Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
2015)
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT
PENAL LAWS
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs .THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ANTONIO MARIANO
ALMEDA, DALMACIO LIM, JR., JUNEL ANTHONY AMA, ERNESTO JOSE
MONTECILLO, VINCENT TECSON, ANTONIO GENERAL, SANTIAGO RANADA
III, NELSON VICTORINO, JAIME MARIA FLORES II, ZOSIMO MENDOZA,
MICHAEL MUSNGI, VICENTE VERDADERO, ETIENNE GUERRERO, JUDE
FERNANDEZ, AMANTE PURISIMA II, EULOGIO SABBAN, PERCIVAL BRIGOLA,
PAUL ANGELO SANTOS, JONAS KARL B. PEREZ, RENATO BANTUG, JR., ADEL
ABAS, JOSEPH LLEDO, and RONAN DE GUZMAN; FIDELITO DIZON vs.PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES; GERARDA H. VILLA vs.MANUEL LORENZO ESCALONA
II, MARCUS JOEL CAPELLAN RAMOS, CRISANTO CRUZ SARUCA,
JR., and ANSELMO ADRIANO
G.R. No. 151258; G.R. No. 154954; G.R. No. 155101; G.R. Nos. 178057 &
178080,
February 1, 2012, CJ. Sereno
Although courts must not remain indifferent to public sentiments, in this case
the general condemnation of a hazing-related death, they are still bound to observe
a fundamental principle in our criminal justice system. No act constitutes a crime
unless it is made so by law. Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege. Even if an act is
viewed by a large section of the populace as immoral or injurious, it cannot be
considered a crime, absent any law prohibiting its commission. Had the Anti-Hazing
Law been in effect then, these five accused fraternity members would have all been
convicted of the crime of hazing punishable by reclusion perpetua (life
imprisonment). The absence of malicious intent does not automatically mean,
however, that the accused fraternity members are ultimately devoid of criminal
liability. The Revised Penal Code also punishes felonies that are committed by
means of fault (culpa).
Facts:
In February 1991, seven freshmen law students of the Ateneo de Manila
University School of Law signified their intention to join the Aquila Legis Juris
Fraternity (Aquila Fraternity). They were Caesar Bogs Asuncion, Samuel Sam
Belleza, Bienvenido Bien Marquez III, Roberto Francis Bert Navera, Geronimo Randy
Recinto, Felix Sy, Jr., and Leonardo Lenny Villa (neophytes).
On the night of 8 February 1991, the neophytes were met by some members
of the Aquila Fraternity (Aquilans) at the lobby of the Ateneo Law School. They all
proceeded to Rufos Restaurant to have dinner. Afterwards, they went to the house
of Michael Musngi, also an Aquilan, who briefed the neophytes on what to expect
during the initiation rites. The latter were informed that there would be physical
beatings, and that they could quit at any time. Their initiation rites were scheduled
Page 1 of 466
Page 3 of 466
Page 5 of 466
Page 6 of 466
Page 17 of 466
Page 19 of 466
Page 20 of 466
Page 22 of 466
Page 23 of 466
Page 27 of 466
Page 28 of 466
Page 29 of 466
Page 31 of 466
In convicted the accused of the crime of murder, the RTC appreciated the use
of firearm as an special aggravating circumstance. The Supreme Court affirmed
such ruling by citing Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866, as amended by Republic
Act No. (RA) 8294, which treats the unauthorized use of a licensed firearm in the
commission of the crimes of homicide or murder as a special aggravating
circumstance.
Facts:
In an Amended Information dated May 5, 2005, Matibag was charged with the
crime of Murder defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
(RPC), as amended. Matibag entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment.
After the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Page 33 of 466
The prosecution asserted that at around 8:40 in the evening of March 27,
2005, Enrico Clar de Jesus Duhan, who just came from a meeting with the other
officers of the homeowners association of Twin Villa Subdivision, was walking along
Iron Street in Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City when Matibag confronted
Duhan, and asked, ano bang pinagsasasabi mo? Duhan replied wala, and
without warning, Matibag delivered a fist blow hitting Duhan on the left cheek and
causing him to teeter backwards. Matibag then pulled out his gun and shot Duhan,
who fell face-first on the pavement. While Duhan remained in that position, Matibag
shot him several more times.
In his defense, Matibag alleged that on said date, he was at the despedida
party of his neighbor when Duhan arrived together with the other officers of the
homeowners association. Wanting to settle a previous misunderstanding, Matibag
approached Duhan and extended his hand as a gesture of reconciliation. However,
Duhan pushed it away and said, putang ina mo, ang yabang mo, thereby
provoking Matibag to punch him in the face. Matibag saw Duhan pull something
from his waist and fearing that it was a gun and Duhan was about to retaliate,
Matibag immediately drew his own gun, shot Duhan, and hurriedly left the place. In
a Decision dated August 1, 2008, the RTC convicted Matibag as charged. In a
Decision dated September 13, 2012, the CA affirmed Matibags conviction in toto.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Ruling:
Yes.
