Angelo Karlo Guillen

on record. In the case at bar, Jose has not demonstrated that the CA committed any reversible error in making its findings of fact. February 2, 2011 Second, the RTC and the CA correctly rejected Joses claim of self-defense and defense of a relative because he did not substantiate it with clear and convincing proof. The Revised Penal Code, in Article 11, enumerates the elements of the Justifying circumstance of Self-defense: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

People of the Philippines vs. Jose N. Mediado G.R. No. 169871

The Case: This case involves an appeal by Jose N. Mediado of the decision of the Court of Appeals finding him guilty of the crime of murder of one Jimmy Llorin, thereby affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Iriga City.

Facts: At around 9:00 a.m. on March 20, 1997, Jimmy was conversing with Rodolfo Mediado (Rodolfo), the father of appellant Jose Mediado, at the dancing hall located in Pulang Daga, Balatan, Camarines Sur. Jimmy was around 35 meters away from Lilia, his wife, who was at a meeting of the Mr. and Mrs. Club in the barangay hall. Lilia then witnessed appellant Jose emerge from behind Jimmy and hack Jimmy twice on the head with a bolo. She next saw Appellant move to Jimmys left side and continue hacking him although he had already fallen to the ground. Jose fled, but Juan Clorado (Clorado), a former barangay kagawad, ran after and caught up with him. Clorado managed to seize and disarm Jose and subsequently brought him to the police station. Lilia was convinced that Jose killed Jimmy for fear that the latter would report to the police authorities that Jose had attacked one Vicente Paraal during the town fiesta two days earlier. Eventually, Jose confessed to killing Jimmy but claimed that he did so only to defend himself and his father, Rodolfo Mediado. Jose narrated that as he was passing by the barangay hall on his way to work, he saw Jimmy punch Rodolfo and hit him with a stone. Jose claimed that Jimmy then picked up a stone and threw it at him (Jose). To fend off the assault, he (Jose) allegedly took out his bolo and hacked Jimmy until the latter fell to the ground. The RTC and, later on the CA, rejected Appellants claim of self-defense and defense of a relative, and found that the circumstance of treachery was present when he attacked Jimmy from behind. Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The SC declares that an accused who asserts self-defense admits his infliction of the fatal blows and bears the burden of satisfactorily establishing all the elements of self-defense. Otherwise, his conviction for the felony of murder or homicide will be affirmed. Indeed, upon invoking self-defense, Appellant assumed the burden of proving the justification of his act with clear and convincing evidence. The fact that he admitted to the killing required him to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the Prosecutions evidence. In relying on Self-defense, even if the Prosecutions evidence were weak, it could not be disbelieved in view of the admission by the accused. It must also be noted that unlawful aggression is the condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstances of self-defense and defense of a relative. Self-defense is not present unless the victim committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. However, in the instant case, Jose did not support his claim that Jimmy had committed aggression. In fact, he and his father were not able to identify any weapon used by Jimmy aside from the stone that he supposedly picked up from the ground. Furthermore, Jose testified that he had unsheathed his bolo and hacked Jimmy after dodging the stone thrown at him. With that testimony, Appellant failed to establish with clear and convincing proof that Jimmy had assaulted him or his father as to pose to either of them an imminent threat of great harm before he mounted his own attack on Jimmy. Just as important was the post-mortem examination conducted on the victims body. It showed that Jimmy had sustained a total of seven wounds: two incised wounds and five hack wounds. Three of the hack wounds were inflicted on Jimmys neck, one of which fatally extended to and cut the trachea, esophagus, and the carotid and jugular vessels that supplied blood to the heart and brain. The medicolegal expert testified that the injuries were possibly sustained by Jimmy from the assailant who was behind him and while he was already down. The said opinion was consistent with Lilias testimony to the effect that

Ruling: The SC affirmed the CA decision. First of all, findings of the CA upon factual matters are conclusive and ought not to be disturbed unless they are shown to be contrary to the evidence

Appellant attacked Jimmy from behind as well as when Jimmy was already lying on the ground. The nature, number, and gravity of Jimmys wounds spoke not of defense on the part of Jose but of a criminal intent to kill. Furthermore, they indicated beyond doubt the treacherous manner of the assault that Jose ensured that the killing would be without risk and would deny to Jimmy any opportunity to defend himself. Finally, the testimonies of Jose and Rodolfo were riddled with inconsistencies. Rodolfo did not mention that his son Jose had carried a bolo at that time. On the contrary, Rodolfo claimed that Jose and Jimmy had engaged in a fistfight. Rodolfo then alleged that he chose to return home after being badly hurt from Jimmys attack. Such, said the SC, was difficult to believe, for if that were true, Rodolfo would thereby have unnaturally left his son to engage the attacker alone. All things considered, the affirmed the decision of the CA. Supreme Court

been caused by anything which penetrated her vagina. He also noted a recent abrasion on the labia minora.

