Title Eight  GENERAL RULE: only relatives by blood and

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS in the direct line are considered in parricide.

Chapter One. DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
Section One – Parricide, murder, homicide
Article 246. Parricide
Article 247. Death or physical injuries under
exceptional circumstances
Article 248. Murder
Article 249. Homicide
Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder
or homicide
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide
Article 254. Discharge of firearms
Section Two – Infanticide and Abortion
Article 255. Infanticide
Article 256. Intentional Abortion
Article 257. Unintentional Abortion
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself
or by her parents
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or
midwife and dispensing of abortives
Section Three – Duel
Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel
Article 261. Challenging to a duel
EXCEPTION: spouse
 The father, mother or child may be
legitimate or illegitimate. However, the other
ascendants or descendants must be legitimate.
 The spouse must be legitimate. The best
proof of the relationship is the marriage
certificate.
 Relationship must be alleged in order that
the accused may be convicted of parricide. If not
alleged, relationship must be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
 If a person wanted to kill a stranger but
killed his own father by mistake, is this parricide?
YES, but Art. 49 applies as regards the proper
penalty to be imposed.
 If a person killed another, not knowing that
the latter was his son, will he be guilty of
parricide? YES, because the law does not require
knowledge of relationship between them.
 A stranger who cooperates and takes part in
the commission of the crime of parricide is not
guilty of parricide, but only homicide or murder,
as the case may be.
People vs. Jumawan

Chapter Two – PHYSICAL INJURIES
Article 262. Mutilation
Article 263. Serious physical injuries
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or
beverages
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment
Chapter Three – RAPE
Presentacion Jumawan, her father and two brothers
conspired to kill Presentacion’s husband Rodolfo in a store
near the public market. The fiscal filed an information for
murder against the four accused and they were
subsequently convicted for such crime.
HELD: Since Presentacion’s relationship to the victim is not
alleged in the information, she can be convicted of murder
only. Relationship can be appreciated as generic
aggravating circumstance only.

Article 266-A. Rape, When and How committed People vs. Tomotorgo
Article 266-B. Penalties
Article 266-C. Effect of pardon Julian Tomotorgo hit his wife with a piece of wood, after
Article 266-D. Presumptions the latter tried to leave their conjugal home. Although
Julian stopped the beating when his wife complained of
chest pains, the wife succumbed to the serious injuries.
Julian was convicted of parricide but he claims that he
Article 246. Parricide should be sentenced to the penalty corresponding to
serious physical injuires only, the offense which he
Elements: intended to commit.

1. A person is killed;
2. The deceased is killed by the accused;
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate; or a legitimate
other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse, of the accused.
 Relationship of the offender with the victim
is an essential element of this crime.
HELD: The fact that the accused intended to maltreat the
victim or inflict physical injuries DOES NOT exempt him
from liability for the resulting and more serious crime
committed. He is only entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
People vs. Malabago (1996)
After an argument, Pedro Malabago fatally hacked and
struck his wife with a bolo. He was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of PARRICIDE.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

80
HELD: Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed;
(2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased
is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the
offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a
spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the
accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In
the absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of marriage
may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not
objected to.
People vs. Ignacio (1997)
Accused wife here was accused of parricide for the killing
of her husband by hitting the latter on the nape with a
piece of wood. Accused was convicted of parricide. She
however appeals saying that the crime she committed is
not parricide but only homicide since there was no proof of
marriage between her and the victim.
HELD: Guilty of parricide. The phrase “whether legitimate
or illegitimate” in the law just refers to children and not to
spouses who must therefore be legitimate.
In CAB, accused declared in open court that they were
husband and wife. And even without this, there is a
presumption in law that persons deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful marriage
without proof to the contrary.
People vs. Genosa
Accused wife here was convicted parricide for the killing
her husband and was sentenced to death. Accused asks for
a reopening of the case in order to prove her state of mind
during the killing in as she says that she is a battered wife
(battered wife syndrome).
HELD: Case should be remanded for the psychological
examination. If accused can prove that she indeed was a
battered wife, this may be raised as a valid defense as a
species of self-defense. Having been proven to be a victim
of domestic violence of the husband. This can be self
defense because since the wife already always assumes,
and correctly that the husband will beat her up again, she
may be justified in taking steps to protect herself. And
since there is the fear of an impending beating again in the
mind of the wife, she would have no opportunity
beforehand to choose means to protect herself other than
to injure and/ or kill the husband.
The psychological examination can prove how the accused
perceived danger and how, in her honest belief, she
believed that danger to herself was imminent (as one of
the elements of self-defense).
Bar Questions
Complex Crime; Parricide w/ unintentional abortion
(1994)
Aldrich was dismissed from his Job by his employer. Upon
reaching home, his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged him about
money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and
angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with
his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her
unborn baby died. What crime was committed by Aldrich?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife, Carmi, with his fist,
he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art, 266, par.
3 of the Revised Penal Code, Since Carmi died because of
the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of parricide
under Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the same
Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the process,
but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his
wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as defined in
Art. 257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich
produced two grave or less grave felonies, he falls under Art,
48,
Parricide (1999)
Who may be guilty of the crime of
parricide? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any person who kills his father, mother, or
child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
or his ascendants or descendants, or
spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. (Art.
246, RPC)
Parricide (1999)
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila,
abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky,
who was then only three years old.
Twenty years later, an affray took place in
a bar in Olongapo City between Pedro and
his companions, on one hand, and Ricky
and his friends, upon the other, without
the father and son knowing each other.
Ricky stabbed and killed Pedro in the
fight, only to find out, a week later, when
his mother arrived from Manila to visit
him in jail, that the man whom he killed
was his own father. 1) What crime did
Ricky commit? Explain. 2) Suppose Ricky
knew before the killing that Pedro is his
father, but he nevertheless killed him out
of bitterness for having abandoned him
and his mother, what crime did Ricky
commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Ricky committed parricide because the
person killed was his own father, and the
law punishing the crime (Art. 246, RPC)
does not require that the crime be
"knowingly" committed. Should Ricky be
prosecuted and found guilty of parricide,
the penalty to be imposed is Art. 49 of the
Revised Penal Code for Homicide (the
crime he intended to commit) but in its
maximum period.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ricky should be held criminally liable only
for homicide not parricide because the
relationship which qualified the killing to
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
81
parricide is virtually absent for a period of
twenty years already, such that Ricky
could not possibly be aware that his
adversary was his father. In other words,
the moral basis for imposing the higher
penalty for parricide is absent.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) The crime committed should be
parricide if Ricky knew before the killing
that Pedro is his father, because the moral
basis for punishing the crime already
exists. His having acted out of bitterness
for having been abandoned by his father
may be considered mitigating.
Parricide; Multiple Parricide; Homicide (1997) A, a
young housewife, and B, her paramour,
conspired to kill C. her husband, to whom
she was lawfully married, A and B bought
pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave
the food with poison to C, but before C
could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and
E, her legitimate son, arrived. C. D and E
shared the food in the presence of A who
merely watched them eating. C, D and E
died because of having partaken of the
poisoned food. What crime or crimes did A
and B commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of multiple
parricide for the killing of C, her lawful
husband, D, her illegitimate father, and E,
her legitimate son. All these killings
constitute parricide under Article 246 of
the Revised Penal Code because of her
relationship with the victims. B committed
the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of
A in the killing of C because the killing
was carried out by means of poison (Art.
248. par. 3, Revised Penal Code). But for
feloniously causing the death of D and E,
B committed two counts of homicide. The
plan was only to kill C.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted
under exceptional circumstances
Requisites for application:
1. That a legally married person or a parent
surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in the
act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person.
2. That he or she kills any or both of them or
inflicts upon any or both of them any serious
physical injury, in the act or immediately
thereafter.
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or
she has not consented to the infidelity of the
other spouse.
 Justification for this article: The
law considers the spouse or parent as acting in a
justified burst of passion.
 In the case of an accused killing his
spouse or his spouse’s paramour, the accused
must be a legally married person.
 However, in the case of a parent
killing his/her daughter and/or the man with
whom she is having sexual intercourse, the
parents need not be legitimate.
 Does this article apply even if the
daughter is married? Although the article does
not use the word ‘unmarried’, this article applies
only when the daughter is single because while
under 18 and single, she is still under parental
authority. If she is married, her husband alone
can claim the benefits of this article.
 “Surprise” – to come upon suddenly
and unexpectedly
 The accused must have seen his
spouse or daughter in the acts of sexual
intercourse with another. (not before, or after
sexual intercourse)
 The killing or inflicting of serious
physical injuries must be in the act of sexual
intercourse, or immediately thereafter.
 The killing must be the direct by-
product of the accused’s rage.
 The article does not apply where
the wife was not surprised in flagrant adultery
but was being abused (raped) by a man. An
attack upon the man by the husband will be
considered a defense of relative under Article 11
par. 2.
 When less serious or slight physical
injuries are committed, there is no criminal
liability. It is an absolutory cause.
 The penalty of destierro is really not
intended as a penalty but to remove the killer
spouse from the vicinity and to protect him/her
from acts of reprisal principally by relatives of the
deceased spouse.
 Cases where a person who
committed parricide is not punished with
reclusion perpetua to death:
o When parricide is
committed through negligence (Art. 365)
o When parricide is
committed by mistake (Art. 249)
o When parricide is
committed under exceptional circumstances
(Art. 247)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
82

