You are on page 1of 15

Presumption of Impotence

PEOPLE V. AUSTRIA
G.R. No. 123539 June 27, 2000

Facts:
Mariano Austria, 82 years old allegedly raped Prescilla, 12 years old and there being a grade three
student. The crime was committed on November 22, 199 when Prescilla was passing through a ricefield
on her way home when Austria grabbed her and took her to an area covered with banana plants.
Accused-appellant brought a scythe which he used to poke on the throat of Prescilla, making her unable
to protest and feel threatened. The accused-appellant then started to molest and have carnal
knowledge with the victim. On December 26, 1994, a physician physically examined Prescilla wherein
the results show that she has old lacerations in her hymen which would have been caused by a blunt
object forcibly entered into her vagina. Although negative of spermatozoa, the report also yielded that it
had easily admitted one examining finger.

Austria denied that he committed the crime against the virtue of Prescilla and raised the defense of
impotency. He presented a witness saying that around the time the crime was allegedly committed,
Austria was harvesting palay. Austria also argued that, due to his age, he can no longer perform sexually
and not capable of erection because of his rheumatic condition and also he is afflicted with hernia.

Issue:
Whether or not Austria validly raised the defense that he is impotent.

Ruling
In rape cases, impotency as a defense must be proven with certainty to overcome the presumption in
favor of potency. Under the present circumstances, the evidence proffered by the defense failed to
discharge such burden. The pieces of evidence and claim of Austria does not conclude that he is sexually
impotent. Assuming further that accused-appellant was 82 years old as he claimed he was at the time of
the commission of the crime, his advanced age does not ipso facto mean that sexual intercourse is no
longer possible, as age is not a criterion taken alone in determining sexual interest and capability in
middle-aged and older people. Additionally, the trial court also observed that the movements of the
accused and found him still strong, agile and capable of committing sexual act. In fact, it has been
established during the trial that Mariano Austria could still work in the farm and was harvesting palay at
the time the incident happened. The court also entertains serious doubts that the accused is 83 years
old. His physical built, appearance and movements strongly negate the assertion of the defense that
Mariano Austria is 83 years old. However, Austria’s age is considered to mitigate his liability.
Incestuous Rape

PEOPLE V. BARTOLINI
G.R. No. 179498 August 3, 2010

Facts:
The case is composed of three cases and was tried jointly. Rustico Bartolini was charged with three
counts of incestuous rape against his own two daughters. On March 1994, Bartolini allegedly raped his
eldest daughter twice. In the first instance, he made BBB lie down on the ground while they were
weeding grass on their vegetable garden. BBB struggled but Bartolini hit her and punched her. The
second instance happened inside the house, when the mother was away selling fish and all siblings went
to school. On March 1995, AAA, the second eldest was allegedly raped when Bartolini instructed her to
burn the dried leaves. She was forced to lie down on the ground and placed one leg on top of a fallen
tree then raped her. Her father thereafter threatened to kill her and the other members of the family
when she spoke of the incident. She was also repeatedly raped until she got pregnant with her own
fathers child and gave birth to the same. The two daughters told their mother about the incident but
despite having knowledge, also kept mum about it for fear that her husband would hurt her.

A physical examination was conducted on the two daughters and found out that they had healed
lacerations in their vaginas, and indicated the penetration of a male reproductive organ. Bartolini denied
the charges against him and presented an alibi. He argued that on the day he allegedly raped BBB, he
was out to deliver shrimps to one Benjamin Castaas. The latter was subpoenaed but failed to appear. He
also argued that he should not have been convicted of the crime of qualified rape since the information
in Criminal Case No. 99-1-2085-H was defective because it failed to allege that the act was committed by
force or intimidation as required by law, while there was no allegation of minority of the victim in the
information for Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H. Bartolini also argued that the prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue:
Whether or not Bartolini is guilty of three counts of incestuous rape against his two daughters.