The defense presented three witnesses. The first was Rosita Clarin (Clarin), a neighbor of appellant Asetre, who testified that at the time the alleged rapes were committed, AAA was not in BBB but in EEE attending school. Hence, according to the witness, appellant could not have raped her. Clarin stated that AAA arrived at BBB only on March 24, 2001, or one day after the last alleged rape was committed. The second defense witness was Romualdo Dulay (Dulay), also a neighbor of the appellant. He testified that during the time material to this case, AAA was not in BBB but in EEE attending school. He further alleged that he saw AAA in BBB only on March 25, 2001. The last witness for the defense was appellant Asetre himself. He denied raping AAA. He asserted that from the first week up to the third week of March 2001, he was at BBB and that at that time, or until March 23, 2001, AAA was not in BBB but in EEE attending school. Appellant also insisted that AAA arrived at BBB only on March 24, 2001 at around 2 oclock in the afternoon. Nonetheless, the RTC found appellant guilty as charged. The trial court found "AAAs" testimony to be credible and without any showing of ulterior motive to falsely testify against the appellant. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua in each of the four (4) cases. He is also ordered to pay "AAA" the sum of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in each of [these] cases or a total of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (P200,000.00). Appellant Asetre filed his Notice of Appeal with the CA. However, the CA rendered a decision affirming in its entirety the judgment of the RTC. Hence, the appeal to the Supreme Court.

People of the Philippines vs. Rosauro Asetre y Duran G.R. No. 175834 June 8, 2011

The Case: The case is an appeal of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City convicting appellant Rosauro Asetre y Duran guilty of four counts of rape.

Facts: Appellant Asetre was the common-law husband of DDD, who is the aunt of AAA. AAA started living with DDD and appellant Asetre when she (AAA) was still small. AAA claimed that in March 2001, during her summer vacation at BBB, appellant raped her four times. The first rape allegedly took place during the first week of March 2001 at around noontime. It was claimed that appellant took off her clothes then inserted his penis into her vagina., and that AAA struggled against the advances but to no avail. Appellant even threatened AAA that she and her aunt, DDD, would be killed if she would report the incident. Thereafter, AAA narrated that appellant sexually molested her three more times. The second rape during the second week of March, the third rape shortly thereafter, and the fourth rape happening on March 23, 2001. On April 25, 2001, a medical examination was conducted on AAA. The Physician testified that AAA had multiple old hymenal lacerations which could have

Issue: The main issue in the case is whether or not there was sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the four (4) charges of rape.

Ruling: The appeal is PARTLY meritorious. Appellant pointed to, what according to him, were glaring inconsistencies in AAAs testimony regarding the dates of the commission of the offenses and the places where the crimes were allegedly committed. Appellant, citing People v. Ladrillo, claimed that the failure of AAA to specify the dates of the commission of the crimes creates serious doubts on whether she was indeed raped.

On the other hand, appellee insisted that the issue boiled down to the credibility of the witnesses, which it saw as consistent, candid and steadfast. Appellee argues that any inconsistency in the testimony of AAA as regards the dates of the commission of the crimes is understandable considering her young age and the traumatic experience she had undergone. The appellee also claimed that said inconsistencies did not discredit the credibility of "AAA" because "discrepancies on the exact dates of the sexual abuses are inconsequential, the exact date of the commission of the rape not being an essential element of the crime. However, after considering the evidence, the SC ruled that the prosecution showed that appellant is guilty of only one count of rape, and not four counts. The charges against appellant were for the rape of AAA allegedly on the first week, second week, and third week, of March 2001, and lastly on March 23, 2001. However, the testimony of AAA with regard to the first three incidents particularly on the dates when and the places where the offenses were supposedly committed contains disturbing discrepancies. AAA had, during her direct examination, testified to the following: (1) that she was staying with DDD and the appellant in the month of March, 2001 in a tent located in BBB, CCC; (2) that she was raped by the appellant four times - the first time during the first week of March, the second during the second week, the third during the third week, and the fourth time on March 23, 2001; and (3) that all of these incidents of sexual abuse took place in BBB. However, upon cross-examination, AAA testified that: (1) the first rape happened at FFF; (2) the second rape occurred at EEE, Nueva Vizcaya; and (3) the third rape took place also at EEE. The Supreme Court did not agree with the declaration of the RTC and the Ca that the inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA regarding the first three rape incidents are inconsequential. The said inconsistencies, according to the SC, created a reasonable doubt as to whether appellant did in fact commit the rape during those occasions. Hence, the SC was constrained to acquit appellant of the charges of rape allegedly committed during the first week, second week, and third week of March 2001 based on reasonable doubt.

through threats and intimidation, forced himself upon her. The SC concluded that as regards the March 23, 2001 incident, the prosecution established appellants guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, AAAs confusion relative to the first three incidents did not warrant his acquittal as regards the March 23, 2001 incident. It did not detract from the fact that she was indeed raped by the appellant on March 23, 2001. Notably, AAAs testimony was corroborated by the findings from the medical examination. Appellant also failed to ascribe any ill motive on the part of AAA on why she would charge appellant with such a serious crime. Hence, the appeal was PARTIALLY GRANTED. Appellant Rosauro Asetre was ACQUITTED of the three counts of rape on reasonable doubt. He was, however, found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of one count of rape. Frances Perl Lumauag

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. REYNALDO OLESCO Y ANDAYANG, APPELLANT. [G.R. No. 174861, April 11 : 2011] FACTS: This is an appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming in too the decision of RTC finding appellant Reynaldo Olesco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. The evidence for the prosecution shows that on October 17, 2001, at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, "AAA," accompanied her cousin in going out of "DDD" in "BBB." On her way back home, "AAA" passed by a bakery where Olesco was working. Thereafter, somebody pulled her and covered her mouth with a hanky which caused her to be unconscious. When she regained consciousness at around 11:00 o'clock p.m., she found herself naked beside Olesco inside a room located near the bakery. Her whole body ached, especially her cheeks, tummy and her private part. "AAA" then slapped the accused three times and asked him why he raped her. Olesco answered that he would kill her should she report the incident to the police. After a while, accused told her to go home. She dressed up immediately and went home running and told her cousin "EEE" about what happened. It was only after two (2) days, "AAA" reported the incident to the barangay since when she woke up in the morning of October 18, 200[1], it was already 9:00 o'clock a.m. and she could not stand as her whole body ached. Thereafter, the barangay officials referred the matter to the police and an investigation was subsequently conducted and "AAA" was referred to the Philippine National Police Crime Division, Camp Crame, Quezon City, for medico-legal examination. Results showed that "AAA" was in a nonvirgin state physically; "AAA" had also a lacerated

Nonetheless, AAAs testimony as regards the March 23, 2001 incident was candid and consistent. She never wavered in her narration of how through threats and intimidation, appellant had carnal knowledge of her against her will. AAA gave clear testimony that in the afternoon of March 23, 2001 the appellant fetched her from her house in EEE; that they arrived at BBB at nighttime; that AAAs aunt, DDD, was not at home when they arrived; that appellant Asetre thereafter brought her to a waiting shed where he,

wound which was consistent with the time of the alleged commission of the crime. with a healing period of about ten (10) to fifteen (15) days caused by a hard, blunt instrument inserted into her vagina like a finger or an erect penis which would fit and succumb to elasticity or x x x a stick. Final Report of the medico-legal officer also concluded that there are no external signs of any form of trauma on the external genital area which has a deep healed laceration consistent with sexual intercourse. Accused Olesco, however, denied having raped "AAA" and put up the "sweetheart defense". He testified that he worked as a baker for five (5) months in a bakery and prior to the alleged rape incident, "AAA" used to buy bread in the bakery. He came to know her when "AAA" introduced herself. After three months, he and "AAA" became sweethearts. He alleged that it was "AAA" who went to him at the bakery at around 7:00 o'clock in the evening of October 17, 2001. "AAA" wanted him to go with her [to her] province in Leyte, to which he agreed. The room referred to by "AAA" is for the female workers near the bakery where they talked in the presence of their employer. Che-Che and Alex, his co-workers, Jerry and Annalyn Arimando were also inside the room when they entered but they went out. He further testified that during his second month stay in the bakery, he got attracted to "AAA" whom he used to see every afternoon and they talked even for just a minute until he proposed his love to her x x x. When they became steady, there were occasions that they kissed each other, held hands and even made love in a room beside the bakery prior to October 17, 2001 at around 9:00 o'clock in the evening and thereafter, "AAA" left at 10:00 o'clock. However, on October 18, 2001, "AAA" had him arrested by the barangay tanods [who] brought [him] to the Coastal Police Headquarters.[8] On September 23, 2003, the RTC rendered its Decision finding accused, REYNALDO OLESCO Y ONDAYANG liable for SIMPLE RAPE under Article 266-A, par. 1 3(b) in relation to Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 8353. On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's Decision in toto. Hence, this appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the guilt of the appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt and the defense of sweetheart theory is a valid defense as claimed by the herein accused. RULING:

bakery, Olesco immediately pulled her and covered her mouth with a handkerchief. She smelled something like a "snow bear" and lost consciousness. Thereafter, Olesco raped her. The act of pulling her and covering her face with a drug-laced hanky is the immediate cause why "AAA" fell unconscious which facilitated accused's bestial desire against "AAA." There is, therefore, no truth to the claim of Olesco that no force was employed upon "AAA" to satisfy his bestial desire. It is a wellestablished doctrine that for the crime of rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force employed accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force employed by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in view x x x. Thus, the use of force and intimidation as alleged in the information has been sufficiently established. Both the trial court and the CA properly disregarded appellant's claim that he and "AAA" were sweethearts. "The `sweetheart theory' or `sweetheart defense' is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense." It is well-settled that being sweethearts does not negate the commission of rape because such fact does not give appellant license to have sexual intercourse against her will, and will not exonerate him from the criminal charge of rape. Being sweethearts does not prove consent to the sexual act."[28] Thus, having failed to satisfactorily establish that "AAA" voluntarily consented to engage in sexual intercourse with him, the said act constitutes rape on the part of the appellant. More significantly, appellant did not present his employer or any of his co-workers who could supposedly corroborate his claim that he only talked with "AAA" on the night of October 17, 2001. As regards the award of damages, the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, correctly awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages. "However, in line with current jurisprudence, an additional award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages should likewise be given, as well as interest of six percent (6%) per annum on all damages awarded from the finality of judgment until fully paid."[30] WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The May 30, 2006 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CRH.C. No. 00701 which affirmed the September 23, 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Paraaque City, Branch 258 finding appellant Reynaldo Olesco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty

The

appeal

lacks

merit.

The CA correctly disregarded appellant's claim that he did not use force nor resort to intimidation in the commission of the crime. Appellant's act of pulling "AAA" and covering her face with drug-laced handkerchief is synonymous with force . It has been duly established that when "AAA" passed by the

of reclusion perpetua and to pay P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages to "AAA" is AFFIRMED withMODIFICATIONS that an additional award of P30,000.00 as exemplary damages should likewise be given, with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on all the damages awarded in this case from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.

