G.R. No.

L-65153 July 11, 1986

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
MANSUETO LAMBERTE, accused-appellant.

FACTS: Mansueto Lamberto raped his niece, Clarissa Arnino, 13 yrs old, with the help
of Romulo Solomon. After the consummation of rape, they brought her to a nearby
creek and Lamberte ordered her to wash her vagina which she did. Then Lamberte told
her to go home but not to tell her father about the incident, otherwise, he would kill
her.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of rape committed by Lamberte falls under the alternative
circumstance by the circumstance of closely-knit family relations.

RULING:

 The alleged “closely-knit family ties” is inaccurate because the relationship between
Clarrisa and Lamberte is actually five degrees removed. Besides, while it is true that the
alternative circumstance of relationship is always aggravating circumstance of
relationship is always aggravating in crimes against chastity, regardless of whether the
offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party, it is only taken
into consideration “when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant,
legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same
degree of the offender”. The relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of
the relationship mentioned.

[G.R. No.  130514. June 17, 1999]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.  ABUNDIO

TOLENTINO, accused-appellant.

That during the period from May 1, 1995 to July 1995, in Masantol, Pampanga, and
within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused ABUNDIO TOLENTINO, step
father of nine (9) year old Rachelle Parco, the former being the common-law spouse of
the latter's mother, Teresa David, by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over
Rachel Parco, then eight (8) years old, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously thru force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the said minor Rachel
Parco, against her will and consent.

On May 1, 1995, at past noon, Rachelle Parco, 8 years old, was inside one of the two
bedrooms at the second floor of the house of her grandmother, which was located at
San Nicolas, Masantol, Pampanga (TSN, January 22, 1997). Rachelle was arranging the
clothes while in the room (Ibid, p. 7).
Suddenly, Abundio Tolentino, the stepfather of Rachelle Parco, entered the same
room and closed the door. Abundio Tolentino ordered Rachelle Parco to stand up and
lie down on the bed. When Rachelle Parco was already on the bed, Abundio Tolentino
removed his short pants and of Rachelle Parco

Abundio Tolentino placed his sex organ on Rachelle Parco's genitals and bumped
(binubundol-bundol) hers with his. At that moment, Rachelle Parco remained silent,
because she was afraid and did not know what Abundio Tolentino was doing to
her. Abundio Tolentino's carnal act lasted only for three minutes, because Rachelle
Parco's brother knocked at the door and ask money from Abundio (Ibid, p. 9). Abundio
Tolentino told Rachelle's brother to ask money from Lola Iding (ibid). Thereafter,
Abundio Tolentino put on his short pants and hers and went down the house (Ibid).

Abundio Tolentino repeatedly did the same thing to Rachelle Parco at least three to four
times a week in May, June, and July 1995. Rachelle Parco was overc[o]me by fear that
she did not tell anyone about what Abundio Tolentino was doing to her.

ISSUE:
Whether or not alternative circumstance of relationship between the victim and the
accused can be considered in the case.

HELD:

NO.

The information specifically alleges that RACHELLE was eight years old when the crime
was committed and TOLENTINO was "the stepfather... being the common-law spouse
of [RACHELLE's] mother, Teresa David." That allegation is inaccurate. TOLENTINO was
not RACHELLE's step-father, for that relationship presupposes a legitimate
relationship, i.e., he should have been legally married to Teresa David. A step-father is
the husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which the
person spoken of is the offspring;[12] or, a stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse
by a previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses by a former a marriage.
[13]
 Nevertheless, since the information specifically alleges that TOLENTINO was the
common-law-spouse of RACHELLE's mother and that RACHELLE was under eighteen
years of age, we shall appreciate these special qualifying circumstances.

The alternative circumstance of relationship can be considered only "when the offended
party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or
sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender. [15] RACHELLE does not
fit in any of the enumeration. At any rate, the circumstance that TOLENTINO was the
common-law spouse of RACHELLE's mother, together with the fact that RACHELLE was
eight years old when the rape was committed, has already served as a special
qualifying circumstance in this case.
G.R. No.s 102773-77 June 8, 1993

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
GODOFREDO SAYAT, alias  "Bobby" or "Buboy," accused-appellant.