Page 34 of 466
Therefore, when Matibag killed Duhan with his firearm, the use thereof was
unauthorized under the purview of RA 8294 and is equally appreciated as a special
aggravating circumstance. As a result, the imposition of the maximum penalty of
death, which is reduced to reclusion perpetua in light of RA 9346, stands proper. To
this, the Court adds that Matibag is not eligible for parole.
PENALTIES
APPLICATION
REYNALDO S. MARIANO vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 178145, July 7, 2014, J. Bersamin
The CA modified the felony committed by Mariano from frustrated homicide
to reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries. The court ruled that CA
incorrectly considered the Mariano's act as a grave felony had it been intentional,
Page 35 of 466
Page 36 of 466
Page 37 of 466
Yet, there is a need to correct the penalties imposed on Zafra. He was duly
convicted of 18 counts of malversation of public funds through falsification of public
documents, all complex crimes. Pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code,
the penalty for each count is that prescribed on the more serious offense, to be
imposed in its maximum period.
Falsification of a public document by a public officer is penalized with prisin
mayor and a fine not to exceed P5,000.00.Prisin mayor has duration of six years
and one day to 12 years of imprisonment.In contrast, the penalty for malversation
ranges from prisin correccional in its medium and maximum periods depending on
the amount misappropriated, and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed
or to the total value of the property embezzled.
To determine the maximum periods of the penalties to be imposed on Zafra,
therefore, the Court must be guided by the following rules, namely: (1) the penalties
provided under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code constitute degrees and (2)
Page 40 of 466
Page 41 of 466
Page 44 of 466
Page 47 of 466
Page 49 of 466
Page 51 of 466
Page 53 of 466
Page 56 of 466
Page 59 of 466
Page 61 of 466
Page 63 of 466
Page 65 of 466
Page 67 of 466
Page 69 of 466
Page 72 of 466
Page 74 of 466
Page 76 of 466
Page 79 of 466
Page 82 of 466
Page 86 of 466
Page 87 of 466
Page 88 of 466
Page 89 of 466
Page 93 of 466
Page 96 of 466
Page 98 of 466
Page 99 of 466
No. The Court is not persuaded in the allegations of the petitioner Leopoldo
that his conviction was not supported by proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
His argument revolves mainly on self-defense, defense of relatives and absence
of conspiracy. The records of this case show that the prosecution witnesses
Eduardo Oyando, Robert dela Cruz and Felomina dela Cruz positively and
consistently identified the accused and relayed the sequence of events. Their
testimonies are corroborated by the evidence presented by the doctors who
attended the hacking victims, as well as by the police officer who took the
statement of Freddie before the latter died.
The trial court found the prosecution witnesses credible. The assessment of
the trial court on this point is generally binding on this Court, and none of the
exceptions to this rule are obtaining here. Pedro Quintos admitted to hacking
Robert and Freddie dela Cruz, and hitting Felomina dela Cruz, invoking selfdefense. Because of Pedros admissions, he and his co-conspirators assumed the
burden to establish such defense by credible, clear and convincing evidence;
otherwise, the same admissions would lead to their conviction.
Self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated when it is uncorroborated by
independent and competent evidence or when it is extremely doubtful by itself.
Indeed, the accused must discharge the burden of proof by relying on the
strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the States evidence,
because the existence of self-defense is a separate issue from the existence of
the crime, and establishing self defense does not require or involve the negation
of any of the elements of the offense itself.
To escape liability, the accused must show by sufficient, satisfactory and
convincing evidence that: (a) the victim committed unlawful aggression
Page 238 of 466
No. Indeed, mere presence does not signify conspiracy. However, neither
does it indicate the lack thereof Conspiracy can be inferred from and established
by the acts of the accused themselves when said acts point to a joint purpose
and design, concerted action and community of interest. In fact, the prosecution
established that petitioner was actively involved in the attack on Freddie dela
Cruz.
To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution;
he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to
be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy.
Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may
appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort
to achieve their common criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of
one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or morality of
participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are
principals. The acts of petitioner before, during and after the attacks on Robert
and Felomina dela Cruz disclose his agreement with the joint purpose and design
in the commission of the felony.
Facts:
Dioquino was charged with eight counts of rape allegedly committed against
ABC, a 17-year old minor. Upon arraignment, Dioquino entered a plea of not guilty
to all the charges as stated in the informations. Trial ensued. According to the
prosecution, on July 31, 1999, at around 9:00 oclock in the evening, ABC and the
Dioquino both attended a dance held in the national high school. When ABC was on
her way home, Dioquino attacked her and was able to obtain carnal knowledge of
her despite her resistance. The victim was not able to tell the attack to her parents.
