People vs.

Puno (Crim1)
Facts:

January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: the accused Isabelo uno, !ho is the personal dri"er o# $rs% &armiento's husband (!ho !as then a!ay in )a"ao purportedly on account o# local election there* arri"ed at $rs% &armiento's ba+eshop in ,raneta ,"e, QC -e told $rs% &armiento that her o!n dri"er Fred had to .o to ampan.a on an emer.ency so Isabelo !ill temporarily ta+e his place /hen it !as time #or $rs% &armiento to .o home to 0alle 0erde in asi., she .ot into her husband's $ercedes 1en2 !ith Isabelo dri"in. ,#ter the car turned ri.ht on a corner o# ,raneta ,"e, it stopped and a youn. man, accused 3nri4ue ,murao, boarded the car beside the dri"er 3nri4ue pointed a .un at $rs% &armiento as Isabelo told her that he needs to 5.et money5 #rom her $rs% &armiento had 6,000 on her ba. !hich she handed to the accused

1ut the accused said that they !anted 100,000 more

7he car sped o## north to!ards the 8orth superhi.h!ay !here Isabelo as+ed $rs% &armiento to issue a chec+ #or 100,000 $rs% &armiento dra#ted 3 chec+s: t!o 30,000 chec+s and one 90,000 chec+

Isabelo then turned the car around to!ards $etro $anila: later, he chan.ed his mind and turned the car a.ain to!ards ampan.a ,ccordin. to her, $rs% &armiento ;umped out o# the car then, crossed to the other side o# the superhi.h!ay and !as able to #la. do!n a #ish "endor's "an, her dress had blood because accordin. to her, she #ell do!n on the .round and !as in;ured !hen she ;umped out o# the car 7he de#ense does not dispute the abo"e narrati"e o# the complainant e<cept that accordin. to Isabelo, he stopped the car at 8orth )i"ersion and #reely allo!ed $rs% &armiento to step out o# the car -e said he e"en slo!ed the car do!n as he dro"e a!ay, until he sa! that his employer had .otten a ride -e claimed that she #ell do!n !hen she stubbed her toe !hile runnin. across the hi.h!ay Issue: 1% /hether or not the accused can be con"icted o# +idnappin. #or ransom as char.ed =% /hether or not the said robbery can be classi#ied as 5hi.h!ay robbery5 under ) 8o% 53= (,nti> iracy and ,nti>-i.h!ay ?obbery @a! o# 1969* -oldin.: 1% =% ?atio: 1% There is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, nurtured prior to or at the time they committed the !ron.#ul acts a.ainst complainant, other than the extortion of money from her under the compulsion o# threats or intimidation% 8o% 8o%

For this crime to e<ist, there must be indubitable proo# that the actual intent o# the male#actors !as to depri"e the o##ended party o# her liberty In the case, the restraint o# her #reedom o# action !as merely an incident in the commission o# another o##ense primarily intended by the o##enders 7his does not constitute +idnappin. or serious ille.al detention =% Jurisprudence re"eals that durin. the early part o# the ,merican occupation o# our country, ro"in. bands !ere or.ani2ed #or robbery and pilla.e and since the then e<istin. la! a.ainst robbery !as inade4uate to cope !ith such mo"in. bands o# outla!s, the 1ri.anda.e @a! !as passed (this is the ori.in o# the la! on hi.h!ay robbery* ) 8o% 53= punishes as hi.h!ay robbery only acts o# robbery perpetrated by outla!s indiscriminately a.ainst any person or persons on hilippine hi.h!ays and not acts o# robbery committed a.ainst only a predetermined or particular "ictim The mere fact that the robbery was committed inside a car which was casually operating on a highway does not make PD No 532 applicable to the case This is not ustified by the accused!s intention ,ccused>appellants con"icted o# robbery (indeterminate sentence o# 9 years and = months or prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years o# prision mayor% ,ccused to pay $rs% &armiento 6,000 as actual dama.es and =0,000 as moral dama.es%*

P"#P$" %& '()("$ (%"*+$$( F,C7&: ,ccused !as char.ed o# 4uali#ied ille.al possession o# a #irearm: accused !ill#ully, unla!#ully, and #eloniously !ith intent to +ill, and actually +illin. a "ictim as a conse4uence, possess and carry an unlicensed #irearm% I&&A3: Con"iction and ?etroacti"ity o# ?,8=99 (,n act ,mendin. the ro"isions o# ) 18BB* -3@): &C dismissed the case% Cri.inally he could ha"e been con"icted o# ille.ally possessin. a #irearm separately #rom his con"iction on the +illin. that occurred as a conse4uence thereo#, !hich happened in 1991% /ith the passa.e o# ?, 8=99 in 1996 amendin. )18BB, the possession o# an unlicensed #irearm has become merely an a..ra"atin. circumstance to a murder or homicide char.e% ,s a .eneral rule, penal la!s ha"e prospecti"e e##ect 3DC3 7 !here the ne! la! !ill be ad"anta.eous to the accused, as in this case, sparin. him o# t!o separate con"ictions%

JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR

FACTS: In February 1990, Sen Enrile was arrested. He was charged together with Mr. & Mrs. Panlilio, and Honasan or the cri!e o rebellion with !urder and !ulti"le rustrated !urder which allegedly occurred during their ailed cou" atte!"t. Enrile was then brought to #a!" $aringal. Enrile later iled or the habeas cor"us alleging that the cri!e being charged against hi! is non e%istent. &hat he was charged with a cri!inal o ense in an in or!ation or which no co!"laint was initially iled or "reli!inary in'estigation was conducted, hence was denied due "rocess( denied his right to bail( and arrested and detained on the strength o a warrant issued without the )udge who issued it irst ha'ing "ersonally deter!ined the e%istence o "robable cause. ISSUE: *hether or Enrile+s arrest is 'alid. HELD: Enrile iled or habeas cor"us because he was denied bail although ordinarily a charge o rebellion would entitle one or bail. &he cri!e o rebellion charged against hi! howe'er is co!"le%ed with !urder and !ulti"le rustrated !urders , the intention o the "rosecution was to !a-e rebellion in its !ost serious or! so as to !a-e the "enalty thereo in the !a%i!u!. &he S# ruled that there is no such cri!e as .ebellion with !urder and !ulti"le rustrated !urder. *hat Enrile et al can be charged o would be Si!"le .ebellion because other cri!es such as !urder or all those that !ay be necessary to the co!!ission o rebellion is absorbed hence he should be entitiled or bail. &he S# howe'er noted that a "etition or habeas cor"us was not the "ro"er re!edy so as to a'ail o bail. &he "ro"er ste" that should ha'e been ta-en was or Enrile to ile a "etition to be ad!itted or bail. He should ha'e e%hausted all other e orts be ore "etitioning or habeas cor"us. &he S# urther notes that there is a need to restructure the law on rebellion as it is being used a""arently by others as a tool to disru"t the "eace and es"ouse 'iolence. &he S# can only act w/in the bounds o the law. &hus S# said 0&here is an a""arent need to restructure the law on rebellion, either to raise the "enalty there or or to clearly de ine and deli!it the other o enses to be considered as absorbed thereby, so that it cannot be con'eniently utili1ed as the u!brella or e'ery sort o illegal acti'ity underta-en in its na!e. &he #ourt has no "ower to e ect such change, or it can only inter"ret the law as it stands at any gi'en ti!e, and what is needed lies beyond inter"retation. Ho"e ully, #ongress will "ercei'e the need or "ro!"tly sei1ing the initiati'e in this !atter, which is "ro"erly within its "ro'ince.2

345I6 7E3I7 8S PE9P3E F6#&S:

9n ;uly 1<, 19=1, at around 10:00 o+cloc- in the !orning, 3ydia con ronted 7e!!a a ter learning ro! .oseller that 7e!!a called hi! a 0sissy2 while in class. 3ydia sla""ed 7e!!a in the chee- and "ushed her, thereby causing her to all and hit a wall di'ider. 6s a result o 3ydia+s 'iolent assault, 7e!!a su ered a contusion in her 0!a%illary area2, as shown by a !edical certi icate issued by a doctor in the>ogo 7eneral Hos"ital. Howe'er, 7e!!a continued to e%"erience abdo!inal "ains and started bleeding two days a ter the incident. 9n6ugust ?=, 19=1, she was ad!itted in the Southern Islands Hos"ital and was diagnosed, to her sur"rise, to ha'e su ered inco!"lete abortion. 6ccordingly, a !edical certi icate was issued. .&# ruled against the accused direct assault with unintentional abortion. #6 re'ersed the ruling to slight "hysical in)ury. ISS@E: *9A #6 is correct in its rulingB HE35: S# sentenced the accused o direct assault. The case of Lydia falls under the second mode, which is the more common form of assault. Its elements are:
1. That the offender (a) makes an attack, (b) employs force, (c) makes a serious intimidation, or (d) makes a serious resistance. 2. That the person assaulted is a person in authority or his a ent. !. That at the time of the assault the person in authority or his a ent (a) is en a ed in the actual performance of official duties, or "b# that he is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties.

$. That the offender knows that the one he is assaultin is a person in authority or his a ent in the e%ercise of his duties. $. That there is no public uprisin .

Espuelas vs People
"spuelas vs People ,-'- No- $.2//0 December 123 1/51 )acts4 Cn June 9 and June =9, 1996, both dates inclusi"e, in the to!n o# 7a.bilaran, 1ohol, Cscar 3spuelas y $endo2a had his picture ta+en, ma+in. it to appear as i# he !ere han.in. li#eless at the end o# a piece o# rope suspended #orm the limb o# the tree, !hen in truth and in #act, he !as merely standin. on a barrel% ,#ter securin. copies o# his photo.raph, 3spuelas sent copies o# same to Free ress, the 3"enin. 8e!s, the 1isayas, @amdan. o# .eneral circulation and other local periodicals in the ro"ince o# 1ohol but also throu.hout the hilippines and abroad, #or their publication !ith a suicide note or letter, !herein he made to appear that it !as !ritten by a #ictitious suicide, ,lberto ?e"eniera and addressed to the latter's supposed !i#e translation o# !hich letter or note, statin. his dismay and administration o# resident ?o<as, pointin. out the situation in Central @u2on and @eyte, and directin. his !i#e his dear !i#e to !rite to resident 7ruman and Churchill o# A& and tell them that in the hilippines the .o"ernment is in#ested !ith many -itlers and $ussolinis% +ssue4 /hether the accused is liable o# seditious libel under ,rt% 19= o# the ? C a.ainst the Eo"ernment o# the hilippinesF 5eld4 Ges% 7he accused must there#ore be #ound .uilty as char.ed% ,nd there bein. no 4uestion as to the le.ality o# the penalty imposed on him, the decision !ill be a##irmed !ith costs% ,naly2ed #or meanin. and !ei.hed in its conse4uences, the article !ritten by the accused, cannot #ail to impress thin+in. persons that it see+s to so! the seeds o# sedition and stri#e% 7he in#uriatin. lan.ua.e is not a sincere e##ort to persuade !hat !ith the !riter's simulated suicide and #alse claim to martyrdom and !hat !ith is #ailure to particulari2e% /hen the use irritatin. lan.ua.e centers not on persuadin. the readers but on creatin. disturbances, the rationale o# #ree speech cannot apply and the spea+er or !riter is remo"ed #rom the protection o# the constitutional .uaranty% I# it be ar.ued that the article does not discredit the entire .o"ernmental structure but only resident ?o<as and his men, the reply is that article 19= punishes not only all libels a.ainst the Eo"ernment but also 5libels a.ainst any o# the duly constituted authorities thereo#%5 7he 5?o<as people5 in the Eo"ernment ob"iously re#er o# least to the resident, his Cabinet and the ma;ority o# le.islators to !hom the ad;ecti"es dirty, -itlers and $ussolinis !ere naturally directed% Cn this score alone the con"iction could be upheld%

?e.ardin. the publication, it su..ests or incites rebellious conspiracies or riots and tends to stir up people a.ainst the constituted authorities, or to pro"o+e "iolence #rom opposition !ho may see+ to silence the !riter% /hich is the sum and substance o# the o##ense under consideration% 7he essence o# seditious libel may be said to its immediate tendency to stir up .eneral discontent to the pitch o# ille.al courses: that is to say to induce people to resort to ille.al methods other than those pro"ided by the Constitution, in order to repress the e"ils !hich press upon their minds%

