CASE DIGEST 1 CRUZ VS PEOPLE

FACTS:

1. Belinda and Bartolome Cruz were engaged in the business of selling plastic wares in different
cities/municipalities. They employed the services of AAA and BBB to help them in selling plastic wares
in Bangar, La Union which was then celebrating their fiesta.

2. The four of them along with Jess, their salesboy, and Ruben, their driver, travelled to La Union. Upon
reaching the place, they set up their tents in front of Maroon Enterprises. Belinda and Ruben went
back to Manila to get more supplies. During that evening, AAA woke up because someone was on top
of her embracing and touching her genitalia, it turned out that it was Bartolome. She also found herself
naked. Fortunately, she fought back, kicked Bartolome and was able to escape. She went to find Jess
to tell him what happened but she was not able to wake him up. When she came back after 30 mins,
she saw Bartolome already on top of BBB touching her genitalia. She saw BBB awake with shaking
hands. When she entered the tent, Cruz left and went outside.

3. RTC convicted Cruz of attempted rape of AAA and acts of lasciviousness on BBB. CA affirmed conviction
of attempted rape of AAA but acquitted him of acts of lasciviousness on BBB because of lack of
evidence.

ISSUE: Whether or not Cruz is guilty of attempted rape of AAA.

HELD: Cruz is only guilty of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.

1. There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a crime directly by overt acts
and does not perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. An overt act is defined as some physical
activity indicating the intention to commit crime, more than a mere planning, which if carried to its
complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor
by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete
offense.
2. The reason behind this is that the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has
never ceased to be equivocal (open to more than one interpretation), this is necessarily so irrespective
of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes
one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act, or
before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed and this is so for the reason that so long
as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say for certainty what the intent of the accused is.
3. In attempted rape, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all acts of execution
of having carnal knowledge. In rape, the intent to lie with the female is indispensable but in acts of
lasciviousness, it’s not required. Attempted rape is therefore committed when the almost touching of
the vagina by the penis is coupled with intent to penetrate. The intent to penetrate is manifest only
through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the act of touching the external genitalia
of the victim. The only means by which the overt act can be shown to have a causal relation to rape is
to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the female. Without such showing, only acts of
lasciviousness is committed.
4. If the slightest penetration consummates rape and rape in its attempted stage requires the
commencement of commission of having carnal knowledge that is the showing of the penis, then there
is no frustrated stage of the crime of rape.
 CASE DIGEST 2 – VALENZUELA VS PEOPLE

FACTS:

1. Aristotle Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were sighted in front of Super Sale Club located at SM North
EDSA by Lago, a security guard manning his post at that time. Lago saw petitioner hauling a push cart
with cases of Tide detergent and unloaded these at a parking space where Calderon was waiting. He
returned to the supermarket and emerged 5 minutes later with more cartons of said detergent.
Petitioner hailed and boarded a taxi which he directed to the parking space where Calderon was
waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons unto the taxi and proceeded to board it as well.

2. Lago saw all of these happen and proceeded to stop the taxi. He then asked for the OR of said items
from the petitioner, however as a reaction, both fled on foot. Lago fired a warning shot to caution the
other guards. They were apprehended at the scene.

3. RTC convicted both with consummated theft. Only Valenzuela filed his brief of Notice of Appeal with
the CA arguing that he be charged only with frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended,
he was not in the position to freely dispose of the said items. CA affirmed the lower court’s ruling
hence this petition with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Valenzuela is liable for the crime of frustrated theft only

HELD: The petition was DENIED. SC ruled that there is no frustrated stage of the crime of theft.

1. The determination of whether a crime is frustrated or consummated necessitates an initial concession

that all the acts of execution have been performed by the offender. The critical distinction instead is
whether the felony itself is actually produced by the acts of execution. A felony is consummated when
all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present.

2. For the purposes of ascertaining whether theft is susceptible of commission in the frustrated stage,
the question is “when is the crime of theft produced?”. For theft to be consummated, a person, who,
with intent to gain but without violence/intimidation, shall take personal property belonging to
another without the latter’s consent. The inability of the offender to freely dispose of the property is
immaterial to the question.

