Final Crim Digests

C R I M I N A L L AW
DIGESTS
ATENEO CENTRAL BAR OPERATIONS 2002
OCTOBER 1999
PEOPLE V. NARIDO
October 1, 1999
Accused raped his 11-year-old daughter while they are gathering firewood. On another
occasion, his common law wife caught him lying on top of his daughter.
Issue:
W/N said crime is punishable by death? (special circumstance imposing death penalty
automatically - victim is under 18 years of age and offender is a parent.)
HELD: No.
Guilty only of simple statutory rape and not qualified rape for want of allegation of relationship.
Said special circumstances introduced by RA 7659 which sanction automatic imposition of
death penalty partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances since these circumstances
increase the penalty for rape by one degree. Nonetheless, to be properly appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance, it must be specifically pleaded in the information. Information in this
case reveals that although the complainant's minority was alleged, the fact of relationship, albeit
proven during the trial, was not so specified.
PEOPLE V. PADAMA
October 1, 1999
Victim Gatchalian was chased by the two accused, each armed with a knife, and stabbed
simultaneously several times. He eventually died of severe blood loss. Said killing arose from a
previous incident where victim confronted accused regarding their plan of stealing from the store
of the former.
Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes.
W/N there was evident premeditation? No.
HELD:
The conclusion that the killing was attended with treachery or taking advantage of superior
strength, as the two accused each armed with bladed weapons and continuously attacking and
raining knife thrusts upon the unarmed and unsuspecting victim which caused his eventual
death is also not to be disturbed. The evidence shows that the two accused took turns in
stabbing the victim while the latter had already fallen down on the pavement.
Proof of the alleged resentment does not constitute conclusive proof of evident premeditation.
An expression of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a crime; there must
be a demonstration of outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest.
PEOPLE V. VILLABLANCA
October 1, 1999
Villablanca brothers barged in to the house of victim Pedro Natanio late in the night. Pedro and
his family were awakened by their chickens flying off the perch. Victim was made to kneel on the
floor and then stabbed him on the stomach with a samurai, while the other pointed a gun to his
face. Victim rolled to his side and was again stabbed thrice which led to his death
W/N there was abuse of superior strength? No.
W/N there was conspiracy? Yes.
HELD:
Pedro may have been warned of a possible danger to his person. However, what is decisive is
that the attack was executed in a manner making it impossible for Pedro to retaliate. When
Pedro was made to kneel on the floor, he was unarmed. There was no risk to the accused when
they commenced the stabbing. Pedro's helplessness was bolstered by the fact that he was
suffering from a congenital limpness, which allowed him to walk only short distances.
There is no evidence that accused took advantage of superior strength. In any event, even if it
was present it was absorbed in treachery. Both accused shall suffer the same fate, as there was
conspiracy between them. When the other pointed a gun to Pedro, he provided his brother with
moral assistance. This is enough to make him a co-conspirator. It is not necessary to show that
he actually he hit and killed Pedro to make him liable for his brother's acts.
PEOPLE V. VERGEL
October 4, 1999
Vergel and Duran, both drunk and armed with a gun and a fan knife, fetched and forcibly
brought victim on board a tricycle to an apartment. Vergel had carnal knowledge with said victim
*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 1

DIGESTS
after he poked the gun at her side and pulled her into a bedroom, while Duran stayed guard
near the door of the sala.
Issue: W/N there was rape?
HELD: Yes.
It is clear there was rape. The prosecution was able to prove that (1) the accused had carnal
knowledge of the complainant (2) because he intimidated her by pointing a gun at her. Failure to
shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to the
criminal acts of the accused. Such resistance is not an element of the felony. It is enough that
the malefactor intimidated the complainant into submission. Not every victim of rape can be
expected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual expectation of everyone.
PEOPLE V. YABUT
October 5, 1999
Spouses Yabut on several occasions received money from complainants promising them they
will be able to work in Japan. After several cancellation of their scheduled departure,
complainants discovered that said spouses were not licensed to engage in recruitment and
placement activities. Wife eluded arrest and remains at-large. Husband contends that he was
not engaged in recruitment for overseas employment and but only in processing visas. He was
acquitted of the crime of estafa.
Issue: W/N accused could be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal
of the crime of estafa?
HELD: Yes.
It is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted
separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa Art. 315 of the RPC. The
former is mala prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for
conviction, while estafa is mala in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for
conviction.
PEOPLE V. CARATAY
October 5, 1999
Accused in several occasions had carnal knowledge with his common-law wife's 13 year-old
niece. In one occasion he drugged the lugaw of said victim.
Issue: Was there rape?
HELD: Yes.
We have ruled that if the ability to resist is taken away by administering a drug, even though the
woman may be conscious, sexual intercourse with her will be rape. Moral character is
immaterial in the prosecution and conviction of the accused in a rape case. We have ruled that
even prostitutes can be rape victims.
PEOPLE V. SUELTO
October 7, 1999
Appellant came home late, and his wife was angry with him because she believed that he came
from Sing-A-Long. Quarrel ensued resulting to death of the wife after being shot on the head.
Issue: W/N guilty of parricide?
HELD: Yes.
Appellant was the only person with his wife when she was shot in their room. Considering, that
his defense was built on the theory that the shooting was purportedly accidental, appellant has
the inescapable burden of proving the elements of the exempting circumstance of accident.
PEOPLE V. FLORO*
October 7, 1999
Witness and victim were walking along a trail on a cassava plantation owned by accused, who
suddenly appeared and shot the victim then striked the head several times with the gun.
Issue: W/N guilty of murder?
HELD: Yes.
The killing in this case is murder qualified by treachery. The evidence shows that accused
suddenly sprang from the cassava plants and shot the victim. The victim was unarmed and
unsuspecting of any impending peril to his life and limb at the time he was shot by accused. The
swift and unexpected attack by accused rendered the victim helpless.
The rule that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not mean it
cannot be appreciated if the attack is frontally launched. The suddenness of the shooting

DIGESTS
without the slightest provocation from he victim who was unarmed and had no opportunity to
defend himself, ineluctably qualified the crime with treachery.
PEOPLE V. ORTIZ
October 7, 1999
Accused threw stones on the roof of the victim's house. After the victim hurled challenge for the
stone thrower to come out, the four accused suddenly emerged from the dark. Victim was held
by the arms and dragged towards the barangay hall. Accused fired their rifles on the ground to
dissuade witnesses from coming to his aid. Later, bursts of gunfire were heard coming from the
direction of the barangay hall. Lifeless body of the victim was later found near the barangay hall.
Issue: W/N guilty of murder? W/N there was conspiracy?
HELD: Yes.
The only clear circumstance that qualifies the killing to murder in this case is the abuse of
superior strength between the victim and his four aggressors, as well as the degree of force and
the weapons used by the latter.
Conspiracy among the four assailants was proven by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The
accused were together when two of them held the victim, while one was firing his rifle. All of
them dragged the latter towards the barangay hall. To establish conspiracy, it is not necessary
that there be proof of the previous agreement to commit the crime, it being enough that the
malefactors shall have acted in concert pursuant to the same objective. At the very instant the
plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the crime and decide to pursue it, each and
everyone of the conspirators is criminally liable for the crime committed by anyone of them.
PEOPLE V. APELADO
October 11, 1999
Victim Rodolfo de Jesus was overtaken by Jose Apelado and his group while walking in front of
a house. His line of way was cut. De Jesus asked him, "What is my fault to you?" He raised his
hands and prepared to fight. German hit his lower legs with a piece of wood. He fell down. The
three surrounded him. German pulled out a knife and stabbed him at his legs and then at his
throat. Apelado hacked him with a bolo using his left hand. De Jesus was hit twice - at the top of
his head and nape. Robert thrust an ice pick at his back and side below the armpit. They then
ran away and left him sprawled on the ground.
HELD:
To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be proof as to the previous agreement to
commit a crime. It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished
clearly indicate unity of action and purpose. In this instance, the fact that the assailants followed,
overtook, surrounded and took turns in inflicting injuries to the victim show a common purpose.
Abuse of superior strength also attended the commission of the crime. This circumstance is
appreciated when the aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means
of defense available to the person attacked. In the case at bar, the aggressors who were all
armed first hit the legs of their unarmed victim, which caused him to fall kneeling. This was
followed by a stab above the knee. Having deprived him of his means to stand or run, they took
turns in inflicting mortal wounds on him.
Neither treachery nor evident premeditation was present in the commission of the crime.
Treachery is absent as the accused-appellants were not entirely risk free during their attack. As
stated, the victim prepared to fight it out with the accused-appellants. Evident premeditation
cannot be considered for lack of evidence that accused-appellants preconceived the crime.
PEOPLE V. RENATO
October 11, 1999
Victim Ludovico Romano and his wife Melecia were selling tuba in a makeshift hut, several
meters away from the highway. Melecia sat on a bench, while Ludovico squatted on the ground,
waiting for customers to arrive. Suddenly, a shot was fired. Melecia hid herself in an irrigation
canal while Ludovico stood up and tried to find out where the shot came from. When another
shot was fired, Melecia shouted for Ludovico to duck. Ludovico then stood an arm's length away
from the highway. It was too late, Melecia saw accused-appellant Ruben Ronato shoot
Ludovico. Victim was rushed to the hospital and died two days later.
HELD:
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, without the slightest
provocation on the part of the person attacked. There is treachery when the attack on the victim

DIGESTS
was made without giving the latter warning of any kind and thus rendering him unable to defend
himself from an assailant's unexpected attack. What is decisive is that the attack was executed
in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate. As testified to by Melecia,
the victim was "squatting on the ground" in their makeshift hut when the shooting started. The
victim stood up to find out what was happening. On the third time, accused-appellant shot him
point blank and in a helpless position.
PEOPLE V. LACHICA
October 12, 1999
Accused boarded the tricycle of Pascasio as his tricycle was running on the shoulder of the
road, he heard somebody inside the tricycle cry out 'aray' and felt warm blood spurt from inside
the sidecar of the tricycle landing at the back of his right palm. He then stopped the tricycle and
accused brought out victim Rodolfo Pamoleras, Jr. and started to stab him while others served
as lookout.
Issue: W/N there was conspiracy? Yes.
W/N there was treachery? Yes.
HELD:
Conspiracy - The act of Junuario dela Cruz of hiring a tricycle on the pretext of needing to throw
something; their strategic seating positions inside the tricycle, depriving the deceased an
opportunity to free himself; their respective acts of stabbing the deceased, and their washing the
blood off the tricycle all evinced a unity of action and common design to kill the victim. It is not
necessary that there be evidence of a previous plan or agreement to embark upon the assault.
It is sufficient that their actions indicate a common intent such that the act of one is the act of all.
Treachery - They appeared to be in a jubilant mood even as they were singing "Tayo na sa
Heaven". Evidently, from all appearances the deceased was lured into going with the assailants
who suddenly stabbed him inside the moving tricycle, giving the latter no opportunity to retaliate
or defend himself from the means or method consciously adopted by the felons in taking his life.
Qualifying circumstance of treachery suffices to qualify the offense to murder.
PEOPLE V. MANEGDEG
October 13, 1999
Accused was seen running through the rice fields towards the house of the victim. At about that
time, Federico, his wife Lorie and son Ronel, were inside their house listening to the radio.
Federico requested Ronel to switch to another radio station while he will go out to urinate and
proceeded to the door. As Federico held the doorframe with his hand, appellant stabbed him.
Prior said incident, accused was requesting Federico's consent to marry his daughter but to
which he replied that is more honorable for his daughter to marry son of accused.
Issue: W/N there was treachery?
HELD: Yes.
Circumstances surrounding the killing of the victim Federico Abian clearly indicate the presence
of alevosia or treachery, for accused-appellant attacked the victim while he was about to exit his
house to urinate, with no inkling whatsoever that he would be attacked. A sudden and
unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on the person of the one attacked, is the
essence of treachery. Moreover, the trial court correctly considered the generic aggravating
circumstance of dwelling. Where the crime was committed in the place of abode of the victims,
the aggravating circumstance of dwelling shall be appreciated against the accused.
PEOPLE V. GAILO
October 13, 1999
Sotela and Maale went to the store to drink beer. Some minutes later, they were joined in their
drinking by Renato Gailo and his elder brother, Ronaldo Gailo, alias "Mukong". A minor
altercation ensued when Ronaldo boxed the victim, but the two were soon pacified and the
group resumed their drinking. Ronaldo then invited Sotela and the victim to his house, where
allegedly there was a birthday party.
On the way to the said party, Gailos assaulted the victim. Sotela witnessed Ronaldo stab the
victim on the face with a bolo, then Renato stabbed the victim on the back, and Rudy hit the
victim with a lead pipe on the neck. A minute later, three other accused arrived, and for five
minutes, helped stone the victim, hitting him on the head and body.
Issue: W/N guilty of murder? Yes.
W/N nighttime was aggravating? No.
HELD:

DIGESTS
Said killing was qualified to murder by the use of superior strength, the accused having clearly
overpowered the victim in terms of number and weapons used.
There are two tests for nocturnity to be aggravating - the objective test, under which nocturnity
is aggravating because it facilitated the commission of the offense, and the subjective test,
under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender in order
to facilitate the achievement of his objectives, prevent discovery or evade capture. In the instant
case, there is no evidence that nighttime was sought for any of these purposes, or that it aided
the accused in the consummation of the murder. Moreover, at the time of the killing, there was
sufficient illumination from the moon such that the two eyewitnesses were able to identify the six
accused.
PEOPLE V. PANIQUE*
October 13, 1999
Complainant, eldest child of the accused, was left to the care of latter when her mother went to
Hong Kong to work as a domestic helper. While complainant was asleep, accused laid himself
on top of her. When she awoke, she found accused fondling her breasts even as he inserted his
penis into her vagina. All she could do was cry, because she was afraid of her father whom she
knew was hooked on drugs.
HELD: Yes.
In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and
influence over the latter substitutes for violence or intimidation.
The minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitute a special qualifying
circumstance, which should be alleged in the information and proved to warrant the imposition
of the death penalty. For this reason, said penalty should be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE V. LANGRES
October 13, 1999
Sindo bothers attended a dance which ended about midnight. They proceeded to the house of
their elder brother. They sat on a bench opposite said house while sharing light moments.
Restituto greeted PO3 Langres when he came, who instead gave a fist blow on the former
without provocation. Victim Teodorico intervened to ask what is his brother's fault. Accused drew
his gun and shot the victim at the forehead.
Issue: W/N there was self-defense?
HELD: No.
The unlawful aggression contemplated under the law must come from the victim himself. Mere
belief of an impending attack is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression. Neither is an
intimidating or threatening attitude. Even a mere push or shove not followed by other acts
placing in peril the life or personal safety of the accused is not unlawful aggression. It is
noteworthy that the Sindo brothers were unarmed. They were young men having a jovial,
innocuous conversation when appellant passed by. Without such imminent threat on his life, the
person invoking self-defense has nothing to repel.
PEOPLE V. CLEMENTE
October 13, 1999
Complainant was selling balut in front of Lanai beerhouse when she met accused. They had
sexual intercourse in friend's house.
HELD: No.
In rape cases alleged to have been committed by force, it is imperative for the prosecution to
establish that the element of voluntariness on the part of the victim to be absolutely lacking.
Testimony inexorably shows that complainant obviously consented to the sexual act which was
done not only once but twice. No woman would meekly give in to a sexual intruder where her
life is not in serious jeopardy.
PEOPLE V. AGUNOS
October 13, 1999
Accused raped complainant while her husband was away serving as a poll watcher.
HELD: Yes.

DIGESTS
Force and violence in rape cases need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied. The
record shows that amidst complainant's pleas and struggles, accused pinned complainant's
hand behind her back, covered her mouth with his hand and pulled her underwear to her knee
before spreading hr legs apart with such force that her undergarments were ripped.
PEOPLE V. GABALLO
October 13, 1999
Two construction workers heard a girl scream for a distance, then saw her being hugged and
pulled by accused towards the ipil trees. When they reached the place, they saw the girl in
school uniform lying face down. They also saw the accused sitting down, who immediately ran
away. Unfortunatey, they were not able to apprehend the unidentified man.
Issue: W/N there was treachery?
HELD: YES.
The killing of children, who by reason of their tender years cannot be expected to put up a
defense, is considered attended with treachery even if the manner of attack is not precisely
shown.
PEOPLE V. COSTELO
October 13, 1999
Accused Conde grabbed victim Remy by the neck, then stabbed her at the mouth and at the
back. When Remy was able to escape from Conde, she ran towards Costelo, who pushed her
towards Conde, who again squeezed Remy's mouth and dragged her. Pablo, who suddenly
appeared, sat on her chest and stabbed her more than fifteen times. Costelo held Remy on the
shoulders in a stooping position while the latter was being stabbed by Pablo.
W/N there was conspiracy? Yes.
HELD:
That the locus criminis was a heavily populated area where others could thus intervene is not
significant at all. The essence of treachery is that the attack was deliberate and without warning.
The victim need not be actually hit by each of the conspirators for the act of one of them is
deemed the act of all. Their prior act of waiting for the victim outside her house affirms the
existence of conspiracy, for it speaks of a common design and purpose.
PEOPLE V. CELIS
October 20, 1999
Complainant Racquel arrived from Manila at Maguindanao and boarded the passenger jeep
driven by accused appellants Roque and Carlos. Upon reaching the terminal, Racquel
discovered that there was no more tricycle trip going to San Antonio. Accused invited Racquel to
sleep in their house, who agreed after the initial hesitation because she is not familiar with the
area. She was raped in several occasions, once in a makeshift hut and twice in a school
building.
Issue: W/N there was a rape?
HELD: Yes.
For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of
such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be
sufficient to consummate the purpose which the appellant had in mind. Threatening the victim
with a knife, a deadly weapon, is sufficient to cow the victim. It constitutes an element of rape.
PEOPLE V. TABION
October 20, 1999
Accused in several occasions, raped his 16- year old daughter while his wife is away. She could
not resist the accused because she was afraid of him and of his threat to kill her and her family.
HELD: Yes.
In the incestuous rape of a minor, proof of force and violence exerted by the aggressor is not
essential. The moral and physical ascendancy of the father over his daughter-victim is sufficient
to cow her into submission to his bestial desires.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. MARAMARA
October 20, 1999
A quarrel transpired between the friend of the accused and the victim in a benefit dance.
Accused shot to death victim after a rumble occurred.
Issue: W/N accused is guilty of murder?
HELD: No. Guilty of Homicide only
The use of a firearm is not sufficient indication of treachery. In the absence of any convincing
proof that accused-appellant consciously and deliberately adopted the means by which he
committed the crime in order to ensure its execution, the Court must resolve doubt in favor of
the accused. Accused cannot be held liable only for death caused in a tumultuous affray
because he joined the fray purportedly to pacify the protagonist before shooting the victim.
PEOPLE V. LAZARO
October 26, 1999
The accused was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. In his appeal
the accused-appellant raises the sole assignment of error that the trial court erred in finding the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition qualified by homicide.
HELD:
In cases involving illegal possession of firearms under P.D. 1866, the prosecution has the
burden of proving the elements thereof, viz.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and (b) the
fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or
permit to possess the same.
Republic Act No. 8294 has since amended P.D. No. 1866 by reducing the penalties for
simple and aggravated forms of illegal possession and considering the use of an unlicensed
firearm simply as an aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide. The law now provides:
Provided, however, That no other crime was committed by the person arrested. If
homicide or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Thus in People v. Molina, it was held:"Fortunately for appellants, however, RA 8294
has now amended the said decree and considers the use of an unlicensed firearm simply as an
aggravating circumstance in murder or homicide, and not as separate offense.
PEOPLE V. GRACIANO BOLIVAR

October 28, 1999
Renato Balbon, Joel Soberano and Graciano Bolivar were found by the lower court to be
conspirators in committing murder and frustrated murder against the victims Hugo Callao and
Damaso Suelan. The case against Bolivar was dismissed, since he died of cardio-respiratory
arrest during the trial. This is in line with the ruling in the case of People v. Bayotas, where the
Court ruled that the death of the accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon. The evidence on record is likewise insufficient to
convict Barrion as a principal by inducement.
HELD:
The inducement exists whenever the act performed by the physical author of the crime is
determined by the influence of the inducer over the mind of him who commits the act whatever
the source of such influence. Thus, the inciting words must have great dominance and influence
over the person who acts; they ought to be direct and as efficacious, or powerful as physical or
moral coercion or violence itself.
A conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner by which the offense was
perpetrated, however, a conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It
cannot be based on mere conjectures but must be established as a fact.
PEOPLE V. JERONICO LOBINO

October 28, 1999
Appellant was convicted for murdering his common-law wife. He contends he would not stab
her without any apparent reasons, and that he attacked her because he could no longer stand
her going home late at night and her sarcastic remarks whenever her attention was called to
what she was doing. He contends he should have been credited with the mitigating
circumstance of passion and obfuscation.
ISSUE: W/N passion and obfuscation is mitigating?

