OCTOBER 1999

People v. Marcelino

October 1, 1999

Victims Pineda and Bajos were sent by the governor to investigate reported abuses by para-military groups in the hinterlands. Barangay Chairman Marcelino and some of his Civilian Home Defense (CHDF) cohorts shot to death and incinerated the corpses of said victims.

Issue:

Was there treachery?

Was conspiracy established to hold other accused equally liable for the murder?

Held: YES

Elements of treachery (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the said means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.

Victims were deliberately led toward Nabilog by Marcelino when he claimed there was a taxi there waiting for them. When they reached Tampa Creek, said unforwarned victims were suddenly shot to death without chance to defend themselves. Marcelino effectively ordered his men to kill the two by means of a signal (drawing a line across his neck with a finger). The gesture was so conspicuous that even the witness saw it. The group followed the deceased then killed them. Their bodies were set on the ground side-by side, their clothes removed, their personal belongings stolen. Thereafter Marcelino ordered that the bodies be burned in order to conceal their evil deed. These circumstances, taken together, sufficiently established a unity of purpose, community of interest and intent, which were carried out in concert. For conspiracy to exist, there need not be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution.

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 laying 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 was 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

Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes.

W/N there was abuse of superior strength? No.

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.

Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes.

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 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. Raganas

October 12, 1999

Accused entered the guardhouse of the Yasay Compound and the office beside it and forthwith proceeded to attack, assault, and stab one Mamerto Lucion, the security guard thereat, who died instantaneously from multiple stab wounds, after which the above-named accused destroyed, cut off, and disconnected the electrical and communication facilities therein such as the radio power supply unit and an intercom set and carried away one cassette recorder.

Issue: W/N accused are guilty of robbery with homicide?

Held: Yes.

In order that circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to convict, the same must comply with these essential requisites, viz.: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inference are derived are proven; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. All the foregoing requisites are here present. The testimonies of Daayata, Obsioma, and Baba pieced together reveal an unbroken chain of events that leads to but one fair and reasonable conclusion that the appellant, is guilty of the crime charged.

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 - The deceased had no inkling that he would be killed that fateful night. There was no force employed on him when he boarded the tricycle. Neither was there a heated argument with any of the culprits. In fact, 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 door frame with his hand, he was stabbed by appellant. 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 Mañale 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?

Held: Yes.

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. We reverse, however, to the extent that it appreciated nighttime as an aggravating circumstance. 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. When the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating.

Neither was treachery proven, as there was no showing that the attack was made swiftly and unexpectedly as to render the victim helpless and unable to defend himself. Neither can we appreciate the presence of evident premeditation, there having been no indication that accused-appellants earlier resolved to kill the victim and clung to such determination for a considerable length of time.

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.

Issue: W/N there was treachery?

W/N there was conspiracy?

Held: Yes.

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 defense or retaliation contemplated here must come from the victim, not from anyone else. Treachery was irrefutably indicated in the method by which the assailants waited for the victim to pass by before suddenly attacking her and preventing her escape. At any rate, no help was forthcoming because anyone inclined to lend assistance was intimidated.

Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. Such acts must point to a joint purpose, concert of action or community of interest. Hence, 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. In this case, conspiracy was shown because Conde grabbed and stabbed the victim while Costelo impeded her escape and shoved her towards Pablo, who in turn straddled her on the ground and stabbed her. Their prior act of waiting for the victim outside her house affirms the existence of conspiracy, for ti speaks of a common design and purpose.

People v. Celis

October 20, 1999

Complainant Racquel arrived from Manila at Magundanao 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. When Racquel was dragged to the makeshift hut by Carlos, he told her to cooperate with him or she would be shot. These threats were enough to implant fear in the mind of the complainant, who was alone and helpless. Roque, in turn, managed to have sexual intercourse with complainant by flashing a knife in her face. Threatening the victim with a knife, a deadly weapon, is sufficient to cow the victim. It constitutes an element of rape.

People v. Motos

October 20, 1999

Accused invited 7 year-old Jenalyn and her younger sister in his room. Vicitim Jenalyn fell asleep beside her sister, who was playing with a doll. Jenalyn woke up after feeling pain and saw accused on top of her. She was asked to take a bath but was later rushed to the hospital by her parents due to her continuous bleeding.

Held:

Neither does the complaint allege, nor does the evidence introduced show, any qualifying circumstance in the commission of the offense that can make the offense fall within the category of rape punishable by death. The only penalty that can be properly decreed is the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua.

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.

Issue: W/N there was rape?

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. Fear oftentimes overwhelms the victim. In the instant case, the appellant enhanced his physical supremacy over his daughter by holding the knife to her neck. In the face of such brutal intimidation, she knuckled under, thus enabling him to satisfy his incestuous lust.

The death penalty may be imposed only if the information has alleged and the evidence has proven both the age of the victim and her relationship to the victim.

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. Arizala

October 20, 1999

Accused stabbed to death Sgt. Cara.

Issue: W/N accused is guilty of murder? Yes.

October 27, 1999

Forcible abduction, as defined and penalized under Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, is the taking of a woman against her will and with lewd designs, or of a girl below 12 years of age. When the accused forcibly took away the victim, for the purpose of raping her, as in fact he did rape her, lewd and unchaste designs existed since the commencement of the crime. Consequently, when accused raped Aharan, he committed the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. The trial court correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, for the crime of forcible abduction with rape, in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.

People v. Armando de Labajan

October 27, 1999

It is well-settled that where there is no evidence, and nothing to indicate that the principal witness for the prosecution were actuated by any improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are thus entitled to full faith and credence." "It is doctrinally settled that the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling examination.

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:

Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code provides that principals are those who "directly force or induce others" to commit an offense. "One is induced to commit a crime either by a command (precepto) or for a consideration (pacto), or by any other similar act which constitutes the real and moving cause of the crime and which was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was sufficient for that purpose. Where the circumstances of force, fear, price, promise or reward are not present, the question that may arise is whether the command given by a person to the author of the crime amounts to a criminal inducement. 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.

Held:

The Court disagrees. The requisites of passion and obfuscation are:

1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of mind;

2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity.

It has been held that there is passional 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 Hernando’s 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." In this kind of estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, deceit and damage are essential elements of the offense and have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction.

Estafa, under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, has the following elements:..(1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.

People v. Romeo Tizon

October 28, 1999

The Rules of Court have set exacting standards to be strictly complied with by the trial court in the arraignment of an accused. Rule 116 of the Rules of Court, in part, provides:

"Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. – (a) The accused must be arraigned before the court where the complaint or information has been filed or assigned for trial. The arraignment must be made in open court by the judge or clerk by furnishing the accused a copy of the complaint or information with the list of witnesses, reading the same in the language or dialect known to him and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The prosecution may, however, call at the trial witnesses other than those named in the complaint or information.

"(b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea shall be made of record, but a failure to enter of record shall not affect the validity of the proceedings.

"(c) If the accused refuses to plead, or makes a conditional plea of guilty, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.

"x x x x x x x x x

"Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. – When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf."

These rules are mandatory, affording, such as they do, the proper understanding of the all-important constitutional mandate regarding the right of an accused to be so informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled against him so essential in aptly putting up his defense. The searching inquiry, which must be recorded , requires the court to make it indubitably certain that the accused is fully apprised of the consequences of his plea of guilt.

In sum, the searching inquiry under Section 3, Rule 116 must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) a complete comprehension of the legal effects of the plea, so that the plea of guilt is based on a free and informed judgment. So indispensable is this requirement that a plea of guilt to a capital offense can be held null and void where the trial court has inadequately discharged the duty of conducting the prescribed "searching inquiry."

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 : (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 defending himself.

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. "The essential elements for evident premeditation to be appreciated are: (1) the time when the appellant decided to commit the crime; (2) an overt act showing that the appellant clung to their determination to commit the crime; and (3) the lapse of a sufficient period of time between the decision and the execution of the crime, to allow the appellant to reflect upon the consequences of the act.

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."

In analyzing the facts, the Court also found that evident premeditation could not be appreciated against appellants. Although the defamatory words uttered by the victim against Corazon Caro-Lascano must have spawned the grudge of appellants towards the victim, the evidence for the prosecution has not established all the elements of evident premeditation, to wit: (1) the time the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

NOVEMBER 1999

People v. Moroy Gallo

November 16, 1999

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 defense of alibi is no good when the witnesses have positively identified the accused. The fact that the witnesses did not identify him immediately to the police is not a defense either. There is no standard behavior for persons confronted with a shocking incident. One may either report the crime immediately or after a long lapse of time.

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. Capco, Agpoon, et. al.

close relative of having raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father.

People v. Feliciano

December 8, 1999

Feliciano was charged with highway robbery and robbery with homicide. He was beaten at the police station and was forced to sign a statement that he was responsible for several hold-ups in the area including the one where the victim was killed. He was examined without counsel by police and even when counsel was given to him, the lawyer did not advise him of the implications of his testimony.

Held:

Acquitted for lack of evidence. His testimonies were inadmissible. The right to counsel is a fundamental right and contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer beside the accused. He was questioned before his counsel de officio arrived and even when his counsel was present, his lawyer did not explain to accused-appellant the consequences of his action — that the sworn statement can be used against him and that it is possible that he could be found guilty and sent to jail.

We also find that Atty. Chavez’s independence as counsel is suspect — he is regularly engaged by the Cagayan de Oro City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who cannot avail the services of counsel. He even received money from the police as payment for his services.

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;

(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 didn’t 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.

But, he may not be sentenced to death. A careful scrutiny of the records shows that the Information charged him only with murder qualified by treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation. It failed to mention the commission of sexual abuse or "sodomy" on the victim. The Information designated the crime as "murder in relation to RA 7610," but as a rule, what controls is not the designation of the offense but its description in the complaint or information.

People v. Alberto Flores and Rodolfo Flores

December 8, 1999

The Flores brothers were convicted of murder on the testimony of the victim’s wife. The wife says she saw the accused enter the victim’s home and one brother stabbed the victim while the other strangled him. But right after the crime was committed, she said she saw nothing.