People vs. Abarca
Abarca caught his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with
Koh. An hour later, Abarca fired several shots at Koh
during a mahjongg session. Koh was killed and two others
were seriously wounded. Abarca was convicted of Murder
and Double Frustrated Murder.
HELD: Though quite a length of time, about an hour, had
passed between the time Abarca caught his wife in sexual
intercourse with Koh and the time the latter was actually
shot, the shooting must be understood to be the
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by Abarca. The
RPC, in requiring that the accused “shall kill any of them or
both of them…immediately” after surprising his spouse in
the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit
the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the
death caused be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing upon the spouse
in the basest act of infidelity.
Bar Question
Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2001)
A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security
guard at Landmark, his shift being from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. One night, he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to
go home around midnight after getting permission from his
duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he
noticed that the light in the master bedroom was on and that
the bedroom window was open. Approaching the front door,
he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the
bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and peeped
inside where he saw his wife B having sexual intercourse
with their neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the
latter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the
window, A followed suit and managed to catch C again and
after a furious struggle, managed also to strangle him to
death. A then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B
was cowering under the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B
with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The police
arrived after being summoned by their neighbors and
arrested A who was detained, inquested and charged for the
death of C and serious physical Injuries of B. a) Is A liable
for C's death? Why? (5%) b) Is A liable for B's injuries?
Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional
circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code,
where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247 governs since
A surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual intercourse
with C, and the killing of C was "Immediately thereafter" as
the discovery, escape, pursuit and killing of C form one
continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)
b) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he
inflicted on his wife B but under the same exceptional
circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for
the same reasons.
Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2005)
Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after
rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Flor, his wife,
and Benjie, his best friend, completely naked having sexual
intercourse. Pete pulled out his service gun and shot and
killed Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the death of
Benjie. Pete contended that he acted in defense of his honor
and that, therefore, he should be acquitted of the crime. The
court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances
and exonerated Pete of the crime, but sentenced him to
destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code. The court also ordered Pete to pay indemnity to the
heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00. (5%)
Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A person who commits acts penalized under Article 247
of the Revised Penal Code for death or serious physical
injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances is still
criminally liable. However, this is merely an exempting
circumstance when the victim suffers any other kind of
physical injury. In the case at bar, Pete will suffer the
penalty of destierro for the death of Benjie.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Pete did not act in defense of his honor. For this defense
to apply under Art. 11, there must be an unlawful aggression
which is defined as an attack or material aggression that
poses a danger to his life or personal safely. It must be a
real aggression characterized by a physical force or with a
weapon to cause injury or damage to one's life. (People v.
Nahayra, G.R. Nos. 96368-69, October 17, 1991; People v.
Housing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991)
Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is
destierro a penalty? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the case of People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, September
14, 1987, the Court ruled that Article 247 does not define a
felony. However, it went on to state that the penalty is
merely banishment of the accused, intended for his
protection. Punishment, therefore, is not inflicted on the
accused.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code does not define
and provide for a specific crime but grants a privilege or
benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the
infliction of Serious Physical Injuries. Destierro is a
punishment whereby a convict is banished to a certain place
and is prohibited from entering or coming near that place
designated in the sentence, not less than 25 kms. (People v.
Araquel, G.R. No. L-12629, December 9, 1959)
Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity
despite his exoneration under Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because the privilege defined under this Article exempts
the offender from criminal liability but not from civil liability.
(People v. Abarca, G.R, No. L-74483, September 14, 1987;
Art. 12, Revised Penal Code)
Article 248. Murder
Elements:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
83
1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed him;
3. The killing was attended by any of the
following qualifying circumstances –
a. With treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid or armed
men, or employing means to weaken the
defense, or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity;
b. In consideration of a price, reward or
promise;
c. By means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of
an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
d. On occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity;
e. With evident premeditation;
f. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or
corpse.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
 Murder is the unlawful killing of any
person which is not parricide or infanticide,
provided any of the qualifying circumstances are
present.
 Murder will exist with only one of
the circumstances described in this article. When
more than one of the circumstances is present,
the others must be considered as generic
aggravating.
 However, when the other
circumstances are absorbed or included in one
qualifying circumstance, they cannot be
considered as generic aggravating. (example:
abuse of superior strength is absorbed by
treachery)
 The qualifying circumstance must
be alleged, in order to qualify the killing to
murder. If not alleged, it is only a generic
aggravating circumstance.
 The offender must have intent to
kill to be liable for murder committed by means
of fire, poison, explosion etc.
 Cruelty – when other injuries or
wounds are inflicted deliberately by he offender,
which are not necessary for the killing of the
victim. The victim must be alive when the other
injuries or wounds are inflicted.
 ‘Outraging or scoffing at his person
or corpse’ – the only qualifying circumstance
which is not mentioned in Article 14 as an
aggravating circumstance.
 outraging – to commit an extremely vicious
or deeply insulting act
 scoffing – to jeer, and implies a showing of
irreverence
People v. Mallari, 404 SCRA 170
FACTS: Joseph admonished Rufino and his
brothers Ino and Felix Mallari not to drive fast while passing
by Joseph's house. Rufino and his brothers, who were then
hot-tempered, challenged Joseph to a fight. The latter just
ignored the challenge; and, instead he and his own
brothers Radi and Manny asked apology from Rufino. Later
that afternoon, while Joseph and Liza were watching a
basketball game at the barangay basketball court, Rufino
and his brothers, who were then carrying bladed weapons,
arrived and attempted to stab Joseph; but Joseph was able
to run away. When they were not able to catch up with
him, Rufino boarded and drove the truck parked near the
basketball court and continued chasing Joseph until the
truck ran over the latter, which caused his instantaneous
death. The trial court found Rufino guilty of murder. It
ruled that the crime was committed by means of a motor
vehicle as a qualifying circumstance.
HELD: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding
that Rufino deliberately bumped Joseph with the truck he
was driving. The evidence shows that Rufino deliberately
used his truck in pursuing Joseph. Upon catching up with
him, Rufino hit him with the truck, as a result of which
Joseph died instantly. It is therefore clear that the truck
was the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the killing of
Joseph.
The case of People v. Muñoz cited by Rufino finds
no application to the present case. In the said case, the
police patrol jeep was merely used by the accused therein
in looking for the victim and in carrying the body of the
victim to the place where it was dumped. The accused
therein shot the victim, which caused the latter's death. In
the present case, the truck itself was used to kill the victim
by running over him.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a
person who kills another "by means of a motor vehicle" is
guilty of murder. Thus, the use of motor vehicle qualifies
the killing to murder.
People v. Pascual (2006)
At any rate, the doctrinal rule is that where the wound
inflicted on the victim is not life threatening, the accused
not having performed all the acts of execution that would
have brought about death, the crime committed is only
attempted murder.
People v. Whisenhunt, 386 SCRA 586
FACTS: Whisenhunt and the deceased, Elsa
Santos-Castillo, were lovers. They met at the Apex Motor
Corporation where accused was the Manager while Elsa was
the Assistant Personnel Manager. Both accused and Elsa
were married, but they were estranged from their
respective spouses. Inside his condominium unit, accused
Whisenhunt killed Elsa by stabbing her with a knife. He
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
84
then beheaded her and mutilated her body parts.
Thereafter, with the help of Ravelo, the dismembered
parts of Elsa’s body were wrapped in three separate black
garbage bags. Whisenhunt and Ravelo packed all the
garbage bags in another bag with zipper and rollers. The
two then drove in Whisenhunt’s car and the garbage bags
were eventually thrown on the roadside; and into a river.
The trial court found Whisenhun guilty of murder qualified
by outraging and scoffing at the victim's person or corpse.
HELD: The mere decapitation of the victim's head
constitute outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim,
thus qualifying the killing to murder. In this case, accused-
appellant not only beheaded Elsa. He further cut up her
body like pieces of meat. Then, he strewed dismembered
parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside,
leaving them to rot on the ground. The sight of Elsa's
severed body parts on the ground, vividly depicted in the
photographs offered in evidence, is both revolting and
horrifying. At the same time, the viewer cannot help but
feel utter pity for the sub-human manner of disposing of
her remains. Hence, the trial court was correct in
convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder,
qualified by outraging and scoffing at the victim's person or
corpse.
Sabang v. People (2007)
The distance from which a shot is fired affects the nature
and extent of the injury caused on the victim. In close
range fire, the injury is not only due to the missile but also
due to the pressure of the expanded gases, flame and
other solid products of combustion. In contrast, distant
fire usually produces the characteristic effect of the bullet
alone. A shot fired from a distance of more than 60 cm or
about two (2) feet does not produce the burning, smudging
or tattooing typically present in loose contact or near fire,
short range fire and medium range fire.
Powder burns is a term commonly used by physicians
whenever there is blackening of the margin at the
entrance of the gunshot wound. The blackening is due to
smoke smudging, gunpowder tattooing and, to a certain
extent, burning of the wound margin.
The fact that there were no powder burns on Butad’s
body indicates that the shots were fired at a distance of
more than two (2) feet and not at close range as the
defense suggests. Moreover, Butad sustained
four (4) gunshot wounds, three (3) of which
were in the chest area, circumstances which
are inconsistent with the defense’s theory of
accidental firing
Murder & Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165 (2005)
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally
bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the
stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be
positive for the use of ―shabu‖ at the time he committed
the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against
Candido? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances enumerated under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code. The killing, however, constitutes murder
because the commission of a crime under the influence of
prohibited drugs is a qualifying, aggravating circumstance.
(Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165)
Murder (1999)
The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously
shot the victim while the victim was turning his back to him.
He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim,
however, died because of loss of blood. Can the accused be
liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery was
clearly involved but there was no attempt to kill? Explain
your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though
he merely aimed and fired at the latter's leg, "not intending
to kill the victim", considering that the gunshot was felonious
and was the proximate cause of death. An offender is liable
for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his
felonious act although different from what he intended.
However, since specific intent to kill is absent, the crime for
said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs.
Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much
as his act of shooting the victim at the leg is felonious and is
the proximate cause of death. A person performing a
felonious act is criminally liable for all the direct, natural, and
logical consequences of such act although different from
what he intended. And since such death was attended by
treachery, the same will constitute murder but the accused
should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance
that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
which was committed (Art. 13(3), RPC)
Murder; Definition & Elements (1999)
Define murder. What are the elements of the crime? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise
would constitute only homicide, had it not been attended by
any of the following circumstances:
1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength,
or with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or
assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The elements of murder are: (1) that a person was
unlawfully killed; (2) that such a killing was attended by any
of the above-mentioned circumstances; (3) that the killing is
not parricide nor infanticide; and (4) that the accused killed
the victim.
Murder; Evident Premeditation (1996)
Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against
Jorge who refused to marry their sister Lorna, after the latter
got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they
finally cornered Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the latter was
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
85
walking home late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought
Jorge to Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in a small
nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two days
later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body into the river.
What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art 248,
RPC, the killing being qualified by evident premeditation.
This is due to the long standing grudge entertained by the
two accused occasioned by the victim's refusal to marry their
sister after impregnating her. In People vs. Alfeche. 219
SCRA 85, the intention of the accused is determinative of the
crime committed. Where the intention is to kill the victim and
the latter is forcibly taken to another place and later killed, it
is murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended
to deprive the victim of his liberty. Whereas, if the victim is
kidnapped, and taken to another situs and killed as an
afterthought, it is kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267,
RPC.
Murder; Homicide; Infanticide; Parricide (1999)
A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of
clergy, (2) their child who was only two days old, (3) their
daughter, and (4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes
did A commit? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the following crimes:
1.] HOMICIDE or murder as the case may be, for the killing
of his common-law wife who is not legally considered a
"spouse"
2.] INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child is
less than three (3) days old. (Art. 255, RPC)
However, the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be
imposed since A is related to the child within the degree
defined in the crime of parricide.
3.] PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, as long as she is not less than
three (3) days old at the time of the killing.
4.] MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the
relationship between A and the said son must be by blood in
order for parricide to arise.
Murder; Reckles Imprudence (2001)
Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten year
old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at
the intersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a
speeding CRV Honda van and were sent sprawling on the
pavement a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo,
stopped his car after hitting the two victims but then
reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose's prostrate body
anew and third time by advancing his car forward. The
grandson suffered broken legs only and survived but Mang
Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his
instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with
Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical
Injuries through Reckless Imprudence with respect to the
grandson. Are the charges correct? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over
Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped him and his
grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by
treachery. Said driver's deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose
was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body
twice, by backing up the van and driving it forward, whereas
the victim was helpless and not in a position to defend
himself or to retaliate. As to the serious physical injuries
sustained by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result
of having been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the
same were the result of reckless imprudence which is
punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code. The charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher
in degree to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for,
since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he
could have given to the victims.
Murder; Treachery (1995)
On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found
himself surrounded by four men. One of them wrestled the
police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the
other three companions who were armed with a hunting
knife, an ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him.
The policeman died as a result of the multiple stab wounds
inflicted by his assailants. What crime or crimes were
committed? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified
by treachery, (which absorbed abuse of superior strength) as
the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim was
totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted
acts of the assailants. Direct assault would not complex the
crime, as there is no showing that the assailants knew that
the victim was a policeman; even if there was knowledge,
the fact is that he was not in the performance of his official
duties, and therefore there is no direct assault.
Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004)
PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for
Mayor of their town. The Information against PH alleged that
he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and