3. The court was satisfied that the taking was completed in this case, with intent to gain, he acquired
physical possession of the stolen cases of detergent for a considerable period of time that he was able
to drop these off at a parking space and long enough to load these inside the taxi.

4. Unlawful taking is the element which produces the felony of theft in its consummated stage. At the
same time, without unlawful taking as an act of execution, the offense could only be in its attempted
stage. Considering this, the court concluded that theft cannot have a frustrated stage.

5. The Court’s rulings on Diño and Flores were abandoned, and a new interpretation was adopted thus
the petition was denied. That it has taken all these years for the court to recognize that there can be
no frustrated theft under RPC Article 308 does not detract from the correctness of its conclusion.
 CASE DIGEST 3 – BALEROS VS PEOPLE

FACTS:

1. Malou, a medical student of UST and a tenant of Celestial Marie Building, retired inside her bedroom
at around 10 pm with her maid Marvilou sleeping outside just in front of her bedroom door. She was
awakened by the smell of a chemically-soaked cloth pressed against her mouth. She struggled but
could not move as somebody was pinning her down and holding her tightly. She wanted to scream but
the cloth in her mouth was pressed tightly. Still, she continued to fight until finally she was able to free
her hands to grab the offender’s sex organ which she eventually squeezed.

2. The perpetrator let go of her and Malou went straight to the bedroom door and aroused Marvilou. it
was later found out that the perpetrator was Chito, Malou’s suitor who confessed his love for earlier
but was rejected by her.

3. RTC convicted Chito of attempted rape. Aggrieved, he appealed with the CA which affirmed the lower
court’s ruling in toto. Hence this petition with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE: Whether or not Baleros is guilty of attempted rape

HELD: The Court reversed the lower courts’ ruling. Chito is convicted with the crime of LIGHT COERCION.

1. Under Article 335 of RPC, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge or intercourse with
a woman under the following circumstances (1) by force or intimidation (2) when woman is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious (3) when woman under 12 years old is demented. Under Article
6, rape is attempted when the offender commences the commission of the crim directly by overt acts
and does not perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

2. The attempt with the RPC penalizes is that which has a logical connection to the particular or concrete
offense; that which is the beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts leading directly to its
realization and consummation. Without such connection, the offender’s act is not certain, meaning
the act in relation to its objective is ambiguous.

3. An over act is defined as some physical activity indicating the intention to commit a crime, more than
a mere planning, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by his spontaneous desistance, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense. As such, it is hard for the Court to construe that Baleros’ act of pressing
a chemically-soaked cloth in the moth of Malou is an overt act that will logically and necessarily ripen
into rape. The petitioner did not at all commence the performance of any act indicative of the intent
or attempt to rape Malou. The petitioner was fully clothed and there was no attempt on his part to
undress Malou, let alone touch her private part. For what reason Baleros wanted Malou unconscious,
if that was really his intention, is anybody’s guess.

4. Petitioner’s act of forcefully covering Malou’s face with a chemically-soaked cloth is not innocent in
that it constitutes unjust vexation punishable as light coercion. RTC and CA’s decision were reversed
and set aside, acquitting petitioner of attempted rape but convicting him of LIGHT COERCION.
 CASE DIGEST 6 – PEOPLE VS CAMPUHAN

FACTS:

1. At around 4pm, Corazon Pamintuan, mother of 4 yr old Crysthel, went down from the 2nd floor of their
house to prepare Milo drinks for her 2 daughters. She saw Primo Campuhan, who was a helper of her
brother Conrad, busy filling plastic bags with water to be frozen in the freezer located at the 2nd floor.

2. As she was busy preparing, she heard one of her daughters shout “Ayoko! Ayoko!” prompting her to
rush upstairs. She saw the accused in her children’s room kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas and
panty were already removed while his shorts were down to his knees.

3. According to Corazon, Primo was forcing his penis into Crysthel’s vagina. She cursed at him and the
accused pushed her as he was going for the door. She ran out for help prompting her brother, cousin
and uncle to follow the accused who was consequently apprehended. Physical examination yielded
negative results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted as her hymen was intact.