Held:

Jurisprudence forewarns that when serious and inexplicable discrepancies are present between a previously executed sworn statement of a witness and her testimonial declarations with respect to one's participation in a serious imputation such as murder, there is raised a grave doubt on the veracity of the witness' account. In the case at bar, it is difficult to reconcile the inconsistencies made by Marissa in her sworn statement and testimony in court. It is even more difficult to accept her explanation in committing these inconsistencies.

People v. Loreto Ringor, Jr.

December 9, 1999

Appellant Ringor and his two companions entered a restaurant where the accused worked. After seating themselves, the group ordered a bottle of gin. Appellant approached one of the tables where Florida, the restaurant’s cook was drinking beer. Without any warning, appellant pulled Florida’s hair and poked a knife on the latter’s throat. Florida stood up and pleaded with appellant not to harm him Appellant relented and released his grip on Florida. Thereafter, he left the restaurant together with his companions. However, a few minutes later he was back Appellant brandished a gun and menacingly entered the restaurant. Not encountering any resistance, he thus proceeded to the kitchen where Florida worked. Stealthily approaching Florida from behind, appellant fired six successive shots at Florida who fell down. Ringor left thereafter. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

Held:

On the matter of the aggravating circumstance of "use of unlicensed firearm" in the commission of murder or homicide, the trial court erred in appreciating the same to qualify to death the penalty for the murder committed by accused-appellant. It should be noted that at the time accused-appellant perpetrated the offense, the unlicensed character of a firearm used in taking the life of another was not yet an aggravating circumstance in homicide or murder. Sentenced to reclusion perpetua instead.

In his testimony, Ruel only testified that he saw accused opening their closets and throwing things on the floor. Not that accused took something from the house.

On the other hand, this Court agrees with the trial court that rape was satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Ruel’s testimony positively identifying the accused was enough to convict.

People v. Agapito Flores

Appellant was charged with and found guilty of the crime of rape of a girl less than nine (9) years old. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty under the advice of a certain Ompong. Appellant later changed lawyers after he found out that Ompong was not a member of the bar.

Held:

Judgement set aside and case remanded for new trial. Being represented by a non-lawyer is a denial of due process.

People v. Moreno

December 21, 1999

According to the prosecution, accused entered the secluded house of his 14 year old cousin who was alone in the house. He held a bolo to her body and succeeded in raping her. She said nothing until her mother noticed her swelling belly and it was determined that she was pregnant. Accused put up the defense of denial and alibi.

Held:

Acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt. While the version of the defense is not entirely satisfactory, as in any criminal prosecution, conviction must rest on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The State must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the defense. Force and intimidation not proven. Supposed victim’s actuations before and during the alleged sexual assault did not show the kind of resistance expected of a young woman defending her virtue and honor. A much more vigorous opposition to the assault on her virtue is only to be expected of an inexperienced victim on the threshold of womanhood.

JANUARY 2000

People v. Vicente Valla

January 24, 2000

On appeal is the Quezon RTC's decisions dated March 29, 1993 convicting Valla of the crime of rape with homicide. Pines, a twelve-year old girl, was passing by a ricefield near the road when she heard a voice coming from the direction of the forested area. They finally found Dyesebel. Her body was found near the river with her neck blackened and her vagina bloodied. Allarey and his companions immediately confronted appellant who, out of remorse, admitted that he raped and killed. The trial court found Valla guilty of the crime of "rape with homicide." Hence, the present appeal.

Held:

More importantly, the declaration of appellant acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in evidence against him under Section 33 of Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court. Note that his extrajudicial confession is corroborated by the corpus delicti as required by Section 3 of Rule 133. The Rules do not require that all the elements of the crime must be clearly established by evidence independent of the confession. Corpus delicti only means that there should be some concrete evidence tending to show the commission of the crime apart from the confession.

The statement of the accused asking for forgiveness and even offering his own daughter in exchange for his crime may also be regarded as part of the res gestae under Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Res gestae means "things done." There are three requisites to admit evidence as part of the res gestae:

(1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling occurrence, in this case the discovery of the body of the victim;

(2) the statements were made before the declarant had the time to contrive or devise a falsehood, in this case, appellant had begged for forgiveness immediately after the body was found; and

(3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediate attending circumstances, in this case, appellant had admitted to raping and killing the victim, and even "offered" his daughter in exchange for the victim.

As to the crime committed, the trial court correctly convicted appellant of the special complex crime of "rape with homicide," and not "rape with murder" as designated in the Information, since "homicide" is herein taken in its generic sense. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy under Article 14, No. 17 of the Revised Penal Code should be appreciated considering that the medico-legal officer testified that the pubic area of the victim bore blisters brought about by a contact with a lighted cigarette.

People v. Rudy Cortes

January 24, 2000

Before the Court for automatic review is the Decision of the Masbate RTC convicting the accused-appellant, Rudy Cortes y Caballero, of the crime of rape committed against Analiza Germina y Banculo, sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death.

Held:

Time-honored is the rule that alibi is inherently weak and easily contrived. Accused-appellant must therefore prove with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at the place and approximate time of commission of the felony, which quantum of proof he failed to come forward with.

In a long line of rape cases, the Court has consistently held that lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be and has been committed in even the unlikeliest of places. Venues of rape have been inside a house where there were other occupants, in a room adjacent to where the victim’s family members were sleeping or even in a room which the victim shares with the sister of the offender. There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. Neither does the Court find convincing the claim of delay on the part of the victim in reporting the sexual assault against her. This Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim.

People v. Hon. Bonifacio Maceda

January 24, 2000

This case stems from denial by the SC of the People’s motion seeking reconsideration of our August 13, 1990 decision holding that respondent Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda committed no grave abuse of discretion in issuing the order of August 8, 1989 giving custody over private respondent Avelino T. Javellana to the Clerk of Court of the Antique RTC, Atty. Deogracias del Rosario, during the pendency of Criminal Cases Nos. 3350-3355. At that time, sufficient reason was shown why Javellana should not be detained at the Antique Provincial Jail. The trial court’s order specifically provided for private respondent’s detention at the residence of Atty. del Rosario. However, private respondent was not to be allowed liberty to roam around but was to be held as detention prisoner in said residence. It was howevere found that the order was not strictly complied with because Javellana was not detained in the residence of Atty. Del Rosario. He went about his normal activities as if he were a free man, including engaging in the practice of law.

Held:

Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on the filing of criminal cases against him. By such arrest, he is deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial court gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private respondent Javellana with the obligation "to hold and detain" him in Atty. del Rosario’s residence in his official capacity as the clerk of court of the regional trial court. Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge, he ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the custodian under the same undertaking.

As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that he may be bound to answer for the commission of the offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive detention or serving final sentence can not practice their profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention.

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, 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.

Under Sec. 7 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court, double jeopardy lies when after the accused has pleaded to the first offense charged in a valid complaint or information and he is subsequently convicted or acquitted or the case against him is dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, he is prosecuted for a second offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof or any other offense, which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. It cannot be said that murder or homicide necessarily includes or is necessarily included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide. To state otherwise is to contradict Tac-an and its progeny of cases where We categorically ruled out the application of double jeopardy in the simultaneous prosecution for murder or homicide and qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide against same accused involving the same fatal act.

Sec. 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that an accused may not be convicted of an offense other than that with which he is charged in the Information, unless such other offense was both established by evidence and is included in the offense charged in the Information. Since murder or homicide neither includes or is necessarily included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, the trial court may not validly convict an accused for the former crime under an Information charging the latter offense. Conversely, an accused charged in the Information with homicide or murder may not be convicted of qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or homicide, for the latter is not included in the former.

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, Analyn’s 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:

In this appeal, the accused contends that the subpoenas directing submission of counter-affidavits for purposes of preliminary investigation, were not received by him since the same were sent to his former residence at A. Del Rosario Street and not to Dalahican Street where he moved to. Accused-appellant therefore, maintains that he was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation. In Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, this Court reiterated the rule that the New Rules on Criminal Procedure "does not require as condition sine qua non to the validity of the proceedings (in the preliminary investigation) the presence of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were made, and an opportunity to controvert the evidence for the complainant is accorded him. The obvious purpose of the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves or by employing dilatory tactics."

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-appellant’s 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 child’s 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.

And in the recent case of People vs. Andan, the Court reiterated the doctrine enunciated in the Maqueda case. In Andan, the Court said that "when the accused talked with the mayor as confidant and not as a law enforcement officer, his uncounselled confession did not violate his constitutional rights. Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having committed the crime."

Treachery was not alleged in the information but the suddenness of the assault upon Hegino and Maria from behind was proven beyond reasonable doubt. As such, treachery may be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery exists when an adult person illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death.

The crime committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly considered the crime as robbery with homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as charged in the information. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is used in its generic sense, embracing not only the act which results in death but also all other acts producing anything short of death. Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings in connection with the robbery. The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situation where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with multiple killings would be.

People v. Domingo Brigildo

January 28, 2000

Appellant Domingo Brigildo was acquitted of the charge of attempted rape. But the trial court found him guilty of two counts of rape, for which he was twice sentenced to death. When arraigned, appellant Domingo Brigildo, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges. The lower court rendered its decision finding the accused Domingo Brigildo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of RAPE (as) defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 7659. Finding the victim Marites Belic to have been below eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape on March 30, 1994 and finding the offender to be the common-law spouse of Marites’ mother, this court imposes upon the same Domingo Brigildo the mandatory penalty of DEATH.

Held: In reviewing rape cases, the Court has consistently observed the following long-standing guidelines:

(1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility. Such accusation is difficult to prove but even more difficult for the accused though innocent to disprove it;

(2) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two (2) persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and

(3) The evidence of the prosecution must stand and fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense..

The testimony of the victim leaves us no doubt that her mother’s common-law husband had raped her. But even assuming for argument’s sake, that the alleged penile penetration of private complainant’s vagina had not been shown with indubitable proof, this Court has ruled consistently, that penetration is not an essential element of rape. The mere touching of the labia or pudendum by the phallus is already enough to consummate the crime of rape. Phallic intrusion necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest contact under circumstances of force, intimidation, or unconsciousness, even without the rupture of the hymen is already rape.

In addition, the Court has repeatedly ruled that when a victim says she has been raped, she almost always says all that has to be said. So long as the victim’s testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on the sole basis thereof.

People v. Romenciano Ricafranca

January 28, 2000

The case is an appeal from a decision of the RTC of Pinamalayan finding the accused guilty of murder and guilty of illegal possession of firearms.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court erred in disregarding the fact that the evidence of the prosecution did not overcome the time-honored presumption of innocence of the accused in criminal cases?

Held:

We advert to that all-too familiar rule that findings of fact of the trial court, especially its assessment on the credibility of witnesses, are not to be disturbed on appeal. The trial court is in a better position than the appellant court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence because of their unique opportunity to directly observe the witness’ demeanor, conduct, deportment and manner of testifying.

Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, it may be inferred from the conduct of all the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. 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.

We disagree, however, with the trial court’s finding of cruelty. The test for determining the presence of cruelty is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the victim’s suffering. Consequently, there must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before he was killed.

People v. Jesus Tanail

January 28, 2000

Accused Jesus Tanail y Borbe has appealed from the decision of the Bulacan RTC finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The court a quo rejected the accused’s defense of denial and alibi. It said that this could not prevail over the positive identification of the accused.

Held:

The court found no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. Contrary to the contention of the accused-appellant that inconsistencies materially affected the credibility of the witnesses, we rather view the minor inconsistencies as indicative of truth. Marites testified with candor and in a straightforward manner. In between sobs and tears, she recounted how she had been sexually abused by the accused in a "dog-style manner."

It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assaults on their virtue because of the rapist’s threats on their lives. Delay in making a criminal accusation does not impair the credibility of a witness if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In any case, the failure of the victim to immediately report a rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. The lapse of three (3) months prior to the criminal accusation for rape is not sufficient to show that the charge of rape is doubtful.

FEBRUARY 2000

People v. Pedro Lumacang

February 1, 2000

Brothers Lumacang went out on a drinking spree with 2 friends and the deceased Elmer Salac. Without warning, Pedro unsheathed his hunting knife and stabbed Elmer Salac. They were charged with murder, which crime was attended with the qualifying circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and generic aggravating circumstance of nighttime. RTC found them guilty. Only Pablo appealed.

Held:

The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on his part. The the severity of the assault during the first incident of stabbing had already rendered the deceased completely defenseless. That he was able to run away to seek succor does not negate the presence of alevosia because the wounded victim, in fact, had little opportunity to run far. He was easily overtaken by the three brothers who mercilessly stabbed him to death.

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 specifically to insure execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. Since treachery has already been appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, abuse of superior strength should not have been considered separately inasmuch as it is absorbed in treachery. For night time to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance it must be shown that the accused had purposely sought such period to facilitate the commission of the crime or to prevent its discovery or to evade the culprit's capture.

People v. Alberto Blanco Y Señora

February 1, 2000

Edgardo Tolentino and Arnel Leovido were riding a tricycle. During the trip, the driver, Blanco, allowed 3 men to board the tricycle, accelerated its speed, and engaged in a different route than that intended by Tolentino and Leovido. Sensing that something was wrong, both passengers jumped out the moving tricycle. After they jumped, Tolentino found out that Leovido had been stabbed by one of the three men who boarded the tricycle. Leovido died. Alberto Blanco, and Arturo Punzalan were charged with murder

Held:

For the defense of alibi to prosper, appellant must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was perpetuated but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the approximate time of its commission. Appellant failed to demonstrate either scenario. Where there is absence of strong and convincing evidence, alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellant by an eyewitness to the stabbing incident, who has no improper motive to testify falsely.

There is conspiracy where, at the time the malefactors were committing the crime, their actions showed a unity of purpose among them, a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. Thus, although it appears that it was one of appellant’s co-accused who dealt Leovido the death blow, appellant performed acts to carry out the felonious killing complained of, for which he should be held answerable.

People v. Jalosjos

February 3, 2000

The accused-appellant, Romeo G. Jalosjos is a full-fledged member of Congress who is now confined at the national penitentiary while his conviction for statutory rape on two counts and acts of lasciviousness on six counts is pending appeal. The accused-appellant filed this motion asking that he be allowed to fully discharge the duties of a Congressman, including attendance at legislative sessions and committee meetings despite his having been convicted in the first instance of a non-bailable offense. Does membership in Congress exempt an accused from statutes and rules which apply to validly incarcerated persons in general?

Held:

True, election is the expression of the sovereign power of the people. In the exercise of suffrage, a free people expects to achieve the continuity of government and the perpetuation of its benefits. However, inspite of its importance, the privileges and rights arising from having been elected may be enlarged or restricted by law. The election to the position of Congressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not substantial distinctions which lift him from the class of prisoners interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement. Lawful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the law and apply to all those belonging to the same class. Imprisonment is the restraint of a man’s personal liberty; coercion exercised upon a person to prevent the free exercise of his power of locomotion.

People v. Nicolas

February 4, 2000

MELANDRO NICOLAS y FAVELLA was convicted by the court a quo of two (2) counts of statutory rape and one (1) simple rape committed against his own daughter, Shellome Nicolas y Dalisay. The statutory rapes were committed when Shellome was only eleven (11) years old while the simple rape was perpetrated when she was already twelve (12).

Held:

We strongly sustain his conviction. The rule is settled that this Court does not generally disturb the findings of fact of the trial court. Having observed the manner, conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand, the trial court is clearly in a better position to determine the weight to be given to their respective testimonies. Unless there is a clear showing that it overlooked certain facts and circumstances which might alter the result of the case, this Court accords respect, even finality, to these findings of fact made by the trial court.

The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by the perpetrator in incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, is evident in virtually all cases that have reached this Court. The relationship of the victim to the perpetrator magnifies this terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim.

People v. Llanes

February 4, 2000

Appellants Nicanor Llanes and Leandro Llanes were charged with the crime of murder in the RTC.

Held:

The declaration of a dying person, made under a consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death. The essential requisites for the admission of a dying declaration under Section 37 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court are, viz: (a) the declaration must concern the cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s death; (b) at the time the declaration was made, the declarant was under the consciousness of an impending death; (c) the declarant was at that time competent as a witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in any case wherein the declarant’s is the subject of inquiry. All these requisites have been met in this case.

It is a well-settled rule that different witnesses testifying on the circumstances of a criminal event would naturally differ in various details. The fact that witnesses Arevalo and Valenzuela gave varying testimonies as to the dying declaration of the victim does not indicate that they are lying. A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give an error-free testimony, considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory.

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. ALFREDO CABANDE

G.R. No. 132747. February 8, 2000

Appellant Alfredo Cabande appeals the July 24, 1997 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan (Branch 16) in a Criminal Case, finding him guilty of two counts of murder and sentencing him to two terms of reclusion perpetua. The accused appealed that the State did not correctly appreciate the evidence of the accused. The Court addressed the following matters: (1) sufficiency of the prosecution evidence, (2) presence of qualifying circumstances and (3) damages.

HELD:

Well-settled is the rule that the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great weight and respect, in the absence of a clear showing that some facts or circumstances of weight or substance that could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied. Thus, the SC found no reason to reverse or modify the trial court’s assessment.

There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes against persons by employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The mere fact that there was a feud between appellant and the victims did not necessarily prove that the attack was expected. As the solicitor general pointed out, what was decisive was the suddenness of the attack which made it impossible for the victims to retaliate, flee, or defend themselves.

In line with current jurisprudence, we affirm the award of indemnity ex delicto to the heirs of each victim in the sum of P50,000 or a total of P100,000. This may be awarded without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. We cannot sustain, however, the award of exemplary damages, which are awarded only in the presence of one or more aggravating circumstances. None was established in this case.

PEOPLE v. CORNELIA SUELTO

G.R. No. 126097. February 8, 2000

Accused-appellant Cornelia Suelto alias Rogelia Suelto appeals from the judgment rendered by the RTC finding her guilty of the murder of Isabel Ruales. The prosecution’s case rests primarily on the testimony of two witnesses who claimed to have personally witnessed the killing. Â h Y

HELD:

Alibis are generally considered with suspicion and are always received with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they can be easily fabricated. Therefore, for alibi to serve as a basis for acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) that it would thus be physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the alibi must receive credible corroboration from disinterested witnesses.We hold that accused has failed to establish her alibi by clear and convincing evidence.

The trial court found that the killing of Isabel Ruales by accused was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms which tend directly and specially to insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

PEOPLE v. DIOLO BARITA

G.R. No. 123541. February 8, 2000

Diolo Barita (BARITA), Denver Golsing (GOLSING) and Dionisio Cuison (CUISON) were charged with violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425, the accused was charged with selling and delivering more or less 2,800 grams of dried marijuana. In support of his appeal, BARITA denies any participation in the alleged sale of marijuana. He claims that no buy-bust operation was conducted and that the accusation against him was all part of a frame-up. To prove this, BARITA alleges that the prosecution evidence is replete with numerous flaws and glaring inconsistencies.

HELD:

Accused-appellants’ defense of "frame-up" does not convince us of their innocence. Such defense has been invariably viewed by this Court with disfavor for it can easily be concocted but difficult to prove and is a common and standard line of defense in most prosecutions arising from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Any person who sells or acts as a broker in the sale of marijuana shall be punished with reclusion perpetua to death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos if 750 grams or more of marijuana is sold.