this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes:
murder and illegal possession of firearms. Is the conviction
correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal
possession of firearm is not correct. Under the new law on
illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No.
8294, a person may only be criminally liable for illegal
possession of firearm if no other crime is committed
therewith; if a homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance. PH therefore may only be
convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in
its commission may only be appreciated as a special
aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged
specifically in the information for Murder.
Article 249. Homicide
Elements:
1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed him without any justifying
circumstance;
3. The accused had the intention to kill, which
is presumed;
4. The killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of
parricide or infanticide.
 Intent to kill is conclusively
presumed when death resulted. (crime is
consummated)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
86
 Evidence of intent to kill is
important only in attempted or frustrated
homicide (to differentiate it from physical
injuries). In such cases, intent to kill must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 There is no offense of frustrated
homicide through imprudence because the
element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide is
incompatible with negligence or imprudence.
 Accidental homicide – the death of
a person brought about by a lawful act
performed with proper care and skill, and without
homicidal intent. (example: the death of a boxer
following a serious blow in a boxing bout,
provided that the rules of boxing had been
followed)
 Corpus delicti – the actual
commission of the crime charged, means that the
crime was actually committed. In crimes against
persons in which death of the victim is an
element of the offense, there must be
satisfactory proof of the fact of death, and the
identity of the victim.
 When the victim is under 12 years
of age, penalty for homicide shall be one degree
higher than that imposed by law.
People vs. Buensuceso
Several police officers fired shots at a knife-wielding guy,
who later died from the gunshot wounds. The investigation
showed that all the four officers actually fired their service
pistols but it was not established as to which wound was
inflicted by each policeman.
HELD: Where several personas acting independently of
each other inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be
determined which wound was inflicted by each person, all
the assailants are liable for the victim’s death.
People vs. Pugay
Pugay poured gasoline on a 25-year old mental retardate
while Samson set the poor guy on fire, killing him in the
process. They were both convicted of murder.
HELD: Pugay can only be convicted of Homicide thru
reckless imprudence because of his failure to exercise all
the diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable
consequence arising from any act committed by his
companions. Samson is guilty of Homicide although it was
not his intention to kill the guy, but he shall be credited
with the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit
so grave a wrong.
People vs. Basay (1993)
The two accused here were charged with Multiple Murder
and Frustrated Murder with Arson in one information. They
were charged with having stabbed people, and to conceal
the crime, they burned down the house. The burning of the
house then led to the death of another and 3 rd degree burns
on the lone survivor.
HELD: It was not proper to have consolidated all the
charges against the accused in one single complaint. It was
proven that 3 victims were hacked and stabbed before the
house was burned down. And then when the house was
burned down, this led to the death of another person and
serious burns on another.
Several separate informations must be filed where the
victims were killed by separate acts. 4 crimes were
committed here, 3 separate murders under the RPC and
arson as punished under sec5 PD1613 (if by reason/ on
occasion of the arson, death results, penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death imposed). Therefore the information was
vulnerable to a motion to quash for being duplicitous.
People vs. Rivera (2006)
An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in
their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is
intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately
before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries.
Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must
prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general
criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a
felony by dolo.
Bar questions
Complex Crime; Homicide w/ Assault Authority
(1995)
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where
he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay
Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he
often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, One
afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and
his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along
a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual's men
tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent
confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of
the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime
was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in
relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law (Art.
152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the
performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof
the felony of direct assault is committed. Art. 48, RPC, on
the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or
more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is
committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking
the victim to death resulted in two felonies, homicide which
is grave and direct assault which is less grave.
Homicide; Fraustrated; Physical Injuries (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside
the house of Mamerto. Jay, Mamerto's son, saw Dante and
accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of
his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted
Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries which, were it not for the
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death.
Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25
days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
87
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated
homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical
injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be
complexed with frustrated homicide ... Dante committed
frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had
already performed all the acts of execution which would
have produced the intended felony of homicide were it not
for causes independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the
intent to kill judging from the weapon used, the manner of
committing the crime and the part of the body stabbed.
Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the
wounds sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no
intent to kill because Dante merely assaulted Mamerto
without using the knife.
Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide,
murder or homicide
 For frustrated parricide, homicide or murder,
the courts, in view of the facts of the case, may
impose a penalty lower by one degree than that
imposed under Article 50.
 Article 50 provides that the penalty next
lower in degree than that prescribed by law for
the consummated felony shall be imposed upon
the principal in a frustrated felony. Thus, under
Article 250, the court can impose a penalty of
TWO DEGREES LOWER for frustrated parricide,
murder or homicide.
 For attempted parricide, homicide or murder,
the courts, in view of the facts of the case, may
impose a penalty lower by one degree than that
imposed under Article 51.
 Article 51 provides that the penalty lower by
two degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
principal in a attempted felony. Thus, under
Article 250, the court can impose a penalty of
THREE DEGREES LOWER for attempted parricide,
murder or homicide.
 Note however that any attempt on, or
conspire against, the life of the Chief Executive of
the Philippines or that of any member of his
family, or against the life of any member of his
cabinet or that of any member of the latter’s
family, shall suffer the penalty of DEATH.
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous
affray
Elements:
1. There are several persons;
2. They do not compose groups
organized for the common purpose of assaulting
and attacking each other reciprocally;
3. These several persons quarreled
and assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner;
4. Someone was killed in the course of
the affray;
5. It can not be ascertained who
actually killed the deceased;
6. The person or persons who inflicted
serious physical injuries or who used violence can
be identified.
 Tumultuous affray exists
when at least four persons take part. The word
‘tumultuous’ as used in Article 153 means that
the disturbance is caused by more than three
persons who are armed or are provided with
means of violence.
 When there are two
identified groups of men who assaulted each
other, then there is no tumultuous affray.
 The person killed in the
course of the affray need not be one of the
participants in the affray.
 Who are liable?
a. the person or persons
who inflicted the serious physical injuries
b. if it is not known who
inflicted the serious physical injuries on the
deceased, all the persons who used violence
upon the person of the victim are liable, but
with lesser liability.
People v. Unlagada, 389 SCRA 224
FACTS: At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening
Laurel left his house together with his visitor, Selda, to
attend a public dance. Two hours later, Danilo asked Edwin
to take a short break from dancing to attend to their
personal necessities outside the dance hall. Once outside,
they decided to have a drink and bought 2 bottles of beer
at a nearby store. Not long after, Daniloleft to look for a
place to relieve himself. While Danilo was relieving
himself, Unlagada approached Danilo and stabbed him at
the side. Danilo retaliated by striking his assailant with a
half-filled bottle of beer. Almost simultaneously, a group of
men numbering about seven 7, ganged up on Danilo and hit
him with assorted weapons, i.e., bamboo poles, stones and
pieces of wood. Danilo died before he could be given any
medical assistance. Unlagada was convicted by the RTC. He
claims the trial court erred in convicting him of murder and
not "death in a tumultuous affray." under Art. 251 of The
Revised Penal Code.
HELD: A tumultuous affray takes place when a
quarrel occurs between several persons who engage in a
confused and tumultuous manner, in the course of which a
person is killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot
be ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case is between
a distinct group of individuals, one of whom was
sufficiently identified as the principal author of the killing,
as against a common, particular victim. It is not, as the
defense suggests, a "tumultuous affray" within the meaning
of Art. 251 of The RPC, that is, a melee or free-for-all,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
88
where several persons not comprising definite or
identifiable groups attack one another in a confused and
disorganized manner, resulting in the death or injury of one
or some of them.
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray
Elements:
1. There is a tumultuous affray;
2. A participant or some participants thereof
suffered serious physical injuries or physical
injuries of a less serious nature ONLY;
3. The person responsible thereof cannot be
identified;
4. All those who appear to have used violence
upon the person of the offended party are
known.
 Unlike in Article 251, the injured
party in this article must be one or some of the
participants in the affray.
 All those who appear to have used
violence shall suffer the penalty next lower in
degree than that provided for the serious
physical injuries inflicted. For less serious
physical injuries, the penalty is arresto mayor
from five to fifteen days.
 This article does not include slight
physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray.
Bar Questions
Criminal Liability; Tumultous Affray (1997)
During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public
plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one
fatal and three superficial stab wounds. He died a day after.
B, C, D and E were proven to be participants in the "rumble",
each using a knife against A, but it could not be ascertained
who among them inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be
held criminally liable for the death of A and for what?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray
and having been proven to have inflicted serious physical
injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are criminally
liable for the latter's death. And because it cannot be
ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury on
A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray. B, C,
D, and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a
tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Criminal Liability; Tumultuous Affray (2003)
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers
inside a night club became unruly, guns were fired by a
group, among them A and B, that finally put the customers
back to their senses. Unfortunately, one customer died.
Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had
inflicted on the victim a slight wound that did not cause the
deceased's death nor materially contribute to it. It was B's
gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A
contended that his liability should, if at all, be limited to
slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why? 6%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I beg to disagree with A's contention that his liability
should be limited to slight physical injury only. He should be
held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted said
injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal weapon.
Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr.
v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 123 [1990])
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, I would agree to A's contention that his criminal liability
should be for slight physical injury only, because he fired his
gun only to pacify the unruly customers of the night club and
therefore, without intent to kill. B's gunshot that inflicted a
fatal wound on the deceased may not be imputed to A
because conspiracy cannot exist when there is a free-for-all
brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for their
respective act
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide
Acts punishable:
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether
the suicide is consummated or not;
2. Lending his assistance to another to commit
suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself.
 The relation of the offender to the
person committing suicide is not material, the law
does not distinguish. Hence, penalty would be
the same if the offender is the father, mother or
child.
 A person who attempts to commit
suicide is not criminally liable because society
considers such person to be an unfortunate
being, a wretched person more deserving of pity
rather than of penalty.
 If a pregnant woman tries to
commit suicide but instead kills the baby in her
womb, is she liable for abortion? NO. In order
to incur criminal liability for a result not intended,
one must be committing a felony. An attempt to
commit suicide is not an act punishable by law.
 Euthanasia (mercy killing) –
practice of painlessly putting to death a person
suffering from some incurable disease. This is
not lending assistance to suicide because in
euthanasia, the person killed does not want to
die. A doctor who resorts to mercy killing may
be liable for murder.
Article 254. Discharge of firearms
Elements:
1. The offender discharges a firearm against or
at another person;
2. The offender had no intention to kill that
person.
 If the firearm is not discharged AT
A PERSON, there is no crime of discharge of
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
89
 firearms. For example, firing a gun at a house at
random, not knowing where the people inside
were, is not discharge of firearms. The crime
may be alarms and scandals under Article 155.
 There must be no intention to kill,
otherwise the crime is attempted or frustrated
murder/homicide/parricide, as the case may be.
 The purpose of the offender is only
to intimidate or frighten the offended party.
 If physical injuries resulted from
discharge, the crime committed is the complex
crime of discharge of firearm with physical
injuries, when the physical injuries are serious or
less serious.
 The crime is discharge of firearm,
even if the gun was not pointed at the offended
party when it fired, as long as it was initially
aimed by the accused at or against the offended
party.
Dado v. People, 392 SCRA 46
FACTS: The Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat Police
Station formed 3 teams to intercept cattle rustlers. The
team, composed of petitioner SPO4 Dado and CAFGU
members Eraso, Balinas, and Alga, waited behind a large
dike. Balinas and Alga, who were both armed with M14
armalite rifles, positioned themselves between Dado, who
was armed with a caliber .45 pistol, and accused Eraso,
who was carrying an M16 armalite rifle. They were all
facing southwards in a half-kneeling position and were
about 2 arms length away from each other. Thereafter, the
team saw somebody approaching at a distance of 50
meters. Though it was a moonless night, they noticed that
he was half-naked. When he was about 5 meters away from
the team, Balinas noticed that Eraso, who was on his right
side, was making some movements. Balinas told Eraso to
wait, but before Balinas could beam his flash light, Eraso
fired his M16 armalite rifle at the approaching man.
Immediately thereafter, Dado, fired a single shot from his .
45 caliber pistol. The victim shouted, "Tay Dolfo, ako ini,"
("Tay Dolfo, [this is] me") as he fell on the ground. The
victim turned out to be Silvestre "Butsoy" Balinas, the
nephew of Balinas and not the cattle rustler the team were
ordered to intercept. Silvestre Balinas died as a result of
the gunshot wounds he sustained. The RTC convicted Dado
of the crime of Homicide.
HELD: Dado is guilty of the crime of illegal
discharge of firearm. Absent an intent to kill in firing the
gun towards the victim, petitioner should be held liable for
the crime of illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254
of the RPC. The elements of this crime are: (1) that the
offender discharges a firearm against or at another person;
and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill that
person. Though the information charged the petitioner with
murder, he could be validly convicted of illegal discharge
of firearm, an offense which is necessarily included in the
crime of unlawful killing of a person. Under Rule 120,
Section 4, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure,
when there is a variance between the offense charged in
the complaint or information and that proved, and the
offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the
offense proved, the accused shall be convicted of the
offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or
the offense charged which is included in the offense
proved.
Article 255. Infanticide
Elements:
1. A child was killed
2. The accused killed the said child;
3. The deceased child was less than three
days (72 hours) of age.
 The penalty prescribed is the same
for parricide or murder, as the case may be.
 Concealment of dishonor is not an
element of infanticide. If the crime is committed
by the mother of the child to conceal her
dishonor, or by the maternal grandparents for
the same purpose, the penalty for infanticide is
mitigated.
 Delinquent mother must be of good
reputation and good morals, in order that
concealing dishonor may mitigate her liability.
 No crime of infanticide is committed
when the child was born dead, or although born
alive, it could not sustain an independent life
when it was killed.
Article 256. Intentional Abortion
Ways of committing intentional abortion:
1. Using any violence upon the person of the
pregnant woman;
2. Acting, but without using violence, without
the consent of the woman. (By administering
drugs or beverages upon such pregnant woman
without her consent.)
3. Acting (by administering drugs or
beverages), with the consent of the pregnant
woman.
Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages
administered, or that the accused otherwise acts
upon such pregnant woman;
3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or
beverages upon her, or any other act of the
accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or
after having been expelled therefrom;
4. The abortion is intended.
 Abortion is the willful killing of the
fetus in the uterus, or the violent expulsion of the
fetus from the maternal womb which results in
the death of the fetus.
 The person who intentionally
caused the abortion is liable under this article.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
90
 The pregnant woman, if she consented to the
abortion, shall be liable under Article 258. If she
did not consent, she is not criminally liable.
 Abortion distinguished from
infanticide: if the fetus could sustain an
independent life after its separation from the
maternal womb; and it is killed, the crime is
infanticide.
Article 257. Unintentional abortion
Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman
without intending an abortion;
3. The violence is intentionally exerted;
4. As a result of the violence, the fetus dies,
either in the womb or after having been expelled
therefrom.
 Unintentional abortion is committed
only by violence, which must be intentionally
exerted.
 Unintentional abortion may be
committed through imprudence (example:
negligent driver gets into a car crash, causing
pregnant passenger to get thrown off the car,
killing fetus inside her)
 Is the accused liable for abortion
even if he did not know that the woman was
pregnant? NO. For the crime of abortion, even if
unintentional, to be held committed, the accused
must have known of the pregnancy.
People vs. Salufrania
After quarrelling with his pregnant wife, Salufrania boxed
her on the stomach and strangled her to death. He was
convicted of the complex crime of parricide with
INTENTIONAL ABORTION.
Held: There is no evidence to show that the accused had
the intention to commit an abortion. Mere boxing on the
stomach, taken together with the immediate strangling of
the victim is not sufficient to show an intent to cause an
abortion. Thus, Salufrania should be convicted of the
crime of parricide with UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION.
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman
herself or by her parents
Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman who has
suffered an abortion;
2. The abortion is intended;
3. Abortion is caused by -
a. The pregnant woman herself;
b. Any other person, with her consent;
or
c. Any of her parents, with her
consent for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor.
 The pregnant woman is
liable under this article, if she does the abortion
herself or she consents to another person doing
the abortion.
 Liability of the pregnant
woman is mitigated if purpose is to conceal
dishonor.
 No mitigation for
parents of pregnant woman even if the purpose
is to conceal dishonor. The penalty for the
parents in this case is the same as the penalty
for a pregnant woman committing abortion,
without the purpose of concealing dishonor.
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician
or midwife and dispensing of abortives
Elements (for physicians and midwives):
1. There is a pregnant woman who has
suffered an abortion;
2. The abortion is intended;
3. Offender, who must be a physician or
midwife, caused or assisted in causing the
abortion;
4. Said physician or midwife took advantage of
his or her scientific knowledge or skill.
 The penalties provided for
intentional abortion shall be imposed in the
maximum period for physicians and midwives
violating this article.
 Reason: heavier guilt in making
use of their knowledge for the destruction of
human life, when it should be used only for its
preservation.
Elements (for pharmacists):
1. The offender is a pharmacist;
2. There is no proper prescription from a
physician;
3. The offender dispenses any abortive.
 It is not necessary that the
pharmacist knows that the abortive would be
used to cause an abortion. What is punished is
the dispensing of the abortive without the proper
prescription.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
91
 Not necessary that the abortive be
actually used either.
 If the pharmacist knew that the
drug would be used to cause an abortion, he may
be liable as an accomplice in the crime of
abortion.
Article 260. Responsibility of the participants
in a duel
Acts punishable:
1. Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical
injuries;
3. Making a combat although no physical
injuries have been inflicted.
Persons liable:
1. The person who killed or inflicted physical
injuries upon his adversary, or both combatants
in any other case, as principals.
2. The seconds, as accomplices.
 Duel is a formal or regular combat
previously concerted between two parties in the
presence of two or more seconds of lawful age
on each side, who make the selection of arms
and fix all the other conditions of the fight.
 If death results, the penalty is the
same as that for homicide.
Article 261. Challenging to a duel
Acts punishable:
1. Challenging another to a duel;
2. Inciting another to give or accept a
challenge to a duel;
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for
having refused to accept a challenge to fight a
duel.
 A challenge to a fight, without
contemplating a duel, is not challenging to a
duel. The person making the challenge must
have in mind a formal combat to be concerted
between him and the one challenged in the
presence of two or more seconds.
Article 262. Mutilation
Acts punishable:
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving
him, either totally or partially, of some essential
organ for reproduction; (castration)
Elements:
a. There be a castration, that is, mutilation of
organs necessary for generation, such as the
penis or ovarium;
b. The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended
party of some essential organ for
reproduction.
2. Intentionally making other mutilation, that is,
by lopping or clipping off any part of the body of
the offended party, other than the essential
organ for reproduction, to deprive him of that
part of his body. (other intentional mutilation)
 Mutilation is the lopping or clipping
off of some part of the body.
 The second type of mutilation is
also called ‘mayhem’.
 For other intentional mutilation, if
the victim is under 12 years of age, the penalty
shall be one degree higher than that imposed by
law.
 The offender must have the
intention to deprive the offended party of a part
of his body. If there is no such intention, the
crime will be serious physical injuries.
Article 263. Serious physical injuries
How committed:
1. By wounding;
2. By beating;
3. By assaulting; or
4. By administering injurious substance.
Types of serious physical injuries:
1. When the injured person becomes insane,
imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted;
2. When the injured person –
a. Loses the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a
foot, an arm, or a leg;
b. Loses the use of any such member; or
c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in which
he was theretofore habitually engaged, in
consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted;
3. When the person injured –
a. Becomes deformed; or
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
92
 b. Loses any other member of his body; or
c. Loses the use thereof; or
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was
habitually engaged for more than 90 days in
consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted;
4. When the injured person becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days
(but must not be more than 90 days), as a result
of the physical injuries inflicted.
 In physical injuries, there must not
be intent to kill, otherwise the crime is
frustrated/attempted murder or homicide as the
case may be.
 Impotence under first type means
an inability to copulate. It is used synonymously
with ‘sterility’.
 Penalty under the first type is one
degree higher when the victim is under 12 years
of age.
 Blindness under the second type
must be of two eyes. If there is loss of one eye
only, the serious physical injuries is of the second
type.
 Loss of power to hear under the
second type must be of both ears. If hearing in
only one ear is lost, it falls under the third type.
 Loss of the use of hand, or
incapacity for work under the second type, must
be permanent.
 All the body parts mentioned in the
second type are principal members of the body
(eye, hand, foot etc.)
 The third type covers any other part
of the body which is not a principal member of
the body.
 Deformity – physical ugliness,
permanent and definite abnormality. It must be
conspicuous and visible.
 Elements of deformity: (a) physical
ugliness, (b) permanent and definite abnormality,
and (c) it must be conspicuous and visible. All
these elements must concur.
 Deformity by loss of teeth refers to
injury which cannot be repaired by the action of
nature.
 Loss of both outer ears is a
deformity.
 Loss of the lobule of the ear is a
deformity.
 Loss of index and middle fingers
only is either deformity or loss of a member, not
a principal one, of his body or use of the same.
 Loss of power to hear of right ear
only is loss of use of other part of body.
 Illness – when the wound inflicted
did not heal with a certain period of time.
 Note that under serious physical
injuries of the fourth type, illness or incapacity is
required, NOT medical attendance.
 Paragraphs 2 and 3 refers to the
“work in which he was theretofore habitually
engaged”…must the injured party have an
avocation at the time at the time of the injury?
YES, insofar as these two paragraphs are
concerned. Incapacity therefore must related to
a certain kind of work only. However, in
paragraph 4, incapacity for any kind of work is
acceptable, because the phrase “incapacity for
labor” is used.
 Injury requiring hospitalization for
more than thirty days is serious physical injuries
under paragraph 4.
 When the category of the offense
of serious physical injuries depends on the period
of illness or incapacity for labor, there must be
evidence of the length of that period; otherwise,
the offense is only slight physical injuries.
 Lessening of efficiency due to injury
is NOT incapacity.
 Distinguished from mutilation: In
mutilation, the body parts should have been
purposely and deliberately lopped or clipped off.
This intention is not present in serious physical
injuries.
 Qualified serious physical injuries –
if the offense is committed against any of the
persons enumerated in the crime of parricide, or
with the attendance of any of the circumstance in
murder, the law provides for higher penalties.
Article 264. Administering injurious
substances or beverages
Elements:
1. Offender inflicted upon another any serious
physical injury;
2. It was done by knowingly administering to
him any injurious substance or beverages or by
taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity;
3. He had no intent to kill.
 It is frustrated murder when there
is intent to kill, the injurious substance to be
considered as poison.
 If the accused did not know of the
injurious nature of the substances administered,
he is not liable under this article.
 Administering injurious substance
means introducing into the body the substance.
Thus, throwing mordant chemicals or poisons on
the face is not contemplated in this article.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
93
 This article does not apply if the
physical injuries that result are less serious or
slight.
 Taking advantage of weakness of
mind or credulity: for example, using witchcraft,
magnetism, philters etc.
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries
Matters to be noted in this crime:
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for
10 days or more (but not more than 30 days), or
needs medical attendance for the same period of
time;
2. The physical injuries must not be those
described in the preceding articles.
Qualified as to penalty:
1. A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to
arresto mayor, shall be imposed for less serious
physical injuries when –
a. There is a manifest intent to insult or
offend the injured person; or
b. There are circumstances adding
ignominy to the offense.
2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim
is either -
a. The offender’s parents, ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers; or
b. Persons of rank or person in
authority, provided the crime is not direct
assault.
 Medical attendance OR
incapacity for labor is required in less serious
physical injuries.
 It is only slight physical
injury when there is no medical attendance or
incapacity for labor.
 The phrase “shall
require medical attendance” refers to ACTUAL
medical attendance, not to the nature of the
wound or injury inflicted.
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and
maltreatment
Acts punished:
1. Physical injuries incapacitated the offended
party for labor from one to nine days, or required
medical attendance during the same period;
2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his habitual
work or which did not require medical
attendance;
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without
causing any injury.
 When there is no evidence of actual
injury, it is only slight physical injuries.
 Supervening event converting the
crime into serious physical injuries after the filing
of the information for slight physical injuries can
still be the subject of a new charge. Information
may be amended.
Li v. People, 427 SCRA 217
Facts: Because of an altercation between Arugay
and Li, the latter armed himself with a baseball bat and
used the same to hit Arugay on the arm. Arugay armed with
a bolo, retaliated by hacking Li on the head causing the bat
to fall from his hand and leaving him unconscious or semi-
unconsious. At this point in time, Sangalang, who was also
present stabbed Arugay several times which resulted to
the latter’s death. The RTC found Li guilty on the tenuous
determination that a conspiracy between Li and Sangalang
existed.
Held: The only injury attributable to Li is the contusion on
the victim’s right arm that resulted from Li striking Arugay
with a baseball bat. In view of the victim’s supervening
death from injuries which cannot be attributed to Li
beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion
caused by Li are not mortal or at least lie entirely in the
realm of speculation. When there is no evidence of actual
incapacity of the offended party for labor or of the
required medical attendance, the offense is only slight
R.A. 8049
An Act Regulating Hazing
and Other Forms of Initiation Rites
in Fraternities, Sororities and other Organizations
What is Hazing?
Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,
sorority or organization by placing the recruit neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations
such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar
tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury. (§1)
The term “organization” shall include any club or
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine
National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or
officer and cadet corp of the Citizen's Military
Training, or Citizen's Army Training. But the physical,
mental and psychological testing and training procedure and
practices to determine and enhance the physical, mental and
psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National
Police as approved by the Secretary of National Defense and
the National Police Commission duly recommended by the
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
94
Director General of the Philippine National Police shall not be
considered as hazing for the purpose of this Act. (§1)
Requirements before hazing may be conducted
1. No hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner
by a fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed
without prior written notice to the school authorities
or head of organization seven (7) days before the
conduct of such initiation. The written notice shall
indicate the ff:
 period of the initiation activities which
shall not exceed three (3) days,
 the names of those to be subjected to
such activities
 an undertaking that no physical
violence be employed by anybody during
such initiation rites. (§2)
2. The head of the school or organization or their
representatives must assign at least two (2)
representatives of the school or organization as
the case may be, to be present during the initiation. It
is the duty of such representative to see to it that no
physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a
recruit, neophyte or applicant. (§3)
Who are punishable?
If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation
rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result
thereof, the following are punished under the law:
AS PRINCIPALS:
1. The officer and members of the fraternity, sorority
or organization who actually participated in the
infliction of physical harm
2. If the hazing is held in the home of one of the
officers or members of the fraternity, group, or
organization, the parents shall be held liable as
principals when they have actual knowledge of the
hazing conducted therein but failed to take any action
to prevent the same from occurring.
3. The officers, former officers, or alumni of the
organization, group, fraternity, or sorority who
actually planned the hazing although not present
when the acts constituting the hazing were committed
4. Officers or members of an organization, group,
fraternity, or sorority who knowingly cooperated in
carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be
present thereat
5. A fraternity or sorority's adviser who is
present when the acts constituting the hazing were
committed and failed to take any action to prevent the
same from occurring
AS ACCOMPLICES:
6. The owner of the place where hazing is
conducted shall be liable as an accomplice, when he
has actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein
but failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring.
7. The school authorities including faculty
members who consent to the hazing or who have
actual knowledge thereof but failed to take any action
to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished
as accomplices for the acts of hazing committed by
the perpetrators.
The presence of any person during the hazing is prime
facie evidence of participation therein as a principal unless
he prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.
Any person charged under this provision shall not be
entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no
intention to commit so grave a wrong.
This section shall apply to the president, manager, director
or other responsible officer of a corporation engaged in
hazing as a requirement for employment in the manner
provided herein. (§4)
Penalties imposed
The penalties imposed shall vary depending on the
injury suffered by the victim. If the victim dies, is raped,
sodomized or mutilated, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed in any of the
following instances:
a) when the recruitment is accompanied by force,
violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the
person of the recruit who refuses to join;
b) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially
consents to join but upon learning that hazing will be
committed on his person, is prevented from
quitting.
c) when the recruit neophyte or applicant having
undergone hazing is prevented from reporting the
unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to the
proper school authorities, or to the police authorities
through force, violence , threat or intimidation;
d) when the hazing is committed outside of the school
or institution: or
e) when the victim is below twelve (12) years of age
at the time of the hazing.
The responsible officials of the school or of the
police, military or citizen's army training organization, may
impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on
the person or persons charged under this law even before
their conviction.
Bar Questions
Anti-Hazing law – RA 8049 (2002)
What is hazing as defined by law? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
95
sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations
such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar
tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury.
What does the law require before initiation rites may
be performed? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires
that before hazing or initiation rites may be performed,
notice to the school authorities or head of organizations shall
be given seven (7) days before the conduct of such rites.
The written notice shall indicate (a) the period of the
initiation activities, not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the
names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an
undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by
anybody during such initiation rites.
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How
Committed
Elements under paragraph 1:
1. Offender is a man;
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman;
3. Such act is accomplished under any of
the following circumstances:
 Rape can now be
committed by a male or a female.
 Only one of the four
circumstances mentioned is sufficient.
 Force employed against
the victim of the rape need not be of such
character as could be resisted. It is enough that
the force used is sufficient to consummate the
purpose of copulating with the offended woman.
 When the offender in
rape has an ascendancy or influence over the
girl, it is not necessary that she put up a
determined resistance.
 Rape may be proved by
the uncorroborated testimony of the offended
woman.
 There is no crime of
frustrated rape (see Orita case).
 Character of the
offended woman is immaterial in rape.
 When several persons
conspired to rape a single victim, each shall be
liable for the rape committed personally by him,
as well as those committed by the others