DIGESTS
HELD: NO.
It has been held that there is passion and obfuscation when the crime was committed due to an
uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate
stimulus so powerful as to overcome reason. The obfuscation must originate from lawful
feelings. The turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not be
confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person injured or offended to such a
degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control, because the cause of this condition of
mind must necessarily have preceded the commission of the offense.
PEOPLE V. ELPIDIO HERNANDO

October 28, 1999
Spouses Elpidio and Elena Hernando were convicted to reclusion perpetua for estafa. On
different dates, they issued checks to Johnny Sy which were dishonored upon presentment to
the bank. Accused spouses asserted that the checks had been issued merely an evidence of
their indebtedness to the complainant. In this case, all the checks that bounced were issued
and drawn by Elpidio Hernandos wife, Elena Aban Hernando...The checks, all payable to cash,
were personally delivered and negotiated to Johnny Sy by Elpidio. Though he was not the
drawer of the checks, accused Elpidio coaxed the complainant to exchange the checks with
cash by guaranteeing that the checks were good checks and funded...In all the transactions,
Elpidio was present and personally received the money...Though Elena was not present during
the negotiation of the checks, except for the first transaction, she issued and signed the checks.
HELD:
To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be
the efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should be either prior to or simultaneous with
the act of fraud...The offender must be able to obtain money or property from the offended party
because of the issuance of the check or that the person to whom the check was delivered would
not have parted with his money or property had there been no check issued to him...Stated
otherwise, the check should have been issued as an inducement for the surrender by the party
deceived of his money or property and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation."
PEOPLE V. ARMANDO SARABIA

October 29, 1999
The appellant invokes the justifying circumstance of self-defense in the charge of murder
against him. Having invoked such circumstance, he is deemed to have admitted having killed
the victim and the burden of proof shifts to him to establish and prove the elements of self-
defense.
It has also been held by this Court that, "unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the
justifying circumstance of self-defense. For unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must
be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not merely a threatening
or intimidating and the appellant must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression.
Absent such unlawful aggression, there can be no self-defense.
If evident premeditation is also proven, it shall be considered as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
PEOPLE V. EDUARDO ALTABANO

October 29, 1999
The appellant raises in his defense an alibi. Firmly settled is the doctrine "that for the defense
of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time
the crime was committed but that it was likewise physically impossible for him to be at the locus
criminis at the time of the alleged crime." In the case under scrutiny, appellants failed to prove
and demonstrate the physical impossibility of their being at the scene of the crime at the
approximate time of its commission. Moreover, "defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the eyewitness who had no untoward motive to falsely testify."
Conspiracy was correctly established in this case and as such, "all the conspirators are liable as
co-principals regardless of the manner and extent of their participation since in contemplation of
law, the act of one would be the act of all."
NOVEMBER 1999
PEOPLE V. MOROY GALLO

DIGESTS
November 16, 1999

Moroy Gallo was convicted by the trial court of murder. He questions the testimony of the
witness, Amelita Elarmo because of her relationship with the deceased.
HELD:
The Supreme Court repeated the well-settled doctrine that mere relationship of a witness to the
victim does not render her testimony less worthy of credit, especially where there is no showing
of improper motive. The Court also upheld the claim of conspiracy. To establish conspiracy it is
not essential that there be previous agreement to commit the crime; it is sufficient that there be
a common purpose and design, concerted action and concurrence of the interest and the minds
of the parties meet understandingly so as to bring about a deliberate agreement to commit the
offense charged, notwithstanding the absence of a formal agreement. The Supreme Court also
upheld the trial courts appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
The armed assailants used their greater number and superior power to overwhelm the unarmed
victim.
In addition, since the murder was committed prior to the effectivity of RA 7659, the applicable
provision is Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes murder with reclusion temporal
in its maximum period to death. The imposable penalty which has three periods, namely,
minimum (reclusion temporal), medium (reclusion perpetua) and maximum (death), makes Art.
64 of the Revised Penal Code applicable. In this case the prosecution was able to establish the
qualifying aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior strength. In the absence of any other
generic aggravating and mitigating circumstance, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua,
the medium period of the penalty pursuant to Art. 64 of the Penal Code. Scnc
PEOPLE V. ROSALINDA ARIOLA

November 16, 1999
Elvira Obana, with Rosalinda Ariola were convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale, under
Article 38 and 39 of the Labor Code. The 6 accused presented themselves as part of the
Manila Booking Agency, and offered jobs in New Guinea. They promised employment upon the
payment of recruitment fees. The victims discovered that the office was not actually Manila
Booking Agency, and the recruiters were unlicensed.
HELD:
The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed when three (3) elements concur,
namely: (a) The offender has no valid license or authority required by law to enable him to
lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of workers; (b) The offender undertakes either any
activity within the meaning of "recruitment and placement" defined under Art. 13, par. (b), of the
Labor Code.
PEOPLE V. RODRIGO LASOLA

November 17, 1999
This is a case for automatic review where Rodrigo Lasola was convicted of two counts of rape
of an under-aged relative.
HELD:
The Court reiterated the principle that in cases of qualified rape of an under-aged relative, the
prosecution must allege and prove the ordinary elements of 1) sexual congress, 2) with a
woman, 3) by force and without consent, and in order to warrant the imposition of the death
penalty, the additional elements that 4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the
rape and 5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim.
PEOPLE V. RUSTICO RIVERA

November 17,1999
The case is a review by the Court of the issue of whether the constitutional presumption of
innocence accorded to an accused has been sufficiently overcome by the State enough to
sustain the judgment of the trial court finding the indictee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
qualified rape and thereby imposing upon him the death penalty.
HELD:
The trial court has correctly imposed the death penalty in the case at bar after taking into
account the qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and the paternity relationship
between appellant and the victim, as provided for in Section 11 of Republic Act No. 7659,
amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. MATEO BALLUDA

November 19,1999
Appellant was convicted for violation of Republic Act No. 6425. He contends that he was
neither selling, delivering, nor transporting drugs at the time he was apprehended.
HELD:
Under the Rules of Evidence, it is disputably presumed that things which a person possesses or
over which he exercises acts of ownership, are owned by him. In U.S. vs. Bandoc, the Court
ruled that the finding of a dangerous drug in the house or within the premises of the house of
the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi and is enough to
convict in the absence of a satisfactory explanation. The constitutional presumption of
innocence will not apply as long as there is some logical connection between the fact proved
and the ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another shall not be
so unreasonable as to be a purely arbitrary mandate. The burden of evidence is thus shifted on
the possessor of the dangerous drug to explain absence of animus possidendi. In the case
under consideration, it is not disputed that appellant was apprehended while carrying a sack
containing marijuana. Consequently, to warrant his acquittal, he must show that his act was
innocent and done without intent to possess, i.e. without knowledge that what he possessed
was a prohibited drug.
PEOPLE V. SUBA
November 29, 1999
The accused raped his niece twice. He was caught in the act by the victim's brother on the
second time and was reported to the police. Charged with rape, he denied the charge against
him. No sperm was found in the victim's vagina.
HELD:
Guilty. Trial courts assessment as to the credibility of witnesses is to be accorded great weight.
Both the victim and her brother positively identified the accused as the rapist.
The absence of spermatozoa in the vagina does not negate the commission of rape. There
may be a valid explanation for such absence, as when the sperm was washed away or the
accused failed to ejaculate.
PEOPLE V. PARAISO
November 29, 1999
Accused, with 1 John Doe, Forced their way into the house of the victim. The victim's 4 children
were herded into 1 room while the accused ransacked the house for cash and other valuables.
Before leaving, the accused stabbed the victim who died. He was charged of robbery with
homicide aggravated by dwelling, superior strength and disregard of sex. Accused raised the
defense of alibi.
HELD:
Guilty. The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is appreciated since robbery may be
committed without trespassing the sanctity of the home. He who goes to another's house to
hurt or do wrong is guiltier than he who offends elsewhere.
Superior strength is also present since there was a notorious inequality between the accused
who were both armed males and the unarmed female victim.
Disregard of sex is not an aggravating circumstance here since it only applies to crimes against
honor and persons.
PEOPLE V. OCUMEN
GR 120493-94 & 117692
Ocumen was accused of murder & frustrated murder. He was at a wedding party & argued with
2 guests. He pulled out a knife and chased the 2 but went amok and stabbed 2 other people
instead. One man died while his other victim, a 14-yr. old girl, lived.
HELD:
Guilty of homicide and frustrated homicide only. There was no treachery here. The fact that
both victims were unarmed does not amount to treachery. An altercation precedes both
incidents.
But, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength must be considered since his
2nd victim was an unarmed 14-yr. old, 4'11'' girl.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. BARELLANO
November 29, 1999
The victim was drinking tuba with friends when the accused walked up to the victim from behind
and shot him in the head. The victim fell to the ground and was shot again in the head.
Charged with murder, the accused raised the defense of alibi.
HELD:
Guilty. The accused was positively identified by witnesses as the perpetrator of the crime.
Treachery was present since the victim was approached from behind, was unarmed and totally
defenseless.
DECEMBER 1999
PEOPLE V. PEREZ
December 2, 1999
Perez was a boarder who raped the 5-year-old niece of the boarding house's owner. It was
done in the bodega of the house. A medical exam showed no lacerations but showed a
reddening of the victim's labia majora, which corroborated the victim's testimony that she was
raped. Accused denied the whole thing citing inconsistencies in the victim's testimonies in court
and that the victim's mother put her child up to lying because of a grudge against the accused.
HELD:
Guilty. For rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Even the slightest
penetration of the lips of the sex organ constitutes carnal knowledge.
It is also unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an engine of malice, especially if it will
subject a daughter to embarrassment and even stigma.
PEOPLE V. TUMARU
December 2, 1999
The accused shot and killed a municipal councilor and OIC in Kalinga Apayao. The prosecution
was based on 12-yr. old Miguel's testimony as he saw the crime occur. Found guilty of murder,
they appealed saying that the judge erred in not holding witness Miguel's testimony as biased
and imputing motive to the accused without any evidence.
HELD:
Proof of motive is not crucial where the identity of the accused has been amply established.
Witness Miguel's testimony was sufficient to convict the accused. The testimony of minors of
tender age will suffice to convict a person of a crime as long as it is credible. The fact that
Miguel eventually stayed with one of the victim's widows does not prove bias. It is but natural
for the bereaved family to be concerned about the safety of the lone witness. The concern for
the victim does not make him biased or unreliable.
PEOPLE V. DE LEON
December 3, 1999
Accused was charged with raping his 9-year-old daughter 17 times. He denied the charge and
his defense was that the charge was filed because his daughter was jealous of her father's
affection for another sibling. He was convicted for all 17 charges of rape.
HELD:
He was found guilty of only one count of rape. Each and every charge of rape is a separate and
distinct crime so that each of the 16 other rapes charged should be proven beyond reasonable
doubt. The victims testimony was overly generalized and lacked specific details on how each of
the alleged 16 rapes was committed. Her bare statement that she was raped so many times on
certain weeks is clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to establish the guilt of accused-
appellant insofar as the other sixteen rapes charged are concerned.
PEOPLE V. LADRILLO
December 8, 1999
Facts:
The accused asked the 8-year-old victim to come to his house to pick lice from his head. But
then after, he stripped naked and stripped the victim of his clothes and raped her 4 times during
that one day. He raised the defenses of denial and alibi and questioned the sufficiency of the
information since it states that the crime was committed "on or about 1992".

DIGESTS
HELD:
ACQUITTED of rape based on insufficiency of evidence and reasonable doubt. Denial and alibi
may be weak but courts should not at once look at them with disfavor. There are situations
where an accused may really have no other defenses but denial and alibi which, if established
to be the truth, may tilt the scales of justice in his favor, especially when the prosecution
evidence itself is weak. The crime was supposedly narrated by the victim 2 yrs. after. The crime
was alleged to have been perpetrated at the accused's residence when the accused was not
even living in Abanico at that time. The victim's narration of the incident was also not credible
PEOPLE V. SEVILLA
December 8, 1999
The accused raped his 14 yr. old daughter. He started making sexual advances when she was
6 and finally had sexual intercourse with her 8 yrs. later. Appellant questions the credibility of
the victim's testimony since it took 8 yrs. before she complained of his acts.
HELD:
Guilty. The fact that Myra did not complain to her mother or her aunts about the sexual abuses
committed by her father against her for eight long years, is of no moment. Myra, who was of a
very tender age when the horrible events in her life began to unfold, could have, in all
probability, been confused and bewildered by her experience that for more than half of her
young life, she was shocked into utter insensibility.
Furthermore, a rape victims testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a
close relative of having raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father.
PEOPLE V. RALPH VELEZ DIAZ

December 8, 1999
Diaz was convicted of killing and sexually abusing a 12-year-old boy. The trial court convicted
him notwithstanding the exclusion of the extrajudicial confession of accused-appellant and the
absence of any eyewitness to the crime because of:
(a) the testimony of 10-year old Felbart that he saw his brother last alive in the company of
accused-appellant;
(b) the physical evidence of sexual abuse through sodomy committed against the victim;
(c) the plea of insanity which only tended to negate liability but was an admission of guilt;
(d) the reenactment of the crime by accused-appellant the details of which could not have been
known to anybody but himself; and,
(e) the fact that accused-appellant voluntarily confessed to the crime without any evidence of
coercion, duress or intimidation exerted upon him.
Accused pleads he is not guilty of murder since there was no evident premeditation. He pleads
insanity and pleads that he cannot be sentenced to death since the information filed didnt
mention the sodomy.
HELD:
The crime committed by accused-appellant was murder even in the absence of the qualifying
circumstance of evident premeditation because treachery and abuse of superior strength were
present - either of which qualified the crime to murder. Since the victim was an 11 yr old boy,
both were present although treachery absorbs superior strength.
Insanity must be proved. All that was proved by the psychiatrists was that accused was
sexually perverted or that he was sick of pedophilia but such is different.
PEOPLE V. ROLANDO ALFANTA

December 9, 1999
Accused entered the place where the victim was sleeping with a bolo. He brought her to an
abandoned place where he raped her, inserting his fingers and penis into her vagina and anus.
He was sentenced to death because of the aggravating circumstances of use of a deadly
weapon, nighttime and ignominy.
HELD:
The use of a deadly weapon was not alleged in the information; hence the offense cannot be
considered as qualified rape. Nighttime and ignominy were present (sa pwet ba naman).
Simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Thus, even if
there were aggravating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy in attendance the appropriate
penalty would still be reclusion perpetua under the law. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that in "all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, it shall be

DIGESTS
applied by the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have
attended the commission of the deed."
PEOPLE V. JAIME QUISAY

December 10, 1999
A 3-year-old girl was found dead in a canal. Accused was the last person seen with the little girl.
He was charged with rape with homicide. He put forth the defense that he was with the girl but
she ran away and fell into the canal as an exempting circumstance (Any person who, while
performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by mere accident without fault or
intention of causing it.Par. 4 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code).
HELD:
Guilty. The fact that no perineal laceration was found on the genital of the victim does not dispel
a finding of rape. The slightest degree of penetration of the pudenda by a male sex organ
suffices to consummate the crime of rape.
The crime subject matter of the instant appeal was committed before the death penalty law,
Republic Act No. 7659 became effective so the penalty for the complex crime of rape with
homicide should only be reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE V. EDGARDO DE LEON

December 10, 1999
Accused supposedly raped his daughter in front of the latters own 2 year old daughter.
Accused flatly denied the charge. He alleged that the prosecution evidence had not proven his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt because: (1) the evidence for the prosecution which consisted of
the victim's sole testimony is insufficient; (2) this testimony is inconsistent; and (3) the other
pieces of vital evidence, i.e., the knife and the victim's torn clothes, were not presented to
substantiate the victim's testimony.
HELD:
Accused-appellant's claim that the charge against him was merely trumped up by Amelia cannot
be believed. No woman, especially a daughter, would subject herself and her family to the
humiliation of a public trial and send her father to jail for the rest of his life if her accusation were
not true. Since the rape was committed with the use of a knife, a deadly weapon, the crime is
therefore punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
PEOPLE V. ARNOLD DIZON

December 10, 1999
Accused supposedly entered the victims house, robbed them, raped one of the occupants and
stabbed all of them. Only 12 yr. Old Ruel survived the massacre of his family and positively
identified the accused as the perpetrator. Death was imposed upon accused after the RTC
found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide
aggravated by Rape, Dwelling and Nocturnity. Accused pleaded not guilty.
HELD:
Guilty of 1 count of rape with homicide, 2 counts of homicide and 1 count of frustrated homicide.
The trial court erred in finding accused guilty of robbery. For a person to be guilty of robbery, it
must be proved that there was intent to gain & the taking of personal property belonging to
another by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or by using force upon
anything.
PEOPLE V. AGAPITO FLORES

