People vs Lizada

People v. Lizada (2003)Callejo, Sr. J.Short version:Lizada is being charged with 4 counts of raping his
stepdaughter (first rape occurred when she was about 11 yrs old). TC and CAfound him guilty. On appeal
to the SC, Lizada assails the information against him for violating Rule 110, Section 11 of the
RevisedRules on CrimPro

because the phrase “

on or about August 1998"stated in the information is too indefinite. SC says the failure tospecify the
exact date when it was committed does not make the Information defective because the gravamen of
rape is not thedate and time of its commission, but the carnal knowledge under any of the
circumstances in RPC 335.Facts:

Lizada is charged with 4 counts of qualified rape, and meting on him the death penalty for each count.
(He is charged of raping a certain Analia Agoo in August, September, October, and November of 1998)

The words used in the complaints were:

First: “

sometime in August 1998

Second: “

on or about September 15, 1998

on or about October 22, 1998

Fourth: “

on or about November 5, 1998

The prosecution:

A couple in Bohol had 3 children, one of them being Analia (born 1985). They separated and the wife left
to settle inManila, took with her the kids, and worked as a waitress.

1994: Wife met Lizada and lived together.

The wife put up a video shop in the house and sold Avon products door to door. When she was out, her
kids tended to thevideo shop.

1996: By this year, Analia was about 11 yrs old. One night, Lizada e

ntered Analia’s room and removed her clothes, had

intercourse with her, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone what happened. This happened in less
than an hour.This happened again the following year.

And from 1996-98, Lizada sexually abused Analia twice a week.

1998: Lizada

, wearing only shorts, entered Analia’s room. Analia was not afraid because her younger brother was
just

around the house. However, Lizada was still able to have intercourse with her.

The brother passed by Analia’s room and

saw Lizada on top of her. Lizada dismounted and berated the brother, told himto go to his room and
sleep.

4 days later, Analia was in the video shop when Lizada ordered her to go to the sala. She refused bec no
one would tendto the video shop. They fought.

When the mother arrived, she sided with Lizada

which prompted Analia to shout “Ayoko na, ayoko na.” Analia then left to

retrieve unreturned tapes.

When she got home, the mother asked her what she meant by “ayoko na” so Analia told her that

Lizada had beentouching her private parts.

They then went to the police and made a report.

She was examined by a doctor who found her hymen intact.

Later on, she also told her mother of the rapes. Analia then executed a “Dagdag na Salaysay ng
Paghahabla”

andcharged Lizada with rape.The defense:

Lizada denied the rapes, claimed that he loved the children as if they were his own. He cooked and
prepared their food,ironed their school uniforms, and bathed them, except Analia who was already big.

Analia was har headed and often disobeyed him. This caused Lizada and the mother to quarrel. The
relatives of thehusband also frequently visited, which irritated him.

He says that the mother probably coached the children so that she could manage the business and take
control of all theproperty (VHS, 2 TVs, washing machine, scooter, sala set, CD player, videoke).

Also, the mother was exasperated bec he was unemployed.-------

TC found him guilty of 4 counts of rape in 7

th

par, no 1, RPC 335. Death penalty for each count.Issue:Held:Rati:

Argument of Lizada #1:

That his conviction for rape in December 1992 was so remote from the date (November 1995) alleged in
the Information,so that the Nov 1995 could no longer be considered as being "as near to the actual date
at which the offense wascommitted" as provided under Section 11, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal
Procedure.

SC says:

Does not agree.

d2015member

In People v. Garcia, Court upheld a conviction for 10 counts of rape based on an information alleging
multiplerape "from November 1990 up to July 21, 1994," a time difference of almost four years. Such
was longer thanthat involved in this case.

In any case, Lizada's failure to raise a timely objection based on this ground constitutes a waiver of his
right toobject.

Argument of Lizada #2:

The information is defective because the date of the offense "on or about August 1998" is too indefinite,
in violation of Rule 110, Section 11 of the Revised Rules on CrimPro:"Sec. 11. Date of commission of the
offense.

It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise datethe offense was committed
except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to havebeen
committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. "

SC does not agree with Lizada. The precise date of the commission of the rape is not an essential
element of the crime.

Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not make the Information
defective.

The reason for this is that the gravamen rape is carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances
enumerated under RPC 335.

SC cites People v. Salalima:

Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not make the information
defectivebecause the precise date or is not an element of the offense.

As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the
offensewas committed an information is sufficient.

In previous cases, “before and until”, “sometime in the year”, “some occasions prior and/or
subsequent” have

been ruled as sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on CrimPro

So, he cannot complain that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the cases
against him and that hewas deprived of the opportunity to prepare for his defense

Re: Lizardo’s failure to protest and object

When Analia testified how Lizada defiled her twice a week, Lizada did not protest. Lizada even cross-
examined her.

The presentation by the prosecution to prove the charges, without objection by Lizada, constituted a
waiver of his right toobject to any perceived infirmity.

Also, Lizada did not even file a motion for a bill of particulars under Rule 116, Section 9 of the Revised
Rules on CrimProbefore he was arraigned.

So, Lizada was duly arraigned under the Information and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge
without any plaint onthe sufficiency of the Information.

It was only on appeal to the SC that he questioned for the first time the sufficiency of the Information. It
is now too late inthe day for him to do so.Re: Hymen

The fact that Analia remained a virgin does not preclude her having been raped. She being of tender
age, it is possiblethat the penetration went only as deep as her labia.

Even, the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ constitutes consummated rape

Whether or not the hymen was still intact has no substantial bearingRe: Criminal liability of Lizada

Prosecution proved through the testimony of Analia that Lizada raped her twice a week in 1998. In 3
criminal cases,Lizada is guilty only of simple rape.

As to the other one, the testimony of Analia and her brother leads SC to believe Lizada is guilty of
attempted rape. Basedon the testimony, the brother was able to interrupt the acts and so there was no
introduction of the penis into the vagina.Judgment set aside. Lizada guilty of simple rape in 3 cases, in
the other one attempted rape.

RTC:4 counts of qualified rape CA:

Balero vs People

BALEROS, JR. VS. PEOPLE 483 SCRA 10Parties Involved

Renato “Chito” Baleros, Jr. as petitionerPeople as respondent

Facts

Early morning of Dec. 13, 1991, Malou was awakened by a smell of chemical on apiece of cloth pressed
on her face. She struggled to break free but his attacker waspinning her down, holding her tightly. When
her right hand finally got free, shegrabbed and squeezed the sex organ of his attacker. The man let her
go, enablingMarilou to seek help from her maid and classmates living nearby.An investigation was
conducted in which the evidences pointed to Chito as theattacker. The RTC thus found Chito guilty for
attempted rape and ordered him tosuffer an indeterminate sentence (from prision correccional as
minimum to prisionmayor as maximum) and to pay Malou PHP 50,000.Chito made an appeal to the CA
only to be denied. He moved for a reconsiderationbut to no avail. He thus made an appeal to the SC
arguing that:

1 There was not enough evidence to find him guilty of the crime2.Prosecution failed to satisfy all
requisites for conviction

3.Circumstances relied on to convict him were unreliable, inconclusive andcontradictory.4.There was no

motive.5.The awarding of damages to complainant was improper and unjustified.6.In failing to
appreciate in his favour the constitutional presumption of innocence and that moral certainty has not
been met, he should be acquittedon the basis that the offense charged has not been proved
beyondreasonable doubt.

Issues

1.Whether the evidence adduced by prosecution has established beyondreasonable doubt the guilt of
the petitioner for the crime of attempted rape2.Whether or not the CA erred in affirming the ruling of
the RTC findingpetitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape

h1.

No. The court’s decision was merely based on speculations.

2.Yes. SC reversed and modifies the decision of the CA, acquitting Chito of attempted rape. He is
adjudged guilty of light coercion and is ordered toserve 30 days of arresto mayor and pay PHP 200.

Doctrine/Ratio

Art. 335 of the RPC, rape is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge orintercourse with a woman
under any of the following circumstances:1.By using force or intimidation2.When woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious3.When woman is under 12 years of age or dementedArt. 6 of the RPC
defines attempted rape when offender commences the commissionof rape directly by overt acts and
does not perform all the acts of execution whichshould produce the crime of rape by reason of some
cause or accident other thanhis own spontaneous desistance. The attempt which RPC punishes is the act
that has logical connection to the crimethat should it have been successful, the attempt would lead to
the consummation of rape. However, there was no carnal knowledge in the case. The pressing of
achemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou did not necessarily constitute an overtact of rape.
Moreover, the petitioner did not commence any act that was indicativeof an intent to rape Malou. The
petitioner was fully clothed; there was no attempt toneither undress her nor touch her private part.In
the crime of rape, penetration is an essential requisite. Therefore for anattempted rape, accused must
have commenced the act of penetrating but forsome cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance, the penetrationwas not completed. Thus petitioner’s act of lying on top of her, embracing
andkissing her or touching her private part do not constitute rape or attempted rape.

Defense: lso taking the witness stand for the defense were petitioner’s fraternity brothers, Alberto
Leonardo and Robert Chan, who both testified being with CHITO in the December 12, 1991 party held in
Dr. Duran’s place at Greenhills, riding on the same car going to and coming from the party and dropping
the petitioner off the Celestial Marie building after the party. Both were one in saying that CHITO was
wearing a barong tagalog, with t-shirt inside, with short pants and leather shoes at the time they parted
after the party.7 Rommel Montes, a tenant of Room 310 of the said building, also testified seeing CHITO
between the hours of 1:30 and 2:00 A.M. of December 13, 1991 trying to open the door of Room 306
while clad in dark short pants and white barong tagalog.

People vs Labiaga

In Criminal Case No. 2001-1555, appellant, together with a certain Alias Balatong Barcenas and Cristy
Demapanag (Demapanag), was charged with Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm under an
Information3 which reads:

The same individuals were charged with Frustrated Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm in
Criminal Case No. 2002-1777, under an Information4 which states:

ersion of the prosecution

The prosecution’s version of the facts is as follows: At around 7:00 p.m. on 23 December 2000, Gregorio
Conde, and his two daughters, Judy and Glenelyn Conde, were in their home at Barangay Malayu-an,
Ajuy, Iloilo. Thereafter, Gregorio stepped outside. Glenelyn was in their store, which was part of their
house.

Shortly thereafter, appellant, who was approximately five meters away from Gregorio, shot the latter.
Gregorio called Judy for help. When Judy and Glenelyn rushed to Gregorio’s aid, appellant shot Judy in
the abdomen. The two other accused were standing behind the appellant. Appellant said, "she is already
dead," and the three fled the crime scene.

Gregorio and Judy were rushed to the Sara District Hospital. Judy was pronounced dead on arrival while
Gregorio made a full recovery after treatment of his gunshot wound.
Dr. Jeremiah Obañana conducted the autopsy of Judy. His report stated that her death was caused by
"cardiopulmonary arrest secondary to Cardiac Tamponade due to gunshot wound."5

Dr. Jose Edwin Figura, on the other hand, examined Gregorio after the incident. He found that Gregorio
sustained a gunshot wound measuring one centimeter in diameter in his right forearm and "abrasion
wounds hematoma formation" in his right shoulder.6

Version of the defense

Appellant admitted that he was present during the shooting incident on 23 December 2000. He claimed,
however, that he acted in self-defense. Gregorio, armed with a shotgun, challenged him to a fight. He
attempted to shoot appellant, but the shotgun jammed. Appellant tried to wrest the shotgun from
Gregorio, and during the struggle, the shotgun fired. He claimed that he did not know if anyone was hit
by that gunshot.

Demapanag claimed that at the time of the shooting, he was in D&D Ricemill, which is approximately 14
kilometers away from the crime scene. This was corroborated by Frederick, Demapanag’s brother.

RTC

In its Joint Decision, the RTC acquitted Demapanag due to insufficiency of evidence. Appellant, however,
was convicted of murder and frustrated murder.

CA

Appellant impugned the RTC’s Joint Decision, claiming that "the RTC gravely erred in convicting the
appellant of the crime charged despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt."8 The CA-Cebu, however, upheld the conviction for murder and frustrated murder.

SC

Our review of the records of Criminal Case No. 2002-1777 convinces us that appellant is guilty of
attempted murder and not frustrated murder. We uphold appellant’s conviction in Criminal Case No.
2001-1555 for murder, but modify the civil indemnity awarded in Criminal Case No. 2001-1555, as well
as the award of moral and exemplary damages in both cases.

We note, however, that appellant should be convicted of attempted murder, and not frustrated murder
in Criminal Case No. 2002-1777.

In frustrated murder, there must be evidence showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not
for timely medical intervention.21 If the evidence fails to convince the court that the wound sustained
would have caused the victim’s death without timely medical attention, the accused should be
convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated murder.In the instant case, it does not appear that
the wound sustained by Gregorio Conde was mortal

Valenzuela vs People
FACTS:

While a security guard was manning his post at the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the
accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them
where his co-accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket,
and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started
loading the cartons inside. As the taxi was about to leave, the security guard asked Valenzuela for the
receipt of the merchandize. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently
apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of
consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be
convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the articles stolen. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the Supreme
Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the crime of theft has a frustrated stage.

HELD:

No. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following
elements should be present: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs
to another; (3) that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the
consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things. The Court held that theft is produced when there is
deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offender is
able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has already committed all the acts of
execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft
cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated

People vs Quinanola

mulgation of the decision in Orita, the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Cebu City, Branch 14, has
convicted accused Agapito Quianola y Escuadro and Eduardo Escuadro y Floro, herein appellants, of the
crime of frustrated rape, principally on the strength of People vs. Eriia[2] which this Court, in the Orita
decision, has considered to be a stray decision. The 1st March 1996 decision of the RTC of Cebu City
imposing upon each of the accused the penalty of reclusion perpetua of Forty (40) Years, has been
brought up by them to this Court. The appeal opens up the whole case for review.

The information, dated 06 April 1994, charging the two accused with the crime of rape reads:

That on or about the 5th day of March, 1994, at about 11:30 oclock in the evening, more or less, at
Barangay Tangil, Municipality of Dumanjug, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, with lewd design and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously lie and succeed in having carnal knowledge of the offended party Catalina
Carciller, fifteen (15) years of age, against her will and consent.

"CONTRARY TO LAW.

Prosecution

Catalina Carciller, her cousin 15-year-old Rufo Ginto and another male companion named Richard Diaz,
went to attend a dance at around ten oclock in the evening

About an hour later, they left the party and were soon on their way home. The three unsuspecting
youngsters stopped momentarily to rest at a waiting shed beside the Tangil Elementary School. Accused
Agapito Quianola, a.k.a. Petoy, and accused Eduardo Escuadro, a.k.a. Botiquil, who were both armed
with guns, suddenly turned up. Quianola, beaming his flashlight at the trio while Escuadro stood by,
focused his attention on Catalina. Quianola announced that he and Escuadro were members of the New
Peoples Army ("NPA"). Quianola instructed Escuadro to take care of the male companions of Catalina
while he (Quianola) held the latter at gunpoint.

Catalina asked about her two friends. Quianola replied that he had ordered them to go home. Catalina
begged that she herself be allowed to leave. Pretending to agree, they walked the path towards the
road behind the school. Then, unsuspectingly, Quianola forced Catalina to sit on the ground. She
resisted but Quianola, pointing his gun at her, warned her that if she would not accede to what he
wanted, he would kill her. Catalina started to cry. Quianola told Escuadro to remove her denim pants.
Catalina struggled to free herself from Escuadro's hold but to no avail. Escuadro ultimately succeeded in
undressing her. Quianola unzipped his pants and laid on top of her while Escuadro held her legs.
Quianola started to pump, to push and pull[5] even as Catalina still tried desperately to free herself from
him. She felt his organ "on the lips of (her) genitalia.[6] When Quianola had satisfied his lust, Escuadro
took his turn by placing himself on top of Catalina. Catalina could feel the sex organ of Escuadro on the
lips of (her) vulva[7] while he made a push and pull movement. Quianola, who stood by, kept on
smoking a cigarette.

Living Case Report No. 94-MI-7,[8] prepared by Dr. Tomas P. Refe, medico-legal officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") of Region 7, Central Visayas, who conducted the physical examination of
Catalina on 07 March 1994, showed that there was no evidence of extragenital physical injury noted on
the body of the Subject.[9] The genital examination yielded the following findings on the victim:

Pubic hairs, fully grown, moderately dense. Labiae mejora and minora, both coaptated. Fourchette,
tense. Vestibular mucosa, pinkish. Hymen, moderately thick, wide, intact. Hymenal orifice, annular,
admits a tube 1.8 cms. in diameter with moderate resistance. Vaginal walls, tight and rogusities,
prominent.[10] (Italics supplied.)

The report concluded that the hymenal orifice, about 1.8 cms. in diameter, was so small as to preclude
complete penetration of an average-size adult penis in erection without producing laceration.[11]
Accused Agapito Quianola, a member of the Philippine National Police stationed at Naga, Cebu, testified
that it was his day-off on 05 March 1994. At about 8:30 a.m., he and his wife, Leticia, who had just
arrived in Naga from Cebu City, proceeded to the house of his parents in Panla-an, Dumanjug, to attend
to the construction of their unfinished house. Quianola helped Vidal Laojan and Nicasio Arnaiz in
cementing the kitchen floor of their house. The work was finished at around 11:00 oclock in the evening.
After Vidal and Nicasio had gone home, Quianola went to bed with his wife around midnight until the
following morning of 06 March 1994. He denied having been in the company of his co-accused, Escuadro
a.k.a. Botiquil, at any time during the whole day and night of 05 March 1994. According to him,
Guillermo Zozobrado, Catalinas brother-in-law, concocted the rape charge to get even with him because
of an incident in August 1993 at a fiesta dance in upper Tangil, Panla-an, when George Camaso, the
husband of his sister Jinga, got into trouble with Samuel Escuadro.

Quianola tried to pacify George Camaso who was then drunk but Camaso suddenly hit him. He parried
the blow and slapped Camaso on the face. Zozobrado joined the fray and tried to hit Quianola but
because Zozobrado was drunk, he stumbled when Quianola had pushed him.[12] He admitted that he
had no misunderstanding of any kind with the complainant and her parents themselves.

Leticia Quianola, the wife of accused Agapito Quianola, testified to attest to her husband's good moral
character and to corroborate his testimony. Leticia said that after the workers had left their house at
around midnight, she and appellant talked for a while and then made love. Vidal Laojan, the carpenter,
was presented to state that Quianola was at home helping the carpenters until past 11:00 oclock on the
night of the incident. Nicasio Arnaiz, a farmer and stone cutter, added that work in the Quianola house
had started late in the morning of 05 March 1994 since they still waited for Quianola and his wife Pritsy
to arrive. Work in the house, he said, had stopped at about past 11:00 oclock that night.

Accused Eduardo Escuadro, a.k.a. Botiquil, declared that at about seven oclock in the evening of 05
March 1994, he and Pablito Cuizon, Jr., went fishing in Tangil, Dumanjug, Cebu, until about ten oclock
that evening. After partaking of supper at around 11:30 p.m., they had a drinking spree and went to bed
at 12:00 midnight, waking up at 6:30 a.m. the following day. He denied having been in the company of
Quianola and insisted that the rape charge had been the result of a mere mistaken identity. Pablito
Cuizon, Jr., corroborated Escuadros story about their being together up until they parted company after
a drinking spree.

The trial court ruled that the accused were liable for the crime of frustrated rape with an eye to
extending to the two accused the benefit of the principle that in case of doubt criminal justice naturally
leans in favor of the milder form of penalty[16] but that, because of the existence of at least six (6)
aggravating circumstances,[17] not offset by any mitigating circumstance,[18] the accused should each
be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It explained:

Now, the crime of rape had it been consummated and had it been committed with the attendance of
the above-mentioned aggravating circumstances, with absolutely no offsetting mitigating circumstances,
ought to be punished with the mandatory penalty of death under the pertinent provisions of Section 11
and 23 of Republic Act No. 7659, which amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and further
amplified the aggravating circumstances enumerated in Article 14 of the same code. But because the
crime committed here is 'merely' frustrated rape for the reasons heretofore discussed, attended by the
aforementioned six aggravating circumstances, not offset by even one mitigating circumstance, the
proper penalty to be imposed upon the two principals, the two accused herein, both co-conspirators, by
direct participation and indispensable cooperation, of the frustrated rape, should be one degree lower
than the indivisible afflictive penalty of death, which is also the indivisible afflictive penalty of reclusion
perpetua which, under Section 21 of the amendatory statute, shall range from twenty years and one day
to forty years.[19]

In reviewing rape cases, this Court must again say that it has been continually guided by the principles
(a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime which
usually involves only two persons, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; and (c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[21] Expectedly, courts
would scrupulously examine the testimony of the complainant with the thought always in mind that the
conviction of the accused would have to depend heavily on the credibility of the offended woman. It is
not much different in this instance for, at bottom, appellants assail the credibility of the prosecution
witnesses, particularly that of the complainant, in seeking a reversal of the judgment of conviction.

The doctrine, then again, is that the findings of the trial court on credibility are entitled to highest
respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that the trial court has
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied facts or circumstances of weight and substance that could
have consequential effects. The stringency with which appellate tribunals have observed this rule is
predicated on the undisputed vantage of the trial court in the evaluation and appreciation of testimonial
evidence.[22]

In assailing Catalinas credibility, as against the assessment made by the trial court which has described
the victim's testimony to be impressed with candor, spontaneity and naturalness, appellants theorize
that the sexual intercourse, if indeed true, could have only been committed against Catalina in a sitting
position, contrary to her declaration of having been made to lie on the ground, because her T-shirt,
marked Exhibit E, is not tainted with mud at all especially the back if she were made to lie down.[23] The
Court finds this so-called incongruity committed by the complainant to be a feeble attempt to discredit
her testimony. The Court is convinced of the sexual assault made against her. Here follows the
testimony of Catalina on this score.

And on why her T-shirt was no longer soiled with mud when presented in court, Catalina creditably
explained that when it was offered in evidence, she had already dusted and rid it of grass particles. At all
events, whether appellants spent their lust on Catalina in a sitting position or lying down would not be
of any real moment for what remained clear, established rather convincingly by the prosecution, was
that appellants had forced carnal knowledge of the victim.
Catalinas candid and straightforward narration of the two sexual assaults perpetrated on her on the
night of the incident unmistakably deserves credence. It is unbelievable that a young barrio lass would
concoct a tale of defloration, publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted, allow the
examination of her private parts, and undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to mention the
trauma and scandal of a public trial, had she not in fact been raped and truly moved to protect and
preserve her honor, as well as to obtain justice, for the wicked acts committed against her.[30] There is
no plausible reason why Catalina should testify against appellants, imputing upon them so grave a crime
as rape if it did not happen. This Court has consistently held that where there is no evidence to show any
dubious reason or improper motive why a prosecution witness should testify falsely against the accused
or implicate him in a serious offense, the testimony deserves faith and credit.[31] So, also, the Court has
repeatedly said that the lone testimony of the victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a
conviction.[32]

The positive identification of appellants as being the perpetrators of the crime effectively effaces their
alibi.[33] The rule is that affirmative testimony is far weightier than a mere denial, especially when it
comes from the mouth of a credible witness.[34] Moreover, alibi might be aptly considered only when
an accused has been shown to be in some other place at the crucial time and that it would have been
physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the
commission of the crime.

n the context it is used in the Revised Penal Code, carnal knowledge, unlike its ordinary connotation of
sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be
ruptured.[36] The crime of rape is deemed consummated even when the mans penis merely enters the
labia or lips of the female organ[37] or, as once so said in a case, by the mere touching of the external
genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act.[38] In People vs. Escober,[39] in convicting
a father of having raped twice his 11-year-old daughter, the Court has said:

While the evidence may not show full penetration on both occasions of rape, the slightest penetration is
enough to consummate the offense. In fact, there was vulva penetration in both cases. The fact that the
hymen was intact upon examination does not belie rape for a broken hymen is not an essential element
of rape; nor does the fact that the victim has remained a virgin negate the crime. What is fundamental is
that the entrance, or at least the introduction, of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is
proved. As in the case at bar, it can be said that there was penetration, although incomplete, and it was
sufficient to prove carnal knowledge of a child under twelve years of age. A medical examination is not
an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. The accused may be convicted on the sole basis of
complainants testimony, if credible, and the findings of the medico-legal officer do not disprove the
commission of rape.

"There are no half measures or even quarter measures nor is their gravity graduated by the inches of
entry. Partial penile penetration is as serious as full penetration. The rape is deemed consummated in
either case. In a manner of speaking, bombardment of the drawbridge is invasion enough even if the
troops do not succeed in entering the castle.[
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he
actually attains his purpose and, 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. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line of cases (People vs.
Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People vs. Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29,
1974, 56 SCRA 666; People vs. Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 505), We have set
the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female
organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction.
Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People vs. Tayaba, 62 Phil.
559; People vs. Rabadan, et al., 53 Phil. 694; United States vs. Garcia, 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of
execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and
jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed.

WHEREFORE, appellants Agapito Quianola y Escuadro and Eduardo Escuadro y Floro are each found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of consummated rape and, accordingly, sentenced to
the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case. Said appellants are ordered to pay, jointly and severally,
Catalina Carciller the sum of P100,000.00 by way of indemnity ex delictu for the two counts of
consummated rape plus P60,000.00 moral damages. Costs against appellants.

SO ORDERED.

People vs Orande

Facts:

Jessica Castro charged the plaintiff Arnulfo Orande for raping her four times between 1994 to 1996
while the former was still a minor (between 9-12 years old). The complainant contends that all were
executed by means of threat and intimidation, threatening her of feat if she resists. RTC convicted
Orande two counts of simple rape, one statutory and one frustrated. The accused appealed that the
court had a grave error on convicting him of frustrated rape despite the fact that there is no such crime.

Issue:

WON there is a crime of frustrated rape?

Ruling: The court said no, there is no crime of frustrated rape. In People vs. Orita, it was reiterated that
in the crime of rape, the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his
purpose and from that moment, all the elements of the crime is consummated. Since the offender has
performed the last act necessary to the crime, there is nothing more left to be done by the offender.
Thus, it is consummated rape. Also, perfect penetration is not essential in consummating rape, mere or
any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Necessarily, when there is no
penetration of the female organ, the rape is considered attempted because not all acts of execution was
performed. Considering all the elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and all
jurisprudence on the mater, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage can be committed.
WHEREFORE, the court ruled that the RTC commited an error on convicting Orande the crime of
frustrated rape, for in fact, the rape was consummated. Hence, Orande should be found guilty of
consummated rape rather that frustrated

People of the Philippines vs pareja

The accused–appellant Bernabe Pareja y Cruz (Pareja) is appealing the January 19, 2012 Decision1 of the
Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. CR.–H.C. No. 03794, which affirmed in toto the conviction for Rape and Acts
of Lasciviousness meted out by Branch 113, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City in Criminal Case Nos.
04–1556–CFM and 04–1557–CFM.2

On May 5, 2004, Pareja was charged with two counts of Rape and one Attempted Rape.

AAA was thirteen (13) years of age when the alleged acts of lasciviousness and sexual abuse took place
on three (3) different dates, particularly [in December 2003], February 2004, and March 27, 2004.

AAA’s parents separated when she was [only eight years old9 ]. At the time of the commission of the
aforementioned crimes, AAA was living with her mother and with herein accused–appellant Bernabe
Pareja who, by then, was cohabiting with her mother, together with three (3) of their children, aged
twelve (12), eleven (11) and nine (9), in x x x, Pasay City.

The first incident took place [i]n December 2003 [the December 2003 incident]. AAA’s mother was not
in the house and was with her relatives in Laguna. Taking advantage of the situation, [Pareja], while
AAA was asleep, placed himself on top of [her]. Then, [Pareja], who was already naked, begun to
undress AAA. [Pareja] then started to suck the breasts of [AAA]. Not satisfied, [Pareja] likewise inserted
his penis into AAA’s anus. Because of the excruciating pain that she felt, AAA immediately stood up and
rushed outside of their house.

Despite such traumatic experience, AAA never told anyone about the [December 2003] incident for fear
that [Pareja] might kill her. [Pareja] threatened to kill AAA in the event that she would expose the
incident to anyone.

AAA further narrated that the [December 2003] incident had happened more than once. According to
AAA, [i]n February 2004 [the February 2004 incident], she had again been molested by [Pareja]. Under
the same circumstances as the [December 2003 incident], with her mother not around while she and
her half–siblings were asleep, [Pareja] again laid on top of her and started to suck her breasts. But this
time, [Pareja] caressed [her] and held her vagina and inserted his finger [i]n it.

With regard to the last incident, on March 27, 2004 [the March 2004 incident], it was AAA’s mother who
saw [Pareja] in the act of lifting the skirt of her daughter AAA while the latter was asleep. Outraged,
AAA’s mother immediately brought AAA to the barangay officers to report the said incident. AAA then
narrated to the barangay officials that she had been sexually abused by [Pareja] x x x many times x x x.
Subsequently, AAA, together with her mother, proceeded to the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine
General Hospital for a medical and genital examination. On March 29, 2004, Dr. Tan issued Provisional
Medico–Legal Report Number 2004–03–0091. Her medico–legal report stated the following
conclusion:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

After the results of the medico–legal report confirmed that AAA was indeed raped, AAA’s mother then
filed a complaint for rape before the Pasay City Police Station.

To exculpate himself from liability, [Pareja] offered both denial and ill motive of AAA against him as his
defense. He denied raping [AAA] but admitted that he knew her as she is the daughter of his live–in
partner and that they all stay in the same house.

Contrary to AAA’s allegations, [Pareja] averred that it would have been impossible that the alleged
incidents happened. To justify the same, [Pareja] described the layout of their house and argued that
there was no way that the alleged sexual abuses could have happened.

According to [Pareja], the house was made of wood, only about four (4) meters wide by ten (10) meters,
and was so small that they all have to sit to be able to fit inside the house. Further, the vicinity where
their house is located was thickly populated with houses constructed side by side. Allegedly, AAA also
had no choice but to sleep beside her siblings.

All taken into account, [Pareja] asseverated that it was hard to imagine how he could possibly still go
about with his plan without AAA’s siblings nor their neighbors noticing the same.

Verily, [Pareja] was adamant and claimed innocence as to the imputations hurled against him by AAA.
He contended that AAA filed these charges against him only as an act of revenge because AAA was mad
at [him] for being the reason behind her parents’ separation.10

Ruling of the RTC

On January 16, 2009, the RTC acquitted Pareja from the charge of attempted rape but convicted him of
the crimes of rape and acts of lasciviousness in the December 2003 and February 2004 incidents,
respectively. The dispositive portion of the Decision11 reads as follows:

The RTC, in convicting Pareja of the crime of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness, gave more weight to the
prosecution’s evidence as against Pareja’s baseless denial and imputation of ill motive. However, due to
the failure of the prosecution to present AAA’s mother to testify about what she had witnessed in March
2004, the RTC had to acquit Pareja of the crime of Attempted Rape in the March 2004 incident for lack
of evidence. The RTC could not convict Pareja on the basis of AAA’s testimony for being hearsay
evidence as she had no personal knowledge of what happened on March 27, 2004 because she was
sleeping at that time.