Ruling:
The Court disagreed with the trial courts ruling convicting appellant Bartolini for qualified rape under
Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H. The appellate court was correct in sustaining appellants argument that
the special qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated in Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H since the
age of the victim was not specifically alleged in the information.

The qualifying circumstance of relationship of BBB to appellant was specifically alleged and proven
during the trial. Notably absent in the information, however, is a specific averment of the victims age at
the time the offense against her was committed. Such an omission committed by the prosecutor is fatal
in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death against the offender. Even if the victim is below
eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is her parent, but these facts are not alleged in the
information, or if only one (1) is so alleged such as what happened in the instant case, their proof as
such by evidence offered during trial cannot sanction the imposition of the death penalty. Bartolini was
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and qualified rape against AAA and BBB in In Criminal Case Nos.
99-1-2083-H and 99-1-2085-H. Moreover, He is also found guilty In Criminal Case No. 99-1-2084-H for
the crime of rape against BBB.
Revenge Theory - Acts of Lasciviousness/Rape

PEOPLE V. ORILLOSA
G.R. No. 148716-18 July 7, 2004

Facts:
Salvador Orillosa was charged with three counts of rape against his daughter, Andrelyn Orillosa wherein
the incidents happened in 1993, July 1999, and December 1997. At the first instance, Andrelyn was
called by her father upstairs then Salvador closed the door and started to mash his daughter’s breast. He
told her not to tell anybody. He made her lie down the floor and removed her clothes. Salvador tried to
force his male sexual organ but failed to fully penetrate Andrelyns. On July 27, 1999, Andrelyn was
carried by her father at 2 o’clock am to the ground floor of their house where he laid her on the floor
and took off her clothes. Again, he forced his male sexual organ but only a portion of it. On August
1999, Andrelyn went to the barangay captain to give her written statement.

A physical examination was conducted to Andrelyn and found out that she has deep-healed lacerations
in her vagina. Also, in direct examination that Andrelyn revealed that her father first molested her in
1993 wherein he allegedly inserted his finger in her vagina. The trial court rendered judgment stating
that Slavador Orillosa is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness and in
both Criminal Cases with the crime of rape (with qualifying circumstance) for which he was hereby
sentenced to suffer the supreme penalty of Death on two counts. Salvador Orillosa challenges his
conviction of two counts of rape principally on the theory that the trial court did not ask him to testify in
his defense. Thus, he is now seeking the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Issue:
Whether or not Orillosa should have testified in his defense.

Ruling:
The Court reiterated the decision in People v. Resano, stating that “The revenge theory could be better
developed and explained by the appellant himself. But he did not take the witness stand to personally
refute the charge and accusation against him. He, of course, has a right not to do so and his failure
and/or refusal to testify shall not in any manner prejudice or be taken against him (Rule 15, Sec. 1, Par.
(d), Rules of Court).”

In the case at bar, the conviction rests not on the failure by appellant to put up a respectable defense,
but on the credible and straightforward testimony of the private complainant. Her testimony, given in a
spontaneous and candid manner, withstood the searing cross-examination by the defense and carried
no earmarks of fabrication.
Rape vis-à-vis Acts of Lasciviousness

PEOPLE V. RELLOTA
G.R. No. 168103 August 3, 2010

Facts:
Alejandro Rellota allegedly raped AAA, who was at the time living with her aunt and Rellota was said to
be the second husband of AAA’s aunt. The incidents took place when the aunt was working overseas.
AAA claimed that Rellota had been kissing her and touching her private parts since 1993. On December
20, 1993, AAA took a bath at an artesian well and after bath wrapped her body with a towel. Appellant
followed her and snatched the towel off her body. He laid her down the bed and tied her hands, and
thereafter raped her. The victim fought back but to no avail. He untied her hands and left the room but
a few moments later he came back and did the same again to AAA. Again on January 31, 1994, after
taking a bath, AAA went inside the room without knowing that Rellota was already inside. He kissed her
and touched her private part but the former managed to push away appellant. AAA then a filed a case
against Rellota and subjected herself for physical examination.