a. By using force or intimidation; Article 266-B. Penalties

b. When the woman is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious; When rape is punished by death:
c. By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse of authority; or 1. Where the victim is under 18 years of age
d. When the woman is under 12 and the offender is her ascendant, stepfather,
years of age or demented. guardian, or relative by affinity or consanguinity
within the 3rd civil degree, or the common law
Elements under paragraph 2: husband of the victim’s mother; or
2. Where the victim was under the custody
1. Offender commits an act of sexual of the police or military authorities, or other
assault; law enforcement agency;
2. The act of sexual assault is committed 3. Where the rape is committed in full view of
by any of the following means: the victim’s husband, the parents, any of the
children or relatives by consanguinity within the
a. By inserting his penis into another 3rd civil degree;
person's mouth or anal orifice; or 4. Where the victim is a religious, that is, a
b. By inserting any instrument or member of a legitimate religious vocation and the
object into the genital or anal orifice of offender knows the victim as such before or at
another person; the time of the commission of the offense;
5. Where the victim is a child under 7 yrs of
3. The act of sexual assault is age;
accomplished under any of the following 6. Where the offender is a member of the
circumstances: AFP, its paramilitary arm, the PNP, or any law
enforcement agency and the offender took
a. By using force or intimidation; or advantage of his position;
b. When the woman is deprived of 7. Where the offender is afflicted with
reason or otherwise unconscious; or AIDS or other sexually transmissible diseases,
c. By means of fraudulent machination and he is aware thereof when he committed the
or grave abuse of authority; or rape, and the disease was transmitted;
d. When the woman is under 12 years 8. Where the victim has suffered permanent
of age or demented. physical mutilation;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

96
9. Where the pregnancy of the offended
party is known to the rapist at the time of the
rape; or
10. Where the rapist is aware of the victim’s
mental disability, emotional disturbance or
physical handicap.
 Rape under the first
type is punished by reclusion perpetua. Rape
under the second type is punished by reclusion
temporal. Penalties are increased in these
instances:
o When it
committed with the use of a deadly weapon
or by two or more persons
o When the victim
becomes insane
o When there is
attempted rape and homicide is committed
by reason or on the occasion thereof
o When homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion of
rape
o When rape is
committed with any of the enumerated
qualifying or aggravating circumstances
(death penalty is imposed)
 Rape with
homicide is now a special complex crime,
punishable by death (first type) or reclusion
perpetua (second type).
Old rape law New rape law
Crime against chastity Crime against persons
May be committed by a man Under the second type,
against a woman ONLY sexual assault may be
committed by ANY PERSON
PRIVATE CRIME – May be prosecuted even if
Complaint must be filed by the woman does not file a
the woman or her parents, complaint
grandparents or guardian if
the woman was a minor or
incapacitated
Marriage of the victim with Marriage extinguishes the
one of the offenders benefits penal action only as to the
not only the principal but principal (the person who
also the accomplices and married the victim)
is
accessories
Marital rape NOT recognized Marital rape recognized
People vs. Orita
A PC soldier raped a 19-year old student while poking a
knife on her neck. However, only a portion of his penis
entered her vagina because the victim kept on struggling
until she was finally able to escape. The soldier was
convicted of FRUSTRATED RAPE.
HELD: There is NO crime of frustrated rape because – In
rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge
of the victim, he actually attains his purpose, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the offense have
been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the
offender because he has performed the last act necessary
to produce the crime.
People vs. Mangalino

A 55-year old man lured a 6-year old to his bedroom by

266-C. Effect of pardon
 Subsequent valid
marriage between the offender and the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed.
 In case it is the
legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or the penalty, provided that their
marriage is not void ab initio.
266-D. Presumptions
Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution
of rape:
1. any physical overt act
manifesting resistance against the act of rape in
any degree from the offended party.
2. where the offended party is so
situated as to render him/her incapable of giving
consent.
giving her two pesos. He then tried to force his penis in to
her vagina but he was not able to completely do so,
because of the little girl’s undeveloped genitalia (only 1
cm. in diameter).
HELD: Rape was committed even though the penetration
could only go as deep as the labia. The court has
consistently held that for rape to be committed, full
penetration is not required. Even the slightest penetration
is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape.
People vs. Balbuena
A tomboy went on a drinking spree with her male friends.
Two of her companions raped her on top of a billiard table.
While one guy was raping her, the other pinned her arms
down.
HELD: In the crime of rape, when a woman testifies that
she had been raped, she says all that need to be said to
signify that this crime has been committed. Note that each
accused was sentenced to two counts of rape - one for
actually raping the girl and another for helping the other
rape the girl.
People vs. Castro