PEOPLE v. GOMEZ

G.R. Nos. 131946-47. February 8, 2000

On 29 December 1995 an Information was filed before the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque charging Rogelio Gomez y Reyes a.k.a. Philip Roger Lacson or Roger Eleazar Gomez with illegal recruitment in large scale resulting in economic sabotage.

HELD:

Anent the first issue, we have consistently ruled that any objection to the warrant of arrest or the procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived.

The more significant issue at hand is whether the culpability of accused-appellant for illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Under the Labor Code, there are three (3) elements which constitute illegal recruitment in large scale. First, the accused undertakes any recruitment activity defined under Art. 13, par. (b), or any practice enumerated under Art. 34 of the Labor Code; second, the accused does not comply with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas; and third, the accused commits the same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as a group.

On several occasions, this Court has held that there is illegal recruitment when one purports to have the ability to send a worker abroad although without the authority or license to do so. He may merely give such an impression in order to induce an applicant to tender payment for fees. Although accused-appellant initially might not have done anything to encourage individuals to apply to him for employment abroad, such fact does not in any way blot out his liability for illegal recruitment. Recruitment is a legal term; its meaning must be understood in the light of what the law contemplates and not of common parlance.

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ENTILA

G.R. No. 135368. February 9, 2000

The RTC found appellant Alfredo Entila alias "Bogie" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of kidnapping and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. He contends in his appeal that the trial court erred in rendering a decision against him.

HELD:

In convicting the appellant, the trial court relied on the oft-cited rule that denial, like alibi, is a weak defense since it is easily fabricated or concocted. There are nonetheless settled pronouncements of this Court to the effect that where an accused sets up alibi, or denial for that matter, as his line of defense, the courts should not at once look at the same with wary eyes for taken in the light of all the evidence on record, it may be sufficient to reverse the outcome of the case as found by the trial court and thereby rightly set the accused free. Furthermore, the defense of alibi or denial may assume significance or strength when it is amply corroborated by a credible witness, as in the instant case.

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ARAFILES

G.R. No. 128814. February 9, 2000

The accused was charged withed rape. Maria Corazon Dampil (Corazon) was 15 years old at the time she was allegedly raped. Accused-appellant is her uncle. He interposed this appeal claiming that the trial court erred in giving full faith and credit to the testimony of complaining witness.

HELD:

It is well-settled that full penile penetration is not necessary in order to consummate the crime of rape; it is enough that the male organ touches the female external genitalia for there to be carnal knowledge. When there is no evidence to show any improper motive on the part of the complainant to testify against the accused or to falsely implicate him in the commission of a crime, the logical conclusion is that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credence.

PEOPLE v. JOEY BARCELONA

G.R. No. 125341. February 9, 2000

Barcelona was charged with the rape of Dolly Maglinte, a 17 year old minor.

HELD:

In adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) 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 Court has repeatedly held that rape is committed when intimidation is used on the victim and the latter submitted against her will because of fear for her life or personal safety. It is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted because all that is required is that it be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind. . .

While the Court has upheld the defense of consensual sex in some cases, this was on the basis of strong evidence, consisting of letters and the testimonies of witnesses, showing that the alleged rape was actually sex by mutual consent.Having been raised as an affirmative defense, the "sweetheart theory" must be established by convincing proof. Accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship. This accused-appellant failed to do.

PEOPLE v. BERLY FABRO

G.R. No. 114261. February 10, 2000

Appellant Berly Fabro y Azucena, together with her common-law husband Donald Pilay y Calag and Irene Martin, was charged with the crime of "violation of Section 21 (b) Art. IV, in relation to Section 4, Art. II of Republic Act No. 6425: sell and/or deliver to PO2 ELLONITO APDUHAN, who acted as poseur-buyer, one (1) kilo of dried marijuana leaves.

HELD:

As between a writing or document made contemporaneously with a transaction in which are evidenced facts pertinent to an issue, when admitted as proof of these facts, is ordinarily regarded as more reliable proof and of greater probative value than oral testimony of a witness as to such facts based upon memory and recollection. The reason behind this is obvious, human memory is fallible and its force diminishes with the lapse of time.

It must be stressed, however, that failure to present the marked money is of no great consequence. The Dangerous Drugs Law punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the prohibited drug seller. It is clear that Section 21 (b) of R.A. 6425 punishes the mere conspiracy to commit the offense of selling, delivering, distributing and transporting of dangerous drugs. Conspiracy herein refers to the mere agreement to commit the said acts and not the actual execution thereof. While the rule is that a mere conspiracy to commit a crime without doing any overt act is not punishable, the exception is when such is specifically penalized by law, as in the case of Section 21 of Republic Act 6425. Conspiracy as crime should be distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal liability the latter being applicable to the case at bar.

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 landowner’s 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 appellant’s 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.

There is treachery when the accused unexpectedly and deliberately shoots an unarmed minor who is thus not in a position to put up a defense or to inflict harm on the former. Voluntary surrender is not appreciated even if the accused submits himself to the members of the barangay tanod who, by their presence in his house, precluded his escape.

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. CARLIE ALAGON

G.R. No. 126536-37. February 10, 2000

Two separate Informations were filed against ALAGON and RAFAEL, both dated February 2, 1994, charging them with two counts of murder for the deaths of Elarde Magno and Isidro Barcelona. The case for the prosecution is woven mainly on the testimony of Remedios Punzalan. Accused-appellants ALAGON and RAFAEL had denial for their defense.

HELD:

As a general rule, the factual findings of trial courts deserve respect and are not disturbed on appeal, unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, and would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the case. ALAGON points out, however, that this rule does not apply when the judge who penned the decision was not the same one who had heard the prosecution witnesses testify, as in the present case. The SC has carefully perused and considered the records of this case, and we find no reason to alter the findings of the trial court in regard to the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies.

Conspiracy was not duly proven. There is conspiracy where, at the time the malefactors were committing the crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose among them, a concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. Conspiracy, like the crime itself, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Existence of conspiracy must be clearly and convincingly proven. The accused must be shown to have had guilty participation in the criminal design entertained by the slayer, and this presupposes knowledge on his part of such criminal design.

PEOPLE v. ROMMEL BALTAR

G.R. No. 130341. February 10, 2000

Three criminal complaints were filed by Kristine against Rommel Baltar. The prosecution presented Kristine. She relayed that on four separate incidents Baltar came to her house and forced her to have iintercourse with him.

HELD:

The evidence proving the use of force by the accused-appellant is overwhelming. Kristine also adequately explained why she did not immediately report to the police authorities. The threats made by accused-appellant scared her. Accused-appellant can not also dismiss the complaints against him as merely instigated by Kristine’s mother. Even assuming that accused-appellant and Kristine were lovers, this fact alone is not exculpatory. A sweetheart can not be forced to have sex against her will. Love is not a license for lust. Accused-appellant’s sweetheart theory can not stand in the light of Kristine’s positive assertions that he raped her.

PEOPLE v. APOLINAR DANDO

G.R. No. 120646. February 14, 2000

This is an appeal from a decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Siniloan, Laguna finding PO3 Apolinar E. Dando ("accused-appellant") guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

HELD:

Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the suspicion of rehearsed. Alibi is one of the weakest defenses in criminal cases and it should be rejected when the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively established by the prosecution.

The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without a warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape this case, accused-appellant, whose face was covered by a handkerchief, approached the victim, who was merely standing by the gate in front of his house, and shot him. The victim was undoubtedly caught unaware and had no chance of putting up any defense. Clearly, treachery attended the commission of the crime since the attack, although frontally, was no less sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his person.

PEOPLE v. JULIAN CASTILLO

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

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, which codified the laws on illegal possession of firearms, 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. ABUNDIO MANGILA

G.R. No. 130203-04. February 15, 2000

Death is the most severe penalty for crime. It is imposed in incestuous rape, regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. In the case at bar, sixteen (16) year old MADRILYN D. MANGILA accused her father, ABUNDIO MANGILA y PAREÑO, of two (2) counts of RAPE, allegedly committed as follows:

HELD:

Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

"Section 3. Pleas of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence - When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence in his behalf." (emphasis supplied)

To breathe life into this rule, we made it mandatory for trial courts to do the following:

(1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of the accused's plea;

(2) require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and

(3) inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he so desires.

The records show that the trial court failed to comply to the letter with these guidelines. It did not conduct a searching inquiry on whether accused understood the legal consequences of his admission of guilt. It is not shown that accused was informed of the effect of the concurrence of the special qualifying circumstance of minority of the victim and his parental relationship to her. After the accused testified on how he raped his daughter, he was not apprised that his crime is punishable by death. The trial court also failed to explain to him that as the penalty of death is indivisible, it shall be imposed despite any mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending its commission. Apparently, the trial court entertained the erroneous notion that the alleged intoxication of accused would lessen his liability.

PEOPLE v. ELRANIE MARTINEZ

G.R. No. 130606. February 15, 2000

This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC finding accused-appellant Elranie Martinez guilty of rape of Melina and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

HELD:

While denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases bare denials can not overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. Here, Melina’s testimony is clear, candid, straightforward and consistent. She had positively identified accused-appellant as her malefactor and established all the elements of the offense. That the physical examination yielded no conclusive evidence that she had been raped does not affect her credibility. The lack of tell-tale signs of rape on her private part can be explained by the fact that she is a married woman with four children. This fact actually bolsters her credibility. She had no motive to falsely implicate accused-appellant.

PEOPLE v. BULU CHOWDURY

G.R. No. 129577-80. February 15, 2000

In November 1995, Bulu Chowdury and Josephine Ong were charged before the Regional Trial Court of Manila with the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale.

HELD:

The last paragraph of Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) states who shall be held liable for the offense, thus:

"The persons criminally liable for the above offenses are the principals, accomplices and accessories. In case of juridical persons, the officers having control, management or direction of their business shall be liable."

