Crimrev F-1.docx

NAVA v. PALATTAO The complaint involving the herein accused was initiated by the COA, Region XI, Davao City, which resulted from an audit conducted by a team which was created by the COA Regional Office per COA Regional Assignment Order No. 91-74 dated January 8, 1991. The objective of the team [was] to conduct an audit of the 9.36 million allotment which was released in 1990 by the DECS, Region XI to its Division Offices. In the Audit Report, the amount of P603,265.00 was shown to have been released to the DECS Division of Davao del Sur for distribution to the newly nationalized high schools located within the region. Through the initiative of accused Venancio Nava, a meeting was called among his seven (7) schools division superintendents whom he persuaded to use the money or allotment for the purchase of Science Laboratory Tools and Devices (SLTD). In other words, instead of referring the allotment to the one hundred fifty-five (155) heads of the nationalized high schools for the improvement of their facilities, accused Nava succeeded in persuading his seven (7) schools division superintendents to use the allotment for the purchase of science education facilities for the calendar year 1990. In the purchase of the school materials, the law provides that the same shall be done through a public bidding pursuant to Circular No. 85-55, series of 1985. But in the instant case, evidence shows that accused Nava persuaded his seven (7) schools division superintendents to ignore the circular as allegedly time was of the essence in making the purchases and if not done before the calendar year 1990, the funds allotted will revertback to the general fund.

reasoning that a public bidding would unnecessarily delay the purchase of the SLTDs. Not only would he have to prove that indeed there would be a delay but, more important, he would have to show how a public bidding would be detrimental and antithetical to public service. As the COA Report aptly states, the law on public bidding is not an empty formality. It aims to secure the lowest possible price and obtain the best bargain for the government. It is based on the principle that under ordinary circumstances, fair competition in the market tends to lower prices and eliminate favoritism. To sustain a conviction under Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019, it must be clearly proven that 1) the accused is a public officer; 2) the public officer entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government; and 3) the contract or transaction was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government. From the foregoing, it is clear that the Sandiganbayan did not err in ruling that the evidence presented warranted a verdict of conviction. Petitioner is a public officer, who approved the transactions on behalf of the government, which thereby suffered a substantial loss. The discrepancy between the prices of the SLTDs purchased by the DECS and the samples purchased by the COA audit team clearly established such undue injury. Indeed, the discrepancy was grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government.

We must emphasize however, that the lack of a public bidding and the violation of an administrative order do not by themselves satisfy the third element of Republic Act No. 3019, Section 3(g); namely, that the contract or transaction entered into was manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the government, as seems to be stated in the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan denying the Motion for In the hurried purchase of SLTDÊs, the provision on the conduct of a public bidding was not Reconsid-eration.71 Lack of public bidding alone does not result in a manifest and gross followed. Instead the purchase was done through negotiation. Evidence shows that the items were disadvantage. Indeed, the absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able purchased from JovenÊs Trading, a business establishment with principal address at Tayug, to secure the lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption. Pangasi-nan; DÊ[I]mplacable Enterprise with principal business address at 115 West Capitol Drive, Nevertheless, the law requires that the disadvantage must be manifest and gross. Penal laws are Pasig, Metro Manila and from Evelyn Miranda of 1242 Oro-queta Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila. As strictly construed against the government. disclosed by the audit report, the prices of the [SLTDs] as purchased from the above-named sellers exceeded the prevailing market price ranging from 56% to 1,175% based on the mathematical CAUNAN v. PEOPLE computation done by the COA audit team. The report concluded that the government lost Marquez and Caunan, along with four (4) other local government officials of Parañaque City3 and P380,013.60. That the injury to the government as quantified was the result of the non-observance private individual Antonio Razo (Razo), were charged under five (5) Informations. by the accused of the COA rules on public bidding and DECS Order No. 100 suspending the purchases of [SLTDs]. The five (5) Informations were filed based on the findings of the Commission on Audit (COA) Special Audit Team that there was overpricing in certain purchase transactions of Parañaque City. Ruling of the Sandiganbayan After due trial, only petitioner was convicted, while all the other In March 1999, a Special Audit Team composed of Fatima Bermudez (Bermudez), Carolina Supsup, accused were acquitted. Petitioner was found guilty of violating Section 3(g) of the Anti- Graft and Gerry Estrada, and Yolando Atienza, by virtue of Local Government Audit Office Assignment Order Corrupt Practices Act, or entering on behalf of the government any contract or transaction No. 99-002, audited selected transactions of Parañaque City for the calendar years 1996 to 1998, manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the latter, whether or not the public officer profited or including the walis tingting purchases. would profit thereby. As previously adverted to, the audit team made a report which contained the following findings: The Sandiganbayan (SBN) said that, in the purchase of the Science Laboratory Tools and Devices 1. The purchase of walis tingting was undertaken without public bidding; (SLTDs), petitioner had not conducted a public bidding in accordance with COA Circular No. 852. The purchase of walis tingting was divided into several purchase orders and requests to evade 55A. As a result, the prices of the SLTDs, as purchased, exceeded the prevailing market price from the requirement of public bidding and instead avail of personal canvass as a mode of 56 percent to 1,175 percent, based on the mathematical computations of the COA team. procurement; 3. The purchase of walis tingting through personal canvass was attended with irregularities; In his defense, petitioner had argued that the said COA Circular was merely directory, not 4. There was glaring overpricing in the purchase transactions. Consequently, the COA issued mandatory. Further, the purchases in question had been done in the interest of public service. Notices of Disallowance Nos. 01- 001-101 (96) to 01-006-101 (96), 01-001-101 (97) to 01-011-101 (97), and 01-001-101 (98) to 01-004-101 (98) covering the overpriced amount of P1,302,878.00 for Petitioner further avers that the findings of fact in the Decision dated October 21, 1996 in DECS the purchases of 142,612 walis tingting, with or without handle, by Parañaque City in the years Administrative Case No. XI-91- 088 denied any overpricing and justified the negotiated purchases 1996-1998. in lieu of a public bidding.25 Since there was no overpricing and since he was justified in undertaking the negotiated purchase, petitioner submits that he cannot be convicted of violating On the other litigation front, the criminal aspect subject of this appeal, the Ombudsman found Section 3(g) of Republic Act No. 3019. probable cause to indict petitioners and the other local government officials of Parañaque City for violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. Consequently, the five (5) Informations against HELD: Further, the fact that only three canvass sheets/price quotations were presented by the petitioners, et al. were filed before the Sandiganbayan. audit team does not bolster petitionerÊs claim that his right to due process was violated. To be sure, there is no rule stating that all price canvass sheets must be presented. It is enough that After trial and a flurry of pleadings, the Sandiganbayan rendered judgment finding petitioners those that are made the basis of comparison be submitted for scrutiny to the parties being Caunan and Marquez, along with Silvestre de Leon and Marilou Tanael, guilty of violating Section audited. Indubitably, these documents were properly submitted and testified to by the principal 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019. As for accused Flocerfida Babida, Ailyn Romea and private individual Razo, prosecution witness, Laura Soriano. Moreover, petitioner had ample opportunity to controvert the Sandiganbayan acquitted them for lack of sufficient evidence to hold them guilty beyond them. reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. Executive Order No. 301 states the general rule that no contract for public services or for furnishing supplies, materials and equipment to the government or any of its branches, agencies or instrumentalities may be renewed or entered into without public bidding. The rule however, is not without exceptions. Specifically, negotiated contracts may be entered into under any of the following circumstances: A. Whenever the supplies are urgently needed to meet an emergency which may involve the loss of, or danger to, life and/or property; B. Whenever the supplies are to be used in connection with a project or activity which cannot be delayed without causing detriment to the public service; C. Whenever the materials are sold by an exclusive distributor or manufacturer who does not have subdealers selling at lower prices and for which no suitable substitute can be obtained elsewhere at more advantageous terms to the government; D. Whenever the supplies under procurement have been unsuccessfully placed on bid for at least two consecutive times, either due to lack of bidders or the offers received in each instance were exorbitant or non-conforming to specifications; E. In cases where it is apparent that the requisition of the needed supplies through negotiated purchase is most advantageous to the government to be determined by the Department Head concerned; F. Whenever the purchase is made from an agency of the government. Unfortunately for petitioner, there was no showing of any immediate and compelling justification for dispensing with the requirement of public bidding. We cannot accept his unsubstantiated

Both petitioners insist that the fact of overpricing, upon which the charge against them of graft and corruption is based, had not been established by the quantum of evidence required in criminal cases, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt.15 Petitioners maintain that the evidence of Overpricing, consisting of the report of the Special Audit Team and the testimony thereon of Bermudez, constitutes hearsay and, as such, is inadmissible against them. In addition, petitioner Marquez points out that the finding of overpricing was not shown to a reliable degree of certainty as required by COA Memorandum No. 97-012 dated March 31, 1997.16 In all, petitioners asseverate that, as the overpricing was not sufficiently established, necessarily, the last criminal element of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 · a contract or transaction grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government · was not proven. HELD: We agree with petitioners that the fact of overpricing is embedded in the third criminal element of Section 3 (g) of R.A. No. 3019. Given the factual milieu of this case, the subject contracts would be grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government if characterized by an overpriced procurement. However, the gross and manifest disadvantage to the government was not sufficiently shown because the conclusion of overpricing was erroneous since it was not also adequately proven. Thus, we grant the petitions. Notably, however, and this the petitioners have consistently pointed out, the evidence of the prosecution did not include a signed price quotation from the walis tingting suppliers of Parañaque City. In fact, even the walis tingting furnished the audit team by petitioners and the other accused was different from the walis tingting actually utilized by the Parañaque City street sweepers at the

time of ocular inspection by the audit team. At the barest minimum, the evidence presented by the prosecution, in order to substantiate the allegation of overpricing, should have been identical to the walis tingting purchased in 1996-1998. Only then could it be concluded that the walis tingting purchases were disadvantageous to the government because only then could a determination have been made to show that the disadvantage was so manifest and gross as to make a public official liable under Section 3(g). The reasoning of the Sandiganbayan is specious and off tangent. The audit team reached a conclusion of gross overpricing based on documents which, at best, would merely indicate the present market price of walis tingting of a different specification, purchased from a non-supplier of Parañaque City, and the price of walis tingting purchases in Las Piñas City. Effectively, the prosecution was unable to demonstrate the requisite burden of proof, i.e., proof beyond reasonable doubt, in order to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of petitioners.

On April 4, 2001, the respondent Ombudsman issued a Joint Resolution1 finding probable cause warranting the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal Informations against the former President and the other respondents therein. One of the Informations was for the crime of plunder under Republic Act No. 7080 and among the respondents was herein petitioner Jose „Jinggoy‰ Estrada, then mayor of San Juan, Metro Manila. On April 24, 2001, petitioner filed a „Motion to Quash or Suspend‰ the Amended Information on the ground that the Anti- Plunder Law, R.A. No. 7080, is unconstitutional and that it charged more than one offense. Respondent Ombudsman opposed the motion.

On April 30, 2001, petitioner filed a „Very Urgent Omnibus Motion‰2 alleging that: (1) no probable cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder, it appearing that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and not in a „series or combination of overt or criminal acts‰ as required in R.A. No. 7080; and (2) he is entitled to bail as a matter of right. Petitioner We are not unmindful of the fact that petitioners failed to conduct the requisite public bidding for prayed that he be excluded from the Amended Information and be discharged from custody. In the the questioned procurements. However, the lack of public bidding alone does not automatically alternative, petitioner also prayed that he be allowed to post bail in an amount to be fixed by equate to a manifest and gross disadvantage to the government. As we had occasion to declare in respondent court. Nava v. Palattao, the absence of a public bidding may mean that the government was not able to secure the lowest bargain in its favor and may open the door to graft and corruption. However, this The following day, July 10, 2001, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the Resolution. does not satisfy the third element of the offense charged, because the law requires that the Respondent court denied the motion and proceeded to arraign petitioner. Petitioner refused to disadvantage must be manifest and gross. After all, penal laws are strictly construed against the make his plea prompting respondent court to enter a plea of „not guilty for him. government. HELD: PetitionerÊs premise is patently false. A careful examination of the Amended Information ORGANO v. SANDIGANBAYAN will show that it is divided into three (3) parts: (1) the first paragraph charges former President On August 15, 1997, Special Prosecution Officer Jose T. de Jesus, Jr., filed with the Sandiganbayan Joseph E. Estrada with the crime of plunder together with petitioner Jose „Jinggoy‰ Estrada, an Information against petitioner, together with others, for the crime of „plunder‰ or violation of Charlie „Atong‰ Ang, Edward Serapio, Yolanda Ricaforte and others; (2) the second paragraph R.A. No. 7080, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. spells out in general terms how the accused conspired in committing the crime of plunder; and (3) the following four sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) describe in detail the predicate acts constitutive of the “conspiring, confabulating and confederating with one another, did then and there wilfully, crime of plunder pursuant to items (1) to (6) of R.A. No. 7080, and state the names of the accused unlawfully and criminally amass and acquire funds belonging to the National Government by who committed each act. opening an unauthorized bank account with the Landbank of the Philippines, West Triangle Branch, Diliman, Quezon City, for and in behalf of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and deposit therein Pertinent to the case at bar is the predicate act alleged in subparagraph (a) of the Amended money belonging to the government of the Philippines, consisting of revenue tax payments, then Information which is of „receiving or collecting, directly or indirectly, on several instances, money withdraw therefrom the total sum of Pesos: One Hundred Ninety Three Million Five Hundred Sixty in the aggregate amount of P545,000,000.00 for illegal gambling in thE form of gift, share, Five Thousand Seventy Nine & 64/100 (P193,565,079.64) Philippine Currency, between November, percentage, kickback or any form of pecuniary benefit x x x.‰ In this sub-paragraph (a), petitioner, 1996 to February, 1997, without proper authority, through checks made payable to themselves in conspiracy with former President Estrada, is charged with the act of receiving or collecting and/or the sole proprietorship firms of the above named private persons, thereby succeeding in money from illegal gambling amounting to P545 million. Contrary to petitionerÊs posture, the misappropriating, converting, misusing and/or malversing said public funds tantamount to a raid allegation is that he received or collected money from illegal gambling „on several instances.‰ The on the public treasury, to their own personal gains, advantages and benefits, to the damage and phrase „on several instances‰ means the petitioner committed the predicate act in series. To prejudice of the government in the aforestated amount.” insist that the Amended Information charged the petitioner with the commission of only one act or offense despite the phrase „several instances‰ is to indulge in a twisted, nay„pretzel On August 20, 1997, petitioner filed with the Sandiganbayan a motion to quash information for interpretation. lack of jurisdiction, contending that the Sandiganbayan no longer had jurisdiction over the case under R.A. 8249, approved on February 5, 1997. From a reading of the Amended Information, the case at bar appears similar to a „wheel‰ conspiracy. The hub is former President Estrada while the spokes are all the accused, and the rim At issue is whether the Sandiganbayan at the time of the filing of the information on August 15, that encloses the spokes is the common goal in the overall conspiracy, i.e., the amassing, 1997 had jurisdiction over the case, in view of the enactment on February 5, 1997 of Republic Act accumulation and acquisition of illgotten wealth. No. 8249, vesting in the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction over offenses and felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by public officers and employees mentioned in In sum, therefore, there is hardly a substantial difference on how Philippine courts and American subsection (a) of Section 4 in relation to their office where the accused holds aposition with salary courts deal with cases challenging Informations alleging conspiracy on the ground that they lack grade „27 and higher under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989. particularities of time, place, circumstances or causes. In our jurisdiction, as aforestated, conspiracy can be alleged in the Information as a mode of committing a crime or it may be alleged Petitioner contends that since none of the accused holds a position with Salary Grade „27‰ and as constitutive of the crime itself. When conspiracy is alleged as a crime in itself, the sufficiency of higher, jurisdiction over the case falls with the Regional Trial Court.7 On the other hand, the allegations in the Information charging the offense is governed by Section 6, Rule 110 of the respondent SandiganbayanÊs position is that Republic Act No. 7080 which defines and penalizes Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The complaint or information to be sufficient must state the the crime of „plunder‰ vests in the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction thereof, and since it is a special nameof the accused, designate the offense given by statute, state theacts or omissions law, it constitutes an exception to the general law, Republic Act No. 8249. constituting the offense, the name of the offendedparty, the approximate date of the commission of the offense andthe place where the offense was committed. Our rulings have long settled the HELD: Republic Act No. 7080, Section 3 provides: Until otherwise provided by law, all prosecutions issue. under this Act shall be within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. This law was enacted on September 23, 1991, and was effective on October 7, 1991. On February 5, 1997, Republic Act To reiterate, when conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the elements of No. 8249 was approved, further defining the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan. Section 4 of the law said crime must be set forth in the complaint or information. provides: Sec. 4. Jurisdiction·The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive original jurisdiction in all cases The requirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when conspiracy is not charged as a involving: crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the crime as in the case at bar. There is less „b. Other offenses or felonies whether simple or complexed with other crimes committed by the necessity of reciting its particularities in the Information because conspiracy is not the gravamen of public officials and employees mentioned in subsection a of this section in relation to their office. the offense charged. The conspiracy is significant only because it changes the criminal liability of all „In cases where none of the accused are occupying positions corresponding to Salary Grade Â27Ê the accused in the conspiracy and makes them answerable as coprincipals regardless of the degree or higher, as prescribed in the said Republic Act No. 6758, or military and PNP officers mentioned of their participation in the crime. The liability of the conspirators is collective and each participant above, exclusive original jurisdiction thereof shall be vested in the proper regional trial court, will be equally responsible for the acts of others, for the act of one is the act of all. metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court, and municipal circuit trial court, as the case may be, pursuant to their respective jurisdictions as provided in Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended. Again, following the stream of our own jurisprudence, it is enough to allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an offense in either of the following manner: (1) by use of the word However, the crime of „plunder‰ defined in Republic Act No. 7080, as amended by Republic Act „conspire,‰ or its derivatives or synonyms, such as confederate, connive, collude, etc; or (2) by No. 7659, was provisionally placed within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan „until otherwise allegations of basic facts constituting the conspiracy in a manner that a person of common provided by law. Republic Act No. 8429, enacted on February 5, 1997 is the special law that understanding would know what is intended, and with such precision as would enable the accused provided for the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan „otherwise‰ than that prescribed in Republic to competently enter a plea to a subsequent indictment based on the same facts. Act No. 7080. The allegation of conspiracy in the information must not be confused with the adequacy of Consequently, we rule that the Sandiganbayan has no jurisdiction over the crime of plunder unless evidence that may be required to prove it. A conspiracy is proved by evidence of actual committed by public officials and employees occupying the positions with Salary Grade „27‰ or cooperation; of acts indicative of an agreement, a common purpose or design, a concerted action higher, under the Compensation and Position Classification Act of 1989 (Republic Act No. 6758) in or concurrence of sentiments to commit the felony and actually pursue it. A statement of this relation to their office. evidence is not necessary in the information. ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

In the case at bar, the second paragraph of the Amended Information alleged in general terms how the accused committed the crime of plunder. It used the words in connivance/conspiracy with his co-accused.‰ Following the ruling in Quitlong, these words are sufficient to allege the conspiracy of the accused with the former President in committing the crime of plunder.

she would be killed by him. Leah could not be expected to first get medicine, return to the house and treat the injured foot of the appellant only to be assaulted again by her husband. For the trial court to blame Leah for preferring to escape and survive rather than treat the injured foot of the appellant, and reward the appellant by mitigating his criminal liability is a travesty.

PEOPLE v. DALAG Armando Dalag, a member of the Philippine National Police assigned to the Bacolod City police station, was lawfully married to Leah Nolido Dalag.

PEOPLE v. REBUCAN On January 23, 2003, the accused-appellant was charged with the crime of double murder in an Information.

On August 15, 1996, at around 8:00 p.m., Francis, then eleven years old, and his sister Princess Joy, then nine years old, were watching television in their house. Armando, who was drinking hard liquor, and Leah were in the yard sitting under the datiles tree. Momentarily, the children heard their parents quarreling. Leah was admonishing Armando not to drink liquor. The kids sensed that some object was being banged on the wall. Thereafter, they heard their mother cry. Francis and Princess Joy rushed outside the house to see what was happening. They were horrified when from a distance of three meters, they saw Armando pushing and kicking Leah on the left side of her body. She fell to the ground. Even as Leah was already lying posthaste on the ground, Armando continued to beat her up, punching her on the different parts of the body. Francis and Princess Joy pleaded to their father to stop maltreating their mother. Armando angrily told them not to interfere and that he will later beat them up as well. He grabbed Leahs hair and banged her head on the wall. Leahs forehead directly hit the wall. In the process, Armando stepped on a nail. Even as she was being assaulted by her husband, she told him Toy, Toy, I will find some medicine for your wound. Leah then fled to the house of their neighbor, Felisa Horilla or Tia Feli. Armando ran after Leah and pushed her to the house of Felisa. Francis went back to the house. Princess Joy looked for her parents but could not find them. She decided to go back to their house to sleep. In the meantime, Armando herded Leah back to the house. Princess Joy was awakened when she heard her mother crying. When Princess Joy went outside of the house, she saw her mother being pushed by her father. Leah fell to the ground and lost consciousness. Armando placed the head of Leah on a stone and ordered Princess Joy to get some water. She did. She poured water on the face of her mother but the latter did not move. Armando then tried to revive Leah by applying mouth-to-mouth resuscitation to no avail.

Carmela Tagpis testified as an eyewitness to the incident in question. She pointed to the accusedappellant as the „Bata Endong (Uncle Endong) who hacked her grandfather and brother. She stated that Ranil was hit in the forehead, while Felipe was hit on the face, the left shoulder and the right shoulder. After Felipe was hacked by the accused-appellant, the former was still able to walk outside of his house, to the direction of the coconut tree and thereafter fell to the ground. Carmela said that she saw that a long bolo was used in the killing of Felipe and Ranil. She related that Felipe also owned a bolo but he was not able to use the same when he was attacked. She was then inside the house with Felipe and her two younger brothers, Jericho and Bitoy (Ranil). She was sitting about four meters away when the hacking incident occurred indoors.

When they woke up the following day, or on August 16, 1996, Francis and Princess Joy noticed that their mother remained unconscious. Despite their motherÊs condition, they decided to go to school. During lunchtime, Francis went home and saw that LeahÊs condition had not improved. When the children came home in the afternoon after their classes, Armando told them that their mother was brought to the hospital. Armando instructed Francis to inform his colleagues at the police headquarters that he would be unable to report for duty because his wife accidentally slipped and had to be brought to the hospital.

On November 3, 2003, the RTC rendered a decision, convicting The accused-appellant of the crime of double murder. The trial court elucidated thus: „[In view of] the vivid portrayal of Raymond on how [the wife of the accused] was sexually abused by the father and son Lagera, the accused hatched a decision to avenge his wifeÊs sexual molestation. Days had passed, but this decision to kill Felipe did not wither, instead it became stronger, that on the 6th of November 2002, he armed himself with a sharp long bolo known as „sundang and went to Brgy. Canlampay, Carigara, Leyte where the victim live[d]. Fueled by hatred and the spirit of London gin after consuming one bottle with his compadre „Enok,‰ he decided to execute his evil deeds by going to the house of Felipe Lagera, in the guise of buying kerosene and once inside the house hacked and wounded the victim, Felipe Lagera who was then holding in his arm his grandson, one and half years 1 ½ old, Ramil Tagpis, Jr. From the circumstances obtaining, the mitigating circumstances of admission and voluntary surrender credited to the accused are not sufficient to offset the aggravating circumstances of: a) evident premeditation; b) treachery (alevosia); c) dwelling – the crime was committed at the house of the victim; d) intoxication – the accused fueled himself with the spirit of London gin prior to the commission of the crime; e) abuse of superior strength; and f) minority, in so far as the child victim, Ramil Tagpis, Jr. is concerned, pursuant to Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. HELD: In the instant case, the evidence of the prosecution established the fact that the killings of Felipe and Ranil were attended by treachery, thus qualifying the same to murder.

When Francis visited his mother in the hospital, he saw her lying on the bed, her face badly swollen. He saw the lumps and bruises on the different parts of her body. Leah never regained her According to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, any person who shall kill another consciousness. She died on August 22, 1996. shall be guilty of murder if the same was committed with the attendant circumstance of treachery, among other things, and that the situation does not fall within the provisions of Article 246. CAUSE OF DEATH: Intracranial hemorrhage secondary to blunt injury of the head. Dr. Cruel testified that Leah suffered severe beatings and traumatic physical violence resulting in intracranial As can be gleaned from the above testimony, Carmela firmly and categorically pointed to the hemorrhage which caused her death. accused-appellant as the person who entered the house of Felipe. She clearly stated that the attack was not preceded by any fight or altercation between the accusedappellant and Felipe. After due proceedings, the trial court rendered judgment finding Armando guilty beyond Without any provocation, the accusedappellant suddenly delivered fatal hacking blows to Felipe. Reasonable doubt of parricide for killing his wife and sentenced him to the penalty of reclusion The abruptness of the unexpected assault rendered Felipe defenseless and deprived him of any perpetua. The trial court appreciated the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and „one opportunity to repel the attack and retaliate. As Felipe was carrying his grandson Ranil, the child analogous to passion and obfuscation‰ in favor of Armando. unfortunately suffered the same fatal end as that of his grandfather. In the killing of Ranil, the trial court likewise correctly appreciated the existence of treachery. The said circumstance may be CA- The appellate court adopted the position of the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) that the properly considered, even when the victim of the attack was not the one whom the defendant felonious acts of the accused-appellant resulted in two separate crimes of murder as the evidence intended to kill, if it appears from the evidence that neither of the two persons could in any of the prosecution failed to prove the existence of acomplex crime of double murder. manner put up defense against the attack or become aware of it.53 Furthermore, the killing of a child is characterized by treachery even if the manner of assault is not shown. For the weakness of HELD: The prosecution is mandated to prove the following essential elements: (1) a person is killed; the victim due to his tender years results in the absence of any danger to the accused. (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the Therefore, on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution, we sustain the ruling of the RTC and legitimate spouse of the accused. The prescribed penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua to the Court of Appeals that the circumstance of treachery qualified the killings of Felipe and Ranil to death. The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim. In the case murder. of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate.20 In this case, the prosecution, proved all the essential The Court finds erroneous, however, the trial courtÊs and the Court of AppealsÊ appreciation of elements of parricide. the aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation. For evident premeditation to aggravate a crime, there must be proof, as clear as the evidence of the crime itself, of the following elements: The trial court correctly appreciated the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in favor of (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating the appellant. He surrendered to SPO3 Herman S. Garcia, PO3 Joel Stephen Casador and Felimon that he clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time, between determination and Roderos on August 28, 1996 at 12:45 p.m. execution, to allow himself to reflect upon the consequences of his act. It is not enough that evident premeditation is suspected or surmised, but criminal intent must be evidenced by The trial court erred in applying in favor of the appellant Article 13, paragraph 6 in relation to notorious outward acts evidencing determination to commit the crime. In order to be considered Article 13, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code which read: 6. That of having acted upon an an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be „premeditation; it must be impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation. „evident premeditation. In the case at bar, the evidence of the prosecution failed to establish any of the elements of evident premeditation since the testimonies they presented pertained to the The trial court declared that the appellant was „agitated and angered‰ when Leah failed to return period of the actual commission of the crime and the events that occurred thereafter. The immediately from Tia FeliÊs house where she was supposed to get medicine for his wounded foot. prosecution failed to adduce any evidence that tended to establish the exact moment when the The attitude of Leah was, as found by the trial court, „obviously unjust and improper to a husband accused-appellant devised a plan to kill Felipe, that the latter clung to his determination to carry who was suffering and bleeding. This conclusion of the trial court is without factual basis. This out the plan and that a sufficient time had lapsed before he carried out his plan. Court agrees with the finding of the trial court that Leah did not bother getting medicine for the injury on the foot of the appellant when he stepped on a nail as he martyred Leah. However, this Likewise, the trial court erred in appreciating the aggravating circumstances of abuse of superior Court believes that Leah told the appellant that she was going to the house of Felisa to get strength, dwelling, minority and intoxication. When the circumstance of abuse of superior strength medicine for his injured foot merely as a ploy to enable her to escape from him and avoid further concurs with treachery, the former is absorbed in the latter. On the other hand, dwelling, minority physical abuse. Leah cannot be faulted for preferring to escape from the clutches of the appellant and intoxication cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances in the instant case rather than get medicine for the injured foot of the latter. She was being assaulted by the considering that the same were not alleged and/or specified in the information that was filed on appellant relentlessly and without mercy. Unless she escaped from the clutches of the appellant, January 23, 2003. Under the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December

1, 2000, a generic aggravating circumstance will not be appreciated by the Court unless alleged in properly ruled that the crime committed was not frustrated murder as it was not shown that there the information. was intent to kill. With regard to the conflicting rulings of the RTC and the Court of Appeals vis-à-vis the nature of crimes committed, we agree with the appellate court that the accused-appellant should be held liable for two (2) separate counts of murder, not the complex crime of double murder. In the determination of the penalty to be imposed on the accused-appellant, we uphold the trial courtÊs ruling that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated. We reject, however, the accused-appellantÊs contention that the trial court erred in failing to appreciate the mitigating circumstances of intoxication and immediate vindication of a grave offense. The Court finds that the accused-appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication since his own testimony failed to substantiate his claim of drunkenness during the incident in question. During his cross-examination, the accused-appellant himself positively stated that he was only a bit tipsy but not drunk when he proceeded to the house of Felipe. He cannot, therefore, be allowed to make a contrary assertion on appeal and pray for the mitigation of the crimes he committed on the basis thereof. As regards the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of a grave offense, the same cannot likewise be appreciated in the instant case. Article 13, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code requires that the act be „committed in the immediate vindication of a grave offense to the one committing the felony (delito), his spouse, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees. The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his equanimity. He testified that he learned of the same from his stepson, Raymond, on November 2, 2002. Four days thereafter, on November 6, 2002, the accusedappellant carried out the attack that led to the deaths of Felipe and Ranil. To our mind, a period of four days was sufficient enough a time within which the accused-appellanT could have regained his composure and self control. Thus, the said mitigating circumstance cannot be credited in favor of the accused-appellant. PEOPLE v. LAGMAN Two Informations for murder and frustrated murder charged accused Cecilia Lagman. On February 24, 2002, at about 1:30 p.m, Maniego was in front of her banana cue store on Lakandula Street, Tondo, Manila. She was seated alongside her mother, Sicor, inside the sidecar of a motorcycle. Without warning, the accused approached her and punched her face several times. The accused turned on Sicor, grabbed her and stabbed her in the middle of her buttocks with a small knife. Maniego got out of the sidecar and ran to the barangay hall for help. Upon finding that the barangay chairman was not around, Maniego went to check on her commonlaw spouse, Jondel Santiago (Santiago), at the house of Santiagos mother.

