OCTOBER 1999

PEOPLE V. MARCELINO
October 1, 1999

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

Issue:
Was there treachery?
Was conspiracy established to hold other accused equally
liable for the murder?

HELD: YES
Elements of treachery (1) the employment of means of
execution that gives the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or to retaliate, and (2) the said means of
execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.
Victims were deliberately led toward Nabilog by Marcelino
when he claimed there was a taxi there waiting for them.
When they reached Tampa Creek, said unforwarned
victims were suddenly shot to death without chance to
defend themselves. Marcelino effectively ordered his men
to kill the two by means of a signal (drawing a line across
his neck with a finger). The gesture was so conspicuous
that even the witness saw it. The group followed the
deceased then killed them. Their bodies were set on the
ground side-by side, their clothes removed, their personal
belongings stolen. Thereafter Marcelino ordered that the
bodies be burned in order to conceal their evil deed. These
circumstances, taken together, sufficiently established a
unity of purpose, community of interest and intent, which
were carried out in concert. For conspiracy to exist, there
need not be an agreement for an appreciable period prior
to the occurrence; it is sufficient that at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had the same
purpose and were united in its execution.

PEOPLE V. NARIDO
October 1, 1999

Accused raped his 11-year-old daughter while they are
gathering firewood. On another occasion, his common law
wife caught him laying on top of his daughter.

Issue:
W/N said crime is punishable by death? (special
circumstance imposing death penalty automatically -
victim is under 18 years of age and offender is a parent.)

HELD: No.
Guilty only of simple statutory rape and not qualified rape
for want of allegation of relationship. Said special
circumstances introduced by RA 7659 which sanction
automatic imposition of death penalty partake of the
nature of qualifying circumstances since these
circumstances increase the penalty for rape by one
degree. Nonetheless, to be properly appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance, it must be specifically pleaded in
the information. Information in this case reveals that
although the complainant's minority was alleged, the fact
of relationship, albeit proven during the trial, was not so
specified.

PEOPLE V. PADAMA
October 1, 1999

Victim Gatchalian was chased by the two accused, each
armed with a knife, and stabbed simultaneously several
times. He eventually died of severe blood loss. Said killing
arose from a previous incident where victim
confronted accused regarding their plan of stealing from
the store of the former.

Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes.
W/N there was evident premeditation? No.

HELD:
The conclusion that the killing was attended with
treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, as the
two accused each armed with bladed weapons and
continuously attacking and raining knife thrusts upon the
unarmed and unsuspecting victim which caused his
eventual death is also not to be disturbed. The evidence
shows that the two accused took turns in stabbing the
victim while the latter had already fallen down on the
pavement.
Proof of the alleged resentment does not constitute
conclusive proof of evident premeditation. An expression
of hatred does not necessarily imply a resolution to
commit a crime; there must be a demonstration of
outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and
manifest.

PEOPLE V. VILLABLANCA
October 1, 1999

Villablanca brothers barged in to the house of victim Pedro
Natanio late in the night. Pedro and his family was
awakened by their chickens flying off the perch. Victim
was made to kneel on the floor and then stabbed him on
the stomach with a samurai, while the other pointed a gun
to his face. Victim rolled to his side and was again stabbed
thrice which led to his death

Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes.
W/N there was abuse of superior strength? No.
W/N there was conspiracy? Yes.

HELD:
Pedro may have been warned of a possible danger to his
person. However, what is decisive is that the attack was
executed in a manner making it impossible for Pedro to
retaliate. When Pedro was made to kneel on the floor, he
was unarmed. There was no risk to the accused when they
commenced the stabbing. Pedro's helplessness was
bolstered by the fact that he was suffering from a
congenital limpness which allowed him to walk only short
distances.
There is no evidence that accused took advantage of
superior strength. In any event, even if it was present it
was absorbed in treachery. Both accused shall suffer the
same fate, as there was conspiracy between them. When
the other pointed a gun to Pedro, he provided his brother
with moral assistance. This is enough to make him a co-
conspirator. It is not necessary to show that he actually he
hit and killed Pedro to make him liable for his brother's
acts.

PEOPLE V. VERGEL
October 4, 1999

Vergel and Duran, both drunk and armed with a gun and a
fan knife, fetched and forcibly brought victim on board a
tricycle to an apartment. Vergel had carnal knowledge
with said victim after he poked the gun at her side and
pulled her into a bedroom, while Duran stayed guard near
the door of the sala.

Issue: W/N there was rape?

HELD: Yes.
It is clear there was rape. The prosecution was able to
prove that (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the
complainant (2) because he intimidated her by pointing a
gun at her. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance
did not make voluntary the complainant's submission to
the criminal acts of the accused. Such resistance is not an
element of the felony. It is enough that the malefactor
intimidated the complainant into submission. Not every
victim of rape can be expected to act with reason or in
conformity with the usual expectation of everyone.

PEOPLE V. YABUT
October 5, 1999

Spouses Yabut on several occasions received money from
complainants promising them they will be able to work in
Japan. After several cancellation of their scheduled
departure, complainants discovered that said spouses
were not licensed to engage in recruitment and placement
activities. Wife eluded arrest and remains at-large.
Husband contends that he was not engaged in recruitment
for overseas employment and but only in processing visas.
He was acquitted of the crime of estafa.

Issue: W/N accused could be convicted of illegal
recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the crime
of estafa?

HELD: Yes.
It is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment
may be charged and convicted separately of illegal
recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa Art. 315 of
the RPC. The former is mala prohibitum where the criminal
intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while
estafa is mala in se where the criminal intent of the
accused is crucial for conviction.

PEOPLE V. CARATAY
October 5, 1999

Accused in several occasions had carnal knowledge with
his common-law wife's 13 year-old niece. In one occasion
he drugged the lugaw of said victim.

Issue: Was there rape?

HELD: Yes.
We have ruled that if the ability to resist is taken away by
administering a drug, even though the woman may be
conscious, sexual intercourse with her will be rape. Moral
character is immaterial in the prosecution and conviction
of the accused in a rape case. We have ruled that even
prostitutes can be rape victims.

PEOPLE V. SUELTO
October 7, 1999

Appellant came home late, and his wife was angry with
him because she believed that he came from Sing-A-Long.
Quarrel ensued resulting to death of the wife after being
shot on the head.

Issue: W/N guilty of parricide?

HELD: Yes.
Appellant was the only person with his wife when she was
shot in their room. Considering, that his defense was built
on the theory that the shooting was purportedly
accidental, appellant has the inescapable burden of
proving the elements of the exempting circumstance of
accident.

PEOPLE V. FLORO
October 7, 1999

Witness and victim were walking along a trail on a cassava
plantation owned by accused, who suddenly appeared and
shot the victim then striked the head several times with
the gun.

Issue: W/N guilty of murder?

HELD: Yes.
The killing in this case is murder qualified by treachery.
The evidence shows that accused suddenly sprang from
the cassava plants and shot the victim. The victim was
unarmed and unsuspecting of any impending peril to his
life and limb at the time he was shot by accused. The swift
and unexpected attack by accused rendered the victim
helpless.
The rule that treachery may be shown if the victim is
attacked from behind does not mean it cannot be
appreciated if the attack is frontally launched. The
suddenness of the shooting without the slightest
provocation from he victim who was unarmed and had no
opportunity to defend himself, ineluctably qualified the
crime with treachery.

PEOPLE V. ORTIZ
October 7, 1999

Accused threw stones on the roof of the victim's house.
After the victim hurled challenge for the stone thrower to
come out, the four accused suddenly emerged from the
dark. Victim was held by the arms and dragged towards
the barangay hall. Accused fired their rifles on the ground
to dissuade witnesses from coming to his aid. Later, bursts
of gunfire were heard coming from the direction of the
barangay hall. Lifeless body of the victim was later found
near the barangay hall.

Issue: W/N guilty of murder? W/N there was conspiracy?

HELD: Yes.
The only clear circumstance that qualifies the killing to
murder in this case is the abuse of superior strength
between the victim and his four aggressors, as well as the
degree of force and the weapons used by the latter.
Conspiracy among the four assailants was proven by proof
beyond reasonable doubt. The accused were together
when two of them held the victim, while one was firing his
rifle. All of them dragged the latter towards the barangay
hall. To establish conspiracy, it is not necessary that there
be proof of the previous agreement to commit the crime,
it being enough that the malefactors shall have acted in
concert pursuant to the same objective. At the very instant
the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly, to commit the
crime and decide to pursue it, each and everyone of the
conspirators is criminally liable for the crime committed by
anyone of them.

PEOPLE V. APELADO
October 11, 1999

Victim Rodolfo de Jesus was overtaken by Jose Apelado
and his group while walking in front of a house. His line of
way was cut. De Jesus asked him, "What is my fault to
you?" He raised his hands and prepared to fight. German
hit his lower legs with a piece of wood. He fell down. The
three surrounded him. German pulled out a knife and
stabbed him at his legs and then at his throat. Apelado
hacked him with a bolo using his left hand. De Jesus was
hit twice - at the top of his head and nape. Robert thrust
an ice pick at his back and side below the armpit. They
then ran away and left him sprawled on the ground.

HELD:
To establish conspiracy, it is not essential that there be
proof as to the previous agreement to commit a crime. It is
sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack
was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and
purpose. In this instance, the fact that the assailants
followed, overtook, surrounded and took turns in inflicting
injuries to the victim show a common purpose.
Abuse of superior strength also attended the commission
of the crime. This circumstance is appreciated when the
aggressors purposely use excessive force out of proportion
to the means of defense available to the person attacked.
In the case at bar, the aggressors who were all armed first
hit the legs of their unarmed victim which caused him to
fall kneeling. This was followed by a stab above the knee.
Having deprived him of his means to stand or run, they
took turns in inflicting mortal wounds on him.
Neither treachery nor evident premeditation was present
in the commission of the crime. Treachery is absent as the
accused-appellants were not entirely risk free during their
attack. As stated, the victim prepared to fight it out with
the accused-appellants. Evident premeditation cannot be
considered for lack of evidence that accused-appellants
preconceived the crime.

PEOPLE V. RENATO
October 11, 1999

Victim Ludovico Romano and his wife Melecia were selling
tuba in a makeshift hut, several meters away from the
highway. Melecia sat on a bench, while Ludovico squatted
on the ground, waiting for customers to arrive. Suddenly, a
shot was fired. Melecia hid herself in an irrigation canal
while Ludovico stood up and tried to find out where the
shot came from. When another shot was fired, Melecia
shouted for Ludovico to duck. Ludovico then stood an
arm's length away from the highway. It was too late,
Melecia saw accused-appellant Ruben Ronato shoot
Ludovico. Victim was rushed to the hospital and died two
days later.

Issue: W/N there was treachery? Yes.

HELD:
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack, without the slightest provocation on the part of the
person attacked. There is treachery when the attack on
the victim was made without giving the latter warning of
any kind and thus rendering him unable to defend himself
from an assailant's unexpected attack. What is decisive is
that the attack was executed in such a manner as to make
it impossible for the victim to retaliate. As testified to by
Melecia, the victim was "squatting on the ground" in their
makeshift hut when the shooting started. The victim stood
up to find out what was happening. On the third time,
accused-appellant shot him point blank and in a helpless
position.

PEOPLE V. RAGANAS
October 12, 1999

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

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

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

PEOPLE V. LACHICA
October 12, 1999

Accused boarded the tricycle of Pascasio as his tricycle was
running on the shoulder of the road, he heard somebody
inside the tricycle cry out 'aray' and felt warm blood spurt
from inside the sidecar of the tricycle landing at the back
of his right palm. He then stopped the tricycle and accused
brought out victim Rodolfo Pamoleras, Jr. and started to
stab him while others served as lookout.

Issue: W/N there was conspiracy? Yes.
W/N there was treachery? Yes.

HELD:
Conspiracy - The act of Junuario dela Cruz of hiring a
tricycle on the pretext of needing to throw something;
their strategic seating positions inside the tricycle,
depriving the deceased an opportunity to free himself;
their respective acts of stabbing the deceased, and their
washing the blood off the tricycle all evinced a unity of
action and common design to kill the victim. It is not
necessary that there be evidence of a previous plan or
agreement to embark upon the assault. It is sufficient that
their actions indicate a common intent such that the act of
one is the act of all.
Treachery - The deceased had no inkling that he would be
killed that fateful night. There was no force employed on
him when he boarded the tricycle. Neither was there a
heated argument with any of the culprits. In fact, they
appeared to be in a jubilant mood even as they were
singing "Tayo na sa Heaven". Evidently, from all
appearances the deceased was lured into going with the
assailants who suddenly stabbed him inside the moving
tricycle, giving the latter no opportunity to retaliate or
defend himself from the means or method consciously
adopted by the felons in taking his life. Qualifying
circumstance of treachery suffices to qualify the offense to
murder.

PEOPLE V. MANEGDEG
October 13, 1999

Accused was seen running through the rice fields towards
the house of the victim. At about that time, Federico, his
wife Lorie and son Ronel, were inside their house listening
to the radio. Federico requested Ronel to switch to
another radio station while he will go out to urinate and
proceeded to the door. As Federico held the door frame
with his hand, he was stabbed by appellant. Prior said
incident, accused was requesting Federico's consent to
marry his daughter but to which he replied that is more
honorable for his daughter to marry son of accused.

Issue: W/N there was treachery?

HELD: Yes.
Circumstances surrounding the killing of the victim
Federico Abian clearly indicate the presence of alevosia or
treachery, for accused-appellant attacked the victim while
he was about to exit his house to urinate, with no inkling
whatsoever that he would be attacked. A sudden and
unexpected attack, without the slightest provocation on
the person of the one attacked, is the essence of
treachery. Moreover, the trial court correctly considered
the generic aggravating circumstance of dwelling. Where
the crime was committed in the place of abode of the
victims, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling shall be
appreciated against the accused.

PEOPLE V. GAILO
October 13, 1999

Sotela and Maale went to the store to drink beer. Some
minutes later, they were joined in their drinking by Renato
Gailo and his elder brother, Ronaldo Gailo, alias "Mukong".
A minor altercation ensued when Ronaldo boxed the
victim, but the two were soon pacified and the group
resumed their drinking. Ronaldo then invited Sotela and
the victim to his house, where allegedly there was a
birthday party.
On the way to the said party, Gailos assaulted the victim.
Sotela witnessed Ronaldo stab the victim on the face with
a bolo, then Renato stabbed the victim on the back, and
Rudy hit the victim with a lead pipe on the neck. A minute
later, three other accused arrived, and for five minutes,
helped stone the victim, hitting him on the head and body.

Issue: W/N guilty of murder?

HELD: Yes.
Said killing was qualified to murder by the use of superior
strength, the accused having clearly overpowered the
victim in terms of number and weapons used. We reverse,
however, to the extent that it appreciated nighttime as an
aggravating circumstance. There are two tests for
nocturnity to be aggravating - the objective test, under
which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitated the
commission of the offense, and the subjective test, under
which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely
sought by the offender in order to facilitate the
achievement of his objectives, prevent discovery or evade
capture. In the instant case, there is no evidence that
nighttime was sought for any of these purposes, or that it
aided the accused in the consummation of the murder.
Moreover, at the time of the killing, there was sufficient
illumination from the moon such that the two
eyewitnesses were able to identify the six accused. When
the place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is
not aggravating.
Neither was treachery proven, as there was no showing
that the attack was made swiftly and unexpectedly as to
render the victim helpless and unable to defend himself.
Neither can we appreciate the presence of evident
premeditation, there having been no indication that
accused-appellants earlier resolved to kill the victim and
clung to such determination for a considerable length of
time.

PEOPLE V. PANIQUE
October 13, 1999

Complainant, eldest child of the accused, was left to the
care of latter when her mother went to Hong Kong to work
as a domestic helper. While complainant was asleep,
accused laid himself on top of her. When she awoke, she
found accused fondling her breasts even as he inserted his
penis into her vagina. All she could do was cry, because
she was afraid of her father whom she knew was hooked
on drugs.

Issue: W/N there was rape?

HELD: Yes.
In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter,
the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the
latter substitutes for violence or intimidation. That
ascendancy or influence necessarily flows from the
father's parental authority, which the Constitution the
laws recognize, support and enhance, as well as from the
children's duty to obey and observe reverence and respect
towards their parents. Such reverence and respect are
deeply ingrained in the minds of Filipino children and are
recognized by law. Abuse of both by a father can subjugate
his daughter's will, thereby forcing he to do whatever he
wants.
The minority of the victim and her relationship to the
offender constitute a special qualifying circumstance
which should be alleged in the information and proved to
warrant the imposition of the death penalty. For this
reason, said penalty should be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.

PEOPLE V. LANGRES
October 13, 1999

Sindo bothers attended a dance which ended about
midnight. They proceeded to the house of their elder
brother. They sat on a bench opposite said house while
sharing light moments. Restituto greeted PO3 Langres
when he came, who instead gave a fistblow on the former
without provocation. Victim Teodorico intervened to ask
what is his brother's fault. Accused drew his gun and shot
the victim at the forehead.

Issue: W/N there was self-defense?

HELD: No.
The presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine
qua non. At best, the victim's brother was discourteous to
accused. Even then, such behavior could not be taken as
an unlawful aggression to justify the shooting of the
victim. The unlawful aggression contemplated under the
law must come from the victim himself. Mere belief of an
impending attack is not sufficient to constitute unlawful
aggression. Neither is an intimidating or threatening
attitude. Even a mere push or shove not followed by other
acts placing in peril the life or personal safety of the
accused is not unlawful aggression. It is noteworthy hat
the Sindo brothers were unarmed. They were young men
having a jovial, innocuous conversation when appellant
passed by. Without such imminent threat on his life, the
person invoking self-defense has nothing to repel.

PEOPLE V. CLEMENTE
October 13, 1999

Complainant was selling balut in front of Lanai beerhouse
when she met accused. They had sexual intercourse
in friend's house.
Issue: W/N there was rape?

HELD: No.
In rape cases alleged to have been committed by force, it
is imperative for the prosecution to establish that the
element of voluntariness on the part of the victim to be
absolutely lacking. Testimony inexorably shows that
complainant obviously consented to the sexual act which
was done not only once but twice. Glaring too is the fact
that by her own admissions that her mouth was not
covered and that the accused was not holding or poking
the pointed object at her while doing the sexual act, she
certainly had every opportunity to make an outcry against
the alleged rapist or shout for help had she wanted to. No
woman would meekly give in to a sexual intruder where
her life is not in serious jeopardy.

PEOPLE V. BELLO
October 13, 1999

Accused allegedly raped his daughter in several occasions.
His previous plea of not guilty was substituted to a plea of
guilty before the date of his scheduled cross-examination.
Later, accused moved for the reinstatement of his plea of
not guilty but was denied by the trial court.

HELD: Case remanded for proper arraignment.
A formal plea of not guilty should be properly entered if an
accused admits the truth of some or all the allegations of
the information, but interposes excuses or additional facts
which, if duly established would exempt or relieve him in
whole or in part of criminal responsibility.

PEOPLE V. AGUINALDO
October 13, 1999

Accused allegedly raped his 17 year-old daughter.

Issue: W/N there was rape?

HELD: NO.
Complainant's claim that she bled implies that there must
have been laceration of her sex organ. When physical
evidence runs counter to testimonial evidence,
conclusions as to physical evidence must prevail. Physical
evidence is that mute but eloquent manifestation of truth
which rate high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.

PEOPLE V. AGUNOS
October 13, 1999

Accused raped complainant while her husband was away
serving as a poll watcher.

Issue: W/N there was rape?

HELD: Yes.
Force and violence in rape cases need not be
overpowering or irresistible when applied. The record
shows that amidst complainant's pleas and struggles,
accused pinned complainant's hand behind her back,
covered her mouth with his hand and pulled her
underwear to her knee before spreading hr legs apart with
such force that her undergarments were ripped. It appears
that accused remained unfazed when complainant slapped
him and struggled to point the beam of the flashlight at
him not only to take a look at her assailant but apparently
to deter him from consummating his bestial desires.

PEOPLE V. GABALLO
October 13, 1999

Two construction workers heard a girl scream for a
distance, then saw her being hugged and pulled by
accused towards the ipil trees. When they reached the
place, they saw the girl in school uniform lying face down.
They also saw the accused sitting down, who immediately
ran away. Unfortunatey, they were not able to apprehend
the unidentified man.

Issue: W/N there was treachery?

HELD: YES.
Treachery is appreciated when the offender commits any
of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods
or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to ensure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from any defense which the offended party might
make. We ruled that the killing of children, who by reason
of their tender years cannot be expected to put up a
defense, is considered attended with treachery even if the
manner of attack is not precisely shown.

PEOPLE V. COSTELO
October 13, 1999

Accused Conde grabbed victim Remy by the neck, then
stabbed her at the mouth and at the back. When Remy
was able to escape from Conde, she ran towards Costelo,
who pushed her towards Conde, who again squeezed
Remy's mouth and dragged her. Pablo, who suddenly
appeared, sat on her chest and stabbed her more than
fifteen times. Costelo held Remy on the shoulders in a
stooping position while the latter was being stabbed by
Pablo.

Issue: W/N there was treachery?
W/N there was conspiracy?

HELD: Yes.
That the locus criminis was a heavily populated area where
others could thus intervene is not significant at all. The
essence of treachery is that the attack was deliberate and
without warning. The defense or retaliation contemplated
here must come from the victim, not from anyone else.
Treachery was irrefutably indicated in the method by
which the assailants waited for the victim to pass by
before suddenly attacking her and preventing her escape.
At any rate, no help was forthcoming because anyone
inclined to lend assistance was intimidated.
Direct proof is not essential, for conspiracy may be
inferred from the acts of the accused prior to, during or
subsequent to the incident. Such acts must point to a joint
purpose, concert of action or community of interest.
Hence, the victim need not be actually hit by each of the
conspirators for the act of one of them is deemed the act
of all. In this case, conspiracy was shown because Conde
grabbed and stabbed the victim while Costelo impeded
her escape and shoved her towards Pablo, who in turn
straddled her on the ground and stabbed her. Their prior
act of waiting for the victim outside her house affirms the
existence of conspiracy, for ti speaks of a common design
and purpose.

PEOPLE V. CELIS
October 20, 1999

Complainant Racquel arrived from Manila at Magundanao
and boarded the passenger jeep driven by accused
appellants Roque and Carlos. Upon reaching the terminal,
Racquel discovered that there was no more tricycle trip
going to San Antonio. Accused invited Racquel to sleep in
their house, who agreed after the initial hesitation
because she is not familiar with the area. She was raped in
several occasions, once in a makeshift hut and twice in a
school building.

Issue:
W/N there was a rape?

HELD: Yes.
For rape to exist, it is not necessary that the force or
intimidation employed be so great or of such character as
could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or
intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose
which the appellant had in mind. When Racquel was
dragged to the makeshift hut by Carlos, he told her to
cooperate with him or she would be shot. These threats
were enough to implant fear in the mind of the
complainant, who was alone and helpless. Roque, in turn,
managed to have sexual intercourse with complainant by
flashing a knife in her face. Threatening the victim with a
knife, a deadly weapon, is sufficient to cow the victim. It
constitutes an element of rape.

