CRIMINAL LAW 1 JLC

ARTICLE 12
(EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES)

People vs Deliola
G.R. No. 200157 August 31, 2016

FACTS:
Sometime in the first week of June 2002, at about three o’clock in the afternoon, MMM,11
years of age, went to the nipa plantation to defecate but before she was able to do so, MMM’s uncle,who
was 15 years of age that time was armed with a knife, suddenly-appeared. He approached MMM, poked
a knife at her neck, order to bend her over, and took off her shorts and underwear. Fearing for her life,
MMM obeyed the orders of the accused-appellant. She tried to resist but the accused-appellant was still
able to force his penis to MMM’s vagina. MMM felt pain and cried. When she got home, MMM
immediately took a bath and notice bloodstain on her underwear. MMM was afraid with the accussed-
appellant’s threat of killing her, she kept mum and did not disclose the tragedy that happen that day.
On or about 1st day of July 2002, same tragedy happened to MMM. Two weeks after the 2 nd rape,
MMM’s grandmother noticed something unusual with MMM’s walking. She confront MMM and upon
learning what happened , the victim’s aunt brought her to the Municipal Heath Office of Manapla, Negros
Occidental. Thereafter, they came to the police authorities, before whom the victim executed her sworn
statement.
After having physical and internal examination conducted by the Municipal Health Officer, Dr.
Edbert Jayme to MMM, internal findings showed that the victim had positive hyperemia of the vulva or
congestion, redness, and swelling around the area and have a positive incomplete hymenal laceration at
3:00 and 7:00 positions. Both findings may have been caused by a blunt object such as finger of the human
being or an erect penis.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the minor accused-appellant shall be held criminally liable for the crime of
statutory rape.

RULING:
Yes. Statutory rape is committed when the prosecution proves that: (l) the offended party is under
12 years of age and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim, regardless of whether there was
force, threat or intimidation; whether the offended party was deprived of reason or consciousness; or
whether it was done through fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the
age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual intercourse.
 People vs Pantoja
G.R. No. 223114 November 29 2017

FACTS:
On July 08, 2010, Jonas Pantoja, accused-appellant, was admitted to the National Center for
Mental Health (NCMH) . Prior to that, he had already exhibited signs of mental illness which started
manifesting after he was mauled by several persons in an altercation when he was twenty-one (21) years
old.
On July 14, 2010, at around 7:45 in the evening, the accused-appellant escaped from the Hospital
and arrived at their house the day after. Cederina Pantoja, mother of the accused-appellant, informed the
NCMH that the accused-appellant was in her custody and she was advised to bring him back to the
Hospital. However, they were unable to do so at that time because they could not afford the
transportation expenses.
On July 22, 2010, at around 8 o’clock in the morning, Cederina were washing their dishes while
the accused-appellant was sitting on their balcony. She kept an eye on him from time to time but,
eventually, she noticed that accused-appellant was gone. She went outside to look for him and noticed
that the front door of the house where six-year-old AAA resided was open. She found this unusual
because it was normally closed. She became nervous when she heard the cry of a child coming from the
house. She entered the house and, sensing that the cry emanated from upstairs, she went up. She then
saw accused-appellant holding a knife and the victim sprawled on the floor, bloodied. She took the knife
from him and asked him what happened. He did not respond and appeared dazed. She took him
downstairs and out of the house where she called out for help for the victim. Nobody responded, until
she saw Glenda, who immediately ran to their house when Cederina told her that her son AAA had been
hu

ISSUE:
Whether the accused-appellant has clearly and convincingly proven his defense of insanity to
exempt him from criminal liability and whether his mental issues constitute diminished willpower so as to
mitigate his liability and to lower the penalty.

RULING:
The CA agreed with the RTC that the evidence of the defense do not prove that accused-appellant
was insane at the time he committed the crime. Furthermore, while the CA acknowledged that accused-
appellant has a history of mental illness which diminished the exercise of his willpower without depriving
him of the consciousness of his acts, it also ruled that this mitigating circumstance could not serve to lower
the penalty meted against accused-appellant because reclusion perpetua is a single and indivisible
penalty.
Thus, for the defense of insanity to prosper, two (2) elements must concur: (1) that defendant's
insanity constitutes a complete deprivation of intelligence, reason, or discernment; and (2) that such
insanity existed at the time of, or immediately preceding, the commission of the crime.
The Court finds accused-appellant Jonas Pantoja y Astorga GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. The 20 March 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 06492 is AFFIRMED
with MODIFICATION in that the heirs of the victim are entitled to ₱75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
₱75,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱75,000.00 as exemplary damages. The award of damages shall earn
interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.
 People vs PO3 Fallorina
G.R. No. 137347 March 4, 2004