SE.7I9 9SMEA6 ;.. 8S S63IP656 PEA56&@A

F6#&S: &hen #ongress!an 9s!eCa ;r iled a 'eri ied "etition or declaratory relie , "rohibition and certiorari with "reli!inary in)unction against #ongress!an Pendatun and others in their ca"acity as !e!bers o the S"ecial #o!!ittee created by House .esolution D9. He as-ed or the annul!ent o the resolution on the ground o in ringe!ent u"on his "arlia!entary i!!unity. He urther as-ed that the res"ondents should not reEuire hi! to substantiate his charges against the "resident with the ad!onition that i he ailed to do so he !ust show cause why the House should not "unish hi!. Said charges e!anated ro! his oneFhour "ri'ileged s"eech entitled 06 Message to 7arcia2, which constituted a serious assault u"on the dignity o 7arcia as the then President. ISS@E: *hether or not 9s!eCa+s i!!unity has been 'iolatedB HELD: Section 1D, 6rticle G o the 19HD #onstitution enshrines "arlia!entary i!!unity u"on !e!ber s o the legislature which is a unda!ental "ri'ilege cherished in e'ery "arlia!ent in a de!ocratic world. It guarantees the legislator co!"lete reedo! o e%"ression without ear o being !ade res"onsible in cri!inal or ci'il actions be ore the courts or any other oru! outside the Hall o #ongress. Howe'er, it does not "rotect hi! ro! res"onsibility be ore the legislati'e body whene'er his words and conduct are considered disorderly or unbeco!ing o a !e!ber therein. &here ore, 9s!eCa+s "etition is dis!issed.

CESARIO URSUA VS COURT OF APPEALS FACTS: Petitioner #esario @rsua was con'icted or 'iolation o Sec. 1 o #6 Ao. 1I?, as a!ended by .6 G0=D otherwise -nown as 06n 6ct to .egulate the @se o 6liases2 by the .&# o 5a'ao #ity which was a ir!ed by the #6. 6llegedly "etitioner when as-ed by his counsel to ta-e his letter o reEuest to the 9 ice o the 9!buds!an because his law ir!+s !essenger 9scar Pere1 had "ersonal !atters to attend to, instead o writing his na!e wrote the na!e 09scar Pere12 when he was reEuested to sign. Howe'er, 3oida $ahulugan who ga'e hi! the co"y o co!"laint was able to -now through ;ose a 6!"aro that "etitioner is not 9scar Pere1. 3oida re"orted the !atter to the 5e"uty 9!buds!an who reco!!ended that "etitioner be accordingly charged. Petitioner co!es or re'iew o his con'iction to the S# as he reasserts his innocence. ISSUE: *hether or not "etitioner #esario @rsua should be acEuitted on the ground that he was charged under the wrong law. HELD: &he S# held that "etitioner be acEuitted o the cri!e charged. &i!e and again the S# has decreed that the statutes are to be construed in the light o the "ur"oses to be achie'ed and the e'il sought to be re!edied. &hus in construing a statute the reason or its enact!ent should be -e"t in !ind and the statute should be construed with re erence to the intended sco"e and "ur"ose. &he court !ay consider the s"irit and reason o the statute, where a literal !eaning would lead to absurdity, contradiction, in)ustice, or would de eat the clear "ur"ose o the law !a-ers.

76@5EA#I9 FE.A6A59 8S #6
FACTS: Acting on reports of sale and distribution of pornographic materials, officers of the Philippine National Police Criminal Investigation and Detection Group in the National Capital Region (PNP-CIDG NCR) conducted police surveillance on the store bearing the name of Gaudencio E. Fernando Music Fair (Music Fair). Judge Perfecto Laguio of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, issued Search Warrant No. 99-1216 for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner Gaudencio E. Fernando and a certain Warren Tingchuy. On the same day, police officers of the PNP-CIDG NCR served the warrant on Rudy Estorninos, who, according to the prosecution, introduced himself as the store attendant of Music Fair. The police searched the premises and confiscated twenty-five (25) VHS tapes (among of which isKahit sa Pangarap Lang with Myra Manibog as actress who is naked) and ten (10) different magazines (Dalaga, Penthouse, Swank, Erotic, Rave, Playhouse, Gallery, QUI), which they deemed pornographic. All appellants pled not guilty to the offenses charged. They waived their right to present evidence. The RTC acquitted Tingchuy for lack of evidence to prove his guilt, but convicted herein petitioners Fernando and Estorninos. The CA affirmed the decision. The petitioners sought for review in the SC on certiorari and assailed the CA decision. ISSUE: the issue in this case is whether the appellate court erred in affirming the petitioners conviction. HELD: No reversible error was committed by the appellate court as well as the trial court in finding the herein petitioners guilty as charged. As obscenity is an unprotected speech which the State has the right to regulate, the State in pursuing its mandate to protect, as parens patriae, the public from obscene, immoral and indecent materials must justify the regulation or limitation. One such regulation is Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. To be held liable, the prosecution must prove that (a) the materials, publication, picture or literature are obscene; and (b) the offender sold, exhibited, published or gave away such materials.13 Necessarily, that the confiscated materials are obscene must be proved. There is no perfect definition of obscenity but the latest word is that of Miller v. California which established basic guidelines, to wit: (a) whether to the average person, applying contemporary standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Obscenity is an issue proper for judicial determination and should be treated on a case to case basis and on the judges sound discretion.

