Final Crim Digests Copy

5/24/2018 Final Crim Digests Copy

1/53

C R I M I N A L L A WDIGESTS

ATENEOCENTRALBAROPERATIONS2002

OCTOBER 1999

PEOPLE V. NARIDOOctober 1, 1999

Accused raped his 11-year-old daughter while they are gathering firewood. On another

occasion, his common law wife caught him lying on top of his daughter.Issue:W/N said crime is punishale y death! "special circumstance imposing death penaltyautomatically - #ictim is under 1$ years of age and offender is a parent.%&'(): No.*uilty only of simple statutory rape and not +ualified rape for want of allegation of relationship.aid special circumstances introduced y A 0 which sanction automatic imposition ofdeath penalty parta2e of the nature of +ualifying circumstances since these circumstancesincrease the penalty for rape y one degree. Nonetheless, to e properly appreciated as a+ualifying circumstance, it must e specifically pleaded in the information. Information in thiscase re#eals that although the complainant3s minority was alleged, the fact of relationship, aleitpro#en during the trial, was not so specified.

PEOPLE V. PADAMAOctober 1, 19994ictim *atchalian was chased y the two accused, each armed with a 2nife, and staedsimultaneously se#eral times. &e e#entually died of se#ere lood loss. aid 2illing arose from apre#ious incident where #ictim confronted accused regarding their plan of stealing from the storeof the former.Issue: W/N there was treachery! 5es. W/N there was e#ident premeditation! No.&'():6he conclusion that the 2illing was attended with treachery or ta2ing ad#antage of superiorstrength, as the two accused each armed with laded weapons and continuously attac2ing and

raining 2nife thrusts upon the unarmed and unsuspecting #ictim which caused his e#entualdeath is also not to e distured. 6he e#idence shows that the two accused too2 turns instaing the #ictim while the latter had already fallen down on the pa#ement.7roof of the alleged resentment does not constitute conclusi#e proof of e#ident premeditation.

An e8pression of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to commit a crime9 there muste a demonstration of outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest.

PEOPLE V. VILLABLANCAOctober 1, 19994illalanca rothers arged in to the house of #ictim 7edro Natanio late in the night. 7edro andhis family were awa2ened y their chic2ens flying off the perch. 4ictim was made to 2neel onthe floor and then staed him on the stomach with a samurai, while the other pointed a gun to

his face. 4ictim rolled to his side and was again staed thrice which led to his deathIssue: W/N there was treachery! 5es. W/N there was ause of superior strength! No.

W/N there was conspiracy! 5es.&'():7edro may ha#e een warned of a possile danger to his person. &owe#er, what is decisi#e isthat the attac2 was e8ecuted in a manner ma2ing it impossile for 7edro to retaliate. When7edro was made to 2neel on the floor, he was unarmed. 6here was no ris2 to the accused whenthey commenced the staing. 7edro3s helplessness was olstered y the fact that he wassuffering from a congenital limpness, which allowed him to wal2 only short distances.6here is no e#idence that accused too2 ad#antage of superior strength. In any e#ent, e#en if itwas present it was asored in treachery. oth accused shall suffer the same fate, as there was

conspiracy etween them. When the other pointed a gun to 7edro, he pro#ided his rother withmoral assistance. 6his is enough to ma2e him a co-conspirator. It is not necessary to show thathe actually he hit and 2illed 7edro to ma2e him liale for his rother3s acts.

PEOPLE V. VERGELOctober 4, 19994ergel and )uran, oth drun2 and armed with a gun and a fan 2nife, fetched and forcilyrought #ictim on oard a tricycle to an apartment. 4ergel had carnal 2nowledge with said #ictim

;endo?a 1


2/53



after he po2ed the gun at her side and pulled her into a edroom, while )uran stayed guardnear the door of the sala.Issue: W/N there was rape!&'(): 5es.It is clear there was rape. 6he prosecution was ale to pro#e that "1% the accused had carnal

2nowledge of the complainant "@% ecause he intimidated her y pointing a gun at her. ailure toshout or offer tenacious resistance did not ma2e #oluntary the complainant3s sumission to thecriminal acts of the accused. uch resistance is not an element of the felony. It is enough thatthe malefactor intimidated the complainant into sumission. Not e#ery #ictim of rape can ee8pected to act with reason or in conformity with the usual e8pectation of e#eryone.

PEOPLE V. AB!TOctober ", 1999pouses 5aut on se#eral occasions recei#ed money from complainants promising them theywill e ale to wor2 in =apan. After se#eral cancellation of their scheduled departure,complainants disco#ered that said spouses were not licensed to engage in recruitment andplacement acti#ities. Wife eluded arrest and remains at-large. &usand contends that he was

not engaged in recruitment for o#erseas employment and ut only in processing #isas. &e wasac+uitted of the crime of estafa.Issue: W/N accused could e con#icted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his ac+uittalof the crime of estafa!&'(): 5es.It is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may e charged and con#ictedseparately of illegal recruitment under the (aor


3/53



without the slightest pro#ocation from he #ictim who was unarmed and had no opportunity todefend himself, ineluctaly +ualified the crime with treachery.

PEOPLE V. ORTI&October #, 1999

Accused threw stones on the roof of the #ictim3s house. After the #ictim hurled challenge for thestone thrower to come out, the four accused suddenly emerged from the dar2. 4ictim was heldy the arms and dragged towards the arangay hall. Accused fired their rifles on the ground todissuade witnesses from coming to his aid. (ater, ursts of gunfire were heard coming from thedirection of the arangay hall. (ifeless ody of the #ictim was later found near the arangay hall.Issue: W/N guilty of murder! W/N there was conspiracy!&'(): 5es.6he only clear circumstance that +ualifies the 2illing to murder in this case is the ause ofsuperior strength etween the #ictim and his four aggressors, as well as the degree of force andthe weapons used y the latter.elecia were selling tua in a ma2eshift hut, se#eralmeters away from the highway. >elecia sat on a ench, while (udo#ico s+uatted on the ground,waiting for customers to arri#e. uddenly, a shot was fired. >elecia hid herself in an irrigation

canal while (udo#ico stood up and tried to find out where the shot came from. When anothershot was fired, >elecia shouted for (udo#ico to duc2. (udo#ico then stood an arm3s length awayfrom the highway. It was too late, >elecia saw accused-appellant uen onato shoot(udo#ico. 4ictim was rushed to the hospital and died two days later.Issue: W/N there was treachery! 5es.&'():6he essence of treachery is the sudden and une8pected attac2, without the slightestpro#ocation on the part of the person attac2ed. 6here is treachery when the attac2 on the #ictim

;endo?a B


4/53



was made without gi#ing the latter warning of any 2ind and thus rendering him unale to defendhimself from an assailant3s une8pected attac2. What is decisi#e is that the attac2 was e8ecutedin such a manner as to ma2e it impossile for the #ictim to retaliate. As testified to y >elecia,the #ictim was Es+uatting on the groundE in their ma2eshift hut when the shooting started. 6he#ictim stood up to find out what was happening. On the third time, accused-appellant shot him

point lan2 and in a helpless position.

PEOPLE V. LAC'ICAOctober 12, 1999

Accused oarded the tricycle of 7ascasio as his tricycle was running on the shoulder of theroad, he heard someody inside the tricycle cry out 3aray3 and felt warm lood spurt from insidethe sidecar of the tricycle landing at the ac2 of his right palm. &e then stopped the tricycle andaccused rought out #ictim odolfo 7amoleras, =r. and started to sta him while others ser#edas loo2out.Issue: W/N there was conspiracy! 5es. W/N there was treachery! 5es.&'():

aFale went to the store to drin2 eer. ome minutes later, they were Doined in theirdrin2ing y enato *ailo and his elder rother, onaldo *ailo, alias E>u2ongE. A minoraltercation ensued when onaldo o8ed the #ictim, ut the two were soon pacified and thegroup resumed their drin2ing. onaldo then in#ited otela and the #ictim to his house, where

allegedly there was a irthday party.On the way to the said party, *ailos assaulted the #ictim. otela witnessed onaldo sta the#ictim on the face with a olo, then enato staed the #ictim on the ac2, and udy hit the#ictim with a lead pipe on the nec2. A minute later, three other accused arri#ed, and for fi#eminutes, helped stone the #ictim, hitting him on the head and ody.Issue: W/N guilty of murder! 5es.

W/N nighttime was aggra#ating! No.&'():

;endo?a G


5/53



aid 2illing was +ualified to murder y the use of superior strength, the accused ha#ing clearlyo#erpowered the #ictim in terms of numer and weapons used.6here are two tests for nocturnity to e aggra#ating - the oDecti#e test, under which nocturnityis aggra#ating ecause it facilitated the commission of the offense, and the suDecti#e test,under which nocturnity is aggra#ating ecause it was purposely sought y the offender in order

to facilitate the achie#ement of his oDecti#es, pre#ent disco#ery or e#ade capture. In the instantcase, there is no e#idence that nighttime was sought for any of these purposes, or that it aidedthe accused in the consummation of the murder. >oreo#er, at the time of the 2illing, there wassufficient illumination from the moon such that the two eyewitnesses were ale to identify the si8accused.