December 13, 1999
Accused, at knifepoint, forced his 13-year-old daughter to undress and then raped her. All the
time and while the accused-appellant was on top of her the knife was poked at her. Victim also
testified her father had raped her 4 times when she was in grade 4. Accused denied the
charges as fabricated. Appellant cites the inconsistencies in the victim's testimony and further
contends that the medical findings reveal that the healed lacerations in the victims hymen were
already existing prior to the alleged date of rape, in which case there is no evidence to prove
that appellant raped Ma. Cristina on November 8, 1994. Sentenced to death.
HELD:
Guilty but reclusion perpetua only. It is unthinkable for a daughter to falsely impute the crime of
rape against her own father if it was not real. But, the information only alleged the minority of
Ma. Cristina that she was thirteen years old but did not allege the relationship of the accused to
the victim. Thus, accused-appellant should only suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. FERNANDO CALANG MACOSTA

December 14, 1999
Accused invited herein complainant to catch shrimps at the side of the Magpayang River. The
victim acceded but when they were at an uninhabited place, the accused kissed and touched
the victim. He tried to insert his penis but once the penis was in the mouth of her vagina she felt
pain so she pleaded for his mercy not to deflower her and she continued crying and pushed him
hard until she was able to be free. Charged with rape, accused denied the incident and said
that he and the victim were even sweet hearts.
HELD:
Guilty. Being sweethearts does not prove consent by complainant to the sexual act. And, it is
perplexing how accused could vigorously deny that the alleged incident ever took place and in
the same breath argue that if anything untoward happened it was because they were
sweethearts.
PEOPLE V. RENATO RAMONAMON

December 15, 1999
Accused first raped his stepdaughter at knifepoint when she was 5 yrs. old. Because of Analyns
tender age, the rape resulted in the dislocation of her legs and pelvic bones, which caused her
to become temporarily lame. That same night, Analyn reported the incident to her mother in the
presence of appellant. Analyn's mother refused to believe her. Neither was she brought to the
hospital for treatment.
She was raped 2 more times and only told her grandmother of the crime after accused tried to
rape her a 4th time. She didnt tell her mother about the incidents since the latter refused to
believe her anyway. Accused denied the charges.
HELD:
Guilty but sentenced to reclusion perpetua only. The averment that Analyn could have run away
when accused-appellant started removing her panties hardly deserves consideration. Different
people, previous cases can tell us, react differently to given situations. Most women might,
when given the chance, immediately flee from their aggressors but others may become virtually
catatonic because of mental shock
PEOPLE V. CABALIDA
December 15, 1999
Accused raped his then 15 yr. old grandniece at gunpoint and threatened her with death if she
told on him. The victim became pregnant and only then did she tell her mother about the crime.
HELD:
Acquitted for failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The victim supposedly told nobody of
the crime since she feared for her life. But accused had left for Manila already for several
months and the victim supposedly only told her mother when it was obvious she was pregnant.
Second, victim's motive for accusing appellant is only so that her stepfather will not be
suspected of being the father of the child. Finally. accused returned to Zamboanga City to clear
his name. This is a strong indication of innocence.
JANUARY 2000
PEOPLE V. LEON LUMILAN
January 25, 2000
Accused-appellants Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia were found by the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of murder, two (2) counts of frustrated
murder, and three (3) counts of attempted murder, under an Information charging them and
accused Fred Orbiso with the crime of Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder,
in violation of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866.
Issue:
Whether or not appellants may be properly convicted of murder, frustrated murder and
attempted murder under an Information that charges them with qualified illegal possession of
firearms used in murder in violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866?
HELD:
At the time the trial court promulgated its judgment of conviction in September 1990, it had
already been six (6) months since We held in People v. Tac-an that the unlawful possession of
an unlicensed firearm or ammunition, whether or not homicide or murder resulted from its use,

DIGESTS
on one hand, and murder or homicide, on the other, are offenses different and separate from
and independent of, each other. While the former is punished under a special law, the latter is
penalized under the Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the prosecution for one will not bar
prosecution for the other, and double jeopardy will not lie.
We observe that the Information charging appellants with Qualified Illegal Possession of
Firearms Used in Murder, violates Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 8294,
which obliterated the now obsolete concept of qualified illegal possession of firearms or illegal
possession of firearms in its aggravated form, i.e., where the penalty for illegal possession is
increased to reclusion perpetua or death by the attendance of homicide or murder. In fact,
qualified illegal possession of firearms, which used to be a distinct offense, no longer exists in
our statute books.
PEOPLE V. ESTEBAN ARLEE

January 25, 2000
Complainant Analyn Villanueva and the accused "Boy Ising" were. Analyn, who merely finished
grade two, was 26 years old but with a mental capacity of a eight-year old child.Boy Ising
raped Analyn by poking a knife to her side. As months passed, Analyns belly started to swell
and when asked about her bulging stomach, Analyn readily confessed to her mother that Boy
Ising was responsible therefor. Analyn then narrated her horrific experience in the hands of
accused-appellant. The trial court gave full faith and credit to the testimony of the victim, Analyn.
HELD:
Being a mentally retarded woman, twenty-six years of age, Analyn is in the same class as a
woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious when she was raped by accused-
appellant. Proof of force and intimidation is not required if the victim is "deprived of reason" or
suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency since the same deprives the victim of the natural
instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood. It is well-settled that sexual
intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape.
Neither is the Court persuaded by accused-appellants submission that he cannot be required to
acknowledge and support the child begotten by him with Analyn. In point is the following
provision of the Revised Penal Code:
ART. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against chastity. - Persons guilty of
rape, seduction, or abduction, shall also be sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman;
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing;
3. In every case to support the offspring. (Underscoring ours)
xxx xxx xxx
The aforecited provision of law is qualified by jurisprudence to the effect that "acknowledgment
is disallowed if the offender is a married man, with only support for the offspring as part of the
sentence."However, as opined in People vs. Bayani, there is no more need for the prohibition
against acknowledgment of the offspring by an offender who is married, because of the
elimination by the Family Code of the distinctions among illegitimate children. No further positive
act is required of the parent as the law itself provides the childs status as illegitimate. Therefore,
under Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code, the offender in a rape case who is married should
only be sentenced to indemnify the victim and support the offspring, if there be any.
PEOPLE V. ALFONSO BALGOS

January 26, 2000
The accused-appellant denied raping Crisselle but claimed that he only inserted his left index
finger into her vagina because he was sexually aroused at that time. The trial court convicted
accused.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused of rape and not just acts of
lasciviousness?
HELD:
The trial is court correct in imposing the supreme penalty of death on the accused-appellant.
Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659, Further amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law."
the penalty of death shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed against a child below
seven (7) years of age. In the present case, there is no dispute that the victim was six (6) years
of age when the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her. The victim's age was duly

DIGESTS
established by the prosecution, through the testimony of the victim's mother, Criselda Fuentes,
and further corroborated by Crisselle's Certificate of Live Birth.
PEOPLE V. ZOILO BORROMEO

January 27, 2000
The RTC of Pasay City found the accused Zoilo A. Borromeo alias "Sonny" guilty of kidnapping
a minor for ransom and sentenced him to death and to pay the offended parties moral damages
of P250,000.00 and the costs of suit.
HELD:
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled
with indubitable proof of intent of the accused to effect the same. And if the person detained is
a child, the question that needs to be addressed is whether there is, evidence to show that in
taking the child, there was deprivation of the child's liberty and that it was the intention of the
accused to deprive the mother of the child's custody. We find abundant evidence of this fact in
this case.
FEBRUARY 2000
PEOPLE V. MAGDATO
February 7, 2000
Before us for automatic review of the Criminal Cases finding accused-appellant Pepito Alama
Magdato (hereafter PEPITO) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six (6) counts of rape
committed on her 12-year old daughter Cherry Ann Magdato.
HELD:
We find to be correct the penalty of death imposed by the trial court for each of the six (6)
crimes of qualified rape. Such penalty is justified under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended by R.A. 7659. The informations for rape in these cases explicitly allege that
CHERRY ANN is the daughter of PEPITO and she was only twelve (12) years old when he
committed the rapes in question. Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed with, inter alia, the following attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.
PEOPLE v. EULOGIO IGNACIO

G.R. No. 134568. February 10, 2000
The RTC convicted Eulogio Ignacio of murder. The trial court ruled that appellant failed to prove
by credible, clear and convincing evidence that he had acted in lawful defense of the
landowners property. There was no legal reason for him to shoot the victim, an unarmed minor
at the time of the incident. The said court qualified the killing to murder because of the presence
of treachery.
HELD:
In the present case, we find ample evidence that appellant did shoot the victim. It should be
stressed that appellants conduct cannot be justified as a lawful defense of property rights. For
this justifying circumstance to be appreciated, the accused has the burden of proving unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim and reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it. In this case, the first requisite was not proven, because he was not attacked
by the victim. In fact, he did not even see the victim steal the crabs; he merely suspected him of
doing so. Furthermore, assuming that unlawful aggression was proven, there was no necessity
to shoot because, according to him, the victim was already running away when hit.
In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be appreciated, the
defense must clearly satisfy three requisites: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2)
the offender surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (c) the
surrender is voluntary. The defense must show an intent to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, because of an acknowledgement of guilt or because of a wish to spare them the
trouble and the expense concomitant to the search and the capture of the accused.
PEOPLE v. JULIAN CASTILLO

G.R. No. 131592-93. February 15, 2000

DIGESTS
With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on June 6, 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in
murder or homicide is now considered, not as a separate crime, but merely a special
aggravating circumstance. In the case at bar, appellant JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was
charged with Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms.
HELD:
P.D. 1866, was amended on June 6, 1997 by Republic Act 8294. Aside from lowering the
penalty for said crime, R.A. 8294 also provided that if homicide or murder is committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as a special aggravating
circumstance. This amendment has two (2) implications: first, the use of an unlicensed firearm
in the commission of homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate offense, but merely
as a special aggravating circumstance; second, as only a single crime (homicide or murder with
the aggravating circumstance of illegal possession of firearm) is committed under the law, only
one penalty shall be imposed on the accused.
Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish illegal possession of firearms: first, the existence
of the subject firearm, and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gun
did not have the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. The onus
probandi of establishing these elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution.
PEOPLE v. LIBERATO MENDIONA

G.R. No. 129056. February 21, 2000
Before this Court for automatic review is the decision finding accused-appellant Liberato
"Renato" Mendiona guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentencing him to
suffer the supreme penalty of death and to pay the complainant, Maricel Capongcol, the amount
of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.
HELD:
We correct the trial courts erroneous classification of the award of P50,000.00 as moral
damages. In People v. Prades, we explained that "x x x the award authorized by criminal law as
civil indemnity ex delicto for the offended party x x x is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of
rape; it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on
different jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion."
Further, our more recent rulings hold that the indemnification for the victim shall be in the
increased amount of P75,000.00 if the crime of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any
of the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by law. Applying the foregoing
rulings, the civil indemnity to be awarded to the complainant should be seventy five thousand
pesos (P75,000.00).
MARCH 2000
PEOPLE V. SAN DIEGO*

G.R. No. 129297. March 17, 2000.
Rape jurisprudential guidelines
HELD:
In rape cases, courts are guided by the following considerations:
1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
person, though innocent, to disprove the same;
2) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
3) The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
The test of sufficiency of force or intimidation in rape is whether it produces a reasonable fear in
the victim that if she resists or does not give in to the sexual demands of the accused, the threat
would be carried out.
PEOPLE V. MITRA
G.R. No. 130669. March 27, 2000.
Rape physical resistance
HELD:
It is well-settled that "physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is
exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapists
advances because of fear for her life and personal safety." It is sufficient that the intimidation

DIGESTS
produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the
accused, something far worse would befall her at the time she was being molested. As
pronounced by the Court, "if resistance would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation,
then offering none at all does not mean consent to the assault so as to make the victims
submission to the sexual act voluntary."
PEOPLE V. CULA
G.R. No. 133146. March 28, 2000.
Rape physical resistance; burden of proving victims minority
The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. Physical
resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and
she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal
safety.
At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove with certainty the fact that the victim
was below 18 when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of the death
penalty. The record of the case is bereft of any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly
certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing private complainant's age.
PEOPLE V. CABINGAS
G.R. No. 79679. March 28, 2000.
Rape with a feeble-minded person
HELD:
Sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman is rape. The offense charged is within the
contemplation of paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, like when the offender
had carnal knowledge of a woman deprived of reason.
PEOPLE V. AQUINO
G.R. No. 129288. March 30, 2000.
Robbery with homicide
Accused-appellants were charged and convicted of the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
They contend that they should have been convicted of homicide only.
HELD:
In robbery with homicide, the important consideration is that there be a nexus between the
robbery and the killing whether prior, subsequent to or committed at the same time.
PEOPLE V. CAMPUHAN
G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000.
Stages of rape
Where the accused failed to achieve an erection, had a limp or flaccid penis, or an oversized
penis which could not fit into the victim's vagina, the Court nonetheless held that rape was
consummated on the basis of the victim's testimony that the accused repeatedly tried, but in
vain, to insert his penis into her vagina and in all likelihood reached the labia of her pudendum
as the victim felt his organ on the lips of her vulva, or that the penis of the accused touched the
middle part of her vagina.
Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum
is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest
penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis,
there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of
lasciviousness.
PEOPLE VS. BALTAZAR

G.R. No. 115990. March 31, 2000.
Elements of Rape
Evidentiary value of medical examinations
HELD:
The more pressing issue is whether all the elements of rape as alleged in the Information were
duly proved by the prosecution. Here we find the following duly established beyond reasonable
doubt. First, appellant had carnal knowledge with the victim. Second, carnal knowledge took
place by using force or intimidation. Appellant insists that "the complainant did not offer any
tenacious resistance to the alleged sexual assault." The victim's failure to resist the accused's
assault successfully and to escape when the opportunity presented itself should not be

DIGESTS
construed as a manifestation of consent. Thirdly, the coitus was against her will and without her
consent.
Insofar as the evidentiary value of a medical examination is concerned, we have that a medical
examination is not indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the evidence on hand
convinces the court that a conviction for rape is proper.
PEOPLE VS. CUPINO

G.R. No. 125688. March 31, 2000.
Cupino and Dejoras were charged and convicted for conspiring to commit murder.
HELD:
Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself through clear and convincing
evidence, not merely by conjecture. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of
conspiracy, he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of
the complicity. Hence, conspiracy exists in a situation where at the time the malefactors were
committing the crime, their actions impliedly showed unity of purpose among them, a concerted
effort to bring about the death of the victim. In a great majority of cases, complicity was
established by proof of acts done in concert, i.e., acts that yielded the reasonable inference that
the doers thereof were acting with a common intent or design. Therefore, the task in every case
is determining whether the particular acts established by the requisite quantum of proof do
reasonably yield that inference."
PEOPLE VS. AMIGABLE

G.R. No. 133857. March 31, 2000.
Medical examination/findings evidentiary value in rape cases
HELD:
Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an
essential element of rape. For that matter, in crimes against chastity, the medical examination of
the victim is not an indispensable element for the prosecution of the crime as her testimony
alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused as in this case.
APRIL 2000
PEOPLE VS. DELOS SANTOS
G.R. No. 121906. April 5, 2000.
Qualifying circumstance alleged in the information
Accused-appellant was sentenced to death after he was convicted of raping his stepdaughter.
He argues that the Information filed against him failed to state that he is the stepfather of the
victim, hence, his relationship with the victim may not be considered as a qualifying
circumstance to justify the imposition of the death penalty.
HELD:
The circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act 7659 the
attendance of any which mandates the single indivisible penalty of death, instead of the
standard penalty of reclusion perpetua to death prescribed in Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances." Qualifying circumstances must be properly
pleaded in the indictment.
PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE

G. R. No. 129970. April 5, 2000.
Police line-ups
Kidnapping with ransom
Accused-appellants were charged and convicted of kidnapping for ransom for abducting an
Indian national. He contends that the identification made by the private complainant in the
police line-up is inadmissible because the appellant stood at the line-up without the assistance
of counsel, and that the money given to them was not ransom money but was given in
exchange for their dropping of the charges of rape against private complainant.
HELD:
The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours does not alter the nature of the crime
committed. The crime of kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of liberty whether he is
placed in an enclosure or simply restrained from going home. As squarely expressed in Article
267, above-quoted the penalty of death is imposable where the detention is committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of the detention is not material.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE VS. REGALA

G.R. No. 130508. April 5, 2000.
Robbery with rape
Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of robbery with rape.
HELD:
It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should
be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances
under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in
Article 13 of the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is a specific
paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of
the robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where from the standpoint of the gravity of
the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes.
However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute.
In view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed by herein accused-appellant should not
be considered as aggravating. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is
proper.
PEOPLE VS. ALVERO

G.R. Nos. 134536-38. April 5, 2000.
HELD:
The allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not important in a
prosecution for rape. This is because the precise time of the commission of the crime is not an
essential element of rape and it has no substantial bearing on its commission. Rule 110,
Section 11 of the Rules of Court provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint or
information the precise time at which the offense was committed except when time is a material
ingredient of the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been committed at any time as
near to the actual date at which the offense was committed as the information or complaint will
permit. It is equally settled that a variance of a few months between the time set out in the
indictment and that established by the evidence during trial has been held not to constitute an
error so serious as to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score.
PEOPLE V. ROCHE, ET AL.*

G.R. No. 115182(6 April 2000)
Accused-Appellants were charged and convicted of murder based on testimonies of witnesses,
which contradicted each other and was inconsistent with the physical evidence. The sole
reliable testimony does not show complicity among the appellants before, during, or after the
commission of the crime.
HELD:
On being an accomplice
The following requisites must concur in order that a person may be considered an accomplice:
(a) community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation,
he concurs with the latter in his purpose;
(b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts; and,
(c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the
person charged as accomplice.
PEOPLE V. BAGO
G.R. No. 122290(6 April 2000)
Appellant was accused and convicted of the crime of qualified theft through taking cold-rolled
steel from the company which he is employed as a leader in the cutting department.
HELD:
Clearly, when all the elements of theft were established, to wit: (1) there was a taking of
personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was without the consent of
the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished
without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things. When the theft is
committed with grave abuse of confidence, accused is guilty of qualified theft.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. SUZA
G.R. No. 130611(6 April 2000)
Appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide, based on the testimony of a lone
eye-witness who saw how he and his co-accused killed the victim, and was sure that they took
the victims clothes, money and other wares, which she sold.
HELD:
a. On the crime of robbery with homicide.
It is well settled that in order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, it is necessary
that the robbery itself be proven conclusively as any other essential element of a crime. In order
for the crime of robbery with homicide to exist, it is necessary that it be clearly established that a
robbery has actually taken place, and that, as a consequence or on the occasion of such
robbery, a homicide be committed. Where the evidence does not conclusively prove the robbery,
the killing of the victim would therefore, be classified either as a simple homicide or murder,
depending upon the absence or presence of any qualifying circumstance, and not the complex
offense of robbery with homicide.
b. On the aggravating circumstance of use of superior strength
There was a clear and notorious disparity of force between the victim and the aggressors as the
former was unarmed and alone. The felons took advantage of their collective strength to
overwhelm their comparatively defenseless victim. Thus, it was held that "an attack made by a
man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the
circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded
him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself.
PEOPLE V. RAMOS
G.R. No. 120280 (12 April 2000)
The appellant was convicted of raping his own 10-year old daughter and relies solely on the
defense of denial of the said accusation against him.
HELD:
A rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relative of
having raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father. Earlier and long-standing
decisions of this Court have likewise held that when a woman testifies that she has been raped,
she says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been committed. This is true when made
against any man committing the crime; it is more so when the accusing words are said against a
close relative.
PEOPLE V. FRANCISCO*
G.R. 121682(12 April 2000)
Appellant was convicted of the crime of murder qualified by the aggravating circumstance of
treachery and pleads the justifying circumstance of defense of relative.
HELD:
a. on the claim of defense of relative
As correctly pointed out by the trial court, anyone who admits the killing of a person but invokes
the defense of relative to justify the same has the burden of proving these elements by clear
and convincing evidence. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not
on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is weak it
cannot be disbelieved if the accused has admitted the killing.
b. on the essence of treachery
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof, which tend directly and especially to ensure
its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.
PEOPLE V. BALLENAS
G.R. No. 124299(12 April 2000)
The appellants abducted a 19-year old girl from her dwelling, raped her several times, and
stabbed her to death 13 times.
HELD:
a. On the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and cruelty
For the court to consider nighttime as an aggravating circumstance, it must have been
deliberately taken by the perpetrator to augment the wrong they committed, not being necessary