PEOPLE V. MOTOS
October 20, 1999

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

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

PEOPLE V. TABION
October 20, 1999

Accused in several occasions, raped his 16- year old
daughter while his wife is away. She could not resist the
accused because she was afraid of him and of his threat to
kill her and her family.

Issue: W/N there was rape?

HELD: Yes.
In the incestuous rape of a minor, proof of force and
violence exerted by the aggressor is not essential. The
moral and physical ascendancy of the father over his
daughter-victim is sufficient to cow her into submission to
his bestial desires. Fear oftentimes overwhelms the victim.
In the instant case, the appellant enhanced his physical
supremacy over his daughter by holding the knife to her
neck. In the face of such brutal intimidation, she knuckled
under, thus enabling him to satisfy his incestuous lust.
The death penalty may be imposed only if the information
has alleged and the evidence has proven both the age of
the victim and her relationship to the victim.

PEOPLE V. MARAMARA
October 20, 1999

A quarrel transpired between the friend of the accused
and the victim in a benefit dance. Accused shot to death
victim after a rumble occurred.
Issue: W/N accused is guilty of murder?

HELD: No. Guilty of Homicide only
The use of a firearm is not sufficient indication of
treachery. In the absence of any convincing proof that
accused-appellant consciously and deliberately adopted
the means by which he committed the crime in order to
ensure its execution, the Court must resolve doubt in favor
of the accused. Accused cannot be held liable only for
death caused in a tumultuous affray because he joined the
fray purportedly to pacify the protagonist before shooting
the victim.

PEOPLE V. ARIZALA
October 20, 1999

Accused stabbed to death Sgt. Cara.

Issue: W/N accused is guilty of murder? Yes.
W/N there was self-defense? Yes.

HELD:
Even if deceased hurled incentives at him and moved as if
to draw something from his waist, we are unable to
establish a finding of unlawful aggression on the victim's
part. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden,
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not
merely a threatening or intimidating attitude and the
accused must present proof of positively strong act of real
aggression. Though deceased was in uniform, the latter
did not have a firearm or a holster for the same, and none
was retrieved from the scene of the crime.
Deceased was killed with treachery. Not only was it not
proven that there was provocation on the part of the
hapless victim but the attack at the back of the victim was
made in such a manner that would make it difficult for the
deceased to offer an effective defense against his
aggressor.

PEOPLE V. PARANZO
October 26, 1999

HELD:
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, states:
"Art. 335...When and how rape is committed...Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under
any of the following circumstances:
1......By using force or intimidation;
2......When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; and
3......When the woman is under twelve years of age, even
though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two
next preceding paragraphs shall be present."
Circumstances 1, 2 and 3 are alternative
circumstances...When the rape is committed by using
force or intimidation, the victim does not have to be less
than twelve (12) years of age...It is only required that the
proper complaint and information for rape must clearly
describe the specific circumstance which would make the
carnal knowledge of a woman qualify as rape under Article
335. In addition, in rape cases, the accused may be
convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining
witness provided such testimony is credible, natural,
convincing and otherwise consistent with human nature
and the course of things.

PEOPLE V. GARIGADI
October 26, 1999

Defendant was convicted of rape and sentenced. He
contends that the testimony of the complainant was
unsubstantiated, and contradictory.

HELD:
The testimony of Gloridel was clear and convincing. Her
declaration that accused-appellant inserted his penis into
her vagina was made in a straightforward and unshaken
manner. Errorless and accurate to the last detail testimony
cannot be expected of Gloridel, who was seven (7) years of
age at the time of the trial. The alleged inconsistencies and
lapses pointed by accused-appellant to discredit Gloridels
testimony, e.g. that accused-appellant merely fondled her
or inserted his finger in her vagina, are all minor and trivial
details which do not touch upon the commission of the
offense. These lapses, to THE courts mind, serve to
strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of a witness
because they erase any suspicion of coached or rehearsed
testimony. The Court noted that a child of tender age
cannot be expected to understand every question asked of
her in the course of examination. Ample margin of error
and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses
who, much more than adults, would be gripped with
tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying
before a court.

PEOPLE V. LAZARO
October 26, 1999

The accused was found guilty of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition. In his appeal the accused-
appellant raises the sole assignment of error that the trial
court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition qualified by homicide.

HELD:
In cases involving illegal possession of firearms under P.D.
1866 "Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of
Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used
in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives,
and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations
Thereof and for Relevant Purposes", as amended, the
prosecution has the burden of proving the elements
thereof, viz.: (a) the existence of the subject firearm; and
(b) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it
does not have the corresponding license or permit to
possess the same.

Republic Act No. 8294 has since amended P.D. No. 1866 by
reducing the penalties for simple and aggravated forms of
illegal possession and considering the use of an unlicensed
firearm simply as an aggravating circumstance in murder
or homicide. The law now provides:

"Section 1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Firearms or Ammunition or
Instruments Used or Intended to be Used in the
Manufacture of Firearms or Ammunition. - The penalty
of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of
not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any low
powered firearm such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and
other firearm of similar firepower, ammunition, or
machinery, tool or instrument used in the manufacture of
any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no other crime
was committed. E_uio

The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a
fine of Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) shall be
imposed if the firearm is classified as high powered
firearm which includes those with bores bigger than .38
caliber and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .45 and
also lesser caliber firearms but considered powerful such
as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and
other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and
by burst of two or three: Provided, however, That no other
crime was committed by the person arrested. If homicide
or murder is committed with the use of unlicensed
firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Thus in People v. Molina, it was held: "Fortunately for
appellants, however, RA 8294 has now amended the said
decree and considers the use of an unlicensed firearm
simply as an aggravating circumstance in murder or
homicide, and not as separate offense.

PEOPLE V. ARQUILLOS TABUSO
October 26, 1999

Arquillos Tabuso was found guilty of murder. In the service
of his sentence, he is entitled to the provision of Article 29
[Period of Preventive imprisonment deducted from term
of imprisonment. Offenders or accused who have
undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in
the service of their sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty, with the full time during which they have
undergone preventive imprisonment, if the detention
prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners xxx.]
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.

HELD:
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement on the commission of a felony and decide to
commit it. In a number of cases, this Court ruled that
similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. The mere presence of a person at the
scene of the crime does not make him a co-conspirator.
Assumed intimacy between two persons of itself does not
give that much significance to the existence of criminal
conspiracy. Conspiracy certainly transcends
companionship. Settled is the rule that to establish
conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than
mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required.

PEOPLE V. ROMANO MANLAPAZ
October 26, 1999

Accused-appellant admits that he was a passenger of the
jeep of the victim, Israel Lacson but denies that
participated in the commission of the crime. He insists that
when he boarded the jeep he sat himself at the back of the
jeepney as there were already several passengers on
board at that time. He argues that he was not clearly,
convincingly and positively identified as the perpetrator of
the crime charged. Prosecution witness allegedly did not
have ample opportunity to see the faces of the alleged
malefactors; and in fact did not actually see who fired the
gun.

HELD:
This Court has ruled on countless occasions that the trial
court is in the best position to determine facts and to
assess the credibility of witnesses as it is in a unique
position to observe the witnesses deportment while
testifying which opportunity the appellate court is denied
on appeal; this Court will respect the findings and
conclusions of the trial court provided that they are
supported by substantial evidence on record.
The crime of robbery with homicide is a special complex
crime punishable under Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code with reclusion perpetua to death. Considering the
absence of any modifying circumstance, the penalty
imposable in the present case isreclusion perpetua. [Article
63, Revised Penal Code.]


PEOPLE V. WILLIAM BATOON
October 26, 1999

At issue in this case is the credibility of the victim, Regina.
In a prosecution for rape, the complainants candor is the
single most important issue. This must be primarily
resolved by the trial court because it is in a better position
to decide the question, having heard the witnesses and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying.
Accordingly, the trial courts findings are entitled to the
highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on
appeal unless it overlooked or misapplied some facts
which could have affected the result of the case. A
painstaking review of the records of the case show that
the appellant has failed to controvert the clear, candid,
and straightforward testimony of the complainant.

PEOPLE V. ROLANDO ESPIRITU
October 27, 1999

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

PEOPLE V. ARMANDO DE LABAJAN
October 27, 1999

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

PEOPLE V. GRACIANO BOLIVAR
October 28, 1999

Renato Balbon, Joel Soberano and Graciano Bolivar were
found by the lower court to be conspirators in committing
murder and frustrated murder against the victims Hugo
Callao and Damaso Suelan. The case against Bolivar was
dismissed, since he died of cardio-respiratory arrest during
the trial. This is in line with the ruling in the case of People
v. Bayotas, where the Court ruled that the death of the
accused pending appeal extinguishes his criminal liability
as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. The
evidence on record is likewise insufficient to convict
Barrion as a principal by inducement.

HELD:
Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code provides that
principals are those who "directly force or induce others"
to commit an offense. "One is induced to commit a crime
either by a command (precepto) or for a consideration
(pacto), or by any other similar act which constitutes the
real and moving cause of the crime and which was done
for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was
sufficient for that purpose. Where the circumstances of
force, fear, price, promise or reward are not present, the
question that may arise is whether the command given by
a person to the author of the crime amounts to a criminal
inducement. The inducement exists whenever the act
performed by the physical author of the crime is
determined by the influence of the inducer over the mind
of him who commits the act whatever the source of such
influence. Thus, the inciting words must have great
dominance and influence over the person who acts; they
ought to be direct and as efficacious, or powerful as
physical or moral coercion or violence itself.
A conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and manner
by which the offense was perpetrated, however, a
conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive
evidence. It cannot be based on mere conjectures but
must be established as a fact.

PEOPLE V. JERONICO LOBINO
October 28, 1999

Appellant was convicted for murdering his common-law
wife. He contends he would not stab her without any
apparent reasons, and that he attacked her because he
could no longer stand her going home late at night and her
sarcastic remarks whenever her attention was called to
what she was doing. He contends he should have been
credited with the mitigating circumstance of passion and
obfuscation.

HELD:
The Court disagrees. The requisites of passion and
obfuscation are:
1. That there be an act, both unlawful and sufficient to
produce such a condition of mind;
2. That said act which produced the obfuscation was not
far removed from the commission of the crime by a
considerable length of time during which the perpetrator
might recover his normal equanimity.
It has been held that there is passional obfuscation when
the crime was committed due to an uncontrollable burst
of passion provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or
due to a legitimate stimulus so powerful as to overcome
reason. The obfuscation must originate from lawful
feelings. The turmoil and unreason which naturally result
from a quarrel or fight should not be confused with the
sentiment or excitement in the mind of a person injured or
offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his sanity
and self-control, because the cause of this condition of
mind must necessarily have preceded the commission of
the offense.

PEOPLE V. ELPIDIO HERNANDO
October 28, 1999

Spouses Elpidio and Elena Hernando were convicted to
reclusion perpetua for estafa. On different dates, they
issued checks to Johnny Sy which were dishonored upon
presentment to the bank. Accused spouses asserted that
the checks had been issued merely an evidence of their
indebtedness to the complainant. In this case, all the
checks that bounced were issued and drawn by Elpidio
Hernandos wife, Elena Aban Hernando...The checks, all
payable to cash, were personally delivered and negotiated
to Johnny Sy by Elpidio. Though he was not the drawer of
the checks, accused Elpidio coaxed the complainant to
exchange the checks with cash by guaranteeing that the
checks were good checks and funded...In all the
transactions, Elpidio was present and personally received
the money...Though Elena was not present during the
negotiation of the checks, except for the first transaction,
she issued and signed the checks.

HELD:
To constitute estafa, the act of postdating or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation must be the efficient
cause of defraudation and, as such, it should be either
prior to or simultaneous with the act of fraud...The
offender must be able to obtain money or property from
the offended party because of the issuance of the check or
that the person to whom the check was delivered would
not have parted with his money or property had there
been no check issued to him...Stated otherwise, the check
should have been issued as an inducement for the
surrender by the party deceived of his money or property
and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation." In this
kind of estafa by postdating or issuing a bad check, deceit
and damage are essential elements of the offense and
have to be established with satisfactory proof to warrant
conviction.
Estafa, under Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, has the
following elements:..(1) postdating or issuance of a check
in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the
check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to cover
the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof.

PEOPLE V. ROMEO TIZON
October 28, 1999

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

"Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. (a) The
accused must be arraigned before the court where the
complaint or information has been filed or assigned for
trial. The arraignment must be made in open court by the
judge or clerk by furnishing the accused a copy of the
complaint or information with the list of witnesses,
reading the same in the language or dialect known to him
and asking him whether he pleads guilty or not guilty. The
prosecution may, however, call at the trial witnesses other
than those named in the complaint or information.
"(b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and
must personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea
shall be made of record, but a failure to enter of record
shall not affect the validity of the proceedings.
"(c) If the accused refuses to plead, or makes a conditional
plea of guilty, a plea of not guilty shall be entered for him.
"x x x x x x x x x
"Section 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of
evidence. When the accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into
the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to
prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The
accused may also present evidence in his behalf."

These rules are mandatory, affording, such as they do, the
proper understanding of the all-important constitutional
mandate regarding the right of an accused to be so
informed of the precise nature of the accusation leveled
against him so essential in aptly putting up his defense.
The searching inquiry, which must be recorded , requires
the court to make it indubitably certain that the accused is
fully apprised of the consequences of his plea of guilt.
In sum, the searching inquiry under Section 3, Rule 116
must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) a
complete comprehension of the legal effects of the plea,
so that the plea of guilt is based on a free and informed
judgment. So indispensable is this requirement that a plea
of guilt to a capital offense can be held null and void
where the trial court has inadequately discharged the duty
of conducting the prescribed "searching inquiry."

PEOPLE V. ARMANDO SARABIA
October 29, 1999

The appellant invokes the justifying circumstance of self-
defense in the charge of murder against him. Having
invoked such circumstance, he is deemed to have
admitted having killed the victim and the burden of proof
shifts to him to establish and prove the elements of self-
defense : (a) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim,
(b) reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it, and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on
the part of the person defending himself.
It has also been held by this Court that, "unlawful
aggression is a condition sine qua nonfor the justifying
circumstance of self-defense. For unlawful aggression to
be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden,
unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, not
merely a threatening or intimidating and the appellant
must present proof of positively strong act of real
aggression. Absent such unlawful aggression, there can be
no self-defense.

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

PEOPLE V. EDUARDO ALTABANO
October 29, 1999

The appellant raises in his defense an alibi. Firmly settled
is the doctrine "that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the
accused must prove not only that he was at some other
place at the time the crime was committed but that it was
likewise physically impossible for him to be at the locus
criminis at the time of the alleged crime." In the case
under scrutiny, appellants failed to prove and demonstrate
the physical impossibility of their being at the scene of the
crime at the approximate time of its commission.
Moreover, "defense of alibi cannot prevail over the
positive identification of the accused by the eyewitness
who had no untoward motive to falsely testify."
Conspiracy was correctly established in this case and as
such, "all the conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the manner and extent of their participation
since in contemplation of law, the act of one would be the
act of all."
In analyzing the facts, the Court also found that evident
premeditation could not be appreciated against
appellants. Although the defamatory words uttered by the
victim against Corazon Caro-Lascano must have spawned
the grudge of appellants towards the victim, the evidence
for the prosecution has not established all the elements of
evident premeditation, to wit: (1) the time the offender
determined to commit the crime; (2) an act indicating that
the offender had clung to his determination; and (3)
sufficient lapse of time between the determination to
commit the crime and the execution thereof to allow the
offender to reflect upon the consequences of his act.


NOVEMBER 1999

PEOPLE V. MOROY GALLO
November 16, 1999

Moroy Gallo was convicted by the trial court of
murder. He questions the testimony of the witness,
Amelita Elarmo because of her relationship with the
deceased.

HELD:
The Supreme Court repeated the well-settled doctrine that
mere relationship of a witness to the victim does not
render her testimony less worthy of credit, especially
where there is no showing of improper motive. The Court
also upheld the claim of conspiracy. To establish
conspiracy it is not essential that there be previous
agreement to commit the crime; it is sufficient that there
be a common purpose and design, concerted action and
concurrence of the interest and the minds of the parties
meet understandingly so as to bring about a deliberate
agreement to commit the offense charged,
notwithstanding the absence of a formal agreement. The
Supreme Court also upheld the trial courts appreciation of
the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior
strength. The armed assailants used their greater number
and superior power to overwhelm the unarmed victim.
In addition, since the murder was committed prior to the
effectivity of RA 7659, the applicable provision is Art. 248
of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes murder with
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. The
imposable penalty which has three periods, namely,
minimum (reclusion temporal), medium (reclusion
perpetua) and maximum (death), makes Art. 64 of the
Revised Penal Code applicable. In this case the prosecution
was able to establish the qualifying aggravating
circumstances of abuse of superior strength. In the
absence of any other generic aggravating and mitigating
circumstance, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua,
the medium period of the penalty pursuant to Art. 64 of
the Penal Code. Scnc'

PEOPLE V. ROSALINDA ARIOLA
November 16, 1999

Elvira Obana, with Rosalinda Ariola were convicted of
illegal recruitment in large scale, under Article 38 and 39 of
the Labor Code. The 6 accused presented themselves as
part of the Manila Booking Agency, and offered jobs in
New Guinea. They promised employment upon the
payment of recruitment fees. The victims discovered that
the office was not actually Manila Booking Agency, and the
recruiters were unlicensed.

HELD:
The crime of illegal recruitment in large scale is committed
when three (3) elements concur, namely: (a) The offender
has no valid license or authority required by law to enable
him to lawfully engage in recruitment and placement of
workers; (b) The offender undertakes either any activity
within the meaning of "recruitment and placement"
defined under Art. 13, par. (b), of the Labor Code.

ART. 13. Definitions. - x x x x (b) "Recruitment and
placement" refers to any act of canvassing, enlisting,
contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring or procuring
workers, and includes referrals, contract services,
promising or advertising for employment, locally or
abroad, whether for profit or not: Provided, That any
person or entity which, in any manner, offers or promises
for a fee employment to two or more persons shall be
deemed engaged in recruitment and placement. or any of
the prohibited acts enumerated in ART. 34. Prohibited
practices. - It shall be unlawful for any individual, entity,
licensee, or holder of authority: (a) To charge or accept,
directly or indirectly, any amount greater than that
specified in the schedule of allowable fees prescribed by
the Secretary of Labor, or to make a worker pay any
amount greater than that actually received by him as a
loan or advance; (b) To furnish or publish any false notice
or information or document in relation to recruitment or
employment; (c) To give any false notice, testimony,
information or document or commit any act of
misrepresentation for the purpose of securing a license or
authority under this Code; (d) To induce or to attempt to
induce a worker already employed to quit his employment
in order to offer him to another unless the transfer is
designed to liberate the worker from oppressive terms and
conditions of employment; (e) To influence or to attempt
to influence any person or entity not to employ any
worker who has not applied for employment through his
agency; (f) To engage in the recruitment or placement of
workers in jobs harmful to public health or morality or to
the dignity of the Republic of the Philippines; (g) To
obstruct or attempt to obstruct inspection by the
Secretary of Labor or by his duly authorized
representatives; (h) To fail to file reports on the status of
employment, placement, vacancies, remittances of foreign
exchange earnings, separation from jobs, departures and
such other matters or information as may be required by
the Secretary of Labor; (i) To substitute or alter
employment contracts approved and verified by the
Department of Labor from the time of actual signing
thereof by the parties up to and including the periods of
expiration of the same without the approval of the
Secretary of Labor; (j) To become an officer or member of
the Board or any corporation engaged in travel agency or
to be engaged directly or indirectly in the management of
a travel agency; and, (k) To withhold or deny travel
documents from applicant workers before departure for
monetary or financial considerations other than those
authorized under this Code and its implementing rules and
regulations.] of the same Code; and (c) The offender
committed the same against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group.

PEOPLE V. RODRIGO LASOLA
November 17, 1999

This is a case for automatic review where Rodrigo Lasola
was convicted of two counts of rape of an under-aged
relative.

HELD:
The Court reiterated the principle that in cases of qualified
rape of an under-aged relative, the prosecution must
allege and prove the ordinary elements of 1) sexual
congress, 2) with a woman, 3) by force and without
consent, and in order to warrant the imposition of the
death penalty, the additional elements that 4) the victim is
under 18 years of age at the time of the rape and 5) the
offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or
adopted) of the victim. Well-settled too, is the doctrine
that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she
says, in effect, all that is necessary to constitute the
commission of the crime, and this rule applies with more
vigor when the culprit is a close relative of the victim. The
judgement of the lower court was affirmed.

PEOPLE V. JOEL PINCA
November 17,1999

To properly appreciate the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, two conditions must first concur: (1) the
offender employed such means, method or manner of
execution as to ensure his or her safety from the defensive
or retaliatory acts of the victim; and (2) the said means,
method or manner of execution was deliberately adopted.
The essence of treachery is the deliberateness and the
unexpectedness of the attack, which give the hapless,
unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to
escape.
With respect to evident premeditation, there must be
clear and convincing proof of the following: (1) the time
when the offender determined to commit the crime, (2) an
act manifestly indicating that he clung to his
determination, and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between
such determination and the execution that allowed the
criminal to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
For voluntary surrender to be appreciated as a mitigating
circumstance, the following requisites must concur: (1) the
offender has not been actually arrested, (2) the offender
surrendered to a person in authority, and (3) the surrender
was voluntary. If the only reason for the supposed
surrender is to ensure the safety of the accused whose
arrest is inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous and
hence not voluntary.
Ordinarily, intoxication may be considered either
aggravating or mitigating, depending upon the
circumstances attending the commission of the crime.
Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty, if it is
not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the
contemplated crime; on the other hand, when it is
habitual or intentional, it is considered an aggravating
circumstance. A person pleading intoxication to mitigate
penalty must present proof of having taken a quantity of
alcoholic beverage prior to the commission of the crime,
sufficient to produce the effect of obfuscating reason. At
the same time, that person must show proof of not being
a habitual drinker and not taking the alcoholic drink with
the intention to reinforce his resolve to commit the crime.

PEOPLE V. RUSTICO RIVERA
November 17,1999

The case is a review by the Court of the issue of whether
the constitutional presumption of innocence accorded to
an accused has been sufficiently overcome by the State
enough to sustain the judgment of the trial court finding
the indictee guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified
rape and thereby imposing upon him the death penalty.

HELD:
The trial court has correctly imposed the death penalty in
the case at bar after taking into account the qaulifying
circumstances of minority of the victim and
the paternityrelationship between appellant and the
victim, as provided for in Section 11 of Republic Act No.
7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The
crime of rape has been established. Alphamia, the victim,
is a minor (merely 10 years of age at the time of
commission of the offense), and the offender is the father
of the victim. These elements have been properly alleged
in the information and proven during the trial.

PEOPLE V. MATEO BALLUDA
November 19,1999

Appellant was convicted for violation of Republic Act No.
6425. He contends that he was neither selling, delivering,
nor transporting drugs at the time he was apprehended.

HELD:
Under the Rules of Evidence, it is disputably presumed
that things which a person possesses or over which he
exercises acts of ownership, are owned by him. In U.S. vs.
Bandoc, the Court ruled that the finding of a dangerous
drug in the house or within the premises of the house of
the accused is prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi and is enough to convict in the
absence of a satisfactory explanation. The constitutional
presumption of innocence will not apply as long as there is
some logical connection between the fact proved and the
ultimate fact presumed, and the inference of one fact
from proof of another shall not be so unreasonable as to
be a purely arbitrary mandate. The burden of evidence is
thus shifted on the possessor of the dangerous drug to
explain absence of animus possidendi. In the case under
consideration, it is not disputed that appellant was
apprehended while carrying a sack containing marijuana.
Consequently, to warrant his acquittal, he must show that
his act was innocent and done without intent to possess,
i.e. without knowledge that what he possessed was a
prohibited drug.
The legality of the warrantless search and arrest in the
case under scrutiny is also beyond question. It bears
stressing that appellant was caught transporting a
prohibited drug in flagrante delicto. Consequently, a peace
officer or any private person, for that matter, may,
without warrant, arrest a person when in his presence, the
person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; and
the person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as
proof of the commission of an offense, without a search
warrant. Hence, the warrantless search in this case, being
an incident to a lawful arrest, is in itself lawful.
PEOPLE V. PASCUA GALLADAN
November 19,1999

The accused in this case is invoking alibi as a defense.
Significantly, the alibi of accused-appellant cannot
prosper. For alibi to be validly invoked, not only must he
prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was
committed but he must also satisfactorily establish that it
was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene
at the time of commission. In the instant case, accused-
appellant only attempted to prove that he was at a
different place when Sgt. Galladan was gunned down. He
did not even attempt to establish that it was impossible
for him to be at the locus criminis when the offense was
committed. For this fact alone, his alibi must fail.

PEOPLE V. MARIO BASCO
November 19, 1999

Under Article 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code,
there is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specifically to insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make. "For treachery to be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance, two elements must concur: (1) the
employment of means of execution which gives the person
attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate;
and (2) the means of execution is deliberately or
consciously adopted."

PEOPLE V. EMBERGA
G.R. 116616 Nov. 26, 1999

The victim supposedly attacked the Emberga brothers with
a knife. The accused then threw rocks at the victim
causing the latter to drop his knife. The accused then
grabbed the knife and stabbed the victim 25 times. They
were then charged with murder aggravated by treachery &
cruelty. Accused plead defense of a relative and self
defense.

HELD:
Both were guilty of homicide only. Treachery cannot be
presumed but must be proven which was not done
here. As for the aggravating circumstance of cruelty, such
is unavailing. The mere fact that the wounds were in
excess of what was indispensably necessary does not
imply cruelty.
Self defense and defense of a relative may not be availed
of. The alleged unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim was not proven by clear & convincing
evidence. Assuming there was an attack, the means used
to repel the attack were not reasonably necessary since
the victim already dropped the knife after the accused
threw rocks and could no longer threaten the accused.

PEOPLE V. SUBA
NOVEMBER 29, 1999

The accused raped his niece twice. He was caught in the
act by the victim's brother on the second time and was
reported to the police. Charged with rape, he denied the
charge against him. No sperm was found in the victim's
vagina.

HELD:
Guilty. Trial courts assessment as to the credibility of
witnesses is to be accorded great weight. Both the victim
and her brother positively identified the accused as the
rapist.
The absence of spermatozoa in the vagina does not negate
the commission of rape. There may be a valid explanation
for such absence, as when the sperm was washed away or
the accused failed to ejaculate.

PEOPLE V. PARAISO
NOVEMBER 29, 1999

Accused, with 1 John Doe, Forced their way into the house
of the victim. The victim's 4 children were herded into 1
room while the accused ransacked the house for cash and
other valuables. Before leaving, the accused stabbed the
victim who died. He was charged of robbery with
homicide aggravated by dwelling, superior strength and
disregard of sex. Accused raised the defense of alibi.

HELD:
Guilty. The defense of alibi is no good when the witnesses
have positively identified the accused. The fact that the
witnesses did not identify him immediately to the police is
not a defense either. There is no standard behavior for
persons confronted with a shocking incident. One may
either report the crime immediately or after a long lapse
of time.
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is appreciated
since robbery may be committed without trespassing the
sanctity of the home. He who goes to another's house to
hurt or do wrong is guiltier than he who offends
elsewhere.
Superior strength is also present since there was a
notorious inequality between the accused who were both
armed males and the unarmed female victim.
Disregard of sex is not an aggravating circumstance here
since it only applies to crimes against honor and persons.

PEOPLE V. CAPCO, AGPOON, ET. AL.
NOVEMBER 29, 1999

The accused were charged with robbery with homicide
and physical injuries for robbing one Alberto S. Flores of
P30,000.00 in cash and, on the occasion thereof, shot him
to death as well as inflicted physical injuries on his son
Bolivar J. Flores. All 4 accused were found guilty.

HELD:
Accused Agpoon should be acquitted for failure to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime.
Well-settled is the rule that for evidence to be believed it
must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but it must be credible itself. Agpoon was
implicated on the sole testimony of Bolivar who
contradicted himself in Court. Besides, Agpoon's 3 co-
accused also retracted their statements that Agpoon was
with them went they barged into the store of the
victims. Supposedly, Agpoon loitered outside the store
after the crime was committed. The Court state that it is
contrary to human experience for a criminal to choose to
remain at the crime scene within a considerable period of
time when he could see his companions escape.

PEOPLE V. OCUMEN
GR 120493-94 & 117692

Ocumen was accused of murder & frustrated murder. He
was at a wedding party & argued with 2 guests. He pulled
out a knife and chased the 2 but went amok and stabbed 2
other people instead. One man died while his other victim,
a 14-yr. old girl, lived.

HELD:
Guilty of homicide and frustrated homicide only. There
was no treachery here. The fact that both victims were
unarmed does not amount to treachery. An altercation
precedes both incidents.
But, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior
strength must be considered since his 2nd victim was an
unarmed 14-yr. old, 4'11'' girl.

PEOPLE V. BARELLANO
NOVEMBER 29, 1999

The victim was drinking tuba with friends when the
accused walked up to the victim from behind and shot him
in the head. The victim fell to the ground and was shot
again in the head. Charged with murder, the accused
raised the defense of alibi.

HELD:
Guilty. The accused was positively identified by witnesses
as the perpetrator of the crime. Treachery was present
since the victim was approached from behind, was
unarmed and totally defenseless.


DECEMBER 1999

PEOPLE V. PEREZ
DECEMBER 2, 1999

Perez was a boarder who raped the 5-year-old niece of the
boarding house's owner. It was done in the bodega of the
house. A medical exam showed no lacerations but showed
a reddening of the victim's labia majora, which
corroborated the victim's testimony that she was
raped. Accused denied the whole thing citing
inconsistencies in the victim's testimonies in court and
that the victim's mother put her child up to lying because
of a grudge against the accused.

HELD:
Guilty. For rape to be consummated, full penetration is
not necessary. Even the slightest penetration of the lips of
the sex organ constitutes carnal knowledge.
Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies between a witness'
affidavit and testimony do not impair his credibility but
even enhance the truthfulness of his declarations as they
erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony. Plus, it is a
settled rule that testimonies of child-victims are given full
weight and credit. It is inconceivable that the nave and
innocent 5-yr. old victim could make up a story of sexual
molestation.
It is also unnatural for a parent to use her offspring as an
engine of malice, especially if it will subject a daughter to
embarrassment and even stigma.

PEOPLE V. SANTIAGO
DECEMBER 2, 1999

The victim was asleep with her child when she woke up
after hearing a noise in the house. She went downstairs
thinking it was her husband but it was actually the accused
that entered the victim's house with a scythe. The
accused ordered the victim to remove her clothing &
underwear. The victim refused so she was threatened
with her and her child's death. The accused raped the
victim and threatened her again with death if she told
anyone about the incident. Charged with rape, the
accused gave the defense of alibi and the fact that there
was no presence of sperm in the victim.

HELD:
Where there is even the least chance for the accused to be
present at the crime scene, alibi will not hold water. The
victim also positively identified the accused and it is
settled that the negative presence of sperm is immaterial
in the crime of rape. Penetration and not emission is the
important consideration.

PEOPLE V. TUMARU
DECEMBER 2, 1999

The accused shot and killed a municipal councilor and OIC
in Kalinga Apayao. The prosecution was based on 12-yr.
old Miguel's testimony as he saw the crime occur. Found
guilty of murder, they appealed saying that the judge
erred in not holding witness Miguel's testimony as biased
and imputing motive to the accused without any evidence.

HELD:
Proof of motive is not crucial where the identity of the
accused has been amply established.
Witness Miguel's testimony was sufficient to convict the
accused. The testimony of minors of tender age will
suffice to convict a person of a crime as long as it is
credible. The fact that Miguel eventually stayed with one
of the victim's widows does not prove bias. It is but
natural for the bereaved family to be concerned about the
safety of the lone witness. The concern for the victim does
not make him biased or unreliable.


PEOPLE V. MAGBANUA
DECEMBER 2, 1999

The victim was sexually abused continuously from the time
she was13 years old until she got pregnant after 4 years of
sexual abuse by appellant, her own father. The sexual
assaults usually took place at noontime when she was left
alone with appellant while her mother went to town to
buy their basic needs and while her brother and sisters
were at the house of their grandmother which was far
from their house.
She did not report the rape incidents to her mother
because appellant threatened to kill her. When her
mother noticed her pregnancy and asked her about the
supposed father, she did not tell her that it was appellant
who authored her pregnancy. Instead, as suggested by
appellant, she named one Ricky Pacaul as the one who
impregnated her. However, later on, she claimed that she
does not know any person by that name. And only later
on when she moved to live with her aunt did she tell the
truth about the crime.

HELD:
Denial, just like alibi, is insufficient to overcome the
positive identification made by the witness for the
prosecution. Denial is an inherently weak defense which
cannot prevail over the credible testimony of the witness
that the accused committed the crime charged. It must be
supported by strong evidence of non-culpability in order to
merit acceptability. Appellant, in the present case, failed
to discharge this burden. His lame attempt to shift the
blame to a certain Ricky Pacaul, who may not even exist, in
order to exculpate himself, cannot save him. Moreover,
where there is no evidence to show any dubious reason or
improper motive why a prosecution witness would testify
falsely against an accused or falsely implicate him in a
heinous crime, the testimony is worthy of full faith and
credit.


PEOPLE V. DE LEON
DECEMBER 3, 1999

Accused was charged with raping his 9 year old daughter
17 times. He denied the charge and his defense was that
the charge was filed because his daughter was jealous of
her father's affection for another sibling. He was
convicted for all 17 charges of rape.

HELD:
He was found guilty of only one count of rape. Each and
every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime so
that each of the 16 other rapes charged should be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The victims testimony was
overly generalized and lacked specific details on how each
of the alleged 16 rapes was committed. Her bare
statement that she was raped so many times on certain
weeks is clearly inadequate and grossly insufficient to
establish the guilt of accused-appellant insofar as the
other sixteen rapes charged are concerned.

PEOPLE V. JUACHON
DECEMBER 6, 1999

Juachon was a tricycle driver who was charged with Rape
with Murder. The accused was a suitor of the
victim. Witnesses saw the victim ride the accused's
tricycle and also saw a tricycle similar to that owned by the
accused at the place where the victim was
found. Juachon's slippers were also found there and he
was heard to have told the victim the night before, "ang
sarap mong halikan". He raised the defense of denial and
alibi.

HELD:
Settled is the rule that the real nature of the crime
charged is determined not from the caption or preamble
of the Information nor from the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated, such being
conclusions of law, but by the actual recitation of facts
alleged in the Complaint or Information.
The facts recited in the Information constitute the crime of
Rape with Homicide. The elements of said crime are
clearly spelled out in the Information, particularly the
sexual intercourse against the will of the victim,
perpetrated with violence and force and the killing of said
victim on occasion of the rape by immersing her in muddy
water.
Denial and alibi cannot overcome the amount of
circumstantial evidence against the accused showing his
carnal desire for the victim and his presence at the scene
of the crime.


PEOPLE V. NABLO
DECEMBER 6, 1999

The victim had just come from the barrio fiesta mass when
the 5 accused, armed with bladed weapons, attacked and
killed the victim. The accused were convicted solely on
the testimony of the prosecution witnesses

HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that on the issue of credibility of
witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings by
the trial court, which was decisively in a better position to
rate the credibility of witnesses after hearing them and
observing their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial. This doctrine stands absent any showing
that certain facts and circumstances of weight and value
have been overlooked, misinterpreted or misapplied by
the lower court which, if considered, would affect the
result or outcome of the case.
The absence of a dying declaration is also unnecessary to
convict the accused. The evidence on record suffices to
support the judgment of conviction under scrutiny.
Neither is proof of motive crucial since the identity of
appellants has been established by eyewitnesses.

PEOPLE V. LADRILLO
DECEMBER 8, 1999

Facts:
The accused asked the 8 year old victim to come to his
house to pick lice from his head. But then after, he
stripped naked and stripped the victim of his clothes and
raped her 4 times during that one day. He raised the
defenses of denial and alibi and questioned the sufficiency
of the information since it states that the crime was
committed "on or about 1992".

HELD:
ACQUITTED of rape based on insufficiency of evidence and
reasonable doubt. Denial and alibi may be weak but courts
should not at once look at them with disfavor. There are
situations where an accused may really have no other
defenses but denial and alibi which, if established to be
the truth, may tilt the scales of justice in his favor,
especially when the prosecution evidence itself is weak.
The crime was supposedly narrated by the victim 2 yrs.
after. The crime was alleged to have been perpetrated at
the accused's residence when the accused was not even
living in Abanico at that time. The victim's narration of the
incident was also not credible


PEOPLE V. SEVILLA
DECEMBER 8, 1999

The accused raped his 14 yr. old daughter. He started
making sexual advances when she was 6 and finally had
sexual intercourse with her 8 yrs. later. Appellant
questions the credibility of the victim's testimony since it
took 8 yrs. before she complained of his acts.

HELD:
Guilty. The Court is not persuaded by accused-appellants
submission. As held by this Court in People v. Miranda,
there is no standard form of human behavioral response
when one has just been confronted with a strange,
startling or frightful experience as heinous as the crime of
rape and not every victim to a crime can be expected to
act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of
mankind.
The fact that Myra did not complain to her mother or her
aunts about the sexual abuses committed by her father
against her for eight long years, is of no moment. Myra,
who was of a very tender age when the horrible events in
her life began to unfold, could have, in all probability, been
confused and bewildered by her experience that for more
than half of her young life, she was shocked into utter
insensibility.
Furthermore, a rape victims testimony is entitled to
greater weight when she accuses a
close relative of having raped her, as in the case of a
daughter against her father.

PEOPLE V. FELICIANO
DECEMBER 8, 1999

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

HELD:
Acquitted for lack of evidence. His testimonies were
inadmissible. The right to counsel is a fundamental right
and contemplates not a mere presence of the lawyer
beside the accused. He was questioned before his counsel
de officio arrived and even when his counsel was present,
his lawyer did not explain to accused-appellant the
consequences of his action that the sworn statement
can be used against him and that it is possible that he
could be found guilty and sent to jail.
We also find that Atty. Chavezs independence as counsel
is suspect he is regularly engaged by the Cagayan de
Oro City Police as counsel de officio for suspects who
cannot avail the services of counsel. He even received
money from the police as payment for his services.

PEOPLE V. RALPH VELEZ DIAZ
DECEMBER 8, 1999

Diaz was convicted of killing and sexually abusing a 12 year
old boy. The trial court convicted him notwithstanding the
exclusion of the extrajudicial confession of accused-
appellant and the absence of any eyewitness to the crime
because of:
(a) the testimony of 10-year old Felbart that he saw his
brother last alive in the company of accused-appellant;
(b) the physical evidence of sexual abuse through sodomy
committed against the victim;
(c) the plea of insanity which only tended to negate
liability but was an admission of guilt;
(d) the reenactment of the crime by accused-appellant
the details of which could not have been known to
anybody but himself; and,
(e) the fact that accused-appellant voluntarily confessed
to the crime without any evidence of coercion, duress or
intimidation exerted upon him.
Accused pleads he is not guilty of murder since there was
no evident premeditation. He pleads insanity and pleads
that he cannot be sentenced to death since the
information filed didnt mention the sodomy.

HELD:
The crime committed by accused-appellant was murder
even in the absence of the qualifying circumstance of
evident premeditation because treachery and abuse of
superior strength were present - either of which qualified
the crime to murder. Since the victim was an 11 yr old
boy, both were present although treachery absorbs
superior strength.
Insanity must be proved. All that was proved by the
psychiatrists was that accused was sexually perverted or
that he was sick of pedophilia but such is different.
But, he may not be sentenced to death. A careful scrutiny
of the records shows that the Information charged him
only with murder qualified by treachery, abuse of superior
strength and evident premeditation. It failed to mention
the commission of sexual abuse or "sodomy" on the
victim. The Information designated the crime as "murder
in relation to RA 7610," but as a rule, what controls is not
the designation of the offense but its description in the
complaint or information.

PEOPLE V. ALBERTO FLORES AND RODOLFO FLORES
DECEMBER 8, 1999

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

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

PEOPLE V. LORETO RINGOR, JR.
December 9, 1999

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

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

PEOPLE V. ROLANDO ALFANTA
DECEMBER 9, 1999

Accused entered the place where the victim was sleeping
with a bolo. He brought her to an abandoned place where
he raped her, inserting his fingers and penis into her
vagina and anus. He was sentenced to death because of
the aggravating circumstances of use of a deadly weapon,
night time and ignominy.

HELD:
The use of a deadly weapon was not alleged in the
information, hence the offense cannot be considered as
qualified rape. Night time and ignominy were present (sa
pwet ba naman).
Simple rape is punishable by a single indivisible penalty of
reclusion perpetua. Thus, even if there were aggravating
circumstances of nighttime and ignominy in attendance
the appropriate penalty would still be reclusion perpetua
under the law. Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that in "all cases in which the law prescribes a
single indivisible penalty, it shall be applied by the courts
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances
that may have attended the commission of the deed."

PEOPLE V. RONDERO
DECEMBER 9, 1999

The accused was seen by the victims father with an ice
pick and washing his bloodied hands at the well. The 9
year old victim was later found dead and half naked with
lacerations in her vagina but no sperm. He was convicted
of homicide only.

HELD:
Guilty of the special complex crime of rape with
homicide. The absence of sperm does not negate the
commission of rape since the mere touching of the
pudenda by the male organ is already considered as
consummated rape. The presence of physical injuries on
the victim strongly indicates the employment of force on
her person. Contusions were found on Mylene's face, arms
and thighs. Hence, death is the appropriate penalty.

PEOPLE V. JAIME QUISAY
DECEMBER 10, 1999

A 3 year old girl was found dead in a canal. Accused was
the last person seen with the little girl. He was charged
with rape with homicide. He put forth the defense that he
was with the girl but she ran away and fell into the canal
as an exempting circumstance (Any person who, while
performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
mere accident without fault or intention of causing it.Par.
4 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code).

HELD:
Guilty. The physical evidence failed to support the version
of accused-appellant that the victim Ainness Montenegro
fell accidentally into the canal. The victim had bruises only
on the sex organ, sides of the neck, etc.
The fact that no perineal laceration was found on the
genital of the victim does not dispel a finding of rape. The
slightest degree of penetration of the pudenda by a male
sex organ suffices to consummate the crime of rape.
Jurisprudence is well-settled to the effect that for rape to
be consummated, rupture of the hymen is not necessary,
nor is it necessary that the vagina sustain a laceration,
especially when the victim is a young girl.
The crime subject matter of the instant appeal was
committed before the death penalty law, Republic Act No.
7659 became effective so the penalty for the complex
crime of rape with homicide should only be reclusion
perpetua.

PEOPLE V. EDGARDO DE LEON
DECEMBER 10, 1999

Accused supposedly raped his daughter in front of the
latters own 2 year old daughter. Accused flatly denied the
charge. He alleged that the prosecution evidence had not
proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt because: (1) the
evidence for the prosecution which consisted of the
victim's sole testimony is insufficient; (2) this testimony is
inconsistent; and (3) the other pieces of vital evidence, i.e.,
the knife and the victim's torn clothes, were not presented
to substantiate the victim's testimony.

HELD:
The sole testimony of the victim sufficiently establishes
the guilt of accused-appellant. Amelia de Leon testified
naturally, spontaneously and positively.
Accused-appellant's claim that the charge against him was
merely trumped up by Amelia cannot be believed. No
woman, especially a daughter, would subject herself and
her family to the humiliation of a public trial and send her
father to jail for the rest of his life if her accusation were
not true. Since the rape was committed with the use of a
knife, a deadly weapon, the crime is therefore punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death.

PEOPLE V. ARNOLD DIZON
DECEMBER 10, 1999

Accused supposedly entered the victims house, robbed
them, raped one of the occupants and stabbed all of them.
Only 12 yr. Old Ruel survived the massacre of his family
and positively identified the accused as the perpetrator.
Death was imposed upon accused after the RTC found him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of special complex crime
of Robbery with Homicide aggravated by Rape, Dwelling
and Nocturnity. Accused pleaded not guilty.

HELD:
Guilty of 1 count of rape with homicide, 2 counts of
homicide and 1 count of frustrated homicide.
The trial court erred in finding accused guilty of robbery.
For a person to be guilty of robbery, it must be proved that
there was intent to gain & the taking of personal property
belonging to another by means of violence against or
intimidation of any person, or by using force upon
anything.
In his testimony, Ruel only testified that he saw accused
opening their closets and throwing things on the floor. Not
that accused took something from the house.
On the other hand, this Court agrees with the trial court
that rape was satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
Ruels testimony positively identifying the accused was
enough to convict.

PEOPLE V. AGAPITO FLORES
DECEMBER 13, 1999

Accused, at knife point, forced his 13 year old daughter to
undress and then raped her. All the time and while the
accused-appellant was on top of her the knife was poked
at her. Victim also testified her father had raped her 4
times when she was in grade 4. Accused denied the
charges as fabricated. Appellant cites the inconsistencies
in the victim's testimony and further contends that the
medical findings reveal that the healed lacerations in the
victims hymen were already existing prior to the alleged
date of rape, in which case there is no evidence to prove
that appellant raped Ma. Cristina on November 8,
1994. Sentenced to death.

HELD:
Guilty but reclusion perpetua only. It is unthinkable for a
daughter to falsely impute the crime of rape against her
own father if it was not real. The supposed inconsistencies
in the victim's testimonies refer only to minor details and
collateral matters which do not really affect either the
substance of her declaration, and its veracity.
But, the information only alleged the minority of Ma.
Cristina that she was thirteen years old but did not allege
the relationship of the accused to the victim. The seven (7)
modes of committing rape introduced under RA 7659
which warrant automatic imposition of death penalty
partake of the nature of a qualifying circumstance under
the Revised Penal Code since it increases the penalty of
rape to one (1) degree. It would be a denial of the right of
the accused to be informed of the charges against him,
and consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged
with simple rape only on which he was arraigned, and be
convicted of qualified rape punishable by death. Thus,
accused-appellant should only suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE V. FERNANDO CALANG MACOSTA
DECEMBER 14, 1999

Accused invited herein complainant to catch shrimps at
the side of the Magpayang River.The victim acceded but
when they were at an uninhabited place, the accused
kissed and touched the victim. He tried to insert his penis
but once the penis was in the mouth of her vagina she felt
pain so she pleaded for his mercy not to deflower her and
she continued crying and pushed him hard until she was
able to be free. Charged with rape, accused denied the
incident and said that he and the victim were even sweet
hearts.

HELD:
Guilty. Being sweethearts does not prove consent by
complainant to the sexual act. And, it is perplexing how
accused could vigorously deny that the alleged incident
ever took place and in the same breath argue that if
anything untoward happened it was because they were
sweethearts.
It is also well-settled that for a conviction of rape, medical
findings of injuries in the victims genitalia are not
essential. Even the slightest touching of the female
genitalia, or mere introduction of the male organ into the
labia of the pudendum constitutes carnal knowledge. The
Court has also ruled that a medical examination is not
indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the
evidence on hand convinces the court that a conviction of
rape is proper.

PEOPLE V. RENATO RAMONAMON
DECEMBER 15, 1999

Accused first raped his stepdaughter at knife point when
she was 5 yrs. old. Because of Analyn's tender age, the
rape resulted in the dislocation of her legs and pelvic
bones which caused her to become temporarily lame. That
same night, Analyn reported the incident to her mother in
the presence of appellant. Analyn's mother refused to
believe her. Neither was she brought to the hospital for
treatment.
She was raped 2 more times and only told her
grandmother of the crime after accused tried to rape her a
4th time. She didnt tell her mother about the incidents
since the latter refused to believe her anyway. Accused
denied the charges.

HELD:
Guilty but sentenced to reclusion perpetua only. The
averment that Analyn could have run away when accused-
appellant started removing her panties hardly deserves
consideration. Different people, previous cases can tell us,
react differently to given situations. Most women might,
when given the chance, immediately flee from their
aggressors but others may become virtually catatonic
because of mental shock
But while the law holds that the death penalty shall be
imposed if, among other instances, the crime of rape is
committed against a victim under eighteen (18) years of
age and the offender is her step-parent, the information,
however, has failed to allege any relationship between
accused-appellant and his victim.


PEOPLE V. CABALIDA
DECEMBER 15, 1999

Accused raped his then 15 yr. old grandniece at gunpoint
and threatened her with death if she told on him. The
victim became pregnant and only then did she tell her
mother about the crime.

HELD:
Acquitted for failure to prove beyond reasonable
doubt. The victim supposedly told nobody of the crime
since she feared for her life. But accused had left for
Manila already for several months and the victim
supposedly only told her mother when it was obvious she
was pregnant. Second, victim's motive for accusing
appellant is only so that her stepfather will not be
suspected of being the father of the child. Finally. accused
returned to Zamboanga City to clear his name. This is a
strong indication of innocence.

PEOPLE V. LYNDON SANEZ
DECEMBER 15, 1999

Victim was found in a canal with hack wounds in his nape
and near death. He gave a dying declaration naming his
own son, the accused, as the assailant. An eyewitness also
saw the accused dragging a body across the road and
dumping it into the canal where the victim was found. He
was found guilty of parricide.

HELD:
Guilty. Direct evidence of the actual killing is not
indispensable for convicting an accused when
circumstantial evidence can sufficiently establish his guilt.
The consistent rule has been that circumstantial evidence
is adequate for conviction if: a) there is more than one
circumstance; b) the facts from which the inferences are
derived have been proven; and c) the combination of all
circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. All these requisites, not to mention the
dying declaration of the deceased victim himself, are
extant in the instant case.

PEOPLE V. AUGUSTO TANZON
DECEMBER 15, 1999

Victim was walking with his common law wife when he
was invited for drinks by the accused. Victim
refused. When the wife turned around, she saw the
accused shoot her husband with a sumpak twice. On the
ground, he was kicked by accused and 4 of his friends and
then shot again by the accused with a short gun. Accused
also shot at thee wife who was able to flee. An eyewitness
corroborated the wifes version of the events. He was
found guilty of murder.

HELD:
Gulilty. The rule is settled that in the absence of any fact or
circumstance of weight and influence which has been
overlooked or the significance of which has been
misconstrued as to impeach the findings of the trial court,
the appellate courts will not interfere with the trial courts
findings on the credibility of the witnesses or set aside its
judgment considering that it is in a better position to
decide the question having heard the witnesses
themselves during trial.
Also, the non-presentation by the prosecution of the items
which the accused is charged of having armed himself with
in attacking, assaulting, stoning and stabbing the victim is
not fatal where the accused has been positively identified

PEOPLE V. NICASIO ENOJA
DECEMBER 17, 1999

The victim, Siegfred G. Insular, was a suspected
commander of the "New People's Army" (NPA). A day
before the incident, the house of Romulo Enoja, brother of
the Enojas, was allegedly sprayed with bullets by the NPA,
killing Romulo's daughter and son. Before that, the house
of Catelina Enoja, mother of the Enojas, at Barangay
Caraudan, was allegedly burned by the NPA.
The victim was walking home with his wife when the
accused blocked the couple and took terms shooting the
victim.

HELD:
Appellants assail the trial court's finding of conspiracy by
pointing out alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses Salamanca and Paterna. The
two testimonies constitute cumulative evidence on who
participated in the shooting of Siegfred. Both witnesses
pointed to all five accused-appellants. Accused were
positively identified by the witnesses and their testimony
is sufficient to convict the accused.

PEOPLE V. ABORDO, ET. AL.
DECEMBER 17, 1999

The 4 accused took the victim to an uninhabited area near
a creek and hit the victim with stones and pieces of
wood. The victim died before arriving at the hospital. A
witness saw the incident and positively identified the
accused as the perpetrators of the crime. Accused put up
the defense of alibi and that the witness is not reliable.

HELD:
All guilty. Although appellant merely held the victim while
the other hit the latter, he is still guilty as a co-principal
because of conspiracy where the act of one is the act of
all.
Appellants contend that the trial court convicted them on
the basis of the testimony of the lone eyewitness,
Hermogenes Pan, which is allegedly not worthy of belief.
Appellants allege that it was highly impossible for Pan to
have witnessed the alleged commission of the crime as he
was drinking all the time that afternoon until the time that
he was informed of the victim's death.
Where there is no concrete evidence to indicate that the
witness against the accused has been actuated by any
improper motive, and absent any compelling reason to
conclude otherwise, the testimony given is ordinarily
accorded full faith and credit. Hence, eyewitness Pan's
straightforward testimony against the appellants was
rightly accorded credence. The absence of sufficiently
convincing evidence as to ill motives actuating the
principal witness of the prosecution strongly tents to
sustain the finding that no improper motive existed and,
thus, his testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.

PEOPLE V. GILBERT DORIMON
December 17, 1999

At the time of the incident. appellant was an eighteen (18)
year-old senior high school student at the Salug National
High School of Salug, Zamboanga del Norte. Found in his
possession was a 22 cal. paltik, that he allegedly used to
threaten a classmate who had defeated him in a basketball
game at school. One of his classmates went to the police
who frisked Dorimon and found the gun. Dorimon said he
merely found the gun at the back of the school. The RTC
found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.

HELD:
Acquitted due to insufficient evidence. In cases involving
illegal possession of firearm, the requisite elements are:
(a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact
that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm
does not have he corresponding license or permit to
possess. While the information alleged that the appellant
did not possess any license or permit to carry, such fact
was not established during trial. The only reference to the
non-possession of a license or permit of the appellant was
when the trial judge propounded clarificatory questions to
the officers who accosted appellant and nothing else.

PEOPLE V. MERINO
December 17, 1999

The 2 accused, with 4 John Does, entered the home of
Ernesto Pagadian, robbed him and raped his 2 minor
daughters, aged 15 and 16. One year later, one of the
victims saw one of the accused at a market and reported
such to the NBI who subsequently arrested him and his co-
accused.

HELD:
Guilty. The trial court's assessment of the credibility of
witness is generally accorded great respect. Both accused
were positively identified by the private complainants.
There was no hesitation on their part to point to the
accused as the culprits.
Both are guilty of rape since although it was only Siervo
who raped the 2 girls, Merino did nothing to stop it. There
was conspiracy because both of them acted as one in their
greed and lust. In a conspiracy, the act of one is the act of
all. Nocturnity, to be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance, must have purposely been sought to
facilitate the commission of the crime or to prevent
recognition of the perpetrator.

PEOPLE V. SANTOCILDES, JR.
December 21, 1999

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

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

PEOPLE V. MORENO
December 21, 1999

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

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


JANUARY 2000

PEOPLE V. VICENTE VALLA
January 24, 2000

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

HELD:
More importantly, the declaration of appellant
acknowledging his guilt of the offense may be given in
evidence against him under Section 33 of Rule 130 of the
Revised Rules of Court. Note that his extrajudicial
confession is corroborated by the corpus delicti as
required by Section 3 of Rule 133. The Rules do not require
that all the elements of the crime must be clearly
established by evidence independent of the
confession. Corpus delicti only means that there should be
some concrete evidence tending to show the commission
of the crime apart from the confession.
The statement of the accused asking for forgiveness and
even offering his own daughter in exchange for his crime
may also be regarded as part of the res gestae under
Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. Res
gestae means "things done." There are three requisites to
admit evidence as part of the res gestae:
(1) that the principal act, the res gestae, be a startling
occurrence, in this case the discovery of the body of the
victim;
(2) the statements were made before the declarant had
the time to contrive or devise a falsehood, in this case,
appellant had begged for forgiveness immediately after
the body was found; and
(3) that the statements must concern the occurrence in
question and its immediate attending circumstances, in
this case, appellant had admitted to raping and killing the
victim, and even "offered" his daughter in exchange for
the victim.
As to the crime committed, the trial court correctly
convicted appellant of the special complex crime of "rape
with homicide," and not "rape with murder" as designated
in the Information, since "homicide" is herein taken in its
generic sense. The aggravating circumstance of ignominy
under Article 14, No. 17 of the Revised Penal Code should
be appreciated considering that the medico-legal officer
testified that the pubic area of the victim bore blisters
brought about by a contact with a lighted cigarette.

PEOPLE V. RUDY CORTES
January 24, 2000

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

HELD:
Time-honored is the rule that alibi is inherently weak and
easily contrived. Accused-appellant must therefore prove
with clear and convincing evidence that it was physically
impossible for him to be at the place and approximate
time of commission of the felony, which quantum of proof
he failed to come forward with.
In a long line of rape cases, the Court has consistently held
that lust is no respecter of time and place, and rape can be
and has been committed in even the unlikeliest of places.
Venues of rape have been inside a house where there
were other occupants, in a room adjacent to where the
victims family members were sleeping or even in a room
which the victim shares with the sister of the offender.
There is no rule that rape can be committed only in
seclusion. Neither does the Court find convincing the
claim of delay on the part of the victim in reporting the
sexual assault against her. This Court has consistently held
that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats
of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim.

PEOPLE V. HON. BONIFACIO MACEDA
January 24, 2000

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

HELD:
Private respondent Javellana has been arrested based on
the filing of criminal cases against him. By such arrest, he is
deemed to be under the custody of the law. The trial court
gave Atty. Deogracias del Rosario the custody of private
respondent Javellana with the obligation "to hold and
detain" him in Atty. del Rosarios residence in his official
capacity as the clerk of court of the regional trial court.
Hence, when Atty. del Rosario was appointed judge, he
ceased to be the personal custodian of accused Javellana
and the succeeding clerk of court must be deemed the
custodian under the same undertaking.
As a matter of law, when a person indicted for an offense
is arrested, he is deemed placed under the custody of the
law. He is placed in actual restraint of liberty in jail so that
he may be bound to answer for the commission of the
offense. He must be detained in jail during the pendency
of the case against him, unless he is authorized by the
court to be released on bail or on recognizance. Let it be
stressed that all prisoners whether under preventive
detention or serving final sentence can not practice their
profession nor engage in any business or occupation, or
hold office, elective or appointive, while in detention.

PEOPLE V. LEON LUMILAN
January 25, 2000

Accused-appellants Leon Lumilan and Antonio Garcia were
found by the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of three (3) counts of murder, two (2)
counts of frustrated murder, and three (3) counts of
attempted murder, under an Information charging them
and accused Fred Orbiso with the crime of Qualified Illegal
Possession of Firearms Used in Murder, in violation of
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866.

Issue:
Whether or not appellants may be properly convicted of
murder, frustrated murder and attempted murder under
an Information that charges them with qualified illegal
possession of firearms used in murder in violation of
Section 1 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866?

HELD:
At the time the trial court promulgated its judgment of
conviction in September 1990, it had already been six (6)
months since We held in People v. Tac-an that the
unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm or
ammunition, whether or not homicide or murder resulted
from its use, on one hand, and murder or homicide, on the
other, are offenses different and separate from and
independent of, each other. While the former is punished
under a special law, the latter is penalized under the
Revised Penal Code. Consequently, the prosecution for
one will not bar prosecution for the other, and double
jeopardy will not lie.
Under Sec. 7 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Court,
double jeopardy lies when after the accused has pleaded
to the first offense charged in a valid complaint or
information and he is subsequently convicted or acquitted
or the case against him is dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of
competent jurisdiction, he is prosecuted for a second
offense or any attempt to commit the same or frustration
thereof or any other offense, which necessarily includes or
is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former
complaint or information. It cannot be said that murder or
homicide necessarily includes or is necessarily included in
qualified illegal possession of firearms used in murder or
homicide. To state otherwise is to contradict Tac-an and
its progeny of cases where We categorically ruled out the
application of double jeopardy in the simultaneous
prosecution for murder or homicide and qualified illegal
possession of firearms used in murder or homicide against
same accused involving the same fatal act.
Sec. 4, Rule 120 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that
an accused may not be convicted of an offense other than
that with which he is charged in the Information, unless
such other offense was both established by evidence and
is included in the offense charged in the Information. Since
murder or homicide neither includes or is necessarily
included in qualified illegal possession of firearms used in
murder or homicide, the trial court may not validly convict
an accused for the former crime under an Information
charging the latter offense. Conversely, an accused
charged in the Information with homicide or murder may
not be convicted of qualified illegal possession of firearms
used in murder or homicide, for the latter is not included
in the former.
We observe that the Information charging appellants with
Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearms Used in Murder,
violates Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No.
8294, which obliterated the now obsolete concept of
qualified illegal possession of firearms or illegal possession
of firearms in its aggravated form, i.e., where the penalty
for illegal possession is increased to reclusion perpetua or
death by the attendance of homicide or murder. In fact,
qualified illegal possession of firearms, which used to be a
distinct offense, no longer exists in our statute books.

PEOPLE V. ESTEBAN ARLEE
January 25, 2000

Complainant Analyn Villanueva and the accused "Boy
Ising" were. Analyn, who merely finished grade two, was
26 years old but with a mental capacity of a eight-year old
child. Boy Ising raped Analyn by poking a knife to her side.
As months passed, Analyns belly started to swell and
when asked about her bulging stomach, Analyn readily
confessed to her mother that Boy Ising was responsible
therefor. Analyn then narrated her horrific experience in
the hands of accused-appellant. The trial court gave full
faith and credit to the testimony of the victim, Analyn.

HELD:
In this appeal, the accused contends that the subpoenas
directing submission of counter-affidavits for purposes of
preliminary investigation, were not received by him since
the same were sent to his former residence at A. Del
Rosario Street and not to Dalahican Street where he
moved to. Accused-appellant therefore, maintains that he
was deprived of his right to a preliminary investigation.
In Mercado vs. Court of Appeals, this Court reiterated the
rule that the New Rules on Criminal Procedure "does not
require as condition sine qua non to the validity of the
proceedings (in the preliminary investigation) the presence
of the accused for as long as efforts to reach him were
made, and an opportunity to controvert the evidence for
the complainant is accorded him. The obvious purpose of
the rule is to block attempts of unscrupulous respondents
to thwart the prosecution of offenses by hiding themselves
or by employing dilatory tactics."
Being a mentally retarded woman, twenty-six years of age,
Analyn is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious when she was raped by accused-
appellant. Proof of force and intimidation is not required if
the victim is "deprived of reason" or suffering from mental
abnormality or deficiency since the same deprives the
victim of the natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on
her chastity and womanhood. It is well-settled that sexual
intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate
constitutes statutory rape.
Neither is the Court persuaded by accused-appellants
submission that he cannot be required to acknowledge
and support the child begotten by him with Analyn. In
point is the following provision of the Revised Penal Code:
ART. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes against
chastity. - Persons guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction,
shall also be sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman;
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should
prevent him from so doing;
3. In every case to support the offspring. (Underscoring
ours)
xxx xxx xxx
The aforecited provision of law is qualified by
jurisprudence to the effect that "acknowledgment is
disallowed if the offender is a married man, with only
support for the offspring as part of the
sentence." However, as opined in People vs. Bayani, there
is no more need for the prohibition against
acknowledgment of the offspring by an offender who is
married, because of the elimination by the Family Code of
the distinctions among illegitimate children. No further
positive act is required of the parent as the law itself
provides the childs status as illegitimate. Therefore, under
Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code, the offender in a
rape case who is married should only be sentenced to
indemnify the victim and support the offspring, if there be
any.

PEOPLE V. ARMANDO GALLARDO
January 25, 2000

On July 28, 1991, Edmundo Orizal was found dead in the
rest house of Ronnie Balao. The victim was found to have
sustained seven (7) gunshot wounds in the chest,
abdomen, back, left and right thighs, and two (2) grazing
wounds on the left arm and back. The two suspects
Armando Gallardo and Alfredo Columna were brought to
the Tuguegarao Police Department. They were
investigated by Police Investigator SPO4 Isidro Marcos,
and they gave statements admitting that they, together
with Jessie Micate, killed Edmundo Orizal. The trial court
rendered decision finding accused Armando Gallardo y
Gander and Alfredo Columna y Correa guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of murder qualified by evident
premeditation and aggravated by treachery and
sentencing each of them to reclusion perpetua. Hence, this
appeal.

HELD:
Under rules laid by the Constitution, existing laws and
jurisprudence, a confession to be admissible must satisfy
all four fundamental requirements, namely: (1) the
confession must be voluntary; (2) the confession must be
made with the assistance of competent and independent
counsel; (3) the confession must be express; and (4) the
confession must be in writing. All these requirements
were complied with. It would have been different if the
accused were merely asked if they were waiving their
Constitutional rights without any explanation from the
assisting counsel.

PEOPLE V. JOVITO BARONA
January 25, 2000

At about 8:30 o'clock in the evening on June 26, 1988,
Eduardo Dimapilisan was requested by his sister to fetch
her husband Celedonio Baron at the store of a certain.
When he arrived at the store, Dimapilisan was told by
Pinang that Celedonio was in the house of appellant
Jovito. While waiting at the store, Dimapilisan saw
Celedonio come out of the house of Jovito. He was able to
clearly identify his brother-in-law because of the electric
light from the store and the lamp in Jovito's house.
Shortly, he saw the four appellants follow Celedonio.
While the latter was walking, Roberto held, choked and
strangled him.

HELD:
The stabbing and the shooting rendered the victim weak
and defenseless. The collective action of the four
appellants readily shows that there was a concurrence in
their evil design in perpetrating the crime. Their
superiority in number and the fact that they were armed
with a bladed weapon and a gun shows that treachery was
attendant in the commission of the crime. Evidently, there
is notorious inequality of forces between the victim and
the four accused-appellants. The excessive force was out
of proportion to the means available to the person
attacked. However, the circumstance of abuse of superior
strength cannot be appreciated separately, it being
necessarily absorbed treachery. Treachery requires the
concurrence of two conditions, both of which are present
in the case at bar:
1.) employment of means of execution that gives the
person attacked no opportunity to defend himself, much
less, to retaliate; and
2.) deliberate or conscious adoption of the means of
execution.
Likewise established with certainty is that the appellants
concerted actions were indicative of their conspiracy. No
direct proof is necessary to show that conspiracy exists
among the assailants. Community of criminal design may
be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during
and after the commission of the crime.

PEOPLE V. CRESENCIANO ENOLVA
January 25, 2000

At around seven o'clock in the evening of July 25, 1995,
Rogelio Abunda and his three-year old daughter Julie were
shot while they were sleeping on the floor of their house
at Barangay Bagombong. Cresenciano "Sonny" Enolva y
Alegre was charged in Criminal Case No. 95-6021 and
Criminal Case No 95-6047, both for murder. The trial court
convicted the accused thus this appeal.

HELD:
It has been held that delay or vacillation in making a
criminal accusation will not necessarily impair the
credibility of the complaining witness if such delay is
satisfactorily explained. The trial court found that the
testimony of Pedro Abunda was rendered in a "very
straight forward manner," complete with details of the
incidents that could not have been the product of
coaching from anyone. The court a quo also found Lorlita
credible. The court did not err in ruling that the alibi of the
accused that he was drunk and asleep in his house at the
time that the shooting occured will not lie against the
positive identification of Lorlita and Pedro Abunda. It is
doctrinal that the Supreme Court will not interfere with
the judgment of the trial court in passing upon the
credibility of witnesses unless there appears in the record
some fact or circumstance of weight and substance which
has been overlooked or the significance of which has been
misinterpreted. We find no such basis.

PEOPLE V. ALFONSO BALGOS
January 26, 2000

The accused-appellant denied raping Crisselle but claimed
that he only inserted his left index finger into her vagina
because he was sexually aroused at that time. The trial
court convicted accused.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the
accused of rape and not just acts of lasciviousness?

HELD:
The trial is court correct in imposing the supreme penalty
of death on the accused-appellant. Under Article 335 of
the Revised Penal Code as amended by Section 11 of
Republic Act No. 7659, Further amended by Republic Act
No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law." the
penalty of death shall be imposed if the crime of rape is
committed against a child below seven (7) years of age. In
the present case, there is no dispute that the victim was
six (6) years of age when the accused-appellant had carnal
knowledge with her. The victim's age was duly established
by the prosecution, through the testimony of the victim's
mother, Criselda Fuentes, and further corroborated by
Crisselle's Certificate of Live Birth.

PEOPLE V. ZOILO BORROMEO
January 27, 2000

The RTC of Pasay City found the accused Zoilo A. Borromeo
alias "Sonny" guilty of kidnapping a minor for ransom and
sentenced him to death and to pay the offended parties
moral damages of P250,000.00 and the costs of suit.

HELD:
The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual
deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with indubitable
proof of intent of the accused to effect the same. And if
the person detained is a child, the question that needs to
be addressed is whether there is, evidence to show that in
taking the child, there was deprivation of the child's liberty
and that it was the intention of the accused to deprive the
mother of the child's custody. We find abundant evidence
of this fact in this case.
There is no question that the elements of kidnapping for
ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the accused is a
private individual; (b) the accused kidnapped or detained
the victim and deprived him of his liberty; and, (c) the
deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal. As provided
for in Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code as amended, the
imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if the victim
is a minor. In this case, the minority of Kenneth Hernandez
was never disputed. Assuming arguendo that minority was
not proved, still under the same provision of law, the
imposition of the death penalty is obligatory if the
kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person. This was
certainly so in this case.

PEOPLE V. TITO ZUELA
January 28, 2000

The case is an appeal of accused Maximo Velarde y de los
Reyes, Nelson Garcia y Temporas and Tito Zuela y
Morandarte from the decision of the RTC, Camarines Sur,
Libmanan, Br. 24, finding them guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of robbery with homicide.

Issue:
Whether or not the extra-judicial confessions were
executed in accordance with the provisions of the 1973
Constitution?

HELD:
The right to counsel attaches the moment an investigating
officer starts to ask questions to elicit information on the
crime from the suspected offender.. In other words, "the
moment there is a move or even urge of said investigators
to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain
information which may appear innocent or innocuous at
the time, from said suspect, he should then and there be
assisted by counsel, unless he waives the right, but the
waiver shall be made in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
There was no evidence that Maximo executed a waiver of
his right to counsel. In light of these facts, we are
constrained to rule that Maximo Velardes extra-judicial
statement is inadmissible in evidence. An uncounselled
extra-judicial confession without a valid waiver of the right
to counsel - that is, in writing and in the presence of
counsel - is inadmissible in evidence. Contrary to the ruling
of the trial court, the defect in the confessions of Tito and
Nelson was not cured by their signing the extra-judicial
statements before Judge Bagalacsa. Nevertheless, the
infirmity of accused-appellants sworn statements did not
leave a void in the prosecutions case. Accused-appellant
Maximo repeated the contents of his sworn statement to
Romualda Algarin who, in turn, related these in court.
Such declaration to a private person is admissible in
evidence against accused-appellant Maximo pursuant to
Rule 130, Section 26 of the Rules of Court stating that the
"act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant
fact may be given in evidence against him." The trial court,
therefore, correctly gave evidentiary value to Romualdas
testimony.
And in the recent case of People vs. Andan, the Court
reiterated the doctrine enunciated in the Maqueda case.
In Andan, the Court said that "when the accused talked
with the mayor as confidant and not as a law enforcement
officer, his uncounselled confession did not violate his
constitutional rights. Constitutional procedures on
custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous
statement, not elicited through questioning by the
authorities, but given in an ordinary manner whereby
appellant orally admitted having committed the crime."
Treachery was not alleged in the information but the
suddenness of the assault upon Hegino and Maria from
behind was proven beyond reasonable doubt. As such,
treachery may be appreciated as a generic aggravating
circumstance. Treachery exists when an adult person
illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his
death.
The crime committed is the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly
considered the crime as robbery with homicide and not
"robbery with triple homicide" as charged in the
information. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is used
in its generic sense, embracing not only the act which
results in death but also all other acts producing anything
short of death. Neither is the nature of the offense altered
by the number of killings in connection with the robbery.
The multiplicity of victims slain on the occasion of the
robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situation
where, from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense,
robbery with one killing would be treated in the same way
that robbery with multiple killings would be.

PEOPLE V. DOMINGO BRIGILDO
January 28, 2000

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

HELD: In reviewing rape cases, the Court has consistently
observed the following long-standing guidelines:
(1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility. Such
accusation is difficult to prove but even more difficult for
the accused though innocent to disprove it;
(2) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two (2) persons are involved, the testimony of
the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution; and
(3) The evidence of the prosecution must stand and fall on
its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense..

The testimony of the victim leaves us no doubt that her
mothers common-law husband had raped her. But even
assuming for arguments sake, that the alleged penile
penetration of private complainants vagina had not been
shown with indubitable proof, this Court has ruled
consistently, that penetration is not an essential element
of rape. The mere touching of the labia or pudendum by
the phallus is already enough to consummate the crime of
rape. Phallic intrusion necessarily entails contact with the
labia and even the briefest contact under circumstances of
force, intimidation, or unconsciousness, even without the
rupture of the hymen is already rape.
In addition, the Court has repeatedly ruled that when a
victim says she has been raped, she almost always says all
that has to be said. So long as the victims testimony
meets the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted
on the sole basis thereof.

PEOPLE V. ROMENCIANO RICAFRANCA
January 28, 2000

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

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

HELD:
We advert to that all-too familiar rule that findings of fact
of the trial court, especially its assessment on the
credibility of witnesses, are not to be disturbed on appeal.
The trial court is in a better position than the appellant
court to properly evaluate testimonial evidence because of
their unique opportunity to directly observe the witness
demeanor, conduct, deportment and manner of testifying.
Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence, it may
be inferred from the conduct of all the accused before,
during and after the commission of the crime. It may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused
evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted
action and community of interest.
We disagree, however, with the trial courts finding of
cruelty. The test for determining the presence of cruelty is
whether the accused deliberately and sadistically
augmented the victims suffering. Consequently, there
must be proof that the victim was made to agonize before
he was killed.

PEOPLE V. JESUS TANAIL
January 28, 2000

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

HELD:
The court found no reason to disturb the findings of the
trial court. Contrary to the contention of the accused-
appellant that inconsistencies materially affected the
credibility of the witnesses, we rather view the minor
inconsistencies as indicative of truth. Marites testified with
candor and in a straightforward manner. In between sobs
and tears, she recounted how she had been sexually
abused by the accused in a "dog-style manner."
It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some
time the assaults on their virtue because of the rapists
threats on their lives. Delay in making a criminal
accusation does not impair the credibility of a witness if
such delay is satisfactorily explained. In any case, the
failure of the victim to immediately report a rape is not an
indication of a fabricated charge. The lapse of three (3)
months prior to the criminal accusation for rape is not
sufficient to show that the charge of rape is doubtful.

FEBRUARY 2000

PEOPLE V. PEDRO LUMACANG
February 1, 2000

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

HELD:
The essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack
on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on
his part. The the severity of the assault during the first
incident of stabbing had already rendered the deceased
completely defenseless. That he was able to run away to
seek succor does not negate the presence
of alevosia because the wounded victim, in fact, had little
opportunity to run far. He was easily overtaken by the
three brothers who mercilessly stabbed him to death.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specifically to insure execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make. Since treachery has already been appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance, abuse of superior strength should
not have been considered separately inasmuch as it is
absorbed in treachery. For night time to be appreciated as
an aggravating circumstance it must be shown that the
accused had purposely sought such period to facilitate the
commission of the crime or to prevent its discovery or to
evade the culprit's capture.

PEOPLE V. ALBERTO BLANCO Y SEORA
February 1, 2000

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

HELD:
For the defense of alibi to prosper, appellant must prove
not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was
perpetuated but also that it was physically impossible for
him to have been at the crime scene or its immediate
vicinity at the approximate time of its commission.
Appellant failed to demonstrate either scenario. Where
there is absence of strong and convincing evidence, alibi
cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellant
by an eyewitness to the stabbing incident, who has no
improper motive to testify falsely.
There is conspiracy where, at the time the malefactors
were committing the crime, their actions showed a unity
of purpose among them, a concerted effort to bring about
the death of the victim. Thus, although it appears that it
was one of appellants co-accused who dealt Leovido the
death blow, appellant performed acts to carry out the
felonious killing complained of, for which he should be
held answerable.

PEOPLE V. JALOSJOS
February 3, 2000

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

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

PEOPLE V. NICOLAS
February 4, 2000

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

HELD:
We strongly sustain his conviction. The rule is settled that
this Court does not generally disturb the findings of fact of
the trial court. Having observed the manner, conduct and
demeanor of the witnesses while on the stand, the trial
court is clearly in a better position to determine the
weight to be given to their respective testimonies. Unless
there is a clear showing that it overlooked certain facts
and circumstances which might alter the result of the case,
this Court accords respect, even finality, to these findings
of fact made by the trial court.
The pattern of instilling fear, utilized by the perpetrator in
incestuous rape to intimidate his victim into submission, is
evident in virtually all cases that have reached this Court.
The relationship of the victim to the perpetrator magnifies
this terror, because the perpetrator is a person normally
expected to give solace and protection to the victim.

PEOPLE V. LLANES
February 4, 2000

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

HELD:
The declaration of a dying person, made under a
consciousness of an impending death, may be received in
any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as
evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of
such death. The essential requisites for the admission of a
dying declaration under Section 37 of Rule 130 of the
Rules of Court are,viz: (a) the declaration must concern the
cause and surrounding circumstances of the declarants
death; (b) at the time the declaration was made, the
declarant was under the consciousness of an impending
death; (c) the declarant was at that time competent as a
witness; and (d) the declaration is offered in any case
wherein the declarants is the subject of inquiry. All these
requisites have been met in this case.
It is a well-settled rule that different witnesses testifying
on the circumstances of a criminal event would naturally
differ in various details. The fact that witnesses Arevalo
and Valenzuela gave varying testimonies as to the dying
declaration of the victim does not indicate that they are
lying. A truth-telling witness is not always expected to give
an error-free testimony, considering the lapse of time and
the treachery of human memory.

PEOPLE V. MAGDATO
February 7, 2000

Before us for automatic review of the Criminal Cases
finding accused-appellant Pepito Alama Magdato
(hereafter PEPITO) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six
(6) counts of rape committed on her 12-year old daughter
Cherry Ann Magdato.

HELD:
We find to be correct the penalty of death imposed by the
trial court for each of the six (6) crimes of qualified rape.
Such penalty is justified under Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 7659. The informations
for rape in these cases explicitly allege that CHERRY ANN is
the daughter of PEPITO and she was only twelve (12) years
old when he committed the rapes in question. Under
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, the death penalty shall be
imposed if the crime of rape is committed with, inter alia,
the following attendant circumstances:
1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim.

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO CABANDE
G.R. No. 132747. February 8, 2000

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

HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that the trial court's findings on the
credibility of witnesses and their testimonies are accorded
great weight and respect, in the absence of a clear
showing that some facts or circumstances of weight or
substance that could have affected the result of the case
have been overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied.
Thus, the SC found no reason to reverse or modify the trial
courts assessment.
There is treachery when one commits any of the crimes
against persons by employing means, methods or forms in
the execution thereof without risk to oneself arising from
the defense which the offended party might make. The
mere fact that there was a feud between appellant and
the victims did not necessarily prove that the attack was
expected. As the solicitor general pointed out, what was
decisive was the suddenness of the attack which made it
impossible for the victims to retaliate, flee, or defend
themselves.
In line with current jurisprudence, we affirm the award of
indemnity ex delicto to the heirs of each victim in the sum
of P50,000 or a total of P100,000. This may be awarded
without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime. We cannot sustain, however, the award of
exemplary damages, which are awarded only in the
presence of one or more aggravating circumstances. None
was established in this case.

PEOPLE v. CORNELIA SUELTO
G.R. No. 126097. February 8, 2000

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

HELD:
Alibis are generally considered with suspicion and are
always received with caution, not only because they are
inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they can
be easily fabricated. Therefore, for alibi to serve as a basis
for acquittal, the accused must establish by clear and
convincing evidence (a) his presence at another place at
the time of the perpetration of the offense and (b) that it
would thus be physically impossible for him to have been
at the scene of the crime. Furthermore, the alibi must
receive credible corroboration from disinterested
witnesses.We hold that accused has failed to establish her
alibi by clear and convincing evidence.
The trial court found that the killing of Isabel Ruales by
accused was attended by the qualifying circumstance of
treachery. Treachery exists when the offender commits
any of the crimes against persons, employing means,
methods, or forms which tend directly and specially to
insure the execution of the crime without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make.


PEOPLE v. DIOLO BARITA
G.R. No. 123541. February 8, 2000

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

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

PEOPLE v. GOMEZ
G.R. Nos. 131946-47. February 8, 2000

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

HELD:
Anent the first issue, we have consistently ruled that any
objection to the warrant of arrest or the procedure in the
acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of
the accused must be made before he enters his plea,
otherwise the objection is deemed waived.
The more significant issue at hand is whether the
culpability of accused-appellant forillegal recruitment in
large scale and estafa has been proved beyond reasonable
doubt. Under the Labor Code, there are three (3) elements
which constitute illegal recruitment in large scale. First, the
accused undertakes any recruitment activity defined under
Art. 13, par. (b), or any practice enumerated under Art. 34
of the Labor Code; second, the accused does not comply
with the guidelines issued by the Secretary of Labor and
Employment, particularly with respect to the securing of a
license or authority to recruit and deploy workers, either
locally or overseas; and third, the accused commits the
same against three (3) or more persons, individually or as
a group.
On several occasions, this Court has held that there is
illegal recruitment when one purports to have the ability
to send a worker abroad although without the authority or
license to do so. He may merely give such an impression in
order to induce an applicant to tender payment for fees.
Although accused-appellant initially might not have done
anything to encourage individuals to apply to him for
employment abroad, such fact does not in any way blot
out his liability for illegal recruitment. Recruitment is a
legal term; its meaning must be understood in the light of
what the law contemplates and not of common parlance.

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ENTILA
G.R. No. 135368. February 9, 2000

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

HELD:

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

PEOPLE v. ALFREDO ARAFILES
G.R. No. 128814. February 9, 2000

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

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

PEOPLE v. JOEY BARCELONA
G.R. No. 125341. February 9, 2000

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

HELD:
In adjudging rape cases, the Court is guided by the
following principles: (a) an accusation of rape can be made
with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) in view
of the nature of the crime in which only two persons are
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of
the evidence for the defense.
The Court has repeatedly held that rape is committed
when intimidation is used on the victim and the latter
submitted against her will because of fear for her life or
personal safety. It is not necessary that the force or
intimidation employed be so great or of such character as
could not be resisted because all that is required is that it
be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused
had in mind. . .
While the Court has upheld the defense of consensual sex
in some cases, this was on the basis of strong evidence,
consisting of letters and the testimonies of witnesses,
showing that the alleged rape was actually sex by mutual
consent.Having been raised as an affirmative defense, the
"sweetheart theory" must be established by convincing
proof. Accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that
he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a
sexual relationship. This accused-appellant failed to do.

PEOPLE v. BERLY FABRO
G.R. No. 114261. February 10, 2000

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

HELD:
As between a writing or document made
contemporaneously with a transaction in which are
evidenced facts pertinent to an issue, when admitted as
proof of these facts, is ordinarily regarded as more reliable
proof and of greater probative value than oral testimony
of a witness as to such facts based upon memory and
recollection. The reason behind this is obvious, human
memory is fallible and its force diminishes with the lapse
of time.
It must be stressed, however, that failure to present the
marked money is of no great consequence. The Dangerous
Drugs Law punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited
drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has
been accepted by the prohibited drug seller. It is clear that
Section 21 (b) of R.A. 6425 punishes the mere conspiracy
to commit the offense of selling, delivering, distributing
and transporting of dangerous drugs. Conspiracy herein
refers to the mere agreement to commit the said acts and
not the actual execution thereof. While the rule is that a
mere conspiracy to commit a crime without doing any
overt act is not punishable, the exception is when such is
specifically penalized by law, as in the case of Section 21 of
Republic Act 6425. Conspiracy as crime should be
distinguished from conspiracy as a manner of incurring
criminal liability the latter being applicable to the case at
bar.

PEOPLE v. EULOGIO IGNACIO
G.R. No. 134568. February 10, 2000

The RTC convicted Eulogio Ignacio of murder.The trial
court ruled that appellant failed to prove by credible, clear
and convincing evidence that he had acted in lawful
defense of the landowners property. There was no legal
reason for him to shoot the victim, an unarmed minor at
the time of the incident. The said court qualified the killing
to murder because of the presence of treachery.

HELD:
In the present case, we find ample evidence that appellant
did shoot the victim. It should be stressed that appellants
conduct cannot be justified as a lawful defense of property
rights. For this justifying circumstance to be appreciated,
the accused has the burden of proving unlawful aggression
on the part of the victim and reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it. In this case, the
first requisite was not proven, because he was not
attacked by the victim. In fact, he did not even see the
victim steal the crabs; he merely suspected him of doing
so. Furthermore, assuming that unlawful aggression was
proven, there was no necessity to shoot because,
according to him, the victim was already running away
when hit.
There is treachery when the accused unexpectedly and
deliberately shoots an unarmed minor who is thus not in a
position to put up a defense or to inflict harm on the
former. Voluntary surrender is not appreciated even if the
accused submits himself to the members of the
barangay tanod who, by their presence in his house,
precluded his escape.
In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary
surrender may be appreciated, the defense must clearly
satisfy three requisites: (a) the offender has not been
actually arrested; (2) the offender surrenders himself to a
person in authority or the latter's agent; and (c) the
surrender is voluntary. The defense must show an intent
to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, because of
an acknowledgement of guilt or because of a wish to spare
them the trouble and the expense concomitant to the
search and the capture of the accused.

PEOPLE v. CARLIE ALAGON
G.R. No. 126536-37. February 10, 2000

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

HELD:
As a general rule, the factual findings of trial courts
deserve respect and are not disturbed on appeal, unless
some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have
been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted, and
would otherwise materially affect the disposition of the
case. ALAGON points out, however, that this rule does not
apply when the judge who penned the decision was not
the same one who had heard the prosecution witnesses
testify, as in the present case. The SC has carefully perused
and considered the records of this case, and we find no
reason to alter the findings of the trial court in regard to
the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and their
testimonies.
Conspiracy was not duly proven. There is conspiracy
where, at the time the malefactors were committing the
crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose
among them, a concerted effort to bring about the death
of the victim. Conspiracy, like the crime itself, must be
proven beyond reasonable doubt. Existence of conspiracy
must be clearly and convincingly proven. The accused
must be shown to have had guilty participation in the
criminal design entertained by the slayer, and this
presupposes knowledge on his part of such criminal
design.

PEOPLE v. ROMMEL BALTAR
G.R. No. 130341. February 10, 2000

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

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

PEOPLE v. APOLINAR DANDO
G.R. No. 120646. February 14, 2000

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

HELD:
Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor and
trivial matters only serve to strengthen rather than
weaken the credibility of witnesses for they erase the
suspicion of rehearsed. Alibi is one of the weakest
defenses in criminal cases and it should be rejected when
the identity of the accused is sufficiently and positively
established by the prosecution.
The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without
a warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected
manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting
victim no chance to resist or escape this case, accused-
appellant, whose face was covered by a handkerchief,
approached the victim, who was merely standing by the
gate in front of his house, and shot him. The victim was
undoubtedly caught unaware and had no chance of
putting up any defense. Clearly, treachery attended the
commission of the crime since the attack, although
frontally, was no less sudden and unexpected, giving the
victim no opportunity to repel it or offer any defense of his
person.

PEOPLE v. JULIAN CASTILLO
G.R. No. 131592-93. February 15, 2000

With the passage of Republic Act No. 8294 on June 6,
1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or
homicide is now considered, not as a separate crime, but
merely a special aggravating circumstance. In the case at
bar, appellant JULIAN CASTILLO y LUMAYRO was charged
with Murder and Illegal Possession of Firearms.

HELD:
P.D. 1866, which codified the laws on illegal possession of
firearms, was amended on June 6, 1997 by Republic Act
8294. Aside from lowering the penalty for said crime, R.A.
8294 also provided that if homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use
shall be considered as a special aggravating
circumstance. This amendment has two (2) implications:
first, the use of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of
homicide or murder shall not be treated as a separate
offense, but merely as a special aggravating circumstance;
second, as only a single crime (homicide or murder with
the aggravating circumstance of illegal possession of
firearm) is committed under the law, only one penalty
shall be imposed on the accused.
Two (2) requisites are necessary to establish illegal
possession of firearms: first, the existence of the subject
firearm, and second, the fact that the accused who owned
or possessed the gun did not have the corresponding
license or permit to carry it outside his residence. The onus
probandi of establishing these elements as alleged in the
Information lies with the prosecution.

PEOPLE v. ABUNDIO MANGILA
G.R. No. 130203-04. February 15, 2000

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

HELD:
Section 3, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal
Procedure provides:
"Section 3. Pleas of guilty to capital offense; reception
of evidence - When the accused pleads guilty to a capital
offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into
the voluntariness and full comprehension of the
consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to
prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The
accused may also present evidence in his behalf."
(emphasis supplied)
To breathe life into this rule, we made it mandatory for
trial courts to do the following:
(1) conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and
full comprehension of the consequences of the accused's
plea;
(2) require the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and
(3) inquire whether or not the accused wishes to present
evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he so
desires.
The records show that the trial court failed to comply to
the letter with these guidelines. It did not conduct a
searching inquiry on whether accused understood the
legal consequences of his admission of guilt. It is not
shown that accused was informed of the effect of the
concurrence of the special qualifying circumstance of
minority of the victim and his parental relationship to her.
After the accused testified on how he raped his daughter,
he was not apprised that his crime is punishable by death.
The trial court also failed to explain to him that as the
penalty of death is indivisible, it shall be imposed despite
any mitigating or aggravating circumstance attending its
commission. Apparently, the trial court entertained the
erroneous notion that the alleged intoxication of accused
would lessen his liability.

PEOPLE v. ELRANIE MARTINEZ
G.R. No. 130606. February 15, 2000

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

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

PEOPLE v. BULU CHOWDURY
G.R. No. 129577-80. February 15, 2000

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

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

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO GALAM
G.R. No. 114740. February 15, 2000

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

HELD:
The qualifying circumstance of treachery attended the
killing as the two conditions for the same are present, i.e.,
(1) that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself and (2) that the offender
consciously adopted the particular means, method or form
of attack employed by him. The attack was not only
sudden, it was unexpected, as the victim even cried out in
surprise "Why are you firing at me, I have not done
anything wrong!" Further, appellant deliberately or
consciously adopted the means of attack as shown by the
fact that he even wrapped the gun inside a jacket prior to
shooting the victim.
However, evident premeditation cannot be appreciated
inasmuch as the following elements were not duly proven:
(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the
crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the offender
had clung to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of
time between the determination and the execution to
allow the offender to reflect on the consequences of his
act.
Nor can the aggravating circumstance of nighttime be
appreciated, for the prosecution failed to demonstrate (1)
that the malefactor particularly sought or took advantage
of the darkness to commit the offense, or (2) that
nighttime facilitated the commission of the crime.
Although the crime took place at around 11:00 in the
evening, the store/house where the incident occurred was
sufficiently lighted by a fluorescent lamp, and there were
still people milling around because of the dance held at a
nearby plaza.

PEOPLE v. GREGORIO TOLIBAS
G.R. No. 103506. February 15, 2000

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

HELD:
Once more, we are guided by the tenet that "when the
issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will
generally not disturb the findings of the trial court,
considering that the latter is in a better position to decide
the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and
observed their deportment and manner of testifying
during the trial, unless it has plainly overlooked certain
facts of substance and value that if, considered, might
affect the result of the case.
For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an
agreement for an appreciable period prior to the
occurrence. The concerted actions of the four accused
showed their intent to kill the victim. The qualifying
circumstance of treachery was present in this case as the
two conditions therefore were proved: (1) that at the time
of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend
himself and (2) that the offenders consciously adopted the
particular means, method or form of attack employed by
him. Treachery absorbs the generic aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength so the same
need not be appreciated separately.

PEOPLE v. CIELITO BULURAN
G.R. No. 113940. February 15, 2000

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

HELD:
First. Appellants are estopped from questioning the
validity of their respective arrests since they never raised
this issue before arraignment. Any objection involving a
warrant of arrest or the acquisition of jurisdiction over the
person of an accused must be made before he enters his
plea, otherwise the objection is deemed waived. Second.
There is no violation of the constitutional rights of the
accused during custodial investigation since neither one
executed an extrajudicial confession or admission. In this
case, the basis of the conviction by the trial court was the
testimonies of the three eyewitnesses, Artemio Avendao,
Jacinto Castillo, and Gloria Castillo.
Third. The failure to accord appellants their right to
preliminary investigation did not impair the validity of the
information nor affect the jurisdiction of the trial court.
While the right to preliminary investigation is a substantive
right and not a mere formal or technical right of the
accused, nevertheless, the right to preliminary
investigation is deemed waived when the accused fails to
invoke it before or at the time of entering a plea at
arraignment.
The SC found that no treachery attended the killing. On
numerous occasions, we have held that where a killing was
preceded by an argument or quarrel, then the qualifying
circumstance of treachery can no longer be appreciated
since the victim could be said to have been forewarned
and could anticipate aggression from the assailants.
Moreover, the aggravating circumstance of evident
premeditation alleged by the prosecution was not proved
clearly and convincingly. Considering that the attack was
made about two minutes after the initial altercation, it
cannot be said that there was sufficient lapse of time
between such determination to commit the crime and its
execution so as to allow the assailants to reflect upon the
consequences of their actions.

PEOPLE v. RODOLFO BATO
G.R. No. 134939. February 16, 2000

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

HELD:
Neither is the absence of spermatozoa in Delias genitalia
fatal to the prosecutions case. The presence or absence of
spermatozoa is immaterial in a prosecution for rape. The
important consideration in rape cases is not the emission
of semen but the unlawful penetration of the female
genitalia by the male organ.
The crime committed is statutory rape, defined and
penalized under paragraph 3 of Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Section 11, R. A. 7659. This
Court has held that if the woman is under twelve (12)
years of age, proof of force and consent becomes
immaterial, not only because force is not an element of
statutory rape but the absence of free consent is
presumed when the woman is below such age. The two (2)
elements of statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had
carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is
below twelve (12) years of age. Sexual congress with a girl
under twelve (12) years old is always rape."

PEOPLE v. GALLARDER
G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000

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

Held:
A reading of the accusatory portion of the information
shows that there was no allegation of any qualifying
circumstance. Although it is true that the term "homicide"
as used in special complex crime of rape with homicide is
to be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder
and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on the
occasion of rape it is settled in this jurisdiction that where
a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to
support the charge as to one of the component offense,
the accused can be convicted of the other. In rape with
homicide, in order to be convicted of murder in case the
evidence fails to support the charge of rape, the qualifying
circumstance must be sufficiently alleged and proved.
Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused
to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he
is charged. It is fundamental that every element of the
offense must be alleged in the complaint or information.
The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a
crime to be set out in an information is to enable the
accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to
have no independent knowledge of the facts that
constitute the offense
Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the
only matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its
conclusion and finding of guilt. The prosecution is not
always tasked to present direct evidence to sustain a
judgment of conviction; the absence of direct evidence
does not necessarily absolve an accused from any criminal
liability.

PEOPLE v. REYNALDO QUILLOSA
G.R. No. 115687. February 17, 2000

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

HELD:
We have long held that "the testimony of a single
eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as
it is clear, straightforward and worthy of credence by the
trial court. Minor and inconsequential flaws in the
testimony of the witness strengthen rather than impair his
credibility. As to appellants participation in the killing, the
Court in previous cases have held that holding the hand of
the victim to render him immobile while he is being
stabbed amounts to an act of indispensable cooperation
without which the crime would not have been
accomplished. Appellants act of holding the right arm of
the victim, while another held the left arm, thus enabling
their third companion to stab the victim, shows that they
acted together with one purpose and design to kill the
victim.
As to the crime committed, we find that treachery
attended the commission of the offense, hence the crime
is murder. For treachery to be present, two conditions
must be shown: (1) the employment of means of
execution that give the person attacked no opportunity to
defend or retaliate; and (2) the deliberate or conscious
adoption of the means of execution.In this case, appellant
and another person held the hands of the victim to enable
their companion to stab him while he was in a defenseless
position. While abuse of superior strength was alleged in
the Information, it is already absorbed in treachery and
need not be appreciated separately. Evident
premeditation was not proven by the prosecution.

PEOPLE v. RADEL GALLARDE
G.R. No. 133025. February 17, 2000

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

HELD:
We sustain GALLARDEs contention that the trial court
erred in convicting him of murder in an information
charging him of rape with homicide. A reading of the
accusatory portion of the information shows that there
was no allegation of any qualifying circumstance. Although
it is true that the term "homicide" as used in special
complex crime of rape with homicide is to be understood
in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight
physical injuries committed by reason or on the occasion
of rape it is settled in this jurisdiction that where a
complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support
the charge as to one of the component offense, the
accused can be convicted of the other. In rape with
homicide, in order to be convicted of murder in case the
evidence fails to support the charge of rape, the qualifying
circumstance must be sufficiently alleged and proved.
Otherwise, it would be a denial of the right of the accused
to be informed of the nature of the offense with which he
is charged.
The rules on evidence and precedents sustain the
conviction of an accused through circumstantial evidence,
as long as the following requisites are present: (1) there
must be more than one circumstance; (2) the inference
must be based on proven facts; and (3) the combination of
all circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt of
the guilt of the accused. The importance of circumstantial
evidence is more apparent in the prosecution of cases of
rape with homicide. It is well settled that the absence of
spermatozoa in or around the vagina does not negate the
commission of rape. Our doubt on the commission of rape
is based on the fact that there is at all no convincing proof
that the laceration of the vagina and the rupture of the
hymen of EDITHA were caused in the course of coitus or
by a male organ.

PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG
G.R. Nos. 131872-73. February 17, 2000

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

HELD:
In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
it must be shown that (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or a
regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by
law and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed
the said drug. Here, as in Boco, the prosecution witnesses
were able to establish these elements.
We are not persuaded by the argument that the samples
examined were not taken from the drugs seized. On the
contrary, the testimonies of all the prosecution witnesses
fairly established that the shabu taken from the appellants
is the same substance examined by the forensic chemist
and later presented as evidence in court. Verily, the
presumption of regularity must prevail over appellants
unfounded allegations and speculations. Appellants
behavior during the entrapment showed that there was
conspiracy between them and a third person who got
away with the buy-bust money. It is an established rule
that direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, as
it may be inferred from the acts of the accused before,
during and after the commission of the crime, all of which
indubitably point to or indicate a joint purpose, a concert
of action and a community of interest.

PEOPLE v. RAMIL DACIBAR
G.R. No. 111286. February 17, 2000

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

HELD:
While the principal witnesses for the prosecution did not
actually see appellants shoot and kill the victim, direct
proof of their culpability is not necessary when
circumstantial evidence would suffice. The requisites
thereof are: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2)
the facts from which the inferences are derived are
proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond a reasonable
doubt.
We have held that conspiracy need not be established by
direct evidence of acts charged, but may and generally
must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions
and circumstances, which vary according to the purpose
accomplished. Thus, the rule is that conspiracy must be
shown to exist by direct or circumstantial evidence, as
clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. In the absence
of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be
deduced from the mode, method and manner by which
the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of
the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action and community of
interest.
The trial court was correct in appreciating the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling. Although the triggerman fired
the shot from outside the house, his victim was inside. For
the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not
necessary that the accused should have actually entered
the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is
enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant may have devised means to
perpetrate the assault from without.

PEOPLE v. RAUL ACOSTA
G.R. No. 126351. February 18, 2000

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

HELD:
Arson is defined as the malicious destruction of property
by fire. In this case, we find the trial court correctly held
that the following circumstances taken together constitute
an unbroken chain of events pointing to one fair and
logical conclusion, that accused started the fire which
gutted the house of private complainant. Although there is
no direct evidence linking appellant to the arson, we agree
with the trial court in holding him guilty thereof in the light
of the following circumstances duly proved and on record.
In prosecutions for arson, proof of the crime charged is
complete where the evidence establishes (1) the corpus
delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and (2)
the identity of the defendants as the one responsible for
the crime.

PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO TOREJOS
G.R. No. 132217. February 18, 2000

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

HELD:
Accused-appellant's attempt to discredit ROSALIE is
unconvincing. The assessment of credibility of witnesses is
primarily the function of the trial court. It is well
established in this jurisdiction that the findings of the trial
court on the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies
are accorded great respect unless the court a
quo overlooked substantial facts and circumstances which,
if considered, would materially affect the result of the
case.
The information filed against TOREJOS specifically alleges
that he raped MARY CRIS, a three-year-old child. We
therefore affirm the judgment of the RTC imposing the
death penalty for being in accordance with law. Four (4)
members of the Court, although maintaining their
adherence to the separate opinions expressed in People v.
Echegaraythat R.A. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the
penalty of death is unconstitutional, nevertheless submit
to the ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional
and that the death penalty should accordingly be imposed.

PEOPLE v. LIBERATO MENDIONA
G.R. No. 129056. February 21, 2000

Before this Court for automatic review is the decision
finding accused-appellant Liberato "Renato" Mendiona
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and
sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of death and
to pay the complainant, Maricel Capongcol, the amount of
fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) as moral damages.

HELD:
Accordingly, the range of penalty imposable on appellant
is composed of two indivisible penalties, i.e., reclusion
perpetua to death. Following Article 63 (1)of the same
Code, which provides the rules for the application of
indivisible penalties, appellant was correctly meted the
supreme penalty of death since the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and unlawful entry attended the
commission of the rape. The attendance of these
aggravating circumstances is not contested by the
accused-appellant.
On a final note, we correct the trial courts erroneous
classification of the award ofP50,000.00 as moral
damages. In People v. Prades, we explained that "x x x the
award authorized by criminal law as civil indemnity ex
delicto for the offended party x x x is mandatory upon the
finding of the fact of rape; it is distinct from and should
not be denominated as moral damages which are based
on different jural foundations and assessed by the court in
the exercise of sound discretion." Further, our more recent
rulings hold that the indemnification for the victim shall be
in the increased amount of P75,000.00 if the crime of rape
is committed or effectively qualified by any of the
circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized
by law. Applying the foregoing rulings, the civil indemnity
to be awarded to the complainant should be seventy five
thousand pesos (P75,000.00).

PEOPLE v. RENATO DE GUZMAN
G.R. No. 118670. February 22, 2000

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

HELD:
The requirements for the discharge and utilization of an
accused as a state witness are enumerated in Rule 119,
Section 9 of the Rules of Court, viz:
(a) There is absolute necessity for the testimony of the
accused whose discharge is requested;
(b) There is no other direct evidence available for the
proper prosecution of the offense committed, except the
testimony of the accused;
(c) The testimony of the accused can be substantially
corroborated in its material points;
(d) Said accused does not appear to be the most guilty;
and
(e) Said accused has not at any time been convicted of any
offense involving moral turpitude.
While this Court agrees that some of the requirements
under Section 9 of Rule 119 for the discharge of Mosqueda
to become state witness were not strictly and properly
met, nonetheless, this Court does not subscribe to the
suggestion of the defense that Mosquedas testimony
should be disregarded. This issue has long been settled.
Although the trial court may have erred in discharging the
accused, such error would not affect the competency and
the quality of the testimony of the defendant. The
discharge of an accused under these circumstances is not
reversible. Once his discharge is effected, the legal
consequence of acquittal follows unless the accused so
discharged fails or refuses to testify pursuant to his
commitment. The order for his discharge may only be
recalled in one instance, and that is when he subsequently
fails to testify against his co-accused.


MARCH 2000

PEOPLE V. PAMBID
G.R. No. 124453. March 15, 2000.
DEFENSE OF INSANITY

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

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

PEOPLE V. FRONDA
G.R. No. 130602. March 15, 2000.
Direct Evidence v. Circumstantial Evidence

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

HELD:
To be caught flagrante delicto necessarily implies positive
identification by the eyewitness or eyewitnesses. Such is a
"direct evidence" of culpability, which is "that which
proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any inference
or presumption", in contrast to circumstantial evidence,
which is "the proof of facts from which taken collectively
the existence of the particular fact in dispute may be
inferred as a necessary or probable
consequence." Circumstantial evidence, however, is not a
weaker form of evidence vis-a-vis direct evidence, for our
rules make no distinction between direct evidence of fact
and evidence of circumstances from which the existence
of a fact may be inferred. No greater degree of certainty is
required when the evidence is circumstantial than when it
is direct; for in either case, the trier of fact must be
convinced beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the
accused.
Under the Rules of Court, circumstantial evidence would
be sufficient for conviction if the following concur: (a)
there is more than one circumstance; (b) the facts from
which the inferences are derived are proved; and (c) the
combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Or, as
jurisprudentially formulated, a judgment of conviction
based on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the
circumstances proven constitute an unbroken chain which
leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the
accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty
person, i.e., the circumstances proven must be consistent
with each other and consistent with the hypothesis that
the accused is guilty.

PEOPLE V. ARIZAPA
G.R. No. 131814. March 15, 2000.
Improvident plea of guilt

Facts:
Accused was sentenced to death after being convicted of
incestuously raping his stepdaughter.

HELD:
The record discloses the failure of the lower court to make
a searching inquiry on whether the accuseds admission of
guilt was voluntarily made and whether he understood the
legal implications of such admission. However, since the
trial court extensively received evidence in determining
the guilt of the accused, the manner in which the plea of
guilt was made, whether improvidently or not, loses its
significance for the simple reason that the conviction of
the accused was based on the evidence proving his
commission of the offense charged and not on his
admission in open court; his conviction may only be set
aside when the improvident plea of guilt was the sole basis
for the condemnatory judgment.

PEOPLE V. FABON
G.R. No. 133226. March 16, 2000.
Aggravating circumstance robbery with homicide
Circumstantial evidence

HELD:
The proper designation of the crime committed is robbery
with homicide aggravated by rape. When rape and
homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, it is the
first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
that applies, the rape to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. Moreover, dwelling is also considered
aggravating in cases such as this primarily because of the
sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human
abode. Dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence or
intimidation because this class of robbery can be
committed without the necessity of trespassing the
sanctity of the offended party's house.
Circumstantial evidence is defined as that which indirectly
proves a fact in issue. Under Section 4 of Rule 133 of the
Revised Rules on Evidence, circumstantial evidence is
sufficient to convict an accused if the following requisites
concur: (a) there is more than one circumstance, (b) the
facts from which the inferences are derived are proven,
and (c) the combination of all the circumstances is such as
to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE V. MACARSE
G.R. No. 121780. March 17, 2000.
DEFENSE OF ALIBI

Facts:
Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of Highway
Robbery with Homicide. His main defense was alibi.

HELD:
For alibi to be believed, the following must be shown: (a)
presence of accused-appellant in another place at the time
of the commission of the offense, and (b) physical
impossibility for him to be at the scene of the crime.

PEOPLE V. MANRIQUEZ
G.R. Nos. 122510-11. March 17, 2000.
Waiver of Counsel; Extrajudicial Confession
Conspiracy
Treachery

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

HELD:
Ones right to be informed of the right to remain silent and
to counsel contemplates the transmission of meaningful
information rather than just the ceremonial and
perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional
principle. It is not enough for the interrogator to merely
repeat to the person under investigation the provisions of
Section 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution; the former
must also explain the effects of such provision in practical
terms -- e.g., what the person under interrogation may or
may not do -- and in a language the subject fairly
understands. The right to be informed carries with it a
correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator
to explain, and contemplates effective communication,
which results in the subjects understanding of what is
conveyed. Since it is comprehension that is sought to be
attained, the degree of explanation required will
necessarily vary and depend on the education,
intelligence, and other relevant personal circumstances of
the person undergoing investigation. In further ensuring
the right to counsel, it is not enough that the subject is
informed of such right; he should also be asked if he wants
to avail of the same and should be told that he could ask
for counsel if he so desired or that one could be provided
him at his request. If he decides not to retain a counsel of
his choice or avail of one to be provided for him and,
therefore, chooses to waive his right to counsel, such
waiver, to be valid and effective, must still be made with
the assistance of counsel, who, under prevailing
jurisprudence, must be a lawyer.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. To establish the existence of a
conspiracy, direct proof is not essential since it may be
shown by facts and circumstances from which may be
logically inferred the existence of a common design among
the accused to commit the offense charged, or it may be
deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense
was perpetrated.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make, which means that no opportunity was given to the
latter to do so.

PEOPLE V. SAPAL
G.R. No. 124526. March 17, 2000.
Irregularities in arrest
Conviction based on proof beyond reasonable doubt

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

HELD:
Admittedly, accused is deemed to have waived his right to
question the irregularities attending his arrest for his
failure to raise the same at the opportune time, i.e.,
before he entered his plea. Nonetheless, the peculiar
factual circumstances surrounding the case, e.g., the
police authorities failure to comply with the clear
directive of the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Barrios,
the undue delay in preparing the documents relating to
the arrest of accused and his wife and in delivering them
to the proper authorities for inquest, and the failure of the
law enforcers to provide accused with a counsel during the
custodial investigation, effectively destroy the
presumption of regularity in the performance by Gomez
and his colleagues of their duties. Such being the case, the
presumption of regularity cannot be made the sole basis
of the conviction of accused.
It is well-settled that "where the circumstances shown to
exist yield two or more inferences, one of which is
consistent with the presumption of innocence while the
other or others may be compatible with the finding of
guilt, the court must acquit the accused: for the evidence
does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
insufficient to support a judgment of conviction."
PEOPLE V. SAN DIEGO
G.R. No. 129297. March 17, 2000.
Rape jurisprudential guidelines

HELD:
In rape cases, courts are guided by the following
considerations:
1) An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is
difficult to prove but more difficult for the person, though
innocent, to disprove the same;
2) In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two persons are usually involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with
extreme caution; and
3) The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on
its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
The test of sufficiency of force or intimidation in rape is
whether it produces a reasonable fear in the victim that if
she resists or does not give in to the sexual demands of
the accused, the threat would be carried out.

PEOPLE V. CHE CHUN TING
G.R. Nos. 130568-69. March 21, 2000.
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine

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

HELD:
The lawful arrest being the sole justification for the validity
of the warrantless search under the exception, the same
must be limited to and circumscribed by the subject, time
and place of the arrest. As to subject, the warrantless
search is sanctioned only with respect to the person of the
suspect, and things that may be seized from him are
limited to "dangerous weapons" or "anything which may
be used as proof of the commission of the offense." With
respect to the time and place of the warrantless search, it
must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. Stated
otherwise, to be valid, the search must have been
conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately
thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was
arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control.
It must be stressed that the purposes of the exception are
only to protect the arresting officer against physical harm
from the person being arrested who might be armed with
a concealed weapon, and also to prevent the person
arrested from destroying the evidence within his reach.
The exception therefore should not be strained beyond
what is needed in order to serve its purposes.
As a consequence of the illegal search, the things seized on
the occasion thereof are inadmissible in evidence under
the exclusionary rule. They are regarded as having been
obtained from a polluted source, the "fruit of a poisonous
tree." However, objects and properties the possession of
which is prohibited by law cannot be returned to their
owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure.
Thus, the shabu seized by the NARCOM operatives, which
cannot legally be possessed by the accused under the law,
can and must be retained by the government to be
disposed of in accordance with law.

PEOPLE V. ADILA, JR.
G.R. No. 133434. March 21, 2000.
Defense of alibi

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

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

PEOPLE V. SAPINOSO
G.R. No. 122540. March 22, 2000.

HELD:
In rape cases, three well-known principles guide the Court,
namely: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with
facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
person accused, though innocent, to disprove, (2) in view
of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where two
persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution,
and (3) the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fall
on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense. Likewise, when the complainant in a rape case,
more so if she is a minor, testifies that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show rape has
been committed, the offended party most often being the
only one available to prove directly the commission of
rape. The credibility of the complainant is, thus, of utmost
importance, for the accused may be convicted solely on
the basis of the complainant's testimony if the same meets
the test of credibility. Furthermore, we have held that the
conduct of the victim immediately following the alleged
sexual assault is of utmost importance in establishing the
truth or falsity of the charge of rape.
Well-settled is the rule that alibi is an inherently weak
defense which cannot prevail over the positive
identification of the accused by the victim. For alibi to
prosper, the defendant must prove not only (1) that he
was somewhere else when the crime was committed but
(2) it must be likewise demonstrated that he was so far
away that he could not have been physically present at the
place of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of
its commission.

PEOPLE V. DEDACE
G.R. No. 132551. March 22, 2000.
Statutory rape

HELD:
The gravamen of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a
woman below twelve (12) years of age. It is well-settled
that complete or full penetration of the complainant's
private part is not necessary to consummate rape. What is
essential is that there be penetration of the sexual organ,
no matter how slight. Neither is the rupture of the hymen
essential for the offense of consummated rape. It is
enough that there is proof of entrance of the male organ
within the labia of the pudendum. Therefore, it is
unnecessary to show to what extent penetration of the
woman's body has been made.

PEOPLE V. MAMALIAS
G.R. No. 128073. March 27, 2000.
APPEAL OF AN ACCUSED-ESCAPEE

HELD:
The general rule is that a party appealing who flees the
jurisdiction, pending the appeal, is in contempt of the
authority of the court and of the law and places himself in
a position to speculate on the chances for a reversal,
meanwhile keeping out of the reach of justice and
preparing to render the judgment nugatory or not, at his
option. Moreover, the escapee loses his standing in court
and unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of
the court, he is deemed to have waived any right to seek
relief from the court. Be that as it may, the escape of an
accused-appellant during the pendency of his appeal will
not necessarily prevent the Court from exercising its
jurisdiction in exceptional cases.

PEOPLE V. MITRA
G.R. No. 130669. March 27, 2000.
Rape physical resistance

HELD:
It is well-settled that "physical resistance need not be
established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon
the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will,
to the rapists advances because of fear for her life and
personal safety." It is sufficient that the intimidation
produces fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not
submit to the bestial demands of the accused, something
far worse would befall her at the time she was being
molested. As pronounced by the Court, "if resistance
would nevertheless be futile because of intimidation,
then offering none at all does not mean consent to the
assault so as to make the victims submission to the sexual
act voluntary."

PEOPLE V. MERIS
G.R Nos. 117145-50 & 117447. March 28, 2000.
JURISDICTION OVER PERSON OF THE ACCUSED
Estafa

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

HELD:
Jurisdiction over the person of the accused is acquired
either by arrest or voluntary appearance in court. Hence,
granting arguendo that accused-appellants arrest was
defective, such is deemed cured upon her voluntary
submission to the jurisdiction of the court. It should be
stressed that the question of legality of an arrest affects
only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the
accused. Consequently, if objections based on this ground
are waived, the fact that the arrest was illegal is not
sufficient cause for setting aside an otherwise valid
judgment. The technicality cannot render the subsequent
proceedings void and deprive the State of its right to
convict the guilty when all the facts on record point to the
culpability of the accused.
Estafa is committed by any person who defrauds another
by using a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess
power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar
deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud. The offended party must have
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
means of the accused-appellant and as a result thereof,
the offended party suffered damages.

PEOPLE V. TIPAY
G.R. No. 131472. March 28, 2000.
Rape jurisprudential guidelines

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

PEOPLE V. CULA
G.R. No. 133146. March 28, 2000.
Rape physical resistance; burden of proving victims
minority

The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of
proving resistance. Physical resistance need not be
established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon
the victim and she submits herself against her will to the
rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety.
At all events, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove
with certainty the fact that the victim was below 18 when
the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition
of the death penalty. The record of the case is bereft of
any independent evidence, such as the victim's duly
certified Certificate of Live Birth, accurately showing
private complainant's age.

PEOPLE V. BARREDO
G.R. No. 133832. March 28, 2000.
Rape

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

PEOPLE V. CABINGAS
G.R. No. 79679. March 28, 2000.
Rape with a feeble-minded person

HELD:
Sexual intercourse with a feeble-minded woman is rape.
The offense charged is within the contemplation of
paragraph 2 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, like
when the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman
deprived of reason.

PEOPLE V. CAVERTE
G.R. No. 123112. March 30, 2000.
SELF-DEFENSE; TREACHERY

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

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

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

PEOPLE V. AQUINO
G.R. No. 129288. March 30, 2000.
Robbery with homicide

Accused-appellants were charged and convicted of the
complex crime of robbery with homicide. They contend
that they should have been convicted of homicide only.

HELD:
The elements of the crime were proved beyond
reasonable doubt. In any event, in robbery with homicide,
the important consideration is that there be a nexus
between the robbery and the killing whether prior,
subsequent to or committed at the same time.

PEOPLE V. BALTAZAR
G.R. No. 115990. March 30, 2000.

HELD:
The more pressing issue is whether all the elements of
rape as alleged in the Information were duly proved by the
prosecution. Here we find the following duly established
beyond reasonable doubt. First, appellant had carnal
knowledge with the victim.

PEOPLE V. BASE
G.R. No. 109773. March 30, 2000.
Extrajudicial confessions
Conspiracy; treachery

HELD:
For an extrajudicial confession to be admissible, it must
be: 1.] voluntary; 2.] made with the assistance of
competent and independent counsel; 3.] express; and 4.]
in writing. While the initial choice in cases where a person
under custodial investigation cannot afford the services of
a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the
accused really has the final choice as he may reject the
counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A lawyer
provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the
accused where he never raised any objection against the
formers appointment during the course of the
investigation and the accused thereafter subscribes to the
veracity of his statement before the swearing
officer. Verily, to be an effective counsel "[a] lawyer need
not challenge all the questions being propounded to his
client. The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an
accused from saying anything that might incriminate him
but, rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to preclude
the slightest coercion as would lead the accused to admit
something false. The counsel, however, should never
prevent an accused from freely and voluntarily telling the
truth."
When, as in this case, "[a]n extrajudicial statement
satisfies the requirements of the Constitution, it
constitutes evidence of a high order because of the strong
presumption that no person of normal mind would
deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless
prompted by truth and conscience. The defense has the
burden of proving that it was extracted by means of force,
duress, promise or reward."
Section 3, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides that
"[a]n extrajudicial confession made by an accused shall not
be sufficient ground for conviction, unless corroborated by
evidence of corpus delicti." In this case the prosecution
presented other evidence to prove the two elements
of corpus delicti, to wit: a.] a certain result has been
proven, i.e. a man has died; and 2.] some person is
criminally responsible.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential, for
conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused
prior to, during or subsequent to the incident. Such acts
must point to a joint purpose, concert of action or
community of interest.
There is treachery "[w]hen the offender commits any of
the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make." The essence of alevosia is the swift and
unexpected attack on the unarmed victim without the
slightest provocation on the victims part. The fact that
treachery may be shown if the victim is attacked from
behind does not mean it can not also be appreciated if the
attack is frontal. Even a frontal attack can be treacherous
when it is sudden and the victim is unarmed.

PEOPLE V. CAMPUHAN
G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000.
Stages of rape

In the case of People v. Orita, the SC held that rape was
consummated from the moment the offender had carnal
knowledge of the victim since by it he attained his
objective. All the elements of the offense were already
present and nothing more was left for the offender to do,
having performed all the acts necessary to produce the
crime and accomplish it. We ruled then that perfect
penetration was not essential; any penetrationof the
female organ by the male organ, however slight, was
sufficient. The Court further held that entry of the labia or
lips of the female organ, even without rupture of the
hymen or laceration of the vagina, was sufficient to
warrant conviction for consummated rape. We
distinguished consummated rape from attempted rape
where there was no penetration of the female organ
because not all acts of execution were performed as the
offender merely commenced the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts. The inference that may be derived
therefrom is that complete or full penetration of the
vagina is not required for rape to be consummated. Any
penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the
crime to its consummated stage.
But the Court in Orita clarified the concept of penetration
in rape by requiring entry into the labia or lips of the
female organ, even if there be no rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina, to warrant a conviction for
consummated rape. While the entry of the penis into the
lips of the female organ was considered synonymous
with mere touching of the external genitalia, e.g., labia
majora, labia minora, etc., the crucial doctrinal bottom
line is that touching must be inextricably viewed in light of,
in relation to, or as an essential part of, the process of
penile penetration, and not just mere touching in the
ordinary sense. In other words, the touching must be
tacked to the penetration itself. The importance of the
requirement of penetration, however slight, cannot be
gainsaid because where entry into the labia or the lips of
the female genitalia has not been established, the crime
committed amounts merely to attempted rape.
Where the accused failed to achieve an erection, had a
limp or flaccid penis, or an oversized penis which could not
fit into the victim's vagina, the Court nonetheless held that
rape was consummated on the basis of the victim's
testimony that the accused repeatedly tried, but in vain, to
insert his penis into her vagina and in all likelihood
reached the labia of her pudendum as the victim felt his
organ on the lips of her vulva, or that the penis of the
accused touched the middle part of her
vagina. Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does
not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or
grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on
the external layer of the victims vagina, or the mons
pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis
indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ,
and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an
accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As
the labias, which are required to be "touched" by the
penis, are by their naturalsitus or location beneath
the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with
the penis is to attain some degree of penetration beneath
the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia
majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes
consummated rape.
Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or
touching the mons pubis of thepudendum is not sufficient
to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of
the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e.,
touching of either labia of the pudendumby the penis,
there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only
be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.

PEOPLE VS. BALTAZAR
G.R. No. 115990. March 31, 2000.
ELEMENTS OF RAPE
Evidentiary value of medical examinations

HELD:
The more pressing issue is whether all the elements of
rape as alleged in the Information were duly proved by the
prosecution. Here we find the following duly established
beyond reasonable doubt. First, appellant had carnal
knowledge with the victim. Second, carnal knowledge took
place by using force or intimidation. Appellant insists that
"the complainant did not offer any tenacious resistance to
the alleged sexual assault." Nowhere is it required in our
law or jurisprudence, however, that a woman must offer
"tenacious" resistance to a sexual assault. The law does
not impose upon the rape victim the burden of proving
resistance. We have held countless of times that "the
force or violence required in rape cases is relative. When
applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible; it is
enough that it has enabled the offender to consummate
his purpose or to bring about the desired result." For rape
to exist, it is not necessary that the force or intimidation
employed in accomplishing the crime be so great or of
such character as could not be resisted. What is necessary
is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to
consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind.
Thus we have held that physical resistance need not be
established in rape cases when intimidation is exercised
upon her and she submits herself against her will to the
rapist's lust because of fear for her life and personal
safety. The victim's failure to resist the accused's assault
successfully and to escape when the opportunity
presented itself should not be construed as a
manifestation of consent. Thirdly, the coitus was against
her will and without her consent.
Insofar as the evidentiary value of a medical examination
is concerned, we have held that "a medical examination of
the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely
corroborative in character and is not an indispensable
element in rape. What is important is that the testimony
of private complainant about the incident is clear,
unequivocal and credible." A medical examination is not
indispensable to the prosecution of rape as long as the
evidence on hand convinces the court that a conviction for
rape is proper.

PEOPLE VS. SUITOS
G.R. No. 125280. March 31, 2000.
Defense of alibi

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

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

PEOPLE VS. CUPINO
G.R. No. 125688. March 31, 2000.

Cupino and Dejoras were charged and convicted for
conspiring to commit murder.

HELD:
Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the crime
itself through clear and convincing evidence, not merely by
conjecture. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by
reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. Hence, conspiracy exists in a situation where at
the time the malefactors were committing the crime, their
actions impliedly showed unity of purpose among them, a
concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. In
a great majority of cases, complicity was established by
proof of acts done in concert, i.e., acts that yielded the
reasonable inference that the doers thereof were acting
with a common intent or design. Therefore, the task in
every case is determining whether the particular acts
established by the requisite quantum of proof do
reasonably yield that inference."

PEOPLE VS. ABALDE
G.R. No. 123113. March 31, 2000.
Rape - guidelines

HELD:
In the disposition of rape cases, the Court is guided by the
following principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be
made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2)
in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of
the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme
caution, and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength
from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.

PEOPLE VS. AMIGABLE
G.R. No. 133857. March 31, 2000.
MEDICAL EXAMINATION/FINDINGS EVIDENTIARY
VALUE IN RAPE CASES

HELD:
Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual
intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential
element of rape. For that matter, in crimes against
chastity, the medical examination of the victim is not an
indispensable element for the prosecution of the crime as
her testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the
accused as in this case.


APRIL 2000

PEOPLE VS. DELOS SANTOS
G.R. No. 121906. April 5, 2000.
Qualifying circumstance alleged in the information

Accused-appellant was sentenced to death after he was
convicted of raping his stepdaughter. He argues that the
Information filed against him failed to state that he is the
stepfather of the victim, hence, his relationship with the
victim may not be considered as a qualifying circumstance
to justify the imposition of the death penalty.

HELD:
The circumstances under the amendatory provisions of
Section 11 of Republic Act 7659 the attendance of any
which mandates the single indivisible penalty of death,
instead of the standard penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death prescribed in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
are in the nature of qualifying circumstances." Qualifying
circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment.

PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE
G. R. No. 129970. April 5, 2000.
Police line-ups
Kidnapping with ransom

Accused-appellants were charged and convicted of
kidnapping for ransom for abducting an Indian
national. He contends that the identification made by the
private complainant in the police line-up is inadmissible
because the appellant stood at the line-up without the
assistance of counsel, and that the money given to them
was not ransom money but was given in exchange for their
dropping of the charges of rape against private
complainant.

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

The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours
does not alter the nature of the crime committed. The
crime of kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim
of liberty whether he is placed in an enclosure or simply
restrained from going home. As squarely expressed in
Article 267, above-quoted the penalty of death is
imposable where the detention is committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom, and the duration of the
detention is not material.

PEOPLE VS. REGALA
G.R. No. 130508. April 5, 2000.
Robbery with rape

Accused-appellant was charged and convicted of robbery
with rape.

HELD:
It should be noted that there is no law providing that the
additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating
circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code
is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of
the same code regarding mitigating circumstances where
there is a specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for
analogous circumstances.

It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of
multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would
result in an "anomalous situation" where from the
standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one
rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple
rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A
penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender
and no person should be brought within its terms if he is
not clearly made so by the statute.
In view of the foregoing, the additional rape committed by
herein accused-appellant should not be considered as
aggravating. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by
the trial court is proper.

PEOPLE VS. ALVERO
G.R. Nos. 134536-38. April 5, 2000.

HELD:
The allegation of the exact time and date of the
commission of the crime are not important in a
prosecution for rape. This is because the precise time of
the commission of the crime is not an essential element of
rape and it has no substantial bearing on its
commission. Rule 110, Section 11 of the Rules of Court
provides that it is not necessary to state in the complaint
or information the precise time at which the offense was
committed except when time is a material ingredient of
the offense, but the act may be alleged to have been
committed at any time as near to the actual date at which
the offense was committed as the information or
complaint will permit. It is equally settled that a variance
of a few months between the time set out in the
indictment and that established by the evidence during
trial has been held not to constitute an error so serious as
to warrant reversal of a conviction solely on that score.

PEOPLE V. ROCHE, ET AL.
G.R. No. 115182(6 April 2000)

Accused-Appellants were charged and convicted of
murder based on testimonies of witnesses which
contradicted each other and was inconsistent with the
physical evidence. The sole reliable testimony does not
show complicity among the appellants before, during, or
after the commission of the crime.

HELD:
a. On oral testimony of witnesses
A witness whose testimony is perfect in all aspects,
without a flaw and remembering even the minutest details
which jibe beautifully with one another, lays herself open
to suspicion of having been [coached] or having
memorized statements earlier rehearsed.
b. On importance of physical evidence
Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation
of truth, and it ranks high in our hierarchy of trustworthy
evidence. In criminal cases such as murder or rape where
the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, this
Court has, in many occasions, relied principally upon
physical evidence in ascertaining the truth.
c. On Conspiracy
For conspiracy to exist, proof of an actual planning of the
perpetration of the crime is not a conditionprecedent. It
may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the
offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the
accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design,
concerted action and community of interest.
Conspiracy must be proved as indubitably as the crime
itself through clear and convincing evidence, not merely by
conjecture. To hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by
reason of conspiracy, he must be shown to have
performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the
complicity. Hence, conspiracy exists in a situation where at
the time the malefactors were committing the crime, their
actions impliedly showed unity of purpose among them, a
concerted effort to bring about the death of the victim. In
a great majority of cases, complicity was established by
proof of acts done in concert, i.e., acts which yield the
reasonable inference that the doers thereof were acting
with a common intent or design. Therefore, the task in
every case is determining whether the particular acts
established by the requisite quantum of proof do
d. On being an accomplice
The following requisites must concur in order that a
person may be considered an accomplice:
(a) community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design
of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the
latter in his purpose;
(b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by
previous or simultaneous acts; and,
(c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the
principal and those attributed to the person charged as
accomplice.

PEOPLE V. BAGO
G.R. No. 122290(6 April 2000)

Appellant was accused and convicted of the crime of
qualified theft through taking cold-rolled steel from the
company which he is employed as a leader in the cutting
department.

HELD:
Clearly, when all the elements of theft were established,
to wit: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the
property belongs to another; (3) the taking was without
the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with
intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished
without violence or intimidation against the person or
force upon things.When the theft is committed with grave
abuse of confidence, accused is guilty ofqualified theft.
In the crime of theft, if the value of the thing stolen
exceeds P22,000.00, the penalty shall be prision mayor in
its maximum period and one year for each additional
P10,000.00, but the total penalty shall not exceed twenty
years or reclusion temporal. However, if that crime of
theft is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
which convert the taking into qualified theft, the penalty
next higher by two degrees shall be imposed, that is, at
least, reclusion perpetua.

PEOPLE V. SUZA
G.R. No. 130611(6 April 2000)

Appellant was convicted of the crime of robbery with
homicide, based on the testimony of a lone eye-witness
who saw how he and his co-accused killed the victim, and
was sure that they took the victims clothes, money and
other wares, which she sold.

HELD:
a. On the crime of robbery with homicide.
It is well settled that in order to sustain a conviction for
robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery
itself be proven conclusively as any other essential
element of a crime. In order for the crime of robbery with
homicide to exist, it is necessary that it be clearly
established that a robbery has actually taken place, and
that, as a consequence or on the occasion of such robbery,
a homicide be committed. Where the evidence does not
conclusively prove the robbery, the killing of the victim
would therefore, be classified either as a simple homicide
or murder, depending upon the absence or presence of
any qualifying circumstance, and not the complex offense
of robbery with homicide.
b. On the aggravating circumstance of use of superior
strength
There was a clear and notorious disparity of force between
the victim and the aggressors as the former was unarmed
and alone. The felons took advantage of their collective
strength to overwhelm their comparatively defenseless
victim. Thus, it was held that "an attack made by a man
with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless
woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that
superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act
afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to
defend herself.

PEOPLE V. RAMOS
G.R. No. 120280 (12 April 2000)

The appellant was convicted of raping his own 10-year old
daughter and relies solely on the defense of denial of the
said accusation against him.

HELD:
A rape victim's testimony is entitled to greater weight
when she accuses a close relative of having raped her, as
in the case of a daughter against her father. Earlier and
long-standing decisions of this Court have likewise held
that when a woman testifies that she has been raped, she
says all that is needed to signify that the crime has been
committed. This is true when made against any man
committing the crime; it is more so when the accusing
words are said against a close relative.

PEOPLE V. ASPIRAS
G.R. No. 121203(12 April 2000)

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

HELD:
a. As to credibility of a witness
The credibility of a witness could not be affected by an
alleged grudge where said witness was not discredited on
cross-examination.
b. As to damages awarded
Only actual expenses supported by receipts shall be
granted as actual damages. As to future earnings of the
victim, it is computed by multiplying the years for which
the victim could have worked with his employer were it
not for his death by his annual gross earnings.

PEOPLE V. FRANCISCO
G.R. 121682(12 April 2000)

Appellant was convicted of the crime of murder qualified
by the aggravating circumstance of treachery and pleads
the justifying circumstance of defense of relative.

HELD:
a. On the claim of defense of relative
As correctly pointed out by the trial court, anyone who
admits the killing of a person but invokes the defense of
relative to justify the same has the burden of proving
these elements by clear and convincing evidence. The
accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if
the prosecution evidence is weak it cannot be disbelieved
if the accused has admitted the killing.
b. On the essence of treachery
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make. In People v. Belaro, the Court explained that the
essence of treachery is a swift and unexpected attack on
the unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on
the part of the victim. Even a frontal attack can, therefore,
be treacherous if it is sudden and unexpected and the
victim is unarmed.
The swift and unexpected attack by accused-appellant
rendered the victim helpless. The rule that treachery may
be shown if the victim is attacked from behind does not
mean it cannot be appreciated if the attack is frontally
launched. The suddenness of the shooting, without the
slightest provocation from the victim who was unarmed
and has no opportunity to defend himself, ineluctably
qualified the crime with treachery.

PEOPLE V. BALLENAS
G.R. No. 124299(12 April 2000)

The appellants abducted a 19-year old girl from her
dwelling, raped her several times, and stabbed her to
death 13 times.

HELD:
a. On the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and
cruelty
For the court to consider nighttime as an aggravating
circumstance, it must have been deliberately taken by the
perpetrator to augment the wrong they committed, not
being necessary for its completion. It has been held that
when the scene of the crime was sufficiently illuminated
by a lamp, nocturnity cannot be appreciated.

The aggravating circumstance of cruelty is present when
"the wrong done in the commission of the crime is
deliberately augmented by causing other wrong not
necessary for its commission".There is cruelty when the
culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer
slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary physical
pain in the consummation of the criminal act.
b. Whether the accused indeed committed forcible
abduction with rape
The accused committed the crime of forcible abduction
with rape punished under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code in relation to Article 342 and 48 of the same Code.
The two elements of forcible abduction are (1) the taking
of a woman against her will and (2) with lewd designs. The
crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime
that occurs when there is carnal knowledge with the
abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1)
by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3)
when the woman is under twelve years of age or is
demented

PEOPLE V. ROJAS
G.R. No. 125292(12 April 2000)

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

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

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

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

HELD:
a. As to evident premeditation
Like treachery, the requisites of evident premeditation
must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. The
requisites of evident premeditation are: a.] the time when
the accused determined to commit the crime, b.] an act
manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination, and c.] sufficient lapse of time between
such determination and execution to allow them to reflect
upon the consequences of their act.
b. As to abuse of superior strength
Abuse of superior strength requires, at base, a deliberate
intent on the part of the malefactor to take advantage
thereof. Besides the inequality of comparative force
between the victim and the aggressor, there must be a
situation of strength notoriously selected and made use of
by the offender in the commission of the crime.

PEOPLE V. ORIO
G.R. No. 128821(April 12, 2000)

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

HELD:
1. As to the aggravating circumstance of Treachery
There is treachery when the offenders commit any of the
crimes against persons employing means, methods or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might
make. In order that alevosia may be appreciated as a
qualifying circumstance, it must be shown that : a.] the
malefactor employed means, method or manner of
execution affording the person attacked no opportunity to
defend himself or to retaliate; and b.] the means, method
or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously
adopted by the offender. However, the fact that both
accused-appellants were armed with bladed weapons
while their victim was unarmed and defenseless does not
make the attack treacherous. Treachery must be proved
by clear and convincing evidence or as conclusively as the
killing itself.
2. As to the aggravating circumstance of Evident
Premeditation
Mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical
and probable they might be would not suffice to establish
evident premeditation. In the case at bar, there was no
evidence of the planning and preparation to kill the victim.
In fact, no attempt was ever made to establish the
requisites of evident premeditation, viz : a.] the time when
the accused determined to commit the crime, b.] an act
manifestly indicating that the accused has clung to his
determination, and c.] sufficient lapse of time between
such determination and execution to allow them to reflect
upon the consequences of their act. In the absence of any
evidence of the planning to kill or when the plan was
conceived, there is no basis for appreciating evident
premeditation.
3. As to the aggravating circumstance of Abuse of
Superior Strength
Abuse of superior strength, however, attended the killing
of Domingo Francisco. Abuse of superior strength requires,
at base, a deliberate intent on the part of the malefactor
to take advantage thereof. Besides the inequality of
comparative force between the victim and the aggressor,
there must be a situation of strength notoriously selected
and made use of by the offender in the commission of the
crime.

PEOPLE V. BAER
G.R. No. 130333(April 12, 2000)

The appellant is the step grandfather of the victim who at
her tender age was repeatedly raped by the appellant. The
appellant argued that the victim did not resist his alleged
sexual assault, since she did not even scream. As to the
amount of force required to constitute rape

HELD:
In rape cases, the force applied need not be irresistible. It
merely has to be enough to successfully carry out the
assailants carnal desire. In the present case, appellant did
apply sufficient force and intimidation to consummate his
lustful desire.

PEOPLE V. ADOC
G.R. No. 133647(April 12, 2000)

The victim was held by Danny and Tony while Eddie
delivered several blows, flowed by Tony stabbing the
victim. Appellants questioned their conviction of murder
and the liability imposed on each of them, since it is not
clear who inflicted the fatal wound. Whether there is
conspiracy between the appellants

HELD:
Conspiracy exists when two or more person come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
decide to commit it. It need not be proved by direct
evidence but may be inferred from the acts of the
accused. It is sufficient that the accused acted in concert at
the time of the commission of the offense, that they had
the same purpose or common design, and that they were
united in its execution. Coming now to the instant case,
the successive acts of the accused the blow delivered by
EDDIE, while DANNY and TONY were holding Ricky;
followed immediately by the infliction of a second blow by
DANNY; and finally, the stabbing of the victim by TONY
clearly manifest the existence of a common intent among
the three accused to commit the crime. Since conspiracy
has been established, there is no need to determine who
among the accused delivered the fatal blow. All of the
accused are liable as principals regardless of the extent
and character of their participation, for in conspiracy the
act of one is the act of all.

PEOPLE V. REYES
G.R. No. 133647(April 12, 2000)

The appellants assails the ruling of the court finding that
conspiracy attended their attack to the victim. Whether
direct evidence is necessary to prove conspiracy.

HELD:
Direct proof of previous agreement to commit a crime is
not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and
manner in which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred
from the acts of the accused which point to a joint
purpose and design, concerted action, and community of
interest. The actuations of the appellants clearly
established a conspiracy. One started the attack with an
utterance coupled with the actual stabbing of victim.
Finally, the rest of the assailants' companions ganged up
on the helpless victim by successively stabbing and hitting
him. All these acts sufficiently prove that they conspired to
kill victim.

PEOPLE V. ANTOLIN
G.R. No. 133880(April 12, 2000)

The appellant was convicted of raping a 23-year old
mental retardate with a mind of a 4-year old girl. The
appellant questions the credibility of the victim since she is
the sole witness against him. What is the importance of
credibility of the victim in rape

HELD:
In a prosecution for rape the complainants credibility
becomes the most important issue since her testimony
alone is sufficient for a verdict of conviction. It is well
established that when the credibility of a witness is
questioned, the appellate courts will generally not disturb
the findings of the trial court, considering that it is in a
more advantageous position to determine the issue as it
heard the witness and observed his deportment during
trial. The exceptions to the rule are when such evaluation
was reached arbitrarily, or when the trial court
overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied certain facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which could affect
the result of the case.

PEOPLE V. FRAGA
G.R. No. 134130-33(April 12, 2000)

The appellant had an altercation before they embarked to
go out to sea, after they came back the accused with his
CAFGU firearm went to the house of the victim and shot
him to death. The appellant raises the defense of self-
defense. Whether or not the appellant is entitled to the
justifying circumstance of self-defense.

HELD:
The invocation of self-defense is an admission of the killing
and of its authorship. By this admission, the burden of
proof shifts to the accused who must now establish with
clear and convincing evidence all the elements of this
justifying circum, stance, to wit: (a) unlawful aggression on
the part of the victim; (b) reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (c) lack of
sufficient provocation on the part of the person resorting
to self- defense. In proving these elements, the accused
must rely on the strength of his own evidence. He can no
longer assail the weakness of the evidence against him
simply because it cannot be disbelieve after his open
admission of responsibility for the killing. Indeed, a plea of
self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is
not only uncorroborated by independent and competent
evidence, but also extremely doubtful by itself. It is an oft-
repeated rule that the nature and number of wounds
inflicted by the accused are constantly and unremittingly
considered as important indicia which disprove a plea for
self-defense because they demonstrate a determined
effort to kill the victim and not just defend oneself.

PEOPLE V. ESTROCO
G.R. No. 111941(April 27 2000)

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

PEOPLE V. GUIWAN
G.R. No. 117324(April 27, 2000)

The victim was the biological daughter of the appellant
who was raped several times by the latter and was only
able to disclose such bestial acts after two years.

HELD:
Two important doctrines on rape
The moral influence of a father over his daughter
suffices to establish rape.
At any rate, although a woman may be viewed by the
public as unchaste or impure she can still be raped as she
is still free to refuse a man's lustful advances. The victim's
character in rape is immaterial.

PEOPLE V. LEGASPI
G.R. No. 117802(April 27 2000)

What is required to establish the defense of alibi?
Alibi is one of the weakest defenses an accused can
invoke, and the courts have always looked upon it with
caution, if not suspicion, not only because it is inherently
unreliable but likewise because it is rather easy to
fabricate. To prosper, alibi must strictly meet the
requirements of time and place. Thus, we have
consistently ruled that it does not suffice to prove that the
accused was somewhere else at the time of the
commission of the crime. Similarly, jurisprudence dictates
that the element of physical impossibility be clearly
shown; The accused must clearly establish that he was so
far away that it was not possible for him to have been
physically present at the locus criminis or its immediate
vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime.

What constitutes robbery with homicide?
In this specie of offense, the phrase "by reason" covers
homicide committed before or after the taking of personal
property of another, as long as the motive of the offender
(in killing a person before the robbery) is to deprive the
victim of his personal property which is sought to be
accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition, or
to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of
stolen property.

What is the proof necessary to establish conspiracy?
Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the
elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond
reasonable doubt. For this purpose overt acts of the
accused may consist of active participation in the actual
commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral
assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the
time of the commission of the crime, or by exerting moral
ascendancy over the other co-conspirators by moving
them to execute or implement the conspiracy.

PEOPLE V. ACURAM
G.R. No. 117954(April 27, 2000)

The appellant shot the victim who later died. After charges
were filed and his commanding officer was told of the
incident, he was ordered not to leave camp, where he
surrendered.

HELD:
Whether the accused is entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender
The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the
intent of the accused to give himself up and submit
himself unconditionally to the authorities either because
he acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to save them the
trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search and
capture. In this case, it was appellant's commanding
officer who surrendered him to the custody of the court.
Being restrained by one's superiors to stay within the
camp without submitting to the investigating authorities
concerned, is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as
contemplated by law.

PEOPLE V. VILLA
G.R. No. 129899(April 27, 2000)

The appellant fired his rifle at the victim causing the
latters death. After such incident the appellant
surrendered to his commanding officer and pleaded guilty
before the court but claimed the defense of temporary
insanity. Whether the appellant is entitled to the defense
of insanity

HELD:
No. The fact that immediately after the incident (accused)
thought of surrendering to the law-enforcement
authorities is incontestable proof that he knew that what
he had done was wrong and that he was going to be
punished for it." Similarly, a feeling of remorse is
inconsistent with insanity, as it is a clear indication that he
was conscious of his acts, he acknowledged his guilt and
was sorry for them. E_uio

PEOPLE V. CASTILLO
G.R. No. 130188 (April 27, 2000)

The lone witness saw the appellant running out of the
house of his cousin, after a shot was heard. His cousin was
later found dead. The appellant was convicted of murder.
Whether or not the testimony of the lone witness was
sufficient.
No, the witness only testified that the appellant fled the
scene of the crime in a rush with a gun. Flight, in most
cases, strongly indicates guilt. As a lone circumstantial
evidence, however, it does not suffice as plurality of
circumstantial evidence is required before guilt beyond
reasonable doubt may be inferred from such indirect
proof. To fully dispose of this issue, the motive of accused-
appellant is a key element in the web of circumstantial
evidence.

PEOPLE V. BAUTISTA
G.R. No. 131840(April 27, 2000)

The appellants were convicted for conspiring to murder
the victim. One of the co-conspirators surrendered
voluntarily. Whether the liability of each co-conspirator
should be always equal.

HELD:
No. Since the existence of a conspiracy does not prevent
the appreciation of a mitigating circumstance exclusively in
favor of the co-conspirator to whom such circumstance
may relate, to him alone.

What constitutes civil liability arising from a crime
The civil liability of accused-appellants for indemnity for
death and actual and moral damages, however, is solidary
and not joint as ruled by the trial court. Moral Damages.
Under Art. 2206 of the Civil Code, the spouse, legitimate
and illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased are entitled to moral damages "for mental
anguish by reason of the death of the deceased." The
victims widow testified that she suffered pain from the
death of her husband. Thus, in accordance with recent
decisions of this Court, accused-appellants should be
awarded the additional amount of P50,000.00 as moral
damages. Exemplary Damages. Under Art. 2230 of the Civil
Code, "exemplary damages as a part of the civil liability
may be imposed when the crime was committed with one
or more aggravating circumstances."

PEOPLE V. MUYCO
G.R. No. 132252(April 27 2000)

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

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

PEOPLE V. SULTAN
G.R. No. 132470(April 27, 2000)

The victim was abducted by the appellant, who brought
her to his house. When they arrived at the appellants
house the victim was divested of her jewelry and other
valuables, afterwhich she was raped several times. The
appellant was convicted of the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Whether multiple rape can be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.

HELD:
No. In several cases the Court realized that there was no
law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for
that matter to be considered as aggravating circumstance.
It further observed that the enumeration of aggravating
circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is
exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code which
enumerates the mitigating circumstances where
analogous circumstances may be considered, hence, the
remedy lies with the legislature. Consequently, unless and
until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or
homicide/s may be considered aggravating, the Court
must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no
person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly
made so by the statute. Under this view, the additional
rape committed by accused-appellant is not considered an
aggravating circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the
Revised Penal Code which provides that "(i)n all cases in
which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed
in the application thereof x x x x 2. (w)hen there are neither
mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be
applied," the lower penalty of reclusion perpetuashould be
imposed on accused-appellant. Spp


MAY 2000

PEOPLE V TANOY
GRNo 115692 May 12,2000

After a prior incident, the victim went to the police station.
The victim therein found the appellant who is a
policeman. After, a few exchanges appellant shot the
victim with an armalite hitting him in the chest. He alleges
that they were grappling for the gun before the "accident"
occured thus he is entitled to an exempting circumstance
under par 4 Art 12.

HELD:
The shooting was intentional as shown by the location and
nature of the wounds. Also a brown envelope remained
tucked under his arm and was bloodied after he was
shot.If they were grappling for possession of the gun then
the envelope containing his complaint should have fallen.It
would be highly inconceivable for a retired PC colonel to
hold the barrel of the gun pointing towards him while
grappling for its possession.
It is settled jurisprudence that the assessment of the
credibility of the witnesses lies within the province and
expertise of the trial courts.Absent any showing of abuse
of discretion or that trial courts overlooked material and
relevant facts which could affect the outcome of the case,
their findings are accorded great weight and respect.
There is also treachery in the commission of the
crime. The deceased did not expect any attack coming
from the accused when he went to the police station.
Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim
was forewarned of the danger to his person.What is
decisive is that the execution of the attack mde it
impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate.The
victim was totally defenseless when he went out of his
hiding place(went behind a cemented wall when the
accused pointed the gun).he was 71 years old and his left
hand was extended as if in supplication and surrender but
the accused shot him nonetheless.

PEOPLE V AVILLANA
GRNo119621 May 12,2000

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

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

PEOPLE V DE LEON
GRNo-124338-41 May 12,2000

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

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

PEOPLE V PO1 MAING
GRNo122112 May 12, 2000

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

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

PEOPLE V MADARANG
Gr. No. 132319 May 12,2000

Appellant was convicted of parricide for stabbing his wife,
causing her death. Appellant alleges he was in a state of
insanity and claims he had no recollection of the stabbing
incident.He insists that he was deprived of intelligence ,
making his act involuntary.His psychiatric evaluation
revealed he was suffering from schizophrenia but after
two years in the National Center for Mental Health his
condition improved thus, he was released.

HELD:
In the Philippines, the courts have established a more
stringent criterion for insanity to be exempting as it is
required that there must be a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act,i.e., the accused is
deprived of reason; he acted without the least
discernment because there is a complete absence of the
power to discern, or that there is total deprivation of the
will.Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not
exclude imputability.The issue of insanity is a question of
fact.The state or condition of a man's mind can only be
measured and judged by his behavior.Establishing one's
insanity requires testimony of an expert witness, such as a
psychiatrist.The proof must relate to the time preceding or
coetaneous with the commisssion of the offense with
which he is charged.None of the witnesses declared that
he exhibited any of the symptoms associated with
schizophrenia immediately before or simultaneous with
the stabbing incident.Also schizophrenics have lucid
intervals during which they are capable of distinguishing
right from wrong.

PEOPLE V DEQUITO
G.R. No.-132544 May 12,2000

A fifteen year old girl was raped by the common-law
husband of her sister in the field.

HELD:
A torn underwear is not indispensable to prove the crime
of rape.Rape can be committed without damaging the
apparel of the victim.The victim testified that appellant
already started to remove her clothes but she ran away.
He caught up with her and forced himself on her.The delay
in reporting the incident can not diminish her
credibility.Our consistent doctrine is that delay in
reporting a rape, if sufficiently explained, does not affect
the credibility of the witness.In this case, she was
dependent on him, her parents were absent.Appellant
threatened that he would leave the victim's sister if the
victim reported the incident. Also the information is
sufficient alleging therein that rape was committed on or
about the month of July 1996.Thus, the prosecutor's error
in stating that what was being tried was the last rape
committed in July in his offer of proof did not prejudice
the rights of the appellant.Also, counsel for the defendant
did not object to the offer of victim's testimony. Sec 34-36
of Rule 132 govern.

PEOPLE V RIMORIN
GRNo-124309 May 16,2000

Two persons were kidnapped and brought to a forest area
where they were killed.The bodies were set afire while in a
pit then buried in the same spot.A helper of the suspects
and the families of the victims were threatened with
retaliation if they reported the incident.Ten years later,
the helper, after learning that one of the suspects have
died, reported the incident and the bodies were then
exhumed. Appellants were convicted of kidnapping with
murder.

Issue:W/N guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD:
The trial courts are in the best position to view the
witness' demeanor and deportment during the trial. Since
the offense were committed prior to RA7659 on Deceber
31, 1993 thus said law amending Art267 of the RPC
providing: "when the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention or is raped or is subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall
be imposed."Since in this instance the purpose of the
appellant and his companions when they kidnapped the
victims was to kill them the two counts of complex crime
of kidnapping with murder is valid. However, as ruled in P
v Ramos 297SCRA618, the rule now is: where the person
kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention,
regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or
was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or
homicide can no longer be complexed under the last
paragraph of Art267as amended by RA7659.
There was also treachery as the victims' hands were tied
behind their backs when they were killed.However, there
is no evident premeditation.there was no showing by the
prosecution of the 1)time when the offender determined
to commit the crime 2)act manifestly indicating that the
offender had clung to his determination3)sufficient lapse
of time between the determination to commit the crime
and the execution thereof, to allow the offender to reflect
on the consequence of his act.

PEOPLE V OBRERO
G.R. No.-122142 May 17, 2000

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

HELD:
The extrajudicial confession was invalid. The perfunctory
reading of the Miranda rights is inadequate to transmit
information to the suspect. Also, Art IIISec12(1) requires
an independent and competent counsel of the suspect's
choice. Atty de los Reyes was not an independent counsel
being the PC Captain and Station Commander. As held in P
v Bandula, the independent counsel cannot be a special
prosecutor, private or public prosecutor, municipal
attorney or counsel of the police whose interest is adverse
to the accused.
While there is evidence to the homicide consisting of the
corpus delicti, there is no evidence of the robbery except
the confession. The lack of objection of appellant to the
introduction of the constitutionally proscribed evidence
did not satisfy the burden of proof which rested on the
prosecution. Acquitted of robbery with homicide.

PEOPLE V TOLEDANO
G.R. No.-110220 May 18,2000

Bunao, while a member of Sangguniang Bayan, entered
into a lease contract covering 2 public market stalls.Two
administrative cases were filed against against him
violating RA3019 and R6713 with the
Ombudsman.However, said cases were dismissed. An
information for violation of Sec41(1) in relation to Sec221
of BP337 was filed against respondent before the RTc of
Iba, Zambales which prohibits gov't officials from engaing
in any business transaction with the local gernment
unit.The RTC, upon motion of the accused, dismissed the
criminal case on the ground of the dismissal of the
administrative cases.

HELD:
There is nothing in the law(Art 89RPC) which states that
exoneration from an administrative charge extinguishes
criminal liability.It is a fundamental principle of
administrative law that administrative law that
administrative cases a independent from criminal actions
for the same act or omission. RA 7160,LGC of 1991, which
replaced BP337 reenacted in its Sec89 the legal provision
of Sec 41 of BP337.Thus, the act committed before the
reenactment continuous to be a crime.

PEOPLE V SARAGINA
G.R. No.-128281 May 30,2000

Accused stabbed and klled a Vulpangco, who uttered
malicious remarks and showed his private part to the
appellant's sister a week earlier. He admits the incident
but claims it was self-defense.

HELD:
Because of this claim, the burden of proof was shifted to
the appellant to establish the elements thereofa)unlawful
aggression on the part of the victim;b)reasonable
necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
c)lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. The first element is lacking.Evidence
must positively show that there was a previous unlawful
and unprovoked attack on the person of the accused
which placed him in danger and justified him in inflicting
harm upon his assailant hrough the employment of
reasonable means to repel the aggression. In this, case the
appellant attacked the victim while the latter was fanning
charcoal.
The second element is also absent.The nature,
location and number of the wounds belie appellant's
defense.Even considering he was able to wrest the knife
away from Vulpanco and stab him on the chest, he still ran
after the victim and stabbed him againin the face.
However, there was no treachery because before he
attacked, the appellant uttered "Ano pare, umpisahan na
natin?".Also, victim's niece shouted "Tiyong Takbo".The
victim was able to run away bu the accused caught up with
him.Treachery cannot be appreciated when the victim was
aware of the attack against him and was even able to flee
even though briefly from his attacker.
Also, there is o evident premeditation.The
prosecution failed to adduce evidence showing when and
how the accused planned and prepared to kill
Vulpangco.The mere fact that the accused learned that
Vulpangco was pestering his sister a week before the
killing is insufficient to prove evident
premeditation beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE V BABERA
G.R. No.-130609, May 30,2000

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

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

PEOPLE V FRANCISCO

The appellant was convicted of frustrated
murder.Together with two more persons, he assaulted and
stabbed Ariel while seated in the driver's seat of a jeepney.

HELD:
The mere fact that the principal witness was the victim of
the crime does not make him a biased witness and does
not make his testimony incredible.It would be unnatural
and illogical for him to impute the crime to an innocent
person and let the culprit escape prosecution.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
agreement concerning the commission of a crime and
decide to do it.Proof of the agreement need not rest on
direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the
conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding
among them with respect to the commission of the
offense.It is not necessary to show that two or more
persons met together and entered into an explicit
agreement setting out the details of an unlawful scheme
or the details by which an illegal objective is to be carried
out.It may be deduced from the mode and manner in
which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the
acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose
and design, concerted action and community of interest.In
this case, the two John Does pulled the victim out of the
jeepney.As the victim was getting down, he was stabbed
by the appellant. As to Antonio his participation was
limited to shouting "heto na sila".In a case, we ruled that
the phrase "andiyan na", which has similar import with the
phrase herein, does not have conclusive conspiratorial
meaning for the supposedly damning utterances are
susceptible of varied inerpretations.One's overt act, to be
shown in pursuance of the conspiracy, may consist of
active participation in the actual commission of the crime
itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his
conspirators by being present at the time of the
commission of the crime, by exerting moral ascendancy
over the other co-conspirators by moving them to execute
or implement the conspiracy.
As to Ricardo's physical disability, the limp suffered
by him due to polio has not been shown to restrict his
means of action, defense or communication with his
fellow beings as required by Art 13(8). The location of the
stab wounds (stomach) manifest his intention to kill thus
contradicting his claim of not intending to commit so grave
a wrong.
The mitigating circumstance of sufficient
provocation must immediately preceded the act and that
it was adequate to excite a person to commit a wrng,
which must accordingly be proportionate in gravity.
The lack of aversion in the information of "intent to kill"
does not not make it insufficient.An information is
sufficient if it states the designation of the offense by
statute.The information more than substantially satisfies
the requirement of designating the offense of frustrated
murder considering that it contains the acts constituting
the felony, the name of the crime by statue and the stage
(frustrated) of the commission of the crime by
definition.Besides the absence of the averment of intent
to kill may be inferred from the allegation that the stab
wound would have caused the death of the victim.

PEOPLE V BALORA
G.R. No.-124976 May 31, 2000

The victim was raped inside the cubicle of the women's
restroom of the cinema theater of Manuela Complex.The
appellant went over the divider and banged the head of
the victim on the wall.After the incident, he was captured
by the guards and mobbed by the other watchers.

HELD:
Appellant avers that the victim could not be made
to lie on the floor there being a toilt bowl in the middle an
the cubicle was too small.The evil in man has no
conscience.The beast in him bears no respect for time and
place, driving him to commit rae anywhere--even in places
where people congregate.Rape does not necessarily have
to be committed in an isolated place and can in fact be
committed in places which to many would appear to be
unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances.
Physical resistance need not be established in rape when
intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter
submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's advances
because of fear for her life and personal safety.it is
sufficient that the intimidation produces fear in the mind
of the victim that if she did not submit to the bestial
demands of the accused, somehing far worse would befall
her at the time she was being molested. In P v Luzorate we
held that intimidation was addressed to the mind of the
victim and therefore subjective, its presence could not be
tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must be viewed in
light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time
of the crime.When a victim become paralyzed with fear,
she cannot be expected to think and act coherently, her
failure to take advantage of the early opportuniy to escape
does not automatically vitiate the credibilityoher
account.Complainant cannot be faulted for not taking any
action inasmuch as different people react differently to a
given type of situation, there being no standard form of
human behavioral response when one is confronted with a
strange, startling or frightful experience.
Lack of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual
intercourse.A freshly broken hymen is not a essential
element of rape.

PEOPLE V ALICANTE
G.R. No.-127026-27 May 31,2000

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

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

PEOPLE V MENDOZA
GRNo-128890 May 31, 2000

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

HELD:
We uphold the testimony of the witness.In the absence of
proof to the contrary and by the defense's failure to
impugn the credibility of prosecution witness Ignacio.
In criminal jurisprudence, when the issue is one of
credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb
the findings of the trial court for it is in a better position to
decide the question, having heard the witnesses and
obsereved their deortment and manner of testifying.There
are are exceptions:a)when patent inconsistencies in the
statement of witnesses are ignored by the trial court, or b)
when the conclusions arrived at are clearly unsupported
by the evidence.
As the victim was totally unprepared for the unexpected
attack from behind with no weapon to resist it, the
stabbing could only be describes as trechearous.As the
attack waas synchronl, sudden and unexpected, treachery
was evident.But the trial court erred in appreciating the
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
since this is deemed absorbed in treachery.

PEOPLE V TRAYA
G.R. No.-129052 May 31, 2000

This is a case of incestuous rape.

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

PEOPLE V MAGAT
G.R. No.-130026 May 31, 2000

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

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