TOPIC: RAPE

CASE TITLE: People of the Philippines vs Antonio Balcueva Y Bandocoy

DATE: July 1, 2015

GR NO: 214466

DOCTRINE: The elements of Qualified Rape under the foregoing provisions are as follows: (a)
the victim is a female over 12 years but under 18 years of age; (b) the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; and (c) the offender has carnal
knowledge of the victim either through force, threat or intimidation; or when she is deprived of
reason or is otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of
authority.

A young girl would not concoct a sordid tale of a crime as serious as rape at the hands of her
very own father, allow the examination of her private part, and subject herself to the stigma and
embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive was other than a fervent desire to seek justice.

FACTS:

Criminal information was filed before the RTC charging Balcueva of raping his biological
daughter, AAA. According to the prosecution, at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon of February
15, 2007, AAA just returned home from school and since Balcueva did not want her to leave the
house, she decided to just take an afternoon nap. At that time, Balcueva asked AAA's siblings to
leave the house and thereafter, approached AAA who was lying in bed, removed her shorts and
underwear, and threatened to spank her if she told anybody about this incident. Balcueva then
removed his shorts and underwear, mounted AAA, restrained her hands, and inserted his penis
into her vagina. AAA resisted and even told Balcueva that she was having her menstruation, but
Balcueva simply told her to keep quiet and that it was better as she will not get pregnant. For his
part, Balcueva interposed the defense of denial and alibi. RTC convicted the accused. It found
that the prosecution was able to prove that Balcueva indeed raped AAA, pointing out that her
failure to shout for help while she was being ravished by her father does not mean she was not
raped; rather, it showed the moral ascendancy and influence Balcueva exerted over her, and that
the absence of injuries on AAA's hymen did not negate a finding of rape. In this relation, the
RTC observed that no woman would undergo the rigors of trial if she was not motivated to put
her culprit behind bars. CA affirmed the conviction. Thus, the case was elevated to the Su[reme
Court.

ISSUE/S:

Whether Balcueva's conviction for Qualified Rape should be upheld.

RULING:

The Court sustained Balcueva's conviction.

The elements of Qualified Rape under the foregoing provisions are as follows: (a) the victim is a
female over 12 years but under 18 years of age; (b) the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim; and (c) the offender has carnal knowledge of the
victim either through force, threat or intimidation; or when she is deprived of reason or is
otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority.

A perusal of the records discloses the presence of the aforesaid elements in this case. Thus, the
RTC and the CA committed no reversible error in convicting Balcueva of the crime of Qualified
Rape. Balcueva's flimsy defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over AAA's positive and
categorical testimony and identification of him as the perpetrator of the crime.18 Verily, a young
girl would not concoct a sordid tale of a crime as serious as rape at the hands of her very own
father, allow the examination of her private part, and subject herself to the stigma and
embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive was other than a fervent desire to seek
justice.Hence, there is no plausible reason why AAA would testify against her own father,
imputing to him the grave crime of rape, if this crime did not happen. The accused admitted that
he knew of AAA’s mental handicap and he claimed that other people merely prompted AAA to
execute her sworn statement. He further alleged that the testimony of AAA was unclear and
inconsistent, thus falling short of the required credibility to be the basis of the accused-
appellant’s conviction.
TOPIC: RAPE

CASE TITLE: People of the Philippines vs Jerry C. Palotes

DATE: July 06, 2015

GR NO: 209786

DOCTRINE: When the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the
findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of
the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded
respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to
observe the demeanor of a witness and was in the best position to discern whether they were
telling the truth.

Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses; unless supported by clear and convincing
evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim.41 In the case of an
alibi, the requirements of time and place should be strictly complied with by the defense,
meaning that the accused must not only show that he was somewhere else but that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed

FACTS:

AAA has the mental abilities of an 8-9 years old child. She is an illiterate and no longer goes to
school. One day, AAA was asked by her neighbour to buy a diaper. While on her way back to
her, she was pulled by Jerry Palotes inside the latter’s house. He then held AAA, laid her down,
removed her short pants and underwear. He then kissed AAA’s lips and neck and inserted his
penis into AAA’s vagina. When AAA felt pain, he stopped and told her to go home. Upon
reaching home, she did not tell her mother about what happened because she was scared. The
incident happened two more times. Accused Jerry C. Palotes strongly denied the allegations
against him and alleged that when this case was initially filed at the Office of the Barangay
[YYY], [AAA] could not identify or remember who sexually abused her.

ISSUE/S:

Whether the conviction for Rape should be upheld over the defense of alibi of the accused.

RULING:

The Court sustained the conviction.

The accused in the instant case utterly failed to substantiate his allegations. In his cross-
examination, he stated that he said he was busy looking for work but only within the city.
Furthermore, he would return to his house in YYY every day after his job hunting. Clearly, the
alibi of the accused is at most unspecific and vague as to his exact whereabouts and the fact that
he goes back every day to his house – the locus criminis in this case – does little in proving the
requisite physical impossibility of his presence therein when the crime was committed. Denial
and alibi are inherently weak defenses; unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the
same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim.41 In the case of an alibi, the
requirements of time and place should be strictly complied with by the defense, meaning that the
accused must not only show that he was somewhere else but that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed.

Further, The RTC found worthy of credence the above testimony of AAA and her positive and
consistent identification of the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. The Court of
Appeals similarly held AAA to be a credible witness when it affirmed the accused-appellant’s
conviction. After reviewing the testimony of AAA, as well as the records of the case, the Court
finds no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts. Jurisprudence instructs
that when the credibility of a witness is of primordial consideration, as in this case, the findings
of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of the
probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on said findings are accorded
respect if not conclusive effect. This is because the trial court has had the unique opportunity to
observe the demeanor of a witness and was in the best position to discern whether they were
telling the truth. When the trial court’s findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, as in
the present case, said findings are generally binding upon the Supreme Court.
TOPIC: Theft

CASE TITLE: People of the Philippines vs Jovito Canceran

DATE: July 01, 2015

GR NO: 206442

DOCTRINE: Under Article 308 of the RPC, the essential elements of theft are (1) the taking of
personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking away was done with intent
of gain; (4) the taking away was done without the consent of the owner; and (5) the taking away
is accomplished without violence or intimidation against person or force upon things. "Unlawful
taking, which is the deprivation of one's personal property, is the element which produces the
felony in its consummated stage. At the same time, without unlawful taking as an act of
execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, if at all.

Accused cannot be convicted of a crime, even if duly proven, unless it is alleged or necessarily
included in the information filed against him. An offense charged necessarily includes the
offense proved when some of the essential elements or ingredients of the former, as alleged in
the complaint or information, constitute the latter.

Accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was charged in the
complaint or information and on which he was tried. It matters not how conclusive and
convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted in the courts of any
offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily
included therein

FACTS:

Caneeran was charged with Frustrated Theft for taking 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream
although they were eventualy were discovered by the employees of the establishment and
prevented them from further carrying away said items. The RTC found Canceran of
consummated Theft in line with the ruling of the Court in Valenzuela v. People that under Article
308 of the Revised Penal Code , there is no crime of Frustrated Theft.

ISSUE/S:

Whether Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of theft as it was not charged in the
information

RULING:
The Court finds the petition partially meritorious. No less than the Constitution guarantees the
right of every person accused in a criminal prosecution to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him.16 It is fundamental that every element of which the offense is composed
must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the various
elements of a crime to be set out in the information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare
his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the
offense. Canceran was charged with Frustrated Theft, although it was already established that
there is no crime of Frustrated Theft. The Information can never be read to charge Canceran of
consummated Theft because the indictment itself stated that the crime was never produced.
Instead, the Information should be construed to mean that Canceran was being charged with theft
in its attempted stage only. Necessarily, Canceran may only be convicted of the lesser crime of
Attempted Theft. Accused cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that with which he was
charged in the complaint or information and on which he was tried. It matters not how conclusive
and convincing the evidence of guilt may be, an accused cannot be convicted in the courts of any
offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or information on which he is tried, or necessarily
included therein. He has a right to be informed as to the nature of the offense with which he is
charged before he is put on trial, and to convict him of an offense higher than that charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried would be an unauthorized denial of that right. The
crime of theft in its consummated stage undoubtedly includes the crime in its attempted stage. In
this case, although the evidence presented during the trial prove the crime of consummated
Theft, he could be convicted of Attempted Theft only. Regardless of the overwhelming evidence
to convict him for consummated Theft, because the Information did not charge him with
consummated Theft, the Court cannot do so as the same would violate his right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the allegations against him.
TOPIC:

CASE TITLE:

DATE:

GR NO:

DOCTRINE:

FACTS:

ISSUE/S:

RULING:
TOPIC:

CASE TITLE:

DATE:

GR NO:

DOCTRINE:

FACTS:

ISSUE/S:

RULING:
TOPIC: Frustrated Homicide

CASE TITLE: Hermie Olarte vs. People of the Philippines

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

DATE: July 06 2015

GR NO: 197731

DOCTRINE: The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his
victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal
or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the
qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code exist

FACTS: In the early morning of September 15, 2002, the victim Eugene M. Villostas was
fetched by his half-brother, from a drinking session. On their way home, Villostas decided to buy
cigarettes from a nearby videoke bar. Inside the bar, however, three men who belonged to a
group then singing and drinking suddenly stabbed him on different parts of his body. They only
stopped when bystanders started throwing stones at them. This whole incident was witnessed by
Penilla who was then only seven to eight arms length away from the crime scene.

Barangay tanods immediately responded and brought the malefactors to the Barangay Hall where
they were later identified as petitioners and their co-accused Pasquin. Meanwhile, Villostas was
rushed to the Valenzuela General Hospital where he was treated.

The defense, on the other hand, alleged that while having a drinking spree inside a videoke bar
on, several persons threw stones at them hitting Olarte and another companion. Their group thus
disbanded. While most of them headed straight home, Olarte, together with a certain Joni, went
to the Barangay Hall to have the stoning incident entered in its blotter. Upon arrival thereat,
however, they were surprised that Olarte, Olavario and Pasquin were being implicated in a
stabbing incident. The three were then brought to the Valenzuela General Hospital where
Villostas identified them as his assailants. Thereafter, they were arrested and detained at the city
jail. Accused questioned the credibility of Villostas and Penilla as prosecution
witnesses.1âwphi1 They pointed out inconsistencies in their testimonies respecting the victim’s
degree of intoxication at the time of the incident, the kind or brand of liquor that he imbibed, and
the length of time that he had been drinking immediately prior thereto. Petitioners argued that
such inconsistencies rendered doubtful their identification as the culprits by said prosecution
witnesses.

ISSUE/S:

Whther the Court erred in not acquitting petitioners of the crime in view of the several
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim
RULING:

The Petition must be denied. the errors raised by the petitioners are all "appreciation of
evidence" errors or factual errors which are not within the province of a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45.At any rate, the Court observes that the CA correctly affirmed the RTC’s
conviction of petitioners for frustrated homicide. The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the
accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault;
(2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical
assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstances for murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code exist. These elements were proved during trial. First, direct and positive
testimonies of prosecution witnesses established that Villostas sustained seven stab wounds on
vital parts of his body caused by a pointed sharp object. Plainly, the nature, location and number
of wounds sustained by him demonstrate petitioners’ intent to kill. Next, the injuries suffered by
Villostas were all fatal. Particularly critical were the 5-centimeter wound below his left armpit,
the 3.5-centimeter wound on the mid-part of his left chest which required inserting a tube thereon
to drain blood so as not to impede his breathing, and the 5-centimeter stab wound on the right
side of his abdomen which also injured his liver.22 As testified to by Dr. Pascual, Villostas would
have succumbed to death due to the said injuries if not for the timely medical attention. Finally,
no qualifying circumstance for murder was alleged in the Information to have attended the
commission of the crime.