DIGESTS
for its completion. It has been held that when the scene of the crime was sufficiently illuminated
by a lamp, nocturnity cannot be appreciated.
The aggravating circumstance of cruelty is present when "the wrong done in the commission of
the crime is deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission".
There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and
gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
b. Whether the accused indeed committed forcible abduction with rape
The accused committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape punished under Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 342 and 48 of the same Code. The two elements of
forcible abduction are (1) the taking of a woman against her will and (2) with lewd designs. The
crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when there is carnal
knowledge with the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or
intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when
the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented
PEOPLE V. BAER
G.R. No. 130333(April 12, 2000)
The appellant is the step grandfather of the victim who at her tender age was repeatedly raped
by the appellant. The appellant argued that the victim did not resist his alleged sexual assault,
since she did not even scream. As to the amount of force required to constitute rape
HELD:
In rape cases, the force applied need not be irresistible. It merely has to be enough to
successfully carry out the assailants carnal desire. In the present case, appellant did apply
sufficient force and intimidation to consummate his lustful desire.
PEOPLE V. REYES
G.R. No. 133647(April 12, 2000)
The appellants assail the ruling of the court finding that conspiracy attended their attack to the
victim. Whether direct evidence is necessary to prove conspiracy.
HELD:
Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from
the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the
accused which point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interest.
The actuations of the appellants clearly established a conspiracy. One started the attack with an
utterance coupled with the actual stabbing of victim. Finally, the rest of the assailants'
companions ganged up on the helpless victim by successively stabbing and hitting him. All
these acts sufficiently prove that they conspired to kill victim.
PEOPLE V. FRAGA*
G.R. No. 134130-33(April 12, 2000)
The appellant had an altercation before they embarked to go out to sea, after they came back
the accused with his CAFGU firearm went to the house of the victim and shot him to death. The
appellant raises the defense of self-defense. Whether or not the appellant is entitled to the
justifying circumstance of self-defense.
HELD:
The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing and of its authorship. By this
admission, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must now establish with clear and
convincing evidence all the elements of this justifying circum, stance, to wit: (a) unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent
or repel it; and, (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting to self-
defense. In proving these elements, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence.
He can no longer assail the weakness of the evidence against him simply because it cannot be
disbelieve after his open admission of responsibility for the killing. Indeed, a plea of self-defense
cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only uncorroborated by independent and
competent evidence, but also extremely doubtful by itself. It is an oft- repeated rule that the
nature and number of wounds inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly
considered as important indicia which disprove a plea for self-defense because they
demonstrate a determined effort to kill the victim and not just defend oneself.
PEOPLE V. GUIWAN
G.R. No. 117324(April 27, 2000)

DIGESTS
The victim was the biological daughter of the appellant who was raped several times by the
latter and was only able to disclose such bestial acts after two years.
HELD:
Two important doctrines on rape
The moral influence of a father over his daughter suffices to establish rape.
At any rate, although a woman may be viewed by the public as unchaste or impure she can
still be raped, as she is still free to refuse a man's lustful advances. The victim's character in
rape is immaterial.
PEOPLE V. LEGASPI
G.R. No. 117802(April 27 2000)
What is required to establish the defense of alibi?
Alibi is one of the weakest defenses an accused can invoke, and the courts have always looked
upon it with caution, if not suspicion, not only because it is inherently unreliable but likewise
because it is rather easy to fabricate. To prosper, alibi must strictly meet the requirements of
time and place. Thus, we have consistently ruled that it does not suffice to prove that the
accused was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime. Similarly,
jurisprudence dictates that the element of physical impossibility be clearly shown; The accused
must clearly establish that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been
physically present at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of
the crime.
What constitutes robbery with homicide?
In this specie of offense, the phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before or after the
taking of personal property of another, as long as the motive of the offender (in killing a person
before the robbery) is to deprive the victim of his personal property which is sought to be
accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition, or to do away with a witness or to
defend the possession of stolen property.
What is the proof necessary to establish conspiracy?
Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. For this purpose overt acts of the accused may consist of
active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral
assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the commission of the crime, or
by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute or
implement the conspiracy.
PEOPLE V. ACURAM
G.R. No. 117954(April 27, 2000)
The appellant shot the victim who later died. After charges were filed and his commanding
officer was told of the incident, he was ordered not to leave camp, where he surrendered.
HELD:
Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to give himself
up and submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his
guilt or he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture. In this case, it was appellant's commanding officer who surrendered him to the custody
of the court. Being restrained by one's superiors to stay within the camp without submitting to
the investigating authorities concerned, is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as
contemplated by law.
PEOPLE V. VILLA
G.R. No. 129899(April 27, 2000)
The appellant fired his rifle at the victim causing the latters death. After such incident the
appellant surrendered to his commanding officer and pleaded guilty before the court but claimed
the defense of temporary insanity. Whether the appellant is entitled to the defense of insanity
HELD:
No. The fact that immediately after the incident (accused) thought of surrendering to the law-
enforcement authorities is incontestable proof that he knew that what he had done was wrong
and that he was going to be punished for it." Similarly, a feeling of remorse is inconsistent with
insanity, as it is a clear indication that he was conscious of his acts, he acknowledged his guilt
and was sorry for them.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 131840(April 27, 2000)
The appellants were convicted for conspiring to murder the victim. One of the co-conspirators
surrendered voluntarily. Whether the liability of each co-conspirator should be always equal.
HELD:
No. Since the existence of a conspiracy does not prevent the appreciation of a mitigating
circumstance exclusively in favor of the co-conspirator to whom such circumstance may relate,
to him alone.
What constitutes civil liability arising from a crime?
The civil liability of accused-appellants for indemnity for death and actual and moral damages,
however, is solidary and not joint as ruled by the trial court. Moral Damages. Under Art. 2206 of
the Civil Code, the spouse, legitimate and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased are entitled to moral damages "for mental anguish by reason of the death of the
deceased." The victims widow testified that she suffered pain from the death of her husband.
Thus, in accordance with recent decisions of this Court, accused-appellants should be awarded
the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral damages. Exemplary Damages. Under Art. 2230
of the Civil Code, "exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the
crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances."
PEOPLE V. SULTAN
G.R. No. 132470(April 27, 2000)
The victim was abducted by the appellant, who brought her to his house. When they arrived at
the appellants house the victim was divested of her jewelry and other valuables, after which she
was raped several times. The appellant was convicted of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide. Whether multiple rape can be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
HELD:
No. In several cases the Court realized that there was no law providing for the additional rape/s
or homicide/s for that matter to be considered as aggravating circumstance. It further observed
that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is
exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code which enumerates the mitigating circumstances
where analogous circumstances may be considered, hence, the remedy lies with the legislature.
Consequently, unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s
may be considered aggravating, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender
as no person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. Under
this view, the additional rape committed by accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating
circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "(i)n all
cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following
rules shall be observed in the application thereof x x x x 2. (w)hen there are neither mitigating
nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be
applied," the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on accused-appellant. Spp
MAY 2000
PEOPLE V TANOY
GRNo 115692 May 12,2000
After a prior incident, the victim went to the police station. The victim therein found the appellant
who is a policeman. After, a few exchanges appellant shot the victim with an armalite hitting him
in the chest. He alleges that they were grappling for the gun before the "accident" occurred thus
he is entitled to an exempting circumstance under par 4 Art 12.
HELD:
The shooting was intentional as shown by the location and nature of the wounds. Also a brown
envelope remained tucked under his arm and was bloodied after he was shot. If they were
grappling for possession of the gun then the envelope containing his complaint should have
fallen. It would be highly inconceivable for a retired PC colonel to hold the barrel of the gun
pointing towards him while grappling for its possession.
It is settled jurisprudence that the assessment of the credibility of the witnesses lies within the
province and expertise of the trial courts. Absent any showing of abuse of discretion or that trial
courts overlooked material and relevant facts which could affect the outcome of the case, their
findings are accorded great weight and respect.
There is also treachery in the commission of the crime. The deceased did not expect any attack
coming from the accused when he went to the police station. Treachery may still be appreciated

DIGESTS
even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person. What is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. The victim
was totally defenseless when he went out of his hiding place (went behind a cemented wall
when the accused pointed the gun). He was 71 years old and his left hand was extended as if in
supplication and surrender but the accused shot him nonetheless.
PEOPLE V MADARANG
Gr. No. 132319 May 12,2000
Appellant was convicted of parricide for stabbing his wife, causing her death. Appellant alleges
he was in a state of insanity and claims he had no recollection of the stabbing incident. He
insists that he was deprived of intelligence, making his act involuntary. His psychiatric evaluation
revealed he was suffering from schizophrenia but after two years in the National Center for
Mental Health his condition improved thus, he was released.
HELD:
In the Philippines, the courts have established a more stringent criterion for insanity to be
exempting as it is required that there must be a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act,i.e., the accused is deprived of reason; he acted without the least
discernment because there is a complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is total
deprivation of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability.The
issue of insanity is a question of fact. The state or condition of a man's mind can only be
measured and judged by his behavior. Establishing one's insanity requires testimony of an
expert witness, such as a psychiatrist. The proof must relate to the time preceding or
coetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged. None of the witnesses
declared that he exhibited any of the symptoms associated with schizophrenia immediately
before or simultaneous with the stabbing incident. Also schizophrenics have lucid intervals
during which they are capable of distinguishing right from wrong.
PEOPLE V DEQUITO
G.R. No.-132544 May 12,2000
A fifteen-year-old girl was raped by the common-law husband of her sister in the field.
HELD:
A torn underwear is not indispensable to prove the crime of rape. Rape can be committed
without damaging the apparel of the victim. The victim testified that appellant already started to
remove her clothes but she ran away. He caught up with her and forced himself on her. The
delay in reporting the incident cannot diminish her credibility. Our consistent doctrine is that
delay in reporting a rape, if sufficiently explained, does not affect the credibility of the witness. In
this case, she was dependent on him, her parents were absent. Appellant threatened that he
would leave the victim's sister if the victim reported the incident. Also the information is
sufficient alleging therein that rape was committed on or about the month of July 1996.Thus, the
prosecutor's error in stating that what was being tried was the last rape committed in July in his
offer of proof did not prejudice the rights of the appellant. Also, counsel for the defendant did not
object to the offer of victim's testimony. Sec 34-36 of Rule 132 governs.
PEOPLE V RIMORIN
GRNo-124309 May 16,2000
Two persons were kidnapped and brought to a forest area where they were killed. The bodies
were set afire while in a pit then buried in the same spot. A helper of the suspects and the
families of the victims were threatened with retaliation if they reported the incident. Ten years
later, the helper, after learning that one of the suspects have died, reported the incident and the
bodies were then exhumed. Appellants were convicted of kidnapping with murder.
Issue:W/N guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
The trial courts are in the best position to view the witness' demeanor and deportment during
the trial. Since the offense were committed prior to RA7659 on December 31, 1993 thus said
law amending Art267 of the RPC providing: "when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence
of the detention or is raped or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed. Since in this instance the purpose of the appellant and his
companions when they kidnapped the victims was to kill them the two counts of complex crime
of kidnapping with murder is valid. However, as ruled in P v Ramos 297SCRA618, the rule now
is: where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the
killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or

DIGESTS
homicide can no longer be complexed under the last paragraph of Art267as amended by
RA7659.
There was also treachery as the victims' hands were tied behind their backs when they were
killed. However, there is no evident premeditation. There was no showing by the prosecution of
the 1)time when the offender determined to commit the crime 2)act manifestly indicating that the
offender had clung to his determination3)sufficient lapse of time between the determination to
commit the crime and the execution thereof, to allow the offender to reflect on the consequence
of his act.
PEOPLE V TOLEDANO
G.R. No.-110220 May 18,2000
Bunao, while a member of Sangguniang Bayan, entered into a lease contract covering 2 public
market stalls. Two administrative cases were filed against against him violating RA3019 and
R6713 with the Ombudsman. However, said cases were dismissed. An information for violation
of Sec41(1) in relation to Sec221 of BP337 was filed against respondent before the RTC of Iba,
Zambales which prohibits gov't officials from engaging in any business transaction with the local
government unit. The RTC, upon motion of the accused, dismissed the criminal case on the
ground of the dismissal of the administrative cases.
HELD:
There is nothing in the law(Art 89RPC) which states that exoneration from an administrative
charge extinguishes criminal liability. It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that
administrative law that administrative cases an independent from criminal actions for the same
act or omission. RA 7160,LGC of 1991, which replaced BP337 reenacted in its Sec89 the legal
provision of Sec 41 of BP337.Thus, the act committed before the reenactment continuous to be
a crime.
PEOPLE V SARAGINA
G.R. No.-128281 May 30,2000
Accused stabbed and killed a Vulpangco, who uttered malicious remarks and showed his
private part to the appellant's sister a week earlier. He admits the incident but claims it was self-
defense.
HELD:
Because of this claim, the burden of proof was shifted to the appellant to establish the elements
thereof a)unlawful aggression on the part of the victim;b)reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it; c)lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. The first element is lacking. Evidence must positively show that there was a
previous unlawful and unprovoked attack on the person of the accused which placed him in
danger and justified him in inflicting harm upon his assailant through the employment of
reasonable means to repel the aggression. In this, case the appellant attacked the victim while
the latter was fanning charcoal.
The second element is also absent. The nature, location and number of the wounds belie
appellant's defense. Even considering he was able to wrest the knife away from Vulpanco and
stab him on the chest, he still ran after the victim and stabbed him again in the face. However,
there was no treachery because before he attacked, the appellant uttered "Ano pare,
umpisahan na natin?".Also, victim's niece shouted "Tiyong Takbo".The victim was able to run
away but the accused caught up with him. Treachery cannot be appreciated when the victim
was aware of the attack against him and was even able to flee even though briefly from his
attacker.
Also, there is o evident premeditation. The prosecution failed to adduce evidence showing when
and how the accused planned and prepared to kill Vulpangco.The mere fact that the accused
learned that Vulpangco was pestering his sister a week before the killing is insufficient to prove
evident premeditation beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE V FRANCISCO
May 31, 2000
The appellant was convicted of frustrated murder. Together with two more persons, he
assaulted and stabbed Ariel while seated in the driver's seat of a jeepney.
HELD:
The mere fact that the principal witness was the victim of the crime does not make him a biased
witness and does not make his testimony incredible. It would be unnatural and illogical for him
to impute the crime to an innocent person and let the culprit escape prosecution.