PEOPLE V. PANI)!E%October 1(, 1999ereelief of an impending attac2 is not sufficient to constitute unlawful aggression. Neither is anintimidating or threatening attitude. '#en a mere push or sho#e not followed y other actsplacing in peril the life or personal safety of the accused is not unlawful aggression. It isnoteworthy that the indo rothers were unarmed. 6hey were young men ha#ing a Do#ial,innocuous con#ersation when appellant passed y. Without such imminent threat on his life, the

person in#o2ing self-defense has nothing to repel.

PEOPLE V. CLEMENTEOctober 1(, 1999


6/53



orce and #iolence in rape cases need not e o#erpowering or irresistile when applied. 6herecord shows that amidst complainant3s pleas and struggles, accused pinned complainant3shand ehind her ac2, co#ered her mouth with his hand and pulled her underwear to her 2neeefore spreading hr legs apart with such force that her undergarments were ripped.

PEOPLE V. GABALLOOctober 1(, 19996wo construction wor2ers heard a girl scream for a distance, then saw her eing hugged andpulled y accused towards the ipil trees. When they reached the place, they saw the girl inschool uniform lying face down. 6hey also saw the accused sitting down, who immediately ranaway. nfortunatey, they were not ale to apprehend the unidentified man.Issue: W/N there was treachery!&'(): 5'.6he 2illing of children, who y reason of their tender years cannot e e8pected to put up adefense, is considered attended with treachery e#en if the manner of attac2 is not preciselyshown.

PEOPLE V. COSTELOOctober 1(, 1999

Accused


7/53



PEOPLE V. MARAMARAOctober 20, 1999

A +uarrel transpired etween the friend of the accused and the #ictim in a enefit dance.Accused shot to death #ictim after a rumle occurred.

Issue: W/N accused is guilty of murder!&'(): No. *uilty of &omicide only6he use of a firearm is not sufficient indication of treachery. In the asence of any con#incingproof that accused-appellant consciously and delierately adopted the means y which hecommitted the crime in order to ensure its e8ecution, the


8/53



&'(): NO.It has een held that there is passion and ofuscation when the crime was committed due to anuncontrollale urst of passion pro#o2ed y prior unDust or improper acts, or due to a legitimatestimulus so powerful as to o#ercome reason. 6he ofuscation must originate from lawfulfeelings. 6he turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a +uarrel or fight should not e

confused with the sentiment or e8citement in the mind of a person inDured or offended to such adegree as to depri#e him of his sanity and self-control, ecause the cause of this condition ofmind must necessarily ha#e preceded the commission of the offense.

PEOPLE V. ELPIDIO 'ERNANDOOctober 2+, 1999pouses 'lpidio and 'lena &ernando were con#icted to reclusion perpetua for estafa. Ondifferent dates, they issued chec2s to =ohnny y which were dishonored upon presentment tothe an2. Accused spouses asserted that the chec2s had een issued merely an e#idence oftheir indetedness to the complainant. In this case, all the chec2s that ounced were issuedand drawn y 'lpidio &ernandoMs wife, 'lena Aan &ernando...6he chec2s, all payale to cash,were personally deli#ered and negotiated to =ohnny y y 'lpidio. 6hough he was not the

drawer of the chec2s, accused 'lpidio coa8ed the complainant to e8change the chec2s withcash y guaranteeing that the chec2s were good chec2s and funded...In all the transactions,'lpidio was present and personally recei#ed the money...6hough 'lena was not present duringthe negotiation of the chec2s, e8cept for the first transaction, she issued and signed the chec2s.&'():6o constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a chec2 in payment of an oligation muste the efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should e either prior to or simultaneouswith the act of fraud...6he offender must e ale to otain money or property from the offendedparty ecause of the issuance of the chec2 or that the person to whom the chec2 was deli#eredwould not ha#e parted with his money or property had there een no chec2 issued tohim...tated otherwise, the chec2 should ha#e een issued as an inducement for the surrendery the party decei#ed of his money or property and not in payment of a pre-e8isting oligation.E

PEOPLE V. ARMANDO SARABIAOctober 29, 19996he appellant in#o2es the Dustifying circumstance of self-defense in the charge of murderagainst him. &a#ing in#o2ed such circumstance, he is deemed to ha#e admitted ha#ing 2illedthe #ictim and the urden of proof shifts to him to estalish and pro#e the elements of self-defense.It has also een held y this oreo#er, Edefense of alii cannot pre#ail o#er the positi#eidentification of the accused y the eyewitness who had no untoward moti#e to falsely testify.E


9/53



No-eber 1*, 1999>oroy *allo was con#icted y the trial court of murder. &e +uestions the testimony of thewitness, Amelita 'larmo ecause of her relationship with the deceased.&'():6he upreme


10/53



PEOPLE V. MATEO BALL!DANo-eber 19,1999

Appellant was con#icted for #iolation of epulic Act No. G@0. &e contends that he wasneither selling, deli#ering, nor transporting drugs at the time he was apprehended.&'():

nder the ules of '#idence, it is disputaly presumed that things which a person possesses oro#er which he e8ercises acts of ownership, are owned y him. In U.S. vs. Bandoc, the


11/53



PEOPLE V. BARELLANONo-eber 29, 19996he #ictim was drin2ing tua with friends when the accused wal2ed up to the #ictim from ehindand shot him in the head. 6he #ictim fell to the ground and was shot again in the head.

iguel3s testimony was sufficient to con#ict the accused. 6he testimony of minors oftender age will suffice to con#ict a person of a crime as long as it is credile. 6he fact that>iguel e#entually stayed with one of the #ictim3s widows does not pro#e ias. It is ut naturalfor the erea#ed family to e concerned aout the safety of the lone witness. 6he concern forthe #ictim does not ma2e him iased or unreliale.

PEOPLE V. DE LEONDeceber (, 1999

Accused was charged with raping his -year-old daughter 1 times. &e denied the charge andhis defense was that the charge was filed ecause his daughter was Dealous of her father3saffection for another siling. &e was con#icted for all 1 charges of rape.&'():&e was found guilty of only one count of rape. 'ach and e#ery charge of rape is a separate anddistinct crime so that each of the 1 other rapes charged should e pro#en eyond reasonaledout. 6he #ictimMs testimony was o#erly generali?ed and lac2ed specific details on how each ofthe alleged 1 rapes was committed. &er are statement that she was raped so many times oncertain wee2s is clearly inade+uate and grossly insufficient to estalish the guilt of accused-appellant insofar as the other si8teen rapes charged are concerned.

PEOPLE V. LADRILLODeceber +, 1999acts:6he accused as2ed the $-year-old #ictim to come to his house to pic2 lice from his head. utthen after, he stripped na2ed and stripped the #ictim of his clothes and raped her G times duringthat one day. &e raised the defenses of denial and alii and +uestioned the sufficiency of theinformation since it states that the crime was committed Eon or aout 1@E.

;endo?a 11


12/53



&'():Ayra did not complain to her mother or her aunts aout the se8ual ausescommitted y her father against her for eight long years, is of no moment. >yra, who was of a

#ery tender age when the horrile e#ents in her life egan to unfold, could ha#e, in allproaility, een confused and ewildered y her e8perience that for more than half of heryoung life, she was shoc2ed into utter insensiility.urthermore, a rape #ictimMs testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses aclose relati#e of ha#ing raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father.

PEOPLE V. RALP' VELE& DIA&Deceber +, 1999)ia? was con#icted of 2illing and se8ually ausing a 1@-year-old oy. 6he trial court con#ictedhim notwithstanding the e8clusion of the e8traDudicial confession of accused-appellant and theasence of any eyewitness to the crime ecause of:"a% the testimony of 1P-year old elart that he saw his rother last ali#e in the company of

accused-appellant9"% the physical e#idence of se8ual ause through sodomy committed against the #ictim9"c% the plea of insanity which only tended to negate liaility ut was an admission of guilt9"d% the reenactment of the crime y accused-appellant the details of which could not ha#e een

2nown to anyody ut himself9 and,"e% the fact that accused-appellant #oluntarily confessed to the crime without any e#idence of

coercion, duress or intimidation e8erted upon him.Accused pleads he is not guilty of murder since there was no e#ident premeditation. &e pleadsinsanity and pleads that he cannot e sentenced to death since the information filed didnMtmention the sodomy.&'():6he crime committed y accused-appellant was murder e#en in the asence of the +ualifying

circumstance of e#ident premeditation ecause treachery and ause of superior strength werepresent - either of which +ualified the crime to murder. ince the #ictim was an 11 yr old oy,oth were present although treachery asors superior strength.Insanity must e pro#ed. All that was pro#ed y the psychiatrists was that accused wasse8ually per#erted or that he was sic2 of pedophilia ut such is different.

PEOPLE V. ROLANDO AL$ANTADeceber 9, 1999

Accused entered the place where the #ictim was sleeping with a olo. &e rought her to anaandoned place where he raped her, inserting his fingers and penis into her #agina and anus.&e was sentenced to death ecause of the aggra#ating circumstances of use of a deadlyweapon, nighttime and ignominy.