Dioquino was able to repeat the sexual assaults upon ABC through the use of force
and intimidation. Dioquino also threatened the victim that he will kill the family of
the victim if she disclose the incident to others.
The RTC found Dioquino guilty of seven counts of rape and sentenced him to
reclusion perpetua for each count. The RTC did not give any credence to Dioquinos
sweetheart defense for it was admittedly not supported by any evidence of their
relationship. Moreover, the existence of force and intimidation was proven by the
prosecution for each of the times Dioquino had carnal knowledge of ABC. The CA
agreed with the RTC that ABCs testimony was candid, straightforward, and credible.
Hence, this appeal.
Issue:
Whether the CA and the RTC erred in not giving credence to the sweetheart
theory
Ruling:
Facts:
On November 15, 2001, an Information was filed before the RTC, charging
Abat with the crime of Rape allegedly committed against AAA, his niece, and a 15
year old minor. Abat pleaded not guilty to the charge upon his arraignment on
January 30, 2002. The pre-trial conference was held, after which, trial on the merits
ensued. According to the prosecution, the facts of the case are as follows: On
September 22, 2001, around eight oclock in the evening, AAA was home with her
parents and siblings. Abat, (an uncle of AAA, being the half-brother of AAAs father),
with the permission of AAAs parents, brought AAA with him to the poblacion to buy
medicine. The two proceeded to the poblacion on board a tricycle driven by Abat.
Then, he drove the tricycle to Barangay Malabo. Upon reaching Barangay Malabo,
Abat brought AAA to her grandfathers nipa hut. Abat undressed himself then laid
AAA down on a bamboo bed. Abat then succeeded to obtain carnal knowledge of
the victim. AAA struggled and tried to push Abat away but he threatened to kill her
and her family if she would tell anybody about the act. AAA, fearing that Abat will
make good of his threat, didnt tell her parents of the assault.
On November 12, 2001, Abat tried to force AAA to go to his house. Thus, in
the evening, AAA informed her parents about the rape incident and they went to
Victoria Police Station to lodge a complaint against Abat. Because of rape, AAA, on
April 24, 2002, gave birth to a baby girl. For his defense, Abat claims that he and
AAA considered themselves as lovers. She frequently visited him during Saturdays
and Sundays. AAAs parents filed a case against him when they discovered she was
pregnant.
1. No. The Court, in People v. Sta. Ana, 291 SCRA 188 (1998), said: [A]uthorities in
forensic medicine agree that the determination of the exact date of fertilization is
problematic. The exact date thereof is unknown thus, the difficulty in determining
the actual normal duration of pregnancy. Citing a Filipino authority, the Court
further elucidated: The average duration of pregnancy is 270 to 280 days from the
onset of the last menstruation. There is, however, no means of determining it with
certainty. Evidence derived from pregnancy following a single coitus is trustworthy,
but inasmuch as some authorities consider more than two weeks as the life span of
the spermatozoa in the vaginal canal, it is hard to ascertain the exact date of
fertilization. There is no synchrony between coitus and fertilization.
2. Abats attempt to escape liability by denying the charge against him and coupling it
with the imputation of ill motive against AAAs parents must be ignored. Motives
such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving
full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim. More so in this case, where
the attribution of the improper motive is against AAAs parents and not her
personally.
Furthermore, the Court has never favorably looked upon the defense of
denial, which constitutes self-serving negative evidence that cannot be accorded
greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration of a credible witness. To
elucidate on the point, this Court, in People v. Espinosa, held that: It is well-settled
that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving
assertion that deserves no weight in law. Denial cannot prevail over the positive,
candid and categorical testimony of the complainant, and as between the positive
declaration of the complainant and the negative statement of the appellant, the
former deserves more credence.
Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of
age and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there
was force, threat or intimidation whether the victim was deprived of reason or
Facts:
In his defense, Rodrigo denied the allegation and claimed he was already at
work at 1:30 p.m. He has known AAA for a long time since his family rented the
house of AAAs grandfather from 2001 to 2004. Rodrigo admitted that he had a
relationship with AAAs sister, and they even lived together as common law
spouses. He also admitted that a similar complaint was filed against him by AAAs
mother when AAA was eight years old, but they settled the case at the barangay
level.
On July 4, 2007, the trial court rendered a judgment finding Rodrigo guilty.
Rodrigo appealed to the Court of Appeals claiming that AAAs testimony fell short of
the requirement of the law on the quantum of evidence required. He argued that
Page 267 of 466
Issue:
Whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
Rodrigo was guilty of statutory rape punishable under Article 266A of the Revised
Penal Code.
Ruling:
Yes. Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12
years of age and (2) the accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of
whether there was force, threat or intimidation whether the victim was deprived of
reason or consciousness or whether it was done through fraud or grave abuse of
authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there was sexual
intercourse.