Issue:
Whether or not Rellota was correctly charged with two counts of rape and acts of lasciviousness.

Ruling:
Rellota was also charged with attempted rape wherein the Court found elements of the crime to
be present as well as for the acts of lasciviousness. the elements of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness, as defined in the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5, Article III of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 AAA, being a minor when the incident happened, are present.

The elements of the crime of acts lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done: (a) by using force and intimidation or (b) when the
offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the offended party is
under 12 years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex. Section
32, Article XIII, of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7610 or the Child Abuse Law
defines lascivious conduct:

[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an
intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a
person.

The actions of appellant on January 31, 1994, which includes laying AAA on the sofa and kissing and
touching her private parts constitutes lascivious or lewd, and based on AAA's testimony, the
intimidation from appellant was in existence and apparent. Section 5 of R.A. No. 7610 does not merely
cover a situation of a child being abused for profit, but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious
conduct through coercion or intimidation
Seduction vis-à-vis Rape

PEOPLE V. PASCUA
G.R. No. 128159-62 July 14, 2003

Facts:
Hipolito Pascua, a 65 year old man who was charged with two counts of rape against Anna and Liza both
surnamed Paragas in the year between 1995 and 1996, and both were 12 years old. Pascua had
allegedly raped Liza twice inside his house. On August 6, 1995, the children were playing near the house
of appellant when she was called to come inside and proceeded to commit the crime. He gave Liza P10
thereafter and threatened to kill her if she ever told her mother of the incident. On the second instance,
the same act was repeated and gave Liza P5 and reminded her again not to tell her mother. Likewise,
Pascua had also done the same crime against Anna, Liza’s twin sister. The unfortunate incidents of the
siblings were learned by their mother through Rosalina, the older daughter, who in turn came to know
the incidents from appellant’s granddaughter. Joy Javier, the granddaughter of Pascua has witnessed his
grandfather raping Liza. A physical examination was conducted on both girls and results show that
lacerations were found in their sexual organs.

Pascua in his defense, admitted having sexual intercourse with both Liza and Anna but it was because
that they have freely given their consent in exchange for money ranging from P5 – P10. He claimed that
complainants insisted on their sexual demands. Joy Javier also said that she often saw the twins in their
house. The appellant even postulates that, if there should at all be any liability on his part, it should only
be for simple seduction.

Issue:
Whether or not Pascua should only be liable for simple seduction.

Ruling:
The Court disagrees with the reasoning of Pascua as it goes against established norms. Under Article 338
of the Revised Penal Code, to constitute seduction, there must in all cases be some deceitful promise or
inducement. The woman should have yielded because of this promise or inducement. In this case, the
appellant claims that the acts of sexual intercourse with the private complainants were in exchange for
money. He declared that, prior to every sexual intercourse with Liza and Anna, he would promise
them P20. However, aside from his bare testimony, the appellant presented no proof that private
complainants consent was secured by means of such promise. As aptly opined by the trial court, the
money given by the appellant to private complainants was not intended to lure them to have sex with
him. Rather, it was for the purpose of buying their silence to ensure that nobody discovered his
dastardly acts.
RA 9346

PEOPLE V. SANTOS
G.R. No. 172322 September 8, 2006

Facts:
Rene Santos was charged with rape for allegedly sexually assaulting a 5-year old child. Sometime July 17
and 23, 1999, the child was playing near a bridge in Pampanga, when she was taken by the appellant
and brought her to his house. It is then where Santos had taken of the child’s clothes and had sexual
intercourse with her. The complaint was then lodged with the barangay, the child was brought to a
hospital where she was examined. The examination revealed lacerations in the vagina of the victim. The
child testified in court and positively identified Santos as the offender. Santos denied the complaint
against him stating he was employed as a driver and usually leaves early and stays at his workplace late
which could have not been possible for him to rape the child. He also claimed that the testimony of the
child could not be true because it lacks credibility due to her young and tender age. Moreover, the child
has not behaved as expected of a rape victim. The trial court sentenced him the penalty of death and
indemnification to the injured party.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court was correct in sentencing him of death penalty.