Accused-appellant Godofredo Sayat, alias "Bobby" or Buboy," was charged with five
crimes of rape in five separate criminal complaints subscribed by eight-year old Marites
Sayat and separately docketed. Said complaints were identically formulated, to wit:

That on or about (no date given in the website) in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro
Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above
named accused, by means of threat, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant, Marites, a
minor of eight years old, (sic) against her will and consent. 

The prosecutions version of incident was based principally to the testimony of the
offended party Marites Sayat. She was 8 years old then when she was raped by her
brother ("kapatid sa ama") 18 years her senior.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the alternative circumstance of relationship can be considered as an

aggravating circumstance in the case at bar eventhough the certificate of live birth of
Marites Sayat, marked as Exhibit "F" was not formally offered in evidence.

HELD:

The identification of documentary evidence is different from its formal offer. The first is
done in the course of the trial and is accompanied by the marking of the evidence as an
exhibit; the second is made when the party rests his case. The mere fact that a
particular document is identified and marked as exhibit does not mean that it will be or
has been offered as part of the evidence of the party. 27 The party may decide to
formally offer it if he believes this will advance his cause, but then, again, he may
decide not to do so at all. 28 Alternative circumstance of relationship between him and
the victim can not be proved by said document which was not submitted in court.

Unfortunately for said appellant, however, the victim unequivocally testified that he is
actually her half-brother ('kapatid sa ama',) 29 and said declaration was never
successfully refuted. Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides that they
reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the
pedigree of any one of its members, may be received in evidence of the witness
testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity.
The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family geneology, birth, marriage, death, the
dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of the
relatives. 30

Declarations as to pedigree may not ordinarily be proved by hearsay evidence or by

affidavit; but except for evidence of reputation which usually is limited to members of
the family, any competent witness, including the person whom the declaration relates,
may testify thereto. It has been held proper for one to testify to facts of family history
which relate to him, such as the identity of his parents or other relatives or the place of
his birth or his age. 31Parenthetically, it will be observed that Marites and appellant bear
the same family name "Sayat."
 The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.

G.R. No. L-38107             October 16, 1933

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
PABLO PORRAS, defendant-appellant.

 This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, convicting the
appellant of rape.

The complaint filed by the offended party is as follows:

(in espanol ☺….)

The court below sentenced the defendant-appellant to seventeen years, four months
and one day of reclusion temporal.

The attorney de oficio submits five assignments of error all of which relate to issues of
fact. We have carefully examined the entire record and concur with the court below
that the guilt of the appellant has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. The
crime of rape is penalized by article 335 of the Revised Penal Code withreclusion
temporal. In the present instance, the aggravating circumstance of relationship (article
15 of the Revised Penal Code) must be taken into consideration. The crime in this case
was so monstrous that no punishment which it is in the power of this or any other
human tribunal to decree, could possibly be a sufficient expiation of the offense. we
assess the penalty at twenty years of reclusion temporal, and, as thus modified, affirm
the judgment of the court below.

NOTE: heto lang po lahat nilalaman nung case.

G.R. No. 97920 January 20, 1997

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
ENRIQUE RAMIREZ y ANTONIO, accused-appellant.

The decision of the court stated therein that the accused was found guilty of the crime
of rape beyond reasonable doubt and was imposed for the penalty of RECLUSION
PERPETUA and condemns him to pay to Maribel Soriano the amount of P30,000.00 as
and by way of moral and exemplary damages and to pay the costs of suit

Maribel Soriano, herein complainant, a 13 year girl, the daughter of Angelita De

Guzman and Alfredo Soriano. The four-year relationship of her father and mother was
turning sour and was growing worse everyday. Since the tender age of 2 years, she has
been staying with her paternal grandmother, Juanita Soriano which the latter and her
mother are not always in good terms. Sometime on the year 1982, her father died.
Angelita de Guzman cohabited with appellant Enrique Ramirez, a casual laborer and a
member of the notorious Sigue-Sigue Commando Gang. At that time, appellant Ramirez
was already separated from his lawful wife, Cristine Somera, by whom he had a child.

Since 1979, appellant Ramirez and Angelita de Guzman stayed and lived in a one-room
shanty, a place one can hardly call a house.