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

97
Castro brought a 6-year old girl inside the bathroom. He
made the girl stand on the toilet bowl and tried to insert
his penis into her vagina. Medical findings showed that the
victim’s hymen was not lacerated.
HELD: Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina are not essential for the offense of
consummated rape. Entry to the extent of the labia or lips
of the female organ is sufficient. The victim’s remaining a
virgin does not negate rape.
People vs. Atento
A 16-year old mental retardate was repeatedly raped by
her neighbor, and she later on gave birth to their child.
She described the sexual experience as pleasurable
(Masarap!)
HELD: Even though force and intimidation has not been
established, rape was still committed because the victim is
deprived of reason. Under paragraph 2 of Article 335, it is
not necessary that the culprit actually deprives the victim
of reason prior to the rape, as by administration of drugs or
some other method. This provision also applies to cases
where the woman has been earlier deprived of reason by
other causes, as when she is congenitally retarded.
People vs. Dela Cuesta
The RTC of Makati found De La Cuesta guilty of 6 counts of
rape against 9-year-old Merma Binasbas. At the time of the
alleged incidents of rape, De La Cuesta, then 64 years old,
was boarding with Merma and her mom. De La Cuesta
threatened the girl and gave her P20 after each encounter.
De La Cuesta claims it was error for the lower court to find
that he was Merma’s guardian, and that he could have
committed the rape in view of his age (he claims his last
erection was 3 years ago).
HELD: The trial court erred in imposing the supreme
penalty of death. R.A. 7659 provides that the death penalty
shall be imposed when the victim is under 18 years old and
the offender is a guardian. In People v. Garcia (281 SCRA
463), we held that the restrictive definition of a guardian,
that of a legal or judicial guardian, should be used in
construing the term “guardian” for the purpose of imposing
the death penalty under R.A. 7659.
The mere fact that the mother asked De La Cuesta to look
after her child while she was away did not constitute the
relationship of guardian-ward as contemplated by the law.
He watched over the girl as a favor to mother for letting
him stay while his place was being renovated.
De La Cuesta’s contention that he was incapable of
committing rape due to his age, physical condition and lack
of earthly desires is self-serving. There is no evidence
presented to substantiate his alleged dysfunction. In one
case, we rejected the defense even after a doctor had
examined the accused by stimulating his organ with a wisp
of cotton for three minutes and there was no erection.
(People v. Palma, 144 SCRA 236). At any rate, advanced
age does not mean that sexual intercourse is no longer
possible, as age is not a criterion taken alone in
determining sexual interest and capability of middle-aged
and older people. (People v. Bahuyan, 238 SCRA 330).
People vs. Sabredo (2000)
Jimmy Sabredo, uncle of victim Judeliza, lived with their
family in Cebu for more than a year. He forcibly dragged
her at knife's point, and brought her to Masbate. Armed
with a blade, he sexually assaulted Judeliza. After
satisfying his lust, Jimmy inserted three fingers into her
vaginal orifice and cruelly pinched it. Later, Jimmy struck
Judeliza with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious.
TC sentenced him to death for the complex crime of
abduction with rape.
HELD: When a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC is
charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is
axiomatic that the prosecution must allege and prove the
presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well
as all the elements of the crime of rape. Prosecution failed
to allege the 3rd element of forcible abduction which is that
the abduction is with lewd designs. Thus, when Jimmy,
using a blade, forcibly took away complainant for the
purpose of sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape
her, the rape may then absorb forcible abduction. Hence,
the crime committed by appellant is simple rape only.
Where the rape is committed with the use of deadly
weapon or by two or more persons, the imposable penalty
ranges from RP to death. The use of the bladed weapon
already qualified the rape. Since there is no aggravating
circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Section 11 (1) 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, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim. However, R.A. No. 7659 cannot apply IN CAB
because (1) at the time the rape was committed, victim
was already more than 18 years old and (2) the information
did not allege that offender and offended party were
relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
Sentence should only be reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Arillas (2000)
Amor O. Arillas accused her father, Romeo Arillas of raping
her on two occasions when she was barely 16 years old. The
trial court found her father guilty beyond reasonable doubt
and imposed the death penalty for the reason that the
victim was under 18 years old at the time of the
commission of the offense and the offender was her father.
HELD: The informations in these cases alleged that the
victim is the daughter of the appellant but it did not allege
that the victim is under 18 years old. It is a denial of the
right of an accused not to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against him, and consequently, a denial of due
process if he is convicted of a crime in its qualified form
notwithstanding the fact that the information, on which he
was arraigned, charges him only of the crime in its simple
form by not specifying the circumstance that qualifies the
crime. Hence, the appellant was only charged with simple
rape and its penalty is reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Mahinay
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
98
Accused here was a houseboy who raped and killed the 12-
year-old daughter of their neighbor. Accused was convicted
of Rape with Homicide and sentenced to death.
HELD: Since the victim here was 12 years old already, must
prove sexual congress by force and violence and lack of
consent. Since in this case the victim was unconscious, the
conclusion is that there was lack of consent.
The crime here is Rape with Homicide, which is a special
complex crime with an indivisible penalty of death. This is
treated in the same way as qualified rape, rape with any of
the 10 attendant circumstances properly alleged in the
information and proven at trial. However if any of the
circumstances are not alleged but proven, the penalty
cannot be death except if the circumstance can be made to
fall under Art.14/15 RPC. In CAB, the court has no choice
but to impose death as this is what is given in the law as
the penalty for the special complex crime.
People vs. Quiñanola (1999)
There were 2 accused here who took turns in raping a 15-
year-old girl. They were convicted of frustrated rape based
on People vs. Erina despite the fact that the subsequent
case of People vs. Orita saying that there can never be a
crime of frustrated rape. The ruling was based on the
testimony of the victim that she only felt the penis
touching her.
HELD: The 2 accused should be convicted each of two
counts of consummated rape. Frustrated rape can never be
committed because no matter how slight the penetration,
as long the penis touches the external genitalia of the
woman, the rape is consummated as the person has done
all the necessary acts to complete the crime.
Even if Art335 RPC as amended still uses frustrated rape,
the Court will ignore it and just treat it as a mere lapse in
language.
People vs. Campuhan
Campuhan had his pants down and was on top of the 4-year
old child when the child’s mother arrived. A medical
examination showed that there were no signs of genital
injury and that the victim’s hymen was intact.
HELD: For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or
scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina
(mons pubis) will not suffice. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias
or slid into the female organ, and NOT merely stroked the
external surface thereof. AT LEAST THE LABIA MAJORA
MUST BE ENTERED FOR RAPE TO BE CONSUMMATED.
People v. Oga, 431 SCRA 354 (2004)
FACTS: At around 10:00 p.m., Oga summoned 14-
year-old Irene to his barracks. Inside his barracks, Oga,
however, suddenly pulled her and laid her on the wooden
bed. The appellant then took off her pants and panty, as
well as his clothes. Irene allegedly resisted the sexual
assault, but her efforts proved in vain because the Oga was
strong and drunk. He pinned her down with his body, while
his right hand pinned her hands above her shoulders and his
left hand separated her legs. Then he inserted his penis
into her vagina. It was only at around 2:00 a.m. when her
parents caught Oga naked atop Irene’s naked body. Irene
denied that the appellant was her boyfriend. For his part,
Oga interposed as a defense the “sweetheart theory.”
HELD: In reviewing rape cases, the Court has
established the following principles as guides: (1) an
accusation of rape can be made with facility, difficult to
prove but more difficult for the person accused, though
innocent, to disprove; (2) by reason of the intrinsic nature
of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its merits and cannot
draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense. In the present case, the Cout ruled that no
physical force was used to quell Irene’s alleged resistance.
Irene claimed that she resisted the sexual molestation, but
a careful reading of her testimony failed to reveal the kind
of resistance she did under the circumstances. While it is
true that a rape victim is not expected to resist until
death, it is contrary to human experience that Irene did
not even make an outcry or use her hands which must have
been free most of the time to ward off the lustful advances
of appellant. Further, the findings of Dr. Villena, who
examined Irene only several hours after the alleged rape,
showed no sign of extragenital injuries on her body. Not a
piece of Irene’s apparel was torn or damaged as would
evince a struggle on her part. These circumstances
additionally belie Irene’s claim that the appellant had
sexual intercourse with her without her consent.
People v. Buates, 408 SCRA 278 (2003)
FACTS: On July 28, 1990, at around 5:00 p.m.,
Jennifer Buates was on her way home when the appellant,
who is his uncle, called her, allegedly to give her
something. As Jennifer approached the appellant, the
latter pointed a knife at her and told her to undress.
Fearful for her life, Jennifer undressed, followed by the
appellant. Thereafter, he ordered her to lie down on the
grassy portion of the area. He spread her legs and inserted
his penis into her vagina while she cried and felt severe
pain. The appellant appeared to have shivered before
finally pulling out his penis. He instructed Jennifer to dress
up and warned her not to tell her family about the
incident, otherwise they would all be killed. After the
incident appellant succeeded in molesting her several
times more on different dates. In December 1994,
Jennifer went to live with her grandmother one month
after her own father allegedly molested her.
Subsequently, she stayed with an aunt a before transferring
to another aunt, a certain Enrica Provido, to whom she
finally revealed her harrowing experience in the hands of
the appellant and her own father. Consequently, Enrica
called Jennifer’s mother, Gliceria in Bicol and related her
daughter’s ordeal. The RTC convicted Oga of two counts of
rape. Appellant principally assails the credibility of
Jennifer, claiming that her actuations after the alleged
commission of each act of rape were not typical of a rape
victim. Specifically, appellant points out that Jennifer
continued to take a bath alone and fetch water from the
river near where the appellant allegedly raped. She also
took the same path on her way to school where the second
sexual assault allegedly took place. Moreover, Jennifer
remained respectful of the appellant. In addition, she did
not inform any member of her family about the alleged
sexual assaults in 1990 and 1993 but only after several
years, in 1998.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
99