As stated in the first sentence of Section 6 of RA 8042, the persons who may be held liable for illegal recruitment are the principals, accomplices and accessories. An employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. It has been held that the existence of the corporate entity does not shield from prosecution the corporate agent who knowingly and intentionally causes the corporation to commit a crime. The corporation obviously acts, and can act, only by and through its human agents, and it is their conduct which the law must deter. The employee or agent of a corporation engaged in unlawful business naturally aids and abets in the carrying on of such business and will be prosecuted as principal if, with knowledge of the business, its purpose and effect, he consciously contributes his efforts to its conduct and promotion, however slight his contribution may be. The law of agency, as applied in civil cases, has no application in criminal cases, and no man can escape punishment when he participates in the commission of a crime upon the ground that he simply acted as an agent of any party. The culpability of the employee therefore hinges on his knowledge of the offense and his active participation in its commission. Where it is shown that the employee was merely acting under the direction of his superiors and was unaware that his acts constituted a crime, he may not be held criminally liable for an act done for and in behalf of his employer.

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GALAM

G.R. No. 114740. February 15, 2000

On appeal is the decision of the RTC convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

HELD:

The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e., (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offender consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. The attack was not only sudden, it was unexpected, as the victim even cried out in surprise "Why are you firing at me, I have not done anything wrong!" Further, appellant deliberately or consciously adopted the means of attack as shown by the fact that he even wrapped the gun inside a jacket prior to shooting the victim.

However, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated inasmuch as the following elements were not duly proven: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution to allow the offender to reflect on the consequences of his act.

Nor can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be appreciated, for the prosecution failed to demonstrate (1) that the malefactor particularly sought or took advantage of the darkness to commit the offense, or (2) that nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime. Although the crime took place at around 11:00 in the evening, the store/house where the incident occurred was sufficiently lighted by a fluorescent lamp, and there were still people milling around because of the dance held at a nearby plaza.

PEOPLE v. GREGORIO TOLIBAS

G.R. No. 103506. February 15, 2000

On appeal is the decision the RTC convicted accused-appellant Rodel Quijon and accused Gregorio Tolibas of the crime of murder and sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, to indemnify the widow of the victim in the amount of P30,000.00 and to pay the costs.

HELD:

Once more, we are guided by the tenet that "when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and value that if, considered, might affect the result of the case.

For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. The concerted actions of the four accused showed their intent to kill the victim. The qualifying circumstance of treachery was present in this case as the two conditions therefore were proved: (1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and (2) that the offenders consciously adopted the particular means, method or form of attack employed by him. Treachery absorbs the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength so the same need not be appreciated separately.

PEOPLE v. CIELITO BULURAN

G.R. No. 113940. February 15, 2000

On May 20, 1993, appellant Cielito Buluran and three (3) John Does were charged with the crime of murder. The Information was later amended when Leonardo Valenzuela was identified as one of the assailants. Upon arraignment, both accused entered pleas of not guilty. On February 4, 1994, the trial court, finding conspiracy and treachery, rendered judgment convicting appellants of murder.

HELD:

First. Appellants are estopped from questioning the validity of their respective arrests since they never raised this issue before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. Second. There is no violation of the constitutional rights of the accused during custodial investigation since neither one executed an extrajudicial confession or admission. In this case, the basis of the conviction by the trial court was the testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, Artemio Avendaño, Jacinto Castillo, and Gloria Castillo.

Third. The failure to accord appellants their right to preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the information nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court. While the right to preliminary investigation is a substantive right and not a mere formal or technical right of the accused, nevertheless, the right to preliminary investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at arraignment.

The SC found that no treachery attended the killing. On numerous occasions, we have held that where a killing was preceded by an argument or quarrel, then the qualifying circumstance of treachery can no longer be appreciated since the victim could be said to have been forewarned and could anticipate aggression from the assailants. Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation alleged by the prosecution was not proved clearly and convincingly. Considering that the attack was made about two minutes after the initial altercation, it cannot be said that there was sufficient lapse of time between such determination to commit the crime and its execution so as to allow the assailants to reflect upon the consequences of their actions.

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO BATO

G.R. No. 134939. February 16, 2000

Rodolfo Bato alias "Rudy Bato" is charged of rape and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua. He raped Delia Hernandez, a minor of nine (9) years old, against her will, to the damage and prejudice of the latter.

HELD:

Neither is the absence of spermatozoa in Delia’s genitalia fatal to the prosecution’s case. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape. The important consideration in rape cases is not the emission of semen but the unlawful penetration of the female genitalia by the male organ.

The crime committed is statutory rape, defined and penalized under paragraph 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, R. A. 7659. This Court has held that if the woman is under twelve (12) years of age, proof of force and consent becomes immaterial, not only because force is not an element of statutory rape but the absence of free consent is presumed when the woman is below such age. The two (2) elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below twelve (12) years of age. Sexual congress with a girl under twelve (12) years old is always rape."

PEOPLE v. GALLARDER

G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000

On 24 June 1997, GALLARDE was charged with the special complex crime of rape with homicide of a minor.

Held:

A reading of the accusatory portion of the information shows that there was no allegation of any qualifying circumstance. Although it is true that the term "homicide" as used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on the occasion of rape it is settled in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offense, the accused can be convicted of the other. In rape with homicide, in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to support the charge of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently alleged and proved. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged. It is fundamental that every element of the offense must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an 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

Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The prosecution is not always tasked to present direct evidence to sustain a judgment of conviction; the absence of direct evidence does not necessarily absolve an accused from any criminal liability.

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO QUILLOSA

G.R. No. 115687. February 17, 2000

The RTC convicted Quillosa of the murder of Ambrosio Ilocto, imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ordering him to indemnify the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00.

HELD:

We have long held that "the testimony of a single eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the trial court. Minor and inconsequential flaws in the testimony of the witness strengthen rather than impair his credibility. As to appellant’s participation in the killing, the Court in previous cases have held that holding the hand of the victim to render him immobile while he is being stabbed amounts to an act of indispensable cooperation without which the crime would not have been accomplished. Appellant’s act of holding the right arm of the victim, while another held the left arm, thus enabling their third companion to stab the victim, shows that they acted together with one purpose and design to kill the victim.

As to the crime committed, we find that treachery attended the commission of the offense, hence the crime is murder. For treachery to be present, two conditions must be shown: (1) the employment of means of execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to defend or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution.In this case, appellant and another person held the hands of the victim to enable their companion to stab him while he was in a defenseless position. While abuse of superior strength was alleged in the Information, it is already absorbed in treachery and need not be appreciated separately. Evident premeditation was not proven by the prosecution.

PEOPLE v. RADEL GALLARDE

G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000

This is an appeal from the judgment of the RTC finding accused-appellant Radel (hereafter GALLARDE) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

HELD:

We sustain GALLARDE’s contention that the trial court erred in convicting him of murder in an information charging him of rape with homicide. A reading of the accusatory portion of the information shows that there was no allegation of any qualifying circumstance. Although it is true that the term "homicide" as used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on the occasion of rape it is settled in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offense, the accused can be convicted of the other. In rape with homicide, in order to be convicted of murder in case the evidence fails to support the charge of rape, the qualifying circumstance must be sufficiently alleged and proved. Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he is charged.

The rules on evidence and precedents sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence, as long as the following requisites are present: (1) there must be more than one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt of the guilt of the accused. The importance of circumstantial evidence is more apparent in the prosecution of cases of rape with homicide. It is well settled that the absence of spermatozoa in or around the vagina does not negate the commission of rape. Our doubt on the commission of rape is based on the fact that there is at all no convincing proof that the laceration of the vagina and the rupture of the hymen of EDITHA were caused in the course of coitus or by a male organ.

PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG

G.R. Nos. 131872-73. February 17, 2000

Before the Court is an appeal by Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San, also known as Willy Tan challenging the October 16, 1997 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Branch 95) in a Criminal Case finding them guilty of illegal possession and sale of shabu and sentencing each of them to two counts of reclusion perpetua.

HELD:

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the accused is in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. Here, as in Boco, the prosecution witnesses were able to establish these elements.

We are not persuaded by the argument that the samples examined were not taken from the drugs seized. On the contrary, the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses fairly established that the shabu taken from the appellants is the same substance examined by the forensic chemist and later presented as evidence in court. Verily, the presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants’ unfounded allegations and speculations. Appellants’ behavior during the entrapment showed that there was conspiracy between them and a third person who got away with the buy-bust money. It is an established rule that direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, all of which indubitably point to or indicate a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest.

PEOPLE v. RAMIL DACIBAR

G.R. No. 111286. February 17, 2000

On appeal is the decision dated January 25, 1993 of the Regional Trial Court finding appellants guilty of the crime of murder, imposing upon them the amended penalty of reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties, instead of life imprisonment.

HELD:

While the principal witnesses for the prosecution did not actually see appellants shoot and kill the victim, direct proof of their culpability is not necessary when circumstantial evidence would suffice. The requisites thereof are: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have held that conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances, which vary according to the purpose accomplished. Thus, the rule is that conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct or circumstantial evidence, as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be deduced from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest.

The trial court was correct in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Although the triggerman fired the shot from outside the house, his victim was inside. For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from without.

PEOPLE v. RAUL ACOSTA

G.R. No. 126351. February 18, 2000

Accused was charged with arson. He interposes this appeal because he claims that the trial court erred in finding him guilty basing its conclusion merely on circumstantial evidence.

HELD:

Arson is defined as the malicious destruction of property by fire. In this case, we find the trial court correctly held that the following circumstances taken together constitute an unbroken chain of events pointing to one fair and logical conclusion, that accused started the fire which gutted the house of private complainant. Although there is no direct evidence linking appellant to the arson, we agree with the trial court in holding him guilty thereof in the light of the following circumstances duly proved and on record.

In prosecutions for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the defendants as the one responsible for the crime.

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO TOREJOS

G.R. No. 132217. February 18, 2000

Accused-appellant Bonifacio Torejos y Pañares @ Boning was convicted for raping a three-year-old child and was meted the supreme penalty of death.