CA
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED and, consequently,
DISMISSED. The appealed Decisions rendered by Branch 113 of the Regional Trial Court of the National
Capital Judicial Region in Pasay City on January 16, 2009 in Criminal Cases Nos. 04–1556 to 04–1557 are
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

SC

This Court agrees with such findings. AAA, in her Sinumpaang Salaysay,56 stated that aside from sucking
her breasts, Pareja also inserted his finger in her vagina. However, she was not able to give a clear and
convincing account of such insertion during her testimony. Despite being repeatedly asked by the
prosecutor as to what followed after her breasts were sucked, AAA failed to testify, in open court, that
Pareja also inserted his finger in her vagina. Moreover, later on, she added that Pareja inserted his penis
in her vagina during that incident. Thus, because of the material omissions and inconsistencies, Pareja
cannot be convicted of rape in the February 2004 incident. Nonetheless, Pareja’s acts of placing himself
on top of AAA and sucking her breasts, fall under the crime of acts of lasciviousness, which, as we have
discussed above, is included in the crime of rape.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA–G.R. CR.–H.C. No. 03794
is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. We find accused–appellant Bernabe Pareja y Cruz GUILTY of
two counts of Acts of Lasciviousness, defined and penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended. He is sentenced to two (2) indeterminate prison terms of 6 months of arresto mayor, as
minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prisión correccional, as maximum; and is ORDERED to pay the
victim, AAA, P20,000.00 as civil indemnity, P30,000.00 as moral damages, and P10,000.00 as exemplary
damages, for each count of acts of lasciviousness, all with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the
date of finality of this judgment.ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary

Cruz vs People

FACTS:

The petitioner Norberto Cruz was charged with attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness involving
different victims. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Cruz guilty of both crimes
charged, hence, this appeal.

Norberto and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help them in selling their plastic wares and glass wares
in La Union. Upon reaching the place, they set up their tents to have a place to sleep. Petitioner’s wife
and their driver went back to Manila to get more goods. While sleeping, AAA felt that somebody was on
top of her mashing her breast and touching her private part. Norberto ordered her not to scream or she
will be killed. AAA fought back and Norberto was not able to pursue his lustful desires. AA left the tent
to seek for help. When she returned to their tent, she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB.
This prompted Norberto to leave the tent.

Norberto denies the commission of the crime alleging that he could not possibly do the acts imputed out
in the open as there were many people preparing for the “simbang gabi”. He further assails the
credibility AAA for the crime of rape, alleging that the complaints were filed only for the purpose of
extorting money from him.

ISSUE:

Is petitioner guilty of attempted rape against AAA?

HELD:

NO, Cruz is guilty only of acts of lasciviousness. The basic element of rape is carnal knowledge of a
female. Carnal knowledge is defined simply as “the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a
woman,” in other words, rape is consummated once the penis capable of consummating the sexual act
touches the external genitalia of the female. 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, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape.

Rape in its frustrated stage is a physical impossibility. Nonetheless, rape admits of an attempted stage.
In attempted rape, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all the acts of
execution of having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates
rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should produce the
felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to have a causal
relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the female.

The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim, and was already touching her genitalia with his hands
and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on
her. Yet, inferring from such circumstances that rape, and no other, was his intended felony would be
highly unwarranted. Such circumstances remained equivocal, or “susceptible of double interpretation,”
such that it was not permissible to directly infer from them the intention to cause rape as the particular
injury.

The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts of
lasciviousness is committed. Petitioner’s embracing and touching the victim’s vagina and breasts did not
directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The lack of evidence showing his erectile penis being in the
position to penetrate her when he was on top of her deterred any inference about his intent to lie with
her. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust for her. The intent to commit rape should not easily be
inferred against the petitioner, even from his own declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt
acts leading to rape.

Hence, Cruz is guilty only of acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape.

People vs Pagalasan (pic)

People vs larangga
FACTS:

On the night of July 16, 1997, victims Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong failed to come home on the
expected time. Two days after, a young woman was found dead at the foot of a cliff. Her pants were
torn, her t-shirt was raised up to her breast and her bra was pulled down. Her face and neck were
covered with masking tape and attached to her left wrist was a handcuff. The woman was identified as
Marijoy. After almost ten months, accused Davidson Rusia surfaced and admitted before the police
having participated in the abduction of the sisters. He identified appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga,
Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Caño, Ariel Balansag, James Anthony Uy, and James Andrew Uy
as co-perpetrators in the crime. Rusia provided the following before the trial court:

1) That at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, he met Rowen and Josman and told him to ride with
them in a white car. Following them were Larrañaga, James Anthony and James Andrew who were in a
red car. Josman stopped the white car in front of the waiting shed where the sisters Marijoy and
Jacqueline were standing and forced them to ride the car. Rusia taped their mouths while Rowen
handcuffed them jointly.

2) That after stopping by a safehouse, the group thereafter headed to the South Bus Terminal where
they met Alberto and Ariel, and hired the white van driven by the former. They traveled towards south
of Cebu City, leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal.

3) That after parking their vehicles near a precipice, they drank and had a pot session. Later, they started
to rape Marijoy inside the vehicle, and thereafter raped Jaqueline.

4) That Josman intructed Rowen and Ariel to bring Marijoy to the cliff and push her into the ravine.

The claims of Rusia were supported by other witnesses. He was discharged as an accused and became a
state witness. Still, the body of Jacqueline was never found. The trial court found the other appellants
guilty of two crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentenced each of them to suffer
the penalties of two (2) reclusiones perpetua. The appellants assailed the said decision, arguing inter
alia, that court erred in finding that there was consipiracy. James Anthony was also claimed to be only
16 years old when the crimes were committed.

ISSUES:

1) Whether or not there was conspiracy.

2) Whether or not the trial court erred in characterizing the crime.

3) Whether or not the trial court erred imposing the correct penalty.

HELD:

1) Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was perpetrated,
or may be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, when such point to a joint design and
community of interest. The appellants’ actions showed that they had the same objective to kidnap and
detain the Chiong sisters. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the appellants indeed
conspired in the commission of the crimes charged.

2) Yes. The rule is that when the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses, the
resulting crime is called a special complex crime. Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 8 of R.A. 7659, provides that in the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, when the
victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. Thus, the resulting crime will change from
complex crime to special complex crime. In the present case, the victims were raped and subjected to
dehumanizing acts. Thus, the Court held that all the appellants were guilty of the special complex crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape in the case where Marijoy is the
victim; and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention in the case of Jacqueline.

3) Yes. Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides that by reason of minority, the imposable penalty
to the offender is one degree lower than the statutory penalty. James Anthony was only 16 years old
when the crimes were committed. As penalty for the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with homicide and rape is death, the correct penalty to be imposed should be reclusion
perpetua. On the other hand, the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention is reclusion
perpetua to death. One degree lower from the said penalty is reclusion temporal. There being no
aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the penalty to be imposed on him should be reclusion
temporal in its medium period. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to
suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor in its maximum period, as minimum, to
seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. With regard to the rest
of the appellants, the statutory penalty as provided above should be imposed. Therefore, trial court
erred in merely imposing “two (2) reclusiones perpetua”.v

Charge: (a) special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape;
and (b) simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention.

RTC: guilty of two crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. conspiracy

CA:

SC: kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and rape in the case where Marijoy is the
victim; and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention in the case of Jacqueline. conspiracy

People of the Philippines vs Garchitorena

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ARNORLD GARCHITORENA Y

CAMBA A.K.A “JUNIOR”, JOEY PAMPLONA A.K.A “NATO” AND JESSIE GARCIA Y

ADORINO, accused-appellants

Facts:
September 22, 1995, at around 9:00 in the evening, Dulce Borero along with hisbrother Mauro Biay y
Almarinez was

selling “balut” at Sta. Inez Almeda

Subdivision, Brgy. Dela Paz, Biñan, Laguna.

Dulce Borero was about seven (7) arms length away from her brother MauroBiay.

Accused Jessie Garcia called Mauro Biay and as Mauro Biay approached Jessie,

the latter twisted the hand of Mauro and Jessie’s companions (co

-accused) Arnold Garchitorena and Joey Pamplona began stabbing Mauro repeatedly witha shiny bladed
instrument. Witness saw her brother Mauro struggling to freehimself while being stabbed by the (3)
accused, until her brother slumped facedown on the ground.

Arnold instructed his two co-accused to run away.

Borero claims she wanted to shout but nothing came out from her mouth.

Witness went home to call for her elder brother Teodoro Biay, but when theyreturn to the scene the
victim was no longer there as he had been brought to thePerpetual Help Hospital.

Trial Court: Guilty of murder, Court of appeals: Affirmed, Supreme Court: Affirmed
andModificationsDefense:Joey Pamplona

denied that he participated in the stabbingJessie Garcia

defense of alibi Arnold Garchitorena

defense of insanity

Issue/s:

Is there conspiracy shown in the case? (Art. 8 RPC)

Held:

Yes, accuse appellants were together in performing the concerted acts in pursuit

of their common objective. Jessie Garcia grabbed the victim’

s hands and twistedhis arms; in turn, Joey Pamplona, together with Arnold Garchitorena,
strangledMauro Biay and straddled the Mauro Biay on the ground, then stabbed him.

List of characters:

Mauro Biay y Almarinez

victimDulce Borero

eye witness and victim’s sister

Teodoro Biay

elder brother of Dulce BoreroDr. Rolando Poblete

physician who conducted an autopsy on victim Mauro BiayJoey Pamplona

accusedJessie Garcia

accused Arnold Garchitorena

accusedMang Tony

Barangay official Aling Bel

Mang Tony’s wife

Alfredo Arcega

Barangay CaptainMiguelito Gonzalgo

defense witnesDr. Evelyn Belen

physician who examined accused Arnold Garchitorena

people vs carandang

This is an appeal by Henry Milan and Jackman Chua from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934 dated May 10, 2006. Said Decision affirmed that of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) convicting them and one Restituto Carandang for two counts of murder and one count of
frustrated murder in Criminal Cases No. Q-01-100061, Q-01-100062 and Q-01-100063, (conspiracy)

hat on or about the 5th day of April, 2001, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused,
conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to kill, taking advantage of superior strength and with treachery
and evident premeditation, attack, assault and employ personal violence upon the person of SPO2
WILFREDO RED Y PILAR, by then and there shooting the latter several times with the use of a firearm of
unknown caliber, hitting him on the different parts of the body and as soon as the said victim fell on the
ground, by placing a hand grenade (sic) underneath the body which directly caused an explosion and
mutilated the body which directly caused the death of SPO2 WILFREDO RED Y PILAR, to the damage and
prejudice of the heirs of the victim in such amount as may be awarded to them under the provisions of
the Civil Code.

n the afternoon of April 5, 2001, the drug enforcement unit of the La Loma Police Station 1 received a
request for assistance from the sister of accused Milan regarding a drug deal that would allegedly take
place in her house at Calavite St., Brgy. Salvacion, Quezon City. The station commander called SPO2
Wilfredo Pilar Red and instructed him to talk to Milans sister, who was in their office. SPO2 Red,
accompanied by Police Officer (PO) 2 Dionisio Alonzo, SPO1 Estores and SPO1 Montecalvo, talked to
Milans sister. Thereafter, SPO2 Red formed a team composed of the officers who accompanied him
during the interrogation, with him as team leader. The team received further instructions from the
station commander then proceeded to Calavite Street aboard two vehicles, a mobile patrol car and an
unmarked car.[5]

PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red pushed the door open, causing it to fall and propelling them inside the room.
PO2 Alonzo shouted Walang gagalaw! Suddenly, gunshots rang, hitting PO2 Alonzo and SPO2 Red who
dropped to the floor one after the other. Due to the suddenness of the attack, PO2 Alonzo and SPO2
Red were not able to return fire and were instantly killed by the barrage of gunshots. SPO1 Montecalvo,
who was right behind SPO2 Red, was still aiming his firearm at the assailants when Carandang shot and
hit him. SPO1 Montecalvo fell to the ground. SPO1 Estores heard Chua say to Milan, Sugurin mo na!
Milan lunged towards SPO1 Montecalvo, but the latter was able to fire his gun and hit Milan. SPO1
Estores went inside the house and pulled SPO1 Montecalvo out

Reinforcements came at around 4:30 p.m. upon the arrival of P/Sr. Insp. Calaro, Chief Operations Officer
of the La Loma Police Station 1, and P/Supt. Roxas, the Deputy Station Commander of Police Station 1 at
the time of the incident.[9] SPO1 Montecalvo was brought to the Chinese General Hospital. Milan
stepped out of the house and was also brought to a hospital,[10] but Carandang and Chua remained
holed up inside the house for several hours. There was a lengthy negotiation for the surrender of
Carandang and Chua, during which they requested for the presence of a certain Colonel Reyes and
media man Ramon Tulfo.[11] It was around 11:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight when Carandang and Chua
surrendered.[12] SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo were found dead inside the house, their bodies slumped on
the floor with broken legs and gunshot and grenade shrapnel wounds.[13]

Dr. Winston Tan, Medico-Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory,
conducted the post-mortem examination of the bodies of SPO2 Red and PO2 Alonzo. He found that the
gunshot wounds of Red and Alonzo were the cause of their deaths.[14]

According to SPO1 Montecalvos account, Dr. Bu Castro of the Chinese General Hospital operated on
him, removing a bullet from the right portion of his nape. SPO1 Montecalvos hospitalization expenses
amounted to P14,324.48. He testified that it was a nightmarish experience for him as he feared that he
might be paralyzed later on.[15]

The defense presented the three accused as witnesses, testifying as follows:

Carandang claims that he had no firearm during the incident, and that it was the police officers who
fired all the shots. He was in Milans house during the incident in order to ask Milan to accompany him to
convert his cellular phones SIM card. When he arrived at Milans place, he found Milan and Chua playing
a card game. A short time later, there was banging on the door. The door of the house was destroyed
and gunfire suddenly erupted, prompting him to take cover under a bed. Chua cried out to him that he
was hit and that he might lose blood. Milan ran outside and sustained injuries as well. There was an
explosion near the door, causing burns on Carandangs left arm. Gunfire continued coming from
different directions for two to three minutes. Suddenly, the place became dark as the lights went
out.[16]

Since gunshots were still heard every now and then, Carandang stayed in the house and did not come
out. Col. Tor, the new Chief of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) Sikatuna, negotiated for
Carandang to come out. Carandang requested for the presence of his wife, Col. Doroteo Reyes and
media man Ramon Tulfo. He went out of the house at around midnight when the three arrived.[17]

Milan testified that he was at home in Calavite St. at the time of the incident. He knew Carandang for
seven months. Chua was their neighbor. While playing a card game inside his room, they heard
someone pounding at the door. He stood and approached the door to check. The door was destroyed,
and two unidentified men barged in. Gunshots erupted. He was hit on the left side of his body. He ran
out of the room, leaving Chua and Carandang behind. As he was doing so, he saw his mother lying down
and shouting Itigil niyo ang putukan; maraming matatanda dito! Milan was then hit on his left leg by
another gunshot.[18

Chua testified that he went to the house of Milan at around noontime of April 4, 2001 to play a card
game. They played inside Milans ground floor room. Five to ten minutes later, Carandang arrived and
laid down on the bed. Chua did not pay much attention as Milan and Carandang discussed about cellular
phones. Later, they heard a loud banging in the door as if it was being forced open. Milan stood up to
see what was happening. Chua remained seated and Carandang was still on the bed. The door was
forcibly opened. Chua heard successive gunshots and was hit on his left big toe. He ducked on the floor
near the bed to avoid being hit further. He remained in that position for several hours until he lost
consciousness. He was already being treated at the Chinese General Hospital when he regained
consciousness. In said hospital, a paraffin test was conducted upon him.[19]

P/Sr. Insp. Grace Eustaquio, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, later testified that the
paraffin test on Chua yielded a negative result for gunpowder nitrates, but that performed on
Carandang produced a positive result. She was not able to conduct a paraffin test on Milan, who just
came from the operating room when she saw him. Milan seemed to be in pain and refused to be
examined.[20]

On April 22, 2003, the trial court rendered its Decision[21] finding Carandang, Milan and Chua guilty of
two counts of murder and one count of frustrated murder:

n May 10, 2006, the Court of Appeals rendered the assailed Decision modifying the Decision of the trial
court:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 76, in
Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061-63 finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two
(2) counts of Murder and one (1) count of Frustrated Murder is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS
as follows:
1) In Criminal Case Nos. Q-01-100061 and Q-01-100062, accused-appellants are hereby
ordered to pay the heirs of PO2 Dionisio S. Alonzo and SPO2 Wilfredo P. Red an indemnity for loss of
earning capacity in the amount of P2,140,980.69 and P2,269,243.62, respectively; and

2) In Criminal Case No. Q-01-100063, accused-appellants are hereby instead sentenced to

suffer an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to
fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum.

With costs against the accused-appellants

Milan and Chua appealed to this Court anew.[28] Carandang did not appeal, and instead presented a
letter informing this Court that he is no longer interested in pursuing an appeal.[29] On April 9, 2008,
Milan and Chua filed a Supplemental Appellants Brief to further discuss the Assignment of Errors they
presented in their September 28, 2004 Appellants Brief:

he trial court had ruled that Carandang, Milan and Chua acted in conspiracy in the commission of the
crimes charged. Thus, despite the established fact that it was Carandang who fired the gun which hit
SPO2 Red, PO2 Alonzo and SPO1 Montecalvo, all three accused were held equally criminally responsible
therefor. The trial court explained that Carandang, Milan and Chuas actuations showed that they acted
in concert against the police officers. The pertinent portion of the RTC Decision reads

In affirming this ruling, the Court of Appeals further expounded on the acts of Milan and Chua showing
that they acted in concert with Carandang

Milan and Chua object to the conclusion that they were in conspiracy with Carandang due to their acts
of closing the door and not peaceably talking to the police officers. According to them, those acts were
caused by their being frightened by the police officers who were allegedly in full battle gear.[33] Milan
and Chua further assert that the fortuitous and unexpected character of the encounter and the rapid
turn of events should have ruled out a finding of conspiracy.[34] They claim that the incident happened
so fast, giving them no opportunity to stop Carandang.[35]

Appellants contest the factual finding that Chua directed Milan to go after SPO1 Montecalvo, alleging
that they were both unarmed and that there was no way for Milan to attack an armed person. What
really happened, according to them, was that Milan ran out of the room for safety and not to attack
SPO1 Montecalvo.[36] Milan claims that he was already injured in the stomach when he ran out, and it
was natural for him to seek safety.

Assuming arguendo that Chua uttered Sugurin mo na! to Milan, appellants argue that no crime was
committed due to the same as all the victims had already been shot when said words were shouted.[37]
Furthermore, it appears to have been uttered as a result of indiscretion or lack of reflection and did not
inherently carry with it inducement or temptation.[38]
 In the Supplemental Brief, Milan and Chua point out that the assault on the victims was the result of the
impulsive act of Carandang and was not a result of any agreement or a concerted action of all the
accused.[39] They claim that when the shootout ensued, Chua immediately dove down near the bed
while Milan ran out of the room out of fear.[40] It is allegedly hard to imagine that SPO1 Montecalvo
with certainty heard Chua utter the phrase Sugurin mo na, considering that the incident happened so
fast, there were lots of gunshots.[41]

To summarize, Milans and Chuas arguments focus on the lack of direct evidence showing that they
conspired with Carandang during the latters act of shooting the three victims

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01934 dated May 10, 2006 is
hereby AFFIRMED, with the following MODIFICATIONS

People vs Dadao (pic)

Defense: house

The defense presented as its last witness, accused Marcelino Dadao, who testified that three (3) months
prior to July 11, 1993, he had been staying at the house of one Fernandez Saplina at Sitio San Fernandez,
Salucot, Talakag, Bukidnon, which is about 7 kilometers away from the house of the victim. He further
testified that on July 11, 1993, he did not leave the house of Fernandez Saplina until the following
morning