Ruling:
The Court agreed with both the trial and appellate courts that the appellant is guilty as charged.
However, with the passage of Republic Act No. 9346 entitled An Act Prohibiting The Imposition Of The
Death Penalty In The Philippines, the penalty that should be meted is reclusion perpetua, wherein it
reads under Sec. 2 of the same act, (a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes
use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or (b) the penalty of life
imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code. Pursuant to the same law, appellant shall not be eligible for parole under Act No.
4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law.
Right to Privacy

PEOPLE V. CABALQUINTO
G.R. No. 167693 September 19, 2006

Facts:
Melchor Cabalquinto was convicted by the Regional Trial Court on two counts for the rape of his 8-year
old daughter. Two incidents of the alleged rape occurred on the month of November, committed by the
appellant against his own child. Cabalquinto was caught by his common-law wife; saw him lying on top
of the child during the commencement of the crime. During the physical examination, a strand of hair
was found in the sexual organ of the child. The child also testified other instances stating that she had
been raped several times before. Cabalquinto denied the allegations against him.

Issue:
 Whether or not Cabalquinto is guilty of rape.
 Whether or not it is proper to post the full text of decisions of similar cases on the Supreme
Court Web Page.

Ruling:
The Court finds the appellant guilty of rape. Carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age is rape
as defined under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and is qualified when the offender is a parent of
the victim, in which case, the death penalty shall be imposed as provided under the Death Penalty
Law. In this case, the qualifying circumstances of the victims minority and her relationship with the
accused as the latters daughter were properly alleged in the Informations, proven during trial and not
refuted by Cabalquinto. However, in view of Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition of the
death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole should instead be imposed;
an award of damages by way of moral and exemplary damages was also given.

The case also presents to effectuate the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610), otherwise
known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, and
its implementing rules, RA 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their
Children Act of 2004, and its implementing rules, and our own Rule on Violence Against Women and
their Children.

The provisions on confidentiality of these enactments uniformly seek to respect the dignity and protect
the privacy of women and their children. Sec. 29 of RA 7610 provides:

Sec. 29. Confidentiality.at the instance of the offended party, his name may be withheld
from the public until the court acquires jurisdiction over the case.

It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in case of printed
materials, announcer or producer in the case of television and radio broadcasting,
producer and director in the case of the movie industry, to cause undue and
sensationalized publicity of any case of a violation of this Act which results in the moral
degradation and suffering of the offended party.
Sec. 44 of RA 9262 similarly provides:

Sec. 44. Confidentiality. All records pertaining to cases of violence against women and
their children including those in the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers
and employees and public or private clinics or hospitals shall respect the right to privacy
of the victim. Whoever publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name,
address, telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other identifying
information of a victim or an immediate family member, without the latters consent,
shall be liable to the contempt power of the court.

Any person who violates this provision shall suffer the penalty of one (1) year
imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

Likewise, the Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children states:

Sec. 40. Privacy and confidentiality of proceedings.All hearings of cases of violence


against women and their children shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
dignity of women and their children and respect for their privacy.

Records of the cases shall be treated with utmost confidentiality. Whoever publishes or
causes to be published, in any format, the name, address, telephone number, school,
business address, employer or other identifying information of the parties or an
immediate family or household member, without their consent or without authority of
the court, shall be liable for contempt of court and shall suffer the penalty of one year
imprisonment and a fine of not more than Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.