However, while the RTC correctly ruled that the accused-appellant is not guilty of frustrated murder in Criminal Case No. 02-200107, the records do not support a conviction for less serious physical injuries. Art. 265 of the RPC provides, Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described [as serious physical injuries] but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten (10) days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor. Nothing in the records, however, supports the finding that Sicor was incapacitated for labor for ten (10) days or more or that she required medical attention for the same period. After the wound on her buttocks was treated, Sicor was released two hours after she was admitted to the hospital. She later returned to the hospital for the removal of the suture on her wound, according to the RTC, after a certain period of time. The Medico-Legal Report on Sicor (Exhibit H) does not indicate how many days of medical treatment her injury would need. Sicor, however, testified that she lost two (2) days of work on account of the injury she sustained. The testimony of her attending physician, Dr. Christian Dennis Cendeno, on the other hand, was dispensed with following a stipulation by the parties on his testimony. The prosecution was, therefore, unable to establish that the injury sustained by Sicor falls under less serious physical injuries absent the requirement that her injury required medical attention for 10 days or incapacitated her for the same period. The Court can, thus, only convict accused-appellant of slight physical injuries. Under par. 1, Art. 266 of the RPC, the penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period. There being no modifying circumstances to be appreciated, and in accordance with par. 1 of Art. 64, accused-appellant should be meted a penalty of imprisonment of arresto menor in its medium period, which has a duration of eleven (11) to twenty (20) days under Art. 76 of the RPC. PEOPLE v. MACASPAC The information charging Macaspac with murder filed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City.

at around 8:00 in the evening of July 7, 1988, Macaspac was having drinks with Ricardo Surban, Dionisio Barcomo alias Boy, Jimmy Reyes, and Jebulan on Pangako Street, Bagong Barrio, Caloocan City. In the course of their drinking, an argument ensued between Macaspac and Jebulan. It became so heated that, Macaspac uttered to the group: Hintayin nÊyo ako dÊyan, wawalisin ko kayo, and then left.5 After around three minutes Macaspac returned wielding a kitchen knife. He confronted and taunted Jebulan, saying: Ano? Jebulan simply replied: Tama na. At that point, Macaspac suddenly stabbed Jebulan on the lower right area of his chest, and ran away. Surban and On her way there, she saw the accused stab Santiago four (4) times from a distance of five (5) to six the others witnessed the stabbing of Jebulan. The badly wounded Jebulan was rushed to the (6) meters. The distance between where Maniego was punched and where Santiago was stabbed hospital but was pronounced was about nine (9) meters. dead on arrival. Maniego then saw the accused flee the scene of the crime carrying a knife and heading towards Juan Luna Street. Seeing that Santiago was mortally hurt, Maniego rushed Santiago to Gat Andres Bonifacio Hospital but he later expired. While Maniego was at the hospital, she saw the accused, who was being treated after an angry crowd mauled her. Maniego informed the policeman who was escorting the accused that it was the latter who had stabbed and killed Santiago. On January 18, 2008, the RTC convicted the accused of Murder in Crim. Case No. 02-200106 and Less Serious Physical Injuries in Crim. Case No. 02-200107. Lastly, the defense argues that the prosecution was unable to prove that the killing of Santiago was accompanied by treachery. Assuming that accused-appellant did stab the victim, the defense claims that it was not proved that she deliberately and consciously adopted her mode of attack. The encounter was even preceded by a confrontation between accused-appellant and Maniego, and it was Sicor and Santiago who followed accused-appellant after the confrontation. The stabbing incident should have been considered as having occurred in the spur of the moment. HELD: The prosecution was able to clearly establish that Santiago was killed and that it was accusedappellant who killed him as there was an eyewitness to the crime. Santiagos killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery as testified to by the prosecution eyewitness, Maniego. Paragraph 16, Art. 14 of the RPC defines treachery as the direct employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

Macaspac initially invoked self-defense, testifying that he and Jebulan had scuffled for the possession of the knife, and that he had then stabbed Jebulan once he seized control of the knife. However, Macaspac later on claimed that Jebulan had been stabbed by accident when he fell on the knife. Macaspac denied being the person with whom Jebulan had the argument, which he insisted had been between Barcomo and one Danny. According to him, he tried to pacify their argument, but his effort angered Jebulan, who drew out the knife and tried to stab him. He fortunately evaded the stab thrust of Jebulan, whom he struck with wooden chair to defend himself. The blow caused Jebulan to fall on the knife, puncturing his chest. On February 19, 2008, the RTC found Macaspac guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. HELD: Both the RTC17 and the CA18 concluded that Macaspac had suddenly attacked the completely unarmed and defenseless Jebulan; and that Macaspac did not thereby give Jebulan the opportunity to retaliate, or to defend himself, or to take flight, or to avoid the deadly assault. This is where we differ from the lower courts. We cannot uphold their conclusion on the attendance of treachery.

Based on the records, Macaspac and Jebulan were out drinking along with others when they had an argument that soon became heated, causing the former to leave the group and punctuating his leaving with the warning that he would be back „to sweep them, the vernacular for killing the others (Hintayin nÊyo ako dÊyan, wawalisin ko kayo). His utterance was threat of an impending attack. Shortly thereafter, Macaspac returned to the group wielding the knife, immediately Regardless of the alleged disparity in height between accused-appellant and the victim, We affirm confronted and directly taunted Jebulan (Ano?), and quickly stabbed the latter on the chest, and the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the CA, that accused-appellants method of inflicting then fled. The attack, even if it was sudden, did not constitute treachery. He did not mount the harm ensured that she would fatally wound Santiago without risk to herself. The perceived attack with surprise because the heated argument between him and the victim and his angry advantage of the victim in terms of height was of no use to him as accused appellant employed threat of going back „to sweep them‰ had sufficiently forewarned the latter of the impending treachery in attacking him. He was not afforded a means to defend himself as accused-appellant lethal assault. suddenly started stabbing him repeatedly with an improvised knife. MacaspacÊs having suddenly left the group and his utterance of Hintayin nÊyo ako dÊyan, Elements of Less Serious Physical Injuries Not Established We modify the conviction of accusedwawalisin ko kayo marked the time of his resolve to commit the crime. His returning to the group appellant with regard to Criminal Case No. 02-200107. Originally charged with frustrated murder, with the knife manifested his clinging to his resolve to inflict lethal harm on the others. The first accused-appellant was convicted of less serious physical injuries in Criminal Case No. 02-200107. and second elements of evident premeditation were thereby established. But it is the essence of The RTC reasoned that the stabbing injury sustained by Sicor was not on a vital part of the body this circumstance that the execution of the criminal act be preceded by cool thought and reflection and she was able to leave the hospital two hours after receiving medical treatment. The RTC upon the resolve to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at calm judgment. Was the lapse of time between the determination and execution matter of three

minutes, based on the records · sufficient to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act? By quickly returning to the group with the knife, he let no appreciable time pass to allow him to reflect upon his resolve to carry out his criminal intent. It was as if the execution immediately followed the resolve to commit the crime. As such, the third requisite was absent. Accordingly, we cannot appreciate the attendance of evident premeditation in the killing. Without the Prosecution having sufficiently proved the attendance of either treachery or evident premeditation, Macaspac was guilty only of homicide for the killing of Jebulan. WACOY AND QUIBAC v PEOPLE In an Information dated June 10, 2004, Wacoy and Quibac were charged with the crime of Homicide, defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), before the Regional Trial Court of Benguet, Branch 10 (RTC).

PEOPLE v. ABARCA The undersigned City Fiscal of the City of Tacloban accuses Francisco Abarca of the crime of Murder with Double Frustrated Murder. Khingsley Paul Koh and the wife of accused Francisco Abarca, Jenny, had illicit relationship. The illicit relationship apparently began while the accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar examinations. His wife was left behind in their residence in Tacloban, Leyte. Upon reaching home, the accused found his wife, Jenny, and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When the wife and Koh noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who got his revolver. The accused who was then peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away.

The accused went to look for a firearm at Tacloban City. He went to the house of a PC soldier, C2C Arturo Talbo, arriving there at around 6:30 p.m. He got Talbo's firearm, an M-16 rifle, and went back to his house at V & G Subdivision. He was not able to find his wife and Koh there. He proceeded to the "mahjong session" as it was the "hangout" of Kingsley Koh. The accused found Koh playing mahjong. He fired at Kingsley Koh three times with his rifle (pp. 13-19, tsn, id.). Koh was hit. Arnold and Lina Amparado who were occupying a room adjacent to the room where Koh was playing mahjong were also hit by the shots fired by the accused (pp. 34-49, tsn, Sept. 24,1984). Kingsley Koh died instantaneously of cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple gunshot wounds on the head, trunk and abdomen (pp. 28-29, tsn, Sept. 24, 1984; At the hospital, Aro was diagnosed to be suffering from „blunt abdominal trauma with injury to the see also exh. A): Arnold Amparado was hospitalized and operated on in the kidney to remove a jejunum and was set for operation. It was then discovered that he sustained a perforation on his bullet (pp. 17-23, tsn, Oct. 17, 1984; see also exh. C). His wife, Lina Amparado, was also treated in ileum, i.e., the point where the small and large intestines meet, that caused intestinal bleeding, the hospital as she was hit by bullet fragments (p. 23, tsn, id.). Arnold Amparado who received a and that his entire abdominal peritoneum was filled with air and fluid contents from the bile. salary of nearly P1, 000.00 a month was not able to work for 1- ½ months because of his wounds. However, Aro suffered cardiac arrest during the operation, and while he was revived through cardiopulmonary resuscitation, he lapsed into a coma after the operation.6 Due to financial RTC- WHEREFORE, finding the accused, Francisco Abarca guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the constraints, Aro was taken out of the hospital against the doctorÊs orders and eventually, died the complex crime of murder with double frustrated murder as charged in the amended information, next day. and pursuant to Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code which does not consider the effect of mitigating or aggravating circumstances when the law prescribes a single indivisible In a Judgment9 dated February 28, 2011, the RTC found Wacoy and Quibac guilty beyond penalty in relation to Art. 48. reasonable doubt of the crime of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray under Article 251 of the RPC. The Solicitor General recommends that we apply Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code defining death inflicted under exceptional circumstances, complexed with double frustrated murder. In a Decision14 dated December 6, 2013, the CA modified Wacoy and QuibacÊs conviction to that of Homicide under Article 249 of the RPC with the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to HELD: We agree with the Solicitor General that the aforequoted provision applies in the instant commit so grave a wrong. case. There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the deceased in a fit of HELD: Proceeding from the foregoing, the Court agrees with the CAÊs ruling modifying Wacoy and passionate outburst. Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married QuibacÊs conviction from Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray to that of Homicide, as will be person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and explained hereunder. (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case. The trial court, in convicting the accused-appellant of murder, therefore The elements of Death Caused in a Tumultuous Affray are as follows: (a) that there be several erred. persons; (b) that they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally; (c) that these several persons quarrelled and assaulted one Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accusedanother in a confused and tumultuous manner; (d) that someone was killed in the course of the appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter was affray; (e) that it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and (f) that the person or actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified. Based on by the accusedappellant. The Revised Penal Code, in requiring that the accused "shall kill any of case law, a tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they them or both of them . . . immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of intercourse, does engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed or not say that he should commit the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the The elements of Homicide are the following: (a) a person was killed; (b) the accused killed him same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the without any justifying circumstance; (c) the accused had the intention to kill, which is direct by-product of the accused's rage. presumed; and (d) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of Murder, or by that of Parricide or Infanticide. It must be stressed furthermore that Article 247, supra, does not define an offense, but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused f or the killing of another or the infliction of serious physical In the instant case, there was no tumultuous affray between groups of persons in the course of injuries under the circumstances therein. which Aro died. On the contrary, the evidence clearly established that there were only two (2) persons, Wacoy and Quibac, who picked on one defenseless individual, Aro, and attacked him Punishment, consequently, is not inflicted upon the accused. He is banished, but that is intended repeatedly, taking turns in inflicting punches and kicks on the poor victim. There was no confusion for his protection. It shall likewise be noted that inflicting death under exceptional and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression in that fateful incident.25 circumstances, not being a punishable act, cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating Since Wacoy and Quibac were even identified as the ones who assaulted Aro, the latterÊs death or other qualifying circumstances. We cannot accordingly appreciate treachery in this case. cannot be said to have been caused in a tumultuous affray.26 Therefore, the CA correctly held that Wacoy and QuibacÊs act of mauling Aro was the proximate cause27 of the latterÊs death; and as The Solicitor General recommends a finding of double frustrated murder against the accusedsuch, they must be held criminally liable therefor, specifically for the crime of Homicide. appellant, and being the more severe offense, proposes the imposition of reclusion temporal in its maximum period pursuant to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. This is where we disagree. The On this note, the Court does not find merit in WacoyÊs contention that in view of their intent only accusedappellant did not have the intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although as a rule, one to inflict slight physical injuries on Aro, they should only be meted the corresponding penalty committing an offense is liable for all the consequences of his act, that rule presupposes that the therefor in its maximum period. act done amounts to a felony. According to prosecution witness Edward Benito (Benito), at around 3 oÊclock in the afternoon of April 11, 2004, he was eating corn at a sari-sari store located at Bungis Ambongdolan, Tublay, Benguet, when he heard a commotion at a nearby establishment. Upon checking what the ruckus was all about, he saw his cousin, Elner Aro (Aro), already sprawled on the ground. While in that position, he saw Wacoy kick AroÊs stomach twice, after which, Wacoy picked up a rock to throw at Aro but was restrained from doing so. As Aro stood up, Quibac punched him on the stomach, causing him to collapse and cry in pain. Thereafter, Aro was taken to the hospital.

Jurisprudence instructs that such provision should only apply where the crime committed is different from that intended and where the felony committed befalls a different person (error in personae); and not to cases where more serious consequences not intended by the offender result from his felonious act (praeter intentionem),29 as in this case. It is well-settled that if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactors, intent to kill is conclusively presumed.30 In such case, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is Homicide because with respect to crimes of personal violence, the penal law looks particularly to the material results following the unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.

But the case at bar requires distinctions. Here, the accusedappellant was not committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased. Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. We cannot therefore hold the appellant liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the Amparados.

Granting the fact that he was not performing an illegal act when he fired shots at the victim, he cannot be said to be entirely without fault. While it appears that before firing at the deceased, he uttered warning words ("an waray labot kagawas,")10 that is not enough a precaution to absolve him for the injuries sustained by the Amparados. We nonetheless find negligence on his part. Be that as it may, the penalty for the crime of Homicide must be imposed in its minimum period Accordingly, we hold him liable under the first part, second paragraph, of Article 365, that is, less due to the presence of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence. (The records show that Arnold under Article 13(3) of the RPC. Amparado was incapacitated for one and one-half months; there is no showing, with respect to Lina Amparado, as to the extent of her injuries. We presume that she was placed in confinement

for only ten to fourteen days based on the medical certificate estimating her recovery period.) For the separate injuries suffered by the Amparado spouses, we therefore impose upon the accusedappellant arresto mayor (in its medium and maximum periods) in its maximum period, arresto being the graver penalty (than destierro). PEOPLE V. ENTRAMPAS This is an appeal from a conviction for two (2) counts of statutory rape. Accused-appellant Juanito Entrampas (Entrampas) and BBB were common-law spouses.2 They cohabited for eight (8) years, from 1995 to 2003. AAA, BBBÊs daughter from a previous relationship, lived with them.3 She looked up to Entrampas as her adoptive father. Sometime in February 2003, at about 5:00 p.m., AAA arrived from school to cook for her family. She was interrupted by Entrampas and was asked to go to the room upstairs.9 The 11-yearold girl obeyed.

own up to having stolen the merchandise in question, otherwise he would bring her to the Police Station and have a theft case against her blottered. He then told her to sit on his lap and began caressing her back. „AAA‰ demanded that he stop what he was doing because she did not like it, but he paid no heed to her demand. When „AAA stood up to leave, appellant pulled her back, compelled her to sit on his lap anew, and then proceeded to unhook her bra. AppellantÊs lecherous assault upon „AAA ceased only when his child knocked on the door and called for him. When he heard his childÊs knocking, he released „AAA from his clutches, told her to get dressed and leave the room. The MedicoLegal Report issued by Dr. Marlene Quiramol moreover showed telltale evidence that „AAA had indeed been sexually abused, as there were erythema and fossa navicularis at the external genitalia, as well as multiple fresh lacerations at the 3, 6, 9 and 12 oÊclock positions in „AAAÊs hymen.