&'():6he use of a deadly weapon was not alleged in the information9 hence the offense cannot econsidered as +ualified rape. Nighttime and ignominy were present "sa pwet a naman%.imple rape is punishale y a single indi#isile penalty of reclusion perpetua. 6hus, e#en ifthere were aggra#ating circumstances of nighttime and ignominy in attendance the appropriatepenalty would still e reclusion perpetua under the law. Article B of the e#ised 7enal


13/53



applied y the courts regardless of any mitigating or aggra#ating circumstances that may ha#eattended the commission of the deed.E

PEOPLE V. AIME )!ISADeceber 10, 1999

A B-year-old girl was found dead in a canal. Accused was the last person seen with the littlegirl. &e was charged with rape with homicide. &e put forth the defense that he was with the girlut she ran away and fell into the canal as an e8empting circumstance "QAny person who, whileperforming a lawful act with due care, causes an inDury y mere accident without fault orintention of causing it.L7ar. G of Article 1@ of the e#ised 7enal a.


14/53



PEOPLE V. $ERNANDO CALANG MACOSTADeceber 14, 1999

Accused in#ited herein complainant to catch shrimps at the side of the >agpayang i#er. 6he#ictim acceded ut when they were at an uninhaited place, the accused 2issed and touched

the #ictim. &e tried to insert his penis ut once the penis was in the mouth of her #agina she feltpain so she pleaded for his mercy not to deflower her and she continued crying and pushed himhard until she was ale to e free. ost women might,

when gi#en the chance, immediately flee from their aggressors ut others may ecome #irtuallycatatonic ecause of mental shoc2

PEOPLE V. CABALIDADeceber 1", 1999

Accused raped his then 10 yr. old grandniece at gunpoint and threatened her with death if shetold on him. 6he #ictim ecame pregnant and only then did she tell her mother aout the crime.&'():

Ac+uitted for failure to pro#e eyond reasonale dout. 6he #ictim supposedly told noody ofthe crime since she feared for her life. ut accused had left for >anila already for se#eralmonths and the #ictim supposedly only told her mother when it was o#ious she was pregnant.econd, #ictim3s moti#e for accusing appellant is only so that her stepfather will not e

suspected of eing the father of the child. inally. accused returned to Ramoanga urder,in #iolation of 7residential )ecree "7.).% No. 1$.

Issue:Whether or not appellants may e properly con#icted of murder, frustrated murder andattempted murder under an Information that charges them with +ualified illegal possession offirearms used in murder in #iolation of ection 1 of 7residential )ecree "7.).% No. 1$!&'():

At the time the trial court promulgated its Dudgment of con#iction in eptemer 1P, it hadalready een si8 "% months since We held in People v. Tac-an that the unlawful possession ofan unlicensed firearm or ammunition, whether or not homicide or murder resulted from its use,

;endo?a 1G


15/53



on one hand, and murder or homicide, on the other, are offenses different and separate fromand independent of, each other. While the former is punished under a special law, the latter ispenali?ed under the e#ised 7enal


16/53



estalished y the prosecution, through the testimony of the #ictim3s mother,


17/53



With the passage of epulic Act No. $@G on =une , 1, the use of an unlicensed firearm inmurder or homicide is now considered, not as a separate crime, ut merely a specialaggra#ating circumstance. In the case at ar, appellant =(IAN A5O wascharged with >urder and Illegal 7ossession of irearms.&'():

7.). 1$, was amended on =une , 1 y epulic Act $@G. Aside from lowering thepenalty for said crime, .A. $@G also pro#ided that if homicide or murder is committed with theuse of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall e considered as a special aggra#atingcircumstance. 6his amendment has two "@% implications: first, the use of an unlicensed firearmin the commission of homicide or murder shall not e treated as a separate offense, ut merelyas a special aggra#ating circumstance9 second, as only a single crime "homicide or murder withthe aggra#ating circumstance of illegal possession of firearm% is committed under the law, onlyone penalty shall e imposed on the accused.6wo "@% re+uisites are necessary to estalish illegal possession of firearms: first, the e8istenceof the suDect firearm, and second, the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the gundid not ha#e the corresponding license or permit to carry it outside his residence. 6he onus

pro#andi of estalishing these elements as alleged in the Information lies with the prosecution.

PEOPLE v.LIBERATO MENDIONAG.R. No. 1290"*. $ebr3r 21, 2000efore this endiona guilty eyond reasonale dout of the crime of rape and sentencing him tosuffer the supreme penalty of death and to pay the complainant, >aricel


18/53



produces fear in the mind of the #ictim that if she did not sumit to the estial demands of theaccused, something far worse would efall her at the time she was eing molested. Aspronounced y the b3r;e o? 6ro-= -ct@: ort6he law does not impose upon a rape #ictim the urden of pro#ing resistance. 7hysicalresistance need not e estalished in rape when intimidation is e8ercised upon the #ictim andshe sumits herself against her will to the rapist3s lust ecause of fear for life and personalsafety.

At all e#ents, it is the urden of the prosecution to pro#e with certainty the fact that the #ictimwas elow 1$ when the rape was committed in order to Dustify the imposition of the deathpenalty. 6he record of the case is ereft of any independent e#idence, such as the #ictim3s dulycertified


19/53



construed as a manifestation of consent. 6hirdly, the coitus was against her will and without herconsent.Insofar as the e#identiary #alue of a medical e8amination is concerned, we ha#e that a medicale8amination is not indispensale to the prosecution of rape as long as the e#idence on handcon#inces the court that a con#iction for rape is proper.

PEOPLE VS. C!PINOG.R. No. 12"*++. Mrc5 (1, 2000.


20/53



PEOPLE VS. REGALAG.R. No. 1(0"0+. A6r< ", 2000.Robbery with rape

Accused-appellant was charged and con#icted of roery with rape.

&'():It should e noted that there is no law pro#iding that the additional rape/s or homicide/s shoulde considered as aggra#ating circumstance. 6he enumeration of aggra#ating circumstancesunder Article 1G of the e#ised 7enal


21/53



PEOPLE V. S!&AG.R. No. 1(0*11* A6r< 2000

Appellant was con#icted of the crime of roery with homicide, ased on the testimony of a loneeye-witness who saw how he and his co-accused 2illed the #ictim, and was sure that they too2

the #ictimMs clothes, money and other wares, which she sold.&'():a. On the crime of roery with homicide.It is well settled that in order to sustain a con#iction for roery with homicide, it is necessarythat the roery itself e pro#en conclusi#ely as any other essential element of a crime. In orderfor the crime of roery with homicide to e8ist, it is necessary that it e clearly estalished that aroery has actually ta2en place, and that, as a conse+uence or on the occasion of suchroery, a homicide e committed. Where the e#idence does not conclusi#ely pro#e theroery, the 2illing of the #ictim would therefore, e classified either as a simple homicide ormurder, depending upon the asence or presence of any +ualifying circumstance, and not thecomple8 offense of roery with homicide.. On the aggra#ating circumstance of use of superior strength

6here was a clear and notorious disparity of force etween the #ictim and the aggressors as theformer was unarmed and alone. 6he felons too2 ad#antage of their collecti#e strength too#erwhelm their comparati#ely defenseless #ictim. 6hus, it was held that Ean attac2 made y aman with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes thecircumstance of ause of that superiority which his se8 and the weapon used in the act affordedhim, and from which the woman was unale to defend herself.

PEOPLE V. RAMOSG.R. No. 1202+0 12 A6r< 20006he appellant was con#icted of raping his own 1P-year old daughter and relies solely on thedefense of denial of the said accusation against him.&'():

A rape #ictim3s testimony is entitled to greater weight when she accuses a close relati#e ofha#ing raped her, as in the case of a daughter against her father. 'arlier and long-standingdecisions of this


22/53



for its completion. It has een held that when the scene of the crime was sufficiently illuminatedy a lamp, nocturnity cannot e appreciated.6he aggra#ating circumstance of cruelty is present when Ethe wrong done in the commission ofthe crime is delierately augmented y causing other wrong not necessary for its commissionE.6here is cruelty when the culprit enDoys and delights in ma2ing his #ictim suffer slowly and

gradually, causing him unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act.. Whether the accused indeed committed forcile aduction with rape6he accused committed the crime of forcile aduction with rape punished under Article BB0 ofthe e#ised 7enal


23/53



6he #ictim was the iological daughter of the appellant who was raped se#eral times y thelatter and was only ale to disclose such estial acts after two years.&'():6wo important doctrines on rape

6he moral influence of a father o#er his daughter suffices to estalish rape.

At any rate, although a woman may e #iewed y the pulic as unchaste or impure she can

still e raped, as she is still free to refuse a man3s lustful ad#ances. 6he #ictim3s character inrape is immaterial.

PEOPLE V. LEGASPIG.R. No. 11#+02A6r< 2# 2000What is re+uired to estalish the defense of alii!

Alii is one of the wea2est defenses an accused can in#o2e, and the courts ha#e always loo2edupon it with caution, if not suspicion, not only ecause it is inherently unreliale ut li2ewiseecause it is rather easy to faricate. 6o prosper, alii must strictly meet the re+uirements oftime and place. 6hus, we ha#e consistently ruled that it does not suffice to pro#e that theaccused was somewhere else at the time of the commission of the crime. imilarly,

Durisprudence dictates that the element of physical impossiility e clearly shown9 6he accusedmust clearly estalish that he was so far away that it was not possile for him to ha#e eenphysically present at the locus criminisor its immediate #icinity at the time of the commission ofthe crime.What constitutes roery with homicide!In this specie of offense, the phrase Ey reasonE co#ers homicide committed efore or after theta2ing of personal property of another, as long as the moti#e of the offender "in 2illing a personefore the roery% is to depri#e the #ictim of his personal property which is sought to eaccomplished y eliminating an ostacle or opposition, or to do away with a witness or todefend the possession of stolen property.What is the proof necessary to estalish conspiracy!imilar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must epro#en eyond reasonale dout. or this purpose o#ert acts of the accused may consist ofacti#e participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moralassistance to his co-conspirators y eing present at the time of the commission of the crime, ory e8erting moral ascendancy o#er the other co-conspirators y mo#ing them to e8ecute orimplement the conspiracy.

PEOPLE V. AC!RAMG.R. No. 11#9"4A6r< 2#, 20006he appellant shot the #ictim who later died. After charges were filed and his commandingofficer was told of the incident, he was ordered not to lea#e camp, where he surrendered.&'():Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of #oluntary surrender6he essence of #oluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to gi#e himselfup and sumit himself unconditionally to the authorities either ecause he ac2nowledges hisguilt or he wishes to sa#e them the troule and e8pense necessarily incurred in his search andcapture. In this case, it was appellant3s commanding officer who surrendered him to the custodyof the court. eing restrained y one3s superiors to stay within the camp without sumitting tothe in#estigating authorities concerned, is not tantamount to #oluntary surrender ascontemplated y law.

PEOPLE V. VILLAG.R. No. 129+99A6r< 2#, 20006he appellant fired his rifle at the #ictim causing the latters death. After such incident theappellant surrendered to his commanding officer and pleaded guilty efore the court ut claimed

the defense of temporary insanity. Whether the appellant is entitled to the defense of insanity&'():No. 6he fact that immediately after the incident "accused% thought of surrendering to the law-enforcement authorities is incontestale proof that he 2new that what he had done was wrongand that he was going to e punished for it.E imilarly, a feeling of remorse is inconsistent withinsanity, as it is a clear indication that he was conscious of his acts, he ac2nowledged his guiltand was sorry for them.K

;endo?a @B


24/53



PEOPLE V. BA!TISTAG.R. No. 1(1+40A6r< 2#, 20006he appellants were con#icted for conspiring to murder the #ictim. One of the co-conspiratorssurrendered #oluntarily. Whether the liaility of each co-conspirator should e always e+ual.&'():

No. ince the e8istence of a conspiracy does not pre#ent the appreciation of a mitigatingcircumstance e8clusi#ely in fa#or of the co-conspirator to whom such circumstance may relate,to him alone.What constitutes ci#il liaility arising from a crime!6he ci#il liaility of accused-appellants for indemnity for death and actual and moral damages,howe#er, is solidary and not Doint as ruled y the trial court. >oral )amages. nder Art. @@P ofthe


25/53



e#en when the #ictim was forewarned of the danger to his person. What is decisi#e is that thee8ecution of the attac2 made it impossile for the #ictim to defend himself or retaliate. 6he #ictimwas totally defenseless when he went out of his hiding place "went ehind a cemented wallwhen the accused pointed the gun%. &e was 1 years old and his left hand was e8tended as if insupplication and surrender ut the accused shot him nonetheless.

PEOPLE V MADARANGGr. No. 1(2(19 M 12,2000

Appellant was con#icted of parricide for staing his wife, causing her death. Appellant allegeshe was in a state of insanity and claims he had no recollection of the staing incident. &einsists that he was depri#ed of intelligence, ma2ing his act in#oluntary. &is psychiatrice#aluation re#ealed he was suffering from schi?ophrenia ut after two years in the Nationalental &ealth his condition impro#ed thus, he was released.&'():In the 7hilippines, the courts ha#e estalished a more stringent criterion for insanity to ee8empting as it is re+uired that there must e a complete depri#ation of intelligence incommitting the act,i.e., the accused is depri#ed of reason9 he acted without the least

discernment ecause there is a complete asence of the power to discern, or that there is totaldepri#ation of the will. >ere anormality of the mental faculties will not e8clude imputaility.6heissue of insanity is a +uestion of fact. 6he state or condition of a man3s mind can only emeasured and Dudged y his eha#ior. 'stalishing one3s insanity re+uires testimony of ane8pert witness, such as a psychiatrist. 6he proof must relate to the time preceding orcoetaneous with the commission of the offense with which he is charged. None of the witnessesdeclared that he e8hiited any of the symptoms associated with schi?ophrenia immediatelyefore or simultaneous with the staing incident. Also schi?ophrenics ha#e lucid inter#alsduring which they are capale of distinguishing right from wrong.

PEOPLE V DE)!ITOG.R. No./1(2"44 M 12,2000

A fifteen-year-old girl was raped y the common-law husand of her sister in the field.&'():

A torn underwear is not indispensale to pro#e the crime of rape. ape can e committedwithout damaging the apparel of the #ictim. 6he #ictim testified that appellant already started toremo#e her clothes ut she ran away. &e caught up with her and forced himself on her. 6hedelay in reporting the incident cannot diminish her crediility. Our consistent doctrine is thatdelay in reporting a rape, if sufficiently e8plained, does not affect the crediility of the witness. Inthis case, she was dependent on him, her parents were asent. Appellant threatened that hewould lea#e the #ictim3s sister if the #ictim reported the incident. Also the information issufficient alleging therein that rape was committed on or aout the month of =uly 1.6hus, theprosecutor3s error in stating that what was eing tried was the last rape committed in =uly in hisoffer of proof did not preDudice the rights of the appellant. Also, counsel for the defendant did not

oDect to the offer of #ictim3s testimony. ec BG-B of ule 1B@ go#erns.

PEOPLE V RIMORINGRNo/124(09 M 1*,20006wo persons were 2idnapped and rought to a forest area where they were 2illed. 6he odieswere set afire while in a pit then uried in the same spot. A helper of the suspects and thefamilies of the #ictims were threatened with retaliation if they reported the incident. 6en yearslater, the helper, after learning that one of the suspects ha#e died, reported the incident and theodies were then e8humed. Appellants were con#icted of 2idnapping with murder.Issue:W/N guilt was estalished eyond reasonale dout.&'():6he trial courts are in the est position to #iew the witness3 demeanor and deportment during

the trial. ince the offense were committed prior to A0 on )ecemer B1, 1B thus saidlaw amending Art@ of the 7< pro#iding: Ewhen the #ictim is 2illed or dies as a conse+uenceof the detention or is raped or is suDected to torture or dehumani?ing acts, the ma8imumpenalty shall e imposed.L ince in this instance the purpose of the appellant and hiscompanions when they 2idnapped the #ictims was to 2ill them the two counts of comple8 crimeof 2idnapping with murder is #alid. &owe#er, as ruled in 7 # amos @


26/53



homicide can no longer e comple8ed under the last paragraph of Art@as amended yA0.6here was also treachery as the #ictims3 hands were tied ehind their ac2s when they were2illed. &owe#er, there is no e#ident premeditation. 6here was no showing y the prosecution ofthe 1%time when the offender determined to commit the crime @%act manifestly indicating that the

offender had clung to his determinationB%sufficient lapse of time etween the determination tocommit the crime and the e8ecution thereof, to allow the offender to reflect on the conse+uenceof his act.

PEOPLE V TOLEDANOG.R. No./110220 M 1+,2000unao, while a memer of angguniang ayan, entered into a lease contract co#ering @ pulicmar2et stalls. 6wo administrati#e cases were filed against against him #iolating ABP1 and1B with the Omudsman. &owe#er, said cases were dismissed. An information for #iolationof ecG1"1% in relation to ec@@1 of 7BB was filed against respondent efore the 6< of Ia,Ramales which prohiits go#3t officials from engaging in any usiness transaction with the localgo#ernment unit. 6he 6


27/53



A conspiracy e8ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning thecommission of a crime and decide to do it. 7roof of the agreement need not rest on directe#idence as the same may e inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a commonunderstanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. It is not necessary toshow that two or more persons met together and entered into an e8plicit agreement setting out

the details of an unlawful scheme or the details y which an illegal oDecti#e is to e carried out.It may e deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferredfrom the acts of the accused e#incing a Doint or common purpose and design, concerted actionand community of interest. In this case, the two =ohn )oes pulled the #ictim out of the Deepney.

As the #ictim was getting down, he was staed y the appellant. As to Antonio hisparticipation was limited to shouting Eheto na silaE.In a case, we ruled that the phrase EandiyannaE, which has similar import with the phrase herein, does not ha#e conclusi#e conspiratorialmeaning for the supposedly damning utterances are susceptile of #aried interpretations. One3so#ert act, to e shown in pursuance of the conspiracy, may consist of acti#e participation in theactual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his conspirators yeing present at the time of the commission of the crime, y e8erting moral ascendancy o#erthe other co-conspirators y mo#ing them to e8ecute or implement the conspiracy.

As to icardo3s physical disaility, the limp suffered y him due to polio has not een shown torestrict his means of action, defense or communication with his fellow eings as re+uired y Art1B"$%. 6he locations of the sta wounds "stomach% manifest his intention to 2ill thuscontradicting his claim of not intending to commit so gra#e a wrong.

6he mitigating circumstance of sufficient pro#ocation must immediately preceded the act andthat it was ade+uate to e8cite a person to commit a wrong, which must accordingly eproportionate in gra#ity.6he lac2 of a#ersion in the information of Eintent to 2illE does not ma2e it insufficient. Aninformation is sufficient if it states the designation of the offense y statute. 6he informationmore than sustantially satisfies the re+uirement of designating the offense of frustrated murderconsidering that it contains the acts constituting the felony, the name of the crime y statue andthe stage "frustrated% of the commission of the crime y definition. esides the asence of the

a#erment of intent to 2ill may e inferred from the allegation that the sta wound would ha#ecaused the death of the #ictim.

PEOPLE V BALORAG.R. No./1249#* M (1, 20006he #ictim was raped inside the cuicle of the women3s restroom of the cinema theater of>anuela


28/53



PEOPLE V MAMACG.R. No./1(0((2 M (1,2000

Appellant wo2e up the #ictim y po2ing her with along stic2 while lying alongside her rotherand sister. When she opened the window, she saw appellant randishing a olo and orderedher to go down. Appellant rought her to the an2 of the ri#er and raped her there while stic2ing

the olo at her.&'():We ha#e long recogni?ed that different people react differently to a gi#en type of situation andthere is no standard eha#ioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling orfrightful e8perience. Appellant cannot claim that the #ictim had no reason to e cowed outsidey his mere act of staing her with a stic2 or mere randishing of the olo. 6he informationdoes not charge appellant with +ualified rape and he cannot e sentenced to death. nli2e ageneric aggra#ating circumstance which may e pro#ed e#en if not alleged, a +ualifyingaggra#ating cannot e pro#ed unless alleged in the information. It must e alleged to properlyinform the accused of the nature and cause of accusation against him in order not to #iolate dueprocess.6he appellant is not a step-grandfather. he co-haited and li#ed with the material grandmother

of ernadette without the enefit of marriage. 6he word EstepE, when used as a prefi8 inconDunction with a degree of 2inship, is repugnant to lood relationship and is indicati#e ofrelationship y affinity. 6here is no relationship y affinity etween ernadette and appellant,thus he cannot e considered as a step-grandfather. At most he is a common law husand ofernadette3s grandmother thus not a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relati#e yconsanguinity or affinity within the Brd ci#il degree or the common law spouse of the parent ofthe #ictim. 6hus only reclusion perpetua may e imposed. .

PEOPLE V OBOSAG.R. No./1(20*9 M (1, 20006he appellant, with two other persons, waylaid former ecretary of (ocal *o#ernment =aimeerrer and his dri#er. 6he appellant3s defense is that as a prison inmate who ased on prison

records was inside the compound of the Nat3l iliid 7risons on the date and time of theincident, he could not ha#e participated in the amush9 and if indeed he was ale to lea#e theprison premises it is unelie#ale that an escaped con#ict would return to prison.&'():6he cited circumstances do not present a physical impossiility for the appellant to ha#eparticipated in the commission of the crime. irst, the logoo2 presented in court referred only tothe south gate. 6he )irector of the ureau of 7risons testified that Oosa was gi#en preferentialtreatment in prison and was allowed to par2 his #ehicle inside the prison compound despiteprohiition.

Appellant3s oDection to the admissiility of the testimony of an inmate that the accused confidedhis participation in the crime is without merit. A con#icted felon is not dis+ualified y the ules of'#idence from testifying in


29/53



suse+uent to the former or whether oth crimes e committed at the same time. 6he rule isthat whene#er homicide has een committed as a conse+uence of or on occasion of theroery, all those who too2 part as principals in the roery will also e held guilty as principalsof the crime of roery with homicide although they did not ta2e part in the homicide, unless itclearly appears they endea#ored to pre#ent the homicide.

PEOPLE V ANTONIOG.R. No./1224#( 3e +,20006his is a case of incestuous rape.&'():ape may e committed e#en when the rapist and the #ictim are not alone, or while the rapist3sspouse are asleep, or in a small room where other family memers also slept. A daughter wouldnot accuse her own father of such unspea2ale crime as incestuous rape had she really noteen aggrie#ed. It is highly improale for a woman, especially one of tender age, to concoct arutal tale of ra#ishment, allow a gynecologic e8amination, and undergo the humiliation of apulic trial if she is not moti#ated solely y a desire to ha#e the culprit apprehended andpunished.

PEOPLE V M!MARG.R. No./12(1"" 3e +,20006he #ictim was shot while his ac2 was turned towards his assailants.&'():

A direct proof to show that the accused had come to an agreement to commit a felony is notnecessary. It is sufficient that all the accused manifested y their acts a common intent to doharm to the #ictim.

PEOPLE V MONIEVAG.R. No.12(912 3e +,20006he #ictim was hac2ed with a olo and was decapitated y the appellant.

&'():Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon theasic aspect of the crime do not impair the witness crediility. '#en where a witness is found toha#e delierately falsified the truth in some particular, and it was not shown that there was suchintended pre#arication, it is not re+uired that the entire testimony e reDected, since suchportions thereof deemed worthy of elief may e credited.

Ause of superior strength means to purposely use e8cessi#e force out of proportion to themeans a#ailale to the person attac2ed to defend himself. efore it may e appreciated, it muste clearly shown that there was delierate intent on the part of the malefacto to ta2e ad#antagethereof. 6he prosecution is of the opinion that since the appellant was armed with a olo andwas chasing the unarmed #ictim who was trying to flee, this shows that the latter was powerlessto offer resistance therey admitting his inferiority and superiority of the defendant. 6his is mere

conDecture, it was not all apparent that the appellant consciously adopted that particular means.6he mere fact that the #ictim was running away from the appellant who was wielding a oloshows that the #ictim was aware of the danger to himself, thus negating the suddenness of theattac2 for which reason treachery cannot e appreciated.

PEOPLE V CAMBIG.R. No.12#1(1 3e +, 20006he 10 yr old complainant was rape y the appellant.&'():6he asence of illumination in the place of the commission of the crime does not detract fromthe positi#e identification y >argie of the appellant as her assailant. Although #isiility is animportant factor in the identification of a criminal offender, its relati#e significance depends

largely on the attending circumstances and the discretion of the trial court. In the case at ar,the assailant was well 2nown to >argie as the former was her employer. Also, the #oice of theappellant was heard when he uttered threats against the complainant. It has een this


30/53



relati#e. When applied, it need not e o#erpowering or irresistile. It is enough that it hasenaled the offender to consummate his purpose to ring aout the desired result. It is not e#ennecessary that the offender e armed with a weapon.

PEOPLE V. ROBERTO ESTRADA

G.R. NO. 1(04+#Accused was con#icted for murder and sentenced to death. )efense interposed insanity withproof of his history of mental illness filed for suspension of arraignment and suspension ofproceedings. oth were denied without suDecting accused to mental e8amination.&'():


31/53



&omicide and not murder. 6reachery was not pro#ed eyond reasonale dout. Cualifying andaggra#ating circumstances efore eing ta2en into consideration for the purpose of increasingthe degree of the penalty to e imposed must e pro#ed with e+ual certainty and clearness asthat which estalishes the commission of the act charged as a criminal offense. )welling wascorrectly considered aggra#ating. 6he word dwelling includes e#ery dependency of the house

that forms part thereof.

PEOPLE V. WILSON DRE!%G.R. NO. 12*2+2

Accused was con#icted of rape. &e interposed the defense that he and the #ictim wassweethearts. &e offered marriage ut was reDected.&'():6he Qsweethearts defenseL cannot e appreciated as the defense failed to come up withcon#incing proof. Indeed, the accused ears the urden of pro#ing that he and the complainanthad an affair which naturally led to a se8ual relationship. 6he guilt of the accused was alsoestalished y the fact that he offered marriage to the complainant after the incident wasreported to the authorities. As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage is an admission of guilt.

PEOPLE V. PATROLMAN DOMINGO BELBESG.R. NO. 124*#0

Accused was con#icted of murder. &e interposed self-defense and that he acted in thefulfillment of a duty.&'():elf-defense cannot e appreciated. Where the accused admits to 2illing the #ictim in self-defense, the urden of e#idence shifts to him. or a person not to incur criminal liaility when heacts in the fulfillment of a duty, @ re+uisites must concur: "1% that the offender acted in theperformance of a duty9 "@% that the inDury or offense committed e the necessary conse+uenceof the due performance of such right or office. &owe#er, second re+uisite here was not pro#edsince 2illing need not e a necessary conse+uence of his duty.

PEOPLE V. 'ERMOGENES $LORAG.R. NO. 12"9096he @ accused "&ermogenes and 'dwin% were con#icted for the murder of 'merita and Ireneoand the attempted murder of lor. 6he @ were found to ha#e conspired to 2ill Ireneo. &owe#er,during the commission of the crime, 'merita was also 2illed and lor hit y a ullet.&'():


32/53



&'():)elay or #acillation in criminal accusations does not necessarily impair the complainantMscrediility if such delay is satisfactorily e8plained. It is not uncommon to conceal rape ecauseof rapistMs threats to life, fear of pulic humiliation and lac2 of courage. ilence is not an oddeha#ior of a rape #ictim. 6he presumption is always in fa#or of potency. Impotency is

considered an anormal condition and should not e presumed. 6he doctorMs testimony statedthat his se8 organ was diseased ut ne#er was there e#en a hint that accused was impotent.6he trial court also oser#ed that accused was still strong, agile and capale of committing these8ual act and seriously douts that he is $@ years old.

PEOPLE V. PEPE LO&ADAG.R. NO. 1(0"+9

As )anilo >orin and his cousin were wal2ing one e#ening, (o?ada followed from ehind andshot >orin to death. (o?ada was con#icted of murder appreciating treachery as a +ualifyingcircumstance.&'():

Affirmed. 6here was treachery since >orin was unsuspectingly shot from ehind. 6he essence

of treachery is the sudden and une8pected attac2 y an aggressor on an unsuspecting #ictim,depri#ing the latter of any chance to defend himself and therey ensuring its commissionwithout ris2 to himself. 6he @ conditions for treachery to e considered as +ualifyingcircumstance are: "1% employment of means, methods and manner of e8ecution to ensure thesafety of the malefactor from defensi#e and retaliatory acts of the #ictim9 "@% and the delierateadoption of such means, methods and manner of e8ecution.

PEOPLE V. ERNESTO SANTOS%G.R. NO. 1(110( 14(4#2

Accused was found guilty of @ counts of rape of his 1G year old daughter. 6he informationalleges that the crime was committed on or aout sometime in 1$$ and 1$. &e a#ers thatsuch allegations are indefinite and ha#e depri#ed him of the right to e informed of the nature

and cause of the accusation against him.&'():It is too late for the accused to +uestion the form or sustance of the information in these casessince he did not mo#e to +uash the information efore he was arraigned. urther, in the crime ofrape, the date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime.

!L 2000PEOPLE V. AGAPITO LISTERIOG.R. NO. 1220996he accused was con#icted of murder and frustrated murder committed with conspiracy. &e

assails the testimony of the witness as insufficient to con#ict him of her crime charged.&'():It is well settled that witnesses are to e weighed, not numered, such that the testimony of asingle, trustworthy and credile witness could e sufficient to con#ict an accused. 6he trial courtfound the witnessM testimony as candid and straightforward.


33/53



&'():7ursuant to ection 0, ule 11P of the ules on


34/53



PEOPLE V. MENARD PANGANIBANG.R. NO. 1((02+

Accused was con#icted of estafa. Appellant contends that his con#iction should e re#ersedecause the element of fraud or deceit was not pro#en. &e insists that the Qstop paymentL orderwas made in good faith and was not meant to e#ade payment of the det.

&'():)espite his denials during testimony, it is o#ious that appellant was aware at the time he madethe postdated chec2s for se#eral creditors that he would ha#e se#eral dets maturing at thesame time, of which are reco#erale from the same an2 account. 6hen 2nowing that thealance is not sufficient to co#er complainantMs chec2, he immediately ordered the drawee an2to stop its payment. 6hese circumstances, ta2en together, indicate appellantMs intent to decei#eand defraud at the time he issued the chec2. 6he indeterminate sentence law must also eapplied.

PEOPLE V. L!DIGARIO CANDELARIOG.R. NO. 12"""0

Accused was con#icted of the crime of roery with multiple rape. One of the accused is a

youth offender and was thus placed under the custody of )W), egional ehailitation


35/53



PEOPLE V. ROLAND MOLINAG.R. NO. 1(4###/#+

Accused was found guilty of murder and frustrated murder. Accused denied commission of thecrime and imputed the same to another person.&'():

As weighed against the positi#e identification of accused y one of his #ictims, which wasfurther corroorated y an eyewitness to the scene, and the asence of any showing of ill-moti#e on their part other than their +uest for Dustice, appellantMs denial of the commission of thecrime and imputation of the same to another person is demolished to oscurity. esides, theimputation of the crime to another malefactor was heard of only during his testimony, and wasne#er raised efore the police authorities during the in#estigation. oral damages may e reco#ered in criminal offensesresulting in physical inDuries ut there must e a factual asis for the award. As to e8emplary

damages, there eing one aggra#ating circumstance, e8emplary damages in the amount of7BP,PPP may e awarded in oth murder and frustrated murder case pursuant to Art @@BP of theNew


36/53



necessary that the #ictim e placed in an enclosure. It is enough that the #ictim is restrainedfrom going home. 6he intention to depri#e the childMs parents of her custody is indicated y theaccusedMs hesitation for @ days to disclose the whereaouts of the child and more so y heractual ta2ing of the child. AccusedMs moti#e at this point is not rele#ant. It is not an element ofthe crime. 6he fact that she later on felt remorse and showed the childMs parents where the

former was, cannot asol#e her. At that point, the crime was consummated.6he testimony of the child is also credile. A witnessM young age will not deter him or her fromeing a competent and credile witness. 6o e a competent child witness, the following muste met: "a% capacity of oser#ation9 "% capacity of recollection9 "c% capacity of communication

PEOPLE V. PEDRO D!CTAG.R. NO. 1(4*0+

Accused was con#icted of raping a GB-year-old retarded woman.&'():tate of mental retardation of a #ictim of rape can e estalished y e#idence other than themedical findings of a specialist. o also, the court has said that a woman need not ecompletely depri#ed of reason for se8ual intercourse y a man with her to constitute the crime of

rape. 6he term Qdepri#ed of reasonL has een construed to include the feele-minded althoughcoherent and those suffering from mental deficiency or some form of mental disorder. urther,a mental retardate who has the aility to ma2e 2nown her perceptions is still a competentwitness.

PEOPLE V. MARIO MRNO TANG.R. NO. 120*#2

Accused was found guilty of estafa. Appellant contends that the prosecution failed to sufficientlypro#e that the merchandise he ordered were deli#ered to and recei#ed y him or his authori?edrepresentati#es. 6hus, he argues, he cannot e held liale for estafa since he was not ale tootain the goods from the pri#ate complainant y means of the chec2 he issued.&'():

Art B10 "@%"d% of the 7< penali?es any person who shall defraud another y postdating achec2 or issuing a chec2 in payment of an oligation when the offender has no funds in thean2. 6he transaction etween the parties here is in the nature of contract of sale. 6hecontract of purchase and sale is reciprocal and from it arises not only the oligation to deli#erthe thing ut also that of paying the price. In this case, there is no ample proof that appellant orhis representati#es e#er recei#ed the merchandise. ince no damage was sustained ycomplainant in as much as appellant recei#ed nothing of #alue from the complainant, appellantcannot e held guilty of estafa. &e had no oligation to pay or to ma2e good the issued chec2.

PEOPLE V. CESAR MELENDRESG.R. NO. 1((999/4001

Accused was con#icted of B counts of rape committed against the 11-year-old daughter of his

common law wife. &e contends that accused and complainant were actually lo#ers.&'():In rape cases falling under Art BB0 "B% S when the woman is under 1@ years of age or isdemented, @ elements must e estalished to hold the accused guilty of rape: "1% that theaccused had carnal 2nowledge of a woman9 "@% that the woman is elow 1@ years of age. 7roofof consent of the woman is immaterial. e8ual intercourse with a woman elow 1@ years old isstatutory rape. &er consent to the intercourse is in#oluntary ecause she is considered to ha#eno will of her own.

SEPTEMBER 2000

PEOPLE V. $A!STINO CAMPOSG.R. NO. 1(((#(/##

Accused, @ years of age, was con#icted of 0 counts of rape committed against @ minors. &einsists in his appeal that he could not e con#icted considering that the medical e8aminationshowed that the complaining witnesses suffered no lacerations, arasions or contusions.&'():>edical e8amination is not indispensale in a prosecution for rape. In fact, there can e rapee#en if the medical e8amination shows no #aginal laceration. >edical findings only ser#e to

;endo?a B


37/53



corroorate the testimonies of the #ictims. 6he accused may e con#icted on the asis of thelone uncorroorated testimony of the rape #ictim pro#ided that her testimony is clear, positi#e,con#incing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of this.

PEOPLE V. WALPAN LADAALAM

G.R. NO. 1(*149/"16he accused was con#icted of the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide forfiring an >1G rifle to policemen who were aout to enter his house to ser#e a search warrant.urther, he was also con#icted for illegal possession of firearm.&'():A no. $@G penali?es simple illegal possession of firearms, pro#ided that the person arrestedcommitted Qno other crimeL. urthermore, if the person is held liale for murder or homicide,illegal possession of firearms is an aggra#ating circumstance, ut not a separate offense.&ence, where an accused was con#icted of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide forfiring an unlicensed >1G rifle at se#eral policemen who were aout to ser#e a search warrant,he cannot e held guilty of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms. Neither cansuch unlawful act e considered to ha#e aggra#ated the direct assault.

PEOPLE V. $ERIGEL OLIVAG.R. NO. 122110

Accused was con#icted of arson and murder.&'():6here are @ elements of arson: "1% that there is intentional urning9 "@% that what is intentionallyurned is an inhaited house or dwelling. 7roof of corpus delicti is indispensale in prosecutionfor felonies and offense.


38/53



In the light of positi#e identification, appellant3s defense of alii and denial must fail. 7ositi#etestimony is stronger that negati#e testimony, and alii ecomes worthless in the face ofpositi#e identification of the accused. or alii to prosper it must e shown that it was physicallyimpossile to e at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission "place of alii was only 0minutes away%.

'#en if there are flaws in the testimony as to who staed the #ictim is immaterial ecauseconspiracy was pro#en. 6hey mas+ueraded as passengers, positioned themsel#es strategicallyinside the Deep, pulled out their 2ni#es simultaneously, concertedly inflicted sta wounds uponlearning that he was a policeman. It is no moment that an accused has not ta2en part in actualcommission of e#ery act constituting the crime. 6he precise modality or e8tent of participation ofeach indi#idual conspirator ecomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all.

As to the report of the gun, it is merely hearsay. 6he authors of the newspaper reports had nopersonal 2nowledge of the identity of the perpetrators. uch was only otained from the policein#estigators handling the case. 6his fact is of no moment for a possession thereof could ha#ereached this person for a numer of reasons.

PEOPLE V. PO2 RODEL SAMONTE

G.R. No.12*04+ Se6t.29, 20006here was a shooting incident resulting to the death of 7ere?. Accused was detailed in the>ayor3s Office. &is re#ol#er and a B$ palter was ta2en from him. ranch ac+uitted him of thecrime of homicide ut ranch B found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms aggra#ated yhomicide under 7)1$.Issue: W/N the doctrine of 7 # CuiDada stating that +ualified illegal possession of firearms andhomicide are distinct and separate offenses is still followed.&'():No Applying the new law A$@G in 7 # >olina the


39/53



to inDure or 2ill her atterer. he is sei?ed y fear of an e8isting or impending lethal aggressionand thus would ha#e no opportunity eforehand to delierate o her acts and to choose a lessfatal means of eliminating her sufferings.7etition granted. In 7 # 7ares, after a final con#iction of appellant therein, the otion and allowed him to undergo mental and neuralgic other e8aminations to

determine that he was a deaf-mute. ased on that finding and that he was unaided in the trial,he was granted a rearrangement and retrial. 6his action is Dustified on the rule that only uponproof of guilt eyond reasonale dout may an accused to consigned to a lethal inDectionchamer. Also as =ustice 7un said, man should e adDudged or held accountale for wrongfulacts so long as free will appears unimpaired.

OCTOBER 2000PEOPLE V. SANTIAGOGRNO.129(#1 OCT. 4, 2000

Appellant was con#icted of murder for shooting the #ictim after a prior street altercation that

erupted when the parties3 #ehicles collided.&'():Only &omicide. No treachery. 6reachery must e pro#ed y clear and con#incing e#idence, oras conclusi#ely as the 2illing itself. When the witnesses did not see how the attac2 was carriedout and cannot testify how it egan, the trial court cannot presume from the circumstances ofthe case that there was treachery. 6reachery cannot e considered where the lone witness didnot see the commencement of the assault. ince the lone witness failed to witness the initialattac2 inflicted upon the #ictim, treachery cannot e considered a +ualifying circumstance.

All the elements of e#ident premeditation must also e pro#en. 7remeditation to 2ill must eplain notorious and sufficiently pro#en y the e#idence of outward acts showing the intent to 2ill.

A 10-minute inter#al is not sufficient time for the accused to coolly reflect on their plan to 2ill the#ictim. In one case, BP minutes was held also insufficient time etween determination to commit

and the e8ecution is insufficient for full meditation on the conse+uences of the act.(iaility of one whose participation in crime was limited to dri#ing for the 2illers is only that of anaccomplice. 6he lac2 of complete e#idence of conspiracy, which creates the dout whether hehas acted as principal or an accomplice, implies the court to resol#e the +uestion in fa#or of theaccused.

PEOPLE V. LOPE& GRNo./1(21*+ October 10, 2000

An old woman was hac2ed to death y appellant ecause of a land dispute.&'(): 6here was treachery. Accused suddenly and une8pectedly graed the hair of thedeceased and simultaneously hac2ed her to death. 6he deceased had no in2ling whatsoe#er ofthe murderous intent of the accused. 6he essence of treachery is that the attac2 comes without

warning and in a swift, delierate and une8pected manner, affording the unarmed andunsuspecting #ictim no chance to resist, to a#oid or escape.

Ause of superiority was pro#ed. he was unarmed. 6he accused was a @@-year old male, inthe prime of his life, and armed with a deadly weapon. ince ale#osia is already appreciated asa +ualifying circumstance, ause of superiority is asored therein.

6he fact that the #ictim has hac2ing wounds does not conclusi#ely demonstrate cruelty. 6henumer of wounds does not per se gi#e rise to cruelty. 6he test is whether the accuseddelierately and sadistically augmented the wrong y committing another wrong not necessaryfor its commission, or inhumanely increased the #ictim3s suffering, or outraged or scoffed at hisperson or corpse. ecords are ereft of e#idence showing the accused continued to hac2 the#ictim when she was already dead. 7assion or ofuscation to e appreciated must arise fromlawful sentiments. 6he act of #ictim demanding the family of appellant to #acate her land was

not unlawful or unDust. 6he e8ercise of a lawful right cannot e a proper source of ofuscationthat may e considered a mitigating circumstance.

NOVEMBER 2000PEOPLE V. BALMORIA

GRNo./1(4"(9 No-eber 1", 2000

;endo?a B


40/53



A case of rape of an eight-year old.&'(): It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their#irtue ecause of the threat on their li#es. A young girl, unli2e a mature woman, can not ee8pected to ha#e the courage and intelligence to immediately report a se8ual assault committedagainst her especially when a death threat hangs o#er her head. We cannot reDect the

testimony of #ictim on the ground that her B other companions were not awa2ened y hergroans while she was eing raped. It is not impossile to commit rape in a small room e#en ifthere are se#eral persons in it.PEOPLE V. VELAS)!E&GRNo./1(#(+(/+4 No-. 2(, 2000

Appellant used a toy gun in aducting and raping the #ictim.&'(): 6he mere fact that Haren did not attempt to escape when the opportunity resented itselfshould not e construed as a manifestation of consent and does not necessarily negate hercharge of rape or taint her crediility considering the accused employed force and intimidation.

A complainant3s act in immediately reporting the commission of rape is a factor in strengtheningher crediility.

Appellant imputes no ill moti#e towards the #ictim to falsely accuse him. In the asence of suchmoti#e, it is presumed that no such moti#e e8ists. 6o support a con#iction for rape, the courtmay rely solely on the testimony of the #ictim pro#ided such testimony is credile, natural,con#incing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. y its nature,rape is committed with the least possiility of eing seen y the pulic.

$EBR!AR 2001PEOPLE V. BAODGR 122**4> $eb ", 2001

Accused was charged with murder and frustrated homicide

&'(): Accused is *I(65 of >)' and 6A6') >)' not frustrated&O>I


41/53



own testimony of the accused as married to the #ictim may also e ta2en as an admissionagainst penal interest. 6he case was pro#ed through circumstantial e#idence sufficientlyestalishing the malefactor, destroying the presumption of innocence, and fulfilling the standardof moral certainty. $eb.1", 2001

Accused was charged of +ualified illegal possession of a firearm9 accused willfully, unlawfully,and feloniously with intent to 2ill, and actually 2illing a #ictim as a conse+uence, possess andcarry an unlicensed firearm.I': oreo#er, the crime of ta2ing away the property is theft and not roeryecause of the asence of #iolence and intimidation.

PEOPLE V. MANALOGR 1("9*4/#1> $eb. 21, 2001

Accused was charged of $ counts of rape of two minors "G counts of rape for each child%. Onewas yrs. old and the other .

&'(): 6he accused is guilty and is sentenced to death. According to art.BB0 of the 7


42/53



PEOPLE -. CASTANITO GANOG.R. No. 1(4(#( $ebr3r 2+, 2001

Accused was con#icted of the crime of roery with homicide, and sentenced to the penalty ofdeath. 6he core issue now efore us is whether the three "B% 2illings should e appreciated asseparate aggra#ating circumstances to warrant the imposition of the penalty of death.

&'():6he < found the accused guilty of roery with homicide, ut imposed the penalty of reclusionperpetua. It should e noted that there is no law pro#iding that the additional rape/s orhomicide/s should e considered as aggra#ating circumstance. 6he enumeration of aggra#atingcircumstances under Article 1G of the e#ised 7enal


43/53



pro#ides V If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such useof an unlicensed firearm shall e considered as an aggra#ating circumstance.6he


44/53



. A. 0. 6he following ordinary aggra#ating circumstances were present in the commissionof the crime:1. Ause of pulic office due to the use of his ser#ice firearm in the 2illing9@. se of motor #ehicle which facilitated the commission of the crime9 andB. Aid of armed men in the commission of the crime.

6here is present only one "1% mitigating circumstance of #oluntary surrender.6he accused was sentenced to suffer the >ATI>> 7'NA(65 O )'A6&.&'():6he < held that with respect to the attendant circumstances, the use of a motor #ehicle cannote considered as an aggra#ating circumstance, as the police #ehicle used to reach the anicasresidence was not used directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act.Neither may the aggra#ating circumstance of aid of armed men e appreciated in this case. 6hetrial court found that during the shooting, an armed companion was on oard the patrol carpointing his rifle in the direction of )eDoras. In the first place, this aggra#ating circumstancecontemplates more than one-armed man, as the use of the plural form easily suggests. In thesecond place, the re+uisites of this aggra#ating circumstance are: 1% that armed men or personstoo2 part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly, and @% that the accused a#ailed

himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. Neither circumstancewas pro#en present9 it is clear from the e#idence that the accused-appellant carried out the2illing all y himself and did not rely on his companion for assistance.6he < also did not agree that the fact that accused-appellant used his ser#ice firearm inshooting 4aflor should e considered as an aggra#ating circumstance as he too2 ad#antage ofhis pulic position. 6here is authority to the effect that for pulic position to e appreciated as anaggra#ating circumstance, the pulic official must use his influence, prestige and ascendancywhich his office gi#es him in reali?ing his purpose. In the asence of proof that ad#antage wasta2en y appellant, the aggra#ating circumstance of ause of position could not e properlyappreciated against him.

PEOPLE -. CONRADO SALADINO DINGLE

G.R. No:. 1(#4+1/+( 1(+4"" Mrc5 #, 2001Accused was con#icted of three "B% counts of rape for raping his 1B-yr old niece. 6a2ing intoaccount the +ualifying circumstance of the minority of the #ictim and her relationship to accused-appellant, the lower court meted three "B% death penalties pursuant to A 0. 6he trial courtalso found accused-appellant guilty of attempted rape, and sentenced him to ser#e anindeterminate penalty of eight "$% years and one "1% day of prision mayor minimum as minimum,to fourteen "1G% years, eight "$% months and one "1% day of reclusion temporal minimum, asma8imum.&'():6he < said that the #ictimMs failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not ma2e#oluntary her sumission to the criminal acts of the accused-appellant. 6hey held that theE"i%ntimidation must e #iewed in the light of the #ictim3s perception and Dudgment at the time of

the commission of the crime and not y any hard and fast rule9 it is therefore enough that itproduces fear V fear that if the #ictim does not yield to the estial demands of the accusedsomething would happen to her at that moment or e#en thereafter as when she is threatenedwith death if she reports the incident.E

PEOPLE O$ T'E P'IL -. E!GENIO MANGOMPITG.R. No:. 1(99*2/** Mrc5 #, 2001

Accused was found guilty for 0 counts of rape, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death foreach count. &e was found guilty for raping his 1-yr old niece.&'():6he < found the accused guilty, ut reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua for each count.'#en though the minority of >arites and her relationship with accused-appellant were pro#en

eyond dout, the death penalty cannot e imposed ecause oth of these +ualifyingcircumstances were not alleged in the information. 6herefore, despite the fi#e "0% counts of rapecommitted y accused-appellant, he cannot e sentenced to the supreme penalty of death.

Accordingly, the penalty of death imposed y the trial court should e reduced to reclusionperpetua.6he < held that the trial court li2ewise correctly imposed the amount of 7@0,PPP for each countof rape, or a total of 71@0,PPP.PP, as and y way of e8emplary damages. nder Article @@BP of

;endo?a GG


45/53



the New


46/53



ay of accused with his 'A( wife. One night after a drin2ing session, accused told #ictim tosleep eside him, ut the latter refused. Accused pointed a 2nife at her, forcing her to transfer tohis ed and to undress herself. Accused later raped #ictim. 6his happened again the followingnight, after which #ictim fled to the house of her Ate etty. 6he latterMs husand rought the#ictim to the arrio 'N6 AI>')6he asence of spermato?oa is not a negation of rape. 6he presence or asence ofspermato?oa is immaterial since it is penetration" not e,aculation, which constitutes the crime ofrape.6he fact that lacerations in the hymen of the #ictim were at least a month old only shows that#ictim was no longer a #irgin at the time she was raped, ut not that she had not een raped. Inany case, virginit! is not an essential element of rape.Nonetheless, accused may not e sentenced with the supreme penalty of death since the+ualifying circumstance "of minority and relationship% is neither specifically alleged nor pro#ed.

Accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of eclusion 7erpetua for each count of rape.

PEOPLE O$ T'E P'ILIPPINES VS. MAN!EL GALVE& ESTANISLAO%GR 1(*#90 Mrc5 2*, 2001 Me;oA


47/53



the house, where he undressed and 2issed her, finally forcing his dic2 unto her pussy. Accusedwas later charged with rape. efore the trial court rendered Dudgment, the defense presented ase#idence an affida#it of retraction that is supposedly #oluntarily e8ecuted y #ictim.I': W/N the trial court erred in not gi#ing weight to the affida#it of retraction e8ecuted y#ictim.

&'(): =udgment Affirmed6he affida#it in +uestion must e loo2ed upon with disfa#or. 6he mere retraction y aprosecution witness does not necessarily #itiate his original testimony.6he affida#it was merely signed Q(aalanL instead of her usual signature Q=u#elyn . (aalan.L6here is thus dout as to the #oluntariness of the affida#it which cautions against its admission.etractions are unreliale and are loo2ed upon with disfa#or y the courts.

PEOPLE O$ T'E P'ILIPPINES VS CORNELIO CAB!G%G.R. No. 12(149, Mrc5 2#, 2001 Me;oacts: Accused was con#icted in the lower court for the crime of parricide. &e allegedly 2illed hiswife ecause of his suspicion that she was ha#ing an affair.When as2ed aout the incident, the accused alii was that he was clued when he got home,

and was unconscious until the time he wo2e up from the hospital ed. omeone testified thatthe accused e#en as2ed where his wife was upon regaining consciousness.Issues:6hat the court erred when it maintained that the prosecution satisfied the standardpro#ided for in section 0, rule 1BB of the new rules of court in order that the accused may econ#icted thru circumstantial e#idence.&eld:6he < held that enough circumstantial e#idence has een estalished to pro#e eyondreasonale dout that the accused committed the crime.


48/53



As a defense, the accused +uestions the crediility of the complaining witness, theinconsistencies in the testimony, the moral character and paternity of the child the #ictim waspregnant with, alleged grudge of the defendant, denial and ias&eld:>oral oreo#er, e#en if a woman is on the family way at aroundeight months "as the #ictim was in this case%, the woman is still susceptile to se8ualintercourse.

Peo6


49/53



@. 6hough things were stolen, there can e no roery ecause there is no e#idence that anywall, roof or floor has een ro2en. &ence, accused should e con#icted of a separateoffense of theft, instead of roery, force upon things not ha#ing een pro#en.

PEOPLE VS PAGADOR

GR No 1400*/10, A6r< 20, 2001Accused was found guilty of @ counts of murder and B counts of frustrated murder. &e 2illed theparents of his girlfriend and wounded the B other sisters. 6he suDect of this appeal is the Bcounts of frustrated murder.1stcount: Accused chased her, pulled her hair which caused her to stumle9 then accused saton her stomach and hac2ed her. he pretended to e dead to stop the assault.@ndcount: ound y her sisters to e lying on top of their dead mother holding her leedingstomachBrdcount: (eft inde8 finger was cut when accused swung his olo as she approached hermother. he ran and Dumped out of the window.I': WON accused is guilty of three counts of frustrated murder&'():

1stcount: 5es. 6he accused had already performed all the acts of e8ecution which tended toproduce the death ut failed to cause her death y reason independent of his own free will.7erpetrator stood up and left the crime scene on the elief that he had consummated hisheinous act.@ndcount: No. Intent on the part of the assailant to ta2e the life of the person attac2ed islac2ing. When such intent is lac2ing ut wounds were merely inflicted, the crime is notfrustrated murder ut physical inDuries only.Brdcount: No. Accused did not pursue her as she ran and Dumped out of the window.

Apparently, his purpose was merely to dri#e away the G sisters and dissuade them fromattac2ing him. No intent to 2ill. 7hysical inDuries only.

PEOPLE VS ACA/OC

GR No. 142"00, A6r< 20, 2001Accused was found guilty of frustrated rape y the 6ere touching of the laia or pudendum y the male organ is enough to consummate the

crime of rape. It is enough that there is penetration, howe#er slight, of the e8ternal genitalia.6he fact that there was no laceration of the hymen does not preclude finding of rape.

B. ince #ictim was then only 11 years old, the crime is statutory rape.

PEOPLE VS ABLANEDA

GR No. 1(1914, A6r< (0, 2001Accused was found guilty of the comple8 crime of forcile aduction with rape. 4ictim is yearsold. Accused approached the #ictim and as2ed her if he could share her umrella. 6hen theyoarded a trimoile and he rought the #ictim to a small hut.I': WON accused is guilty&'(): 5es.1. 6here is forcile aduction. 6he #ictim, who is a woman, was ta2en against her will.

7hysical resistance need not e demonstrated to show that ta2ing was against #ictimMs will.'mployment of deception suffices to constitute the forcile ta2ing, especially since the #ictimis an unsuspecting young girl.

@. 6he ta2ing of the young girl against her will was effected in furtherance of lewd andunchaste designs. uch lewd designs in forcile aduction is estalished y the actual rape

of the #ictim.

PEOPLE VS AGONCILLOGR No. 1(+9+(, M 2(, 2001

Automatic re#iew of the death penalty case for the crime of rape committed with the use of adeadly weapon. 4ictim was a 1G-year-old girl. Accused was armed with a scythe used tothreaten the child. Aggra#ating circumstance considered: dwelling, nighttime and uninhaitedplace.

;endo?a G


50/53



I': WON accused is guilty of the crime charged&'(): 5es ut not death ecause no aggra#ating circumstance1. )welling not aggra#ating. 4ictim was ta2en from her house to the neary plantation. he

was actually aducted ut accused was not charged with forcile aduction with rape utonly with rape.

@. Nighttime not aggra#ating. Nocturnity and uninhaited place not purposely sought y theaccused to facilitate the commission of the crime.

PEOPLE VS COMPOGR No. 112990, M 2+, 2001

Appeal of


51/53



&eld: 6he court affirms the finding of the lower court that accused-appellant is guilty eyondreasonale dout of the crime of rape committed with use of force and intimidation. Accused-appellant ha#ing een found to ha#e li2ewise committed the crime with the use of deadlyweapon, the penalty should e 7 to death. As there was neither aggra#ating nor mitigatingcirc

Documents

Final Crim Digests Copy