PEOPLE vs.

SAMUYA
GR NO. 213214; APRIL 20, 2015

DOCTRINE
A frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery under Art. 248 of the RPC. The qualifying
circumstance may still be appreciated if the attack was so sudden and so unexpected that the deceased had no time to
prepare for his or her defense.

FACTS
November 19, 2006, Florenio Castro, Anthony Dumalaog, Jonel Samuya, and the victim, Gabriel Samonte,
were sitting outside Florenio's house in Sta. Cruz, Aklan when Rudy arrived and asked where "Nat-Nat" was. When
Anthony replied that "Nat-Nat" wasn't there, Rudy approached Anthony and cocked a gun at him. At that point,
Eugene arrived and, without any warning, shot Gabriel in the chest. Gabriel was able to run away, and as Eugene
was chasing him, Eventually, Gabriel was found dead in a kangkong swamp. In his defense, Eugene admitted
shooting Gabriel but claimed that he merely acted in self-defense. He averred that on the date of the incident, he had
just come home from a birthday party when Rudy arrived and asked him to accompany him to buy whisky. On their
way to the store, they saw Florenio and Anthony, and Rudy greeted them. As they were talking, Eugene saw Gabriel
rushing towards them with a knife in his hand and about to attack him. To defend himself, he drew his gun and shot
Gabriel who immediately ran away. Meanwhile, Rudy denied seeing Gabriel's alleged attacked on Eugene and
admitted that he only heard the gunshot and saw Eugene holding a gun. RTC convicted Samuya of murder which
was affirmed by the CA
ISSUE
Whether or not the CA correctly upheld Eugene's conviction for Murder
HELD
Among the qualifying circumstances found in Article 248 of the RPC is treachery. Under Article 14 of the
same Code, there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to
himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In this case, the prosecution was able to
prove that Eugene's attack on Gabriel was so swift and sudden, and without any warning.  although the attack was
frontal, it was so sudden and unexpected which made it impossible for Gabriel to defend himself. Thus, in view of
the long-standing principle that factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, deserve great
weight and respect, the Court concludes that treachery was correctly appreciated.

PEOPLE vs. ARGUTA AND CAHIPE

GR NO. 213216; APRIL 20, 2015

DOCTRINE
Jurisprudence holds that force or intimidation, as an element of Rape, need not be irresistible; as long
as the assailant's objective is accomplished, any question of whether the force employed was irresistible or not
becomes irrelevant. Intimidation must be viewed from the lens of the victim's perception and judgment and it
is enough that the victim fears that something will happen to her should she resist her assailant's advances. In
this regard, case law provides that the act of holding a bladed instrument, by itself, is strongly suggestive of
force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the victim with the same is sufficient to bring her into
submission.

FACTS
December 1996, AAA was instructed by her father to fetch her sister in school, unable to find her sister,
she decided to go back home. On her way home, AAA was intercepted by the accuseds (Arguta and Cahipe)
threatened her with a bladed instrument, drag her to a near by resort tied her up and assaulted her. After an hour,
Cahipe returned and took AAA to a store and assaulted her again and returned her to the cottage. The next day,
AAA’s father found her inside the cottage crying. Both the RTC and CA convicted both the accused’s guilty of
simple rape.

ISSUE
Whether accused-appellants' conviction for Rape should be upheld

HELD
The elements of Rape are: (a) the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (b) said carnal
knowledge was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation; or the victim was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or when the victim was under twelve (12) years of age or demented. The provision also
states that if the act is committed either with the use of a deadly weapon or by two (2) or more persons, the
crime will be Qualified Rape, necessitating the imposition of a higher penalty. In this case, records reveal that
accused-appellants threatened AAA with a bladed instrument and tied her up before having carnal knowledge
of her without her consent. Jurisprudence holds that force or intimidation, as an element of Rape, need not be
irresistible; as long as the assailant's objective is accomplished, any question of whether the force employed
was irresistible or not becomes irrelevant. Intimidation must be viewed from the lens of the victim's perception
and judgment and it is enough that the victim fears that something will happen to her should she resist her
assailant's advances. In this regard, case law provides that the act of holding a bladed instrument, by itself, is
strongly suggestive of force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the victim with the same is sufficient to
bring her into submission.