People vs Estanly Octa

acts:4 armed men stopped and boarded a Honda Civic car being driven by Johnny Corpuz who waswith
his brother Mike Adrian Batuigas. Johnny was then forced to the backseat and was blindfoldedand
handcuffed. The armed men first contacted Johnny's mother-in-law and informed her that theywere just
on a trip. The victims were later brought to a safe house where one of the kidnapperscontacted Johnny's
wife, Ana Marie Corpuz. Upon confirmation that his husband was kidnapped,Ana Marie sought the
assistance of the PACER where several communications were had. Thekidnappers demanded for a
ransom of P20M but was reduced to P538K. She was then instructedto meet a man with a red cap who
would ask her "saan yung padala ni boss". She saw the man butfirst asked for confirmation from one of
the kidnappers by talking to the man. The man with the redcap turned out to be the accused and was
described by Ana Marie as good looking, lightly built, inhis early 20s around 5'4" in height and with
dimples. After the ransom was given, the victims werereleased.The accused invoked the defense of
denial and alibi and that he was a victim of the kidnapping aswell. On appeal, he argued that he was not
a co-conspirator since he cannot be considered as aconspirator to the kidnapping in the absence of
concrete proof that he actually participated in theexecution of the essential elements of the crime by
overt acts indispensable to its accomplishment.His receipt of the ransom money transpired only after
the kidnapping had been consummated andwas not an essential element of the crime.Crime charged:
Kidnapping for ransomRTC: Guilty as chargedCA: Affirmed the RTCIssue:Is the accused liable for the
felony charged as a co-conspiratorz.Held:Yes. As held in People v. Bautista:Conspiracy exists when two
or more persons come to an agreementconcerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.
Where allthe accused acted in concert at the time of the commission of the offense,and it is shown by
such acts that they had the same purpose or commondesign and were united in its execution,
conspiracy is sufficientlyestablished. It must be shown that all participants performed specific actswith
such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose ordesign to commit the felony

Evidently, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason ofconspiracy, he must be shown to have
performed an overt act in pursuanceor furtherance of the complicity. There must be intentional
participation inthe transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design andpurpose.Taking
these facts in conjunction with the testimony of Dexter, who testifiedthat accused-appellant was the
one who received the ransom money thenthe commonality of purpose of the acts of accused-appellant
together withthe other accused can no longer be denied. Such acts have the commondesign or purpose
to commit the felony of kidnapping for ransom.Moreover, the CA is correct in its observation that at the
time accused-appellant received theransom money, the crime of kidnapping was still continuing, since
both victims were still beingillegally detained by the kidnappers. While his receipt of the ransom money
was not a materialelement of the crime, it was nevertheless part of the grand plan and was in fact the
main reason forkidnapping the victims. Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for
theredemption of a captured person or persons; or payment that releases from captivity.
Withoutransom money, the freedom of the detained victims cannot be achieved.

People vs Feliciano Jr (pic)

People vs Morilla (pic)

People vs Bokingco

facts

· An Info was filed against Bokingko and Col charging them of murdering Pasion with a claw
hammer.

· Bokingco entered a guilty plea while Col pleaded not guilty. During the pre-trial, Bokingco
confessed to the crime charged.

· The victim, Noli Pasion and his wife, Peaches, were residing in a house in Angeles City. Pasion
owned a pawnshop, which formed part of his house. He also maintained 2 rows of apartment units at
the back of his house. Appellants, who were staying in Apartment No. 3, were among the 13
construction workers employed by Pasion.

prosecution’s evidence

· Vitalicio

o He was a resident in the apartment. He was spin-drying his clothes when Pasion came from the front
door, passed by him and went out of the back door.
o A few minutes later, he heard a commotion from Apartment No. 3. He peeped through a screen door
and saw Bokingco hitting something on the floor. Upon seeing Vitalicio, Bokingco allegedly pushed open
the screen door and attacked him with a hammer in his hand. Vitalicio bit Bokingco’s neck and managed
to push him away.

o Bokingco tried to chase Vitalicio but was eventually subdued by a co-worker. Vitalicio proceeded to
his house and was told by his wife that Pasion was found dead in the kitchen. Vitalicio went back to
Apartment No. 3 and saw Pasion’s body lying flat on the kitchen floor.

· Peaches (wife of the victim)

o testified that she was in the master’s bedroom on the second floor of the house when she heard
banging sounds and her husband’s moans.

o Before reaching the kitchen, Col blocked her way. Peaches asked him why he was inside their house
but Col suddenly ran towards her, sprayed tear gas on her eyes and poked a sharp object under her chin.

o Peaches was wounded when she bowed her head to avoid the tear gas. Col instructed her to open
the vault of the pawnshop but Peaches informed him that she does not know the combination lock.

o Peaches tried offering him money but Col dragged her towards the back door by holding her neck
and pulling her backward. Before they reached the door, Peaches saw Bokingco open the screen door
and heard him tell Col: "tara, patay na siya."

o Col immediately let her go and ran away with Bokingco. Peaches proceeded to Apartment No. 3.
Thereat, she saw her husband lying on the floor, bathed in his own blood.

· PO3 Dayrit:

o he received a phone call regarding the incident.

o He saw a claw hammer with a green lead pipe handle approximately 13 inches long near the kitchen
sink. A lead pipe measuring 40 inches and a chisel were also found in the nearby construction site.

· Evelyn Gan, the stenographic reporter of Prosecutor Dayaon, during the preliminary investigation.
She attests that Bokingco admitted that he conspired with Col to kill Pasion and that they planned the
killing several days before because they got "fed up" with Pasion.

· Dr. Esguerra concluded that the injuries sustained by Pasion on his skull proved fatal.

Appellants testified on their own behalf.

· Bokingco: he was sleeping in Apartment No. 3 at around 1:20 a.m. when he was awakened by
Pasion who appeared to be intoxicated. The latter wanted to know why he did not see Bokingco at the
construction site on 28 Feb 2000. When Bokingco replied that he just stayed at the apartment the whole
day, Pasion suddenly hit him in the head. This prompted Bokingco to take a hammer and hit Pasion.
They both struggled and Bokingco repeatedly hit Pasion. Bokingco escaped to Manila right after the
incident. He was subsequently arrested in Mindanao. Bokingco admitted that he harbored ill feelings
towards Pasion.

· Col: confirmed that he was one of the construction workers employed by Pasion. He however
resigned on 26 Feb 2000 because of the deductions from his salary. He went home to Cainta, Rizal,
where he was apprehended and brought to Camp Olivas. Upon reaching the camp, he saw Bokingco
who pointed to him as the person who killed Pasion. He insisted that he doesn’t know Bokingco very
well.

rtc: guilty

· Guilty of MURDER + two AC of nighttime and abuse of confidence to be considered against both
accused and the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty in favor of accused Bokingo only,
hereby sentences each of them to suffer the penalty of DEATH.

ca modified to reclusion perpetua

· affirmed the findings of the TC but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua in view of RA 7659.

· MR:

o Bokingco’s fate when it rendered the challenged decision.

o absence of other evidence, aside from Bokingco’s admission, to prove that conspiracy existed

o admission made by Bokingco cannot be used as evidence against his alleged co-conspirator.

· CA modified its Decision by including the criminal liability of Bokingco. BOKINGCO and COL are
found GUILTY as conspirators of MURDER qualified by treachery and evident premeditation and with the
attendant AC of nighttime and abuse of confidence, with no MC. The proper imposable penalty would
have been death. Reclusion Perpetua without the possibility of parole.

issue #1: whether the qc were properly appreciated to convict Bokingco of murder. no, reduced to
homicide.

Bokingco made 2 separate and dissimilar admissions:

· extrajudicial confession taken during the preliminary investigation where he admitted that he and
Col planned the killing of Pasion;

· when he testified in open court that he was only provoked in hitting Pasion back when the latter
hit him in the head.
arguments of the appellants

· no one from the prosecution witnesses testified on how Pasion was attacked by Bokingco. Evident
premeditation was not proven in the case.

· Nighttime was not purposely sought but it was merely co-incidental that the crime took place at
that time.

· Neither has trust and confidence been reposed on appellants by the victim to aggravate the crime
by abuse of confidence.

· They were living in an apartment owned by Pasion, not because the latter trusted them but
because they worked in the construction of the victim’s apartment.

treachery:

· For treachery to be appreciated, the prosecution must prove that at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself, and that the offender consciously adopted the particular
means, method or form of attack employed by him.

· Nobody witnessed the commencement and the manner of the attack. While the witness Vitalicio
managed to see Bokingco hitting something on the floor, he failed to see the victim at that time.

evident premeditation

· Requisites:

o (a) the time when the offender was determined to commit the crime;

o (b) an act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination; and

o (c) a sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

· It is indispensable to show how and when the plan to kill was hatched or how much time had
elapsed before it was carried out. Bokingco admitted in court that he only retaliated when Pasion
allegedly hit him in the head. Despite the fact that Bokingco admitted that he was treated poorly by
Pasion, the prosecution failed to establish that Bokingco planned the attack.

confession during the preliminary investigation is inadmissible

· It was during the preliminary investigation that Bokingco mentioned his and Col’s plan to kill
Pasion. Bokingco’s confession was admittedly taken without the assistance of counsel in violation of Sec
12, Art III of the 1987 Consti.

Sec 12. (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

· The right to counsel applies in certain pretrial proceedings that can be deemed ‘critical stages’ in
the criminal process. The preliminary investigation can be no different from the in-custody
interrogations by the police, for a suspect who takes part in a preliminary investigation will be subjected
to no less than the State's processes, oftentimes intimidating and relentless, of pursuing those who
might be liable for criminal prosecution.

· The extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against Bokingco because he was not assisted at all by
counsel during the time his confession was taken before a judge.

nighttime and abuse of confidence

· The finding that nighttime attended the commission of the crime is anchored on the presumption
that there was evident premeditation. Having ruled however that evident premeditation has not been
proved, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be properly appreciated.

· Abuse of confidence could not also be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in this case.

· Taking into account that fact that Bokingco works for Pasion, it may be conceded that he enjoyed
the trust and confidence of Pasion. However, there was no showing that he took advantage of said trust
to facilitate the commission of the crime.

issue #2. whether Col is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as a co-conspirator. no.

· Col:

o to hold him guilty as co-conspirator, it must be established that he performed an overt act in
furtherance of the conspiracy.

o Applying Sec 30, Rule 130 Col asserts that Bokingco’s uncounselled testimony that appellants
planned to kill Pasion bears no relevance considering the fact that there was no other evidence which
will prove the conspiracy.

· Peaches’s statements during trial, such as the presence of Col inside her house and his forcing her
to open the vault of the pawnshop, as well as the alleged statement she heard from Bokingco "Tara,
patay na siya," are not adequate to support the finding of conspiracy.