In any case, whether she cried for help is immaterial in a charge of statutory
rape since [t]he law presumes that such a victim, on account of her tender age,
does not and cannot have a will of her own. Beyond reasonable doubt, Rodrigo
Gutierez raped AAA, a minor who was only 10 years of age, on November 29, 2005.
Under Section 3(b), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, the term "child abuse"
is defined as the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes
the physical abuse of a child, among other acts. In this case, AAA positively
identified Delen as the person who kicked her in the buttocks, hit her head with a
hammer, and smashed her head on the wall on. Furthermore, the Court finds no
cogent reason to disbelieve AAAs testimony, which was corroborated by the
medical findings of Dr. Rivamonte and Dr. Arellano that the victims hymen had
"complete healed lacerations at 1, 3, 6, 9 oclock positions." Jurisprudence provides
that the eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical findings
attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of her
charges of rape.
Facts:
Delen was separately charged with child abuse under Section 10(a), Article VI
of Republic Act No. 7610 and qualified rape in separate informations before the RTC.
Said crimes were alleged to have been committed against AAA as follows:
On January 23, 2005, Delen asked AAA to look for a lighter. When AAA failed
to find one, Delen told her to go inside a room in their house. There, he kicked AAA
in the buttocks, hit her head with a hammer and smashed her head on the wooden
wall. She suffered injuries on her forehead and the back of her head. Afterwards,
she told the Delen that she was going to use the toilet so she was able to go out of
their house. She ran to the street and went to the house of a neighbor, Ate Annie.
Delen looked for her there so she hid under the bed. After Delen left, AAA was
brought to the house of Nanay Loleng, a neighbor of Ate Annie. They treated AAAs
wounds and put her to sleep. When she woke up, the barangay tanods were already
at the place. They first talked to AAA then they called the police so that Delen could
be apprehended. When Delen was arrested, AAA was brought to the police station
where she gave her statement. AAA was then taken to the hospital where she was
treated and examined by doctors.
Issue:
Ruling:
guilty
injury
"child
which
In Criminal Case No. 13870, the RTC and the Court of Appeals found Delen
beyond reasonable doubt of committing child abuse by infliction of physical
against AAA. Under Section 3(b), Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, the term
abuse" is defined as the maltreatment of a child, whether habitual or not,
includes the physical abuse of a child, among other acts.
In this case, AAA positively identified Delen as the person who kicked her in
the buttocks, hit her head with a hammer, and smashed her head on the wall on
January 23, 2005. Because of the said brutal and inhumane acts of Delen, AAA
suffered bruises and contusions in different parts of her body. The Medico-Legal
Certification of Dr. Rivamonte and Dr. Arellano clearly reflected the fact that AAA
indeed sustained contusions, coupled with a finding that she suffered multiple
physical injuries secondary to mauling.
In the case of qualified rape, pursuant to Art. 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code, a charge of rape to prosper under the above provision, the prosecution must
prove that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he
accomplished such act through force, threat, or intimidation, or when she was
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under twelve years
of age or was demented.
In the instant case, the prosecution was able to establish that Delen had
carnal knowledge of AAA on January 17, 2005. AAA narrated in a straightforward
manner the harrowing details of how Delen had sexual intercourse with her. Again,
the RTC found credible and convincing AAAs testimony on this matter. Likewise, the
Court finds no cogent reason to disbelieve AAAs testimony, which was corroborated
by the medical findings of Dr. Rivamonte and Dr. Arellano that the victims hymen
had "complete healed lacerations at 1, 3, 6, 9 oclock positions." The Court held in
People v. Oden that the "eloquent testimony of the victim, coupled with the medical
findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to confirm the truth of
her charges." As to the manner by which the rape was committed, the Delens
moral ascendancy over AAA takes the place of the force and intimidation that is
required in rape cases.
In this case, Besmonte was charged with two counts of statutory rape. The
RTC and the Court of Appeals were one in finding that he twice had carnal
knowledge of AAA, a child of tender years at the time of the commission of the two
counts of rape. Despite his vigorous protestations, the Court agrees in the finding
that the crime of rape committed by Besmonte against AAA was proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the following:
a) AAAs credible, positive and categorical testimony relative to the
circumstances surrounding her rape; and
b) The physical evidence consistent with AAAs assertion that she was raped.
Besmonte would have the Court reverse his conviction for the first count of
statutory rape on the ground that AAA admitted in open court that the rape
committed in March 2000 did not happen.
His attempt is futile. A review of the transcript of the testimony of AAA
clarified such misleading assertion her testimony that nothing happened simply
meant that he tried to insert his penis into her vagina but was unsuccessful because
it did not fit. In fact, AAA cried out with pain at his attempts to put it in; and her cry
of pain was what prompted Besmonte to leave abruptly. That she suffered severe
Page 282 of 466
The Court has time and time again ruled that denial and alibi are inherently
weak defenses as these are self-serving. The absence of fresh lacerations in the
hymen cannot be a firm indication that the complainant was not raped. It is settled
that hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape.