DIGESTS
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a crime and decide to do it. Proof of the agreement need not rest on direct
evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common
understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary to
show that two or more persons met together and entered into an explicit agreement setting out
the details of an unlawful scheme or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried out.
It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred
from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action
and community of interest. In this case, the two John Does pulled the victim out of the jeepney.
As the victim was getting down, he was stabbed by the appellant. As to Antonio his participation
was limited to shouting "heto na sila".In a case, we ruled that the phrase "andiyan na", which
has similar import with the phrase herein, does not have conclusive conspiratorial meaning for
the supposedly damning utterances are susceptible of varied interpretations. One's overt act, to
be shown in pursuance of the conspiracy, may consist of active participation in the actual
commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his conspirators by being
present at the time of the commission of the crime, by exerting moral ascendancy over the other
co-conspirators by moving them to execute or implement the conspiracy.
As to Ricardo's physical disability, the limp suffered by him due to polio has not been shown to
restrict his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow beings as required by Art
13(8). The locations of the stab wounds (stomach) manifest his intention to kill thus
contradicting his claim of not intending to commit so grave a wrong.
The mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation must immediately preceded the act and
that it was adequate to excite a person to commit a wrong, which must accordingly be
proportionate in gravity.
The lack of aversion in the information of "intent to kill" does not make it insufficient. An
information is sufficient if it states the designation of the offense by statute. The information
more than substantially satisfies the requirement of designating the offense of frustrated murder
considering that it contains the acts constituting the felony, the name of the crime by statue and
the stage (frustrated) of the commission of the crime by definition. Besides the absence of the
averment of intent to kill may be inferred from the allegation that the stab wound would have
caused the death of the victim.
PEOPLE V BALORA
G.R. No.-124976 May 31, 2000
The victim was raped inside the cubicle of the women's restroom of the cinema theater of
Manuela Complex. The appellant went over the divider and banged the head of the victim on
the wall. After the incident, he was captured by the guards and mobbed by the other watchers.
HELD:
Appellant avers that the victim could not be made to lie on the floor there being a toilet bowl in
the middle and the cubicle was too small. The evil in man has no conscience. The beast in him
bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere--even in places
where people congregate. Rape does not necessarily have to be committed in an isolated place
and can in fact be committed in places which to many would appear to be unlikely and high-risk
venues for sexual advances.
Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the
victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances because of fear for
her life and personal safety. It is sufficient that the intimidation produces fear in the mind of the
victim that if she did not submit to the bestial demands of the accused, something far worse
would befall her at the time she was being molested. In P v Luzorate we held that intimidation
was addressed to the mind of the victim and therefore subjective, its presence could not be
tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and
judgment at the time of the crime. When a victim become paralyzed with fear, she cannot be
expected to think and act coherently, her failure to take advantage of the early opportunity to
escape does not automatically vitiate the credibility of her account. Complainant cannot be
faulted for not taking any action inasmuch as different people react differently to a given type of
situation, there being no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted
with a strange, startling or frightful experience.
Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an
essential element of rape.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V MAMAC
G.R. No.-130332 May 31,2000
Appellant woke up the victim by poking her with along stick while lying alongside her brother
and sister. When she opened the window, she saw appellant brandishing a bolo and ordered
her to go down. Appellant brought her to the bank of the river and raped her there while sticking
the bolo at her.
HELD:
We have long recognized that different people react differently to a given type of situation and
there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or
frightful experience. Appellant cannot claim that the victim had no reason to be cowed outside
by his mere act of stabbing her with a stick or mere brandishing of the bolo. The information
does not charge appellant with qualified rape and he cannot be sentenced to death. Unlike a
generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if not alleged, a qualifying
aggravating cannot be proved unless alleged in the information. It must be alleged to properly
inform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation against him in order not to violate due
process.
The appellant is not a step-grandfather. he co-habited and lived with the material grandmother
of Bernadette without the benefit of marriage. The word "step", when used as a prefix in
conjunction with a degree of kinship, is repugnant to blood relationship and is indicative of
relationship by affinity. There is no relationship by affinity between Bernadette and appellant,
thus he cannot be considered as a step-grandfather. At most he is a common law husband of
Bernadette's grandmother thus not a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by
consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree or the common law spouse of the parent of
the victim. Thus only reclusion perpetua may be imposed. .
PEOPLE V OBOSA
G.R. No.-132069 May 31, 2000
The appellant, with two other persons, waylaid former Secretary of Local Government Jaime
Ferrer and his driver. The appellant's defense is that as a prison inmate who based on prison
records was inside the compound of the Nat'l Bilibid Prisons on the date and time of the
incident, he could not have participated in the ambush; and if indeed he was able to leave the
prison premises it is unbelievable that an escaped convict would return to prison.
HELD:
The cited circumstances do not present a physical impossibility for the appellant to have
participated in the commission of the crime. First, the logbook presented in court referred only to
the south gate. The Director of the Bureau of Prisons testified that Obosa was given preferential
treatment in prison and was allowed to park his vehicle inside the prison compound despite
prohibition.
Appellant's objection to the admissibility of the testimony of an inmate that the accused confided
his participation in the crime is without merit. A convicted felon is not disqualified by the Rules of
Evidence from testifying in Court. The judgment of conviction did not rest on the alleged
confession made by Obosa. Treachery is present for the car was shot at while it was slowing
down as it approached a corner ensuring the accomplishment of the attack and eliminating any
risk from possible defenses that the victim may put up.
JUNE 2000
PEOPLE V ROBLES
G.R. No.-101335 June 8,2000
Appellant was convicted of robbery with homicide. He was apprehended after admitting the
crime. He was with the other perpetrators in a taxi which was stopped in a routine inspection.
HELD:
The unexplained possession of stolen articles gives rise to a presumption of theft, unless it is
proved that the owner of the articles was deprived of possession by violence, intimidation, in
which case the presumption becomes one of robbery. In robbery with homicide cases, the
prosecution need only to prove these elements: 1)the taking of personal property is perpetrated
by means of violence or intimidation against a person; 2)property taken belongs to another;
3)the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and 4)on the occasion of the
robbery or by reason thereof the crime of homicide, here used in a generic sense is committed.
The homicide may precede the robbery or may occur after the robbery. What is essential is that
there is an intimate connection between robbery and the killing whether the latter be prior or

DIGESTS
subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time. The rule is
that whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on occasion of the
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals
of the crime of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it
clearly appears they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
PEOPLE V ANTONIO
G.R. No.-122473 June 8,2000
This is a case of incestuous rape.
HELD:
Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's
spouse are asleep, or in a small room where other family members also slept. A daughter would
not accuse her own father of such unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not
been aggrieved. It is highly improbable for a woman, especially one of tender age, to concoct a
brutal tale of ravishment, allow a gynecologic examination, and undergo the humiliation of a
public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and
punished.
PEOPLE V MUMAR
G.R. No.-123155 June 8,2000
The victim was shot while his back was turned towards his assailants.
HELD:
A direct proof to show that the accused had come to an agreement to commit a felony is not
necessary. It is sufficient that all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent to do
harm to the victim.
PEOPLE V MONIEVA
G.R. No.123912 June 8,2000
The victim was hacked with a bolo and was decapitated by the appellant.
HELD:
Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the
basic aspect of the crime do not impair the witness credibility. Even where a witness is found to
have deliberately falsified the truth in some particular, and it was not shown that there was such
intended prevarication, it is not required that the entire testimony be rejected, since such
portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited.
Abuse of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the
means available to the person attacked to defend himself. Before it may be appreciated, it must
be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefacto to take advantage
thereof. The prosecution is of the opinion that since the appellant was armed with a bolo and
was chasing the unarmed victim who was trying to flee, this shows that the latter was powerless
to offer resistance thereby admitting his inferiority and superiority of the defendant. This is mere
conjecture, it was not all apparent that the appellant consciously adopted that particular means.
The mere fact that the victim was running away from the appellant who was wielding a bolo
shows that the victim was aware of the danger to himself, thus negating the suddenness of the
attack for which reason treachery cannot be appreciated.
PEOPLE V CAMBI
G.R. No.127131 June 8, 2000
The 15 yr old complainant was rape by the appellant.
HELD:
The absence of illumination in the place of the commission of the crime does not detract from
the positive identification by Margie of the appellant as her assailant. Although visibility is an
important factor in the identification of a criminal offender, its relative significance depends
largely on the attending circumstances and the discretion of the trial court. In the case at bar,
the assailant was well known to Margie as the former was her employer. Also, the voice of the
appellant was heard when he uttered threats against the complainant. It has been this Court's
observation that it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the
looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which he crime was committed.
Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of
everyone. Some may shout, some may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility, while
others may openly welcome the intrusion. The force or violence that is required in rape cases is

DIGESTS
relative. When applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible. It is enough that it has
enabled the offender to consummate his purpose to bring about the desired result. It is not even
necessary that the offender be armed with a weapon.
PEOPLE V. ROBERTO ESTRADA

G.R. NO. 130487
Accused was convicted for murder and sentenced to death. Defense interposed insanity with
proof of his history of mental illness filed for suspension of arraignment and suspension of
proceedings. Both were denied without subjecting accused to mental examination.
HELD:
Case remanded for the conduct of a proper mental examination to determine competency to
stand trial. By depriving appellant of mental examination, the trial court effectively deprived
appellant of a fair trial and the proceedings before the court are therefore nullified. He who
invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence.
The absence of direct proof however, does not entirely discount the probability that accused
was not of sound mind at that time. In passing the question of the propriety of suspending the
proceedings, the test is found in the question whether the accused would have a fair trial with
the assistance which the law secures or gives. There are 2 distinct matters to be determined
under this test (1) whether the defendant is sufficiently coherent to provide his counsel with
information necessary or relevant to constructing a defense and (2) whether he is able to
comprehend the significance of the trial and his relation to it.
The determination of whether a sanity investigation or hearing should be ordered rests generally
in the discretion of the trial court. In the case, the trial court took it solely upon itself to
determine the sanity of the accused. The trial judge however is not a psychiatrist or
psychologist or some other expert equipped with the specialized knowledge of determining the
state of a persons mental health. The court should have at least ordered the examination of the
accused, especially in the light of the latters history of mental item.
PEOPLE V. VENANCIO FRANCISCO

G.R. NO. 130490
Accused was convicted of murder and slight physical injuries. The trial court imposed penalty of
reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua medium. In imposing the penalty, the trial
court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law stating that RA 7659 (An act to impose the death
penalty on certain heinous crimes) made the penalty of reclusion perpetua divisible.
HELD:
Notwithstanding RA 7659, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua remains an indivisible penalty.
Although RA 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua to 20 years and 1 day to 40
years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible
penalty. It remains as an indivisible penalty.
PEOPLE V. MARCELO NAVA JR.

G.R. NO. 130509-12
Accused was convicted of 4 counts of rape of his 13-year-old daughter. The information does
not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender. He was sentenced to
death and made to pay civil indemnity only.
HELD:
Crime is only simple rape since the information does not allege the age of victim and her
relationship with he offender. Civil indemnity is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape; it
is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different
jural foundations and assessed by the court in the exercise of sound discretion. An award of
50,000 as moral damages for each of the counts of rape is granted in recognition of the victims
injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of
rape and to warrant per se an award of moral damages.
PEOPLE V. ANGEL RIOS

G.R. NO. 132632
Accused was convicted of murder. The crime was preceded by a heated argument. The
accused left and came back minutes after the altercation and stabbed victim at the latters
terrace.
HELD:

DIGESTS
Homicide and not murder. Treachery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Qualifying and
aggravating circumstances before being taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing
the degree of the penalty to be imposed must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as
that which establishes the commission of the act charged as a criminal offense. Dwelling was
correctly considered aggravating. The word dwelling includes every dependency of the house
that forms part thereof.
PEOPLE V. WILSON DREU*

G.R. NO. 126282
Accused was convicted of rape. He interposed the defense that he and the victim was
sweethearts. He offered marriage but was rejected.
HELD:
The sweethearts defense cannot be appreciated as the defense failed to come up with
convincing proof. Indeed, the accused bears the burden of proving that he and the complainant
had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship. The guilt of the accused was also
established by the fact that he offered marriage to the complainant after the incident was
reported to the authorities. As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage is an admission of guilt.
PEOPLE V. PATROLMAN DOMINGO BELBES

G.R. NO. 124670
Accused was convicted of murder. He interposed self-defense and that he acted in the
fulfillment of a duty.
HELD:
Self-defense cannot be appreciated. Where the accused admits to killing the victim in self-
defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him. For a person not to incur criminal liability when he
acts in the fulfillment of a duty, 2 requisites must concur: (1) that the offender acted in the
performance of a duty; (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence
of the due performance of such right or office. However, second requisite here was not proved
since killing need not be a necessary consequence of his duty.
PEOPLE V. HERMOGENES FLORA

G.R. NO. 125909
The 2 accused (Hermogenes and Edwin) were convicted for the murder of Emerita and Ireneo
and the attempted murder of Flor. The 2 were found to have conspired to kill Ireneo. However,
during the commission of the crime, Emerita was also killed and Flor hit by a bullet.
HELD:
Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts done
outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical
consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. Evidence only shows
conspiracy to kill Ireneo and no one else. Hence, both can be convicted for the murder of
Ireneo. However, only Hermogenes who fired at Emerita and Flor can be convicted for the
murder of Emerita and Flor respectively.
PEOPLE V. EDDY PANEZA

G.R. NO. 131829
The 3 accused were convicted of highway robbery. They assert that they cannot be convicted
of highway robbery as the crime was not committed by at least 4 persons as required in Article
306 of the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:
Highway robbery is now governed by PD No. 532, otherwise known as Anti-Piracy and Anti-
Highway Robbery Law of 1974. It is no longer required that there be at least 4 armed persons
forming a band of robbers. The no. of offenders is no longer an essential element of the crime
of highway robbery. PD 532 only requires proof that persons were organized for the purpose of
committing highway robbery indiscriminately. The robbery must be directed not only against
specific, intended or preconceived victims but also against any and all prospective victims.
PEOPLE V. MARIANO AUSTRIA

G.R. NO. 123539
Accused, 82 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, was convicted of the crime
of rape. He raises as defense the 2-week delay in reporting the offense and his alleged
impotency.

DIGESTS
HELD:
Delay or vacillation in criminal accusations does not necessarily impair the complainants
credibility if such delay is satisfactorily explained. It is not uncommon to conceal rape because
of rapists threats to life, fear of public humiliation and lack of courage. Silence is not an odd
behavior of a rape victim. The presumption is always in favor of potency. Impotency is
considered an abnormal condition and should not be presumed. The doctors testimony stated
that his sex organ was diseased but never was there even a hint that accused was impotent.
The trial court also observed that accused was still strong, agile and capable of committing the
sexual act and seriously doubts that he is 82 years old.
PEOPLE V. PEPE LOZADA

G.R. NO. 130589
As Danilo Morin and his cousin were walking one evening, Lozada followed from behind and
shot Morin to death. Lozada was convicted of murder appreciating treachery as a qualifying
circumstance.
HELD:
Affirmed. There was treachery since Morin was unsuspectingly shot from behind. The essence
of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim,
depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission
without risk to himself. The 2 conditions for treachery to be considered as qualifying
circumstance are: (1) employment of means, methods and manner of execution to ensure the
safety of the malefactor from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim; (2) and the deliberate
adoption of such means, methods and manner of execution.
PEOPLE V. ERNESTO SANTOS*

G.R. NO. 131103 & 143472
Accused was found guilty of 2 counts of rape of his 14 year old daughter. The information
alleges that the crime was committed on or about sometime in 1988 and 1989. He avers that
such allegations are indefinite and have deprived him of the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him.
HELD:
It is too late for the accused to question the form or substance of the information in these cases
since he did not move to quash the information before he was arraigned. Further, in the crime of
rape, the date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime.
JULY 2000
PEOPLE V. AGAPITO LISTERIO
G.R. NO. 122099
The accused was convicted of murder and frustrated murder committed with conspiracy. He
assails the testimony of the witness as insufficient to convict him of her crime charged.
HELD:
It is well settled that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, such that the testimony of a
single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused. The trial court
found the witness testimony as candid and straightforward. Court defer to the lower courts
findings consistent with the principle that the trial judge is the best and the most competent
person who can weigh and evaluate the testimony of witnesses.
Conspiracy was also proven. A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish the
existence of a conspiracy, direct proof is not essential since it may be shown by facts and
circumstances from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common design among
the accused to commit the offense charged, or it may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated. If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect, conspiracy
can be established.
PEOPLE V. ELMER YPARRAGUIRE

G.R. NO. 124391
Accused was convicted of raping a mentally retarded girl. Appellant contends that the trial court
never acquired jurisdiction over the case because the complainant was signed and filed by the
chief of police and not by the complainant.

DIGESTS
HELD:
Pursuant to Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the offended party can
initiate a prosecution for rape even if she is a minor, unless she is incompetent or incapable of
doing so upon grounds other than her minority. Although the victim in this case is no longer a
minor, it is undisputed that she is a mental retardate and suffering from physical deformity. No
woman would come out in the open, inform the authorities of the injustice done to her, unless
her purpose is to redress the wrong done against her honor. Once the violation of the law
becomes known through a direct original participation initiated by the victim, the requirement of
Art 344 of the RPC to the effect that the offense of rape shall not be prosecuted excerpt upon a
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents are satisfied. Said provision is not
determinative of the jurisdiction of courts over the private offenses because the same is
governed by the Judiciary law, not the RPC. The complaint required in Art 344 is but a condition
precedent to the exercise by the proper authorities of the power to prosecute the guilty parties.
The complaint simply starts the prosecutory proceeding but does not confer jurisdiction on the
court to try the case.
PEOPLE V. KENNETH CANEDO

G.R. NO. 128382
Accused was convicted of murder.
HELD:
Accused acquitted on reasonable doubt. The records do not show how witness described
appellant and which description enabled an anonymous person to point at appellant as the one
who stabbed the victim. In the absence of these critical details of description, we cannot
adjudge whether the appellant was correctly and properly identified. Further, the crime was
committed when a dance was being held. The fight was a rumble, participated in by a lot of
people. All theses circumstances should make the identification of appellant difficult and we
should be extra careful in evaluating witness testimony. Positive identification of malefactors
should not be disregarded just because the names of some of them were supplied to the
eyewitness. But in such cases, the description of the criminal was detailed and fitted the
accused. In the instant case, these reliable details which could provide a good index for
identification are missing.
PEOPLE V. RAELITO LIBRANDO

G.R. NO. 132251
The accused were convicted of murder. Appellants point out that they have no reason to
assault the deceased since they had never any quarrel with the victim. They also assail the
credibility of the child witness.
HELD:
While it is true that they have no motive to assault the deceased, nevertheless, it is hornbook
knowledge that crimes have been attributed to persons who appear to have no reasons for
committing them as long as they have been clearly identified as the offenders. Motive gains
importance only when the identity of the culprit is suspect. It is also well established that any
child regardless of age can be competent witness if he can perceive and can make known his
perceptions to others and that he is capable of relating truthfully facts for which he is examined.
The childs competence as a witness are: (a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of
recollection; (c) capacity of communication. The childs lone testimony is sufficient to sustain a
conviction.
PEOPLE V. EVANGELINE ORDONO

G.R. NO. 129593 143533-35
Accused was convicted of 2 counts of illegal recruitment and 2 counts of estafa.
HELD:
To be convicted for illegal recruitment, 2 elements must concur: (1) the offender has no valid
license or authority required by law to enable one to lawfully engage in recruitment and
placement of workers; and (2) he undertakes either any activity within the meaning of
recruitment and placement. The 2 elements were proven. The testimonies of complainant
corroborated each other and were buttressed by other prosecution witnesses.
The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit; and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused by
offended party. These were also established in the case.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. MEYNARD PANGANIBAN

G.R. NO. 133028
Accused was convicted of estafa. Appellant contends that his conviction should be reversed
because the element of fraud or deceit was not proven. He insists that the stop payment order
was made in good faith and was not meant to evade payment of the debt.
HELD:
Despite his denials during testimony, it is obvious that appellant was aware at the time he made
the postdated checks for several creditors that he would have several debts maturing at the
same time, of which are recoverable from the same bank account. Then knowing that the
balance is not sufficient to cover complainants check, he immediately ordered the drawee bank
to stop its payment. These circumstances, taken together, indicate appellants intent to deceive
and defraud at the time he issued the check. The indeterminate sentence law must also be
applied.
PEOPLE V. LUDIGARIO CANDELARIO

G.R. NO. 125550
Accused was convicted of the crime of robbery with multiple rape. One of the accused is a
youth offender and was thus placed under the custody of DSWD, Regional Rehabilitation
Center for Youth. DSWD recommended that the case of the accused be dismissed and his
custody be transferred to his father after taking into account the minors performance in the
rehabilitation center.
HELD:
The Final Report and Recommendation of the DSWD should be referred to the RTC for its
appropriate action and disposition. Where the DSWD recommends the discharge of a youthful
offender, it is the trial court before whom the report and recommendation is subject to judicial
review. Recommendation alone is not sufficient to warrant the release of a youthful offender.
The youthful offender however is not to be tries anew by the trial court. The inquiry is not a
criminal prosecution but is rather limited to the determination of the offenders proper education
and his moral and social fitness to re-join the community.
PEOPLE V. ARIEL PEDROSO

G.R. NO. 125128
The accused was convicted of robbery with homicide. He was sentenced by the trial court to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death.
HELD:
Under Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code, if an accused is found guilty of a felony for which the
law prescribes a penalty composed of 2 indivisible penalties, the trial court judge has to impose
one or the other, not both. Since no aggravating circumstance was alleged in the information
and since neither was any mitigating circumstance established by the defense, the lesser
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua should be imposed.
PEOPLE V. ERNST GEORG HOLZER*

G.R. NO. 132323
The accused were convicted of estafa. Appellants contend that their liability is only civil and not
criminal since the check was issued only to secure the loan they obtained from complainant and
that there was no deceit on their part because they duly informed the complainant that the
check was not yet funded.
HELD:
The elements of estafa involved in this case are: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a
check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the
time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds
deposited were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; (3) the payee has been
defrauded. The drawer of the dishonored check is given 3 days from receipt of the notice of
dishonor to deposit the amount necessary to cover the check. Otherwise, a prima facie
presumption of deceit will arise which must then be overcome by the accused. In this case, no
evidence of deceit accompanied the issuance of the check. The prosecution presented
evidence to show that a notice of dishonor had been sent to appellant. The complainant
actually knew at the time of the issuance of the check that it was not funded and that the money
to cover it was still to come from Switzerland.