· OSG: Col blocked and attacked her with a knife when she tried to check on her husband. She was
left alone by Col when he was told by Bokingco that the victim was already dead.

conspiracy must be established with the same quantum of proof as the crime itself and must be shown
as clearly as the commission of the crime.
· Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement to commit an unlawful act. It
may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime.

· Unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective are essential to establish the
existence of conspiracy.

· The finding of conspiracy was premised on Peaches’s testimony that appellants fled together after
killing her husband and the extrajudicial confession of Bokingco.

· Nobody witnessed the commencement of the attack. Col was not seen at the apartment where
Pasion was being attacked by Bokingco.

· At the most, Col’s actuations can be equated to attempted robbery, which was actually the initial
Info filed against appellants before it was amended, on motion of the prosecution, for murder.

· Peaches testified that she heard Bokingco call out to Col that Pasion had been killed and that they
had to leave the place. This does not prove that they acted in concert towards the consummation of the
crime. It only proves, at best, that there were two crimes committed simultaneously and they were
united in their efforts to escape from the crimes they separately committed.

· Their acts did not reveal a unity of purpose that is to kill Pasion. Bokingco had already killed Pasion
even before he sought Col.

· In as much as Bokingco’s extrajudicial confession is inadmissible against him, it is likewise

inadmissible against Col, specifically where he implicated the latter as a cohort.

admission of a co-conspirator

· GR: An extrajudicial confession is binding only on the confessant, is not admissible against his or
her co-accused, and is considered as hearsay against them.

· E: admission made by a conspirator, provided that:

o conspiracy be first proved by evidence other than the admission itself;

o admission relates to the common object;

o it has been made while the declarant was engaged in carrying out the conspiracy.

· Bokingco’s judicial admission exculpated Col because Bokingco admitted that he only attacked
Pasion after the latter hit him in the head.

treatment of the factual findings of the tc

· GR: SC must accord roper deference to the factual findings of the TC, owing to their unique
opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under
grueling examination.

· E:

o when the TC’s findings of facts and conclusions are not supported by the evidence on record,

o when certain facts of substance and value likely to change the outcome of the case have been
overlooked by the lower court, or

o when the assailed decision is based on a misapprehension of facts.

People vs Castillo

Before us on automatic review is the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque, Branch 260,
National Capital Judicial Region, in Criminal Case No. 95-86, finding appellants Elizabeth Castillo (Castillo)
and Evangeline Padayhag (Padayhag) guilty of Qualified Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention[2] and
sentencing them to death.

The Information[3] charging Castillo, Padayhag and Imelda Wenceslao with the crime of kidnapping,
reads:

That on or about March 1, 1995, in Paraaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
the Honorable Court, said accused ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG, conspiring
together, confederating, and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously kidnap, carry away, and seriously detain HORACIO CEBRERO IV @ Rocky, a five years old
child (sic), which kidnapping or serious detention lasted for more than three (3) days thereby depriving
him of his liberty, and which was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the parents of
the victim, to the damage and prejudice of the victim himself and his parents.

The said accused IMELDA CASTILLO WENCESLAO, without having participated in the said crime as a
principal, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously participated (sic) in the execution of the
crime by previous and simultaneous acts by allowing and furnishing the use of her residence where
victim Horacio Cebrero IV was kept knowing him to have been taken by principal accused Elizabeth
Castillo and Evangeline Padayhag without the consent of his parents.

On March 1, 1995, Rosanna Baria was employed as one of the household helpers of Mr. and Mrs. Luis
De Guzman Cebrero at their residence in Classic Homes, B. F. Paraaque, Metro Manila (p. 26, tsn, August
3, 1995). In the morning of said date, Femie, another housemaid of the Cebreros and Barias relative,
bathed and dressed up Rocky, the couples six year old son and afterwards advised Baria that someone,
who was also a Cebrero househelper, will fetch Rocky (p. 28, supra). At about 8:00 a.m., a tricycle
arrived. On board was a woman, whom Baria pointed to in court and who gave her name as Evangeline
Padayhag (p. 26, supra). Baria assisted Rocky to board the tricycle. The tricycle brought Rocky and the
woman, whom Rocky pointed to in court and who gave her name as Evangeline Padayhag (p. 9, tsn,
August 3, 1995), to a nearby Mcdonalds. Thereat, they were joined by another woman (p. 13, supra)
whom Rocky pointed to in court and who gave her name as Elizabeth Castillo (p. 9, supra). The three
proceeded to a house far from the Mcdonalds (p. 13, supra) where Rocky slept four times (p. 14, supra).

At about 5:30 p.m. of March 1, 1995, Luis Cebrero arrived home from work. When his son DJ arrived, he
informed his father that Rocky did not attend school. Luis Cebrero asked Baria (pp. 4-5, tsn, August 22,
1995) who told him that Rocky was fetched at home by a woman to attend a birthday party (p. 5, supra).
Informed thereof, Mr. Cebrero then called up his friends and went to the police station to report that his
son was missing (p. 9, supra).

At about 7:30 p.m. that night, Luis Cebrero received a telephone call from a woman saying, Ibigay mo sa
akin ang ATM card mo o ang bata (p. 10, supra). Luis replied, Kailangan ko ang bata. The woman asked
how much money was in his ATM and Luis replied P40,000.00. Luis then requested to talk to his son but
the woman said, Hindi puwede, malayo dito ang anak mo at tatawag na lang uli ako (p. 10, supra).

Informed of the place for the pay-off, on March 4, 1995, Major Ronnie Eleazar, Commanding Officer of
the Intelligence Security Group (ISG), Philippine Army, briefed his men on Rockys kidnapping and
assigned them their respective tasks in the stakeout they will undertake around the pay-off area (pp. 6-7
tsn, January 30, 1996). At about 11:00 p.m. of March 4, 1995, Sgt. Alejandro Delena and his ISG team,
proceeded to Obando, Bulacan for the stakeout. After positioning themselves near the stakeout site, a
car arrived and stopped in front of the chapel. The man alighted and placed a bag in front of the chapel
and immediately left (p. 10, supra). After about forty (40) minutes, two women appeared, proceeded to
where the bag was dropped. On seeing the bag, the women laughed and left. After about two (2)
minutes, the two women returned, picked up the bag and immediately left (pp. 11-12, supra). The ISG
team searched the area around the drop-off place but the two women were nowhere to be found (p.
17, supra). In court, Sgt. Delena pointed to and identified Castillo and Padayhag as the two women he
saw in front of the chapel in Obando, Bulacan and who, later on, picked up the bag dropped by Luis
Cebrero (p. 12, supra).

Puzzled by the sudden disappearance of the two women, Sgt. Delena and his team remained at the
stake-out area. The team befriended the residents of the place, one of whom was a certain Joselito
Torres who claimed to be the former boyfriend of Elizabeth Castillo whom he recognized from the
picture shown to him by Sgt. Delena. Torres informed the ISG team that Castillo had already left for
Mindanao. Sgt. Delena immediately communicated the information, including the address of Gigi
Padayhag in Navotas, to his commanding officer

At about 9:00 p.m. of March 5, 1995, Luis Cebrero was at home when a tricycle stopped in front of his
house. Somebody knocked at the door and when Luis Cebrero opened it, he saw his son, Rocky (

At about 9:00 p.m. of March 5, 1995, Luis Cebrero was at home when a tricycle stopped in front of his
house. Somebody knocked at the door and when Luis Cebrero opened it, he saw his son, Rocky (

Upon assumption from work, Castillo was promised by Mrs. Sandra Cebrero a monthly salary of one
thousand two hundred pesos (P1,200.00);
4. Castillo, however, was never given compensation during her entire employment in the Cebrero
household;

5. Castillo was also not treated nicely by the Cebrero spouses. When something gets lost in the house,
she was always the one being blamed, although the children were the ones getting the things. Besides,
they say bad words against her. Thus, she has no other choice but to leave her work;

6. Castillo had been consistently demanding from the Cebrero spouses her unpaid wages for one year;
but her demands remained unheeded;

7. Having reached only elementary education, Castillo believed that the only effective way for her to
claim back her unpaid wages is to use Rocky, son of the Cebrero Spouses;

8. On 1 March 1995 Castillo called Padayhag, telling the latter that her boyfriend is sick. At that time,
Padayhag was already working at Jelaya St., B.F. Homes, Paraaque under the employ of Lulu Sablan.
Castillo fetched Padayhag. The two, however, did not go to see Padayhags boyfriend but instead they
went to a playground;

9. Castillo then instructed Padayhag to fetch Rocky from his house at Cesar Virata St., B.F. Homes,
Paraaque, Manila. When Padayhag asked why she wanted to see Rocky, Castillo answered that she
missed the boy. Padayhag obliged to the request, knowing that the latter would not do any harm to the
boy;

10. It was only the first time that Padayhag saw Rocky;

11. She brought the child to a market at B.F. Paraaque, where Castillo was waiting. The three went on a
stroll. Thereafter, they went to the house of Imelda Wenceslao, Castillos sister, at Bagong Barrio,
Caloocan City. Castillo noticed that Rocky had a fever, so she requested Vangie to buy a medicine;

12. Padayhag was not told by Castillo as to when the latter would return the boy. Padayhag did not
sense anything wrong with what had happened as she believed that Castillo only took Rocky for a stroll;

13. Imelda Wenceslao asked why they brought a child along with them. Castillo answered that she just
wanted to see the boy. Wenceslao then asked if they asked permission from the parents, and Castillo
answered no;

14. At night, Castillo talked to Mr. Luis Cebrero over the phone to inform him that Rocky was with her.
Mr. Cebrero told her not to harm the boy. No threat or demand for ransom was ever made by the
accused to the Cebrero spouses. She never asked Mr. Cebrero how much money he had in the bank;

15. The following day, 2 March 1995, Castillo called Mr. Cebrero again to tell him that she could not yet
return Rocky because he still had a slight fever. She also told Mr. Cebrero: Hindi nyo ako
sinusuwelduhan. He asked her: Magkano ba ang kailangan mo? She did not answer. Then Mr. Cebrero
said: May pera ako rito, kalahating milyon. At that moment, Castillo hanged-up the phone;
16. Castillo denied in her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 25 August 1999, attached as Annex A and made an
integral part hereof, that she demanded one million (P1,000,000.00) from the Cebrero spouses;