Hence, the Court shall withhold the real name of the victim-survivor and shall use fictitious initials
instead to represent her. Likewise, the personal circumstances of the victims-survivors or any other
information tending to establish or compromise their identities, as well those of their immediate family
or household members, shall not be disclosed.
Other rape cases

PEOPLE V. ROMEO JALOSJOS


G.R. No 132875-76 November 16, 2001

Facts:
Romeo F. Jaloslos is a full-pledged 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. The
accused-appellant filed a motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a
Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having
been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense.

The primary argument of the movant is the "mandate of sovereign will." He states that the sovereign
electorate of the First District of Zamboanga del Norte chose him as their representative in Congress.
Having been re-elected by his constituents, he has the duty to perform the functions of a Congressman.
He calls this a covenant with his constituents made possible by the intervention of the State. He adds
that it cannot be defeated by insuperable procedural restraints arising from pending criminal cases.

Issues:
Whether or not membership in Congress exempts an accused from statutes and rules which apply to
validly incarcerated persons in general.

Ruling:
All top officials of Government-executive, legislative, and judicial are subject to the majesty of law.
There is an unfortunate misimpression in the public mind that election or appointment to high
government office, by itself, frees the official from the common restraints of general law. Privilege has
to be granted by law, not inferred from the duties of a position. In fact, the higher the rank, the greater
is the requirement of obedience rather than exemption. The immunity from arrest or detention of
Senators and members of the House of Representatives, the latter customarily addressed as
Congressmen, arises from a provision of the Constitution. The history of the provision shows that
privilege has always been granted in a restrictive sense. The provision granting an exemption as a special
privilege cannot be extended beyond the ordinary meaning of its terms. It may not be extended by
intendment, implication or equitable considerations.

The Court finds the issue as one question of constitutional equal protection wherein, the Constitution
guarantees: "xxx nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of laws."6 This simply means that
all persons similarly situated shall be treated alike both in rights enjoyed and responsibilities
imposed.7 The organs of government may not show any undue favoritism or hostility to any person.
Neither partiality not prejudice shall be displayed. The election to the position of Congressman is not a
reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. 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. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the
law and apply to all those belonging to the same class.
Other rape cases

PEOPLE V. SIAO
G.R. No. 126021 March 3, 2000

Facts:
Rene Siao together with Reylan Gimena were charged with the crime of rape against Estrella Raymundo,
a minor, 14 years old. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of the City of Cebu convicted accused-
appellant Rene Siao of the crime of rape as principal by induction and acquitted Reylan Gimena, because
he acted under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of an equal, if not greater injury. Ester Raymundo and
Reylan Gimena were forced and intimidated at gunpoint by accused-appellant Rene Siao to have carnal
knowledge of each other. Rene Siao called Reylan Gimena inside the womens quarter. Ester Raymundo
and Reylan Gimena were forced and intimidated at gunpoint by accused-appellant Rene Siao to have
carnal knowledge of each other. Rene Siao called Reylan Gimena inside the womens quarter.

Issue:
Whether or not Siao has committed the crime of rape by means of pointing a gun to Estrella and
Raymundo inducing them to the actual commission of a crime.

Ruling:
The Court finds Siao guilty of the crime of rape who acted as principal under Art. 17 of the Revised Penal
Code. He has induced Reylan GImena to perform the sexual act agaist Estrella Raymndo at gunpoint.
Moreover, the use of a weapon serves to increase the penalty. Since the use of a deadly weapon
increases the penalty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which only affects the period of
the penalty, said fact should be alleged in the information, because of the accuseds right to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. However it was not alleged in the complaint filed
before the trial court hence the penalty imposed id reclusion perpetua instead of reclusion perpetua to
death.
DNA Results

PEOPLE V. MALANA
G.R. No. 185716 September 29, 2010

Facts:
Miguelito Malana was charged with two (2) counts of qualified rape against his own 12-year-old
daughter on separate instances; June and December 2000. Upon medico-legal examination it was found
that subject is in non-virgin state physically but with no external signs of application of any form of
trauma, whereas the deep healed laceration could have been sustained more than seven days. Malana
denied the accusations stating that at the time of the said incidents he was selling fishball, kikiam,
cigarettes, and beverages along the Baliuag bus terminal. According to him, private complainant and her
mother harbored a grudge toward him resulting in the trumped-up rape charges.