Synthesizing the conflicting contentions of the prosecution and the defense, the RTC held: The Once in the room, [Entrampas] forced AAA to lie down on the floor[.] She was warned by accused- instant rape case is one of multifarious cases where there are no identified witnesses, and where appellant that if she shouted he would kill her. She was also warned that if she told her mother the evidence effectively boils down to the complainantÊs word against the accusedÊs. However, a about what he was about to do, he would kill them. pronouncement of guilt arising from the sole testimony of the victim is not unheard of, so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility. This is especially true in the crime of rape the As he consummated the act, she noticed a knife on the wall within his reach. She became more evidentiary character of which demands so much on the part of the victim · it entails her to submit fearful. After satisfying himself, he again warned the child that he would kill her and her mother if to an examination of her private parts, and to subject the sordid details of her story to a public trial she informed anyone about the incident. and against a given presumption of the accusedÊs innocence. The incident occurred again a week later in February 2003.17 Entrampas told AAA to lie down, penetrated her vagina, and then left her.18 AAA stayed in the room upstairs, crying, until her mother came home at 10:00 p.m. Over the following months, Entrampas repeatedly raped AAA, who, out of fear, remained silent. Fearing for her life, AAA refused to reveal the identity of the father of her child.26 Neighbors suspected that Entrampas got her pregnant. BBB asked Entrampas, who, according to BBB, admitted that he was the father of AAAÊs child.

Moreover, AAAÊs testimony is corroborated by the findings of the examining physician, Dr. Marlene Quiramol, Erythema at the perihymenal and fossa navicularis; (+) Multiple fresh lacerations at 3, 6, 9 & 12 oÊclock positions. Medical examination showed evidence of sexual abuse. ÂWhen a rape victimÊs account is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.Ê As the Highest Court succinctly stated in People v. Borja, Âa victim who says she has been raped almost always says all there is to be said.

Against this backdrop, the RTC disposed thus WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused JESSIE GABRIEL GUILTY beyond reasonable On November 3, 2003, AAA gave birth to a baby boy at the North Western Leyte District Hospital of doubt of the crime of Rape. Calubian, Leyte. Before the Regional Trial Court, Entrampas was charged with two (2) counts of qualified rape under the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law HELD: We find no reason to disturb the CAÊs above mentioned findings and conclusion, especially of 1997). Two (2) separate informations were filed against him. so because in the case at bench the CA and the RTC have uniformly given short shift to appellantÊs bare denial. On December 6, 2008, the Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of statutory rape. The trial courtÊs assessment and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses vis-à-vis their testimonies ought to be upheld as a matter of course because of its direct, immediate and HELD: We affirm the finding of EntrampasÊ guilt. Her failures to resist the sexual aggression and to firsthand opportunity to observe the deportment of witnesses as they delivered their testimonies immediately report the incident to the authorities or to her mother do not undermine her in open court. Thus, the trial courtÊs findings bearing on the credibility of witnesses on these credibility. The silence of the rape victim does not negate her sexual molestation or make her matters are invariably binding and conclusive upon the appellate court unless of course, there is a charge baseless, untrue, or fabricated.69 A minor „cannot be expected to act like an adult or a showing that the trial court had overlooked, misapprehended or misconstrued some fact or mature experienced woman who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard the threat circumstance of weight or substance, or had failed to accord or assign such fact or circumstance its to her life and complain immediately that she had been sexually assaulted. due import or significance. Force and intimidation must be appreciated in light of the victimÊs perception and judgment when PEOPLE v. GUTIEREZ the assailant committed the crime.71 In rape perpetrated by close kin, such as the common-law On November 30, 2005, an information was filed against the accused-appellant before the spouse of the childÊs mother, actual force or intimidation need not be employed. Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 59. The information reads: That on or about November 29, 2005, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the Accused-appellant questioned the Regional Trial CourtÊs appreciation of the age of the victim at above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal the time of the commission of rape. He claimed that the birth certificate cast doubt on whether knowledge of the offended party, (AAA), who is under twelve (12) the victim was indeed below 12 years old in February 2003, when the offense was first committed. years old. According to him, AAAÊs birth certificate should be questioned as it was registered late.74 This allegation is speculative. The prosecution presented the victim, AAA, who was then 10 years old and a Grade 2 student at Camp 7 Elementary School in Baguio City. She testified that on November 29, 2005, she went Absent proof to the contrary, accused-appellantÊs objection must be set aside. A public document home from school at around 12 noon to have lunch. On the way home, she met Rodrigo at his such as a birth certificate generally enjoys the presumption of regularity.75 Accused-appellant house. He brought her to his room and laid her down on the bed. He then raised her skirt and failed to present any evidence to overturn this legal presumption. removed her panties. He pulled down his pants and then inserted his penis into her vagina. Thus, it is not for AAA to prove that the Certificate of Live Birth reflects the truth of the facts stated According to AAA, Rodrigo stayed on top of her for a long time, and when he withdrew his penis, in it; rather, it is for accusedappellant to rebut the presumption that AAAÊs birth certificate white liquid came out. He then gave her five pesos (P5.00) before she went back to school. sufficiently establishes her birth on November 11, 1991. Accusedappellant miserably failed to do this. AAA went back to school at about 2:10 p.m. Her adviser, Agustina Chapap, asked her where she came from because she was tardy. AAA initially did not answer. When asked again why she was Accused-appellant also committed the crime with the aggravating/qualifying circumstance that he tardy, AAA admitted she came from „Uncle Rod. She also admitted that she went there to ask for was the common-law spouse of AAAÊs mother. Under Article 266(B)(1) of the Revised Penal Code. money. Chapap then brought AAA to Rona Ambaken, AAAÊs previous teacher. Together, they brought AAA to the principalÊs office. AAA was brought to the comfort room where Ambaken In view of the depravity of the acts committed by accusedappellant against his 11-year-old foster inspected her panties. The principal was able to confirm that AAA was touched since AAAÊs private daughter, this Court increases the amounts awarded to AAA, in accordance with organ was swelling. Her underwear was also wet. jurisprudence AAA also disclosed during trial that the accused-appellant had done the same thing to her about 10 PEOPLE v. GABRIEL times on separate occasions. After each act, he would give her ten (P10.00) or five (P5.00) pesos. Appellant was indicted for rape in an Information. AAA‰ at the time material to this case is a 17year-old first year nursing student at the Colegio de Dagupan and temporarily resides at the On July 4, 2007, the trial court rendered a judgment finding Rodrigo guilty beyond reasonable boarding house of appellant in Dagupan City. „AAA‰ testified that at about 6:00 p.m. of February doubt of statutory rape and imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua. 17, 2010, she, with her cousin and co-boarder „BBB,‰ was inside their room at the second floor of the said boarding house when appellant suddenly entered their room and accused them of having HELD: Statutory rape is committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the stolen items of merchandise from his store located near the said boarding house. „AAA‰ and accused has carnal knowledge of her, regardless of whether there was force, threat or „BBB‰ vehemently denied this accusation, but appellant did not believe them. Instead, appellant intimidation; whether the victim was deprived of reason or consciousness; or whether it was done directed them to see him in his room at the first floor of the boarding house to talk about the through fraud or grave abuse of authority. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that matter. When „AAA‰ went insidE appellantÊs room, the latter renewed his insistence that „AAA there was sexual intercourse.

The defense did not dispute the fact that AAA was 10 years old at the time of the incident. Her birth certificate was presented before the trial court. What is critical in this case, therefore, is whether there is a showing that Rodrigo had carnal knowledge of AAA.

BBB spent that night in their permanent residence at [Sitio WWW] because their daughter has (sic) no companion.

At about 11:00 x x x in the evening, AAA was fast asleep when a certain man she later identified as accused-appellant Aurelio Jastiva covered her mouth, threatened her with a knife and told her not As shown by her testimony, AAA was able to narrate in a clear and categorical manner the ordeal to scream because he will have sexual intercourse with her. AAA grabbed accused-appellantÊs that was done to her. As a childvictim who has taken significant risks in coming to court, her hand and felt the blade of the knife he held. Thereafter, accused-appellant removed AAAÊs testimony deserves full weight and credence. underwear. However, he cannot proceed with his lewd design because his penis was not yet erected (sic), accused-appellant therefore toyed with AAAÊs sexual organ by licking it. Rodrigo asserted that AAAÊs failure to cry out for help shows reasonable doubt. He noted that her Accusedappellant then made his way up and tried to suck AAAÊs tongue. The latter evaded her house was just near his house where the incident happened. This argument is so feeble that it assaulterÊs sexual advances by closing her lips tightly and in the process wounded the same could only have been put up out of desperation. Rodrigo was referred to by the child-victim as through her teeth. Once done, accused-appellant held his penis and inserted it to (sic) AAAÊs „Uncle Rod. He admitted that AAAÊs family had known him for a long time. Rodrigo had the trust vagina. After fulfilling his sexual desire and before AAA could stand up, accused-appellant tapped and respect that any elder in the family of AAA had. Instead of providing the moral guidance that AAAÊs shoulder and said „Salamat. his status allowed him, he took advantage of AAAÊs youthful innocence to satiate his illicit carnal desires. To cover this up and seemingly justify his actions, he gave his child-victim the measly sum On August 6, 2004, assisted by Police Inspector and Chief of Police of the Philippine National Police, of five pesos. Rodrigo knew that what he did was wrong; AAA would have probably doubted [ZZZ] Police Station of Zamboanga del Norte, AAA filed a Complaint for Rape against accusedwhether such act was normal among adults. With his moral ascendancy, it would not be appellant. A warrant for the arrest of accused-appellant was subsequently issued and on August unreasonable to assume that even the child-victimÊs desire for help would be muffled by her fear 29, 2004, accusedappellant was apprehended by the police authorities. of her „Uncle Rod. To a young 10-year-old, the ordinary world can be daunting. To be so young and silently aware that one is the victim of such callous depravation by Rodrigo, who she could have After trial and upon evaluation of the evidence on record, the RTC found appellant Jastiva guilty of expected to take care of her, can create the kind of lasting fear that diminishes the development of the crime charged. her own person and her own convictions. In any case, whether she cried for help is immaterial in a charge of statutory rape since „[t]he law presumes that such a victim, on account of her tender In his Brief,26 appellant Jastiva particularly argued the following points, (i) that „[t]he identity of age, does not and cannot have a will of her own. the appellant was not established, considering that the private complainant herself admitted that the room where the alleged incident happened was dark; (ii) that „the witness could not possibly PEOPLE v. CRISOSTOMO identify the real culprit because she testified that „she only saw his back, albeit the alleged In three separate Informations, appellant was charged with Rape. 2 RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT AND moonlight; (iii) that „private complainant even opened the door for her rapist to let the latter go 1 STATUTORY RAPE. out of her house private complainant had all the opportunity to shout for help but she did not do so. The victim in these cases „AAA testified that at noon time of April 8, 1999, she was playing with her playmates whereupon she wandered by the house of accused which was just below their house. He argues further that AAAÊs claim that he indulged in sexual foreplay prior to having sexual „AAA clarified during her cross-examination that there was a vulcanizing shop owned by her father intercourse with her is unbelievable and contrary to the normal conduct of a rapist located in their house x x x and where accused was employed. While „AAA was at the house of accused, she claimed that her genitals and buttocks were burned with a lighted cigarette by the HELD: The RTC and the Court of Appeals were one in finding that appellant Jastiva had carnal said accused. „AAA testified further that her clothes were taken off by the same accused who also knowledge of AAA against the latterÊs will through force and intimidation. Despite his vigorous took his clothes off after which he allegedly placed himself on top of her, inserted his penis and protestations, this Court agrees in the finding that the crime of rape committed by appellant proceeded to have illicit carnal knowledge [of] the then six (6) year old girl. Jastiva against AAA was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the following: BBB,‰ father of „AAA,‰ presented in court his daughterÊs birth certificate which stated that she a) AAAÊs credible, positive and categorical testimony relative to the circumstances surrounding her was born on April 4, 1993. On the other hand, Dr. Emmanuel Reyes the Medico-Legal Officer who rape; examined „AAA‰ identified his Medico-Legal Report and testified that the victim indeed had two b) AAAÊs positive identification of appellant Jastiva as the one who raped her; (2) third degree burns in the perianal region. Dr. Reyes testified that it was possible that the said c) The physical evidence consistent with AAAÊs assertion that she was raped; and burns were caused by a lighted cigarette stick being forced on the victimÊs skin. Moreover, Dr. d) The absence of ill motive on the part of AAA in filing the complaint against appellant Jastiva. Reyes confirmed that there was a loss of virginity on the part of the victim and that the same could have been done 24 hours from the time of his examination which was also on April 8, 1999. At this point, it is worthy to recall the three guiding principles in rape prosecutions: (1) an accusation of rape is easy to make, and difficult to prove, but it is even more difficult to disprove; On July 3, 2008, the RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant guilty of three counts of rape, viz.: (2) bearing in mind the intrinsic nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant must be WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Joel Crisostomo y Malliar is found GUILTY of all scrutinized with utmost care and caution; and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or offenses stated in the three (3) Criminal Informations. fall on its own merits; and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. So, when a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime HELD: The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, correctly found appellant guilty of two counts of rape by of rape was committed. In a long line of cases, this Court has held that if the testimony of the rape sexual assault and one count of rape by sexual intercourse. victim is accurate and credible, a conviction for rape may issue upon the sole basis of the victimÊs testimony. This is because no decent and sensible woman will publicly admit to being raped and, In this case, the prosecution satisfactorily established all the elements of statutory rape. „AAA thus, run the risk of public contempt unless she is, in fact, a rape victim. testified that on April 8, 1999, appellant took off her clothes and made her lie down. Appellant also removed his clothes, placed himself on top of „AAA, inserted his penis into her vagina, and More to the point, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. At the time of the rape, „AAA was only six years of involuntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Some may offer strong resistance while others age. Her birth certificate showed that she was born on April 4, 1993. „AAAs testimony was may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all, just like what happened in this case. Thus, the corroborated by Dr. Emmanuel Reyes who found „AAA‰ to have fresh and bleeding hymenal law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be lacerations. proved by the prosecution is the use of force or intimidation by the accused in having sexual intercourse with the victim which it did in the case at bar. Likewise, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt appellantÊs guilt for two counts of rape by sexual assault. Records show that appellant inserted a lit cigarette stick into „AAAÊs genital All told, this Court is convinced beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Jastiva committed the orifice causing her labia majora to suffer a 3rd degree burn. Appellant likewise inserted a lit crime of rape by having carnal knowledge of AAA using force and intimidation. cigarette stick into „AAAs anal orifice causing 3rd degree burns in her perianal region. PEOPLE AND AAA v. CA „[t]estimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, In a Second Amended Information dated June 23, 2004, private respondents Carampatana, Oporto particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to and Alquizola were charged, together with Christian John Lim, Emmanuel dela Cruz, Samuel show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and Rudinas, Jansen Roda, Harold Batoctoy, and Joseph Villame, for allegedly raping AAA. immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which On March 25, 2004, around 8:00 a.m., AAA attended her high school graduation ceremony. she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Afterwards, they had a luncheon party at their house in Maranding, Lala, Lanao del Norte. AAA Considering her tender age, AAA could not have invented a horrible story. then asked permission from her mother to go to the Maranding Stage Plaza because she and her bandmates had to perform for an election campaign. She went home at around 4:00 p.m. from the PEOPLE v. JASTIVA plaza. At about 7:00 p.m., AAA told her father that she would be attending a graduation dinner On September 29, 2004, appellant Jastiva was charged in the RTC with rape penalized under Article party with her friends. 266-A in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. They all contributed and it was Joseph Villame who bought the drinks · two (2) bottles of The prosecution presented the following witnesses, namely (i) AAA, the private offended party, 69 Emperador Brandy. Then they arranged themselves in a circle for the drinking spree. Two (2) years old, married, a farmer, and a resident of Sitio WWW, Poblacion YYY, Municipality of ZZZ, glasses were being passed around: one glass containing the sweetener (Pepsi) and the other glass Zamboanga del Norte; (ii) BBB,8 the husband of AAA, 74 years old. containing the liquor. At first, AAA refused to drink because she had never tried hard liquor before. During the session, they shared their problems with each other. When it was AAAÊs turn, she On August 3, 2004, then [67]-year old AAA was drying corn in their small barn („kamalig‰) in a became emotional and started crying. It was then that she took her first shot. The glasses were farmland located at [Sitio XXX], Zamboanga del Norte, when her husband[,] BBB[,] left her alone. passed around and she consumed more or less five (5) glasses of Emperador Brandy.