HELD: The appellant cannot successfully impugn
the credibility of the private complainant on account of her
alleged "normal" behavior after both sexual assaults. It
must be borne in mind that different people respond
differently to a given stimulus or type of situation and
there is no standard form of behavioral response when one
undergoes a shocking or startling experience. The
demeanor of the private complainant was understandable
in the light of the circumstances in both incidents of rape.
She did not immediately disclose her misfortune to anybody
because of the death threats from the appellant. Being in
her early teens, she was obviously cowed into silence as
the appellant warned her not to divulge the incident to
anybody, otherwise she and her family would be killed.
Such threat from the appellant, for sure, generated much
fear in her mind. Further the victim’s lowly station in life
simply offered no other option for the private complainant
but to continue doing those things. i.e. taking a bath alone;
fetching water…
The Court also held that it was extremely
ludicrous for the appellant to claim the continued respect
and affection of the private complainant solely from the
latter's customary act of obtaining his blessing
(pagmamano). The private complainant herself clarified
that the practice was an involuntary gesture to keep the
public from getting wind of her sorry episode of defloration
and to maintain her honor.
Anonimity of Victim
People v. Cabalquinto (2006)
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the
“Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of
2004” and its implementing rules, the real name of the
victim, together with the real names of her immediate
family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead
are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy.
Statutory Rape
People v. Jalosjos, 369 SCRA 179 (2001)
FACTS: The victim 11 year-old, Maria Rosilyn
Delantar, grew up under the care of Simplicio Delantar,
whom she treated as her own father. Simplicio was a 56
year-old homosexual whose ostensible source of income
was selling longganiza and tocino and accepting boarders at
his house. On the side, he was also engaged in the skin
trade as a pimp. At a very young age of 5, Rosilyn was
exposed by Simplicio to his illicit activities. She and her
brother would tag along with Simplicio whenever he
delivered prostitutes to his clients. When she turned 9,
Rosilyn was offered by Simplicio as a prostitute to an
Arabian national known as Mr. Hammond. Thus begun her
ordeal as one of the girls sold by Simplicio for sexual
favors. Simplicio brought Rosilyn to Congressman Jalosjos
condominium unit at Ritz Towers on several occassions.
There, Cong. Jalosjos would kiss, caress and fondle said
Rosilyn's face, lips, neck, breasts, vagina; suck her nipples
and insert his finger and then his tongue into her vagina,
and other similar lascivious conduct. On two occasions,
Jalosjos placed himself on top of Rosilyn and inserted his
sexual organ into her vagina. On said occassions, Cong.
Jalosjos would thereafter give her money which she in turn
gives to Simplicio. After trial, the RTC convicted Cong.
Jalosjos of two (2) counts of statutory rape, and six (6)
counts of acts of lasciviousness defined and penalized
under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b) of
Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the Child Abuse Law.
HELD: In statutory rape, mere sexual congress
with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the
crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the act
or lack of it. The law presumes that a woman of tender age
does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving
intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, it was held that
carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if
she is engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory
rape. The application of force and intimidation or the
deprivation of reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. The
absence of struggle or outcry of the victim or even her
passive submission to the sexual act will not mitigate nor
absolve the accused from liability.
In the case at bar, the prosecution established
beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge of Rosilyn. Moreover, the prosecution
successfully proved that Rosilyn was only eleven years of
age at the time she was sexually abused. As such, the
absence of proof of any struggle, or for that matter of
consent or passive submission to the sexual advances of
accused-appellant, was of no moment. The fact that
accused-appellant had sexual congress with eleven year-old
Rosilyn is sufficient to hold him liable for statutory rape,
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Note: Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape
law of 1997 was enacted after 1996-the year the above acts
were committed, hence, it does not apply in this case.
People v. Basquez, 366 SCRA 154 (2001)
FACTS: Around 4:00 pm, Jiggle Jilt dela Cerna,
six (6) years old, was on her way home from school, where
she was a Grade 1 student. While casually walking,
Basquez, who was drinking outside a store along her way
blocked her way and pulled her by the belt of her dress.
She was then dragged towards the direction of the houses
at the back of the school and was brought inside an
unoccupied dilapidated house. Upon reaching the said
house, her hands, feet and body were tied with a tieback.
Jiggle struggled and cry. At this point, her attacker
undressed himself, untied Jiggle, had her lie down and put
himself on top of her. Basquez’ hands then started groping
all over her young and fragile body and forced himself
inside her. Jiggle, despite the excruciating pain, kicked
appellant repeatedly in an effort to free herself from him.
Basquez, however, continued forcing his penis inside her
vagina. An hour after when the Basquez left Jiggle with her
body still tied. With her school bag just beside her, Jiggle
mustered enough courage and strength to take a pair of
scissors from it and cut the remaining tiebacks tied at her
body. The following day, Jiggle, traumatized by the
assault and rape committed by the appellant, refused to go
to school for fear of seeing the Basquez again. She later
narrated her horrifying experience to her grandmother
Segundina dela Cerna with whom she was living.
HELD: Although there had been no complete
penetration of the victim's vagina by appellant's penis,
contact between them was not ruled out by the doctor who
testified in this case. In fact, he found the victim's vagina
positive for spermatozoa. Existing rulings on rape do not
require complete or full penetration of the victim's private
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
100
organ. Neither is the rupture of the hymen necessary. The
mere introduction of the penis into the labia majora of the
victim's genitalia engenders the crime of rape. 40 Hence, it
is the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia
majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's
genitalia that consummates rape. 41 Penile invasion
necessarily entails contact with the labia. Even the briefest
of contacts, without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to
be rape.
People v. Dalisay, 408 SCRA 375 (2003)
FACTS: Lanie was lying in bed when her
father, the appellant arrived from work. Suddenly
appellant removed Lanie’s pants and underwear. Lanie
resisted but appellant boxed her on her thigh. Appellant
touched her daughters vagina and licked it. Thereafter,
while in a kneeling position, he placed his penis at the
entrance of Lanie's vagina and inserted his private organ
into hers. He then proceeded to make push and pull
movements. Lanie felt pain but she did not complain
because she was afraid. The following day, Lanie went to
school and pretended as if nothing happened. However, her
Grade V teacher noticed that Lanie looked depressed that
day. When she inquired, Lanie answered that she was
raped by her father. Appellant had sexually abused Lanie
since she was in grade III. She estimated that her father
had raped her seventeen (17) times, although she could no
longer remember the exact dates when they took place.
Incidentally, Lanie's sister, Luz, also filed a complaint for
acts of lasciviousness against appellant. Appellant contends
that since Lanie's hymen is intact and that there was no
spermatozoa in her genitalia, he could not have committed
the crime.
HELD: The appellant is guilty of statury rape. The
presence of either hymenal laceration or spermatozoa on
Lanie's private part is not an essential element of rape. The
court cited the cases of; People vs. Parcia, where it was
held that the absence of sperm does not disprove the
charge of rape; People vs. Regala, where was ruled that an
intact hymen does not necessarily prove absence of sexual
intercourse; and People vs. Rafales, where it was declared
that, ". . .. For rape to be committed, entrance of the male
organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is
sufficient. Rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina
are not essential. Entry to the least extent of the labia or
the lips of the female organ is sufficient, the victim
remaining virgin does not negate rape."
As testified to by Lanie, "the tip" of appellant's
penis was inserted into her vagina, as a result of which
she felt pain. In other words, there was no full penetration,
and this explains why her hymen remained intact.
Nonetheless, carnal knowledge was consummated by the
entry of "the tip" of appellant's private organ into the labia
or pudendum of Lanie's genitalia. It is well-settled that full
penetration is not required to consummate carnal
knowledge, as proof of entrance showing the slightest
penetration of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ is sufficient.
Liability of Several Accused in
Multiple Rape
People v. Plurad, 393 SCRA 306 (2002)
FACTS: An hour and a half past midnight, after
Norielene consumed half a glass of gin handed to her by
accused Bernadas, she began to feel dizzy. Norielene fell
asleep on the lap of her friend, Ibañez. At around 3:00 in
the morning, Norielene woke up and found that she was
being carried by the three (3) accused towards the
bedroom of accused Bernadas. Since she still felt dizzy,
Norielene fell fast asleep in the room. She later woke up
when accused Bernadas was removing her shorts and
panties. Norielene tried to shout for help but her mouth
was covered by Bernadas. When she was already naked,
accused Bernadas placed himself on top of her, inserted his
sex organ into her private parts and performed pumping
motions. Both hands of the victim were held by the accused
Plurad and Cañedo. After Bernadas finished raping her,
Plurad took his turn and had sexual intercourse with
Norielene while fondling her breasts. Norielene struggled
to free herself but Bernadas held her hands while Plurad
covered her mouth with a handkerchief When Plurad was
through, Cañedo also had sexual intercourse with her while
Bernadas and Plurad held her hands.
HELD: In cases of multiple rape, each of the
defendants is responsible not only for the rape committed
by him but also for those committed by the others. Plurad,
therefore, is responsible not only for the rape committed
personally by him but also for the two other counts of rape
committed by his co-accused.
Rape may be commited by a woman
People v. dela Torre, 419 SCRA 18 (2004)
FACTS: Appellant-spouses Butchoy and Fe de la
Torre were convicted by the RTC of 9 counts of rape
committed against their maid Baby Jane Dagot, who was
then only 16 years old.
Baby Jane and the appellant-spouses were asleep on
the floor of the same bedroom when appellant Fe de la
Torre woke Baby Jane and her husband Butchoy. Baby Jane
was surprised to see that Fe was holding a lighted kerosene
lamp and a scythe. Fe ordered her husband to transfer and
lie beside Baby Jane. As appellant Butchoy did not comply,
Fe herself transferred so that Baby Jane was between her
and Butchoy. Fe put down the scythe and the lamp and
proceeded to take Butchoy's clothes off and then Baby
Jane's. Butchoy offered no resistance but Baby Jane
objected and cried to no avail. Fe then ordered Butchoy to
have sex with Baby Jane. Baby Jane, fearful of the spouses
and the dawning realization of what would happen to her,
could not ward off his advances. Butchoy placed himself on
top of Baby Jane, inserted his penis into her vagina and did
a push and pull motion. Baby Jane felt pain. All the while,
Fe was standing beside them, holding the lamp and the
scythe. After the sexual intercourse, Butchoy kissed her on
the neck and fondled her breasts. Baby Jane found it
revolting but could not do much to refuse him, as she was
afraid of Fe. When Butchoy was finished, he threw her
clothes to her and got dressed. Baby Jane immediately put
on her clothes. She wanted to leave the room but Fe
prevented her from doing so. The following morning, Baby
Jane saw that there was blood on her panty. The rape was
repeated once a week from the second week of September
1992 on to the fourth week of October 1992. Baby Jane had
her menarche in the month of November 1992 and was
spared from the appellants' abuse that month. However she
was again raped in the second week of December. This was
to be the last. Baby Jane testified that the subsequent rape
incidents were carried out in the same manner as the first.
She felt pain during the first and second rapes, but did not
feel pain anymore in the succeeding rape incidents.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
101

HELD: An accused may be considered a principal
by direct participation, by inducement, or by indispensable
cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a
woman, provided of course a man is charged together with
her. In two cases the Court convicted the woman as a
principal by direct participation since it was proven that
she held down the complainant in order to help her co-
accused spouse consummate the offense. In People v.
Villamala, the Court found the husband and wife guilty for
raping their neighbor and "kumare" in this factual setting,
viz: the wife visited the victim at her home on the pretext
of inquiring as to the whereabouts of her husband. Once
inside, she whistled for her husband and he immediately
appeared at the doorstep. The wife then suddenly pinned
her "kumare" to the floor. The husband forcefully removed
the victim's skirt and panties, removed his shorts, placed
himself on top of the victim and consummated the rape. In
the more recent People v. Saba, the accused married
couple victimized a fourteen (14) year-old epileptic who
stayed at their home for treatment by the wife who was a
reputed healer. On the pretext of conducting a healing
session, the wife ordered the victim to lie down on the
floor then pinned the victim's hands to the floor and
covered her mouth while her husband removed his pants
and briefs and the victim's panties and raped the young
girl. These two cases show not only the possibility but the
reality of rape committed by a woman together with a
man. The Court affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Rape through sexual assault
Ordinario v. People, 428 SCRA 773 (2004)
FACTS: Jayson Ramos and accused Geronimo
Ordinario were student and teacher, respectively, at
Nicanor Garcia Elementary School during the time the
crime was perpetrated. Jayson was then in Grade 4 and
accused was his teacher in Boy Scout. After being
summoned by accused at the Boy Scout headquarters,
Jayson was ordered to strip off which the latter complied
unwary of the perverse intentions of accused. Accused
then approached Jayson and started kissing him all over his
body including his male organ. Thereafter, accused
inserted his private part into the mouth of Jayson but the
latter could not hold on for long as he felt vomiting
prompting accused to remove his penis and ordered Jayson
to dress up. Before they parted ways, accused told Jayson
'pag nagsumbong ka sa mga magulang mo, may masamang
mangyayari sa iyo.' Interpreting the same to mean an
immediate bodily harm, Jayson kept mum on the incident
for fear of accused reprisal. The same sexual molestation
recurred, and several more thereafter until Jayson had
mustered enough courtage to inform his parents about the
incident.
HELD: The definition of the crime of rape has
been expanded with the enactment of Republic Act No.
8353, otherwise also known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997,
to include not only "rape by sexual intercourse" but now
likewise "rape by sexual assault. "An act of sexual assault
under the second paragraph of Article 266-A of the RPC can
be committed by any person who, under the circumstances
mentioned in the first paragraph of the law, inserts his
penis into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object into the genital or anal orifice, of another person.
The law, unlike rape under the first paragraph of said
Article 266-A of the Code, has not made any distinction on
the sex of either the offender or the victim. The court
found Ordinario guilty of rape by sexual assault on twelve
(12) counts.
People v. Soriano, 388 SCRA 140 (2002)
FACTS: On four occasions, the Camilo Soriano
forced his penis into her daughter Maricel’s vagina, On
twelve other occasions, the accused inserted his finger into
her daughters private organ. The victim was then 11 years
old.
HELD: The Court found Camilo guilty of 4 counts
of rape by sexual intercourse and 12 counts of rape through
sexual assault. Inserting a finger inside the genital of a
woman is rape through sexual assault within the context of
paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the RPC. (Emphasis
supplied)
People v. Fetalino (2007)
The insertion of one’s finger into the genital or anal
orifice of another person constitutes rape by sexual assault
and not merely an act of lasciviousness
Delay in Reporting Rape
People v. Arnaiz (2006)
Neither does AAA’s failure to tell her mother about the
incident nor her long delay in reporting the matter to the
authorities negate rape. As correctly observed by the OSG,
the delay in reporting the rape incident does not weaken
the case for the prosecution. It is not uncommon for a
young girl to conceal assaults on her virtue, especially
when the rapist is living with her. In fact, we have
previously ruled in People v. Coloma, that even a delay of 8
years is not a sign of fabrication.
Absence of Medical Findings
People v. Teodoro (2006)
Thus, the contention of appellant that there were no
lacerations in the vagina does not merit any consideration.
In that regard, it has been held that the medical
examination of the victim is merely corroborative in
character and is not an element of rape. Likewise, a
freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape
and healed lacerations do not negate rape.
Sweetheart defense
People v. Bautista, 430 SCRA 469 (2004)
FACTS: On the pretext that he had
been sent by his wife to fetch the victim, a 15-year-old girl
for an field trip, Baustista, brought the latter to a motel,
where he had sexual intercourse with her against her will.
Contending that he and the victim were lovers, appellant
claims that what transpired was consensual, though illicit,
sexual intercourse.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
102

