Marinay June 2017.docx

G.R. No. 218942, June 05, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ROLANDO BISORA Y LAGONOY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT Doctrine: For conviction in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. The accused’s claim that he and the victim are sweethearts does not necessarily negate the victim’s lack of consent to the sexual encounter with accused. As has been consistently ruled, "a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will. Love is not a license for lust." Facts: AAA, the complainant, testified that she was raped by accused-appellant twice: on September 9, 2011 and May 23, 2012. AAA declared that they were sweethearts but the relationship remained a secret as AAA was afraid of her parents. Allegedly on September 9, 2011 Accused-appellant was at the billiard houose when he asked AAA if they could talk. Accused-appellant then brought AAA to the restroom where he forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Fearing that her parents would know what happened between her and accused-appellant, AAA went away and stayed with her aunt in Cavite. AAA was again raped on May 23, 2012, at around 2 o'clock in the afternoon. AAA was then at her house when accused-appellant invited her to talk. Accused-appellant brought AAA to the neighbor's comfort room forced her to remove her shorts then inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina, while in a standing position. AAA pushed accused-appellant, but to no avail. Accused-appellant admitted that they became sweethearts and to being in the billiard hall and seeing AAA therein on May 23, 2012, when AAA was allegedly raped, but denied that he had a sexual encounter with her. Accused-appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue: WHETHER ACCUSED WAS GUILTY OF RAPE BEYOND REASONABALE DOUBT

Ruling: Accused is guilty of rape. For conviction in the crime of rape, the following elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. Page 1 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

In this case, We find no merit in accused-appellant's argument that the prosecution failed to establish force or intimidation. AAA's failure to shout or to tenaciously resist accused-appellant should not be taken against her since such negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to accusedappellant's criminal act. In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.[6] In this case, We find that accused-appellant employed force upon AAA when he forcibly held AAA by the hand as he led her to the comfort room. We also find that intimidation facilitated the commission of the offense, considering accused-appellant's persistent threats to AAA in saying "subukan mong magsumbong sa magulang mo". We are cognizant of the fact that the victim, AAA, was then a 16-year old girl who heavily feared her parents, while accused-appellant was a 42-year old man. Evidently, it is not unreasonable to discern that AAA was cowed to surrendering to accused-appellant's bestial desires. We note that in AAA's direct testimony, she narrated that she felt afraid when accused-appellant uttered the said statement.[7] Neither do We find meritorious accused-appellant's claim questioning AAA's failure to immediately report the incident. Suffice it to state that delay in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of fabrication and does not necessarily cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.[8] As to accused-appellant's claim that he and AAA were sweethearts, such fact does not necessarily negate AAA's lack of consent to the sexual encounter with accused-appellant. As has been consistently ruled, "a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will. Love is not a license for lust." Finally, the level, of healing of AAA's hymen does not cast any doubt to the conclusion that she was raped. The essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent. 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 woman's genitalia is not indispensable to a conviction for rape.[10] In sum, the prosecution was able to establish accused-appellant's guilt of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. Page 2 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

G.R. No. 216937, June 05, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. TITO AMOC Y MAMBATALAN ACCUSED-APPELLANT Doctrine: Article 266-A of the RPC pertinently reads: Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is committed — 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: xxx a. Through force, threat or intimidation; Failure of the victim to resist does not necessarily amount to consent to accused-appellant's criminal acts. It is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; as moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. Even the victim's lack of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not signify voluntariness or consent.

Facts: Accused-appellant was charged with two counts of rape in violation of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), in two separate Informations. Prosecution witness and victim AAA narrated her tragic experience which happened in April 2009 at around 6 o'clock in the morning, when she was only thirteen years old. Accused-appellant brought her into their bedroom, took off all her clothes, tied her legs with a rope, undressed himself, and proceeded to have carnal knowledge of her. Accused-appellant covered AAA's mouth to prevent her from asking help. Accused-appellant pointed a knife at her and tried to stab her. AAA could not tell her mother what happened because accused-appellant was always tailing her. AAA also testified that the second sexual abuse happened on July 12, 2009. Accused-appellant even warned AAA not to say anything about the incident. RTC and CA both affirmed the guilt of the accused. Accused-appellant questions the CA Decision and argues that the prosecution failed to prove the element of force and intimidation;

Issue: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF RAPE

Ruling: Accused is guilty of rape. There is no cogent reason to deviate from the CA ruling affirming the RTC's factual finding that the accused-appellant is guilty of two counts of rape. The issues raised are factual in nature. The Page 3 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

trial court's evaluation shall be binding on this Court unless it is shown that certain facts of substance and value have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied.[11] None of the exceptions is present in this case. Even if We consider the factual issues raised, the findings of fact of the RTC and the CA still sufficiently support the conviction of and imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua on the accused-appellant for the crime of rape against AAA. Article 266-A of the RPC pertinently reads: ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. — Rape is committed — 1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: a. Through force, threat or intimidation; xxx xxx xxx For a charge of rape under the above-mentioned provision to prosper, the following elements must be present: (1) accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA; and, (2) he accompanied such act by force, threat or intimidation. The first element of carnal knowledge is present because accused-appellant, in fact, admits that he had carnal knowledge of AAA. The point of contention is whether there was force, or intimidation, or threat in the said act. We find that the evidence on record sufficiently established that the accused-appellant employed force, intimidation and threat in carrying out his sexual advances on AAA. The CA correctly found that the accused-appellant employed force upon the person of AAA. Accused-appellant tied AAA's legs with a rope, climbed on top of her, and covered her mouth to prevent her from asking for help. Accused-appellant also threatened AAA when he pointed a knife at her and tried to stab her. Clearly, contrary to the accused-appellant's contention, the element of force and intimidation is present in this case. And even assuming arguendo that AAA failed to resist, the same does not necessarily amount to consent to accused-appellant's criminal acts. It is not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employed; as moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence or intimidation. Jurisprudence holds that the failure of the victim to shout for help does not negate rape. Even the victim's lack of resistance, especially when intimidated by the offender into submission, does not signify voluntariness or consent. In the cases of People v. Ofemaniano[13] and People v. Corpuz[14], it has been acknowledged that even absent any actual force or intimidation, rape may be committed if the malefactor has moral ascendancy over the victim. Considering that accused-appellant was the common-law spouse of AAA's mother, and as such, he was exercising parental authority over AAA. Indeed, in this case, moral ascendancy is substituted for force and intimidation.

Page 4 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

G.R. No. 217459, June 07, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ALBERTO FORTUNA ALBERCA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Doctrine: The absence of hymenal laceration is of no moment. Contrary to the accused-appellant's theory, the same does not negate the fact of rape as a broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. xxx Likewise, the absence of hymenal fluid or spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or absence thereof is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of rape.

Facts: AAA testified that on September 7, 2000, the accused-appellant, her mother's live-in partner, waylaid her and dragged her towards the forest and raped her. She tried to resist but he threatened to kill her with the long firearm that he was carrying at that time. Thereafter, AAA went home and did not tell anybody about the incident as accused-appellant threatened to kill her and her family. On January 4, 2001, AAA was then again raped by the accused inside his hut. On April 3, 2001, AAA examined and found four months pregnant. The child was, however, delivered prematurely and died. Accused pointed out that AAA was already pregnant before the alleged second rape on January 4, 2001 as testified to by Dr. Salas, hence, accused-appellant theorized that he could not have fathered the child. Accused further argued that absence of physical injury, hymenal laceration, and seminal fluid negates the fact of rape, the same not being an essential element of the crime.

Issue: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF QUALIFIED RAPE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Ruling: Accused is guilty of qualified rape. The absence of hymenal laceration is of no moment. Contrary to the accused-appellant's theory, the same does not negate the fact of rape as a broken hymen is not an essential element of rape[38]. In fact, this Court has, in a previous case, affirmed the conviction of the accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen since medical findings suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to stay intact despite repeated sexual intercourse. Likewise, the absence of hymenal fluid or spermatozoa is not a negation of rape. The presence or absence thereof is immaterial since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes the crime of rape. Besides, the absence of the seminal fluid from the vagina could be due to a number of factors, such as the vertical drainage of the semen from the vagina, the acidity of the vagina, or simply the washing of Page 5 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

the vagina after the sexual intercourse.[42] At any rate, the presence of spermatozoa is not an element of the crime of rape. The finding that AAA was already seven months pregnant as of July 26, 2001 cannot be considered a hundred percent accurate assessment and thus, does not discount the possibility that accusedappellant raped and even impregnated AAA on January 4, 2001, which notably was just nine days apart from the estimated start of AAA's pregnancy on December 26, 2000. Xxx Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and must be brushed aside when the prosecution has sufficiently and positively ascertained the identity of the accused.[48] And as often stressed, a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the witness testifying on the matter, prevails over denial, which is a negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.

Page 6 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

G.R. No. 212934, June 07, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. BLAS GAA Y RODRIGUEZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. Doctrine: Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. xxx Since the elements of minority and the relationship of the accused with minor victim were alleged in the two Informations and that the same were sufficiently proven by the prosecution during the trial, the accused is guilty of two counts of Qualified Statutory Rape.