Facts:
Esteban pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. After pre-trial conference, trial
on the merits ensued. People alleged that on December 17, 2002, at around
midnight, Esteban entered the room where AAA, his daughter who was only 13
years old then, was sleeping. After entering the room, Esteban removed his clothes
and went beside AAA. Esteban then touched AAAs back and started to undress her.
AAA shouted and struggled to prevent her fathers advances, but the latter
threatened and intimidated her. After removing AAAs clothes, Esteban went on top
of AAA; despite AAAs pleas, he inserted his penis in AAAs vagina. After satisfying
his lust, Esteban left AAA in the room. AAA reported the incident to her brother BBB
and her aunt CCC, who both did not believe her. AAA then told her other aunt DDD
what her father did to her; the latter then brought AAA to the barangay office to
report the matter. Afterwards, they proceeded to the police station in Mayantoc
where AAA executed her sworn statement.
He also claimed that AAA visited him in jail after she had given her testimony
in open court and gave him a letter wherein she supposedly stated that her
allegations against her father were not true and that she was just angry at him for
his failure to protect her from the sexual abuse she suffered from her brother-in-law.
RTC ruled that Esteban is guilty of the crime of Rape punishable under Article
266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended in relation to Article 266-B (1) of the
same Code.
Issue:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision which found Esteban
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC.
Ruling:
No. The appeal is dismissed for lack of merit.
The elements necessary to sustain a conviction for rape are: (1) that the
accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished
(a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or
is demented. Under Article 266-B of the RPC, the felony of rape is qualified when the
victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is, inter alia, a parent.
It is well-settled that, in a criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are
generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such
findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional
circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant
matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the
court below. The Court sees no reason to depart from the foregoing rule.
Other than Estebans testimony that AAA indeed wrote the said letter, there
is no other evidence which would support the said claim. It is but a mere
unsubstantiated allegation and, hence, not worthy of credence. Further, as aptly
pointed out by the CA, the said letter is hearsay since AAA was not called upon to
testify on the contents thereof.
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that AAA, then only 13 years old, would feign
a traumatizing experience merely out of spite towards her father, who supposedly
failed to protect her from the sexual abuse she suffered from her brother-in-law. No
sane girl would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private
parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not in truth, been a
victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her. Youth and
immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. The weight of such
testimony may be countered by physical evidence to the contrary or indubitable
proof that the accused could not have committed the rape, but in the absence of
such countervailing proof, the testimony shall be accorded utmost value.
Against AAAs testimony, Esteban was only able to proffer the defense of
denial and alibi. The Court has time and time again ruled that denial and alibi are
inherently weak defenses as these are self-serving.
The term statutory rape should only be confined to situations where the
victim of rape is a person less than 12 years of age. If the victim of rape is a person
with mental abnormality, deficiency, or retardation, the crime committed is simple
rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (b) as she is considered "deprived of
reason" notwithstanding that her mental age is equivalent to that of a person under
12. In short, 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 1(d), should still be designated as simple rape under paragraph 1(b).
Facts:
The RTC convicted the Jose Dalan (Dalan) of two counts of statutory rape. It
ruled that the prosecution was able to prove that the Dalan inserted his penis in
AAA's vagina on two occasions, namely, in December 2006 and on March 3, 2007. It
added that AAA's testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of Dr. Sabrina
Florendo. The RTC further explained that AAA's mental retardation cannot disqualify
her as a witness, since she capably narrated the details of the sexual abuses
committed against her by the Dalan.
Accordingly, the RTC sentenced the Dalan to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, and to indemnify the victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity
and P50,000.00 as moral damages, both for each count of statutory rape.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision. The CA ruled that AAA positively
identified the Dalan as the person who raped her on two occasions. According to the
CA, AAA was consistent in her recollection of the details of the crime. It also added
that AAAs moderate mental retardation was sufficiently established by the
prosecutions evidence. Finally, the RTC found the Dalans uncorroborated denial
and alibi to be unmeritorious. Hence, this appeal.
In the present case, the prosecution established the elements of rape under
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. First, AAA positively identified
the Dalan as the person who inserted his penis in her vagina in December 2006 and
in March 2007; she never wavered in this identification. Significantly, AAAs claim of
sexual intercourse had been corroborated by the medical findings and testimony of
Dr. Florendo who testified that the marked attenuated hymen at 6 oclock position
was most probably caused by an erect penis, while the absent hymen at the 4, 5
and 7 oclock positions could be caused by repeated sexual experience.