Issue:
Whether or not Malana is guilty of the crime of rape.

Ruling:
The Court ruled that at the time of commission of the crime, Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law
of 1997, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and classifying rape as a crime against persons,
was already in effect. Thus, the Informations charged accused-appellant with two counts of qualified
rape. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, which defines and penalizes rape, enumerates the
circumstances under which rape is deemed committed under Art. 266-A . Rape.

Moreover, the twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must
concur to qualify the crime of rape. In the instant case, only relationship was duly alleged and proved.
Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now provide that aggravating as
well as qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information and proven during trial, otherwise
they cannot be considered against the accused. Thus, the same cannot be used to impose the higher
penalty of capital punishment on accused-appellant, and accused-appellant should be convicted of
simple rape only and sentenced accordingly to reclusion perpetua in each case.
Mistress Theory

PEOPLE V. VALLENA
G.R. No. 106283 June 1, 1995

Facts:
Richard Vallena alias "Boboy" was charged with rape against Gemma Gadbilao with the use of a sharp
bladed instrument to threaten her. He poked a knife at her chest with his right hand while covering her
mouth with his left. He told her not to make any noise or he would kill her. He dragged her to a nearby
grassland where people simply throw their excreta to where the crime has been committed. She had to
obey, although reluctantly, as his knife remained pocked at her. Then she lost consciousness.

The accused does not deny that he had sexual intercourse with the victim. He claims that the truth of
the matter is that she was his mistress and that their sexual encounters were with their mutual consent
and spontaneous participation. She asked him to come along with her and they went of the house of his
brother which was at that time unoccupied. While there she told him that she was enamored with him.
In reply he told her to go home but she refused. Instead she asked him to give her P100.00 for gaming
purposes. He gave her P20.00 but asked her when she would pay. She did not answer. She just stayed
with him and allowed him to have sex with her. He said that in the past she had also asked money from
him several times for the same reason and they would have sex to their mutual satisfaction.

Issue:
Whether or not the Richard and Gemma are lovers as to find him not guilty of the charges against him.

Ruling:
The Court ruled that Vallena was guilty of rape. The Court was not persuaded with his "mistress theory"
and found it as a mere concoction in order to exculpate him from criminal liability, except as to his
uncorroborated and self-serving testimony. He was also never able to prove that she was indeed his
mistress. Furthermore, if she had voluntarily consented to have sex with him her most natural reaction
would have been to conceal it or keep silent as this would bring disgrace to her honor and reputation as
well as to her family. Assuming arguendo that they had previously shared an illicit relationship, such
circumstance is not a defense in a charge of rape since it was established that the particular instance of
coitus took place against her will.
Extinction of criminal liability in rape

PEOPLE V. PANITERCE
G.R. No. 186382 April 5, 2010

Facts:
Domingo Paniterce was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Rape and Acts of
Lasciviousness. Four informations was charged against him with four counts of rape of his daughter AAA,
and another with two counts of rape of his other daughter BBB. On June 4, 2005, Paniterce was
committed to the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City. Paniterce filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals which was considered and appellate court rendered a Decision on August 22, 2008 affirming the
RTC judgment with modifications.

In a letter dated October 12, 2009, Julio A. Arciaga, the Assistant Director for Prisons and Security of the
Bureau of Corrections, informed the Court that Paniterce had died on August 22, 2009 at the
New Bilibid Prison Hospital. Paniterces Death Certificate was attached to said letter.

Issue:
What is the effect of such death on the appeal of Paniterce?