Facts: AAA was raped two times: First count, accused did not succeed in penetrating AAA's vagina but his penis was in the 'bokana' (sic) of AAA's vagina. Blas Gaa also inserted his fingers inside AAA's vagina and she described this act to be "kinali-kalikot" and "sinundut-sundot". AAA repeatedly had the same experience from Blas Gaa. She said that the incident happened many times. Second count, Accused forced his penis against her vagina while she was in a lying position. She tried to evade him but he was threatening her with his bolo. On the part of the defense, Accused testified that on the day of the first incident, he was in the surroundings of his house cutting grass. He also denied the incident which happened sometime in March 2003. He said that the reason that AAA accused him of rape is because his wife was having an affair with another man. He suggested to his wife to have AAA medically examined and that the medical certificate shows a negative result for laceration, spematozoa, among others.

Issue: WHETHER ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF TWO QUALIFIED STATUTORY RAPE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Ruling: Yes, accused is guilty of two counts of rape. Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that Rape is committed: 1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: Page 7 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

a) Through force, threat or intimidation; b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious; c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. xxx Statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below 12 years of age regardless of her consent, or the lack of it, to the sexual act. Proof of force, intimidation, or consent is unnecessary as they are not elements of statutory rape, considering that the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the victim is below the age of 12. At that age, the law presumes that the victim does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, to convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution carries the burden of proving: (a) the age of the complainant; (b) the identity of the accused; and (c) the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant. xxx In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost always, the single most important issue. If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis. xxx The testimony of the accused establishes the fact that accused-appellant's penis penetrated, however slight, the lips of the female organ or the labia of the pudendum. As such, the crime of rape was consummated. It is well-settled that full penetration of the female genital organ is not indispensable. It suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however slight, is sufficient. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify conviction for rape. As We have ruled earlier, the relationship of the accused-appellant with the victim has been sufficiently proved by the prosecution. Likewise, AAA's minority was established by her Birth Certificate showing that AAA was born on November 3, 1991. Thus, AAA was below 12 years of age at the time of the commission of the two rape incidents. Since the elements of minority of AAA and the relationship of the accused-appellant with AAA were alleged in the two Informations and that the same were sufficiently proven by the prosecution during the trial, We agree with the CA that accused-appellant is guilty of two counts of Qualified Statutory Rape.

Page 8 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

G.R. No. 219848, June 07, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. GODOFREDO MACARAIG Y GONZALES, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Doctrine: Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. When the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense.

Facts: At around one o'clock in the morning after watching a basketball game, Francis and Joven both decided to go home a. On his way home, Francis saw accused following Joven, approach Joven from the back, place his left arm over his shoulder and suddenly stabbed Joven. Joven, despite the stab wounds, managed to get home and was able to seek help from his parents. On their way to the hospital, Herson asked Joven about the identity of his assailant. Joven categorically told him it was accused. Joven however expired and was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. Accused contends that at around 3:00 o'clock in the morning after a dinking (sic) spree accused was about to go to the house of Crobalde when two (2) unidentified men followed him and another man was waiting for him. One of the men tried to stab him with a balisong but it was the latter's companion who was hit. When he noticed that one of them was carrying a bolo, he ran away.

Issue: WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER

Ruling: Yes, the accused is guilty of murder. Self-defense, when invoked as a justifying circumstance, implies the admission by the accused that he committed the criminal act. Generally, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt rather than upon the accused that he was in fact innocent. When the accused, however, admits killing the victim, it is incumbent upon him to prove any claimed justifying circumstance by clear and convincing evidence. Well-settled is the rule that in criminal cases, self-defense shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense. Page 9 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

To invoke self-defense, in order to escape criminal liability, it is incumbent upon the accused to prove by clear and convincing evidence the concurrence of the following requisites under the second paragraph of Article 11 of the RPC, viz.: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Of all the burdens the accused-appellant carried the most important of all is the element of unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. The element of unlawful aggression must be proven first in order for self-defense to be successfully pleaded. There can be no selfdefense, whether complete or incomplete, unless the victim had committed unlawful aggression against the person who resorted to self-defense. xxx It is well to note that by invoking self-defense, the accused-appellant, in effect, admitted to the commission of the acts for which he was charged, albeit under circumstances that, if proven, would have exculpated him. With this admission, the burden of proof shifted to the accused-appellant to show that the killing was attended by the following circumstances: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victims; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel such aggression; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the persons resorting to selfdefense. "In this case, however, the accused-appellant stated that it was not him who stabbed the victim, but the victim's companion or somebody else. From this observation alone, the trial court correctly struck down accused-appellant's (plea) self-defense. As correctly stated by the State in its Comment, this assertion negates accused-appellant's defense. That said, the presence of the elements of self-defense need not be discussed as there is no self-defense to speak of in the first place. Furthermore, a plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated in favor of the accused where it is not only corroborated by independent and competent evidence but is also extremely doubtful by itself.[8] (Emphasis supplied). From the evidence and as found by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, the facts sufficiently prove that treachery was employed by accused-appellant when he stabbed Joven. It was candidly narrated by witness Losano that accused-appellant followed Joven from behind, suddenly approached him, put his left arm over Joven's shoulder and proceeded to stab him using his right hand. Such circumstances showed that accused-appellant employed a method which tended directly and specifically to insure the execution of his dastardly act without any risk to himself arising from whatever defense which the victim might make. Verily, the attack on Joven was so swift and unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend himself. In sum, the prosecution was able to establish the accusedappellant's guilt of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

Page 10 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

G.R. No. 208359, June 19, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. DEMETRIO SABIDA Y SADIWA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Doctrine: Treachery is evident from the fact that the victim could not have been aware of the imminent peril to his life. The sudden and unexpected attack adopted by the accused deprived the victim of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. He had no foreboding of any danger, threat or harm upon his life at the said time, place and occasion. There was treachery not only because of the suddenness of the attack but also because of the absence of an opportunity on the victim's part to repel the attack.

Facts: Richard Pimentel (Pimentel) and the victim, MacArthur Mawac (Mawac), were walking towards the mountain when Sabida unexpectedly emerged from the road and repeatedly stabbed and hacked Mawac with a bolo. Afterwards, Sabida turned to Pimentel and uttered, "Isa ka pa, " prompting the latter to run away. Sabida run after Pimentel but he failed to catch the latter. Immediately thereafter, Pimentel reported the incident to Barangay Captain Hintay, who in turn reported the incident to the police station of Pinamalayan. Sabida admitted killing Mawac and invoked self-defense. Mawac was then, looking for his chickens when Mawac tried to draw out the bolo tucked under his waist but Sabida was able to defend himself so they struggled and fought off each other. Meanwhile, Pimentel fled the scene while they were fighting. He said that he left Mawac lying on the ground, who, even then, was still taunting him to continue fighting. Issues: WHETHER THE GUILT OF SABIDA FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT Ruling: Sabida is guilty of murder. In attempting to escape liability, Sabida invokes self-defense. Upon invoking the justifying circumstance of self-defense, Sabida assumed the burden of proving the justification of his act with clear and convincing evidence. Having admitted the killing, Sabida is required to rely on the strength of his own evidence, not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, which even if it were weak, could not be disbelieved in view of his admission.[11]

Page 11 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

However, based on the records and the evidence adduced by both parties, it is indisputable that Sabida failed to show that Mawac exhibited unlawful aggression against him. Being the party initiating the attack and armed with a deadly weapon, Sabida cannot successfully claim that there was unlawful aggression. Sabida's self-serving claim of self-defense coupled with the fact that he did not sustain any injury from his supposed attacker fails to support any claim of unlawful aggression. The trial court aptly noted that there was no clear and credible evidence that Mawac was the one who instigated the fight and that Sabida was merely fending off an attack. xxx The qualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated by the CA. In this case, treachery is evident from the fact that the victim could not have been aware of the imminent peril to his life. Mawac was obviously caught off-guard, unprepared for the sudden, unexpected and unprovoked attack on his person when Sabida surprisingly emerged from the road and hacked him with a bolo. The sudden and unexpected attack adopted by Sabida deprived the victim of any chance to defend himself or to retaliate. He had no foreboding of any danger, threat or harm upon his life at the said time, place and occasion. There was treachery not only because of the suddenness of the attack but also because of the absence of an opportunity on the victim's part to repel the attack. Without a doubt, the killing was attended by treachery. Thus, considering all the above-mentioned facts, Sabida's conviction for the crime of murder must stand.

Page 12 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

G.R. No. 207516, June 19, 2017 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. AMBROSIO OHAYAS, ROBERTO OWAS, FLORENCIO RAPANA, CERELO BALURO, EDDIE YAGUNO, RUPO YAGUNO AND JERRY YAGUNO, ACCUSED. AMBROSIO OHAYAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT Doctrine: The elements of the crime of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[4] In this case, these requisites have been established by the prosecution. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.

Facts: At around 8:00 o'clock, the 12-year old victim, Armando Kyamko, Jr. (Armando, Jr.), was with his friends relaxing and conversing under a kalachuchi tree along the national road in Sitio Bonbon, Pinamungajan, Cebu. The place where the three lads were having a conversation was illuminated by the lights coming from the house of Sany. Suddenly, the Accused, together with his companions, walked towards the place where the three lads were conversing with a shotgun and shot Amado Jr. without any warning. On the day of the shooting, accused-appellant claimed that he was fishing at sea. At around 8 o'clock in the evening, he heard gunshots coming from Sitio Bonbon, Pinamungajan, Cebu. He felt afraid, so he stopped fishing and went home. Accused-appellant further claimed that he was cooking fish when the policemen went to his house, searched for a shotgun, but did not find any. Accused-appellant also contended that it was Eddie Yaguno who killed the victim as he was the one who owned the shotgun.

Issue: WHETHER ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF MURDER.

Held: Page 13 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

Yes, Accused is guilty of murder. The elements of the crime of murder are: (1) a person was killed; (2) the accused killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC); and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.[4] In this case, these requisites have been established by the prosecution. xxx As to the presence of treachery, We find that the prosecution sufficiently established its existence in the commission of the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend to directly and specially insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. That alevosia or treachery attended the killing of the victim was apparent from the suddenness of the attack. Armando, Jr., the 12-year old victim, who was merely talking to his friends, was suddenly shot by the accused-appellant. The shooting in this case was deliberate, swift and sudden, denying the victim the opportunity to protect or defend himself. He was unarmed and unaware of the harm about to happen to him. In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish that: (1) Armando, Jr. was shot and killed; (2) the accused-appellant was the person who killed him; (3) Armando, Jr.'s killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery; and (4) the killing of Armando, Jr. was neither parricide nor infanticide. In contrast to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, accused-appellant could only muster the defense of denial and alibi. Accused-appellant claims that he was fishing during the shooting incident, and that it was his cousins, his co-accused in the court a quo, Eddie Yaguno, Florencio Owas, Jerry Yaguno, Roberto Owas and Cerilo Bolodo, who were responsible for the victim's demise. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. In this case, suffice it to state that the defense failed to establish that it was physically impossible for the accused-appellant to have perpetrated the offense.

Page 14 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

G.R. No. 203114, June 28, 2017 VIRGILIO LABANDRIA AWAS, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. Doctrine: The failure of the minor victim to shout during the incident would not exculpate the petitioner. There is no standard behavior for a victim of a crime against chastity. xxx The victim could have been submissive due to her tender age, but the fact that she did cry after the incident was a true indication, indeed, that she had felt violated. The elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code are, to wit: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) the act is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation, or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex.

Facts: AAA, a Grade III pupil declared that [petitioner] is the boyfriend of her sister. Sometime in January 2010, [petitioner] was in their house in Valenzuela City. [Petitioner] called her and brought her inside the room. [Petitioner] touched her vagina. [Petitioner] made her lie down beside him and again touched her vagina. AAA's brother came to know about the incident when he saw her crying in a corner of their house. Her brother told her mother about the incident. On January 25, 2010, Ortiz, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory finds that there was no evidence of any sexual abuse because of his findings that AAA's genital organ is normal. Accused denied that allegations.

Issue: WHETHER ACCUSED IS GUILTY OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUNESS.

Ruling: Accused is guilty of acts of lasciviousness. The failure of AAA to shout during the incident would not exculpate the petitioner. There is no standard behavior for a victim of a crime against chastity. Behavioral psychology teaches that people react to similar situations dissimilarly. AAA could have been submissive due to her tender age, but the fact that she did cry after the incident was a true indication, indeed, that she had felt violated. Worthy to note is that her own brother, upon noticing her crying, inquired why she was crying, and she then told him that the petitioner had touched her vagina. Moreover, in prosecutions for acts of lasciviousness, the lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. Youth, and, as is more applicable herein, immaturity of the victim are generally badges of truth that the courts cannot justly ignore. Page 15 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017

The acts committed by the petitioner against AAA constituted acts of lasciviousness. The elements of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code are, to wit: (1) the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) the act is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation, or (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or (c) when the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) the offended party is another person of either sex. Such acts are punished as sexual abuse under Republic Act No. No. 7610, whose elements under Section 5 of the law are namely: (1) the accused commits the acts of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. No. 7610 defines lascivious conduct as: The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.

Page 16 of 16 A.S.Marinay_ June 2017