Aside from erroneously equating AAAs mental retardation with dementia, the
RTC further justified its conviction of Dalan of statutory rape on account of the
victims mental age. The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape, as provided for
in Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, 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
complainant; second, the identity of the accused; and last but not the least, the
carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant
It is not disputed that AAA was already 17 years old when she was raped. In
People v. Butiong, the Court held that carnal knowledge of a female mental
Based on these discussions, we hold that the term statutory rape should only
be confined to situations where the victim of rape is a person less than 12 years of
age. If the victim of rape is a person with mental abnormality, deficiency, or
retardation, the crime committed is simple rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1)
(b) as she is considered "deprived of reason" notwithstanding that her mental age is
equivalent to that of a person under 12. In short, 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 1(d), should still be designated as
simple rape under paragraph 1(b). At any rate, proof of force, threat or intimidation
is dispensed with in both statutory rape and rape with a person who is deprived of
reason.
Thus, the CA decision is affirmed with the modification, among others, that
Dalan is found guilty of simple rape under Article 266-A(1)(b) of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
AAAs delay in filing a complaint against him, for the alleged rape incident,
which happened during the summer of 1999, cannot be taken against AAAs claim.
Delay in reporting an incident of rape does not create any doubt over the credibility
of the complainant nor can it be taken against her. Against AAAs testimony,
Alhambra was only able to proffer the defense of denial and alibi. In any case, it
should be stressed that the delay in the filing of the complaint is only with respect
to the charge in Criminal Case No. 219-05, where Alhambra was acquitted by the
RTC. There was no considerable delay in the filing of the complaint against
Alhambra in Criminal Case No. 220-05. The Court has time and time again ruled that
denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses as these are self-serving.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROLANDO RONDINA
G.R. No. 207763, June 30, 2014, J. Reyes
It has been held that when the victims testimony is corroborated by the
physicians finding of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to conclude the
existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge; that laceration, whether
healed or fresh, is the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. The Court,
however, finds no physical evidence of sexual penetration and no corroboration of
other vital details in AAAs narration of the rape. when the victim says that the
accused inserted his penis into her vagina and pushed and pulled inside her "for a
long time," and she felt pain and blood oozed from her organ, the stark absence of
any vaginal tear or laceration will have to be medically explained, or else, the Court
is left with no inference other than that the charge of rape may have been a mere
fabrication.
Facts:
An information was filed against Rondina charging him of rape, as follows:
That on or about the 30th day of August, 1998, about 12:00 oclock noon, at
Barangay XXX, Municipality of YYY, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Rondina, with lewd design and lustful intent and
by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with one AAA, without her consent and
against her will.
The version of the defense paints a lovers tryst. According to Rondina he met
AAA at a benefit dance held during their town fiesta. On August 29, 1998, Rondina
again saw AAA, and it was then that he broached an "intimate" proposal to her. She
agreed, but told him to come back at noon the next day since her parents would be
Page 299 of 466
The trial court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt which was
later affirmed by the CA. The case is elevated to the SC for automatic review.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused s guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling:
The Court votes to acquit Rondina.
The elements of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A of the RPC are: (1)
the offender is a man who had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he
accomplished such act through force or intimidation upon her; or she is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; or she is under 12 years of age or is demented.
The RTC and the CA both found that AAAs testimony clearly established that
Rondina had sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will;
that to satisfy his lust, he employed force and threats.
The victims narration is inconsistent with the physical evidence of the
supposed rape by a stranger. The Court, however, finds no physical evidence of
sexual penetration and no corroboration of other vital details in AAAs narration of
the rape. When the victim says that Rondina inserted his penis into her vagina and
pushed and pulled inside her "for a long time," and she felt pain and blood oozed
from her organ, the stark absence of any vaginal tear or laceration will have to be
medically explained, or else, the Court is left with no inference other than that the
charge of rape may have been a mere fabrication.
The scenario created by the prosecution is that of a barrio maiden whose
purity was being forcibly assailed in a sudden attack, and the attacker is a stranger,
one who naturally has no demands upon the victims affections nor exercises moral
ascendancy over her. It thus beggars belief that without putting up a resistance,
Although "AAAs" minority was alleged, the same was not proved during trial;
neither was her Birth Certificate submitted in evidence. Her relationship with the
Juan was likewise not established. Although the Information alleged that Juan is an
uncle of "AAA," such relationship was not proved during trial. Based on Juans
testimony, he was never married to "AAAs" relative.
Facts:
During trial, "AAA" testified that Bunagan is the husband of her grandmother;
that she resided in the house of her grandmother since she was nine years old; that
in 1998 when she was already 13 years of age, Bunagan started raping her; that her
grandmother leaves the house to work while Bunagan is unemployed and just stays
at the house; that the last rape incident happened in August 2001 when she was 16
years old; that Bunagan threatened to kill her mother and grandmother if she would
not succumb to his desire; that after the last rape incident, she got pregnant; that
when her mother and grandmother confronted her about her pregnancy, she told
RTC convicted Bunagan for crime of rape which was affirmed by CA.