HELD: Bautista’s sweetheart defense
was rejected by the court for lack of corroboration. As an
affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing
evidence — by some documentary and/or other evidence
like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like. In
this case, the only thing he proffered to prove that he and
the victim were lovers was his self-serving statement,
which she and her mother categorically denied. Even if he
and the victim were really sweethearts, such a fact would
not necessarily establish consent. It has been consistently
ruled that "a love affair does not justify rape, for the
beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will." The
fact that a woman voluntarily goes out on a date with her
lover does not give him unbridled license to have sex with
her against her will. The court cited the case of People v.
Dreu, where it was held that "A sweetheart cannot be
forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man
cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and,
worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love.
Love is not a license for lust."
Moral Character of Victim
People v. Agsaoay, 430 SCRA 450 (2004)
FACTS: Josephine and her sister were sleeping on
the second floor of their house, while the other members
of the family were at the ground floor. Their mother left
their house early and went to the field to uproot palay
seedlings. Josephine was awakened when her father
suddenly kissed her lips. Instinctively, she pushed him away
but to no avail. He threatened to kill her and her entire
family should she report the matter to her mother.
Josephine was so terrified and was not able to shout and
resist. Her father then undressed her, spread her legs, held
her hands, and inserted his penis into her vagina and made
a push and pull movement. Josephine felt pain. Josephine
did not tell her mother, about the incident because of her
father's threat. It was only the following day that she
revealed to her mother what had happened. Her mother
was shocked but scared to report the matter immediately
to the authorities because in the past, accused killed her
brother. Accused ravished Josephine for the second time.
At first, her mother again refused to report the incident to
the police. Later, however, her mother finally went to the
PNP to report the incident. Now, the defense endeavors to
prove that Josephine is an unchaste young woman who
habitually goes out with different men.
HELD: The debasement of Josephine’s character
does not necessarily cast doubt on her credibility, nor does
it negate the existence of rape. It is a well-established rule
that in the prosecution and conviction of an accused for
rape, the victim's moral character is immaterial, there
being absolutely no nexus between it and the odious deed
committed. Even a prostitute or a woman of loose morals
can be the victim of rape, for she can still refuse a man's
lustful advances.
Forcible abduction absorbed in rape
People v. Lining, 384 SCRA 427 (2002)
FACTS: Emelina, then fifteen (15) years old,
requested permission from her parents to visit her aunt
where she was supposed to spend the night. While in her
aunt josephine’s house, Emelina was invited to a dance
party. Emelina accepted the invitation and she went to the
party, accompanied by her aunt. Josephine then left
Emelina at the party, telling her that she had to go home
but she would return later to fetch her. When the party
ended Josephine still had not returned. Emelina decided to
go home alone. On her way to her aunt’s house, Emelina
was accosted by Gerry Lining and Lian Salvacion, both of
whom were known to her since they were her former
neighbors. Lining poked a kitchen knife at Emelina’s breast
and the two held her hands. Emelina was dragged towards
the ricefield and was forcibly carried to an unoccupied
house. Inside the house, Lining removed Emelina’s t-shirt,
pants and undergarments. She was pushed to the floor and
while Salvacion was holding her hands and kissing her,
Lining inserted his penis inside her vagina. Emelina
shouted and tried to ward off her attackers, but to no
avail. After Lining had satisfied his lust, he held Emelina’s
hands and kissed her while Salvacion in turn inserted his
penis inside her vagina. Thereafter, the two directed
Emelina to put on her clothes. Emelina saw an opportunity
to escape, and she returned to her aunt’s house. i However,
because of fear, as the accused threatened her that she
would be killed if she would reveal what they did to her,
she did not tell her aunt what transpired. She next went to
the house of her friend Evelyn Saguid where he told Gerry
Selda, a friend of her father, who saw her crying about the
rape incident. Accused Salvacion remained at large while
Lining was convicted by the trial as principal of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
HELD: Lining could only be convicted for the
crime of rape, instead of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape. Indeed, it would appear from the
records that the main objective of the accused when the
victim was taken to the house of Mila Salvacion was to rape
her. Hence, forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of
rape.
Bar Questions
Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998)
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura
offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of
beer. King made advances to her and with force and
violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her
jewelry. Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the
incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned
everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of
jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was
taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit?
Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide
as a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and
Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already
dead is only theft.
Rape (1995)
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him.
He then violently threw her on the floor and forced her to
have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered
serious physical injuries.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
103
(a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain.
(b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries?
Explain
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before
the incident Gavino and Alma were legally separated?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his
wife because of the matrimonial consent which she gave
when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will
not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with
the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441
RA 837).
(b) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This
offense is specially mentioned in Art. 263 [4], paragraph 2
which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical
injuries in cases where the offense shall have been
committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246
(the crime of parricide).
(c) No, my answer will not be the same. If Gavino, and
Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then
Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legal separation is a
separation of the spouses from bed and board (U.S. vs.
Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RFC, p. 853. 1981
edition),
In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction
of physical injuries suffered by the victim on the occasion of
the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries
suffered by the victim may, however, be considered in
determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on
the offender. Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in
rape; it can be so if the injury is slight.
Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995)
Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal
area in Antipole chanced upon Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle
driver, on top of Rowena who was known to be a child
prostitute. Both were naked from the waist down and
appeared to be enjoying the sexual activity. Ruben was
arrested by the policemen despite his protestations that
Rowena enticed him to have sex with her in advance
celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town physician found
no semen nor any bleeding on Rowena's hymen but for a
healed scar. Her hymenal opening easily admitted two
fingers showing that no external force had been employed
on her. Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully.
Answer;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not
present. The gravamen of the offense is the carnal
knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age (People
vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn't consider
the consent voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve
years old does not and cannot have a will of her own. In
People us. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762, it was held that sexual
intercourse with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape.
Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the
consummation as the important consideration is not the
emission but the penetration of the female body by the male
organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs. Carandang.
52 SCRA 259).
Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002)
What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape
Law of 1997, amending the Revised Penal Code? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of
1997 are: 1.] having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man
by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority, 2.] having carnal knowledge of a demented
woman by a man even if none of the circumstances required
in rape be present; and 3.] committing an act of sexual
assault by inserting a person's penis into the victim's mouth
or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into
the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002)
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime
against honor, a private offense, to that of a crime against
persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the offender and
the offended party extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, the subsequent valid marriage
between the offender and offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed, although rape
has been reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that of
a crime against persons.
Rape; Consented Abduction (2002)
A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in
his farm and there had sexual intercourse with her. The girl
did not offer any resistance because she was infatuated with
the man, who was good-looking and belonged to a rich and
prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was
committed by A? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under
Article 343 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The said
Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and under
18 years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd
designs. Although the problem did not indicate the victim to
be virgin, virginity should not be understood in its material
sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation,
since the essence of the crime is not the injury to the
woman but the outrage and alarm to her family (Valdepenas
vs. People,16 SCRA 871 [1966]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A committed "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610. As
defined in said law, "child abuse" includes sexual abuse or
any act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is
below eighteen (18) years.
Rape; Effect; Affidavit of Desistance (1993)
1 Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo
into having sexual Intercourse with him. Rachel's mother
immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn
statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office. After the
necessary preliminary investigation, an information was
signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the signature of
Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the
dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
2 After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a
sworn affidavit of desistance executed by Rachel and her
mother stating that they are no longer interested in
prosecuting the case and that they have pardoned Ariel.
What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the
criminal and civil aspects of the case? Explain fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The case should not be dismissed. ... 2) The affidavit of
desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil
liability but not criminal liability hence the case should still
proceed.
Rape; Male Victim (2002)
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there,
through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
104
penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability? a mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child less
Why? than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a valid
SUGGESTED ANSWER: consent to the sexual Intercourse. The sexual intercourse is
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of tantamount to a statutory rape because the level of
sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into the anus intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of age.
of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence or
assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People us.
Code, as amended, "when the offender's penis is inserted Trimor, G,R. 106541-42, 31 Mar 95) As a matter of fact, RA
into his mouth or anal orifice." No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC,
Rape; Multiple Rapes; Forcible Abduction (2000) by adding the phrase "or is demented."
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City
which was driven by Roger, Flordeluna noticed that Roger
was always placing his car freshener in front of the car
aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why.
Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious.
Instead of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought
Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for
two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her
detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of the crime
of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of
rape with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged
and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct
offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his
principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention
was only incidental to the rape.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of
rape with serious illegal detention, since the detention was
incurred in raping the victim during the days she was held.
At most, Roger may be prosecuted for forcible abduction for
taking Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter's will and with
lewd designs. The forcible abduction should be complexed
with one of the multiple rapes committed, and the other
rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as
many rapes were charged and proved.
Rape; Proper Party (1993)
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into
having sexual Intercourse with him. Rachel's mother
immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn
statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office. After the
necessary preliminary investigation, an information was
signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the signature of
Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the
dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law
(People us. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11). It is enough that a
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) complaint
was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal's
Office.
Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim
(1996)
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with
an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine and twelve
years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she
was raped by the accused, replied "Masarap, it gave me
much pleasure." With the claim of the accused that the
complainant consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse,
and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would
you convict the accused of rape if you were the judge trying
the case?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

105
i