
judgement. They are self-serving statements and are inherently weak. Decision of
lower court affirmed. Illegal recruitment has 2 essential elements: first, the offender
has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to lawfully engage in
recruitment or placement of workers; second, the offender undertakes any activity
within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under Article 13 (b), or
any prohibited practices enumerated under Art 34 of the Labor Code. A non-licensee
or non-holder of authority means any person, corporation or entity without a valid
license or authority to engage in recruitment or placement from the Secretary of
Labor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by
the POEA or the Sec. of Labor.
Under Article 13 (b) of the Labor Code, recruitment and placement refer to, any
act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising, or advertising for

employment, locally or abroad, for profit or not: Provided, that any person or entity
which in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to 2 or more persons
shall be deemed engaged in recruitment or placement. Accused-appellants
committed acts of recruitment and placement, such as promises to the
complainants of profitable employment abroad and acceptance of placement fees.
They were also not authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment as
certified by the DOLE. Art. 38 (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 accuseds 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 prosecutions 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 victims 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, complainants 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 accuseds 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 accuseds testimony denying
ownership of bag containing shabu?
HELD:
Lower Courts 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 courts 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 victims 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 victims
minority and her relationship to the accused. RA 7659 enumerates the
circumstances that justify the imposition of the death penalty. Consistent with the
accuseds 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 a felony does not impair the credibility of the witness
more so if the delay has been adequately explained, such as due to fear of a great
danger to his life and/or his family.

PEOPLE V. BOLIVAR
GR130597; Feb. 21, 2001
Three accused were charged of murder.
HELD:
The accused were guilty of murder and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The
accused alibi cannot prosper against positive identification of prosecution witnesses.
For alibi to prosper 2 requisites must concur: 1) accused must prove that he was at
another place at the time of the crime; 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. The court also found that there was conspiracy, as inferred from the

acts of the accused before, during and after the crime, which are indicative of a joint
purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.

PEOPLE V. VELASQUEZ
GR132635 & 143872-75; Feb. 21, 2001
Accused was found guilty by the trial court of Acts of Lasciviousness against his 2 yr.
old granddaughter and the crime of Rape against his alleged stepdaughter who is a
minor. He was sentenced to death for the rape.
HELD:
SC found the accused guilty of acts of lasciviousness and simple rape which
modified his sentence for the rape to reclusion perpetua. NOTE: (A)On the 1st
charge: acts of lasciviousness 1)By failing to invoke the lack of a preliminary
investigation during the trial, the court deems that the accused has waived the
same; 2)The testimony of the mother of the 2 yr. Old child/victim is sufficient
considering the victims age and the medical examination conducted. B) On 2nd
charge: rape of his alleged minor stepdaughter1)The sole testimony of the victim
is sufficient; 2) The three yr. delay in the filing of a complaint does not necessarily
mean that the charge was fabricated. The delay was due to fear; 3) The penalty for
the rape is reclusion perpetua since the court found the marriage of the accused to
the victims mother as doubtful, the information against the accused being different
from what was actually proven, that the relationship of the accused to the victim is
one of daughter of a common law spouse, the crime was considered as only simple
rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.