DIGESTS
PEOPLE V. ROLAND MOLINA

G.R. NO. 134777-78
Accused was found guilty of murder and frustrated murder. Accused denied commission of the
crime and imputed the same to another person.
HELD:
As weighed against the positive identification of accused by one of his victims, which was
further corroborated by an eyewitness to the scene, and the absence of any showing of ill-
motive on their part other than their quest for justice, appellants denial of the commission of the
crime and imputation of the same to another person is demolished to obscurity. Besides, the
imputation of the crime to another malefactor was heard of only during his testimony, and was
never raised before the police authorities during the investigation. Clearly, his bare denial
amounts to nothing more than negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law.
As to the amount of damages, prevailing jurisprudence sets the civil indemnity for death in the
amount of P50,000, which can be awarded without need of further proof other than the death of
the victim. With respect to actual damages, the court can only grant such amount for expenses
if they are supported by receipts. Moral damages may be recovered in criminal offenses
resulting in physical injuries but there must be a factual basis for the award. As to exemplary
damages, there being one aggravating circumstance, exemplary damages in the amount of
P30,000 may be awarded in both murder and frustrated murder case pursuant to Art 2230 of the
New Civil Code.
PEOPLE V. ERIC BAID

G.R. NO. 129667
Accused was convicted of rape committed against a mental patient. He contends that as
complainant is schizophrenic, her testimony should not have been given credence by the trial
court. Further, he contends that victim consented with the sex.
HELD:
Notwithstanding her mental illness, complainant showed that she was qualified to be a witness.
She could perceive and was capable of making known her perceptions to others. Her testimony
indicates that she could understand questions particularly relating to the incident and could give
her responsive answers to them. Although complainant herself admitted that she agreed to have
sex with him after he gave her a stick of cigarette, it should be stressed that complainant was in
no position to give her consent. Accused is to be convicted under Art 335 par 2, rape of a
woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. The phrase deprived of reason has
been construed to include those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency or some other
form of mental retardation, those who are feebleminded although coherent.
AUGUST 2000
PEOPLE V. FRANCISCO VILLANOS
G.R. NO. 126648
Accused was convicted of rape. The victim was raped when unconscious.
HELD:
In cases where the victim is raped in a state of unconsciousness, the fact of sexual assault and
the identity of the assailant can be established from the events preceding or following the
victims loss of consciousness. True, there was no test conducted to determine the presence of
any sedative or drug in the drinks given to the victims which caused them to lose momentarily
control of their faculties. But this is of little consequence as the same is not an indispensable
element in a prosecution for rape. Under the circumstances, it suffices that the victim was found
to have been unconscious at the time the offender had carnal knowledge of her.
PEOPLE V. JOCELYN ACBANGIN

G.R. NO. 117216
Accused was convicted of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Two days after the taking of
the child, she informed the childs parents of the whereabouts of the child.
HELD:
In cases of kidnapping, if the person detained is a child, the question is whether there was
actual deprivation of the childs liberty and whether it was the intention of the accused to deprive
the parents of the custody of the child. The child in this case was deprived of liberty. True, she
was treated well, however, there is still kidnapping. For there to be kidnapping, it is not

DIGESTS
necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure. It is enough that the victim is restrained
from going home. The intention to deprive the childs parents of her custody is indicated by the
accuseds hesitation for 2 days to disclose the whereabouts of the child and more so by her
actual taking of the child. Accuseds motive at this point is not relevant. It is not an element of
the crime. The fact that she later on felt remorse and showed the childs parents where the
former was, cannot absolve her. At that point, the crime was consummated.
The testimony of the child is also credible. A witness young age will not deter him or her from
being a competent and credible witness. To be a competent child witness, the following must be
met: (a) capacity of observation; (b) capacity of recollection; (c) capacity of communication
PEOPLE V. PEDRO DUCTA

G.R. NO. 134608
Accused was convicted of raping a 43-year-old retarded woman.
HELD:
State of mental retardation of a victim of rape can be established by evidence other than the
medical findings of a specialist. So also, the court has said that a woman need not be
completely deprived of reason for sexual intercourse by a man with her to constitute the crime of
rape. The term deprived of reason has been construed to include the feeble-minded although
coherent and those suffering from mental deficiency or some form of mental disorder. Further, a
mental retardate who has the ability to make known her perceptions is still a competent witness.
PEOPLE V. MARIO MYRNO TAN

G.R. NO. 120672
Accused was found guilty of estafa. Appellant contends that the prosecution failed to sufficiently
prove that the merchandise he ordered were delivered to and received by him or his authorized
representatives. Thus, he argues, he cannot be held liable for estafa since he was not able to
obtain the goods from the private complainant by means of the check he issued.
HELD:
Art 315 (2)(d) of the RPC penalizes any person who shall defraud another by postdating a
check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender has no funds in the
bank. The transaction between the parties here is in the nature of contract of sale. The
contract of purchase and sale is reciprocal and from it arises not only the obligation to deliver
the thing but also that of paying the price. In this case, there is no ample proof that appellant or
his representatives ever received the merchandise. Since no damage was sustained by
complainant in as much as appellant received nothing of value from the complainant, appellant
cannot be held guilty of estafa. He had no obligation to pay or to make good the issued check.
PEOPLE V. CESAR MELENDRES

G.R. NO. 133999-4001
Accused was convicted of 3 counts of rape committed against the 11-year-old daughter of his
common law wife. He contends that accused and complainant were actually lovers.
HELD:
In rape cases falling under Art 335 (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age or is
demented, 2 elements must be established to hold the accused guilty of rape: (1) that the
accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. Proof
of consent of the woman is immaterial. Sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years old is
statutory rape. Her consent to the intercourse is involuntary because she is considered to have
no will of her own.
SEPTEMBER 2000
PEOPLE V. FAUSTINO CAMPOS
G.R. NO. 133373-77
Accused, 72 years of age, was convicted of 5 counts of rape committed against 2 minors. He
insists in his appeal that he could not be convicted considering that the medical examination
showed that the complaining witnesses suffered no lacerations, abrasions or contusions.
HELD:
Medical examination is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In fact, there can be rape
even if the medical examination shows no vaginal laceration. Medical findings only serve to
corroborate the testimonies of the victims. The accused may be convicted on the basis of the

DIGESTS
lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that her testimony is clear, positive,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of this.
PEOPLE V. WALPAN LADJAALAM

G.R. NO. 136149-51
The accused was convicted of the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for
firing an M14 rifle to policemen who were about to enter his house to serve a search warrant.
Further, he was also convicted for illegal possession of firearm.
HELD:
RA no. 8294 penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested
committed no other crime. Furthermore, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide,
illegal possession of firearms is an aggravating circumstance, but not a separate offense.
Hence, where an accused was convicted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for
firing an unlicensed M14 rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a search warrant,
he cannot be held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Neither can
such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault.
PEOPLE V. FERIGEL OLIVA

G.R. NO. 122110
Accused was convicted of arson and murder.
HELD:
There are 2 elements of arson: (1) that there is intentional burning; (2) that what is intentionally
burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecution
for felonies and offense. Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime. It refers to the
fact that a crime has actually been committed. Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of
the crime that may be proved by the testimonies of the witnesses. In arson, the corpus delicti
rule is satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally
caused. The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to
prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction. Here, corpus delicti of the arson and murder
was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE V. ELMEDIO CAJARA

G.R. NO. 122498
Accused was convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death. The victim was the sister of
the common law wife of the accused.
HELD:
Although the circumstance of relationship by affinity within the third civil degree was alleged in
the information, evidence for the prosecution clearly showed the lack or absence of such
circumstance to qualify the rape because the accused and the sister of the victim were common
law husband and wife and were not legally married at the time of the tape. The accused 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.
PEOPLE V. PEDRO ABUNGAN

G.R. NO. 136843
Accused was convicted of murder. He died pending appeal.
HELD:
The death of the appellant pending appeal and prior to the finality of conviction extinguished his
criminal and civil liabilities (civil liability ex delicto) arising from the delict or crime. Hence, the
criminal case against him, not the appeal, should be dismissed. However, it must be added that
his civil liability may be based on sources of obligation other than delict. For this reason, the
victims may file a separate civil action against his estate, as may be warranted by law or
procedural rules.
PEOPLE V. CARUNGAL AND ESPINOSA

G.R. No.123299 Sept. 29, 2000
This is a hold-up but a passenger was a policeman. He was stabbed. Later a tabloid reported
that his gun was found with a killed hold-upper not a party to the case.
HELD:
In the light of positive identification, appellant's defense of alibi and denial must fail. Positive
testimony is stronger that negative testimony, and alibi becomes worthless in the face of positive

DIGESTS
identification of the accused. For alibi to prosper it must be shown that it was physically
impossible to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission (place of alibi was only 5
minutes away).
Even if there are flaws in the testimony as to who stabbed the victim is immaterial because
conspiracy was proven. They masqueraded as passengers, positioned themselves strategically
inside the jeep, pulled out their knives simultaneously, concertedly inflicted stab wounds upon
learning that he was a policeman. It is no moment that an accused has not taken part in actual
commission of every act constituting the crime. The precise modality or extent of participation of
each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all.
As to the report of the gun, it is merely hearsay. The authors of the newspaper reports had no
personal knowledge of the identity of the perpetrators. Such was only obtained from the police
investigators handling the case. This fact is of no moment for a possession thereof could have
reached this person for a number of reasons.
PEOPLE V. PO2 RODEL SAMONTE

G.R. No.126048 Sept.29, 2000
There was a shooting incident resulting to the death of Perez. Accused was detailed in the
Mayor's Office. His revolver and a 38 palter was taken from him. Branch 9 acquitted him of the
crime of homicide but Branch 3 found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms aggravated by
homicide under PD1866.
Issue: W/N the doctrine of P v Quijada stating that qualified illegal possession of firearms and
homicide are distinct and separate offenses is still followed.
HELD:
No Applying the new law RA8249 in P v Molina the Court has declared that under the
amendment in said law that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed
forearm, such use of the same should only be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
PEOPLE V. JOSE PATRIARCA

G.R. No.135457 Sept.29, 2000
Accused was found guilty of murdering a fellow member of the NPA. Accused now appeals on
the ground that the crime of murder is an offense committed in pursuance or in furtherance of
rebellion.
HELD:
The court acquitted the appellant. His application for amnesty was approved and one of the acts
listed in the resolution of the Nat'l Amnesty Commission is the killing of the victim in this case.
The approval was pursuant to Proc. No 347 granting amnesty to all persons who shall apply
who have committed crimes on or before June 1 1995 in pursuit of their political beliefs.
Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive. It is a private act, which must be pleaded and proved
by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by
Proclamation of the CE with the concurrence of Congress is a public act of w/c the courts
should take judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted
to classes of person or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or
after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks
forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been
convicted, it abolishes or forgives the punishment thus it does not work the restoration of the
rights to hold public office or right of suffrage unless such rights be expressly restored by the
terms of the pardon and it in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity
imposed upon him by the sentence (Art 36).
PEOPLE V. GENOSA
GRNo.-135891 Sept. 29, 2000
Appellant was found guilty of parricide. She now requests an examination by psychologists to
determine her state of mind then under the ground of the "battered woman syndrome".
HELD:
There are four characteristics of the syndrome:1)woman believes that the violence was her
fault;2)she has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere;3)she fears for
her life and/or the children's lives;4)she has an irrational belief that the abuser is omnipresent
and omniscient. Trapped in a cycle of violence and constant fear, it is not unlikely that she would
succumb to her helplessness and fail to perceive possible solutions to the problem than to injure
or kill her batterer. She is seized by fear of an existing or impending lethal aggression and thus

DIGESTS
would have no opportunity beforehand to deliberate o her acts and to choose a less fatal means
of eliminating her sufferings.
Petition granted. In P v Pares, after a final conviction of appellant therein, the Court granted his
Urgent Omnibus Motion and allowed him to undergo mental and neuralgic other examinations to
determine that he was a deaf-mute. Based on that finding and that he was unaided in the trial,
he was granted a rearrangement and retrial. This action is justified on the rule that only upon
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt may an accused to consigned to a lethal injection
chamber. Also as Justice Pun said, man should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful
acts so long as free will appears unimpaired.
OCTOBER 2000
PEOPLE V. SANTIAGO
GRNO.129371 OCT. 4, 2000
Appellant was convicted of murder for shooting the victim after a prior street altercation that
erupted when the parties' vehicles collided.
HELD:
Only Homicide. No treachery. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, or
as conclusively as the killing itself. When the witnesses did not see how the attack was carried
out and cannot testify how it began, the trial court cannot presume from the circumstances of
the case that there was treachery. Treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did
not see the commencement of the assault. Since the lone witness failed to witness the initial
attack inflicted upon the victim, treachery cannot be considered a qualifying circumstance.
All the elements of evident premeditation must also be proven. Premeditation to kill must be
plain notorious and sufficiently proven by the evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill.
A 15-minute interval is not sufficient time for the accused to coolly reflect on their plan to kill the
victim. In one case, 30 minutes was held also insufficient time between determination to commit
and the execution is insufficient for full meditation on the consequences of the act.
Liability of one whose participation in crime was limited to driving for the killers is only that of an
accomplice. The lack of complete evidence of conspiracy, which creates the doubt whether he
has acted as principal or an accomplice, implies the court to resolve the question in favor of the
accused.
PEOPLE V. LOPEZ
GRNo.-132168 October 10, 2000
An old woman was hacked to death by appellant because of a land dispute.
HELD: There was treachery. Accused suddenly and unexpectedly grabbed the hair of the
deceased and simultaneously hacked her to death. The deceased had no inkling whatsoever of
the murderous intent of the accused. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without
warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist, to avoid or escape.
Abuse of superiority was proved. She was unarmed. The accused was a 22-year old male, in
the prime of his life, and armed with a deadly weapon. Since alevosia is already appreciated as
a qualifying circumstance, abuse of superiority is absorbed therein.
The fact that the victim has 7 hacking wounds does not conclusively demonstrate cruelty. The
number of wounds does not per se give rise to cruelty. The test is whether the accused
deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by committing another wrong not necessary
for its commission, or inhumanely increased the victim's suffering, or outraged or scoffed at his
person or corpse. Records are bereft of evidence showing the accused continued to hack the
victim when she was already dead. Passion or obfuscation to be appreciated must arise from
lawful sentiments. The act of victim demanding the family of appellant to vacate her land was
not unlawful or unjust. The exercise of a lawful right cannot be a proper source of obfuscation
that may be considered a mitigating circumstance.
NOVEMBER 2000
PEOPLE V. BALMORIA
GRNo.-134539 November 15, 2000
A case of rape of an eight-year old.

DIGESTS
HELD: It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their
virtue because of the threat on their lives. A young girl, unlike a mature woman, can not be
expected to have the courage and intelligence to immediately report a sexual assault committed
against her especially when a death threat hangs over her head. We cannot reject the
testimony of victim on the ground that her 3 other companions were not awakened by her
groans while she was being raped. It is not impossible to commit rape in a small room even if
there are several persons in it.
PEOPLE V. VELASQUEZ
GRNo.-137383-84 Nov. 23, 2000
Appellant used a toy gun in abducting and raping the victim.
HELD: The mere fact that Karen did not attempt to escape when the opportunity resented itself
should not be construed as a manifestation of consent and does not necessarily negate her
charge of rape or taint her credibility considering the accused employed force and intimidation. A
complainant's act in immediately reporting the commission of rape is a factor in strengthening
her credibility.
Appellant imputes no ill motive towards the victim to falsely accuse him. In the absence of such
motive, it is presumed that no such motive exists. To support a conviction for rape, the court
may rely solely on the testimony of the victim provided such testimony is credible, natural,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. By its nature,
rape is committed with the least possibility of being seen by the public.
FEBRUARY 2001
PEOPLE V. BAYOD
GR 122664; Feb 5, 2001
Accused was charged with murder and frustrated homicide
HELD: Accused is GUILTY of MURDER and FRUSTRATED MURDER not frustrated
HOMICIDE. There was intent to kill and treachery, accused and his companions ganged up with
advantage in number and strength, in both instances; a felony is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence which
nevertheless, do not produce it by reason or causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. In
this case, timely medical attention.
PEOPLE. V. OPTANA
GR 133922; Feb.12,2001
4 informations for the violation of the sec. 5 RA7610 (Special Protection of Children against
Child Abuse) and 4 informations for rape were filed against the accused.
HELD: The SC affirms the decision of the trial court convicting the accused for one incident of
rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and one charge violating RA7610, sentencing him to
suffer 8yrs and 1 day of prison mayor as minimum to 17 yrs. and 4mos of reclusion temporal as
maximum. The other informations failed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise,
charging the accused with two different offenses for the same act committed on the same date
against the same victim is erroneous and illegal except where the law itself so allows. This is not
allowed by RA7610. It specifically provides that in instances where the victim is under 12, the
case should fall under art. 335 of the RPC, thus only cases where the victim is over 12 but
under 18 can fall under this law. In the case at bar, where the accused was charged for several
occasions of rape and abuse the conviction or acquittal on the informations was based on the
age of the child, the concept of non-multiplicity of suits, and the evidence presented. Thus, only
one rape case prospered (incident when the child was below 12) and one violation of RA7610
(when the child was above 12 but below 18).
PEOPLE V. VELASCO
GR 128089; Feb13,2001
The accused was indicted for parricide under art 246 of the RPC for the killing of his wife.
HELD: The accused is guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Parricide is
committed when 1) a person is killed; 2)the deceased is killed by the accused; 3)the deceased
is the...or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element is the relation of the offender
to the victim. In case of a marital relationship the best evidence is the marriage certificate. The
own testimony of the accused as married to the victim may also be taken as an admission