NORMA A. ABDULLA versus PEOPLE OF THE PH L PP NE! ".R. NO. 1#$1%& April '( %$$# F)*+s, Convi*+e- ./ +0e !)n-i1)n.)/)n in i+s Crim. C)se No. %2%'1 o3 +0e *rime o3 ille1)l use o3 pu.li* 3un-s -e3ine)n- pen)li4e- un-er Ar+i*le %%$ o3 +0e Revise- Pen)l Co-e( or more *ommonl/ 5no6n )s +e*0ni*)l m)lvers)+ion( )ppell)n+ Norm) A. A.-ull) is no6 .e3ore +0is Cour+ on pe+i+ion 3or revie6 un-er Rule 7#. Alon1 6i+0 Neni+) A1uil )n- M)0mu- D)r5is( )ppell)n+ 6)s *0)r1e- un-er )n n3orm)+ion 60i*0 per+inen+l/ re)-s, T0)+ on or ).ou+ Novem.er( 1&8& or some+ime prior or su.se9uen+ +0ere+o( in :olo( !ulu( P0ilippines )n- 6i+0in +0e ;uris-i*+ion o3 +0is Honor).le Cour+( +0e ).ove<n)me- )**use-, NORMA A. ABDULLA )n- NEN TA P. A"U L( .o+0 pu.li* o33i*ers( .ein1 +0en +0e Presi-en+ )n- *)s0ier( respe*+ivel/( o3 +0e !ulu !+)+e Colle1e( )n- )s su*0 ./ re)son o3 +0eir posi+ions )n- -u+ies )re )**oun+).le 3or pu.li* 3un-s un-er +0eir )-minis+r)+ion( 60ile in +0e per3orm)n*e o3 +0eir 3un*+ions( *onspirin1 )n- *on3e-er)+in1 6i+0 MAHMUD . DAR= !( )lso ) pu.li* o33i*er( .ein1 +0en +0e A-minis+r)+ive O33i*er > o3 +0e s)i- s*0ool( -i- +0en )n- +0ere 6ill3ull/( unl)63ull/ )n- 3eloniousl/( 6i+0ou+ l)63ul )u+0ori+/( )ppl/ 3or +0e p)/men+ o3 6)1es o3 *)su)ls( +0e )moun+ o3 FORT? THOU!AND PE!O! (P7$($$$.$$)( P0ilippine Curren*/( 60i*0 )moun+ 6)s )ppropri)+e- 3or +0e p)/men+ o3 +0e s)l)r/ -i33eren+i)ls o3 se*on-)r/ s*0ool +e)*0ers o3 +0e s)i- s*0ool( +o +0e -)m)1e )n- pre;u-i*e o3 pu.li* servi*e .Appell)n+@s *o<)**use-( Neni+) A1uil )n- M)0mu- D)r5is( 6ere .o+0 )*9ui++e-. Onl/ )ppell)n+ 6)s 3oun- 1uil+/ )n- sen+en*e- ./ +0e !)n-i1)n.)/)n in i+s -e*ision. Upon mo+ion 3or re*onsi-er)+ion( +0e !)n-i1)n.)/)n )men-e- )ppell)n+@s sen+en*e ./ -ele+in1 +0e +empor)r/ spe*i)l -is9u)li3i*)+ion impose- upon 0er. !+ill -iss)+is3ie-( )ppell)n+( no6 .e3ore +0is Cour+( persis+en+l/ ple)s inno*en*e o3 +0e *rime *0)r1e-. ssue, 1) A0e+0er or no+ +0ere 6)s unl)63ul in+en+ on +0e )ppell)n+@s p)r+. %) A0e+0er or no+ +0e essen+i)l elemen+s o3 +0e *rime o3 +e*0ni*)l m)lvers)+ion is presen+. Hel-, T0e Cour+ mus+ 0)ve +o p)r+ 6)/s 6i+0 +0e !)n-i1)n.)/)n in i+s reli)n*e on !e*+ion # (.) o3 Rule 121 )s .)sis 3or i+s impu+)+ion o3 *rimin)l in+en+ upon )ppell)n+. T0e presump+ion o3 *rimin)l in+en+ 6ill no+ )u+om)+i*)ll/ )ppl/ +o )ll *0)r1es o3 +e*0ni*)l m)lvers)+ion .e*)use -is.ursemen+ o3 pu.li* 3un-s 3or pu.li* use is per se no+ )n unl)63ul )*+. Here( )ppell)n+ *)nno+ .e s)i- +o 0)ve *ommi++e- )n unl)63ul )*+ 60en s0e p)i- +0e o.li1)+ion o3 +0e !ulu !+)+e Colle1e +o i+s emplo/ees in +0e 3orm o3 +ermin)l le)ve .ene3i+s su*0 emplo/ees 6ere en+i+le- +o un-er eBis+in1 *ivil servi*e l)6s. T0ere is no -ispu+e +0)+ +0e mone/ 6)s spen+ 3or ) pu.li* purpose C p)/men+ o3 +0e 6)1es o3 l).orers 6or5in1 on v)rious pro;e*+s in +0e muni*ip)li+/. + is per+inen+ +o no+e +0e 0i10 priori+/ 60i*0 l).orers@ 6)1es en;o/ )s *l)ims )1)ins+ +0e emplo/ers@ 3un-s )n- resour*es. !e++le- is +0e rule +0)+ *onvi*+ion s0oul- res+ on +0e s+ren1+0 o3 evi-en*e o3 +0e prose*u+ion )n- no+ on +0e 6e)5ness o3 +0e -e3ense. A.sen+ +0is re9uire- 9u)n+um o3 evi-en*e 6oulme)n eBoner)+ion 3or )**use-<)ppell)n+. T0e !)n-i1)n.)/)n@s improper reli)n*e on !e*. #(.) o3 Rule 121 -oes no+ s)ve +0e -)/ 3or +0e prose*u+ion@s -e3i*ien*/ in provin1 +0e eBis+en*e o3 *rimin)l in+en+ nor *oul- i+ ever +il+ +0e s*)le 3rom +0e *ons+i+u+ion)l presump+ion o3 inno*en*e +o +0)+ o3 1uil+. n +0e ).sen*e o3 *rimin)l in+en+( +0is Cour+ 0)s no .)sis +o )33irm )ppell)n+@s *onvi*+ion. %. T0e Cour+ no+es +0)+ +0ere is no p)r+i*ul)r )ppropri)+ion 3or s)l)r/

-i33eren+i)ls o3 se*on-)r/ s*0ool +e)*0ers o3 +0e !ulu !+)+e Colle1e in RA ''88. T0e +0ir- elemen+ o3 +0e *rime o3 +e*0ni*)l m)lvers)+ion 60i*0 re9uires +0)+ +0e pu.li* 3un- use- s0oul- 0)ve .een )ppropri)+e- ./ l)6( is +0ere3ore ).sen+. T0e )u+0ori4)+ion 1iven ./ +0e Dep)r+men+ o3 Bu-1e+ )n- M)n)1emen+ 3or +0e use o3 +0e 3or+/ +0ous)npesos (P7$($$$.$$) )llo+men+ 3or p)/men+ o3 s)l)r/ -i33eren+i)ls o3 27 se*on-)r/ s*0ool +e)*0ers is no+ )n or-in)n*e or l)6 *on+empl)+e- in Ar+i*le %%$ o3 +0e Revise- Pen)l Co-e. Appell)n+ 0erein( 60o use- +0e rem)in-er o3 +0e 3or+/ +0ous)n- pesos (P7$($$$.$$) rele)se- ./ +0e DBM 3or s)l)r/ -i33eren+i)ls( 3or +0e p)/men+ o3 +0e +ermin)l le)ve .ene3i+s o3 o+0er s*0ool +e)*0ers o3 +0e !ulu !+)+e Colle1e( *)nno+ .e 0el- 1uil+/ o3 +e*0ni*)l m)lvers)+ion in +0e ).sen*e( )s 0ere( o3 )n/ provision in RA ''88 spe*i3i*)ll/ )ppropri)+in1 s)i- )moun+ 3or p)/men+ o3 s)l)r/ -i33eren+i)ls onl/. n 3ine( +0e +0ir- )n- 3our+0 elemen+s o3 +0e *rime -e3ine- in Ar+i*le %%$ o3 +0e Revise- Pen)l Co-e )re l)*5in1 in +0is *)se. A*9ui++)l is +0us in or-er.