4. RTC found the accused guilty of statutory rape. Thus, penalty was automatically subjected for review.

ISSUE: Whether or not Campuhan is guilty of statutory rape

HELD: The SC modified decision of lower court to ATTEMPTED RAPE only.

1. From Corazon’s narration that Primo had to hold his penis with his right hand, it can be concluded that
his penis has not reached erection yet. Also, Corazon was not in the position to say that there was
touching of the sex organs since she only saw the back of Primo as he knelt in front of Crysthel.
Moreover, Crysthel said that she resisted Primo’s advances by putting her legs closed. She did not feel
intense pain but was just unhappy with what Primo was doing to her. It should be noted that Crysthel
shouted “Ayoko! Ayoko!” and not “Aray ko! Aray ko!” Based on Cysthel’s testimony alone, Primo
cannot be held liable for consummated rape. The medico legal report held that there was no medical
basis to hold that there was sexual contact between the two considering the findings.

2. It is necessary to ascertain whether the penis really entered the labial threshold of the vagina to
conclude that rape was consummated. Failing in this, the thin line that separates attempted from
consummated will disappear. Article 6 states that there is an attempt when the offender commences
the commission of a crime directly by overt acts and does not perform all acts of execution which
should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. In this case, all the elements of attempted rape were present but not consummated rape
since there was no actual penetration of the victim’s genital by the accused. Therefore, he should be
held liable only for attempted rape.
 CASE DIGEST 7 – PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

1. Rosemarie dela Cruz was charged with the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention of Whiazel
Cruz, a 7 year old Grade 1 student of Aurora Quezon Elementary school, after being caught holding
the victim by the hand and leading her out of the school grounds.

2. At around 11 am, Cecilia Caprino, the neighbor of the victim, saw the accused and Whiazel together
while waiting for her children. She saw Whiazel being held by the accused and being led somewhere.
She then approached the two and asked them what they were doing. Rosemarie allegedly said that
she asked Whiazel’s assistance to look for the latter’s mother while Whiazel said that the accused had
asked her assistance to find the dentist’s office and to look for her child outside the school. Cecilia
became suspicious because of the inconsistent answers, the scratch marks on Whiazel’s face, and the
terrified look on her face. She then told accused that she will bring her to the teacher, the accused
was surprised and reasoned out but eventually agreed to go. Later they were brought to the guidance
teacher and the assistant principal who called the police to inform of what happened.

3. The RTC convicted Rosemarie of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua was imposed thus the need for SC’s certification.

ISSUE: Whether or not Rosemarie is guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

HELD: RTC’s ruling was modified to ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION

1. In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the latter's liberty,
in any manner, needs to be established by indubitable proof. The trial court relied on the act when
accused-appellant held the victim's hand and refused to let go when the victim asked to go over to her
neighbor, who by then already saw what was happening. The child could have just as easily shouted
for help. While it does not take much to scare the wits out of a small child like Whiazel, under the
attendant circumstances, we cannot say with certainty that she was indeed deprived of her liberty. It
must further be noted that up to that brief moment when Cecilia saw them, and the child asked to be
let go, the victim had gone with accused-appellant voluntarily. The Court hesitates to find that
kidnapping in the case at bar was consummated. To its mind, the felony committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention of a minor in the attempted stage only.

2. There was attempted felony thru the following acts of Rosemarie:

a. The child was led to believe that she wanted to see the dentist. It’s not clear whether there
exists a certain Dr. Medina.
b. If she wanted to see the dentist, why was she on her way out? It it’s true that she had already
gone to the clinic but left because no one was there, what was she doing the child then?
c. She did not simply ask for directions, she wanted the victim to accompany her. This seems
suspicious and of all people, why ask a 7 year old?
3. Fortunately, although the accused commenced the commission of the crime of kidnapping directly by
overt acts, she was not able to perform all acts of execution because of some cause or accident other
than her own spontaneous desistance which is the timely intervention of Cecilia.

4. Given that all requisites of an attempted felony are present, Rosemarie is only convicted with the crime
of ATTEMPTED KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION.