57. Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.

ALLAN JAO AND ROGELIO

CATIGTIG
G.R. No. 225634, June 07, 2017
PERLAS-BERNABE, J:

DOCTRINE:

The death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the
civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability
ex delicto in senso strictiore.

FACTS:

Accused-appellant herein Allan Jao and Rogelio Catigtig were charged for violations of
sections 5 and 11, Art II of RA 9165. Allan Jao was caught inflagrante delicto when he
delivers and give away to an informant of law enforcers, without authority by law, one (1)
plastic sachet containing shabu weighing 0.01 gram. Six (6) more plastic of shabu were also
found when the authorities searched him. Jao voluntarily informed the law enforcers of his
supplier, Rogelio Catigtig, and assisted for his arrest. The RTC and CA found the accused
as guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Upon appeal, Jao claims that he was working then he
received a call asking him to go to a motel as there was a woman waiting there for him.
However, when he arrived at the motel, he was allegedly mauled by 2 armed men. Pending
the decision, the Bureau of Corrections submitted a letter informing of Rogelio Catigtig’s
death.

ISSUE: Weather or not, the accused-appellant is guilty for the crime charged.

RULING:

Yes. The accused-appellant were found by the court guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime charged.
For a successful prosecution of the crime of Illegal Delivery of Dangerous Drugs, it must be
proven that the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or
otherwise, and by any means; that such delivery is not authorized by law; and that the accused
knowingly made the delivery. Worthy of note is that the delivery may be committed even without
consideration. In the instant case, both the RTC and the CA correctly found that the prosecution
had established Jao's criminal liability for the aforesaid crimes, considering that: (a) Jao himself
delivered a plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of shabu to the informant during a legitimate
buy-bust operation; and (b) upon his arrest, the arresting officers searched Jao and found six (6)
more plastic sachets containing shabu with an aggregate weight of 0.06 gram. Thus, Allan Jao
was found to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
With respect to Catigtig’s criminal liability in relation to his death, his criminal liability is
extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused. Thus,
criminal case filed against him was dismissed and declared closed and terminated.
58. Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALBERTO FORTUNA ALBERCA
G.R. No. 217459, June 7, 2017
TIJAM, J:

DOCTRINE:

The absence of hymenal fluid or spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or
absence thereof is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the
crime of rape.

FACTS:

Accused-appellant herein Alberto Alberca was charged for two (2) counts of qualified rape
committed against AAA, a 11-year-old child. On the first commission, AAA testified that
accused appellant raped her and threatened to kill her and her family if she reported the
crime. Four months after, the second rape took place when the accused appellant told her
to go with him in the forest and his brother and classmate, which is walking with her, to go
ahead. Her brother and classmate informed her mother of the said incident which prompted
her mother to report to the police. Upon checkup in the hospital, she was found to be
pregnant, however, the child died after having been delivered prematurely. The RTC and
CA found the accused-appellant to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, this appeal.

The accused-appellant also raises as defense the fact of the absence of seminal fluid and
physical injury, and the improbability of having sexual intercourse with AAA from December
18, 2000 to January 4, 2001, as the latter was already pregnant during that period.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the accused-appellant is guilty for the crime charged.

RULING:

Yes. The accused-appellant were found by the court guilty for two (2) counts of qualified
rape.
According to the jurisprudence, testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, for
when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is
necessary to show that rape was indeed committed.
The court furthered that the absence of hymenal laceration is of no moment. Contrary to the
accused-appellant's theory, the same does not negate the fact of rape as a broken hymen is not
an essential element of rape. In fact, the court has already affirmed the conviction of an accused
for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen since medical findings suggest
that it is possible for the victim's hymen to stay intact despite repeated sexual intercourse.
Likewise, the absence of hymenal fluid or spermatozoa is not a negation of rape as it is not an
element for the said crime.
Thus, accused-appellant were found by the court guilty for two (2) counts of qualified rape.

59. Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO MACARAIG

G.R. No. 219848, June 7, 2017
TIJAM, J:

DOCTRINE:

The report in open court of a dying person's declaration is recognized as an exception to

the rule against hearsay if it is "made under the consciousness of an impending death that
is the subject of inquiry in the case”. It is considered as "evidence of the highest order and is
entitled to utmost credence since no person aware of his impending death would make a
careless and false accusation.

FACTS:

Accused herein was charged for the crime of Murder of Joven Celeste. Joven together with
Francisco were drinking in a basketball court. On their way home, accused was seen
following them. The accused then approached the victim from the back, placed his left hand
over his shoulder then suddenly stabbed the victim. The victim was even managed to go
home and tell his parents that he was stabbed by the accused. Joven was brought to the
hospital but was declared as dead on arrival. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of
Murder as affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The accused primary contends that the court a
quo committed an error raised self-defense as justifying circumstance.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the accused-appellant is guilty for the crime of murder.

RULING:
Yes. The accused-appellant was found by the court guilty for the crime of murder. Accused-
appellant raised self-defense as justifying circumstance. When the accused, however, admits
killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear
and convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense shifts the
burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent upon the

accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following
requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC, viz.: (1) unlawful
aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

The court held that the accused-appellant failed to established the requirements of a valid
self-defense. Moreover, positive identification of the victim to the perpetrator prior to his
death was given credence. The court states that the report in open court of a dying person's
declaration is recognized as an exception to the rule against hearsay if it is "made under the
consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the case." It is
considered as "evidence of the highest order and is entitled to utmost credence since no
person aware of his impending death would make a careless and false accusation.
Thus, the accused-appellant was found by the court guilty for the crime of murder.
60. Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONATHAN BAAY
G.R. No. 220143, June 7, 2017
TIJAM, J:

DOCTRINE:

Carnal knowledge with a mental retardate whose mental age is that of a person below 12
years, while akin to statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph l(d), should still be
designated as simple rape under paragraph l(b).

FACTS:

Accused-appellant herein was convicted for the crime of statutory rape as held by the RTC
and affirmed by the CA. The victim herein, 22-year-old, was assessed to be mentally
retarded and has intellect comparable to a child of around 4-5 years of age. The victim
testified that was invited by the accused-appellant to go to the forest where the accused
raped her.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the accused-appellant is guilty for the crime of statutory rape.

RULING:

No. The accused-appellant was erroneously charged for the crime of statutory rape under
Article 266-A, paragraph l(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Court held that the
accused is guilty of the simple rape.

The court states that the gravamen of the offense of statutory rape under the said. provision
is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. To convict an accused of the crime
of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: first, the age of the victim; second, the identity
of the accused; and last but not the least, the carnal knowledge between the accused and
the victim.

In the case at bar, the victim was already 22 years old when she was raped albeit she has a
mental age of 4-5 years old. It should, however, no longer be debatable that rape of a
mental retardate falls under paragraph 1 (b), not Section 1 (d), of the said provision as the
same, precisely, refers to a rape of a female "deprived of reason".

Thus, the accused is guilty of the simple rape.

61. Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE DESCARTIN
G.R. No. 215195, June 7, 2017
TIJAM, J:

DOCTRINE:

Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory
rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the
victim is below the age of 12

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Jose Descartin was charged for the crime of Qualified Rape. His
daughter, 11-year-old, testified that while she was sleeping, her father removed her short
and underwear, raised her right leg and was able to insert his penis to her vagina. She told
their neighbor of what happened, and thereafter they went to the hospital for a medical
examination and to the police to file the complaint.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the accused-appellant is guilty for the crime of Qualified Rape.

RULING:

Yes. The accused-appellant is guilty for the crime of Qualified Statutory Rape.
Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age
regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation or
consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence
of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the
law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent
consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the
prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the
accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.
To raise the crime of rape to qualified rape under Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the RPC, the
twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur.
The information filed against the accused is sufficient. The victim is 11 years old and the
accused is her father.
Thus, the accused-appellant is guilty for the crime of Qualified Statutory Rape.
62. Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BLAS GAA
G.R. No. 212934, June 7, 2017
TIJAM, J:

DOCTRINE:

Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient.
Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for rape

FACTS:

Accused-appellant herein Blas Gaa was charged for the crime of two counts of Qualified
Statutory Rape. Two information were filed alleging that he raped his daughter on 2001
when she was 9 years old and in 2003 when she was 11 years old. The victim narrated that
while she was fetching water outside, her father asked her to remove her shorts and panty
and placed himself on top of her, and tried to put in his penis but it was only up to the
“bokana”, so he just inserted his fingers and played with his daughter’s vagina. The same
incident happened several times until finally her mother learned about it and filed the cases
against her father.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the accused-appellant is guilty for two counts of Qualified Statutory
Rape.

RULING:

Yes. The accused-appellant is guilty for two counts of Qualified Statutory Rape .
It is well-settled that full penetration of the female genital organ is not indispensable. It suffices
that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the
female organ. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is
sufficient. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or
laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for rape.

Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the
burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the
sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant.
In this case, it was established that elements of minority of and the relationship of the
accused-appellant was alleged and stablished.
Thus, the accused-appellant is guilty for two counts of Qualified Statutory Rape .
63. Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. PABLO ARMODIA
G.R. No. 210654, June 7, 2017
LEONEN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

Qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code consists of the twin
circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the perpetrator, both of which
must concur and must be alleged in the information. It is immaterial whether the relationship
was proven during trial if that was not specifically pleaded for in the information.

FACTS:

Accused herein PABLO ARMODIA was charged for two counts of rape of his 16-year-old
daughter. According to the victim, his father always asked her to stay at the makeshift
house and there he would threaten her with his bolo and have sex with her. He threatened
to kill her and anyone who would know about the abuse. On the second commission, the
victim confessed to her mother which led to the prosecution of the accused. The
prosecution filed information against the accused. The accused-appellant was arraigned
and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution moves to amend the information and include "being
father of the victim" but was denied by the lower court.

ISSUE: Whether or not, the accused-appellant is guilty for two counts of simple rape.

RULING:

Yes. The accused-appellant is guilty for two counts of simple rape.

The crime of qualified rape under Article 266-B (1) of the Revised Penal Code consists of the
twin circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship to the perpetrator, both of which
must concur and must be alleged in the information. It is immaterial whether the relationship
was proven during trial if that was not specifically pleaded for in the information.
The court found out that accused-appellant relationship to the victim was not duly alleged in the
information His relationship with the victim cannot qualify the crimes of rape. Ruling otherwise
would deprive him of his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him.

Thus, the accused-appellant is guilty for two counts of simple rape.

64. Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ELMER AVANCENA, ET. AL.
G.R. No. 200512, June 7, 2017
LEONEN, J.:

DOCTRINE:

The fact that the victim voluntarily went with the accused does not remove the element of
deprivation of liberty if the victim went with the accused on a false inducement without which
the victim would not have done so.

FACTS:

The accused-appellant herein were charged with 2 counts of kidnapping for ransom and
robbery of Rizaldo and Alfonso Policarpio. According to the prosecution, Rizaldo was
approached by the accused with his companions when he alighted his FX. He was asked
about a certain person whom he didn’t know and was accused of being involved with drugs.
The accused after talking to his companions went back to Rizaldo, opened the driver’s side
of the vehicle and ordered for him to move to the passenger’s side while pointing a gun at
him. Another accused boarded the vehicle and handcuffed Rizaldo. They traversed to
Makati and Pasay and while on the road, he was strangled by the accused who kept an
asking him about people whom he might know. When they came to the parking lot of
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) the group demanded for him to call his father
I
SSUE: Whether or not the accused are guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom and Robbery.

RULING:

Yes. The accused-appellant are guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom and Robbery.
In kidnapping for ransom, the prosecution must be able to establish the following elements: the
accused was a private person; he kidnapped or detained or in any manner deprived another of
his or her liberty; the kidnapping or detention was illegal; and the victim was kidnapped or
detained for ransom.
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove that Rizaldo was illegally deprived of his liberty.
In order to prove kidnapping, the prosecution must establish that the victim was "forcefully
transported, locked up or restrained." It must be proven that the accused intended "to deprive
the victim of his liberty." The act of handcuffing Rizaldo and physically harming him to prevent
escape falls under this definition.

The elements of simple robbery are "a) that there is personal property belonging to another;
b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; c) that the taking is with intent to gain; and d)
that there is violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things."
In this case, the marked money was recovered from the accused-appellants when they
were arrested, which proves that they were able to gain possession of Alfonso's money.

Thus, accused-appellants are guilty of Kidnapping for Ransom and Robbery.