DIGESTS
against penal interest. The case was proved through circumstantial evidence sufficiently
establishing the malefactor, destroying the presumption of innocence, and fulfilling the standard
of moral certainty. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted in the absence of eyewitnesses and
is sufficient for conviction if, a)there is more than one circumstance; b) the facts from which that
inferences were derived are proven; and c) the combination of all circumstances is such as to
produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Further, a conviction based on such can be
upheld if the circumstances established would lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing
to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the author of the crime.
PEOPLE V. AVECILLA
GR117033; Feb.15, 2001
Accused was charged of qualified illegal possession of a firearm; accused willfully, unlawfully,
and feloniously with intent to kill, and actually killing a victim as a consequence, possess and
carry an unlicensed firearm.
ISSUE: Conviction and Retroactivity of RA8294 (An act Amending the Provisions of PD 1866)
HELD: SC dismissed the case. Originally he could have been convicted of illegally possessing a
firearm separately from his conviction on the killing that occurred as a consequence thereof,
which happened in 1991. With the passage of RA 8294 in 1997 amending PD1866, the
possession of an unlicensed firearm has become merely an aggravating circumstance to a
murder or homicide charge. As a general rule, penal laws have prospective effect EXCEPT
where the new law will be advantageous to the accused, as in this case, sparing him of two
separate convictions.
PEOPLE v. NAAG*
GR No. 136394; Feb. 15, 2001
Accused was charged and found guilty by the lower court of the special complex crime of
robbery with rape.
ISSUE: Was there rape? Was he guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape?
HELD: There was rape. In rape cases, what is material is that there is penetration no matter
how slight. The only essential point is to prove the entrance or at least the introduction of the
male organ into the labia of the pudendum. The moment the accuseds penis knocks at the door
of the of the pudenda it suffices to constitute the crime of rape. Accused is guilty of separate
crimes of rape and theft. Facts show that the primary intent of accused was to rape the victim
and not to rob her. Moreover, the crime of taking away the property is theft and not robbery
because of the absence of violence and intimidation.
PEOPLE V. MANALO
GR 135964-71; Feb. 21, 2001
Accused was charged of 8 counts of rape of two minors (4 counts of rape for each child). One
was 6 yrs. old and the other 7.
HELD: The accused is guilty and is sentenced to death. According to art.335 of the RPC, the
death penalty shall be imposed if rape is committed on a child below seven yrs. of age.
PEOPLE v. DANIEL MAURICIO Y PEREZ

G.R. No. 133695. February 28, 2001.
The trial court found accused guilty of raping his 11-yr old daughter and sentenced him to death.
He was also found guilty of attempted rape in the other case.
HELD:
In the case at bar, although the Information did properly allege the complainant's minority, it
failed to specify the relationship between the complainant and accused-appellant. It is not
enough that the relationship was subsequently proved during the trial. Both relationship and
minority must be alleged in the Information to qualify the crime as punishable by death.
With regard to the second criminal case, the SC ruled that the evidence on record cannot
sustain a conviction for attempted rape. There is an attempt when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. Applying the above definition to the facts of the case, it would be
stretching the imagination to construe the act of the accused of throwing the victim to her bed as
an overt act that will "logically and necessarily ripen" into rape. The external act must have a
direct and necessary connection with the crime that the accused intended to commit
PEOPLE v. CASTANITO GANO

DIGESTS
G.R. No. 134373 February 28, 2001

Accused was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide, and sentenced to the penalty of
death. The core issue now before us is whether the three (3) killings should be appreciated as
separate aggravating circumstances to warrant the imposition of the penalty of death.
HELD:
The SC found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide, but imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua. It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or
homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating
circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the
enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is
specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of
the robbery) would result in an "anomalous situation" where from the standpoint of the gravity of
the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes.
However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the
offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute.
THE PEOPLE v. SANDY HINTO y BUENO

G.R. Nos. 138146-91. February 28, 2001
In the first criminal case, accused was found guilty of the crime of rape, and was sentenced to
suffer the penalty of death. He was also found guilty of 45 counts of acts of lasciviousness,
there being the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship. He was sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, both of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, in each of the forty-five (45) cases and to pay the costs of the
suit.
HELD:
The SC affirmed the decision of the lower court. With regard to the credibility of witnesses,
settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the testimony of witnesses is
entitled to great respect. Unless shown that it has overlooked some facts which would affect the
result of the case, the trial court's factual findings will not be disturbed by the appellate court.
With regard to the defense of alibi, it is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, there must
be proof not only that the accused was at some other place at the time the crime was committed
but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the
alleged crime.
PEOPLE v. EDGARDO MACEDA

G.R. No. 138805 February 28, 2001
Accused was convicted for the crime of rape of a mental retardate, and sentenced to suffer the
penalty of death.
HELD:
In this case, complainant was deprived of reason, and, under Art. 266-A, par. 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code, having sexual intercourse with her, even if accomplished without the use
of force or intimidation, constitutes rape.
MARCH 2001
PEOPLE v. ROBERT NUEZ y LAGASCA
G.R. No. 112092. March 1, 2001.
Accused was found guilty of Illegal possession of firearm resulting to the death of the victim and
pursuant to P.D. 1866 in relation to the 1987 Constitution the court sentences the said accused
to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and with costs.
HELD:
Appellant was convicted of "illegal possession of firearms resulting to the death of the victim." At
the time of the commission of the crime, the existing jurisprudence was People v. Quijada. The
SC held then that the use of an unlicensed firearm in a killing results in two separate crimes
one for the aggravated form of illegal possession of firearm and two, for homicide or murder. In
the meantime, however, Congress passed Republic Act No. 8294, 27 which lowered the
penalties for illegal possession of firearms. Further, Section 1, third par. of R.A. No. 8294

DIGESTS
provides If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use
of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
The Court held that accordingly, appellant should only be convicted of simple illegal possession
of firearms. The lowered penalties as provided in R.A. No. 8294, being favorable to the
accused, should be applied retroactively.
PEOPLE v. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL.

G.R. No. 123069 March 1, 2001
The trial court found both Pedro Saspa and Rafael Sumiling principally liable for the murder of
Isidro Hayo, and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, together
with its accessory penalties, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount
of P50,000.00.
HELD:
The SC affirmed the trial court's holding that appellants employed superior strength in the
execution of the crime, thus qualifying the killing to murder. When appellants attacked the victim,
they had the advantage of numerical superiority and were carrying high-powered firearms;
whereas the victim was unarmed and utterly defenseless, not to mention that he was taken by
surprise by the swiftness of the assault. Clearly, there was a notorious inequality between the
strength of the victim and his assailants. The Court, however, did not sustain the trial court's
appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of band and ignominy. A band consists of at least
four armed malefactors acting together in the commission of an offense. The prosecution failed
to prove that there were at least four armed men Thelma testified that three of Isidro's
assailants were armed, while Sulpicio did make any declaration as to how many of his son's
attackers were actually armed. Neither did the prosecution prove the existence of ignominy,
which is a circumstance that adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused by the
crime. There was no showing that appellants deliberately employed means which would cause
more suffering or humiliation to the victim.
PEOPLE v. ALFREDO NARDO

G.R. No. 133888 March 1, 2001
Accused was found guilty of raping his 14-yr old daughter, and was sentenced to suffer the
penalty of death. For humanitarian reasons, however, the trial court recommended that the
DEATH penalty be commuted to RECLUSION PERPETUA.
HELD:
The SC found accused guilty, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. The
concurrence of the two special qualifying circumstances, namely the victim's minority and the
relationship between the victim and the culprit, increases the penalty of rape to one (1) degree,
thus resulting in the imposition of the death penalty. In order to be appreciated as qualifying
circumstances, however, these must be properly pleaded in the indictment. In addition, the
qualifying circumstances should be duly proved during the trial.
PEOPLE v. JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO

G.R. Nos. 135667-70 March 1, 2001.
The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua. Likewise, it found him guilty of three (3) counts of acts of
lasciviousness and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correctional
in its maximum period for each count. It also ordered him to indemnify the private complainant in
the amount of P50,000.00, and P100,000.00 for moral damages.
HELD:
The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of three (3) counts of acts of
lasciviousness. The SC took however to its finding that statutory rape was committed by him on
5 June 1993. A thorough evaluation of the records will show that accused-appellant should only
be convicted for acts of lasciviousness and not for consummated rape.
The SC held that absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e.
touching of either the labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape;
at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
PEOPLE v. BALTAZAR AMION y DUGADUGA

G.R. No. 140511. March 1, 2001.
Accused was found guilty as Principal by Direct Participation of the crime of Murder, qualified by
treachery, defined and penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by

DIGESTS
R. A. 7659. The following ordinary aggravating circumstances were present in the commission
of the crime:
1. Abuse of public office due to the use of his service firearm in the killing;
2. Use of motor vehicle which facilitated the commission of the crime; and
3. Aid of armed men in the commission of the crime.
There is present only one (1) mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
The accused was sentenced to suffer the MAXIMUM PENALTY OF DEATH.
HELD:
The SC held that with respect to the attendant circumstances, the use of a motor vehicle cannot
be considered as an aggravating circumstance, as the police vehicle used to reach the Sanicas
residence was not used directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act.
Neither may the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men be appreciated in this case. The
trial court found that during the shooting, an armed companion was on board the patrol car
pointing his rifle in the direction of Dejoras. In the first place, this aggravating circumstance
contemplates more than one-armed man, as the use of the plural form easily suggests. In the
second place, the requisites of this aggravating circumstance are: 1) that armed men or persons
took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly, and 2) that the accused availed
himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. Neither circumstance
was proven present; it is clear from the evidence that the accused-appellant carried out the
killing all by himself and did not rely on his companion for assistance.
The SC also did not agree that the fact that accused-appellant used his service firearm in
shooting Vaflor should be considered as an aggravating circumstance as he took advantage of
his public position. There is authority to the effect that for public position to be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance, the public official must use his influence, prestige and ascendancy
which his office gives him in realizing his purpose. In the absence of proof that advantage was
taken by appellant, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of position could not be properly
appreciated against him.
PEOPLE v. CONRADO SALADINO Y DINGLE

G.R. Nos. 137481-83 & 138455 March 7, 2001
Accused was convicted of three (3) counts of rape for raping his 13-yr old niece. Taking into
account the qualifying circumstance of the minority of the victim and her relationship to accused-
appellant, the lower court meted three (3) death penalties pursuant to RA 7659. The trial court
also found accused-appellant guilty of attempted rape, and sentenced him to serve an
indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor minimum as minimum,
to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal minimum, as
maximum.
HELD:
The SC said that the victims failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make
voluntary her submission to the criminal acts of the accused-appellant. They held that the
"(i)ntimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of
the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule; it is therefore enough that it
produces fear fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused
something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened
with death if she reports the incident."
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. EUGENIO MANGOMPIT

G.R. Nos. 139962-66 March 7, 2001
Accused was found guilty for 5 counts of rape, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death for
each count. He was found guilty for raping his 16-yr old niece.
HELD:
The SC found the accused guilty, but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count.
Even though the minority of Marites and her relationship with accused-appellant were proven
beyond doubt, the death penalty cannot be imposed because both of these qualifying
circumstances were not alleged in the information. Therefore, despite the five (5) counts of rape
committed by accused-appellant, he cannot be sentenced to the supreme penalty of death.
Accordingly, the penalty of death imposed by the trial court should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
The SC held that the trial court likewise correctly imposed the amount of P25,000 for each count
of rape, or a total of P125,000.00, as and by way of exemplary damages. Under Article 2230 of

DIGESTS
the New Civil Code, "(I)n criminal offenses, exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability
may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances."
PEOPLE v. ARNEL MATARO

G.R. No. 130378. March 8, 2001.
Accused-appellants were found guilty for the crime of murder, and both were sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim.
HELD:
The accused appellants invoke the "equipoise" rule because their guilt had not been established
beyond reasonable doubt. The SC said that it has enumerated the requisites for credible
identification in the case of
People v. Teehankee, Jr., 249 SCRA 54 (1995) as follows:
1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime;
2) witness' degree of attention at that time;
3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness;
4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification;
5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and
6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.
The Court held that in their view, these requirements were met. In the instant case, there is no
question that both witnesses had the opportunity to view the incident as it unfolded before them
with a degree of attention that allowed them to take in the important details and recall them
clearly. Moreover, as repeatedly stressed, appellate court should accord to the factual findings
of trial courts and their evaluation great weight and respect concerning the credibility of
witnesses. The conditions of visibility being favorable and these witnesses not appearing to be
biased, the conclusion of trial courts regarding the identity of the malefactors should normally be
accepted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. JOEL CANIEZO Y SALAZAR*

GR 136594 March 13, 2001 (Mendoza)
FACTS: Accused was found guilty of the crime of rape. He raises the inconsistencies in the
testimony of the victim.
ISSUE: WON trial court erred in finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
RAPE.
HELD: JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
1. The absence of external signs of physical injuries does not prove that rape was not
committed by accused as proof thereof is not an essential element of rape.
2. The inconsistencies concern minor matters. Testimonies in trial are often more specific
than those in sworn statements; the latter are often inaccurate due, in part, to suggestion
or want of specific inquiries.
It is well settled in jurisprudence that denial and alibi are the weakest of defenses as they are
not only self-serving, but are also easy to fabricate and difficult to disprove. Alibi should fail in
light of the victims and witnesses positive identification of the accused as the malefactor.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANSELMO BARING*

GR 130515 & 147090 March 14, 2001 (Mendoza)
FACTS: Accused was found guilty of the rape of the 12-year old daughter of his live in partner.
He set up the defense of alibi. Trial court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of qualified RAPE, imposing the penalty of DEATH.
ISSUE/S: W/N he is guilty of the crime charged
HELD: JUDGMENT AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS! (from death to RP)
Accused may not be held liable for qualified rape and sentenced to death. For accused to be
considered a stepfather of the victim, he must be legally married to victims mother. In the
particular case, the couple was not married, and is simply living a common-law relation. On the
other hand, although rape of a person under 18 years old by the common-law spouse of the
victim is also punishable by death, this fact must be alleged in the information so as to warrant
the imposition of the death penalty.
People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Freta y Cuevas*

GR 134451-52, March 14, 2001 (Mendoza)
FACTS: Victim is the daughter of accused Reynaldo from a common-law relationship with
Angelina Santos. Accused took victim to Brgy. Tinga Labac so the latter could take care of the

DIGESTS
baby of accused with his REAL wife. One night after a drinking session, accused told victim to
sleep beside him, but the latter refused. Accused pointed a knife at her, forcing her to transfer to
his bed and to undress herself. Accused later raped victim. This happened again the following
night, after which victim fled to the house of her Ate Betty. The latters husband brought the
victim to the Barrio Councilman. Accused convicted of rape.
ISSUE: W/N accused may be convicted beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape in light
of the facts stated above.
HELD: JUDGMENT AFFIRMED!
The absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or absence of
spermatozoa is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of
rape.
The fact that lacerations in the hymen of the victim were at least a month old only shows that
victim was no longer a virgin at the time she was raped, but not that she had not been raped. In
any case, virginity is not an essential element of rape.
Nonetheless, accused may not be sentenced with the supreme penalty of death since the
qualifying circumstance (of minority and relationship) is neither specifically alleged nor proved.
Accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua for each count of rape.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MANUEL GALVEZ Y ESTANISLAO*

GR 136790 March 26, 2001 (Mendoza)
FACTS:
Victim Romen Castro, together with 3 of his friends, was at a local fair playing games. After a
while, 5 men arrived, including accused Galvez. Two of the men approached victim, two served
as lookouts, while accused went up directly to victim and stabbed him at the back with a knife.
Accused afterward threw the knife away and then fled with his companions.
Policemen arrived at the house of victims brother with accused. The barangay tanod
apprehended accused at the instance of the brother. He was arrested only upon a mere
suspicion.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of murder
HELD:
1. Alibi is an inherently weak defense and should be rejected when the identity of the
accused has been sufficiently established by the witnesses.
2. The attack was sudden and unexpected. It was made without a warning and without
giving the victim an opportunity to defend himself. The qualifying circumstance of
treachery having been proven, the trial court correctly found accused guilty of murder.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS EUTIQIUA CARMEN*

G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001 (Mendoza)
Facts: This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC finding accused guilty of murder for the
death of a 13-year-old child.
Issues: Whether or not the accused appellants should be convicted for murder qualified by
treachery.
Whether or not the accused appellants can be held liable for reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide, considering that the information charges them with murder.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the accused -appellants are guilty of reckless imprudence
resulting in homicide and not murder. With the permission of the parents, the accused-
appellants proceeded to cure the boy. Unfortunately, the strange procedure resulted in the death
of the boy. Their liability arises from their reckless imprudence because they ought to know that
their actions would not bring about the cure. Art 365 of the RPC, as amended, states that
reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from
which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution.
Treachery cannot be appreciated in this case because there is no intent to kill, there is no
deliberate employment of means, methods and manner of execution to ensure the safety of the
accused from the retaliatory attacks of the victim.
People of the Philippines vs. Ernesto Montejo*

GR 133475, March 26, 2001 (Mendoza)
FACTS: Victim passed by the house of accused, the latter called her. Thinking that accused
would buy fish, victim entered the house. Accused seized her, then tied her hands with a nylon
rope and covered her mouth with a handkerchief. He took her to the grassy area at the back of

DIGESTS
the house, where he undressed and kissed her, finally forcing his dick unto her pussy. Accused
was later charged with rape. Before the trial court rendered judgment, the defense presented as
evidence an affidavit of retraction that is supposedly voluntarily executed by victim.
ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in not giving weight to the affidavit of retraction executed by
victim.
HELD: Judgment Affirmed
The affidavit in question must be looked upon with disfavor. The mere retraction by a
prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate his original testimony.
The affidavit was merely signed Labalan instead of her usual signature Juvelyn B. Labalan.
There is thus doubt as to the voluntariness of the affidavit which cautions against its admission.
Retractions are unreliable and are looked upon with disfavor by the courts.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS CORNELIO CABUG*

G.R. No. 123149, March 27, 2001 (Mendoza)
Facts: Accused was convicted in the lower court for the crime of parricide. He allegedly killed his
wife because of his suspicion that she was having an affair.
When asked about the incident, the accused alibi was that he was clubbed when he got home,
and was unconscious until the time he woke up from the hospital bed. Someone testified that
the accused even asked where his wife was upon regaining consciousness.
Issues: That the court erred when it maintained that the prosecution satisfied the standard
provided for in section 5, rule 133 of the new rules of court in order that the accused may be
convicted thru circumstantial evidence.
Held: The SC held that enough circumstantial evidence has been established to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime. Circumstantial evidence will be
considered sufficient if the following are shown:
1. There is more than one circumstance.
2. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
3. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt.
These requisites are present here. The circumstances sufficiently indicate that accused-
appellant indeed committed the crime.
Cresencio Mendoza v People of the Philippines*

GR 141512, April 16, 2001
Facts: Victim had been under the employ of the daughter of the accused. The latter attempted
to force himself upon the former while victim was in the course of doing her daily chores.
However, he failed to penetrate as she kept on moving, and subsequently, the son of the victim
entered the room. The trial court found him guilty of attempted rape.
Held: Inconsistencies Victim was only 15 when she was raped thus inconsistencies are to
be expected. Moreover, the inconsistencies referred to are minor they even enhance the
veracity of her testimony and erase suspicion of a rehearsed declaration.
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean certainty as to exclude the possibility of error. In
the case at bar, the weight and quantity of evidence needed to prove petitioners guilt beyond
reasonable doubt was met and established by the prosecution.
People of the Philippines v Tumayao*

GR 137045, April 16, 2001
Facts: Accused were found guilty of the crime of murder .The latter was treading a footpath
when the two accused surprised him as they suddenly attacked from the bush. Several
witnesses attested to this fact.
For their defense, the first interposed self-defense and the other alibi.
Held: For the defense of alibi to hold, it requires proof that; accused-appellants were present at
another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime and that it was physically impossible
for them to be present at the crime scene during the perpetration
People of the Philippines vs. Longasa*

April 16, 2001 (Mendoza)
Facts: The accused, Reynaldo Longasa was found guilty of four counts of rape against his
daughter, who was already pregnant at said occasions of rape.