The next thing she knew, Roda and Batoctoy were carrying her down the stairs, and then she was asleep again. When she regained consciousness, she saw that she was already at the Alquizola Lodging House. She recognized that place because she had been there before. She would thereafter fall back asleep and wake up again. And during one of the times that she was conscious, she saw Oporto on top of her, kissing her on different parts of her body, and having intercourse with her. She started crying. She tried to resist when she felt pain in her genitals. She also saw Carampatana and Moises Alquizola inside the room, watching as Oporto abused her. At one point, AAA woke up while Carampatana was inserting his penis into her private organ. She cried and told him to stop. Alquizola then joined and started to kiss her. For the last time, she fell unconscious. When she woke up, it was already 7:00 a.m. of the next day. She was all alone. Her body felt heavy and exhausted. She found herself with her shirt on but without her lower garments. The upper half of her body was on top of the bed but her feet were on the floor. There were also red stains on her shirt. After dressing up, she hailed a trisikad and went home. When AAA reached their house, her father was waiting for her and was already furious. When she told them that she was raped, her mother started hitting her. They brought her to the Lala Police Station to make a report. Thereafter, they proceeded to the district hospital for her medical examination. On February 28, 2006, the RTC found private respondents Carampatana, Oporto and Alquizola guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. It, however, acquitted Dela Cruz, Rudinas, Roda, Batoctoy, and Villame for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Even a prostitute may be a victim of rape. The victimÊs moral character in rape is immaterial where, as in this case, it is shown that the victim was deprived of reason or was rendered unconscious through intoxication to enable the private respondents to have sex with her. Moreover, the essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent.57 A freshly broken hymen is not one of its essential elements. Even if the hymen of the victim was still intact, the possibility of rape cannot be ruled out. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. To repeat, rupture of the hymen or laceration of any part of the womanÊs genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape. Here, unlike in the foregoing case of Jabonero, AlquizolaÊs participation in the crime is not at all uncertain. As the caretaker of the Alquizola Lodging House, he provided a room so the rape could be accomplished with ease and furtiveness. He was likewise inside the room, intently watching, while Oporto and Carampatana sexually abused AAA. He did not do anything to stop the bestial acts of his companions. He even admitted to kissing AAAÊs lips, breasts, and other parts of her body. Indubitably, there was conspiracy among Carampatana, Oporto, and Alquizola to sexually abuse AAA. Hence, the act of any one was the act of all, and each of them, Alquizola including, is equally guilty of the crime of rape. PEOPLE v. LAOG Appellant Conrado Laog y Ramin was charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 11, of Malolos, Bulacan. He was likewise charged before the same court with the crime of rape of AAA.

In sum, the CA found that the prosecution failed to prove private respondentsÊ guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It gave more credence to the version of the defense and ruled that AAA consented to the sexual congress. She was wide awake and aware of what private respondents were doing before the intercourse. She never showed any physical resistance, never shouted for help, and never fought against her alleged ravishers. The appellate court further relied on the medical report which showed the presence of an old hymenal laceration on AAAÊs genitalia, giving the impression that she has had some carnal knowledge with a man before. The CA also stressed that AAAÊs motherÊs unusual reaction of hitting her when she discovered what happened to her daughter was more consistent with that of a parent who found out that her child just had premarital sex rather than one who was sexually assaulted.

The prosecution presented as its principal witness AAA, the rape victim who was 19 years old at the time of the incident. Her testimony was corroborated by her grandfather BBB, Dr. Ivan Richard Viray, and her neighbor CCC.

AAA testified that at around six oÊclock in the evening of June 6, 2000, she and her friend, Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal, were walking along the rice paddies on their way to apply for work at a canteen near the National Highway in Sampaloc, San Rafael, Bulacan. Suddenly, appellant, who was holding an ice pick and a lead pipe, waylaid them and forcibly brought them to a grassy area at the back of a concrete wall. Without warning, appellant struck AAA in the head with the lead pipe causing her to feel dizzy and to fall down. When Jennifer saw this, she cried out for help but appellant also hit HELD: But the CA seemed to forget that AAA was heavily intoxicated at the time of the assault. her on the head with the lead pipe, knocking her down. Appellant stabbed Jennifer several times with the ice pick and thereafter covered her body with thick grass. Appellant then turned to AAA. Under the aforecited provision, the elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of He hit AAA in the head several times more with the lead pipe and stabbed her on the face. While the victim; and (2) such act was accomplished through force or intimidation; or when the victim is AAA was in such defenseless position, appellant pulled down her jogging pants, removed her deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the victim is under twelve years of age.34 panty, and pulled up her blouse and bra. He then went on top of her, sucked her breasts and Here, the accused intentionally made AAA consume hard liquor more than she could handle. They inserted his penis into her vagina. After raping AAA, appellant also covered her with grass. At that still forced her to drink even when she was already obviously inebriated. They never denied having point, AAA passed out. sexual intercourse with AAA, but the latter was clearly deprived of reason or unconscious at the time the private respondents ravished her. run away when appellant accosted them because she trusted appellant who was her uncle by affinity. She said that she never thought he would harm them.9BBB testified that on June 8, 2000, The appellate court never provided any reason why AAAÊs testimony should deserve scant or no at about six oÊclock in the morning, he was at his rice field at Sampaloc, San Rafael, Bulacan when weight at all, or why it cannot be accorded any credence. In reviewing rape cases, the lone he saw a woman waving a hand and then fell down. The woman was about 200 meters away from testimony of the victim is and should be, by itself, sufficient to warrant a judgment of conviction if him when he saw her waving to him, and he did not mind her. However, when she was about 100 found to be credible. Also, it has been established that when a woman declares that she has been meters away from him, he recognized the woman as AAA, his granddaughter. raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been raped, and where her testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on that basis alone. This is After trial, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision18 on June 30, 2003 finding appellant guilty beyond because from the nature of the offense, the sole evidence that can usually be offered to establish reasonable doubt of both crimes. the guilt of the accused is the complainantÊs testimony itself.36 The trial court correctly ruled that if AAA was not truthful to her accusation, she would not have opened herself to the rough and HELD: In view of the credible testimony of AAA, appellantÊs defenses of denial and alibi deserve no tumble of a public trial. AAA was certainly not enjoying the prying eyes of those who were listening consideration. We stress that these weak defenses cannot stand against the positive identification as she narrated her harrowing experience. and categorical testimony of a rape victim. AAA positively identified the private respondents as the ones who violated her. She tried to resist, While we concur with the trial courtÊs conclusion that appellant indeed was the one who raped but because of the presence of alcohol, her assaulters still prevailed. AAA and killed Jennifer, we find that appellant should not have been convicted of the separate crimes of murder and rape. An appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review on any On the other hand, the RTC was not convinced with the explanation of the defense. It noted that question, including one not raised by the parties.39 The facts alleged and proven clearly show that their account of the events was seemingly unusual and incredible.40 Besides, the defense of the crime committed by appellant is rape with homicide, a special complex crime provided under consensual copulation was belatedly invoked and seemed to have been a last ditch effort to avoid Article 266-B, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8353. culpability. The accused never mentioned about the same at the pretrial stage. In People v. Larrañaga,41 this Court explained the concept of a special complex crime, as follows: However, when the accused alleges consensual sexual congress, he needs convincing proof such as „A discussion on the nature of special complex crime is imperative. Where the law provides a single love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the romantic or sexual relationship penalty for two or more component offenses, the resulting crime is called a special complex crime. between the offender and his supposed victim. Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the Some of the special complex crimes under the Revised Penal Code are (1) robbery with homicide, complainant, the burden now shifts to the accused to prove his defense by substantial evidence. (2) robbery with rape, (3) kidnapping with serious physical injuries, (4) kidnapping with murder or homicide, and (5) rape with homicide. In a special complex crime, the prosecution must necessarily Despite said shameless admission, however, the accused failed to sufficiently prove that the lack of prove each of the component offenses with the same precision that would be necessary if they were any physical resistance on AAAÊs part amounts to approval or permission. They failed to show that made the subject of separate complaints. As earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659 amended Article 267 AAA had sexual intercourse with them out of her own volition, and not simply because she was of the Revised Penal Code by adding thereto this provision: „When the victim is killed or dies as a seriously intoxicated at that time, and therefore could not have given a valid and intelligent consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the consent to the sexual act. maximum penalty shall be imposed;[‰] and that this provision gives rise to a special complex crime. According to Dr. Acusta, when sex is consensual, the vagina becomes lubricated and the insertion of the penis will not cause any laceration. It presumed that complainant, therefore, was no longer A special complex crime, or more properly, a composite crime, has its own definition and special innocent considering the presence of old hymenal laceration that could have resulted from her penalty in the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Justice Regalado, in his Separate Opinion in the previous sexual encounters. The defense, however, failed to show that AAA was sexually case of People v. Barros,43 explained that composite crimes are „neither of the same legal basis as promiscuous and known for organizing or even joining sex orgies. It must be noted that AAA was a nor subject to the rules on complex crimes in Article 48 [of the Revised Penal Code], since they do minor, barely 17 years old at the time of the incident, having just graduated from high school on not consist of a single act giving rise to two or more grave or less grave felonies [compound crimes] that same day. nor do they involve an offense being a necessary means to commit another [complex crime proper]. However, just like the regular complex crimes and the present case of aggravated illegal

possession of firearms, only a single penalty is imposed for each of such composite crimes although of the homicide may be a person other than the rape victim herself for as long as the killing is composed of two or more offenses. linked to the rape. The facts established showed that the constitutive elements of rape with homicide were consummated, and it is immaterial that the person killed in this case is someone other than the woman victim of the rape. An analogy may be drawn from our rulings in cases of robbery with homicide, where the component acts of homicide, physical injuries and other offenses have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery.

The State must thus prove the concurrence of the following facts, namely: (a) that Villaflores had carnal knowledge of Marita; (b) that he consummated the carnal knowledge without the consent of Marita; and (c) that he killed Marita by reason of the rape.

PEOPLE v. VILLAFLORES

These circumstances were links in an unbroken chain whose totality has brought to us a moral certainty of the guilt of Villaflores for rape with homicide.

The difficulty heightens and complicates when the crime is rape with homicide, because there may usually be no living witnesses if the rape victim is herself killed. Yet, the situation is not always In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term „homicide is to be understood in its hopeless for the State, for the Rules of Court also allows circumstantial evidence to establish the generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion commission of the crime as well as the identity of the culprit. To be clear, then, circumstantial of the rape.47 Hence, even if any or all of the circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength evidence may be resorted to when to insist on direct testimony would ultimately lead to setting a and evident premeditation) alleged in the information have been duly established by the felon free. prosecution, the same would not qualify the killing to murder and the crime committed by appellant is still rape with homicide. As in the case of robbery with homicide, the aggravating Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient.·Circum stan tial evidence is sufficient for circumstance of treachery is to be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance only. conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; Abuse of superior strength in this case therefore is merely a generic aggravating circumstance to (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and be considered in the imposition of the penalty. The penalty provided in Article 266-B of the Revised (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable Penal Code, as amended, is death. doubt.

The victim was Marita,2 a girl who was born on October 29, 1994 based on her certificate of live birth.3 When her very young life was snuffed out by strangulation on July 2, 1999, she was only four years and eight months old.4 She had been playing at the rear of their residence in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City in the morning of July 2, 1999 when Julia, her mother, first noticed her missing from home.5 By noontime, because Marita had not turned up, Julia called her husband Manito at his workplace in Pasig City, and told him about Marita being missing.6 Manito rushed home and arrived there at about 2 pm,7 and immediately he and Julia went in search of their daughter until 11 pm, inquiring from house to house in the vicinity. They did not find her.8 At 6 am of the next day, Manito reported to the police that Marita was missing.9 In her desperation, Julia sought out a clairvoyant (manghuhula) in an adjacent barangay, and the latter hinted that Marita might be found only five houses away from their own. Following the clairvoyantÊs direction, they found MaritaÊs lifeless body covered with a blue and yellow sack10 inside the comfort room of an abandoned house about five structures away from their own house.11 Her face was black and blue, and bloody.12 She had been tortured and strangled till death. On July 7, 1999, the City Prosecutor of Caloocan City filed in the RTC the information charging Villaflores with rape with homicide. Two (2) witnesses, Aldrin Bautista and Jovie Solidum, came forward and narrated that at about 10:00 oÊclock in the morning of July 2, 1999, they saw Edmundo Villaflores, known in the neighborhood by his Batman tag and a neighbor of the [victimÊs family], leading Marita by the hand („umakay sa bata‰). At about noon time they were at BatmanÊs house where they used shabu for a while. Both Aldrin and Jovie are drug users. Aldrin sports a „sputnik tattoo mark on his body while Jovie belongs to the T.C.G. („through crusher gangster‰). While in BatmanÊs place, although he did not see Marita, Jovie presumed that Batman was hiding the child at the back of the house. Jovie related that about 3:00 oÊclock in the afternoon of the same day, he heard cries of a child as he passed by the house of Batman („Narinig ko pong umiiyak ang batang babae at umuungol‰). At about 7:00 oÊclock in the evening, Jovie saw again Batman carrying a yellow sack towards a vacant house. He thought that the child must have been in the sack because it appeared heavy. It was the sack that he saw earlier in the house of Batman. As earlier stated, on May 27, 2004, the RTC convicted Villaflores of rape with homicide, holding that the circumstantial evidence led to no other conclusion but that his guilt was shown beyond reasonable doubt. HELD: as a composite crime, explained The felony of rape with homicide is a composite crime. A composite crime, also known as a special complex crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law, and differs from a compound or complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. There are distinctions between a composite crime, on the one hand, and a complex or compound crime under Article 48, supra, on the other hand. In a composite crime, the composition of the offenses is fixed by law; in a complex or compound crime, the combination of the offenses is not specified but generalized, that is, grave and/or less grave, or one offense being the necessary means to commit the other. For a composite crime, the penalty for the specified combination of crimes is specific; for a complex or compound crime, the penalty is that corresponding to the most serious offense, to be imposed in the maximum period. A light felony that accompanies a composite crime is absorbed; a light felony that accompanies the commission of a complex or compound crime may be the subject of a separate information.

PEOPLE v. BRONIOLA AAA, a Grade VI pupil, left her house for school in the morning of February 28, 2000. She did not return home that day. Her lifeless body was found on February 29, 2000 in a grassy lot near an uninhabited farm hut at Sitio Kabanatian, Barangay Tumanding, Arakan, Cotabato. Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Oscar D. Bayog filed the following Information5 charging appellant with the crime of rape with homicide. On February 28, 2000, at around 5:30 in the afternoon, Alfredo Abag6 (Abag), a resident of Sitio Kabanatian,7 Bgy. Tumanding, was on his way home bringing some „Taiwan‰ fish to sell when he met the appellant at a shortcut road passable only to people and animals. He noticed that appellant had scratches on his face and his hand was holding a lagaraw8 (bolo) with blood on it. Appellant asked for the price of the fish but he did not buy and just left. From what he had observed, appellant was restless and uneasy. Meanwhile, AAAÊs father, BBB, reported to the barangay authorities that his daughter was missing. In the morning of February 29, 2000, he, together with Abag and two barangay officials, began to search for AAA. They found her already dead, lying on a grassy area near a farm hut owned by Jhonefer Q. Darantinao.10 AAAÊs body bore several hack wounds, blood oozed from her mouth, her one hand and one finger were cut off. He knows appellant because they are neighbors. Their families had a rift because appellantÊs father was killed by his son-in-law, Lito Miguel. According to Dr. Edu, the probable cause of death was loss of blood due to the hack wounds. He also opined that the genital injury could have been caused by a penetrating penis or any blunt object. The trial court found the testimony of Abag to be straightforward, categorical and convincing, which established that appellant went to Sitio Kabanatian where Abag met him coming from the shortcut road in the afternoon of February 28, 2000 carrying a blood stained lagaraw. Said court gave no credence to appellantÊs defense of denial and alibi as it failed to show the impossibility of his presence at the scene of the crime and to rebut the prosecutionÊs circumstantial evidence proving that he committed the rape and killing of AAA. HELD: In this case, nobody witnessed the actual rape and killing of AAA. Appellant, however, may still be proven as the culprit despite the absence of eyewitnesses. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Considering all the circumstances mentioned and in light of previous rulings, we are satisfied that the evidence adduced against appellant constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the one fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant was the perpetrator of the crime. It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. This was adequately established in the case at bar.