FACTS:
On or about 2:30 pm of September 26, 1998, Vincent Jorojoro, an eleven-year old minor and the
third child of Vicente and Felicisima Jorojoro, residing at Sitio Militar, Brgy. Bahay Toro, Project 8, Quezon
City, asked permission from his mother Felicisima if he could play outside. His mother agreed. Vincent and
his playmate, Whilcon “Buddha” Rodriguez, played with his kite on top of the roof of an abandoned
carinderia beside the road.
At the side of the carinderia was a basketball court, where a fourteen-year old witness Ricardo
Salvo and his three friends, were playing basketball. Ricardo heard the familiar sound of a motorcycle
coming from the main road across the basketball court. He knew that it was the appellant, PO3 Ferdinand
Fallorina, a Philippine National Police (PNP) officer, detailed in the Traffic Management Group (TMG), who
abhorred kids playing on the roof, since one of his friends was previously been scolded by the appellant
before.
Ricardo called on Vicente and whilcon to come down from the roof. When PO3 Fallorina saw
them, the former stopped his motorcycle, he shouted and badmouthed at them. Whilcon rushed to jump
off from the roof when he heard the shouts of the appellant. Vincent was still lying on his stomach on the
roof flying his kite but when he heard the appellant’s shouts, he stood up and looked at the latter. As soon
as Vincent turned his back, ready to get down from the roof, suddenly, the appellant pointed the .45
caliber pistol towards the direction of Vincent and fired aa shot. Vincent fell from the roof, lying prostrate
near the canal beside the abandoned carinderia and the basketball court.
The appellant approached Vincent and carried the latter’s hapless body in a waiting tricycle and
brought to the Quezon General Hospital. Vincent was pronounced dead on arrival cause by a single
gunshot wound in the head.

ISSUES:
 Whether the appellant is exempted from criminal liability.
 Whether the appellant can offset an aggravating circumstance by taking advantage of his public
position from a mitigating circumstance of his voluntary surrender.

RULING:
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) cites that the basis for exemption from a criminal liability
under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), is the complete absence of intent and
negligence on the part of the accused. For the accused to be guilty of a felony, it must be committed either
with criminal intent or with fault or negligence. In addition, elements of exempting circumstances are (1)
a person is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident;
and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it.
On January 19, 1999, the trial court rendered judgement convicting the appellant-accused of
murder,qualified by treachery and aggravated by abuse of public position. The trial court did not
appreciate in favor of the appellant the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender.
The RTC of Quezon City, found the accused PO3 Ferdinand Fallorina Guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder defined and penalized by Article 248 of the RPC, as amended by the R.A.
No. 7659, and in view of the presence of the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage by the accused
of his public position (par 1, Article 4, RPC). The court a quo sentenced the appellant to suffer the Death
Penalty.
 People vs Sarcia
G.R. No. 169641 September 10, 2009

FACTS:
On December 16, 1996, five-year old AAA, together with her cousin and two other playmates
were playing in the yard of Saling Crisologo near a mango tree. Suddenly, appellant Richard Sarcia,
appeared and invited to go with him to the backyard of Saling Crisologo’s house. Unknown the Appellant,
AAA’a cousin followed them.
Upon reaching the place, appellant removed AAA’s shorts and underwear, made her lie on her
back and after removing his own trousers and brief laid on top of AAA and made up-and-down movements
which caused AAA to feel pain in her genital area and in her stomach.
AAA’s cousin who positioned herself around 5 meters away from them, witnessed the whole
incident. AAA’s cousin instinctively rushed to the AAA’s house and reported it to Mother of AAA but was
rebuffed.
On July 7, 2000, AAA’s father filed a complaint for acts of lasciviousness which upon review of
evidence was upgraded to rape by the Office of Provincial Prosecutor of Ligao, Albay. Medico legal findings
reported negative for introital vulvar laceration nor scars, perforated hymen, complete, pinkish vaginal
mucosa, vaginal admits little finger with resistance; the finding "negative for introital bulvar laceration
nor scars" means, in layman’s language, that there was no showing of any scar or wound, and there is a
complete perforation of the hymen which means that it could have been subjected to a certain trauma or
pressure such as strenuous exercise or the entry of an object like a medical instrument or penis.

ISSUE:
Is the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape?

RULING:
Yes. The accused-appellant is guilty of rape because it was proven that he had carnal knowledge
with a minor. There is a conclusive presumption of absence of free consent when the rape victim is below
the age of twelve.
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the
penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
However, for purposes of determining the proper penalty because of the privileged mitigating
circumstance of minority, the penalty of death is still the penalty to be reckoned with.35 Thus, the proper
imposable penalty for the accused-appellant is reclusion Perpetua.
The decision of the CA dated July 14, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00717 is hereby AFFIRMED with
the following MODIFICATIONS: (1) the penalty of death imposed on accused-appellant is reduced to
reclusion Perpetua; and (2) accused-appellant is ordered to pay the victim the amount of ₱75,000.00 and
₱30,000.00 as moral damages and exemplary damages, respectively. The award of civil indemnity in the
amount of ₱75,000.00 is maintained. However, the case shall be REMANDED to the court a quo for
appropriate disposition in accordance with Sec. 51 of R.A. 9344.