Issue:
Going by the testimony of the Bunagan that his love relationship with "AAA"
started sometime in 1997, "AAA" would have been only 12 years of age while
Bunagan would be about 46 years old. It is also on record that "AAA" vehemently
denied her alleged love relationship with the Juan.
Although "AAAs" minority was alleged, the same was not proved during trial;
neither was her Birth Certificate submitted in evidence. Her relationship with the
Juan was likewise not established. Although the Information alleged that Juan is an
uncle of "AAA," such relationship was not proved during trial. Based on Juans
testimony, he was never married to "AAAs" relative.
In fact, Bunagan was merely the live-in partner of the sister of "AAAs"
grandmother. As such, he and the victim cannot be said to be related by affinity
within the third civil degree at the time of the commission of the crime."
The intent of the offender to lie with the female defines the distinction
between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness. The felony of attempted rape
requires such intent; the felony of acts of lasciviousness does not. Only the direct
overt acts of the offender establish the intent to lie with the female. However,
merely climbing on top of a naked female does not constitute attempted rape
Facts:
Norberto Cruz y Bartolome (Norberto) was charged in the RTC with attempted
rape and acts of lasciviousness involving different victims.
The prosecution alleged that on December 20, 1993, Norberto and, his wife,
Belinda employed AAA and BBB to help them in selling their wares in Bangar, La
Union which was then celebrating its fiesta. From Libsong East, Lingayen,
Pangasinan to Bangar, La Union, AAA and BBB boarded a passenger jeepney owned
by Norberto. The young girls were accompanied by Norberto, Belinda, Ruben
Rodriguez (driver) and a sales boy by the name of "Jess". Upon reaching Bangar, La
Union, at around 8:00 in the evening of December 20, 1993, they parked in front of
Maroon enterprises and brought out all the goods and wares for display. Two tents
were fixed in order that they will have a place to sleep. Belinda and the driver
proceeded to Manila in order to get more goods to be sold.
On December 21, 1993, at around 1:00 oclock in the morning, AAA and BBB
went to sleep. Less than an hour later, AAA was awakened when she felt that
somebody was on top of her. Norberto was mashing her breast and touching her
private part. AAA realized that she was divested of her clothing and that she was
totally naked. Norberto ordered her not to scream or shell be killed. AAA tried to
push Norberto away and pleaded to have pity on her but her pleas fell on deaf ears.
She fought back and kicked Norberto twice. Norberto was not able to pursue his
lustful desires. Norberto offered her money and told her not to tell the incident to
her mother otherwise, she will be killed. AAA went out of the tent to seek help from
Jess (the house boy) but she failed to wake him up. Thirty minutes later, when AAA
returned to their tent, she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB. AAA saw
her companion awake but her hands were shaking. When she finally entered the
tent, Norberto left and went outside.
On the other hand, Norberto denied the criminal acts imputed to him.
Norberto maintained that it was not possible for him to commit the crimes hurled
against him. On the date of the alleged incident, there were many people around
who were preparing for the "simbang gabi". Considering the location of the tents,
which were near the road and the municipal hall, he could not possibly do the
dastardly acts out in the open, not to mention the fact that once AAA and BBB
would scream, the policemen in the municipal hall could hear them. He believes
that the reason why the complainants filed these cases against him was solely for
the purpose of extorting money from him.
After the joint trial of the two criminal cases, the RTC rendered its judgment
finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of attempted rape and acts of
lasciviousness. On appeal, CA affirmed the conviction of Norberto for attempted
rape, but acquitting him of the acts of lasciviousness.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the Norbertos climbing on top of the undressed AAA such
that they faced each other, with him mashing her breasts and touching
her genitalia with his hands, constituted attempted rape.
2. Whether the acts
Lasciviousness
of
Norberto
against
AAA
constitutes
Acts
of
As the evolving case law on rape stands, rape in its frustrated stage is a
physical impossibility, considering that the requisites of a frustrated felony under
Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code are that: (1) the offender has performed all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony; and (2) that the felony is not
produced due to causes independent of the perpetrators will. Obviously, the
offender attains his purpose from the moment he has carnal knowledge of his
victim, because from that moment all the essential elements of the offense have
been accomplished, leaving nothing more to be done by him. Nonetheless, rape
admits of an attempted stage.
In attempted rape, therefore, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender
does not perform all the acts of execution of having carnal knowledge. If the
slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates rape, and rape in its
attempted stage requires the commencement of the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts without the offender performing all the acts of execution that
should produce the felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed by
the accused can be shown to have a causal relation to rape as the intended crime is
to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the female. Accepting that intent,
being a mental act, is beyond the sphere of criminal law, that showing must be
through his overt acts directly connected with rape. He cannot be held liable for
attempted rape without such overt acts demonstrating the intent to lie with the
female. In short, the State, to establish attempted rape, must show that his overt
acts, should his criminal intent be carried to its complete termination without being
thwarted by extraneous matters, would ripen into rape, for, as succinctly put in
People v. Dominguez, Jr.: "The gauge in determining whether the crime of attempted
rape had been committed is the commencement of the act of sexual intercourse,
i.e., penetration of the penis into the vagina, before the interruption."