Ruling:
Paniterces death on August 22, 2009, during the pendency of his appeal, extinguished not only his
criminal liabilities for the rape and acts of lasciviousness committed against his daughters, but also his
civil liabilities solely arising from or based on said crimes. According to Article 89(1) of the Revised Penal
Code, criminal liability is totally extinguished by the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties;
and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender
occurs before final judgment. The Court also reiterated the ruling on People v. Bayotas, wherein even
assuming Paniterce had incurred criminal liabilities, they were totally extinguished by his
death. Moreover, because Paniterces appeal was still pending and no final judgment of conviction had
been rendered against him when he died, his civil liabilities arising from the crimes, being civil
liabilities ex delicto, were likewise extinguished by his death.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY: Kidnapping

PEOPLE V. ANTONIO SIONGCO


G.R. No. 186472 Ju;y 5, 2010

Facts:
On December 27, 1998, 11-year-old Nikko, a resident of Balanga, Bataan, was induced by Siongco to
board a bus bound for Pilar, Bataan, together with the latters friends, Marion Boton (Boton) and
Eriberto Enriquez (Enriquez). Nikko was told that the two would accompany him in getting the Gameboy
that Siongco promised. Siongco was no stranger to Nikko as he used to be a security guard at
Footlockers shoe store where Nikkos mother, Elvira Satimbre (Elvira), works as a cashier. His mother
searched for him in the places he frequented, but to no avail.

On December 29, 1998, Elvira received a phone call from a man, later identified as appellant Siongco,
who claimed to have custody of Nikkoand asked for P400,000.00 in exchange for his liberty. Elvira
haggled with her sons captor until the latter agreed to reduce the ransom money to P300,000.00. He
also threatened that Nikko would be killed if she fails to give the ransom money.

On December 30, 1998, they moved Nikko to Pateros. They again called Elvira who failed to keep her
appointment with them in Pasay City. She explained that she was still gathering funds for the ransom
money. The captors reiterated their threats and just go with whatever available money she had, subject
to a subsequent agreement as to the balance. Elvira refused and insisted that she preferred to give the
amount in full.When Elvira went to meet the captors, the Philippine Anti-Organized Crime Task Force
(PAOCTF) noticed two (2) male persons, later identified as Enriquez and Siongco, restlessly moving
around the place. Enriquez approached Elvira and took the brown envelope from her. As he was walking
away, the PAOCTF team arrested him. Thereafter, they followed Siongco, who hurriedly hailed a taxicab
and sped away. Siongco was arrested at the residence of Heracleo in Pateros where Nikko was also
rescued.

Enriquez declared that Nikko voluntarily went with them. He affirmed that he travelled with Nikko and
Siongco to Manila. They stayed in Bicutan and then moved to Pateros. He alleged that they called Nikkos
mother because the boy kept asking for a Gameboy.

Issue:
Whether or not the acts committed by the appellants constitutes kidnapping.

Ruling:
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, defines and
penalizes kidnapping and serious illegal detention as Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
to death: 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days; 2. If it shall have been
committed simulating public authority; 3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been made; 4. If the person
kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is any of the parents, female, or a
public officer xxx. The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with
indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. Equally significant is the fact
that, in kidnapping, the victims lack of consent is also a fundamental element.
In this case, Nikko was only 11 years old when he was kidnapped; thus incapable of giving consent, and
incompetent to assent to his seizure and illegal detention. The consent of the boy could place appellants
in no better position than if the act had been done against his will. A kidnapper should not be rewarded
with an acquittal simply because he is ingenious enough to conceal his true motive from his victim until
he is able to transport the latter to another place. On the pretext of getting Nikkos much desired
Gameboy, Bonsol and Enriquez were able to conveniently whisk Nikko out of Balanga and bring him to
Pilar, then to Mariveles, and eventually to Dinalupihan, where Siongco fetched him. Thus, Enriquez and
Siongcos plan of bringing Nikko to Metro Manila, a terrain unfamiliar to the boy and where the two
could enjoy anonymity to carry out their ultimate goal of extorting ransom money from Nikkos mother,
was accomplished.