HELD:

Accused-appellant's attempt to discredit ROSALIE is unconvincing. The assessment of credibility of witnesses is primarily the function of the trial court. It is well established in this jurisdiction that the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded great respect unless the court a quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of the case.

The information filed against TOREJOS specifically alleges that he raped MARY CRIS, a three-year-old child. We therefore affirm the judgment of the RTC imposing the death penalty for being in accordance with law. Four (4) members of the Court, although maintaining their adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v. Echegaray that R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the penalty of death is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.

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:

Accordingly, the range of penalty imposable on appellant is composed of two indivisible penalties, i.e., reclusion perpetua to death. Following Article 63 (1)of the same Code, which provides the rules for the application of indivisible penalties, appellant was correctly meted the supreme penalty of death since the aggravating circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry attended the commission of the rape. The attendance of these aggravating circumstances is not contested by the accused-appellant.

On a final note, we correct the trial court’s 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).

PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN

G.R. No. 118670. February 22, 2000

Renato de Guzman, Marciano Ramos, Frederick Mosqueda and Paquito Ancheta were charged with Robbery with Homicide and were found guilty. Only De Guzman, Ramos and Mosqueda were apprehended. Ancheta remains at-large. When they were arraigned, the three accused entered a plea of "not guilty." At the trial and upon motion of the prosecution, Mosqueda was discharged and was utilized as state witness.

HELD:

The requirements for the discharge and utilization of an accused as a state witness are enumerated in Rule 119, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, viz:

(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the accused whose discharge is requested;

(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the testimony of the accused;

(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty; and

(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any offense involving moral turpitude.

While this Court agrees that some of the requirements under Section 9 of Rule 119 for the discharge of Mosqueda to become state witness were not strictly and properly met, nonetheless, this Court does not subscribe to the suggestion of the defense that Mosqueda’s testimony should be disregarded. This issue has long been settled. Although the trial court may have erred in discharging the accused, such error would not affect the competency and the quality of the testimony of the defendant. The discharge of an accused under these circumstances is not reversible. Once his discharge is effected, the legal consequence of acquittal follows unless the accused so discharged fails or refuses to testify pursuant to his commitment. The order for his discharge may only be recalled in one instance, and that is when he subsequently fails to testify against his co-accused.

MARCH 2000

PEOPLE V. PAMBID

G.R. No. 124453. March 15, 2000.

Defense of insanity

Facts:

A man diagnosed of schizophrenia and mild mental retardation raped a six-year old girl. Accused pleaded not guilty on the ground of insanity.

Held:

Accused-appellant’s plea of insanity is unacceptable. While Art. 12(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an imbecile or insane person is exempt from criminal liability, unless he has acted during a lucid interval, the presumption under Art. 800 of the Civil Code is that every man is sane. Anyone who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity bears the burden of proving it. He must show that he was completely deprived of reason when he committed the crime charged, for mere abnormality of his mental faculties does not exclude imputability.

PEOPLE V. FRONDA

G.R. No. 130602. March 15, 2000.

Direct Evidence v. Circumstantial Evidence

Facts:

Three students were convicted of violating the Dangerous Drugs Act after they allegedly delivered a brick of marijuana to policemen who posed as buyers.

Held:

To be caught flagrante delicto necessarily implies positive identification by the eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such is a "direct evidence" of culpability, which is "that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference or presumption", in contrast to circumstantial evidence, which is "the proof of facts from which taken collectively the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable consequence." Circumstantial evidence, however, is not a weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence, for our rules make no distinction between direct evidence of fact and evidence of circumstances from which the existence of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it is direct; for in either case, the trier of fact must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.

Under the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence would be sufficient for conviction if the following concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proved; and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Or, as jurisprudentially formulated, a judgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person, i.e., the circumstances proven must be consistent with each other and consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty.

PEOPLE V. ARIZAPA

G.R. No. 131814. March 15, 2000.

Improvident plea of guilt

Conspiracy

Treachery

Facts:

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of Murder. He impugned the validity of his waiver of counsel and extrajudicial confession and denied conspiracy and the attendance of treachery.

Held:

One’s right to be informed of the right to remain silent and to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle. It is not enough for the interrogator to merely repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the former must also explain the effects of such provision in practical terms -- e.g., what the person under interrogation may or may not do -- and in a language the subject fairly understands. The right to be informed carries with it a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to explain, and contemplates effective communication, which results in the subject’s understanding of what is conveyed. Since it is comprehension that is sought to be attained, the degree of explanation required will necessarily vary and depend on the education, intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances of the person undergoing investigation. In further ensuring the right to counsel, it is not enough that the subject is informed of such right; he should also be asked if he wants to avail of the same and should be told that he could ask for counsel if he so desired or that one could be provided him at his request. If he decides not to retain a counsel of his choice or avail of one to be provided for him and, therefore, chooses to waive his right to counsel, such waiver, to be valid and effective, must still be made with the assistance of counsel, who, under prevailing jurisprudence, must be a lawyer.

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.

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make, which means that no opportunity was given to the latter to do so.

PEOPLE V. SAPAL

G.R. No. 124526. March 17, 2000.

Irregularities in arrest

Conviction based on proof beyond reasonable doubt

Accused-appellant was arrested based on a warrant issued against him after he failed to attend his arraignment. He contends that certain irregularities attended his arrest, and that the prosecution failed to show his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

Admittedly, accused is deemed to have waived his right to question the irregularities attending his arrest for his failure to raise the same at the opportune time, i.e., before he entered his plea. Nonetheless, the peculiar factual circumstances surrounding the case, e.g., the police authorities’ failure to comply with the clear directive of the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Barrios, the undue delay in preparing the documents relating to the arrest of accused and his wife and in delivering them to the proper authorities for inquest, and the failure of the law enforcers to provide accused with a counsel during the custodial investigation, effectively destroy the presumption of regularity in the performance by Gomez and his colleagues of their duties. Such being the case, the presumption of regularity cannot be made the sole basis of the conviction of accused.

It is well-settled that "where the circumstances shown to exist yield two or more inferences, one of which is consistent with the presumption of innocence while the other or others may be compatible with the finding of guilt, the court must acquit the accused: for the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is insufficient to support a judgment of conviction."

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. CHE CHUN TING

G.R. Nos. 130568-69. March 21, 2000.

Warrantless searches and seizures

Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted for dispatching in transit and having in his possession large amounts of shabu. He contends that the shabu is inadmissible in evidence as it was seized without a valid search warrant.

Held:

The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity of the warrantless search under the exception, the same must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time and place of the arrest. As to subject, the warrantless search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to "dangerous weapons" or "anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense." With respect to the time and place of the warrantless search, it must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated otherwise, to be valid, the search must have been conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate control.

It must be stressed that the purposes of the exception are only to protect the arresting officer against physical harm from the person being arrested who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and also to prevent the person arrested from destroying the evidence within his reach. The exception therefore should not be strained beyond what is needed in order to serve its purposes.

As a consequence of the illegal search, the things seized on the occasion thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. They are regarded as having been obtained from a polluted source, the "fruit of a poisonous tree." However, objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure. Thus, the shabu seized by the NARCOM operatives, which cannot legally be possessed by the accused under the law, can and must be retained by the government to be disposed of in accordance with law.

PEOPLE V. ADILA, JR.

G.R. No. 133434. March 21, 2000.

Defense of alibi

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted for incestuously raping his 11-year old stepdaughter. He interposed the defense of denial and alibi.

Held:

The defense of alibi interposed by the accused-appellant hardly deserves any serious consideration. For this defense to prosper, the accused must prove, among other things, that not only has he been at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime but that it would have also been physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time thereof.

PEOPLE V. SAPINOSO

G.R. No. 122540. March 22, 2000.

Held:

In rape cases, three well-known principles guide the Court, namely: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove, (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution, and (3) the evidence of 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. Likewise, when the complainant in a rape case, more so if she is a minor, testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show rape has been committed, the offended party most often being the only one available to prove directly the commission of rape. The credibility of the complainant is, thus, of utmost importance, for the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the complainant's testimony if the same meets the test of credibility. Furthermore, we have held that the conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged sexual assault is of utmost importance in establishing the truth or falsity of the charge of rape.

Well-settled is the rule that alibi is an inherently weak defense which cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim. For alibi to prosper, the defendant must prove not only (1) that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but (2) it must be likewise demonstrated that he was so far away that he could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.

PEOPLE V. DEDACE

G.R Nos. 117145-50 & 117447. March 28, 2000.

Jurisdiction over person of the accused

Estafa

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale and estafa. She contends that her conviction was erroneous because the court never acquired jurisdiction over her person, as her arrest was illegal, and that the prosecution failed to establish estafa.

Held:

Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired either by arrest or voluntary appearance in court. Hence, granting arguendo that accused-appellant’s arrest was defective, such is deemed cured upon her voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. It should be stressed that the question of legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. Consequently, if objections based on this ground are waived, the fact that the arrest was illegal is not sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid judgment. The technicality cannot render the subsequent proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to the culpability of the accused.

Estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damages.

PEOPLE V. TIPAY

G.R. No. 131472. March 28, 2000.

Rape – jurisprudential guidelines

Held:

The Court has laid down certain guiding principles in reviewing rape cases, to wit: (a) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although innocent, to disprove the charge; (b) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution, and (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.

PEOPLE V. CULA

G.R. No. 133146. March 28, 2000.

Rape – physical resistance; burden of proving victim’s 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. BARREDO

G.R. No. 133832. March 28, 2000.

Rape

Held:

In rape cases, the courts are guided by the long-standing rule that penetration is not essential for conviction of the culprit. Mere knocking at the doors of the pudenda, so to speak, by the accused’s penis suffices to constitute the crime of rape, and the fact that her hymen is still intact does not negate its commission.

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. CAVERTE

G.R. No. 123112. March 30, 2000.

Self-defense; treachery

Accused appellant was charged and convicted of murder and frustrated murder.

Held:

There is self-defense when the following elements concur: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the person injured or killed by the offender; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. It is a doctrinal rule that when an unlawful aggression that has begun no longer exists, the one making a defense has no right to kill or even to wound the former aggressor.

There is treachery when two conditions concur, to wit: (1) the employment of means of execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of execution. Treachery exists where the attack was perpetrated suddenly and without warning.

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:

The elements of the crime were proved beyond reasonable doubt. In any event, 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. BALTAZAR

G.R. No. 115990. March 30, 2000.

Held:

PEOPLE V. BASE

G.R. No. 109773. March 30, 2000.

Extrajudicial confessions

Conspiracy; treachery

Held:

For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, it must be: 1.] voluntary; 2.] made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; 3.] express; and 4.] in writing. While the initial choice in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the former’s appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer. Verily, to be an effective counsel "[a] lawyer need not challenge all the questions being propounded to his client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying anything that might incriminate him but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit something false. The counsel, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the truth."

When, as in this case, "[a]n extrajudicial statement satisfies the requirements of the Constitution, it constitutes evidence of a high order because of the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and conscience. The defense has the burden of proving that it was extracted by means of force, duress, promise or reward."

Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that "[a]n extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti." In this case the prosecution presented other evidence to prove the two elements of corpus delicti, to wit: a.] a certain result has been proven, i.e. a man has died; and 2.] some person is criminally responsible.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. Such acts must point to a joint purpose, concert of action or community of interest.

There is treachery "[w]hen the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." The essence of alevosia is the swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the victim’s part. The fact that treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not mean it can not also be appreciated if the attack is frontal. Even a frontal attack can be treacherous when it is sudden and the victim is unarmed.

PEOPLE V. CAMPUHAN

G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000.

Stages of rape

In the case of People v. Orita, the SC held that rape was consummated from the moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim since by it he attained his objective. All the elements of the offense were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having performed all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. We ruled then that perfect penetration was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, was sufficient. The Court further held that entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, was sufficient to warrant conviction for consummated rape. We distinguished consummated rape from attempted rape where there was no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution were performed as the offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. The inference that may be derived therefrom is that complete or full penetration of the vagina is not required for rape to be consummated. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the crime to its consummated stage.

But the Court in Orita clarified the concept of penetration in rape by requiring entry into the labia or lips of the female organ, even if there be no rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina, to warrant a conviction for consummated rape. While the entry of the penis into the lips of the female organ was considered synonymous with mere touching of the external genitalia, e.g., labia majora, labia minora, etc., the crucial doctrinal bottom line is that touching must be inextricably viewed in light of, in relation to, or as an essential part of, the process of penile penetration, and not just mere touching in the ordinary sense. In other words, the touching must be tacked to the penetration itself. The importance of the requirement of penetration, however slight, cannot be gainsaid because where entry into the labia or the lips of the female genitalia has not been established, the crime committed amounts merely to attempted 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, touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim’s vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape.

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." Nowhere is it required in our law or jurisprudence, however, that a woman must offer "tenacious" resistance to a sexual assault. The law does not impose upon the rape victim the burden of proving resistance. We have held countless of times that "the force or violence required in rape cases is relative. When applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible; it is enough that it has enabled the offender to consummate his purpose or to bring about the desired result." For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed in accomplishing the crime be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Thus we have held that physical resistance need not be established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised upon her and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for her life and personal safety. The victim's failure to resist the accused's assault successfully and to escape when the opportunity presented itself should not be 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 held that "a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible." 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. SUITOS

G.R. No. 125280. March 31, 2000.

Defense of alibi

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of murder. His defense was one of alibi.

Held:

For alibi to prosper, the accused should prove not only that he was at some other place when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission.

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. ABALDE

G.R. No. 123113. March 31, 2000.

Rape - guidelines

Held:

In the disposition of rape cases, the Court is guided by the following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (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 draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.

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 accused-appellant’s defense is without merit. Section 12 (1) Art III of the Commission states that "Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel." Thus the prohibition for custodial investigation conducted without the assistance of counsel. Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional mandate is inadmissible in evidence. The prohibition however, does not extend to a person in a police line-up because that stage of an investigation is not yet a part of custodial investigation. It has been repeatedly held that custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission. The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand in a police line-up has been held to be outside the mantle of protection of the right to counsel because it involves a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely investigatory in nature. It has also been held that an uncounseled identification at the police line-up does not preclude the admissibility of an in-court identification.

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.

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:

a. On oral testimony of witnesses

A witness whose testimony is perfect in all aspects, without a flaw and remembering even the minutest details which jibe beautifully with one another, lays herself open to suspicion of having been [coached] or having memorized statements earlier rehearsed.

b. On importance of physical evidence

Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence. In criminal cases such as murder or rape where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, this Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth.

c. On Conspiracy

For conspiracy to exist, proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a conditionprecedent. 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.

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 which yield 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

d. 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.

In the crime of theft, if the value of the thing stolen exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its maximum period and one year for each additional P10,000.00, but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty years or reclusion temporal. However, if that crime of theft is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances which convert the taking into qualified theft, the penalty next higher by two degrees shall be imposed, that is, at least, reclusion perpetua.

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 victim’s 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. Aspiras

G.R. No. 121203(12 April 2000)

The appellant is a policeman who was positively identified by a witness to be the killer of the victim, who was gun-downed during a political rally. The witness is alleged to be biased against the appellant since he has a grudge against the latter.

Held:

a. As to credibility of a witness

The credibility of a witness could not be affected by an alleged grudge where said witness was not discredited on cross-examination.

b. As to damages awarded

Only actual expenses supported by receipts shall be granted as actual damages. As to future earnings of the victim, it is computed by multiplying the years for which the victim could have worked with his employer were it not for his death by his annual gross earnings.

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. In People v. Belaro, the Court explained that the essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. Even a frontal attack can, therefore, be treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected and the victim is unarmed.

The swift and unexpected attack by accused-appellant 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, without the slightest provocation from the victim who was unarmed and has no opportunity to defend himself, ineluctably qualified the crime with treachery.

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 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. Rojas

G.R. No. 125292(12 April 2000)

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of rape, after he was positively identified by his victim in a 20-man police line-up, twice.

HELD:

Amidst the sea of faces before her, the victim readily pointed out accused-appellant as her attacker. This positive identification of accused-appellant will prevail over the defense of alibi and denial of accused-appellant. Besides, for the defense of alibi to prosper, accused-appellant must show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission.

People v. Razonable

G.R. No. 128085-87(12 April 2000)

Appellant was charged and convicted of murder for hacking to death a neighbor, qualified by treachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength. Supreme Court held that the aggravating circumstance were not proven by conclusive evidence.

HELD:

a. As to evident premeditation

Like treachery, the requisites of evident premeditation must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The requisites of evident premeditation are: a.] the time when the accused determined to commit the crime, b.] an act manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his determination, and c.] sufficient lapse of time between such determination and execution to allow them to reflect upon the consequences of their act.

b. As to abuse of superior strength

Abuse of superior strength requires, at base, a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactor to take advantage thereof. Besides the inequality of comparative force between the victim and the aggressor, there must be a situation of strength notoriously selected and made use of by the offender in the commission of the crime.

People v. Orio

G.R. No. 128821(April 12, 2000)

Appellants, both armed with Balisongs attacked and killed their unarmed victim. They were charged and convicted of murder qualified by treachery, evident premeditation, and abuse of superior strength.

HELD:

1. As to the aggravating circumstance of Treachery

There is treachery when the offenders commit any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order that alevosia may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, it must be shown that : a.] the malefactor employed means, method or manner of execution affording the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and b.] the means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. However, the fact that both accused-appellants were armed with bladed weapons while their victim was unarmed and defenseless does not make the attack treacherous. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the killing itself.

G.R. No. 111941(April 27 2000)

In order to appreciate allevosia, it must clearly appear that the method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen with a special view to the accomplishment of the act without risk to the assailant from any defense that the party assailed might make. While a victim may have been warned of a possible danger to his person, in treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the victim to retaliate.

People v. Guiwan

G.R. No. 117324(April 27, 2000)

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.

People v. Castillo

G.R. No. 130188 (April 27, 2000)

The lone witness saw the appellant running out of the house of his cousin, after a shot was heard. His cousin was later found dead. The appellant was convicted of murder.

Whether or not the testimony of the lone witness was sufficient.

No, the witness only testified that the appellant fled the scene of the crime in a rush with a gun. Flight, in most cases, strongly indicates guilt. As a lone circumstantial evidence, however, it does not suffice as plurality of circumstantial evidence is required before guilt beyond reasonable doubt may be inferred from such indirect proof. To fully dispose of this issue, the motive of accused-appellant is a key element in the web of circumstantial evidence.

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 victim’s 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. Muyco

G.R. No. 132252(April 27 2000)

As a rule, documentary evidence should be presented to substantiate the claim for loss of earning capacity. In People v. Verde, the non-presentation of evidence to support the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity did not prevent the Court from awarding said damages. The testimony of the victim’s wife as to earning capacity of her murdered husband, who was then 48 years old and was earning P200.00 a day as a tricycle driver, sufficed to establish the basis for such an award.

In that case, Erwin Gesmundo was only 15 years old at the time of his death and was earning a daily wage of P100.00 as a construction worker. As in People v. Verde, this Court is inclined to grant the claim for damages for loss of earning capacity despite the absence of documentary evidence. To be able to claim damages for loss of earning capacity despite the nonavailability of documentary evidence, there must be oral testimony that: (a) the victim was self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under the current labor laws and judicial notice was taken of the fact that in the victim’s line of work, no documentary evidence is available; (b) the victim was employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.

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 appellant’s house the victim was divested of her jewelry and other valuables, afterwhich 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" occured 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 even when the victim was forewarned of the danger to his person.What is decisive is that the execution of the attack mde 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 Avillana

GRNo119621 May 12,2000

Accused was convicted for murder by the lower court.He allegedly approached the victim and two others while they were waiting for a jeepney.He stabbed the victim in the chest and attacked the two others who were able to escape.

