Aguirre v Secretary of Justice
essential part of the body The bilateral vasectomy done on Larry could
Facts: Laureano (Larry) Aguirre was adopted from an orphanage by Pedro
Aguirre and Lourdes Aguirre. Developmental milestones were noted to be
delayed. He started to walk and speak a single word at around age 5. He
was enrolled in Colegio de San Agustin at age 6 where he showed
significant learning difficulties that he had to repeat 1st and 4th grades.
Psychological evaluation revealed mild to moderate mental retardation,
special education training was advised and he was transferred
to St. John Marie Vianney. Pedro Aguirre (Larry’s guardian) wanted to
have him sterilized and approached Dr Agatep to perform the procedure.
Dr Pascual conducted tests on Larry to ascertain whether he could validly
give his consent to the operation. The findings concluded that the
responsibility of making the decision may be given to his parent or
guardian. Dr Agatep gave Larry a vasectomy with consent of Pedro
Aguirre. Petitioner Gloria Aguirre (common law
sister) charged respondents for mutilation. Gloria Aguirre
contended that the bilateral vasectomy conducted on petitioner's brother,
Larry Aguirre, caused the perpetual destruction of Larry's reproductive or
gans of generation or conception and that it was performed intentionally
and deliberately to deprive Larry forever of his reproductive organ and
his capacity to procreate, thus, it amounted to mutilation
Issues: WON the respondents are liable for the crime of mutilation?
Ruling: No, they are not liable for mutilation
The vasectomy operation did not in any way deprive Larry of his
reproductive organ, which is, still very much part of his physical self.
In male sterilization procedure of vasectomy, the tubular passage,
called the vas deferens, through which the sperm cells are transported
from the testicle to the urethra where they combine with the seminal fluid
to form the ejaculant, is divided and the cut ends merely tied The vas
deferens, is merely a passageway that is part of the duct system of the
male reproductive organ
Mutilation as defined under the RPC:
Art. 262 Mutilation The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another
by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ
for reproduction
The ordinary usage of the term mutilation is the deprivation of a limb or
not have amounted to the crime of mutilation as defined and punished
under Article 262, paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code
People v. Amaro
Facts:
AAA (victim), who was then only 7 years old, testified that she was
walking on her way home from school when she passed by Boots & Maya
store. She met a man, whom she later identified in court as Amaro, who
asked her to buy cigarettes. After buying the cigarettes and handing it to
Amaro, the latter gave her bread and banana cue. After eating them, she
suddenly became dizzy and passed out. AAA was brought to the house of
Amaro. When she regained consciousness, she saw Amaro naked. Amaro
then undressed her, kissed her on the lips and neck, and inserted his penis
into her vagina, causing her to feel pain. AAA cried but Amaro covered her
mouth with his hand. AAA was detained for six (6) days and was raped
five (5) times by Amaro. AAA clarified that Amaro’s penis touched the
outer portion of her vagina. During the cross-examination, AAA admitted
that she voluntarily went with Amaro because the latter promised to
bring her home.
On the last day of her detention, AAA and appellant went out of
the house. On their way to San Jose, a certain Aunt Ruthie saw AAA
walking and immediately picked her up and brought her to the police
station. Amaro noticed AAA being taken away but he did nothing.
Amaro, on the other hand, denied having raped and abducted
AAA. He asserted that he brought her to his house since she begged him
to. Upon reaching his house, he then entrusted her Florante Magays’s
sister and then went to work. He only came back when he heard his name
on the radio connected with the disappearance of a girl. He claimed he
brought the child back to her house.
Amaro challenges the ruling of the lower courts finding him guilty
of forcible abduction with rape. He contendsthat the prosecution’s
evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. According to him, he did
not rape AAA because the latter was not in his custody at the time said
incident allegedly happened. Amaro adds that he entrusted AAA to the
custody of Florante Magay’s sister because he was working. He also insists
that AAA voluntarily went with him to his house.
Issue: Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish from the
testimony of the complainant the guilt of the accused for the crime of
forcible abduction with rape beyond reasonable doubt?
Ruling: Yes. The elements of the crime of forcible abduction, as defined in
Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, are: (1) that the person abducted is
any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that she
is taken against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with lewd designs.
On the other hand, rape under Article 266-A is committed by having
carnal knowledge of a woman by: (1) force or intimidation, or(2) when
the woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious, or (3) when she is
under twelveyears of age.
The prosecution was able to prove all these elements in this case.
The victim, AAA was a seven (7) year-old girl who was taken against her
will by Amaro who told her that he knew her mother and that he would
bring her home. At her tender age, AAA could have easily been deceived
by appellant. The employment of deception suffices to constitute the
forcible taking, especially since the victim is an unsuspecting young girl. It
is the taking advantage of their innocence that makes them easy culprits
of deceiving minds. The presence of lewd designs in forcible abduction is
established by the actual rape of the victim. AAA’s abduction was a
necessary means to commit rape. Sexual intercourse with AAA was
facilitated and ensured by her abduction
Norberto Cruz vs. People
G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014
FACTS:
Petitioner Norberto Bartolome and his wife were engaged in the selling of
plastic wares and glass wares in different municipalities around the
country. Norberto and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help them in
selling their wares in Bangar, La Union which was then celebrating its
fiesta. Two tents were fixed in order that they will have a place to sleep. At
around 1:00 o'clock in the morning, AAA and BBB went to sleep. Less than
an hour later, AAA was awakened when she felt that somebody was on top
of her. Norberto was mashing her breast and touching her private part.
AAA realized that she was divested of her clothing and that she was
totally naked. Norberto ordered her not to scream or she'll be killed. AAA
tried to push Norberto away and pleaded to have pity on her but her pleas
fell on deaf ears. She fought back and kicked Norberto twice. Norberto
was not able to pursue his lustful desires. Norberto offered her money
and told her not to tell the incident to her mother otherwise, she will be
killed. AAA went out of the tent to seek help from the house boy but she
failed to wake him up. Thirty minutes later, when AAA returned to their
tent, she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB. AAA saw her
companion awake but her hands were shaking. When she finally entered
the tent, Norberto left and went outside.
Norberto is charged attempted Rape (with respect to AAA) & Acts of
Lasciviousness (with respect to BBB)
Petitioner argued that the record does not indicate if he himself was also
naked, or that his penis was poised to penetrate her.
ISSUE:
Is the petitioner guilty of the crime of attempted rape?
Ruling:
NO. In attempted rape, the concrete felony is rape, but the offender does
not perform all the acts of execution of having carnal knowledge.
Accepting that intent, being a mental act, is beyond the sphere of criminal
law, that showing must be through his overt acts directly connected with
rape. He cannot be held liable for attempted rape without such overt acts
demonstrating the intent to lie with the female. In short, the State, to
establish attempted rape, must show that his overt acts, should his
criminal intent be carried to its complete termination without being
thwarted by extraneous matters, would ripen into rape.
The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim, and was already
touching her genitalia with his hands and mashing her breasts when she
freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on her.
Yet, inferring from such circumstances that rape, and no other, was his
intended felony would be highly unwarranted. This was so, despite his
lust for and lewd designs towards her being fully manifest. Such
circumstances remained equivocal, or "susceptible of double
interpretation," as Justice Recto put in People v. Lamahang, supra, such
that it was not permissible to directly infer from them the intention to
cause rape as the particular injury. Verily, his felony would not exclusively
be rape had he been allowed by her to continue, and to have sexual
congress with her, for som
People vs Baluntong
Facts: At around 10:30 p.m. of July 31, 1998, while then 12-year old
Jovelyn Santos (Jovelyn) was sleeping in the house of her grandmother
Celerina Solangon (Celerina) at Barangay Dangay, Roxas, Oriental
Mindoro, she was awakened by heat emanating from the walls of the
house. She thus roused her cousin Dorecyll and together they went out of
the house. Jovelyn saw accused-appellant putting dry hay (dayami)
around the house near the terrace where the fire started, but appellant
ran away when he saw her and Dorecyll. Appellants neighbor, Felicitas
Sarzona (Felicitas), also saw appellant near Celerinas house after it caught
fire, following which, appellant fled on seeing Jovelyn and Dorecyll
stepping out of the house, as other neighbors repaired to the scene to help
contain the flames. Felicitas also saw Celerina, who was at a neighbors
house before the fire started, enter the burning house and resurface with
her grandsons Alvin and Joshua. Celerina and Alvin sustained third degree
burns which led to their death. Joshua sustained second degree burns.
Upon the other hand, appellant, denying the charge, invoked alibi. RTC
convicted him of complex crime of Double Murder with Frustrated
Murder and sentenced him to death. CA affirmed and modified penalty to
reclusion perpetua.
Issue: Is accused-appellant guilty of murder?
Ruling: No. Only simple arson. Absent any concrete basis then to hold that
the house was set on fire to kill the occupants, appellant cannot be held
liable for double murder with frustrated murder. This is especially true
with respect to the death of Celerina, for even assuming arguendo that
appellant wanted to kill her to get even with her in light of her alleged
desire to drive him out of the neighboring house, Celerina was outside the
house at the time it was set on fire. She merely entered the burning house
to save her grandsons. As it was not shown that the main motive was to
kill the occupants of the house, the crime would only be arson, the
homicide being a mere consequence thereof, hence, absorbed by arson.
When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved, and the offense charged is included or
necessarily includes the offense proved, conviction shall be for the offense
proved which is included in the offense charged, or the offense charged
which is included in the offense proved.
People. Vs. Sanchez
Facts: One night, appellant went to the De Leon residence to ask for
money. Edgar, with much reluctance, gave appellant only P100. The next
morning, Jelyn De Leon went to get his brother Jufer from his room, so
that the latter could join the family for breakfast. When Jelyn entered
Jufer’s room, she found him lying on his bed face down. Suddenly,
somebody grabbed her from behind, covered her mouth, pointed a knife
on her neck and later stabbed her. Jelyn recognized the voice to be that of
Sanchez (the family’s former house boy). While Jelyn was calling out to
get Jufer’s attention whom she thought was merely asleep, Sanchez
stabbed her on the chest. Jelyn reacted by boxing and kicking Sanchez,
shouting for help at the same time, managing to plead for her life. Jeane
De Leon, their mother, heard the commotion and went to Jufer’s room.
Jufer told his mother, "Mama, si Kuya Albert, sinaksak ako" . While
cradling her son Jufer, intending to bring him to the hospital, she was
stabbed on her lower left eye and stomach by Sanchez. Sanchez then
turned to Edgar, the father, stabbing him on the stomach and side, causing
his large intestines to spill out. Only after Edgar fell did Sanchez run out
of the house. After Sanchez has left, Jeane helped her husband up,
gathered all her children in one room, placed her bloodied son beside his
equally bloodied father and locked the door. She then cried out for help.
At this time, Jufer was no longer moving, while Edgar was hardly
breathing.
At around 6:35 in the morning of January 27, 2006, POl Reynaldo
Candelaria, responding to radio call reporting a stabbing incident,
proceeded to the De Leons’ place. A trembling John Ray met and told him
who stabbed his father. When Candelaria opened the gate of the house, he
saw Sanchez running towards the back of the house holding a knife. And
after a chase, Candelaria, with the help of nearby residents, caught up
with and arrested Sanchez. At the Amang Rodriquez Hospital where
police operatives brought him and where Jeane and Jelyn were sent for
treatment, mother and daughter identified Sanchez as the assailant.
Meanwhile, the bodies of Jufer and Edgar de Leon were brought to the
Eastern Police District crime laboratory for autopsy.
Sanchez, was charged and convicted of 2 counts of murder and 2 counts of
frustrated murder before the RTC.
Sanchez went to the CA on the submission that the RTC erred in
convicting him of murder and frustrated murder when the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation have not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt. CA denied the appeal.
Issue: Was the killing of Edgar and Jufer and the wounding of Jeane and
Jelyn attended with treachery and evident premeditation that would
qualify it to murder and frustrated murder?
Ruling: YES. Article 24821 of the Revised Penal Code defines "Murder" as
the unlawful killing of a person, which is not parricide or infanticide,
provided that treachery or evident premeditation, among other
circumstances, attended the killing. The presence of one of the
circumstances enumerated in Art. 248 of the Code would suffice to qualify
a killing as murder.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods or forms which tend directly and
specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the
defense, which the offended party might make. For treachery to be
appreciated, two conditions must concur:
(1) The employment of means, methods or manner of execution that
would ensure the offender’s safety from any defense or retaliatory act on
the part of the offended party; and
(2) The offender’s deliberate or conscious choice of means, method or
manner of execution.
Sanchez surreptitiously entered the De Leons’ residence at around 5:00
o’clock in the morning of June 27, 2006 and snuck up inside Jufer’s
bedroom, while the other De Leon children were busy preparing for
school and their mother attending to their breakfast. The family was
unaware that appellant went to the second floor and stabbed Jufer, at
that time merely 11 years old who most likely had no opportunity, but
surely without the needed heft and strength to ward off, much less
overpower, the appellant. There is treachery when an adult person
attacks and causes the death of a child of tender years. Jufer’s remark
"Mama, si Kuya Albert, sinaksak ako" was considered by the SC as a dying
declaration.
Treachery is likewise appreciated in the stabbing of Jelyn. When Jelyn
went up to look for Jufer, appellant approached her from behind, covered
her mouth and stabbed her. The relative physical positions of the
unsuspecting Jelyn and appellant when the latter commenced the attack
and the suddenness thereof caught Jelyn unaware and unable to defend
herself.
Jelyn testified that, while she and her mother were being held in the room
by appellant, Edgar came up but appellant pushed past Edgar by the
stairs, stabbed him, then grabbed another knife from the kitchen before
coming back upstairs to finish Edgar off. The attack against Edgar when
he was on his way to the upper floor was so sudden and unexpected,
negating any suggestion that he was in a position to defend himself. The
fact that appellant inflicted more stabbing blows on Edgar after he fell on
his bottom gravely wounded and with his large intestines spilling out,
clearly exhibits the treacherous nature of the killing.
Treachery is not, however, attendant in the stabbing of Jeane. While at the
back of their house, son Jorvi informed her that appellant was upstairs. In
fact, she instructed her daughter Jelyn to call 611 as she asked the
appellant to spare their lives. Appellant even warned her to keep quiet.
After she discovered that Jufer was wounded, she started to carry him
outside their bedroom, only to see her husband wrestling with the
appellant. She had the presence of mind to put down her son, pick up a
knife she found on the floor and attempted to stab the accused.
Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation attended the assault on the De Leon family.
Ruling: Yes. For evident premeditation to be considered, the following e other felony like simple seduction (if he should employ deceit to have
must be established: (1) the time when the accused determined her yield to him) could also be ultimate felony. As a rule, preparatory acts
are not punishable under the Revised Penal Code for as long as they
(conceived) to commit the crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating
remained equivocal or of uncertain significance, because by their
that he clung to his determination to commit the crime (kill his victim); equivocality no one could determine with certainty what the
and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the decision to commit the perpetrator's intent really was.
crime and the execution thereof to allow the accused to reflect upon the
The information charged that the petitioner "removed her panty and
consequences of his act. Premeditation presupposes a deliberate planning
underwear and laid on top of said AAA embracing and touching her
of the crime before executing it. The execution of the criminal act, in other vagina and breast." With such allegation of the information being
words, must be preceded by cool thought and reflection. As here, there competently and satisfactorily proven beyond a reasonable doubt, he was
must be showing of a plan or preparation to kill, or proof that the accused guilty only of acts of lasciviousness, not attempted rape. His embracing
her and touching her vagina and breasts did not directly manifest his
meditated and reflected upon his decision to execute the crime.
intent to lie with her. The lack of evidence showing his erectile penis
First, the night before the stabbing incidents, appellant went to the De being in the position to penetrate her when he was on top of her deterred
any inference about his intent to lie with her. At most, his acts reflected
Leon residence to ask for money. Edgar, with much reluctance, gave
lewdness and lust for her.
appellant only P100. Jeane noted appellant receiving the money with a
hostile expression on his face. Appellant was no longer working for the De
Leon, so he was not required to go back to the house. But he did return
the following morning, January 27, 2006, armed, surreptitiously entering
the house and proceeding to Jufer’s bedroom while everyone was busy
having breakfast and preparing for school.

Second, Jufer told his mother that while relieving himself in the comfort
room, appellant pointed a knife at him. John Ray corroborated the
pointing-of- knife scenario. On the witness box, John Ray testified that on
the night of June 26, 2006, appellant was toying with a knife while talking
to him and Jufer, threatening to kill them both should they report the
matter to their parents.

Last but not least, six different knives, all with blood stains, were found at
the crime scene. Two pairs of gloves were discovered near Jufer’s body.
These compelling pieces of evidence presuppose planning.