Version of the Defense On the day of the death of the victim, Dolorido asked Estose why he was gathering Dolorido's harvested coconuts. Estose just replied, "So, what about it?" and tried to unsheathe his bolo from its scabbard. Upon seeing this, Dolorido drew his own bolo and stabbed Estose. When Estose tried to wrestle for the bolo, he sustained some wounds. Afterwards, while Dolorido was pointing the bolo at Estose, the latter suddenly lunged at Dolorido, causing Estose to hit the bolo with his own chest which resulted in his death. He denied the prosecutor's claim that he hid behind a coconut tree and waited for Estose to come. Thereafter, Dolorido, accompanied by one Mario Jariol, voluntarily surrendered to the Tago Police Station. Rulings of the Trial and Appellate Courts After trial, the RTC convicted accused Dolorido finding him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER qualified by treachery, and appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, without any aggravating circumstance to offset the same, the Court hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty ofReclusion Perpetua, to pay the heirs of deceased-victim Daniel Estose y Langres the sum ofP50, 000.00 as civil indemnity, P50, 000 as moral damages and P25, 000.00 astemperate damages; and to pay the cost. On November 27, 2009, the CA affirmed in toto the judgment of the RTC. Issues I. The court a quo gravely erred in not appreciating selfdefense interposed by accused. II. The court a quo gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant of murder despite the failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of treachery. The Court's Ruling The appeal has no merit. SC held that Self-defense is absent. In his Brief, accused-appellant argues that the trial court failed to consider the circumstance of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. He contends that he only acted in self-defense, and this is the reason why he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROGELIO DOLORIDO y ESTRADA, AccusedAppellant. G.R. No. 191721 : January 12, 2011 VELASCO, JR., J.: Facts: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 27 in Tandag, Surigao del Sur. The RTC found accused-appellant Rogelio Dolorido y Estrada guilty of murder. The Prosecution's Version of Facts The Avilas, hired laborers of the victim, Daniel Estose, were tasked to harvest the coconuts in the latter's farm in Cagdapao, Tago, Surigao del Sur. On May 9, 2006, while the Avilas were walking towards the coconut plantation at around 8:30 in the morning, they saw Dolorido standing near the coconut drier of Estose, appearing very angry. After some time, Dolorido proceeded to Rustica Dolorido's coconut drier located a hundred meters away and hid behind a coconut tree. Moments later, they saw Estose on his way to his own coconut drier. When Estose passed by Rustica Dolorido's coconut drier, they saw Dolorido suddenly hack Estose twice, resulting in wounds on his arms. When Estose tried to retreat, he fell down and it was then that Dolorido stabbed him on the left portion of his chest, which caused his death. Dolorido suddenly left the place. Afraid of Dolorido's wrath, the Avilas did not immediately proceed to the scene of the crime. It was only after 20 minutes or so that they felt it was safe to approach Estose. When they were near, they saw Estose was already dead. They then waited for Estose's wife and the police.

In order for self-defense to be successfully invoked, the following essential elements must be proved: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-defense. A person who invokes self-defense has the burden of proof of proving all the elements. However, the most important among all the elements is the element of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression must be proved first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded, whether complete or incomplete. As this Court said in People v. Catbagan, "There can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense." In this case, the accused-appellant failed to prove the existence of unlawful aggression. But he maintains that Estose provoked him when the latter started to unsheathe his bolo from his scabbard. Nevertheless, his testimony is too incredible to be believed, viz: Accused's plea failed to impress the Court. To be sure, his story on how the deceased was killed is too incredible to inspire belief. According to him, it was the deceased who first unsheathed his bolo but did not succeed in his attempt to fully unsheathe it because he (Accused) hacked him. Thereafter, the deceased tried to wrest accused's bolo but was injured instead. If the deceased failed to unsheathe his bolo because Accused was able to hack him, how could the deceased then have attempted to dispossess the Accused of the latter's bolo? The truth, of course, is that the Accused waylaid the deceased, as testified to by the prosecution witnesses. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It "presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger - not merely threatening and intimidating action." It is present "only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life." Such is absent in the instant case. Moreover, against the positive declarations of the prosecution witnesses who testified that accusedappellant hacked Estose twice and subsequently stabbed him without any provocation, accusedappellant's self-serving and uncorroborated assertion deserves scant consideration. It is a well-settled rule that "a plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably entertained where it is not only uncorroborated by any separate competent evidence but is also extremely doubtful in itself." Moreover, "[a]bsent any showing that the prosecution witnesses

were moved by improper motive to testify against the appellant, their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit." Therefore, absent any unlawful aggression from the victim, accused-appellant cannot successfully invoke the defense of self-defense. In addition, accused-appellant argues that the trial court should not have appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance. He argues that it was impossible for the two prosecution witnesses to see the inception and the actual attack of accused-appellant to the victim because both were busy gathering coconuts. Also, they were 50 meters away from where the actual stabbing occurred, in rolling hills with tall and short shrubs between the witnesses and the place where the actual stabbing occurred. The SC disagreed on this contention of the defense. Paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two elements must be present: (1) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (2) the accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack employed by him. The "essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without risk of himself." In the case at bar, it was clearly shown that Estose was deprived of any means to ward off the sudden and unexpected attack by accused-appellant. The evidence showed that accused-appellant hid behind a coconut tree and when Estose passed by the tree, completely unaware of any danger, accused-appellant immediately hacked him with a bolo. Estose could only attempt to parry the blows with his bare hands and as a result, he got wounded. Furthermore, when Estose tried to retreat, stumbling in the process, accused-appellant even took advantage of this and stabbed him resulting in his death. Evidently, the means employed by accused-appellant assured himself of no risk at all arising from the defense which the deceased might make. What is decisive is that the attack was executed in a manner that the victim was rendered defenseless and unable to retaliate. Without a doubt, treachery attended the killing. In conclusion, all the elements of the crime of murder, as defined in paragraph 1 of Art. 248 of the RPC, were successfully proved: (1) that a person was killed; (2) that the accused killed that person; (3) that the killing

was attended by treachery; and (4) that the killing is not infanticide or parricide. Verily, in criminal cases such as the one on hand, the prosecution is not required to show the guilt of the accused with absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is demanded, or that degree of proof which, to an unprejudiced mind, produces conviction. We find that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the guilt of accused-appellant for the crime of murder with moral certainty. WHEREFORE , the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00575-MIN finding accused-appellant Rogelio Dolorido y Estrada guilty of the crime charged is AFFIRMED withMODIFICATION. In addition to the sum of PhP 50, 000 as civil indemnity, PhP 50, 000 as moral damages, and PhP 25, 000 as temperate damages, accused-appellant is likewise sentenced to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of PhP 30, 000 as exemplary damages. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum on the civil indemnity and moral, temperate, and exemplary damages from the finality of this decision until fully paid shall likewise be paid by accused-appellant to the heirs of Daniel Estose. Marienne Minerva PP vs. Charlie Abao y Caares G.R. No. 188323 February 21, 2011 FACTS: At about 10:00pm of October 3, 2005, the victim (Cesar Cabase) was asleep in the room of their hut in Del Socorro, Minalabac, Camarines Sur, together with his youngest daughter (Criselda) and grandson. The room was illuminated by an outside kerosene lamp. While Richelda (wife of the victim) was about to join her sleeping family, the appellant suddenly barged into the room, focused a flashlight on the victim, and began hacking him with a bolo. Out of fear, Richelda retreated to a corner of the room and embraced her grandson. The appellant thereafter focused his flashlight on Richelda, but Criselda started crying. At that point, the appellant left. Medico-legal findings revealed that multiple hack wounds with skull fractures caused the victim's death. The appellant interposed the defense of alibi claiming that he was asleep at the night of the killing at the farm of Antonio Almediere at Zone 5, Del Socorro, Minalabac, about 300 meters away from the scene of the crime. The RTC convicted the appellant of the crime of

murder mainly based on the eyewitness testimony of the victim's wife, Richelda. The trial court found her credible, consistent, and free of ill motive to testify against appellant. It noted that the victim's house was illuminated by a kerosene lamp that was sufficient for purposes of identification. The RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstance of treachery because the appellant attacked the victim who was asleep and was thus totally incapable of defending himself. But the court disregarded evident premeditation as a qualifying circumstance because it was only duly established at the trial. ISSUE: Whether the decision of the RTC in giving credence to the testimony of the eyewitness should be upheld? HELD: Yes. The eyewitness account of the victim's wife is worthy of belief as it was a straight forward account consistent with the presented evidence. The witness had no reason to falsify and she was only interested in having the real killer punished; no motive affecting her credibility was ever imputed against her. On the other hand, the appellant failed to show convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime during its commission; he was only a short 300 meters away. PP vs. Masagca, Jr. G.R. No. 184922 February 23, 2011 FACTS: The appellant (a widower) and four of his children (including the private complainant AAA) lived in Barangay Sto. Domingo, Virac, Catanduanes. At around seven o'clock on the evening of September 10, 2000, after his other children had left to watch a TV program, the appellant laid down beside his daughter AAA, removed her blanket, and held her right hand. He, thereafter, removed her short pants and underwear, laid on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina for about one minute. Throughout the incident, AAA did not say anything as the appellant threatened to hit her on the mouth if she would make any noise. On October 6, 2001, the appellant and his children this time resided at his parents' home in Barangay J. M. Alberto, Virac, Catanduanes. At around ten o' clock in the evening, AAA was awakened by her father's arrival. He removed her shorts and underwear as he lowered his own shorts and underwear to his knees, and managed to insert at least an inch of his penis into her vagina for one minute. AAA's struggle proved fruitless as he tightly held her right hand. Again, he threatened to hit her on the mouth if she reported the incident to anyone.

AAA's experience with her father on October 14, 2001. Seven days later, her ordeals to her aunt (the appellant's disclosure led to charges against the three (3) counts of rape.

was repeated AAA revealed sister). This appellant for

Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila G.R. No. 182555, February 08, 2011

At the trial, the prosecution presented AAA and the Virac Rural Health Physician who testified that AAA had healed hymenal lacerations. The appellant, on the other hand, interposed the defenses of denial and alibi. He claimed that he could not have raped AAA on September 10, 2000 as she was then living in Tabaco City (Albay) and he was living in Barangay Sto. Domingo (Catanduanes). He claimed that he could not have raped her on October 6 and 14, 2001 as AAA slept then with his parents in their room. The appellant claimed that AAA made up the rape charges after he spanked her for having gone to the river with a male stranger. He also claimed that this was the first time he hurt any of his children. The RTC convicted appellant for three (3) counts of rape. The CA affirmed the RTC judgment. ISSUE: Whether or not appellant's defenses of denial and alibi shall prevail over the testimony of the victim HELD: No. The SC did not disturb the findings of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of witnesses must be given great respect in the absence of any attendant grave abuse of discretion; the trial court had the advantage of actually examining both real and testimonial evidence, including the demeanor of the witnesses, and is in the best position to rule on their weight and credibility. In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided it is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. The appellant's defenses of denial (for the October 6 and 14, 2001 incidents) and alibi (for the September 10, 2000 incident) cannot prevail over AAA's testimony that she had been raped and her positive identification of the appellant as her rapist. Denial and Alibi are the weakest of all defenses because they are easy to concoct and fabricate. To be believed, denial must be supported by a strong evidence of innocence; otherwise, it is regarded as purely self-serving. Alibi, on the other hand, is rejected when the prosecution sufficiently establishes the identity of the accused.

LENIDO LUMANOG AND AUGUSTO SANTOS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R.NO. 185123 CESAR FORTUNA, PETITIONER VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES. G.R.NO. 187745 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SPO2 CESAR FORTUNA Y ABUDO, RAMESES DE JESUS Y CALMA, LENIDO LUMANOG Y LUISTRO, JOEL DE JESUS Y VALDEZ AND AUGUSTO SANTOS Y GALANG, RAMESES DE JESUS Y CALMA AND JOEL DE JESUS Y VALDEZ. FACTS: This resolves the motions for reconsideration separately filed by Lenido Lumanog and Augusto Santos, Cesar Fortuna and Rameses de Jesus assailing the Decision dated September 7, 2010, of the Supreme Court convicting them of the crime of murder. To sum it up, the main issue in their separately filed motion for reconsideration is: the lone, contradicted and incredible testimony of Security Guard (SG) Alejo is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Further, Fortuna, one of the accused seeks the introduction of additional evidence to support the defense that there was no positive identification of Abadillas killer. The crime (shooting incident) transpired sometime on June 13, 1996, on or about 8:40 oclock in the morning, at 211 Katipunan Road, Quezon City. While on duty on said date, time and place, Security Guard (SG) Freddie Alejo witnessed a shooting incident in front of his post, a man riding his car was shot by four (4) armed men while their were two (2) look-outs. However, during the initial investigation of SPO1 Edilberto S. Nicanor of the Criminal Investigation Division (CID) at Camp Karingal (PNP-NCR), SG Alejo was only able to identify that their were only four (4) armed men, contrary to his subsequent testimony in court where he mentioned their were others: two (2) men he had seen walking back and forth before the shooting. Issue: 1. Whether, the testimony of SG Alejo is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt considering his contradicting

Ma. Angela D. Masacote

testimony during the police investigation and his court testimony; and 2. The discrepancy of the time during the ocular inspection. Decision The motions are bereft of merit. While there are contradictions in the testimony of SG Alejo during the police investigation and during his subsequent testimony in court, this did not impair his testimony as an eyewitness. The Supreme Court ruled that Alejo was simply responding to the specific questions asked by SPO1 Edilberto S. Nicanor during the police investigation as to those persons whom he saw who actually shoot the victim who was in his car. As the question was phrased, Alejo was not being asked about the persons who had participation or involvement in the crime, but only those who actually fired the victim. Hence, he replied that there were four (4) armed men who suddenly fired shots at the victim. During his testimony in court, Alejo was able to fully recount the details and state that there were two (2) men walking back and forth before the shooting. Clearly, it was not a fatal omission on the part of Alejo not to include in his first affidavit the two suspects who were acting as lookouts. It is settled that contradictions between the contents of an affiants affidavit and his testimony in the witness stand do not always militate against the witness credibility. This is so because affidavits, which are usually taken ex parte, are often incomplete and inaccurate. Alejos elevated position from the guardhouse gave him such clear and unobstructed view of the incident that he was able to recognize the faces and physical features of the accused at the time. When two of the accused actually poked a gun at him, it gave him more opportunity to see the faces of the accused who had briefly turned his eyes on him. Furthermore, experience dictates, precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before the witnesses eyes that they remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of the criminals. The argument that the timing of ocular inspection did not coincide with the precise hour in the morning when the shooting transpired, because the incident took place between 8:30-9:00 when the glare of the morning sun directly hits the guard post of Alejo, the latter supposedly cannot be said to have had such clear vantage point as found by the trial judge when he positioned himself at the said guard post at a later time, which is already past 10:00 in the morning, cannot be entertained. It is shown that there was no objection or comment made by the defense counsel regarding the timing of the ocular inspection. It is now too late in the day for the accused to assail as irregular the ocular inspection which was done with conformity and in the presence of their counsel. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the motions for reconsideration filed by Lenido Lumanog and Augusto

Santos, Rameses de Jesus and Cesar Fortuna are hereby DENIED WITH FINALITY. Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila G.R. No. 181827 February 2, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PlaintiffAppellee, vs. JOSE GALVEZ y BLANCA, Accused-Appellant. Facts: This is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction of the accused-appellant Jose Galvez y Blanca of the crime of rape. Five separate Informations for rape were filed against accused-appellant Galvez in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan. The summary of the complaints of narration of complainant AAA is as follows: Sometime on the year 1999, in the municipality of Angat, Bulacan, Philippines, the abovenamed accused taking advantage of the tender age and innocence of AAA, then 10 years old, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously kiss, and touch the breasts and insert his finger into the private parts of said AAA. On the years 2000 and 2001, the above-named accused, armed with bladed weapon had carnal knowledge with his granddaughter, AAA, without her consent, then 11 and 12 years old respectively. In the first quarter of the year 2002, AAA then 13 years old, and on the 21st day of June 2002, AAA then 13 years and 9 months old, accused, the grandfather of AAA, armed with bladed weapon had again carnal knowledge with the latter. AAA told the pastor of her church about the incident sometime on June during a church service and thereafter they went to the police station to give her statement. On April 20, 2006, the trial court rendered its Decision convicting accused-appellant of the crime that took place on the 21st day of June 2002 and acquitted him in the other four (4) cases. In arriving at the foregoing disposition, the trial court noted that there was no testimony at all as regards the alleged rapes on the years 1999 and 2000. As regards, the rape on the year 2001 and the first quarter of the year 2002, the trial court found the AAAs testimony to be very general as she appeared to have failed to remember any detail other than that the accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. Likewise the trial court noted the discrepancy in AAAs testimony on March 31, 2003 wherein she testified

that she was raped by accused-appellant for the first time on June 21, 2002, and her testimony on February 2, 2004 wherein she stated she was raped many times before June 21, 2002. The trial court further found her testimony contrary to the physical evidence presented, since Dr. Viray found only one healed shallow laceration. Issue: Accused-appellant avers that the trial court erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged despite the patent weakness of the prosecutions evidence. Like the rest of the charges against him, Criminal Case no. 3094-M-2002 (rape committed on June 21, 2002) should suffer the same fate. Decision: In our jurisprudence, falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not an absolute rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence. It only deals with the weight of evidence and is not a positive rule of law, and the same is not inflexible one of universal application. Thus, the modern trend of jurisprudence is that testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. In the case at bar, the trial court, which found some portions of AAAs testimony unconvincing, was nevertheless impressed by some concerning the events of June 21, 2002. AAAs version of the incident on June 21, 2002 is worthy of credence especially when compared to the bare denial of accused-appellant who did not even offer an alibi. Furthermore, it is almost clich to add that courts usually give credence to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, particularly if it is incestuous rape because normally, no person would be willing to undergo the humiliation of a public trial and to testify on the details of her ordeal were it not to condemn an injustice. What is more telling is that the victim, at her young age, sustained lacerations in her genitalia. Laceration, whether healed or fresh, are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. Actual force or intimidation need not be employed in incestuous rape of a minor. The conviction of the accused-appellant of the crime of qualified rape is AFFIRMED.

10