Held:

Conviction affirmed. The testimony of the sole witness is upheld.Witnesses are weighed, not numbered, such that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict./there is no showing that the implication by the witness was ill-motivated.Where the locus criminis afforded good visibility and where no improper motive can be attributed to the prosecution eyewitnesses for testifying against the accused, then his version of the offense deserves much weight.Alibi,though supported by the testimonies of friends, weakens in the face of positive identification by one credible, unbiased witness.His place was only 1 kilometer from the scene.There was treachery as the victim was caught by surprise and defenseless when accused made his stealthful approach from behind and lunged a knife into the victim's chest.

People v de Leon

GRNo-124338-41 May 12,2000

The victim, a ten year old girl, was raped by the appellant in the tobacco field in four occasions. Appellant avers he was on the field with his wife.

Held: While denial is a legitimate defense in rape cases, bare denials cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim.Also, when there is an inconsistency between affidavits and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight.Delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of pysical violence, cannot be taken against the victim.It is fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme sychologiccal terror,w/c would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.

People v PO1 Maing

GRNo122112 May 12, 2000

The victim was shot four times with a witness standing three meters away.The witness reported the incident that the victim was gunned down by an unidentified assailant. Two weeks later he executed an affidavit pinpointing the appellant. In the witness stand he denied having identified the assailant and clarified that he only heard rumors on who was the killer from his townmates.The appellant was in a mosque only 5oo meters away and there was motive, the appellant was boxed and kicked by the victim before.

Held:

Despite his familiarity with appellant's figure, the witness still failed to identify the assailant of the victim.He only based his testimony from rumors, thus he did not have first-hand knowledge of the identity of the assailant.His testimony was pure hearsay and has no evidentiary weight.Without any testimony positively identifying accused as the gunman nor any evidence directly linking him as the author of the crime, the appellant cannot be convicted of the murder.he enjoys the presumption of innocence, which can only be overcome by reasonable doubt.Mere suspicions or conjectures, however strong, can never become substitutes for this required quantum of proof.There must be moral certainty that the accused is guilty.Appellant's alibi may be the weakest of all defenses.Nonetheless, this weakness ought not be used as proof of his guilt.The prosecution must rest on the strength of its evidence and not rely on the weakness of the defense.

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 commisssion 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 can not 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 govern.

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 Deceber 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 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 Obrero

G.R. No.-122142 May 17, 2000

Appellant was convicted of robberry with homicide.He executed a written confession as a result of a custodial ivestigation.The issue is whether such is valid.

Held:

The extrajudicial confession was invalid. The perfunctory reading of the Miranda rights is inadequate to transmit information to the suspect. Also, Art IIISec12(1) requires an independent and competent counsel of the suspect's choice. Atty de los Reyes was not an independent counsel being the PC Captain and Station Commander. As held in P v Bandula, the independent counsel cannot be a special prosecutor, private or public prosecutor, municipal attorney or counsel of the police whose interest is adverse to the accused.

While there is evidence to the homicide consisting of the corpus delicti, there is no evidence of the robbery except the confession. The lack of objection of appellant to the introduction of the constitutionally proscribed evidence did not satisfy the burden of proof which rested on the prosecution. Acquitted of robbery with homicide.

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 engaing in any business transaction with the local gernment 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 a 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 klled 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 thereofa)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 hrough 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 againin 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 bu 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 Babera

G.R. No.-130609, May 30,2000

Appellant was convicted of two counts of rape. He raped a 17 yr old having moderate retardation with the use of a balisong.

Held:

Since the participants are usually the only witnesses in crimes of this nature, the conviction or acquittal of the accused would virtually depend on the credibility of the complainant's testmony. The trial court observed that the victim remained consistent and answered in a frank, sincere and straighforward manner. Also, factual findings of the trial court are generally sustained on appeal unless arbitrary or baseless.

People v Francisco

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.

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 inerpretations.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 location 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 wrng, which must accordingly be proportionate in gravity.

The lack of aversion in the information of "intent to kill" does not 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 toilt bowl in the middle an 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 rae 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, somehing 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 opportuniy to escape does not automatically vitiate the credibilityoher 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 a essential element of rape.

People v Alicante

G.R. No.-127026-27 May 31,2000

The appellant, a father, raped his 13 yr old daughter fifteen times impregnating her.

Held:

The purpose of a formal offer is to enable the trial judge to know the purpose or purposes fro which the proponent is representing the evidence.As it is the victim herself who testified, to state the reason for the presentaiton of said witness is to state the obvious.The Court has consistently upheld that the presumptio hominis that a young filipina will not charge a person with rape if it is not true, does not go against theconstitutional presumption of innocence.It has been decided, in case of statutory crimes, that no constitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the Sate fo some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and that then the burdeen is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without unlawful intention. The actor in the affidavit of desistance, as worded, was the mother.Thus, it cannot be given weight.Also, an affidavit of desistance by itself, even when construed as pardon in so-called private crimes is not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal case once the action has been instituted. Sec 11 RA7659 applies the offender being a parent.Thus the penalty of death is to be imposed

People v Mendoza

GRNo-128890 May 31, 2000

While playing mahjong the victim was suddenly attacked from behind with a bolo by Sanches and stabbed by the appellant.

Held:

We uphold the testimony of the witness.In the absence of proof to the contrary and by the defense's failure to impugn the credibility of prosecution witness Ignacio.

In criminal jurisprudence, when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court for it is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and obsereved their deortment and manner of testifying.There are are exceptions:a)when patent inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or b) when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported by the evidence.

As the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected attack from behind with no weapon to resist it, the stabbing could only be describes as trechearous.As the attack waas synchronl, sudden and unexpected, treachery was evident.But the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength since this is deemed absorbed in treachery.

People v Traya

G.R. No.-129052 May 31, 2000

This is a case of incestuous rape.

Held:

The fact of minority of the victim was not stated in the Information.Only the relationship of the victim as daughter of the offender was alleged therein.The rule is that the elements of minority of the victim and her realtionship to the offender must concur.The failure toa llege on of these elements precludes the imposition of the death penalty. There being no allegation of the minority of the victim in the Information, he cannot be convicted of qualified rape as he was not informed that he is being accused of qualified rape.

People v Magat

G.R. No.-130026 May 31, 2000

This is a case of incestuous rapeTwo informations were filed against appellant.Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty but bargained for a lesser penalty for each case.The mother of the complainant and the public prosecutor agreed and an order was issued the same day imposing tenyears imprisonment for each case.After three months, the cases were revived at the instance of the complainant on the ground that the penalty was too light.Appellant was re-arraigned and he entered a plea of not guilty.Two months later, he entered anew a plea of guilty.The court then imposed the enalty of death.He now appeals on the ground that there was double jeopardy upon the re-arraignment and trial on the same information.

Held:

The first order issued by the trial is void ab initio on the ground that the accused's plea is not the plea bargaining contemplated by law and the rules of procedure.The only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the Rules is when the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense.Sec 2 Rule 116 (note that there is a new set of Rules of Criminal Procedure).Here the reduction of the penalty is only a consequence of the plea of guilt to a lesser penalty.The appellant did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape charges and only baargained for a lesser penalty.He did not plea bargain but made conditions on the penalty to be imposed.This is erroneous because by pleading guilty to the offense charged, accused should be sentenced to the penalty to which he pleaded.It is the essence of a plea of guilty that that the accused admits absolutely and unconditionally hid guilt and responsibilty for the offense imputed to him.Hence, an accused may not foist a conditional plea of guilty on the court by admitting his guilt provided that a certain penalty will be meted unto him. Since the judgment of conviction is void, double jeopardy will not lie. Whatever procedural infirmity in the arraignment of the accused was rectified when he was re-arraigned and entered a new plea.he did not question the procedural errors in the first arrraignment and having failed to do so, waived the errors in procedure.

Under the present rule, if the present rule, if accused enters a plea of guilty the trial courts are now enjoined to conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea, to require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and precise degree of culpability, and to ask if he so desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so.

Martes, Mayo 08, 2012

Criminal Law Digests 1

OCTOBER 1999

People v. Marcelino

October 1, 1999

People v. Narido

October 1, 1999

People v. Padama

October 1, 1999

People v. Villablanca

October 1, 1999

People v. Vergel

October 4, 1999

People v. Yabut

October 5, 1999

People v. Caratay

October 5, 1999

People v. Suelto

October 7, 1999

People v. Floro

October 7, 1999

People v. Ortiz

October 7, 1999

People v. Apelado

October 11, 1999

People v. Renato

October 11, 1999

People v. Raganas

October 12, 1999

People v. Lachica

October 12, 1999

People v. Manegdeg

October 13, 1999

People v. Gailo

October 13, 1999

People v. Panique

October 13, 1999

People v. Langres

October 13, 1999

People v. Clemente

October 13, 1999

People v. Bello

October 13, 1999

People v. Aguinaldo

October 13, 1999

People v. Agunos

October 13, 1999

People v. Gaballo

October 13, 1999

People v. Costelo

October 13, 1999

People v. Celis

October 20, 1999

People v. Motos

October 20, 1999

People v. Tabion

October 20, 1999

People v. Maramara

October 20, 1999

People v. Arizala

October 20, 1999

People v. Paranzo

People v. Garigadi

People v. Lazaro

People v. Arquillos Tabuso

People v. Romano Manlapaz

People v. William Batoon

People v. Rolando Espiritu

People v. Armando de Labajan

People v. Graciano Bolivar

People v. Jeronico Lobino

People v. Romeo Tizon

People v. Armando Sarabia

People v. Eduardo Altabano

People v. Rosalinda Ariola

People v. Rodrigo Lasola

People v. Joel Pinca

People v. Rustico Rivera

People v. Mateo Balluda

People v. Pascua Galladan