ES&.656 ' S6A5I76A>646A 7... Ao. 1I=DG0, Ao'e!ber 19, ?001 Facts: Petitioner ;ose"h Estrada "rosecuted 6n 6ct 5e ining and Penali1ing the #ri!e o Plunder, wishes to i!"ress u"on the #ourt that the assailed law is so de ecti'ely ashioned that it crosses that thin but distinct line which di'ides the 'alid ro! the constitutionally in ir!. His contentions are !ainly based on the e ects o the said law that it su ers ro! the 'ice o 'agueness( it dis"enses with the Jreasonable doubtJ standard in cri!inal "rosecutions( and it abolishes the ele!ent o !ens rea in cri!es already "unishable under &he .e'ised Penal #ode saying that it 'iolates the unda!ental rights o the accused. &he ocal "oint o the case is the alleged 0'agueness2 o the law in the ter!s it uses. Particularly, this ter!s are: co!bination, series and unwarranted. >ecause o this, the "etitioner uses the acial challenge on the 'alidity o the !entioned law. Issue: *hether or not the "etitioner "ossesses the locus standi to attac- the 'alidity o the law using the acial challenge. .uling: 9n how the law uses the ter!s co!bination and series does not constitute 'agueness. &he "etitioner+s contention that it would not gi'e a air warning and su icient notice o what the law see-s to "enali1e cannot be "lausibly argued. 8oidF orF'agueness doctrine is !ani estly

!is"laced under the "etitioner+s reliance since ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is "rohibited by the statute. It can only be in'o-ed against that s"ecie o legislation that is utterly 'ague on its ace, wherein clari ication by a sa'ing clause or construction cannot be in'o-ed. Said doctrine !ay not in'o-ed in this case since the statute is clear and ree ro! a!biguity. 8agueness doctrine !erely reEuires a reasonable degree o certainty or the statute to be u"held, not absolute "recision or !athe!atical e%actitude. 9n the other hand, o'erbreadth doctrine decrees that go'ern!ental "ur"ose !ay not be achie'ed by !eans which swee" unnecessarily broadly and thereby in'ade the area o "rotected reedo!s. 5octrine o strict scrutiny holds that a acial challenge is allowed to be !ade to 'ague statute and to one which is o'erbroad because o "ossible chilling e ect u"on "rotected s"eech. Further!ore, in the area o cri!inal law, the law cannot ta-e chances as in the area o ree s"eech. 6 acial challenge to legislati'e acts is the !ost di icult challenge to !ount success ully since the challenger !ust establish that no set o circu!stances e%ists. 5octrines !entioned are analytical tools de'elo"ed or acial challenge o a statute in ree s"eech cases. *ith res"ect to such statue, the established rule is that one to who a""lication o a statute is constitutional will not be heard to attac- the statute on the ground that i!"liedly it !ight also be ta-en as a""lying to other "ersons or other situations in which its a""lication !ight be unconstitutional. 9n its ace in'alidation o statues results in stri-ing the! down entirely on the ground that they !ight be a""lied to "arties not be ore the #ourt whose acti'ities are constitutionally "rotected. It is e'ident that the "ur"orted a!biguity o the Plunder 3aw is !ore i!agined than real. &he cri!e o "lunder as a !alu! in se is dee!ed to ha'e been resol'e in the #ongress+ decision to include it a!ong the heinous cri!e "unishable by reclusion "er"etua to death. Su"re!e #ourt holds the "lunder law constitutional and "etition is dis!issed or lac-ing !erit.

HE%?% 8o% 1B9185, July =3, =008I P"#P$" #) T5" P5+$+PP+N"&3 P"T+T+#N"'3 %&- T5" &(ND+,(N6(7(N 8)#9'T5 D+%+&+#N: (ND ($";(ND'# (- %+$$(P(ND#3 '"&P#ND"NT&F,C7&: )urin. the $ay 11, 1998 elections, 0illapando ran #or $unicipal $ayor o# &an 0icente, ala!an% Crlando $% 7iape (no! deceased*, ran #or $unicipal $ayor o# Jitcharao, ,.usan del 8orte% 0illapando !on !hile 7iape lost% Cn July 1, 1998, 0illapando desi.nated 7iape as $unicipal ,dministrator o# the $unicipality o# &an 0icente, ala!an% , Contract o# Consultancy dated February 8, 1999 !as e<ecuted bet!een the $unicipality o# &an 0icente, ala!an and 7iape !hereby the #ormer employed the ser"ices o# 7iape as $unicipal ,dministrati"e and )e"elopment lannin. Consultant in the C##ice o# the $unicipal $ayor #or a period o# si< months #rom January 1, 1999 to June 30, 1999 #or a monthly salary o# =B,953%80% Cn February 9, =000, &olomon 1% $aa.ad and ?enato $% Fernande2 char.ed 0illapando and 7iape #or "iolation o# ,rticle =99 o# the ?e"ised enal Code be#ore the C##ice o# the )eputy Cmbudsman #or @u2on% 7he complaint !as resol"ed a.ainst 0illapando and 7iape and the In#ormation dated $arch 19, =00= char.in. the t!o !ith "iolation o# ,rticle =99 o# the ?e"ised enal Code !as #iled !ith the &andi.anbayan% ,#ter the prosecution rested its case, 0illapando mo"ed #or lea"e to #ile a demurrer to e"idence% 7he &andi.anbayan, Fourth )i"ision denied his motion but .a"e him #i"e days !ithin !hich to in#orm the court in !ritin. !hether he !ill nonetheless submit his )emurrer to 3"idence #or resolution !ithout lea"e o# court% 0illapando then #iled a $ani#estation o# Intent to File )emurrer to 3"idence, and !as .i"en 15 days #rom receipt to #ile his )emurrer to 3"idence% -e #iled his )emurrer to 3"idence on Cctober =8, =003% In a )ecision dated $ay =0, =009, the &andi.anbayan, Fourth )i"ision #ound 0illapando's )emurrer to 3"idence meritorious% 7hus, this petition by the C##ice o# the Cmbudsman, throu.h the C##ice o# the &pecial rosecutor, representin. the eople o# the hilippines% I&&A3: /hether or not the &andi.anbayan, Fourth )i"ision, acted !ith .ra"e abuse o# discretion amountin. to lac+ or e<cess o# ;urisdiction% -3@): Era"e abuse o# discretion de#ies e<act de#inition, but it .enerally re#ers to capricious or !himsical e<ercise o# ;ud.ment as is e4ui"alent to lac+ o# ;urisdiction% 7he abuse o# discretion must be patent and .ross as to amount to an e"asion o# a positi"e duty or a "irtual re#usal to per#orm a duty en;oined by la!, or to act at all in contemplation o# la!, as !here the po!er is e<ercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason o# passion and hostility% In this case, the &andi.anbayan, Fourth )i"ision, in disre.ardin. basic rules o# statutory construction, acted !ith .ra"e abuse o# discretion% Its interpretation o# the term le.al dis4uali#ication in ,rticle =99 o# the ?e"ised enal Code de#ies le.al co.ency% @e.al dis4uali#ication cannot be read as e<cludin. temporary dis4uali#ication in order

to e<empt there#rom the le.al prohibitions under the 1986 Constitution and the @ocal Eo"ernment Code o# 1991% /e reiterate the le.al ma<im ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemus% 1asic is the rule in statutory construction that !here the la! does not distin.uish, the courts should not distin.uish% 7here should be no distinction in the application o# a la! !here none is indicated% Further, the &andi.anbayan, Fourth )i"ision denied 0illapando's $otion #or @ea"e to File )emurrer to 3"idence yet accommodated 0illapando by .i"in. him #i"e days !ithin !hich to in#orm it in !ritin. !hether he !ill submit his demurrer to e"idence #or resolution !ithout lea"e o# court% 8otably, a ;ud.ment rendered !ith .ra"e abuse o# discretion or !ithout due process is "oid, does not e<ist in le.al contemplation and, thus, cannot be the source o# an ac4uittal% 7he &andi.anbayan, Fourth )i"ision ha"in. acted !ith .ra"e abuse o# discretion in disre.ardin. the basic rules o# statutory construction resultin. in its decision .rantin. 0illapando's )emurrer to 3"idence and ac4uittin. the latter, !e can do no less but declare its decision null and "oid%

Artemio Villareal vs People of the Philippines GR No. 151258 FACTS: Seven Freshmen a! st"#ents of Ateneo #e $anila %niversit& S'hool of a! have (een initiate# (& the A)"ila e*is +"ris Fraternit& on Fe(r"ar& 1,,1. The initiation rites starte# !hen the neoph&tes !ere met (& some mem(ers of the mentione# fraternit& at the lo((& of the Ateneo a! S'hool. The& !ere 'onse)"entl& (ro"*ht to a ho"se an# (riefe# on !hat !ill (e happenin* #"rin* the #a&s !hen the& !ill (e initiate#. The& !ere informe# that there !ill (e ph&si'al (eatin*s an# that the neoph&tes 'an )"it an&time the& !ant. The& !ere (ro"*ht to another ho"se to 'ommen'e their initiation. The neoph&tes !ere ins"lte# an# threatene# even (efore the& *ot off the van. $em(ers of the fraternit& #elivere# (lo!s to the neoph&tes as the& ali*hte# from the van. Several initiation rites !ere e-perien'e# (& the neoph&tes li.e the /n#ian r"n0 1i'ol e-press an# ro"n#s. The& !ere as.e# to re'ite provisions an# prin'iples of the fraternit& an# !ere hit ever&time the& ma#e a mista.e. A''"se# fraternit& mem(ers0 2i3on an# Villareal0 as.e# the hea# of the initiation rites 4Vi'torino5 to reopen the initiation. Fraternit& mem(ers s"(6e'te# neoph&tes to pa##lin* an# a##itional ho"rs of ph&si'al pain. After the last session of (eatin*s0 enn& Villa 'o"l# not !al.. ater that ni*ht0 he !as feelin* 'ol# an# his 'on#ition !orsene#. 7e !as (ro"*ht to the hospital ("t !as #e'lare# #ea# on arrival. Criminal 'ase !as file# a*ainst 28 fraternit& mem(ers an# !as s"(se)"entl& fo"n# *"ilt& (e&on# reasona(le #o"(t of the 'rime of homi'i#e an# penali3e# !ith re'l"sion perpet"a. 9n +an"ar& 1: 2::20 CA mo#ifie# the 'riminal lia(ilit& of ea'h of the a''"se# a''or#in* to in#ivi#"al parti'ipation. 1, of the the a''"se# !ere a')"itte#0 ; of the appellants !ere fo"n# *"ilt& of sli*ht ph&si'al in6"ries0 an# 2 of the a''"se#<appellants 42i3on an# Villareal5 !ere fo"n# *"ilt& (e&on# reasona(le #o"(t of the 'rime of homi'i#e. A''"se# Villareal petitione# for revie! on Certriori "n#er R"e ;5 on the *ro"n#s that the CA ma#e 2 reversi(le errors: first0 #enial of #"e pro'ess an# se'on#0 'onvi'tion a(sent proof (e&on# reasona(le #o"(t. Conse)"entl&0 petitioner Villareal #ie# on 1= $ar'h 2:11 an# file# a Noti'e of 2eath of Part& on 1: A"*"st 2:11. /SS%>: ?hether or not 'riminal lia(ilit& for personal penalties of the a''"se# is e-tin*"ishe# (& #eath R% /NG: @es0 'riminal lia(ilit& of the a''"se# is e-tin*"ishe# (& #eath. The Co"rt too. note of 'o"nsel for petitionerAs Noti'e of 2eath !hen it has (een re'eive# !hile the petition !as pen#in* resol"tion. Personal penalties refer to the servi'e of personal or imprisonment penalties0 !hile pe'"niar& penalties refer to fines0 'osts0 'ivil lia(ilit&. Arti'le 8, of the Revise# Penal Co#e states that the 'riminal lia(ilit& of a 'onvi't for personal penalties is totall& e-tin*"ishe# (& #eath of the 'onvi't. 7is pe'"niar& penalt& has (een e-tin*"ishe# sin'e the #eath of the a''"se# happene# (efore his final 6"#*ment. Therefore0 the #eath of the petitioner for (oth personal an# pe'"niar& penalties in'l"#in* his 'ivil lia(ilit& has en#e#. 7is petition has also (een #ismisse# an# the 'riminal 'ase a*ainst him has (een 'lose# an# terminate#.

RU!TAN AN" / PA!CUA( vs. COURT OF APPEAL! )n- R !H !A"UD "R No. 18%82# RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD GR No. 182835 Na !"#$ R!%#s on E%#& "on'& Ev'd#n&# Fa& s ris0 !)1u- )n- Rus+)n 6ere *l)ssm)+es )+ Aesle/)n Universi+/ in Auror). T0e/ .e*)me Don<)n-<o33E s6ee+0e)r+s +o6)r-s +0e en- o3 %$$7. ris0 le)rne- +0)+ Rus+)n 0)- +)5en ) live<in p)r+ner (no6 0is 6i3e)( 60om 0e 0)- 1o++en pre1n)n+. ris0 .ro5e up 6i+0 Rus+)n. Be3ore Rus+)n 1o+ m)rrie-( 0e +rie- +o *onvin*e ris0 +o elope 6i+0 0im. ris0 re;e*+e- +0e propos)l. ris0 *0)n1e- 0er *ellp0one num.er .u+ Rus+)n m)n)1e- +o 1e+ 0ol- o3 i+ )n- sen+ 0er +eB+ mess)1es. Rus+)n use- +6o *ellp0one num.ers. ris0 +o )s5 0im +o le)ve 0er )lone. ris0 re*eive- ) mul+ime-i) mess)1e servi*e (MM!) ) pi*+ure o3 ) n)5e- 6om)n 6i+0 spre)- le1s )n- 6i+0 ris0@s 3)*e superimpose- on +0e 3i1ure. T0e sen-er 6)s $&%1<8$87F'8( one o3 +0e num.ers +0)+ Rus+)n use-. ris0 1o+ o+0er +eB+ mess)1es 3rom Rus+)n. He .o)s+e- +0)+ i+ 6oul- .e e)s/ 3or 0im +o *re)+e simil)rl/ s*)n-)lous pi*+ures o3 0er. An- 0e +0re)+ene- +o spre)- +0e pi*+ure +0rou10 +0e in+erne+. ris0 sou10+ +0e 0elp o3 +0e vi*e m)/or o3 M)ri) Auror) 60o re3erre- 0er +o +0e poli*e. Un-er poli*e supervision( ris0 *on+)*+e- Rus+)n +0rou10 +0e *ellp0one num.ers 0e use-. ris0 )s5e- Rus+)n +o mee+ 0er )+ ) resor+. A0en Rus+)n 6)s 6)l5in1 +o6)r-s ris0( poli*e o33i*ers in+er*ep+e- )n- )rres+e- 0im. T0e/ se)r*0e- 0im )n- sei4e- 0is *ellp0one )n- sever)l ! M *)r-s. Rus+)n )-mi++e- 0)vin1 *our+e- ris0. He *l)ime- +0)+ )3+er +0eir rel)+ion en-e-( ris0 6)n+e- re*on*ili)+ion. !ome+ime l)+er( Rus+)n 1o+ ) +eB+ mess)1e 3rom ris0( )s5in1 0im +o mee+ 0er )+ )s s0e nee-e- 0is 0elp in sellin1 0er *ellp0one. A0en 0e )rrive- )+ +0e pl)*e( +6o poli*e o33i*ers )ppro)*0e- 0im( sei4e- 0is *ellp0one )n- +0e *on+en+s o3 0is po*5e+s( )n- .rou10+ 0im +o +0e poli*e s+)+ion. Rus+)n 3ur+0er *l)ims +0)+ ris0 )s5e- 0im +o 0elp 0er i-en+i3/ ) pr)n5s+er 60o 6)s sen-in1 0er m)li*ious +eB+ mess)1es. Rus+)n 1o+ +0e sen-er@s num.er )n-( pre+en-in1 +o .e ris0( *on+)*+e- +0e person. Rus+)n *l)ims +0)+ 0e 1o+ .)*5 o.s*ene mess)1es 3rom +0e pr)n5s+er( 60i*0 0e 3or6)r-e- +o ris0 3rom 0is *ellp0one. T0is is 60/ +0e o.s*ene mess)1es )ppe)re- +o 0)ve ori1in)+e- 3rom 0im. Rus+)n *l)ims +0)+ i+ 6)s ris0 0ersel3 60o sen+ +0e o.s*ene pi*+ure +o 0im. He presen+e- siB pi*+ures o3 ) 6om)n 60om 0e i-en+i3ie- )s ris0. RTC 3oun- Rus+)n 1uil+/ o3 +0e viol)+ion o3 !e*+ion #(0) o3 R.A. &%'%. On )ppe)l CA )33irm +0e RTC -e*ision. Iss!#$ A0e+0er or no+ ele*+roni* evi-en*e 6ill )ppl/ +o *rimin)l *)ses.

H#%d$ ?es. Pursu)n+ +o A.M. No. $1<F<$1<!C issue- on %7 !ep+em.er %$$%( !e*+ion % Rule 1 o3 +0e Rules on Ele*+roni* Evi-en*e 6)s )men-e- +o re)- )s 3ollo6s, !EC. % C)ses *overe-. C T0ese Rules s0)ll )ppl/ +o +0e &"'('na% )n- *ivil )*+ions )n- pro*ee-in1( )s 6ell )s 9u)si<;u-i*i)l )n- )-minis+r)+ive *)ses.

)i.est 9: ?A&7,8 ,8E y ,&CA, "s% 7-3 -C8C?,1@3 CCA?7 CF , 3,@& and I?I&- &,EA)
E%?% 8o% 18=835 ,pril =0, =010 ?A&7,8 ,8E y ,&CA,, etitioner, "s% 7-3 -C8C?,1@3 CCA?7 CF , 3,@& and I?I&- &,EA), ?espondents% Facts: 7he herein petitioner, ?ustan ,n. and the pri"ate respondent, Irish &a.ud !ere lo"ers durin. their colle.e days in /esleyan Ani"ersity in $aria ,urora ro"ince o# ,urora% 3"entually, Irish heard that ?ustan has a li"e>in>partner !hom ?ustan .ot pre.nant% 1ecause o# this, Irish decided to bro+e up !ith ?ustan% 7he latter as+ed Irish to elope !ith him, since he does not lo"e the other .irl, to !hich Irish re#used% 7o pressure Irish to .et bac+ !ith him he send multimedia messa.es to Irish, bearin. a picture o# a na+ed !oman, !ho spread her le.s !ith a #ace o# Irish superimposed on it% ?ustan e"en added in the te<t messa.e that it is easy #or him to spread those pictures in the internet% 1ecause o# this scenario, Irish, as+ed help #rom the 0ic>$ayor o# the municipality, to !hich coordination !ith the local police !as made% 3ntrapment operation !as conducted and arrested ?ustan% Issue: /hether or not ?ustanKs contention that the multimedia messa.es should not be made admissible #or the basic reason that such !as not properly authenticated as pro"ided by the ?ules on 3lectronic )ocumentsF -eld: 8o, the &upreme Court mentioned the #ollo!in.: ?ustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish throu.h a te<t messa.e constitutes an electronic document% 7hus, it should be authenticated by means o# an electronic si.nature, as pro"ided under &ection 1, ?ule 5 o# the ?ules on 3lectronic 3"idence (,%$% 01>6>01>&C*% 1ut, #irstly, ?ustan is raisin. this ob;ection to the admissibility o# the obscene picture, 3<hibit ,, #or the #irst time be#ore this Court% 7he ob;ection is too late since he should ha"e ob;ected to the admission o# the picture on such .round at the time it !as o##ered in e"idence% -e should be deemed to ha"e already !ai"ed such .round #or ob;ection% 1esides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action% 7he ?ules on 3lectronic 3"idence applies only to ci"il actions, 4uasi>;udicial proceedin.s, and administrati"e proceedin.s% Indeed the assertion o# ?ustan !ill not be .i"en merit #or the basic reason that such contention !as only raised be#ore this court to !hich the latter had a presumption that ?ustan has !ai"ed his ri.ht to 4uestion the authenticity o# the pictures% $oreo"er, the court a"ers that such assertion o# ?ustan cannot be made possible in criminal case: such can only be made be#ore, ci"il and administrati"e actions% 7he hi.h court denied the petition%

<+*5("$ ;#5N =- <($T# v- P"#P$" #) T5" P5+$+PP+N"& ,-'- No- 1>?2333 &eptember 213 2002 *orona3 J-

Doctrine: The sweetheart theory cannot be invoked for purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 76 !" #onsent is immaterial because the mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is sub$ected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense" %oreover& a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse"

)acts: &ometime durin. the month o# 8o"ember 1996 to 1998, $alto seduced his student, ,,,, a minor, to indul.e in se<ual intercourse se"eral times !ith him% rior to the incident, petitioner and ,,, had a Lmutual understandingM and became s!eethearts% ressured and a#raid o# the petitionerKs threat to end their relationship, ,,, succumbed and both had se<ual intercourse%

Apon disco"ery o# !hat ,,, under!ent, 111, ,,,Ks mother lod.ed a complaint in the C##ice o# the City rosecutor o# asay City !hich led to the #ilin. o# Criminal Case 8o% 00>0B91%

7he petitioner did not ma+e a plea !hen arrai.ned% -ence, the trial court entered #or him a plea o# Lnot .uilty%M 7he trial court #ound the e"idence #or the prosecution su##icient to sustain petitionerKs con"iction% 7he trail court rendered a decision #indin. petitioner .uilty and sentenced him to reclusion temporal and to pay an indemnity o# hp% 65,000 and dama.es o# hp% 50,000%

etitioner 4uestioned the trial courtKs decision in the C,% 7he C, modi#ied the decision o# the trial court% 7he appellate court a##irmed his con"iction and ruled that the trial court erred in a!ardin. hp% 65,000 ci"il indemnity in #a"or o# ,,, as it !as proper only in a con"iction #or rape committed under the circumstances under !hich the death penalty !as authori2ed by la!%

+ssue: /hether the C, erred in sustainin. petitionerKs con"iction on the .rounds that there !as no rape committed since their se<ual intercourse !as consensual by reason o# their LsweetheartM relationship

5eld: 8o% 7he Lsweetheart theoryM cannot be in"o+ed #or purposes o# se<ual intercourse and lasci"ious conduct in child abuse cases under ?, 6B10% Consent is immaterial because the mere act o# ha"in. se<ual intercourse or committin. lasci"ious conduct !ith a child !ho is sub;ected to se<ual abuse constitutes the o##ense% $oreo"er, a child is presumed by la! to be incapable o# .i"in. rational consent to any lasci"ious act or se<ual intercourse%

People of the Philipines Vs. Roberto Abay G.R. No. 177752 February 24, 200

Rulin!" #n$er %e&tion 5'b(, Arti&le ))) of RA 7*10 in relation to RA +,5,, if the -i&ti. of se/ual abuse is belo0 12 years of a!e, the offen$er shoul$ not be prose&ute$ for se/ual abuse but for statutory rape un$er Arti&le 2**1A'1('$( of the Re-ise$ Penal 2o$e an$ penali3e$ 0ith reclusion perpetua. 4n the other han$, if the -i&ti. is 12 years or ol$er, the offen$er shoul$ be &har!e$ 0ith either se/ual abuse un$er %e&tion 5'b( of RA 7*10 or rape un$er Arti&le 2**1A 'e/&ept para!raph 15$6( of the Re-ise$ Penal 2o$e. 7o0e-er, the offen$er &annot be a&&use$ of both &ri.es for the sa.e a&t be&ause his ri!ht a!ainst $ouble 8eopar$y 0ill be pre8u$i&e$. A person &annot be sub8e&te$ t0i&e to &ri.inal liability for a sin!le &ri.inal a&t. 9i:e0ise, rape &annot be &o.ple/e$ 0ith a -iolation of %e&tion 5'b( of RA 7*10. #n$er %e&tion 4+ of the Re-ise$ Penal 2o$e 'on &o.ple/ &ri.es(, a felony un$er the Re-ise$ Penal 2o$e 'su&h as rape( &annot be &o.ple/e$ 0ith an offense penali3e$ by a spe&ial la0. )n this &ase, the -i&ti. 0as .ore than 12 years ol$ 0hen the &ri.e 0as &o..itte$ a!ainst her. ;he )nfor.ation a!ainst appellant state$ that AAA 0as 1, years ol$ at the ti.e of the in&i$ent. ;herefore, appellant .ay be prose&ute$ either for -iolation of %e&tion 5'b( of RA 7*10 or rape un$er Arti&le 2**1A 'e/&ept para!raph 15$6( of the Re-ise$ Penal 2o$e. <hile the )nfor.ation .ay ha-e alle!e$ the ele.ents of both &ri.es, the prose&ution=s e-i$en&e only establishe$ that appellant se/ually -iolate$ the person of AAA throu!h for&e an$ inti.i$ation by threatenin! her 0ith a bla$e$ instru.ent an$ for&in! her to sub.it to his bestial $esi!ns. ;hus, rape 0as establishe$.