PEOPLE V SUANSING „AAA‰ was born on July 6, 1975. She used to live in Tangub City with her grandparents because her mother suffered from and later died of tuberculosis. When „AAA‰ was 15 years old, she The phrases by reason of the rape and on the occasion of the rape are crucial in determining became a mother to a baby boy who was born on September 29, 1990. Nobody admitted whether the crime is a composite crime or a complex or compound crime. The phrase by reason of responsibility for her pregnancy. To receive better guidance and supervision, „AAA‰ was the rape obviously conveys the notion that the killing is due to the rape, the offense the offender transferred to the residence of „EEE‰ who raised her as a daughter. originally designed to commit. The victim of the rape is also the victim of the killing. The indivisibility of the homicide and the rape (attempted or consummated) is clear and admits of no Sometime before April 8, 2001, „GGG‰ requested „FFF‰ to get from appellantÊs boarding house doubt. In contrast, the import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape may not be as easy to an electric fan and a transformer. „FFF‰ together with her brother and „AAA‰ went to the determine. To understand what homicide may be covered by the phrase on the occasion of the boarding house of appellant. After giving the requested items, appellant ordered „FFF‰ and her rape, a resort to the meaning the framers of the law intended to convey thereby is helpful. Indeed, brother to leave „AAA‰ behind. during the floor deliberations of the Senate on Republic Act No. 8353, the legislative intent on the import of the phrase on the occasion of the rape to refer to a killing that occurs immediately before „FFF‰ brought the items to „GGG‰ who, upon learning that „AAA‰ was still with appellant, or after, or during the commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape, where the victim requested „FFF‰ to return to appellantÊs boarding house to fetch „AAA.‰ Upon arriving at the

boarding house, „FFF‰ noticed that the door was closed. She called out to „AAA‰ to go home to avoid being scolded by „EEE.‰ „AAA‰ opened the door and came out fixing her short pants. „FFF‰ then asked „AAA‰ if anything happened. „AAA‰ replied that after „FFF and her brother left the boarding house, appellant pulled her inside the room, removed her shoes and panty, told her to lie down on the floor, and inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent. „AAA‰ requested „FFF‰ not to tell anyone that she was raped by appellant. The genital examination of „AAA‰ on August 6, 2001 revealed old hymenal lacerations. Her psychiatric evaluation also disclosed that she was suffering from mild retardation with the mental age of a 9 to 12-year old child. Although with impaired adaptive skills, the RTC found „AAA‰ qualified to testify. The psychological examination of „AAA‰ established her mental retardation to be in a mild form and her intelligence quotient (IQ) of 53 though below the average IQ score of 71 was „within the defective level of a Normal Intelligence Scale. In its April 14, 2004 Decision, the RTC found convincing evidence that „AAA‰ is a mental retardate; that in spite of her mental inadequacy, her testimony was credible as shown from her intelligent and coherent answers to questions propounded to her by the prosecution, the defense and the Court‰;10 that appellant was aware that „AAA‰ is a mental retardate; that appellant raped „AAA‰; that „AAA‰ or „FFF‰ was not ill-motivated to falsely accuse appellant of such crime; and, that proof of force or intimidation was unnecessary as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act.

When AAA appeared as the second witness for the prosecution, the prosecution manifested that by merely looking at her, it was apparent that she was mentally retardate.10 AAA, who was crying while being asked questions, testified that she was raped by accused-appellant by inserting his penis into her, despite her protestations. After the deed, she was given money by accusedappellant. She knew the accused-appellant before the incident as a shoe repairman. On February 5, 2009, the RTC rendered its Judgment finding accused-appellant guilty as charged HELD: At the outset, we agree with accused-appellant that the details concerning the manner of the commission of the rape, which was merely narrated by AAA at the barangay outpost, is hearsay and cannot be considered by this Court. A witness can testify only on the facts that she knows of his own personal knowledge, or more precisely, those which are derived from her own perception. A witness may not testify on what she merely learned, read or heard from others because such testimony is considered hearsay and may not be received as proof of the truth of what she has learned, read or heard. Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of the details of the rape which BBB merely heard from AAAÊs narration, we nevertheless find no reason to disturb the findings of fact of the trial court. Despite lacking certain details concerning the manner in which AAA was allegedly raped, the trial court, taking into consideration the mental incapacity of AAA and qualifying her to be a child witness, found her testimony to be credible and convincing.

However, the RTC also ruled that since „AAAÊs‰ mental retardation was not specifically alleged in the Amended Information, it cannot be considered as a qualifying circumstance that would warrant the imposition of the death penalty. The RTC stated that the „mental disability‰ of „AAA‰ at the time of the rape relates to a broad description of several mental ailments and that the Amended Information failed to specify what constitutes „mental disability.

AAAÊs mental condition may have prevented her from delving into the specifics of the assault in her testimony almost three years later, unlike the way she narrated the same when she was asked at the barangay outpost merely minutes after the incident. However, as we have ruled in a litany of cases, when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. Youth and, as is more applicable in the case at HELD: For the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had bar, immaturity are generally badges of truth. Furthermore, the report of PC/Insp. Chua that the carnal knowledge of a woman, (2) through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of findings of the physical examination were consistent with recent sexual intercourse, provide reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. From additional corroboration to the testimonies of AAA and BBB. It should be noted that this report was these requisites, it can thus be deduced that rape is committed the moment the offender has stipulated upon by the prosecution and the defense. sexual intercourse with a person suffering from mental retardation. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape. A mental condition of retardation deprives the complainant of The term demented refers to a person who has dementia, which is a condition of deteriorated that natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood. For this reason, mentality, characterized by marked decline from the individual's former intellectual level and often sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of giving by emotional apathy, madness, or insanity. On the other hand, the phrase deprived of reason consent to the carnal act already constitutes rape[,] without requiring proof that the accused used under paragraph 1(b) has been interpreted to include those suffering from mental abnormality, force and intimidation in committing the act. Only the facts of sexual congress between the deficiency, or retardation. Thus, AAA, who was clinically diagnosed to be a mental retardate, can accused and the victim and the latterÊs mental retardation need to be proved. be properly classified as a person who is „deprived of reason,‰ and not one who is „demented. In this case, the evidence presented by the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the sexual congress between appellant and „AAA‰ and the latterÊs mental retardation. „AAA positively identified appellant as her rapist.

In the case at bar, AAA was clinically diagnosed to have mental retardation with the mental capacity of a seven-year old child. The prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate on the conclusion of the psychologist that the „mental age of the victim whose chronological age at the time of the commission of the offense is nineteen (19) years old, is that of a seven (7)-year old Child. Accused-appellant is therefore criminally liable for rape under paragraph 1(b) of Article 266A of the Revised Penal Code.

There is also nothing from „AAAÊs‰ testimony that would arouse suspicion. Considering the mental retardation of „AAA,‰ we find it highly improbable that she would fabricate the rape charge against appellant. It is likewise unlikely that she was instructed into accusing appellant given her limited intellect. Due to her mental condition, only a very traumatic experience would leave a PEOPLE v. NERIO lasting impression on her so that she would be able to recall it when asked. In an Information dated September 22, 2003, the Provincial Prosecutor of Davao del Sur charged Nerio with the crime of Rape, allegedly committed against AAA. Thus, knowledge of the offender of the mental disability of the victim during the commission of the crime of rape qualifies and makes it punishable by death. However, such knowledge by the rapist AAA, a child with special needs, was born on April 15, 1990 and was adopted by Kathlene6 and should be alleged in the Information since „a crime can only be qualified by circumstances pleaded Rick. In the afternoon of February 26, 2003, Kathlene was working in the school canteen of the in the indictment. Clearly, appellantÊs knowledge of the mental disability of „AAA at the time of Aplaya Elementary School when she noticed that AAA, who was also enrolled at the same school, the commission of the crime of rape was properly alleged in the Amended Information. Knowledge was missing. Thinking that AAA just went to her cousinÊs house near the school, Kathlene did not of the offender of the mental disability of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime of worry until after school hours when AAA was still nowhere to be found. She then went to look for rape qualifies the crime and makes it punishable by death „When rape is committed by an assailant her child, and when she was unsuccessful, she went to the police to have the incident placed in the who has knowledge of the victimÊs mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death„Mental blotter. retardation is a chronic condition present from birth or early childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by standardized tests. Rick likewise looked for AAA, and he was told that his daughter was seen boarding a minibus with a group of people who just had picnic at the beach. Together with their neighbor, Rosaliah,7 Rick and PEOPLE v. CATAYTAY Kathlene proceeded to Matanao, Davao del Sur, after learning that the minibus was MatanaoAccused-appellant Cataytay was charged of said crime of rape in an Information bound. With the assistance of the police, they were able to find the owner of the minibus who told them that he indeed saw AAA inside his bus. The charterer of the minibus, Arthur Lucero, informed BBB (AAAÊs mother) testified that she knew accused-appellant Cataytay as her neighbor in their them that AAA went to the house of the Nerios in Blocon, Magsaysay, Davao del Sur. It was already compound in Mandaluyong City. Accused-appellant was a shoe repairman who had a shop six 1:00 a.m. of February 27, 2003 when they arrived at said house. When Lucero knocked, it was the houses away from BBBÊs house. mother of the accused-appellant, Violeta, who opened the door. When Kathlene asked about her daughter, Violeta told her that AAA was sleeping upstairs. But when Kathlene started climbing the On September 7, 2003, at around 6:30 p.m., BBB left AAA in their house to look for BBBÊs youngest stairs, Violeta immediately corrected herself and said that AAA was, in fact, sleeping on the ground daughter. Thirty minutes later, when she reached the bridge near Block 37, her neighbor, Lito, told floor. Still, Kathlene proceeded and upon seeing a room with the door left ajar, she went inside. To her that there was a problem, and brought her to the barangay outpost. AAA and the accusedher dismay, she saw her daughter scantily clad sleeping beside a half-naked Nerio, with her head appellant were already at the outpost. Lito told the persons at the outpost that she was the resting on the latterÊs shoulder. mother of the victim. When BBB saw AAA, the latter told her, „Mommy, ni-rape po ako.‰ BBB asked her who raped her. AAA responded by pointing to accused-appellant. During the interviews On February 28, 2003, Dr. Arthur Navidad examined AAA. He found a hymenal laceration at eleven made by the barangay officials, AAA narrated how she was raped by accused-appellant, which (11) oÊclock position, which appeared fresh and could not have occurred more than three (3) days ended when a certain „Mimi‰ knocked at the door. When accused-appellant answered the knock, from the date he examined AAA. Dr. Navidad also testified that AAA acted like a small child so they Mimi told the former that she will shout if he does not leave the house. AAA went out of the house even had to bribe her in order to examine her genital area. and sought help from their neighbors. One of their neighbors, Amelita Morante, called the barangay officials at the outpost. On July 22, 2010, the RTC of Bansalan, Davao del Sur found Nerio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape. BBB identified a Psychological Evaluation Report from the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) dated May 25, 1999, which was conducted in connection with another rape HELD: Mental retardation has been defined as a chronic condition that exists at birth or early case. The report stated that AAA had the mental capacity of an eight-year old child.7 BBB also childhood and characterized by impaired intellectual functioning measured by standardized tests. identified AAAÊs birth certificate which showed that she was biologically 19 years old at the time of Intellectual or mental disability is a term synonymous with and is now preferred over the older the incident. term, mental retardation.

It is settled that carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape as she is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. The term „deprived of reason has been construed to encompass those who are suffering from mental abnormality, deficiency or retardation.14 Carnal knowledge of a woman above twelve (12) years of age but with the mental age of a child below twelve (12) years, even if she agrees to the same, is rape because a mental retardate cannot give a valid and intelligent consent to such act. It is true that in rape cases, the testimony of the victim is essential. However, when the victim is a small child or, as in this case, someone who acts like one, and thus cannot effectively testify as to the details of the offense, and there are no other eyewitnesses, resort to circumstantial evidence becomes inevitable. Here, AAA was not presented to testify in court because she was declared unfit to fully discharge the functions of a credible witness. The psychologist who examined her found that her answers reveal a low intellectual sphere, poor insight, and lack of capacity to deal with matters rationally. She could hardly even understand simple instructions.24 The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, who were not shown to have any malicious motive to fabricate a story, positively identified Nerio as the person seen alone with AAA in bed in the evening of February 26, 2003. AAA, who was only in a sando and panties, had her head on the shoulder of Nerio, who was naked and only had a blanket covering the lower portion of his body. Although Nerio denied this because he allegedly slept downstairs, while AAA slept with his mother and sisters upstairs, his testimony is inconsistent with that of his mother, who testified that AAA and Nerio actually slept in one (1) room, but she lay between the two. Further, Dr. Navidad found a fresh hymenal laceration on AAAs genitals. He explained that it could not have been inflicted more than three (3) days from the date he examined AAA. There was, likewise, no showing that AAA met with another man during that three-day-period.

or 7:00 in the morning, appellant left AAA with a letter apologizing for what happened and begging her not to tell on his wife. At around 5:00 in the afternoon of that same date, AAA related to appellantÊs wife the rape incident.6 And on 1 June 2009, AAA, accompanied by her father, reported the incident to the police and she executed a sworn statement detailing the rape. After evaluating the evidence, the trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and meted out the penalty of reclusion perpetua. In his Appeal Brief, appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of rape as defined under Article 266- A of the Revised Penal Code, particularly the elements of force, threat or intimidation. Appellant argues that AAA did not allege that she was threatened by appellant with the use of any firearm or any bladed weapon nor did appellant say anything to threaten or intimidate her. With respect to moral ascendancy, appellant contends that the Court in a recent case did not consider a brother as one of those close kin who has moral ascendancy over a victim that would substitute for force and intimidation. Appellant further points out that there was no showing of any resistance on the part of AAA to his alleged sexual advances. HELD: Her testimony has established all the elements of rape required under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. First, appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim. AAA positively identified her own brother as the assailant. She was likewise unwavering in her narration that appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. Second, appellant employed threat, force and intimidation to satisfy his lust. The Supreme Court has, time and again, ruled that the force or violence that is required in rape cases is relative; when applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible. That it enables the offender to consummate his purpose is enough. The partiesÊ relative age, size and strength should be taken into account in evaluating the existence of the element of force in the crime of rape. The degree of force which may not suffice when the victim is an adult may be more than enough if employed against a person of tender age.

PEOPLE v. OBOGNE Appellant Jerry Obogne was charged with the crime of rape. That on or about the 29th day of July 2002, in the afternoon, in barangay Ogbong, municipality of Viga, province of Catanduanes, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused by means of force and In the case at bench, the accused-appellant employed that amount of force sufficient to intimidation, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of „AAA, a consummate the rape. It must be stressed that, at the time of the incident, AAA was only 14 years 12- year old mentally retarded person, to the damage and prejudice of the said AAA. old. Considering the tender years of the offended party as compared to the accused-appellant who was in the prime of his life, the act of the accused-appellant in pinning the arms of AAA to avoid RTC- WHEREFORE, judgment is, hereby, rendered finding Jerry Obogne guilty beyond reasonable any form of resistance from her suffices. Force or intimidation is not limited to physical force. As doubt of the crime of simple rape committed against „AAA‰ and, hereby, sentences him to suffer long as it is present and brings the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less a penalty of reclusion perpetua irresistible is beside the point. The trial court did not consider „AAAÊs‰ mental retardation as a qualifying circumstance PEOPLE v. CANDELLADA considering that the Information failed to allege that appellant knew of „AAAÊs‰ mental disability. Accused-appellant was charged with attempted rape before the RTC under the following Information. Accused-appellant was likewise charged with eight counts of consummated rape Appellant argues that the testimony of „AAA deserves no credence because she was incapable of committed on May 30, 2004,5 June 2, 2004,6 June 12, 2004,7 July 10, 2004,8 August 13, 2004,9 intelligently making known her perception to others by reason of her mental disability. November 5, 2004,10 December 15, 2004,11 and December 25, HELD: We are not persuaded. Sections 20 and 21, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provide: Sec. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.·Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses. Sec. 21. Disqualification by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity.·The following persons cannot be witnesses: (a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their production for examination, is such that they are incapable of intelligently making known their perception to others; (b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which they are examined and of relating them truthfully.

During pre-trial, the defense admitted that accused-appellant is the father of private complainant AAA and that AAA was 15 years of age at the time of the commission of the crimes charged and/or filing of the cases.

AAA lives with appellant and his common-law partner. AAA testified that at around 1:00 in the morning of 14 May 2009, and while appellantÊs wife was away, AAA was awakened by appellant undressing her. AAA tried to struggle but appellant was tightly holding her arms. After undressing her, appellant kissed and mounted her. Appellant was able to insert his penis into her vagina. AAA felt pain in her genitalia. Thereafter, appellant went back to sleep leaving AAA crying. At about 6:00

The RTC rendered its Consolidated Decision on December 23, 2005. The RTC found that there was not enough evidence to prove accused-appellantÊs culpability for the charge of attempted rape on December 28, 2004. Citing Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, the RTC pointed out that the overt acts committed by accusedappellant resulted only in AAAÊs physical injuries that took five to seven days to heal and slight physical injuries were not necessarily included in the charge of attempted

AAA was born in Davao on January 10, 1990. She was 15 years old when she testified before the RTC on August 24, 2005.

AAA was born in Davao on January 10, 1990. She was 15 years old when she testified before the RTC on August 24, 2005. AAA was the second of three daughters of accused-appellant and his deceased first wife. AAA lived with accused-appellant and the latterÊs second wife, while AAAÊs In this case, „AAA is totally qualified to take the witness stand notwithstanding her mental two sisters lived with accusedappellantÊs mother. While they were still living in Davao, condition. During the continuation of AAAÊs testimony, she was able to recall what [appellant] did accusedappellant impregnated AAA. When AAA was already five months pregnant, accusedto her. „AAA recalled that while she was playing, [appellant] saw her and asked her to go with him appellant brought her with him to Lanao del Norte. because he Accused-appellant approached Gemina, who he came to know during a previous visit to Lanao del would give her a sugar cane. [Appellant] brought „AAA‰ to his house and while inside, Âhe Norte in 1993. Accused-appellant asked permission if he could stay at GeminaÊs old house with his removed her panty, and then inserted his penis into her vagina and he got the knife and then he wife, introducing AAA to Gemina as his wife. Gemina immediately noticed that AAA was pregnant. took a sugar cane and then he gave it to her and then she went home. She also commented that AAA was so young she could already be accusedappellantÊs daughter, but accused-appellant only laughed. Gemina and her husband allowed accused-appellant and AAA This Court finds „AAA‰ a very credible witness, even in her mental condition. Contrary to defense to stay at their old house on the condition that accused-appellant would pay for the electricity. counselÊs objection that „AAA‰ was not capable of intelligently making known her perception to others, „AAA managed to recount the ordeal she had gone through in the hands of the accused, While they were staying at GeminaÊs old house, accusedappellant had intercourse with AAA many though in a soft voice and halting manner. „AAAÊs‰ simple account of her ordeal clearly reflects times, but AAA could only remember eight specific dates, i.e., on May 30, 2004; June 2, 2004; June sincerity and truthfulness. 12, 2004; July 10, 2004; August 13, 2004; November 5, 2004; December 15, 2004; and December 25, 2004. When asked to explain what „intercourse‰ meant, AAA stated that accusedappellant Finally, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly found appellant guilty of simple rape and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA further testified that she consistently resisted accusedproperly imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 266-B, par. 1 of appellantÊs bestial acts but he threatened to stab her with a knife. Lastly, AAA narrated that she the Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly ruled that „AAAÊs mental disability could not be delivered a baby boy with GeminaÊs help on September 24, 2004, but the baby died four days considered as a qualifying circumstance because the Information failed to allege that appellant later, on September 28, 2004. knew of such mental condition at the time of the commission of the crime. On December 28, 2004, accused-appellant again made amorous advances on AAA. AAA refused so PEOPLE v. JOSON accused-appellant became violently angry. He mauled AAA and hit her head with a piece of wood, Appellant was charged with violation of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code in relation to which rendered her unconscious.27 Gemina, who saw what happened, asked help from the Republic Act No. 7610 in an Information. Barangay Captain. The Barangay Captain and civilian volunteers arrested the accused-appellant.

rape. As for the charge of eight counts of consummated rape, the RTC pronounced that „[AAAÊs] presented only „AAA‰ and Dr. Imperial as its witnesses. Dr. Imperial never testified on „AAAÊs‰ down-to-earth testimony was convincing and straightforward that she was abused [by] her father age. On the other hand, AAA even testified on the witness stand that she does not know her age. in Lanao del Norte. Clearly, the prosecution failed to prove the minority of AAA. The same is true with respect to the HELD: The uniform way by which AAA described the eight rape incidents does not necessarily mean other qualifying circumstance of relationship. The prosecution likewise miserably failed to establish that her testimony was coached, rehearsed, and contrived. Also, AAAÊs failure to mention that „AAAÊs‰ relationship with the appellant. Although the Information alleged that appellant is the accused-appellant removed their undergarments prior to the rape does not destroy the credibility common-law husband of „AAAÊs‰ mother, „AAAʉ referred to appellant as her step-father. of AAAÊs entire testimony. Rape victims do not cherish keeping in their memory an accurate account of the manner in which they were sexually violated. Thus, errorless recollection of a Even the RTC interchangeably referred to appellant as the common-law husband of „AAAÊs‰ harrowing experience cannot be expected of a witness, especially when she is recounting details mother23 as well as the step-father of „AAA.24 Moreover, the RTC failed to cite any basis for its from an experience so humiliating and painful as rape.43 In addition, bearing in mind that AAA had reference to appellant as such. In fact, the RTC Decision is bereft of any discussion as to how it been repeatedly raped by accused-appellant for a period of time (beginning in Davao, which reached its conclusion that appellant is the common-law husband of „AAAÊs‰ mother or that resulted in AAAÊs pregnancy), it is not surprising for AAA to recall each incident in much the same „AAA‰ is his step-daughter. way. What is important is that AAA had categorically testified that on eight specific dates, her father, accused-appellant, armed with a knife, successfully had sexual intercourse with her by The terms „common-law husband‰ and „step-father‰ have different legal connotations. For inserting his penis into her vagina. appellant to be a step-father to „AAA,‰ he must be legally married to „AAAÊs‰ mother. Suffice it to state that qualifying circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt just like the crime It is noteworthy to mention that even if accused-appellant did not use a knife or made threats to itself. In this case, the prosecution utterly failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the qualifying AAA, accused-appellant would still be guilty of raping AAA, for in rape committed by a close kin, circumstances of minority and relationship. As such, appellant should only be convicted of the such as the victimÊs father, stepfather, uncle, or the common-law spouse of her mother, it is not crime of simple rape, the penalty for which is reclusion perpetua. necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. PEOPLE v. LUCENA Three (3) similarly worded Informations,[4] all dated 24 June 2003 allege: That on or about the PEOPLE v. CIAL 28th day of April 2003, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this On February 5, 2004, appellant was charged with the crime of rape. Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant], a Barangay Tanod Volunteer, who took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime, by means of force, threat or intimidation AAA‰ is one of the six (6) children born to „BBB‰ and „CCC. After „CCC‰ died, „BBB cohabited and with the use of a gun did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal with appellant Marciano Cial. Appellant and „BBB‰ have two (2) children. knowledge of the complainant AAA, a minor, 17 years of age, against her will and consent. Sometime in December 2002, appellant called „AAA‰ and told her to go to the bedroom inside their house. Once inside, appellant took off „AAAÊs‰ shorts and panty and spread her legs. Appellant pulled his pants down to his thighs and inserted his penis into the little girlÊs vagina. „AAA‰ felt intense pain but she did not try to struggle because appellant had a bolo on his waist. After satiating his lust, appellant threatened to kill „AAA‰ and her family if she reported the incident to anyone.

The testimonies of the above-named prosecution witnesses established that on 28 April 2003, at around 11:30 p.m., while AAA, who was then 17 years old, having been born on 10 July 1986, was walking and chatting with her friends along one of the streets of San Dionisio, Parañaque City, two (2) barangay tanods, one of whom is the appellant, approached and informed them that they were being arrested for violating a city ordinance imposing curfew against minors. AAAÊs companions, however, managed to escape, thus, she alone was apprehended.[6] AAA was then ordered by the barangay tanods to board the tricycle. Afraid that she might spend the night in jail, AAA pleaded Unable to endure the torment, „AAA‰ confided her ordeal to her mother. But „AAAÊs‰ mother with them and protested that she did not commit any offense as she was just chatting with her did not believe her. „AAA‰ ran away from home and went to her maternal uncleÊs house. There, friends. AAAÊs plea, however, remained unheeded. she disclosed her harrowing experience to her motherÊs siblings. Her uncle appeared to be angered by appellantÊs wrong doing. But nonetheless, her uncle allowed appellant to bring her But, instead of escorting AAA back to her house, the appellant brought her to Kabuboy Bridge in home when appellant fetched her. San Dionisio, Parañaque City. While on their way, the appellant threatened AAA that he would kill her once she resists or jumps off the tricycle. Upon arrival, the appellant ordered AAA to alight For fear that she might be raped again, „AAA‰ ran away and went to the house of her aunt. Her from the tricycle. AAA asked the appellant what he would do with her but the former did not aunt helped her file the complaint against her stepfather. respond. The appellant then took out the backseat of the tricycle and positioned it in a grassy area. He subsequently pointed a gun at AAA and commanded her to lie down and to take off her clothes. According to Dr. Imperial, the negative result for pubic hair as indicated in his report means that The appellant later put the gun down on the ground and inserted his penis into AAAÊs vagina the victim has not yet fully developed her secondary characteristics which usually manifests during despite the latterÊs plea not to rape her. Satisfied, the appellant stopped. But, after a short while, puberty. Dr. Imperial explained that the easy insertion of one finger into her vagina means that the or after about five (5) minutes, the appellant, once again, inserted his penis into AAAÊs vagina. child was no longer a virgin and that it would be difficult to insert even the tip of the little finger Thereafter, he stopped. On the third time, the appellant inserted again his penis into AAAÊs vagina. into the private part of a virgin as she would have suffered pain. On the absence of spermatozoa Fulfilling his bestial desire, the appellant stopped and finally ordered AAA to dress up. The on the victimÊs genitals, Dr. Imperial explained that a sperm has a life span of three (3) days. The appellant even threatened AAA that he would kill her should she tell anyone about what happened lapse of almost four months from the time of the rape would naturally yield negative results for between them. spermatozoa. AAA also went to the Coastal Road Police Headquarters, where she executed her sworn statement The trial court lent credence to the testimony of „AAA‰ especially considering that the same is accusing the appellant of rape. AAA was able to identify the appellant as her assailant because the corroborated by the medical findings. On the other hand, the RTC found appellantÊs defense not former was wearing a jacket emblazoned with „Barangay Police, as well as a Barangay only „laughable‰ and „sickening‰ but also completely untrue. Identification Card, at the time of the incident. The court a quo also found the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship to be present. In its Decision dated 30 April 2008, the trial court, giving credence to the categorical, Thus, on November 26, 2007, the RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant guilty of qualified straightforward and positive testimony of AAA, coupled with the medical findings of sexual abuse, rape. convicted the appellant of three (3) counts of rape as defined and penalized under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B, of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, as HELD: We are not persuaded by appellantÊs argument that if he indeed raped „AAA‰ inside their amended. house, then „AAAÊs‰ maternal grandmother would have noticed the same. It is settled jurisprudence that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate. As held by the HELD: After a careful scrutiny of the entire records, however, this Court finds no justifiable reason CA, „lust is no respecter of time and place.‰16 Thus, the presence of „AAAÊs‰ grandmother to reverse the rulings of the lower courts. would not negate the commission of the rape; neither would it prove appellantÊs innocence. The force and violence required in rape cases is relative and need not be overpowering or In any case, a medical examination is not even indispensable in prosecuting a rape charge. In fact, irresistible when applied. For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation be so an accusedÊs conviction for rape may be anchored solely on the testimony of the victim. At best, great or be of such character as could not be resisted · it is only necessary that the force or the medical examination would only serve as corroborative evidence. intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. Further, it should be viewed from the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of We find however that both the trial court and the CA erred in convicting appellant of the crime of the crime. What is vital is that the force or intimidation be of such degree as to cow the unprotected qualified rape. According to both courts, the twin qualifying circumstances of minority and and vulnerable victim into submission. Force is sufficient if it produces fear in the victim, such as relationship attended the commission of the crime. We rule otherwise. when the latter is threatened with death. In its Formal Offer of Evidence,18 the prosecution mentioned „AAAÊs‰ Certificate of Live Birth. Also attached to the Folder of Exhibits marked as Exhibit „B‰ is „AAAÊs‰ Certificate of Live Birth showing that „AAA‰ was born on October 31, 1991. However, upon closer scrutiny, we note that the said Certificate of Live Birth was never presented or offered during the trial of the case. During the March 28, 2006 hearing, the prosecution manifested before the RTC that it will be presenting „AAAÊs‰ Certificate of Live Birth at the next setting. In its Order19 dated June 27, 2006, the trial court reset the hearing of the case to allow the prosecution to present evidence with respect to „AAAÊs‰ Certificate of Live Birth. However, up until the prosecution rested its case, nobody was presented to testify on „AAAÊs‰ Certificate of Live Birth. Records show that the prosecution

While it is true that the appellant had already put the gun down on the ground the moment he inserted his penis into AAAÊs vagina and was actually unarmed on those three (3) episodes of sexual intercourse, the same does not necessarily take away the fear of being killed that had already been instilled in the mind of AAA. Emphasis must be given to the fact that the gun was still within appellantÊs reach, therefore, he could still make good of his threat on AAA at anytime the latter would show any resistance to his evil desires. AAAÊs lack of physical resistance, therefore, is understandable and would not in any way discredit her testimony.

We agree with the trial court that the [herein appellant] should be convicted of three (3) counts of rape. It appears from the facts that the [appellant] thrice succeeded in inserting his penis into the private part of [AAA]. The three (3) penetrations occurred one after the other at an interval of five (5) minutes wherein the [appellant] would rest after satiating his lust upon his victim and, after he has regained his strength, he would again rape [AAA]. Hence, it can be clearly inferred from the foregoing that when the [appellant] decided to commit those separate and distinct acts of sexual assault upon [AAA], he was not motivated by a single impulse[,] but rather by several criminal intent. Hence, his conviction for three (3) counts of rape is indubitable. As to penalty. The second paragraph of Art. 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that „[w]henever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. As it was properly alleged and proved that the appellant used a gun in order to consummate his evil desires, thus, both lower courts correctly imposed upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape.

Meneses and appellant did not also utter threatening words or perform any act of intimidation against her. The fact that AAA was tipsy or drunk at that time cannot be held against the appellant. There is authority to the effect that „where consent is induced by the administration of drugs or liquor, which incites her passion but does not deprive her of her will power, the accused is not guilty of rape. WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. PEOPLE v. JUMAWAN Accused-appellant and his wife, KKK,[5] were married on October 18, 1975. They lived together since then and raised their four (4) children[6] as they put up several businesses over the years. On February 19, 1999, KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit, alleging that her husband, the accusedappellant, raped her at 3:00 a.m. of December 3, 1998 at their residence in Phase 2, Villa Ernesto, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City, and that on December 12, 1998, the accused-appellant boxed her shoulder for refusing to have sex with him.

PEOPLE v. TIONLOC The designation of the crime in the Information against appellant is rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the RPC. However, the accusatory portion of the Information charges On July 16, 1999, two Informations for rape were filed before the RTC respectively docketed as appellant with rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1(b), Article 266-A. Criminal Case No. 99-668[9] and Criminal Case No. 99-669. „AAA‰ testified that at around 9:30 p.m. of September 29, 2008, she was having a drinking session with appellant and Meneses in the house of appellant. After some time, she felt dizzy so she took a nap. At around 11:00 p.m., she was roused from her sleep by Meneses who was mounting her and inserting his penis into her vagina. She felt pain but could only cry in silence for fear that the knife which they used to cut hotdog and now lying on top of a table nearby would be used to kill her if she resisted. Meneses left after raping her. While still feeling dizzy, afraid and shivering, appellant approached her and asked if he could also have sex with her. When she did not reply appellant mounted and raped her. Appellant stopped only when she tried to reposition her body. „AAA‰ then left appellantÊs house and immediately returned to the house she shared with her live- in partner. The following day, „AAA‰ reported the incident to the police. She also underwent a medical examination and the results revealed two lacerations in her hymen. In its Decision5 dated February 15, 2012, the RTC clarified that appellant is charged with rape through sexual intercourse under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC based on the allegations in the Information and not with rape by sexual assault under paragraph 2 of the same provision of law, as the designation in the Information suggests. The RTC stressed that this is consistent with the legal precept that it is the allegations or recital in the Information that determine the nature of the crime committed. Thus, the RTC ruled that appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape through sexual intercourse against „AAA. HELD: In this case, the prosecution established that appellant was a 18-year-old man who had sexual intercourse with „AAA,‰ a woman who was 24 years old during the incident. However, there was no evidence to prove that appellant used force, threat or intimidation during his sexual congress with „AAA.‰ She testified that appellant and Meneses are her good friends. Thus, she frequented the house of appellant. At around 7:00 p.m. of September 29, 2008, she again went to the house of appellant and chatted with him and Meneses while drinking liquor. From that time up to about 11 p.m. when she took a nap, there is no showing that appellant or Meneses forced, threatened or intimidated her. No allegation whatsoever was made by „AAA‰ that Meneses or appellant employed force, threat or intimidation against her. No claim was ever made that appellant physically overpowered, or used or threatened to use a weapon against, or uttered threatening words to „AAA. While „AAA‰ feared for her life since a knife lying on the table nearby could be utilized to kill her if she resisted, her fear was a mere product of her own imagination. There was no evidence that the knife was placed nearby precisely to threaten or intimidate her. We cannot even ascertain whether said knife can be used as a weapon or an effective tool to intimidate a person because it was neither presented nor described in court. These findings are clear from the following testimony of „AAA Even assuming in the nil possibility that Meneses was able to force or instill fear in „AAAÊs‰ mind, it should be noted that he was already gone when appellant asked „AAA‰ for a sexual favor. In other words, the source of the feigned force, threat or intimidation was no longer present when appellant casually asked his friend, „AAA,‰ if she „can do it‰ one more time. „AAA‰ did not respond either in the affirmative or in the negative. Three things are thus clear from the testimony of „AAA: first, appellant never employed the slightest force, threat or intimidation against her; second, „AAA‰ never gave the slightest hint of rejection when appellant asked her to have sex with him; and, third, appellant did not act with force since he readily desisted when „AAA‰ felt the slightest pain and tried to move during their sexual congress.

Conjugal intimacy did not really cause marital problems between KKK and the accused-appellant. It was, in fact, both frequent and fulfilling. He treated her well and she, of course, responded with equal degree of enthusiasm. However, in 1997, he started to be brutal in bed. He would immediately remove her panties and, sans any foreplay, insert her penis in her vagina. His abridged method of lovemaking was physically painful for her so she would resist his sexual ambush but he would threaten her into submission. In 1998, KKK and the accused-appellant started quarrelling usually upon his complaint that she failed to attend to him. She was preoccupied with financial problems in their businesses and a bank loan. He wanted KKK to stay at home because „a woman must stay in the house and only good in bed (sic), She disobeyed his wishes and focused on her goal of providing a good future for the children. KKK insisted to stay on the cot and explained that she had headache and abdominal pain due to her forthcoming menstruation. Her reasons did not appease him and he got angrier. He rose from the bed, lifted the cot and threw it against the wall causing KKK to fall on the floor. Terrified, KKK stood up from where she fell, took her pillow and transferred to the bed. The accused-appellant again asserted his sexual yearning and when KKK tried to resist by holding on to her panties, he pulled them down so forcefully they tore on the sides. KKK stayed defiant by refusing to bend her legs. The accused-appellant then raised KKKÊs daster, stretched her legs apart and rested his own legs on them. She tried to wrestle him away but he held her hands and succeeded in penetrating her. As he was carrying out his carnal desires, KKK continued to protest by desperately shouting: „[D]onÊt do that to me because IÊm not feeling well. The presence of his children apparently did not pacify the accused-appellant who yelled, „[E]ven in front of you, I can have sex of your mother [sic] because IÊm the head of the family.‰ He then ordered his daughters to leave the room. Frightened, the girls obliged and went to the staircase where they subsequently heard the pleas of their helpless mother resonate with the creaking bed. In its Judgment dated April 1, 2002, the RTC sustained the version proffered by the prosecution by giving greater weight and credence to the spontaneous and straightforward testimonies of the prosecutionÊs witnesses. The trial court also upheld as sincere and genuine the two daughtersÊ testimonies, as it is not natural in our culture for daughters to testify against their own father for a crime such as rape if the same was not truly committed. HELD: In 1981, the Philippines joined 180 countries in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. In compliance with the foregoing international commitments, the Philippines enshrined the principle of gender equality in the 1987 Constitution specifically in Sections 11 and 14 of Article II The Legislature then pursued the enactment of laws to propagate gender equality. In 1997, R.A. No. 8353 eradicated the stereotype concept of rape in Article 335 of the RPC.The law reclassified rape as a crime against person and removed it from the ambit of crimes against chastity. More particular to the present case, and perhaps the lawÊs most progressive proviso is the 2nd paragraph of Section 2 thereof recognizing the reality of marital rape and criminalizing its perpetration. Read together with Section 1 of the law, which unqualifiedly uses the term „man‰ in defining rape, it is unmistakable that R.A. No. 8353 penalizes the crime without regard to the rapistÊs legal relationship with his victim.

The paradigm shift on marital rape in the Philippine jurisdiction is further affirmed by R.A. No. 9262, which regards committed by a man against his wife within or outside the family abode, viz.: Violence against women and their children refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts: „AAAÊs‰ state of „shivering‰ could not have been produced by force, threat or intimidation. She A. „Physical Violence‰ refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm; insinuates that she fell into that condition after Meneses had sexual intercourse with her. B. „Sexual violence‰ refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her However, their age gap negates force, threat or intimidation; he was only 14 while „AAA‰ was child. It includes, but is not limited to: already 24, not to mention that they were friends. In addition, per „AAAÊs‰ own declaration, a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a sex object, making demeaning and sexually suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of the In People v. Amogis,17 this Court held that resistance must be manifested and tenacious. A mere attempt to resist is not the resistance required and expected of a woman defending her virtue, honor and chastity. And granting that it was sufficient, „AAA should have done it earlier or the moment appellantÊs evil design became manifest. In other words, it would be unfair to convict a man of rape committed against a woman who, after giving him the impression thru her unexplainable silence of her tacit consent and allowing him to have sexual contact with her, changed her mind in the middle and charged him with rape.

victimÊs body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and indecent shows or forcing the woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and mistress/ lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the same room with the abuser; The contentions failed to muster legal and rational merit. The ancient customs and ideologies from which the irrevocable implied consent theory evolved have already been superseded by modern global principles on the equality of rights between men and women and respect for human dignity established in various international conventions, such as the CEDAW. The Philippines, as State Party to the CEDAW, recognized that a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achieve full equality between them.

The "women's honor" doctrine surfaced in our jurisprudence sometime in 1960. In the case of People v. Tana, 12 the Court affirmed the conviction of three (3) armed robbers who took turns raping a person named Herminigilda Domingo. This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor. And while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman. We, should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman's dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.

Moreover, to treat marital rape cases differently from nonmarital rape cases in terms of the elements that constitute the crime and in the rules for their proof, infringes on the equal protection clause.

After a careful review of the records and a closer scrutiny of AAA's testimony, reasonable doubt lingers as we are not fully convinced that AAA was telling the truth. The following circumstances, particularly, would cast doubt as to the credibility of her testimony: (1) the version of AAA's story In fine, since the law does not separately categorize marital rape and nonmarital rape nor provide appearing in her affidavit-complaint differs materially from her testimony in court; (2) AAA could for different definition or elements for either, the Court, tasked to interpret and apply what the not have easily identified Amarela because the crime scene was dark and she only saw him for the law dictates, cannot trudge the forbidden sphere of judicial legislation and unlawfully divert from first time; (3) her testimony lacks material details on how she was brought under the stage against what the law sets forth. Neither can the Court frame distinct or stricter evidentiary rules for marital her will; and (4) the medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are inconclusive of rape cases as it would inequitably burden its victims and unreasonably and irrationally classify any signs of forced entry. them differently from the victims of nonmarital rape. If we were to take into account AAA's initial claim that Amarela pulled her away from the vicinity of The accused-appellant forced his wife when he knowingly overpowered her by gripping her hands, the stage, people facing the stage would easily notice that a man was holding a woman against her flexing her legs and then resting his own legs thereon in order to facilitate the consummation of his will. Thus, AAA's version that she was on her way to the rest room, instead of being pulled away much-desired nonconsensual sexual intercourse. Records also show that the accused-appellant from the crowd watching the beauty contest, would make it seem that nobody would notice if AAA employed sufficient intimidation upon KKK. His actuations prior to the actual moment of the was being taken away against her will. If indeed AAA was on her way to the rest room when she felonious coitus revealed that he imposed his distorted sense of moral authority on his wife. He was grabbed by Amarela, why does her sworn statement reflect another story that differs from her furiously demanded for her to lay with him on the bed and thereafter coerced her to indulge his court testimony? To our mind, AAA's testimony could have been concocted to just make her story sexual craving. believable rather than sticking to her original story that Amarela introduced himself and pulled her away from the stage. We cannot say that this inconsistency is simply a minor detail because it casts The fact that KKK voluntarily went with the accused-appellant to their conjugal bedroom on some doubt as to whether AAA was telling the truth - that she was abducted against her will before October 16, 1998 cannot be stretched to mean that she consented to the forced sexual she was raped. intercourse that ensued. The accused-appellant was KKKÊs husband and hence it was customary for her to sleep in the conjugal bedroom. No consent can be deduced from such act of KKK Second, we also find it dubious how AAA was able to identify Amarela considering that the whole because at that juncture there were no indications that sexual intercourse was about to take place. incident allegedly happened in a dark place. In fact, she had testified that the place was not The significant point when consent must be given is at that time when it is clear to the victim that illuminated and that she did not see Amarela's face. her aggressor is soliciting sexual congress. In this case, that point is when the accused-appellant tapped his fingers on her lap, a gesture KKK comprehended to be an invitation for a sexual Third, her claim that she was forcibly brought under a makeshift stage, stripped naked, and then intercourse, which she refused. raped seems unrealistic and beyond human experience. PEOPLE v. AMARELA 2 INFORMATION FOR RAPE Prosecution presented [AAA], single, housekeeper and a resident of [XXX], Calinan, Davao City. On February 10, 2009, at around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, she was watching a beauty contest with her aunt at Maligatong, Baguio District, Calinan, Davao City. The contest was being held at a basketball court where a make-shift stage was put up. The only lights available were those coming from the vehicles around.

As to Racho's case, we note that AAA testified only once for both criminal cases. This means that both Amarela and Racho were convicted based on her lone testimony. When we rely on the testimony of the private complainant in rape cases, we require that her testimony be entirely credible, trustworthy, and realistic. For when certain parts would seem unbelievable, especially when it concerns one of the elements of the crime, the victim's testimony as a whole does not pass the test of credibility. Since we doubt AAA's account on how she was raped by Amarela, we have to consider her testimony against Racho under the same light.

She had the urge to urinate so she went to the comfort room beside the building of the Maligatong Cooperative near the basketball court. Between the cooperative building and the basketball court were several trees. She was not able to reach the comfort room because [ Amarela] was already waiting for her along the way. Amarela suddenly pulled her towards the day care center. She was shocked and was no match to the strength of Amarela who pulled her under the stage of the day care center. He punched her in the abdomen which rendered her weak. Then Amarela undressed her. She tried to resist him but he was stronger. He boxed her upper thigh and she felt numb. He placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis inside her vagina and made a push and pull movement. She shouted for help and then three (3) men came to her rescue [so] Amarela fled.

Faced with AAA's doubtful narration before she went home alone, we are inclined to believe Racho's version that they parted ways when AAA insisted that she wanted to go home. To begin with, Racho did not even want to bring AAA to her aunt's house nearby.43 If he had the intention to have sex with AAA, Racho would not have declined her mother's instruction. To add, Racho said he left AAA by herself because he did not want to bring AAA to her house since this was in another town from her aunt's house.44 His reason for leaving AAA to go home alone is supported by the fact that he was able to immediately come home right after he left with AAA. Unlike AAA's testimony, the version offered by Racho is corroborated by the testimony of his mother.

The three (3) persons brought her to a hut. But they closed the hut and had bad intentions with her. So she fled and hid in a neighboring house. When she saw that the persons were no longer around, she proceeded on her way home. She went to the house of Godo Dumandan who brought her first to the Racho residence because Dumandan thought her aunt was not at home. Dumandan stayed behind So Neneng Racho asked her son [Racho] to bring her to her aunt's house instead.

Henceforth, we are constrained to reverse the R TC and the CA rulings due to the presence of lingering doubts which are inconsistent with the requirement of guilt beyond reasonable doubt as quantum of evidence to convict an accused in a criminal case. Amarela and Racho are entitled to an acquittal, as a matter of right, because the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[AAA] then said that [Racho] brought her to a shanty along the way against her will. She was told to lie down. When she refused, [Racho] boxed her abdomen and she felt sick. She resisted by kicking him but he succeeded in undressing her. He, then, undressed himself and placed himself on top of [AAA]. [Racho] then inserted his penis into [AAA]'s vagina. After consummating the act, [Racho] left her. So [AAA] went home alone. When she reached home, her parents were already asleep. She went inside her room and cried. The following morning, she decided to leave home. Her mother was surprised at her decision until eventually, [AAA] told her mother about what happened to her. She told her [eldest] brother first who got very angry. In its joint judgment, the RTC found AAA's testimony, positively identifying both Amarela and Racho, to be clear, positive, and straightforward. Hence, the trial court did not give much weight to their denial as these could not have overcome the categorical testimony of AAA. As a result, Amarela and Racho were convicted. HELD: More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell her story of sexual· depredation, rape cases are solely decided based on the credibility of the testimony of the private complainant. In doing so, we have hinged on the impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. 11 However, this misconception, particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a travesty of justice.