17. On the evening of 4 March 1995, when Castillo called Mr. Cebrero, he asked them where they were.
The accused told him that they were in Paco, Ubando, Bulacan, near a Protestant Church. Mr. Cebrero
then said: Pupunta ako riyan bandang 2:00 ng madaling araw (March 5, 1999) na may bitbit na pera at
ilalapag ko ito sa may simbahan;

18. On 5 March 1995, at around 4:30 a.m. Castillo and Padayhag went out to buy pandesal. They noticed
that at a post near a Church, a dog was trying to pull a black plastic bag. They picked it up and brought it
home. When they opened it, they found five bundles of money, in P1,000.00 denomination;

19. At about 9:00 p.m. of the same day, Mr. Cebrero heard a tricycle stop in front of their house.
Someone knocked at the door, and when he opened the door, he saw Rocky;

20. On 11 March 1995, Capt. Raniel Ramiro, Intelligence Security Group of the Philippine Army, together
with his men, after coordinating with Caloocan Police, arrested Evangeline Padayhag at her residence at
Dagat-Dagatan, Caloocan City. The military men did not have a warrant of arrest at this particular
operation;

21. The military were civilian-dressed. They pretended to be Padayhags cousins who came from abroad,
and they invited her to a birthday party. However, they brought her to Fort Bonifacio for interrogation.
It was only then that Padayhag learned that her companions were military men;

22. At Fort Bonifacio, the police coerced Padayhag to confess to the crime, threatening her: Pag hindi ka
pa umamin, kami na mismo and bibitay sa iyo. Padayhag, however, did not confess to the commission of
the crime. She was then brought to Camp Crame at Quezon City on that same date;

23. The following day, 12 March 1995, during the custodial investigation, a certain Major Meneses was
exerting pressure on Padayhag to reveal where the P500,000.00 is. She told Major Meneses: Wala akong
pera na ganoon kalaki. He said to her: Pag hindi ka umamin, papatayin na kita talaga! Her answer was:
Patayin nyo man ako, hindi ako aamin dahil wala akong ganoong kalaking pera. Major Meneses then
slapped Padayhag and hit her with a stool on her leg;

24. Major Meneses also threatened Padayhag that if she would not confess to the crime, he would
submerge her on a drum. They forcibly brought her to a toilet room. She saw there two big drums.
Major Meneses then told her: Iyong mga hindi umamin, nilulublob namin dito sa drum. Padayhag
shouted. Thereafter, someone knocked at the door and said: Pakawalan nyo na iyan dahil marami nang
tao. They brought her out of the room and handcuffed her;

25. SPO1 Larry Pablo was likewise threatening Padayhag: Pag hindi ka pa umamin, ihuhulog na kita sa
bintanang ito! (They were on the third floor of a building) Alam mo ba kung ilan na ang naihulog namin
diyan? Panlabindalawa ka na sa ihuhulog namin diyan!;
26. During the custodial investigation, Padayhag was not assisted by a counsel, nor has she waived her
right to counsel. She was coerced by the police into signing an extrajudicial confession without even
explaining to her the contents thereof;

27. Atty. Eranio Sedillo only arrived one hour (1 hr.) after Padayhag had already signed the questioned
extrajudicial confession;

28. Elizabeth Castillo was arrested at Mitimos, Rizal, Zamboanga del Norte on or about 21 March 1995.
Police officers came to her house, and when they informed her that they were looking for the money,
she voluntarily gave it to them;

29. The approximate amount of money taken by Castillo was only twenty thousand (P20,000.00) She
returned the rest of the money to the police who arrested, her;

30. Castillo vehemently denied in her Sinumpaang Salaysay (par. No. 14) that she returned only
P227,000.00;

31. Castillo and her escorts were fetched in Manila by a van. Inside the van, they blindfolded her. They
removed her blindfold when they reached Camp Crame;

32. Major Meneses and SPO1 Larry Pablo investigated her. She was slapped by Pablo, forcing her to
admit where the money is;

33. During the investigation, Pablo poked a gun on her, then forced her to write what he would say to
her. He instructed her to write: Na kapag hindi ko isasauli ang lahat ng pera ay pwede nyo na akong
patayin. Castillo followed the instructions because of fear.[5]

In an 11-page Decision, of which nine pages were devoted to the recital of facts, the trial court found
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses more credible and gave no weight to Castillo and
Padayhags defenses. The trial court convicted appellants on 17 December 1997 and imposed on them
the death penalty, thus:

Originally, both accused pleaded guilty to the offense and were meted the penalty of life imprisonment.
However, shortly thereafter, they moved to withdraw their plea claiming it was precipitate, which the
court allowed and proceeded with a full-blown trial.

Accused Elizabeth Castillo demanded money from Rockys parents for the release of the latter. She told
his father to bring the money to Obando Bulacan. The Court can only imagine the pain, worry, fear and
anxiety of the boys parents while their youngest son was under detention.

Ransom is money, price or consideration demanded for the redemption of a captured person or
persons, a payment that releases from captivity (Corpus Juris Secundum 458). The testimony of
Elizabeth Castillo that she did not know about the money cannot be given weight. Two hundred Seventy
Seven Thousand (P277,000.00) Pesos was found among her things, the bills bearing the same serial
number as the money paid to her.
The court has taken a hard look in determining the liability of Evangeline Padayhag as it seems that her
only participation in the crime was picking up the boy from his house. Although she did not get part of
the ransom the fact is that she fully and directly cooperated and did her part to carry out the resolution
of her co-accused. Under these facts there was conspiracy to extort ransom. People versus Kamad
Akiran, 18 SCRA 239.

The Court is convinced that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.

WHEREFORE, ELIZABETH CASTILLO and EVANGELINE PADAYHAG are sentenced to suffer the supreme
penalty of death. Further, they are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the sum of Five Hundred
Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos as moral damages and Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos as
exemplary damages plus costs of litigation.

SO ORDERED.[6]

We affirm the trial courts judgment convicting Castillo. However, we acquit her co-accused Padayhag.

To sustain a conviction for Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code,[8] the prosecution must establish the following: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2)
he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the victim of his liberty; (3) the act of
kidnapping or detention is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense any of the following
circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is
committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted on the victim or
threats to kill are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public office

The same cannot be said of Padayhag. Our review of the evidence on record shows that the prosecution
failed to prove Padayhags guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

We reiterate the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any
question including those not raised by the parties.[25] This becomes even more imperative in cases
where the penalty imposed is death.

Padayhags sole involvement in this entire episode is her act of fetching Rocky and bringing him to where
Castillo was waiting for them. Padayhag then went strolling with the two, went to the house of Castillos
sister together with Castillo and Rocky, and then later left the house. From this fact alone, the
prosecution would have us rule that Padayhag acted in conspiracy with Castillo. The prosecution
contends that without Padayhags help, Castillo could not have abducted Rocky.

We are not persuaded.

There must be positive and conclusive evidence that Padayhag acted in concert with Castillo to commit
the same criminal act. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by conspiracy, there must be a
sufficient and unbroken chain of events that directly and definitely links the accused to the commission
of the crime without any space for baseless suppositions or frenzied theories to filter through.[26]
Indeed, conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the crime itself.[27]

Conspiracy is established by the presence of two factors: (1) singularity of intent; and (2) unity in
execution of an unlawful objective. The two must concur. Performance of an act that contributes to the
goal of another is not enough. The act must be motivated by the same unlawful intent. Neither joint nor
simultaneous action is per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by
a common design.[28]

Padayhags act of fetching Rocky is not conclusive proof of her complicity with Castillos plan, a plan
Padayhag did not even know. Both appellants testified that Padayhag met Castillo only because Castillo
told Padayhag that Padayhags boyfriend was sick. It was precisely on the pretext that they were to visit
Padayhags boyfriend that the two met. When they met, Padayhag realized that Castillo had deceived he

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque, Branch 260, National Capital Judicial
Region, in Criminal Case No. 95-86 convicting appellant Elizabeth Castillo is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Appellant Elizabeth Castillo is sentenced to suffer the penalty of DEATH and to pay the
victim P100,000 as moral damages. The award for exemplary damages is deleted for lack of legal basis.
The trial courts Decision convicting appellant Evangeline Padayhag is REVERSED. We ACQUIT Evangeline
Padayhag and order her immediate RELEASE from confinement unless held for another lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to report to the Court, within five days from notice,
compliance with this Decision.

Fernan vs People

The instant petition under Rule 45 originated from 119 criminal cases[2] filed with the Sandiganbayan
(SB) involving no less than 36 former officials and employees of the then Ministry of Public Highways
(MPH) and several suppliers of construction materials for defalcation of public funds arising from
numerous transactions in the Cebu First Highway Engineering District in 1977. Because of the sheer
magnitude of the illegal transactions, the number of people involved, and the ingenious scheme
employed in defrauding the government, this infamous 86 million highway scam has few parallels in the
annals of crime in the country.

Petitioners guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt

Petitioners mainly asseverate that their guilt was not shown beyond a peradventure of doubt and the
State was unable to show that government funds were illegally released based on alleged ghost
deliveries in conjunction with false or fake tally sheets and other documents which they admittedly
signed.

We are not convinced.

In sum, the required quantum of proof has been adduced by the State on the conspiracy among the
accused including petitioners. The conviction of petitioners must perforce be sustained.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition and AFFIRM the December 4, 1997 Decision of the SB in the
consolidated criminal cases subject of this petition.

Estafa falsification

Go-Tan vs Tan

Facts:

On April 18, 1999, Sharica Mari Go-Tan and Steven Tan were married. Out of this union, two female
children were born, Kyra Danielle and Kristen Denise. On January 12, 2005, barely six years into the
marriage, petitioner Go-Tan filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Protective
Order (TPO) against Steven, in conspiracy with respondents, were causing verbal, psychological, and
economic abuses upon her in violation of Section 5, paragraphs (e) (2) (3) (4), (h) (5) and (i) of Republic
Act No. 9262.

Issue:

Whether or not respondents-spouses, Perfecto and Juanita, parents-in-law of Sharica, may be included
in the petition for the issuance of a protective order, in accordance with RA 9262.

Held:

Yes, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. While the provisions of RA 9262 provides that the
offender be ralted or connected to the victim by marriage, former marriage, or a sexual or dating
relationship, it does not preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under the RPC. In Section
47 of RA 9262, it has expressly provides for the suppletory application of the RPC. Hence, legal principles
developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under
special laws, such as RA 9262 in which the special law is silent on a particular matter.