DIGESTS
As a defense, the accused questions the credibility of the complaining witness, the
inconsistencies in the testimony, the moral character and paternity of the child the victim was
pregnant with, alleged grudge of the defendant, denial and bias
Held:
Moral Character and Paternity of the child
Both are not material in rape cases. Moreover, even if a woman is on the family way at around
eight months (as the victim was in this case), the woman is still susceptible to sexual
intercourse.
People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Cadag Jimenez*

G.R. Nos. 137790-91, April 16, 2001(Mendoza)
Facts: The accused appellant was charged and convicted on two informations of committing
acts of lasciviousness on his daughter, aged 12. Accused mainly contests this charge based on
inconsistencies in Joannas testimony, the fact that the alleged act were done in the sala at night
(where everyone in the family slept) and failure to raise an alarm.
Moreover he argues that relationship should not be considered a qualifying circumstance as this
was never alleged in the informations.
Held:
As to the first set of arguments the accused forwards:
1. Inconsistencies Errorless testimonies cannot be expected from victims of sex crimes
as they might, in fact, be trying to erase from their memory the details of the experience.
What is important is that the testimony in the main coincides on material points.
2. Done in the sala Lust is no respecter of place
3. Failure to raise an alarm the law does not impose upon the victim of sexual assault the
burden of proving resistance. The Court has likewise taken judicial notice that most
victims of sex crimes, especially Filipinas, are reluctant to reveal to the world their
harrowing experiences.
PEOPLE VS UBONGEN
GR No. 126024, April 20, 2001
Accused found guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention. Victim is a three-year-old
child. Accused contends that he did not kidnap the child nor did he have an intention to detain
her but actually wanted to help and secure the safety of the child whom he chanced upon on the
road. They were found by the policemen in a restaurant in the same day the child was allegedly
lost.
ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of the crime charged
HELD: No
1. Not kidnapping. Primary element of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and
restraint of the victim. Evidence does not prove that the victim was forcibly transported,
locked up or restrained. No proof of a knowing action by accused to forcibly restrain victim.
2. ACOSTA CASE: The boy was transferred from one house to another. The fact that the boy
was allowed to play in the house where he was detained is immaterial since the child was
practically a captive. One of the kidnappers knew the parents of the child.
FLORES CASE: Accused was housemaid of childs family. Even with the lack of criminal
intent, it is still kidnapping because she took the child without telling the father.
In this case, the accused is a complete stranger and no proof that he knew where the child
lived.
PEOPLE VS CONCEPCION, ET AL
GR No. 131477, April 20, 2001
Accused was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide. Conviction had from
circumstantial evidence.
HELD: Not robbery with homicide but 2 distinct offenses of theft and homicide.
1. Prosecution failed to substantiate allegation of the presence of criminal design to commit
robbery, independent of the intent to commit homicide. There is no evidence showing that
the death of the victim occurred by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery. Where the
homicide is NOT conclusively shown to have been committed for the purpose of robbing the
victim, or where the robbery was not proven at all, there can be no conviction for robbery
with homicide.

DIGESTS
2. Though things were stolen, there can be no robbery because there is no evidence that any
wall, roof or floor has been broken. Hence, accused should be convicted of a separate
offense of theft, instead of robbery, force upon things not having been proven.
PEOPLE VS PAGADOR
GR No 14006-10, April 20, 2001
Accused was found guilty of 2 counts of murder and 3 counts of frustrated murder. He killed the
parents of his girlfriend and wounded the 3 other sisters. The subject of this appeal is the 3
counts of frustrated murder.
1st count: Accused chased her, pulled her hair which caused her to stumble; then accused sat
on her stomach and hacked her. She pretended to be dead to stop the assault.
2nd count: Found by her sisters to be lying on top of their dead mother holding her bleeding
stomach
3rd count: Left index finger was cut when accused swung his bolo as she approached her
mother. She ran and jumped out of the window.
ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of three counts of frustrated murder
HELD:
1st count: Yes. The accused had already performed all the acts of execution which tended to
produce the death but failed to cause her death by reason independent of his own free will.
Perpetrator stood up and left the crime scene on the belief that he had consummated his
heinous act.
2nd count: No. Intent on the part of the assailant to take the life of the person attacked is
lacking. When such intent is lacking but wounds were merely inflicted, the crime is not
frustrated murder but physical injuries only.
3rd count: No. Accused did not pursue her as she ran and jumped out of the window.
Apparently, his purpose was merely to drive away the 4 sisters and dissuade them from
attacking him. No intent to kill. Physical injuries only.
PEOPLE VS ACA-OC
GR No. 142500, April 20, 2001
Accused was found guilty of frustrated rape by the TC. Victim was 11 years old. There was no
laceration of the hymen.
ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of frustrated rape
HELD: No. Accused is guilty of statutory rape.
1. Rape is either attempted or consummated. There can be no frustrated rape.
2. Mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the male organ is enough to consummate the
crime of rape. It is enough that there is penetration, however slight, of the external genitalia.
The fact that there was no laceration of the hymen does not preclude finding of rape.
3. Since victim was then only 11 years old, the crime is statutory rape.
PEOPLE VS ABLANEDA
GR No. 131914, April 30, 2001
Accused was found guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Victim is 6 years
old. Accused approached the victim and asked her if he could share her umbrella. Then they
boarded a trimobile and he brought the victim to a small hut.
ISSUE: WON accused is guilty
HELD: Yes.
1. There is forcible abduction. The victim, who is a woman, was taken against her will.
Physical resistance need not be demonstrated to show that taking was against victims will.
Employment of deception suffices to constitute the forcible taking, especially since the victim
is an unsuspecting young girl.
2. The taking of the young girl against her will was effected in furtherance of lewd and
unchaste designs. Such lewd designs in forcible abduction is established by the actual rape
of the victim.
PEOPLE VS AGONCILLO
GR No. 138983, May 23, 2001
Automatic review of the death penalty case for the crime of rape committed with the use of a
deadly weapon. Victim was a 14-year-old girl. Accused was armed with a scythe used to
threaten the child. Aggravating circumstance considered: dwelling, nighttime and uninhabited
place.

DIGESTS

HELD: Yes but not death because no aggravating circumstance
1. Dwelling not aggravating. Victim was taken from her house to the nearby plantation. She
was actually abducted but accused was not charged with forcible abduction with rape but
only with rape.
2. Nighttime not aggravating. Nocturnity and uninhabited place not purposely sought by the
accused to facilitate the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE VS COMPO
GR No. 112990, May 28, 2001
Appeal of Compo who was found guilty for conspiring to kill the victim.
ISSUE: WON there was conspiracy
HELD: No conspiracy
1. Compo was merely present. No overt act was established to prove that he shared and
concurred with the criminal design. Mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to
cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a party to conspiracy absent any active
participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common
design and purpose. Conspiracy transcends companionship.
2. Accused not also an accomplice. An accomplice is one who, not being a principal,
cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. To be
convicted of such, it is necessary that he be aware of the criminal intent of principal and
cooperate knowingly or intentionally by supplying material or moral aid. This was not
established.
PEOPLE VS FLORES, ET AL
GR No. 116488, May 31, 2001
Accused, all members of the local CAFGU, were found guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention.
ISSUE: WON the accused are guilty of the crime charged
HELD: No
The first element of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention is that the offender
must be a private individual. In the case at bar, the accused were members of the CAFGU at
the time the alleged crime was committed. CAFGU was created for the purpose of
complementing the operations of the regular force formation in a locality. As public officers,
accused can only be liable for arbitrary detention. This was not proven in this case however.
PEOPLE VS ELLASOS, ET AL
GR. NO. 139323, June 6, 2001
Accused was convicted of the crime of carnapping with homicide. He now assails the finding of
carnapping. He contends that the essential element of carnapping: the intent to gain was not
proven; that the taking of the wheel of the tricycle can, under the circumstances, be conclusively
presumed to be a mere afterthought, and if indeed a crime has been committed, it can only be
theft of the wheel of the tricycle.
ISSUE: WON it was carnapping
HELD: Yes.
Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of the crime of carnapping, is an internal act
and hence presumed from the unlawful taking of the vehicle. Unlawful taking is the taking of the
vehicle without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by using force upon things; it is deemed complete from the moment the offender
gains possession of the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. Further,
the accused may be held liable for the unlawful taking of the whole vehicle even if only a part
thereof is ultimately taken and/or appropriated while the rest of it is abandoned.
PEOPLE vs ASUNCION
GR Nos. 123916, June 19, 2001
Facts: The victim filed an information against accused-appellant for allegedly raping her. The
information charged accused-appellant of rape committed with the use of force and intimidation
under paragraph 1 of article 335 and also with the use of deadly weapon within the purview of
the same article.
Issue: Whether the crime of rape was roved beyond reasonable doubt.

DIGESTS
Held: The court affirms the finding of the lower court that accused-appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed with use of force and intimidation. Accused-
appellant having been found to have likewise committed the crime with the use of deadly
weapon, the penalty should be RP to death. As there was neither aggravating nor mitigating
circumstance, the lesser penalty of RP should be imposed.
PEOPLE vs UGANAP
G.R. Nos. 130605, June 19, 2001
Facts: Felix Uganap was convicted by the trial court of murder qualified by treachery. The
charge of conspiracy was dismissed by the trial court for having no basis. Only accused-
appellant was convicted out of the five charged.
Issue: Was treachery present to qualify the offense as murder?
Was there conspiracy? If there was, should the other co-conspirators be convicted also?
Held: Conspiracy is revealed by the acts before, during, and after the commission of the crime
which indicate the joint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. In the
instant case, there is direct proof that, owing to an eyewitness account, there was previous
agreement to kill the victim. A conspiracy having been unquestionably shown, it is actually
unnecessary to establish who among the malefactors inflicted the fatal blow. All conspirators
are liable as co-principals regardless of intent and character of participation. However, the
accused- appellant may not invoke the acquittal of the other conspirators to reverse his
conviction. There is nothing irregular with the acquittal of one of the supposed co-conspirators
and the conviction of another.
The information alleges that the crime was attended by treachery and evident
premeditation. The Supreme Court held that there is no treachery in the instant case.
According to the trial court, as the victim was slumping down, accused shot him. This is purely
conjecture on the part of the trial court. Treachery cannot be acknowledged on the basis of
mere presumptions. On the other hand, all the elements of evident premeditation are met in this
case.
PEOPLE vs DE LEON
GR Nos. 132160, June 19, 2001
Facts: Mario and Freddie de Leon were charged of murder qualified by treachery.
Issue: Was there a qualifying circumstance of treachery?
Held: The trial court correctly found treachery in the manner by which the accused-appellant
killed the victim. Accused-appellant shot the victim from behind while the victim was playing
billiards. The victim was totally unaware and was thus rendered defenseless.
PEOPLE vs DEL ROSARIO

GR Nos. 131036, June 20, 2001
Facts: Donato del Rosario was charged with the complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Issue: Whether the essential elements of robbery with homicide are present in this case.
Held: The offense of robbery with homicide to be sustained, on the occasion of the robbery or
by reason thereof, the crime of homicide should have been committed.
The SC concluded that accused-appellant went to the house of Emelita Paragua
because he intended to rob her. Intent to gain is presumed when there is furtive taking of
property without the owners consent. Unfortunately, Racquel Lopez, was in the way. The
accused-appellant then strangled the victim to prevent her from spoiling his plan. It is
immaterial whether the killing transpired before or after the robbery. What is essential is the
intimate connection between the robbery and the killing. Hence, in this case, the conviction of
robbery with homicide is upheld.
PEOPLE vs GONZALES Jr.

GR Nos. 139542, June 21, 2001
Facts: Accused-appellants son and Andres had an altercation. Accused-appellant got out of
the car and took a gun with him. He fired a single shot into the window of Andres car, thereby,
causing the death of the wife of Andres and also the injuries of the children.
Issues: Whether the crime committed against the children should be classified as an attempted
homicide or only physical injuries.
Whether there are mitigating circumstances.

DIGESTS
Held: The intent to kill determines whether the crime committed is physical injuries or
homicide. The intent to kill is absent in this case. For evident lack of criminal intent to kill, the
information for attempted homicide must fail.
The mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender, passion and obfuscation,
incomplete defense of a relative, and lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong, pleaded by the
defense, were not convincingly proved.
Andres act of shouting at the appellants son is not sufficient to produce passion and
obfuscation. The plea of the mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative is also
unmeritorious since the act of Andres in cursing at the appellant and his son does not amount to
an unlawful aggression. The plea of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong is likewise devoid
of merit. This circumstance obtains only when there is disparity between the means employed
and the resulting crime committed. The use of a gun is sufficient to produce the resulting
crimes.
PEOPLE vs MATYAONG
GR Nos. 140206, June 21, 2001
Facts: The accused-appellant beat his wife using a piece of wood. Two days after the beating,
the wife died. The lower court convicted the accused-appellant of the crime of parricide.
Issue: Whether or not the beating was the proximate cause of the death of the victim.
Held: In order to hold a person liable for the death of another, it must be established beyond
reasonable doubt that the accuseds criminal act was the proximate cause of such death. Such
proof is especially crucial when there are several possible causes of death. In the case at bar,
even assuming that the victim was afflicted with food poisoning, the accused-appellant may still
be held liable for death if the prosecution had presented proof that accused-appellants beating
was the efficient cause, which it did not. There being no evidence on the injuries sustained by
the deceased and the cause of her death, accused-appellant is entitled to an acquittal.
PEOPLE vs CATAPANG
GR Nos. 128126, June 25, 2001
Facts: Accused-appellant shot the victim while the latter was on board the tricycle. The lower
court convinced accused-appellant of murder qualified by treachery and attended by the
aggravating circumstance of nighttime.
Issue: Whether the aggravating circumstance of nighttime should be appreciated separately
from treachery.
Held: The aggravating circumstance of nighttime cannot be appreciated separately as it is
absorbed in treachery. Nighttime was evidently an integral part of the treacherous means and
manner adopted to ensure the execution of the crime, or that it facilitated the treacherous
character of the attack.
PEOPLE vs PANGANIBAN
GR Nos. 138439-41, June 25, 2001
Facts: Accused-appellant was charged of raping his own daughter.
Issue: Whether death penalty should be meted out as punishment in this case.
Held: The SC does not concur with the trial courts imposition of death penalty in criminal cases
nos. 97-158615 and 97-158616. The rape in criminal case nos. 97-158615 was committed
sometime in November 1986 or prior to the effectivity of the Death Penalty Law. Hence,
pursuant to the constitution, the death penalty cannot be imposed. As to the other criminal
case, the information fails to allege the qualifying circumstance of age and relationship. To
impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying circumstance which was not alleged in the
information would violate the accused-appellants constitutional right.
PEOPLE vs DELA CRUZ

GR Nos. 139626, June 26, 2001
Facts: Diana Lamsen filed a case against Domingo de la Cruz for allegedly raping her on two
occasions. The accused denied this by raising the defense that the sexual intercourse was
consensual as they have an illicit love affair.
Issue: Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Held: The court is morally convinced that accused-appellant is guilty of the two crimes of rape
imputed to him. Under Art. 266-A of the RPC, the crime of rape is committed among others, by
a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman when the offended party is deprived of
reason or through, force or intimidation. In the case at bar, it has successfully proven that in

DIGESTS
both instances, accused-appellant took advantage of the complainants state of

unconsciousness in raping her.
PEOPLE VS ESPINA
GR. No. 132325-26, July 26, 2001
Accused was convicted of the crime of Murder qualified by Illegal Possession of firearms.
Evidence showed that the accused was urinated on by the victim in front of the guests.
Mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense was considered by the TC.
HELD: Affirmed with modification
1. Illegal possession of firearm not aggravating: RA No. 8294, which took effect on July 6,
1997 provide that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm,
such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be used as an aggravating circumstance. However,
the offenses at bar were perpetrated on September 30, 1992. It cannot be applied yet, lest it
acquires the character of an ex post facto law.
2. The act of the victim of urinating on the accused, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated
accused came within the purview of a grave offense.

Final Crim Digests

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Final Crim Digests

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

C R I M I N A L L AW

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 1

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 2

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 3

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 4

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 5

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 6

PEOPLE V. GRACIANO BOLIVAR

PEOPLE V. JERONICO LOBINO

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 7

PEOPLE V. ELPIDIO HERNANDO

PEOPLE V. ARMANDO SARABIA

PEOPLE V. EDUARDO ALTABANO

PEOPLE V. MOROY GALLO

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 8

November 16, 1999

PEOPLE V. ROSALINDA ARIOLA

PEOPLE V. RODRIGO LASOLA

PEOPLE V. RUSTICO RIVERA

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 9

PEOPLE V. MATEO BALLUDA

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 10

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 11

PEOPLE V. RALPH VELEZ DIAZ

PEOPLE V. ROLANDO ALFANTA

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 12

PEOPLE V. JAIME QUISAY

PEOPLE V. EDGARDO DE LEON

PEOPLE V. ARNOLD DIZON

PEOPLE V. AGAPITO FLORES

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 13

PEOPLE V. FERNANDO CALANG MACOSTA

PEOPLE V. RENATO RAMONAMON

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 14

PEOPLE V. ESTEBAN ARLEE

PEOPLE V. ALFONSO BALGOS

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 15

PEOPLE V. ZOILO BORROMEO

PEOPLE v. EULOGIO IGNACIO

PEOPLE v. JULIAN CASTILLO

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 16

PEOPLE v. LIBERATO MENDIONA

PEOPLE V. SAN DIEGO*

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 17

PEOPLE VS. BALTAZAR

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 18

PEOPLE VS. CUPINO

PEOPLE VS. AMIGABLE

PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 19

PEOPLE VS. REGALA

PEOPLE VS. ALVERO

PEOPLE V. ROCHE, ET AL.*

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 20

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 21

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 22

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 23

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 24

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 25

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 26

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 27

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 28

*Cases written by Justice Mendoza 29