Norberto climbed on top of the naked victim, and was already touching her
genitalia with his hands and mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his
clutches and effectively ended his designs on her. Yet, inferring from such
circumstances that rape, and no other, was his intended felony would be highly
unwarranted. This was so, despite his lust for and lewd designs towards her being
Page 336 of 466
The Court clarifies that the direct overt acts of Norberto that would have
produced attempted rape did not include equivocal preparatory acts. The former
would have related to his acts directly connected to rape as the intended crime, but
the latter, whether external or internal, had no connection with rape as the intended
crime. Perforce, his perpetration of the preparatory acts would not render him guilty
of an attempt to commit such felony. His preparatory acts could include his putting
up of the separate tents, with one being for the use of AAA and BBB, and the other
for himself and his assistant, and his allowing his wife to leave for Manila earlier that
evening to buy more wares. Such acts, being equivocal, had no direct connection to
rape. As a rule, preparatory acts are not punishable under the Revised Penal Code
for as long as they remained equivocal or of uncertain significance, because by their
equivocality no one could determine with certainty what the perpetrators intent
really was.
Based on Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, the felony of acts of
lasciviousness is consummated when the following essential elements concur,
Page 337 of 466
The information charged that Norberto "remove[d] her panty and underwear
and la[id] on top of said AAA embracing and touching her vagina and breast." With
such allegation of the information being competently and satisfactorily proven
beyond a reasonable doubt, he was guilty only of acts of lasciviousness, not
attempted rape. His embracing her and touching her vagina and breasts did not
directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The lack of evidence showing his erectile
penis being in the position to penetrate her when he was on top of her deterred any
inference about his intent to lie with her. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and
lust for her.
The intent to commit rape should not easily be inferred against Norberto,
even from his own declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts directly
leading to rape. A good illustration of this can be seen in People v. Bugarin, where
the accused was charged with attempted rape through an information alleging that
he, by means of force and intimidation, "did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commence the commission of the crime of Rape directly by overt acts,
by then and there kissing the nipples and the vagina of the undersigned
[complainant], a minor, and about to lay on top of her, all against her will, however,
[he] did not perform all the acts of execution which would have produced the crime
of Rape by reason of some causes other than his own spontaneous desistance, that
is, undersigned complainant push[ed] him away." Norberto was held liable only for
acts of lasciviousness because the intent to commit rape "is not apparent from the
act described," and the intent to have sexual intercourse with her was not inferable
from the act of licking her genitalia. The Court also pointed out that the "act
imputed to him cannot be considered a preparatory act to sexual intercourse."
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONARDO CATAYTAY y SILVANO
G.R. No. 196315, October 22, 2014, J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Facts:
During the interviews made by the barangay officials, AAA narrated how she
was raped by Cataytay, which ended when a certain "Mimi" knocked at the door.
When Cataytay answered the knock, Mimi told the former that she will shout if he
does not leave the house. AAA went out of the house and sought help from their
neighbors. One of their neighbors, Amelita Morante, called the barangay officials at
the outpost.
RTC rendered its Judgment finding accused Cataytay liable for crime of rape
which was affirmed by CA.
Issue:
Ruling:
In the case at bar, AAA was clinically diagnosed to have mental retardation
with the mental capacity of a seven-year old child. The prosecution and the defense
agreed to stipulate on the conclusion of the psychologist that the "mental age of the
victim whose chronological age at the time of the commission of the offense is
nineteen (19) years old x x x is that of a seven (7) year old child." Cataytay is
therefore criminally liable for rape under paragraph 1(b) of Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code. The appropriate penalty is provided for by Article 266-B, which
relevantly provides:
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances xxx When the
offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap
of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
the victim was rescued by the police inside the house owned by Petrus and
Susana;
2) the Toyota Corolla white taxicab bearing Plate No. PVD 115 was found in the
possession of the Accused-appellant Petrus on February 11, 2004;
3) the drivers license of Petrus and an ATM card in the name of Ong Kwai Ping
were recovered inside the Toyota Corolla taxicab of Petrus Yau;
4) in the house where the victim was rescued, the following evidence were
found: one (1) chain with padlock, handcuffs, short broken chain, checkered
pajama, black blazer, two (2) video camera cartridges, one showing the
victim in lying down position and family footages; eight (8) pieces of
cellphones, two (2) Talk n Tex SIM cards, Globe SIM card, ACR of Petrus Yau,
Page 389 of 466
xxxx
the
purview
of
Ruling: