PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs JOSE, GR L-28232, February 6, 1971

FACTS:
On June 26, 1967, four principal-accused conspired with lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena
“Maggie” dela Riva. She was ordered to strip in front of the accused and was threatened. She held on
tightly to her dress to prevent it from being pulled down, but her efforts were in vain: her dress, together
with her brassiere, fell on the floor. The complainant was now completely naked before the four men,
who were kneeling in front of her and feasting their eyes on her private parts. This ordeal lasted for about
ten minutes, during which the complainant, in all her nakedness, was asked twice or thrice to turn around.
Then Pineda picked up her clothes and left the room with his other companions.
Having established the element of conspiracy, the trial court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of forcible abduction with rape and sentences each of them to the death penalty.

ISSUE:
Whether or not ignominy as an aggravating circumstance was present in this case.

RULING:
Yes. Since the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about
ten minutes, before raping her, it brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the
crime more humiliating.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS SULTAN, GR 123470, April 27, 2000

FACTS:
Juditha Bautista was on her way home from visiting her cousin when she was accosted by the accused
Fernando Sultan. Fernando pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and told her that this was a hold-up.
Fearing for her life, she let him grab and bring her to his house. Through intimidation and her fear for her
life, she was robbed and twice raped. After the second rape, he told her he loved her and in her effort to
release herself, she “agreed” to elope with him. Convinced, Fernando let her go home to get her things.
She then went to her cousin, Antonette and narrated everything that happened. Antonette then called her
brother SPO1 Bautista who advised Juditha to continue with the elopement so that he and his companions
could stage an arrest. This went successful and Fernando was apprehended. Fernando was charged with
the complex crime of robbery and rape but he merely brushed this aside as simply sex between consenting
adults.
ISSUE: Whether or not the additional rape committed by the accused may be considered as an
aggravating circumstance
RULING:
No. In the recent case of People v. Regala, the Court held that the additional rapes committed should not
be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance despite a resultant "anomalous situation" wherein robbery
with rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes in terms of gravity. 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.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ATOP, GR 124303-05, February 10, 1998

FACTS:
The accused had carnal knowledge of the herein offended party REGINA GUAFIN, 11 years old, the
accused is the live-in partner of her grandmother with whom she is living with, against her will and
without her consent, with the use of a knife, mashed her breast, embraced, kissed and inserted his penis
over the victim's genital organ to accomplish his lewd design, to her damage and prejudice. The trial court
The trial court ruled that the circumstances of nighttime and relationship aggravated all the three incidents
of rape
ISSUES: Whether or not the relationship between victim and accused may serve as an aggravating
circumstance
RULING:
No, we cannot appreciate relationship as an aggravating circumstance The scope of relationship as
defined by law encompasses (1) the spouse; (2) an ascendant; (3) a descendant; (4) a legitimate, natural or
adopted brother or sister; or (5) a relative by affinity in the same degree.Relationship by affinity refers to
a relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage. Relatives by affinity therefore are those commonly
referred to as "in-laws," or stepfather, stepmother, stepchild and the like; in contrast to relatives by
consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under the second, third and fourth enumeration above. The
law cannot be stretched to include persons attached by common-law relations. Here, there is no blood
relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his victim.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS MALUENDA, GR 115351, March 27, 1998

FACTS:
The Court found all the accuseds [sic], namely, Raul Mondaga, , and resident of Tagongon, Tagbina,
Surigao del Sur; Rodrigo Legarto, gas man of the bankrupt Lianga Bay Logging Co., Inc. and a resident
of New Highway, Purok III, Diatagon, Lianga, Surigao del Sur and Daniel Maluenda, all guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as co-principals of the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom. They conspired and kidnapped
Engr. Miguel Resus for the purpose of extorting money from Engr. & Mrs. Resus, detaining said Engr.
Miguel Resus for a period of four (4) days, to the damage and prejudice of the victim in the amount of
P200,000.00
ISSUE:
Whether or not Legarto was guilty as principal by indispensable cooperation
RULING:
No. Legarto cannot be convicted under this definition because the prosecution failed to allege, much less
prove, any overt act on his part showing direct participation in the kidnapping itself, his participation in
the incident being limited to acts committed after the abduction was already consummated. He was not
with the kidnappers (1) when they forcibly solicited money and medicine from the Resus couple, (2)
when they brought the kidnap victim to Alegria, and (3) when Mondaga demanded ransom for the
victim's release. Together with the Resus housemaid, he accompanied Mondaga to the hideout in Alegria
only upon Dr. Resus' request. In short, the prosecution failed to piece together a clear story as to show
Legarto figured in the kidnapping caper.

People vs Doctolero, GR 34386, February 7, 1991

FACTS:
Ludovico Doctolero had an encounter with Marcial and Maria Sagun, Antonio and Lolita Oviedo. In his
attempt to escape, Ludovico struck Lolita Oviedo with bolo which caused her death. Later on, while
running towards his house, he passed by Marcial’s house. He went upstairs to look for Marcial but
Epifania Escosio (Marcial’s mother) told him Marcial left. On his way out, Epifania struck him at the
back of his neck. Ludovico retaliated by hacking her with bolo killing her. The child, Jonathan Oviedo
was hurt in this incident. After this, Ludovico waited for Marcial downstairs but Marcelo Sagun
(Marcial’s father) came. Marcelo hit Ludovico so Ludovico boloed him several times also killing him.
Conrado and Virgilio were present when Ludovico killed Epifania and Marcelo. Trial court found
Ludovico, Conrado, and Virgilio guilty of multiple murder and physical injuries. Ludovico as principal,
Conrado and Virgilio as accomplices. During pendency of this petition, Ludovico withdrew his appeal
and Virgilio died extinguishing his criminal liability.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Doctolero can be held as an accomplice
RULING:
Yes, the trial court correctly found that the appellant Conrado Doctolero participated as an accomplice. It
was alleged in the testimony of the witness that Conrado together with Virgilio were also in the crime
scene watching their brother Ludovico Doctolero do the crimes. The SC held that where one goes with the
principal, the former supplied the criminals with material and moral aid making him guilty as accomplice.
It held further that one can be an accomplice even if he did not know of the actual crime intended by the
principal provided that he was aware that it was an illicit act. Nonetheless, there being a doubt exist, the
court should favor the milder form of liability or responsibility which is that of being mere accomplices
and not conspirators.

People vs Talingdan, GR L-32126, July 6, 1978

FACTS:
Teresa Domogma was the supposed wife of the deceased Bernardo Bagabag. On 2 different occasions,
appellant Nemesis Talingdan has visited Teresa in their house while Bernardo was out at work, and
during those visits Teresa had made Corazon, their then 12-year old daughter to go down the house and
leave them. Bernardo had gotten wind that an illicit relationship was going on between Talingdan and
Teresa. About a month before Bernardo was killed, Teresa had again left their house and did not come
back for a period of more than 3 weeks, and Bernardo came to know later that she and Talingdan were
seen together in the town of Tayum, Abra during that time. Just two days before Bernardo was killed
(Thursday), spouses had a violent quarrel; Bernardo slapped Theresa several times, resulting in Theresa
seeking the help of the police. Accused Talingdan, a policeman, came armed to the vicinity of Bernardo's
house and called him to come down; Bernardo ignored him; Talingdan instead left and warned Bernardo
that someday he would kill him. On Saturday, June 24, 1967, Bernardo was gunned down in his house.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Teresa Domogma is an accessory to Bernardo’s murder
RULING:
Yes. She had no hand in the actual shooting. It is also not clear if she helped directly in the planning and
preparation thereof. There is in the record morally convincing proof that she is at the very least an
accessory to the offense committed. She did not only order her daughter not to reveal what she knew to
anyone, she also claimed to have no suspects in mind when the peace officers came into their house later
to investigate Whereas before the actual shooting she was more or less passive in her attitude regarding
the conspiracy, after Bernardo was killed, she became active in her cooperation with her co-appellants
These acts constitute "concealing or assisting in the escape of the principal in the crime".

People vs Sanchez, GR 131116, August 27, 1999

FACTS:
All the accused then being armed and committed in consideration of a price, reward or promise and of
superior strength, shot with the use of automatic weapons inflicting multiple gunshot wounds upon
Nelson Peñalosa and Rickson Peñalosa which caused their instantaneous deaths to the damage and
prejudice of their heirs and relatives. The trial court convicted all the accused of the complex crime of
double murder. Accused mayor Antonio L. Sanchez and Artemio Averion jointly appealed and contended
that the trial court failed to recognize the material inconsistencies between Malabanan's testimony and the
physical and scientific evidence presented before it.
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused are guilty of complex crime of double murder
RULING:
No. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means of committing the other, the penalty for the
more serious crime in its maximum period shall be imposed. It is not the act of pressing the trigger which
should be considered as producing the several felonies, but the number of bullets which actually produced
them." In the instant case, Malabanan testified that he heard three bursts of gunfire from the two armalites
used by accused Corcolon and Peradillas. Thus, the accused are criminally liable for as many offenses
resulting from pressing the trigger of the armalites. Therefore, accused are liable for two counts of murder
committed against the victims, Nelson and Rickson Peñalosa, instead of the complex crime of double
murder.
Enrile vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 92163, June 5, 1990
FACTS:
Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director
Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime
Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941. The
warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors charging
Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of
rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed
coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at
the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the
information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following morning, he was brought to Camp Tomas
Karingal. On the same date Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus herein
alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights.
ISSUE:
Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes arising from an offense being a necessary means
for committing another, which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING:
No. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming
that this could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the
crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period,
depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and
(2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the
modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the
extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to
be meted out to him, even in the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if
construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant.
People v. Lanuza, G.R. No. 188562, August 17, 2011
FACTS:
On April 1, 2007, the accused, with intent to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously
attack, assault, and shoot fellow security guard Joel G. Butay with the use of a 12gauge shotgun,
performing all the acts of execution, but never consummated due to the timely medical attention. The
accused-appellant pleaded not guilty of the criminal charge for it was only an accident basing on Article
12 (4) of the RPC which exempts him from criminal liability. Private complainant insisted that the accuse
intentionally tried to kill him on that night where the accused was late for his duty and the complainant
reprimand him and handed down the shotgun to the accused where he placed his finger to the trigger and
fired at the complainant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of the CA should affirm the appeal of the accused-appellant in favor to him
that it was a mere accident.

RULING:
No. These elements are extant in the case at bar. The penalty prescribed by law for the crime of frustrated
homicide is one degree lower than that prescribed by law for the crime of homicide.
Under the indeterminate sentence law, the maximum of the sentence shall be that which could be
properly imposed in view of the attending circumstances, and the minimum shall be within the range of
the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
Considering that the penalty prescribed by law for the crime of homicide is reclusion temporal, the
penalty for the crime of frustrated homicide would be prision mayor. Applying the indeterminate sentence
law, there being the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender and no aggravating circumstance, the
maximum of the sentence should be within the range of prision mayor in its minimum term which has a
duration of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years, and that, on the other hand, the minimum
should be within the range of prision correccional which has a duration of six (6) months and one (1) day
to six (6) years. Thus, the imposition of imprisonment from four (4) years of prision correccional, as
minimum, to seven (7) years of prision mayor, as maximum, is in order.

People v. Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008

FACTS:
A case was filed against accused-appellant Beth Temporada of the crime of Large Scale Illegal
Recruitment, or violation of Article 38 of the Labor Code, as amended and five counts of estafa under
Article 315, par. (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). They further alleged that the accused recruited
and promised overseas employment, for a fee, to complainants Rogelio Legaspi, Jr. The accused the lone
error that the trial court gravely erred in finding her guilty of illegal recruitment and five (5) counts of
estafa despite the insufficiency of the evidence for the prosecution. The petitioner prayed for her acquittal
for the prosecution’s failure to prove the element of deceit. She argued that her actions prior to, during
and after the filing of the estafa case against her negated deceit, ill-motive and and or/ bad faith to
abscond with her obligation to the private complainant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the judgment of the RTC
finding her guilty of estafa beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING:
No. There was no error in CA’s decision. Therefore, the accused was convicted for the crime of Large
Scale Illegal Recruitment, as principal of the offenses charged and she is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ( P500,000) for illegal recruitment; and
the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional as minimum, to
nine (9) years and one (1) day of prison mayor, as a maximum for the estafa committed against the
complainant Rogelio A. Legaspi, Jr.; the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correctional as minimum to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prison mayor as maximum each for
the estafas committed against complainants, Dennis Dimaano, Soledad B. Atte and Luz T. Minkay; and
the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correctional as minimum, to
eleven (11) years and one (1) day of prison mayor as maximum for the estafa committed against Evelyn
Estacio.