During the holiday season on the year 1988, when Maribel was at the house of the
accused, she was raped by the said accused and also on one other occasion, she was
raped again.

ISSUE:

Whether or not alternative circumstance is present in the case at bar.

HELD:

The court appreciated the presence of alternative or aggravating circumstance of

relationship in this case, as "the relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or
stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant and
descendant." 34 Thus, the award of exemplary damages is likewise proper. 

The appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the trial court finding appellant Enrique
Ramirez y Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed
against his own stepdaughter Maribel Soriano and imposing on him the penalty
of reclusion perpetua  is hereby AFFIRMED subject to the modification that he shall
indemnify the victim in the amount of eighty thousand pesos (P80,000.00) broken down
as follows: fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) by way of indemnity; plus thirty thousand
pesos (P30,000.00) as moral and exemplary damages.

G.R. No. L-288 August 29, 1946

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ISABELO

NOBLE,Defendant-Appellant.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for murder. The defendant, who,
before arraignment, expressed through his counsel willingness to plead guilty to simple
homicide if the provincial fiscal would amend the information accordingly, seeks
absolute acquittal on appeal, claiming that he acted in defense of his sister's honor.

George F. Ott, a private in the United States Army, with two other American soldiers,
took Consolacion Noble, a widow, 50 years old; Corazon Apacible, Consolacion's
daughter, single, 32 years old; and Paz Fores, a doctor of medicine, single, 25 years of
age, to see a cinema showing in an Army camp in Batangas early in the evening of
October 22, 1945. After the show, the three ladies invited the three Americans to come
into the house. There, the two companions of George F. Ott seated themselves in a
sofa in the drawing room, while Ott fetched from his jeep a phonograph which he
placed on a table in the ante-room and while the ladies are preparing the foods and
drinks. As Ott was fixing the phonograph with one of the ladies standing near him.
Isabelo Noble, brother of Consolacion Noble, came up the stairs and shot the American
several times with a .45 caliber pistol. From the effects of his wounds Ott died shortly
after.

The appellant says that the lady was his sister, Consolacion Noble who was with the
deceased in the ante-room. He states that after making four or five steps from the top
of the stairs he saw Ott holding Consolacion's hands and trying by force to embrace and
kiss her; that he drew his revolver and fired a shot that missed its mark; that, as the
American started to pick a chair, perhaps to hurl at him, he fired various other shots;
that all he knew afterwards was that Ott had fallen down and he threw away his gun.

But there is a deeper reason why he shot in cold blood the deceased in the way he
killed him.

Jealousy and disappointment drove the defendant to his rash act, Paz Fores testimony
that she was engaged to Ott and the defendant is in love with her and that the accused
had courted her but she was not interested. (in short busted ((: ). Not only also that
the deceased was his rival suitor but he was also the one who introduced the deceased
to her.

The defendant alleges that on that faithful night, he felt distressed because he failed to meet the girl
he loved. He went to his clinic and after treating a patient he took and drink a glass of wine until he
got drunk. As he was about to go home he saw the house of her sister was still lit and he went there
and he saw his old uncle who has a heart ailment and he gave his uncle an injection for the his
heart, after that he got arrested by one Consorcio Noche, the policeman.

Consorcio Noche, the policeman, testifies that when Isabelo Noble and he "were about
to reach the Municipal Building," the accused told him "that he will sit down and then
he vomited"; and that "he smelled wine.

ISSUE: Whether or not the alternative circumstance of intoxication in this case can be
considered as mitigating or aggravating.

The presence of three mitigating circumstances is urged: one among others is

intoxication.

This mitigating circumstance must be proved to the satisfaction of the court to be

available as a means to lighten the penalty. The trial court has found the evidence
insufficient to "conclusively show that the accused was drunk on the night of the
incident.

The amount of liquor the accused had taken, if he had taken any, was not of sufficient
quantity to affect his mental faculties to the extent of entitling him to a mitigation of his
offense. His Honor correctly reasons that "if the accused was thoughtful enough not to
neglect giving his uncle his injection, the inference would be that his intoxication was
not to such a degree as to affect his mental capacity to fully understand the
consequences of his act."

We find, in conclusion, that the judgment of conviction appealed from, sentencing the
defendant to reclusion perpetua  with the accesories of law, to indemnify the heirs of
the deceased in the amount of P2,000, and to pay the costs, is in accordance with law
and the evidence, and that it should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs
against the appellant.
[G.R. No. 1179. August 18, 1903. ]

THE UNITED STATES, Complainant-Appellee, v. ARTHUR

FITZGERALD, Defendant-Appellant

Between 11 and 12 o’clock on the night of November 15, 1902, Appellant and the
deceased  Charles Marsh had an heated argument in the distillery. they were ordered
by  Samuel Brown, an American who was in the vicinity ordered the two to stopped
their argument. The deceased was about to go out but the appellant refused to go out
and continued insulting the deceased. The latter went back and gave appellant a blow
that knocked him down but he immediately stood up and run towards the ice plant and
took a revolver, while the deceased was about 15 feet away and heard the appellant
uttering some words, he turned around to look at him and just at this moment
appellant fired his revolver which hit the deceased below the nipple which was
considered fatal and Samuel Brown(deceased) died less than two hours later. He also
fired his revolver to the two other Americans in the distillery but no one were shot.

Notwithstanding the denial and exculpatory allegations of the accused, his guilt as
principal by direct participation of the violent death of Charles Marsh is unquestionable,
for this fact is proven in the record by the testimony of several witnesses who saw that
occurred, and even heard the threatening words uttered by the accused. The record
does not contain sufficient evidence to indicate that the accused was a habitual
drunkard. On the contrary, several witnesses affirmed that he was not in the habit of
getting drunk.

ISSUE: Whether or not the alternative circumstance of intoxication in this case can be
considered.

HELD:

The court considered in his behalf the mitigating circumstance No. 6 of article 9 of the
Code, there being no evidence that the vice of drunkenness was habitual with the
accused. The law does not consider drunkenness as a complete defense, but merely as
a mitigating circumstance, because one under the influence of liquor cannot be
regarded as entirely bereft of sense and reason. 

G.R. No. 9008           September 17, 1914

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
MANUEL FLORES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

This is an appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of First Instance of Bataan,
convicting the defendants and appellants Manuel Flores, Irineo de la Cruz, Domingo de
los Santos, Doroteo de los Santos, and Lorenzo Orozco of the crime of assassination
marked with various aggravating circumstances, and sentencing each and all of them to
found guilty as an accessory and sentenced to cedena temporal  in its medium degree.
The principal witness for the prosecution was one Pedro Flores, a self-confessed
accomplice, He testified that the murder was planned by the appellant Lorenzo Orozco,
with whose wife the deceased had been having an illicit relation with, and that he
himself as well as the other appellants had joined the party which committed the crime
at the invitation the appellant, who gave small sums of money as a sign of saying that
he was thankful of their participation (gratificacion). The account of the incident that
took place and the participation and how they buried the deceased and its manner on
how they did it was fully corroborated by the law and medical officers who found the
body of the deceased buried at the place and in the manner indicated by him in his
extrajudicial confession.

A review of all the records of this case shows that all the defendants are men of a low
order of intelligence, with but little "instruction or education."

ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants who are men of a low order of intelligence, with
but little "instruction or education" can be considered as an alternative circumstance.

HELD:

The court held that in imposing the penalty upon the four defendants and appellants
convicted as principals in the commission of the crime these aggravating circumstances
should have been compensated by the extenuating circumstances set forth in
subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal Code and in article 11 as amended by Act No.
2142. A review of the whole record convinces us that all these defendants are men of a
low order of intelligence, with but little "instruction or education." It also affirmatively
appears that the investigator of the crime had been aroused to a high degree of passion
and "obfuscation" by the discovery of the fact that the deceased was carrying on illicit
relations with his wife and had recently come into the community for the express
purpose of continuing those illicit relations; while his accomplices, who appear to have
been ignorant friends, neighbors and defendents, were also aroused by him to a high
pitch of anger against the betrayer of the family of their friend.

The sentence imposed by the trial judge, modified by substituting for so much thereof
as imposes the death penalty upon the defendants and appellants Lorenzo Orozco,
Ireneo de la Cruz, Manuel Flores and Doroteo de los Santos, the penalty of cadena
perpetua, together with the subsidiary penalties of this instances against the appellants.

G.R. No. L-28132      November 25, 1969

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
FORTUNATO CASILLAR Y GABRIELES, ET AL., defendants,
ROGELIO AMITA Y BALDORADO and DOMINICO ARMALDA Y
BARTOLATA, defendants-appellants.

On June 11, 1966, about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, testified Danilo Nicolas, a 14-year
old boy, while at the corner of Lope de Vega and Misericordia Streets, Manila,
scavenging ingarbage cans for scraps of paper to sell, he saw a Chinaman, Chan Siak,
walking. He was met by 4 men, who were the accused, and another not in Court. The
4th man was Celso Puzon who is charged with the same offense before the Juvenile &
Domestic Relations Court, he being only 15 years of age. Casillar and Puzon held the
Chinaman's hands while Armalda and Amita pointed a "balisong" at him; the former
being then to the right of their victim and the latter in front of him. Armalda thereafter
stabbed the Chinese in his right side whilst Amita stabbed him in his neck, after which
Armalda took Chan's wallet from the hip pocket of his trousers. This done, the four fled.

ISSUE:

whether or not the alternative circumstance of lack of instruction can be considered in

the case.

HELD:

It is urged that the accused-appellants should be credited with the mitigating

circumstance of lack of instruction. Amita is a laborer who reached Grade V; Casillar is
a puto vendor, whose schooling reached Grade III; and Armalda, a push-cart hand
(nangangariton), is illiterate. It is for the trial court, rather than the appellate court, to
find and consider the circumstance of lack of instruction, for it is not illiteracy alone but
the lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full significance of one's acts
that constitute this mitigating circumstance and only the trial court can properly assess
the same.

FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the judgment under review is hereby affirmed, with
the sole modification that the amount of the indemnity shall be, as it is hereby
increased to, P12,000.00 Costs against appellants.

G.R. No. L-12392       December 4, 1917

THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appellee, 

vs.
FRANCISCO BALABA, defendant-appellant.

On the day of the crime the defendant Francisco Balaba was living in the house of his
brother Agapito Balaba, The defendant took care of fighting cocks. On February 20,
1916, he fell out with his sister-in-law, the deceased Fortunata Cabasagan, wife of
Agapito Balaba, because she had tethered the defendant's cocks, which were injuring
the corn plantings. On the 29th of the same month, in the morning, while the
defendant was feeding this cocks, he saw one rooster which it was not his, catched and
ate it. This rooster belonged to the deceased Claudia Ligao. In the morning of that
same day, the 29th, Donato Duero, second husband of Claudia Ligao, ask the latter to
look for the cock that had disappeared and made inquiry about it to the defendant,
whom he suspected of having stolen it. In reply to the inquiry, defendant admitted in
killing it and will exchange it to one of his cocks. Duero chose one but the defendant
would not give it to him for it was not his. Then Duero, backed up by Sergio Daguplo,
obliged the defendant to follow him for the consideration of just paying the cock that
was eaten but it appears that the defendant was hesitant in neither to make payment
nor exchange for the cock butchered by him. To make the story short, he killed three
persons.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the alternative circumstance of ignorance and lack of education of the
accused can be considered in the case for the court stated that the accused is an
uneducated and even a densely ignorant man.

Doubtless the convict is an uneducated and even a densely ignorant man. But having in
mind the conditions under which he did his three victims to death, we are of opinion
that his criminal responsibility for these heinous crimes is not modified in any
substantial degree by his ignorance and lack of education. Neither education nor a high
degree of intelligence is necessary to teach a man that it is unlawful and criminal in the
highest degree to do murder under the circumstances which surrounded the
commission of the crime of which this accused stands convicted. In giving way to his
vindictive rage aroused by demands for redress for the petty wrong he had done his
neighbor and by criticism of his conduct in that connection, he must have known that
he subjected himself to the severest penalties of the law, and his ignorance and lack of
education offer no justification or excuse for the merciless and murderous assault upon
the lives of his relatives and neighbors.

The judgment convicting and sentencing the accused should be affirmed with costs of
this instance against him. So ordered.