Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
People v Rebucan
Crime charged: DOUBLE MURDER
ISSUE: WON the accused is liable for the crime of
murder
Ruling:
1. RTC: Convicted of double murder
2. CA: Modified, adjudged guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for two (2) counts of
murder
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications: GUILTY of
two (2) counts of murder
Facts:
Carmela Tagpis testified as an eyewitness to
the incident in question. She pointed to the accusedappellant as the "Bata Endong" (Uncle Endong) who
hacked her grandfather and brother. She stated that
Ranil was hit in the forehead, while Felipe was hit on
the face, the left shoulder and the right shoulder.
After Felipe was hacked by the accused-appellant,
the former was still able to walk outside of his house,
to the direction of the coconut tree and thereafter
fell to the ground. Carmela said that she saw that a
long bolo was used in the killing of Felipe and Ranil.
She related that Felipe also owned a bolo but he was
not able to use the same when he was attacked. She
was then inside the house with Felipe and her two
younger brothers, Jericho and Bitoy (Ranil). She was
sitting about four meters away when the hacking
incident occurred indoors.
On cross-examination, Carmela stated that at
the time of the incident, she was playing with a toy
camera inside the house and she was situated beside
a chicken cage, near a bench. Felipe was also there
near the bench and he was carrying Ranil in his right
arm. When asked whether the accused-appellant
came inside the house in a sudden manner, Carmela
answered in the affirmative. She insisted that Ranil
was indeed carried by Felipe when the accusedappellant entered the house. She said that no fight or
altercation occurred between Felipe and the accusedappellant. After Felipe was hacked, he immediately
2|Page
Ruling:
Held:
People v Lagman
Crime charged: MURDER and FRUSTRATED MURDER
People vs Laog
Held:
People v Pareja
Ruling:
People v Padigos
Crime charged: RAPE and ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ISSUE: WON the guilt was proven beyond reasonable
doubt
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of rape (considering the
aggravating qualifying circumstance of
relationship to and minority of the victim)
and acts of lasciviousness
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
Facts:
"AAA", six-years old, was sleeping inside their
house when her father, accused-appellant raped her.
He undressed her and removed her panty, and also
took off his pants. He inserted his penis into her
vagina and made push and pull movements. She felt
pain in her private organ. Her mother was not around
as it was only her and her father who were home.
The next day, accused-appellant made her hold his
penis. He, on the other hand, touched her genitals
and inserted his fingers into her vagina causing her to
feel pain. She related the incidents to her mother
who simply gave her father a fierce piercing stare but
did nothing. She also confided to her aunt, sister of
her mother, who brought her to a doctor for medical
examination and to the police station to report the
matter.
Held:
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code which
deals with the offense of rape provides:
Art. 266-A. Rape, When and How
Committed. Rape is committed
1. By a man who shall have carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances:
a. Through force, threat or
intimidation;
People v Villaflores
Crime charged: RAPE w/ HOMICIDE
ISSUE: WON RTC and the CA gravely erred in finding
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with
homicide
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of rape w/ homicide
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
Facts:
-
Held:
Article 266-A. Rape; When
Committed. Rape is committed
and
How
People v Suansing
Crime charged: RAPE (attended by the qualifying
circumstance that the victim has a mental disability)
ISSUE: WON the crime charged of qualified rape is
correct
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of simple rape (mental
retardation was not specifically alleged in
the Amended Information, it cannot be
considered as a qualifying circumstance
that would warrant the imposition of the
death penalty.)
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications (crime of
qualified rape)
Facts:
LEGEND:
AAA: victim
EEE: the aunt/guardian
FFF: friend
GGG: accused-appellants sister
FFF was requested to get from appellants
boarding house an electric fan and a transformer.
Together with her brother and "AAA" went to the
boarding house of appellant. After giving the
requested items, appellant ordered "FFF" and her
brother to leave "AAA" behind. FFF" brought the
items to "GGG" who, upon learning that "AAA" was
still with appellant, requested "FFF" to return to
appellants boarding house to fetch "AAA." Upon
arriving at the boarding house, "FFF" noticed that the
door was closed. She called out to "AAA" to go home
to avoid being scolded by "EEE." "AAA" opened the
door and came out fixing her short pants. "FFF" then
asked "AAA" if anything happened. "AAA" replied
that after "FFF" and her brother left the boarding
house, appellant pulled her inside the room, removed
her shoes and panty, told her to lie down on the
floor, and inserted his penis into her vagina without
her consent. "AAA" requested "FFF" not to tell
anyone that she was raped by appellant. EEE"
13 | P a g e
Held:
People v Cial
Crime charged: RAPE (attended by the qualifying
circumstances of minority, the victim being less than
18 years old, and relationship, the accused being the
common-law husband of complainants mother)
ISSUE: WON the crime charged is correct
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of qualified rape
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Modified, guilty of simple rape
Facts:
Appellant, common-law-husband of AAAs
mother, called "AAA" and told her to go to the
bedroom inside their house. Once inside, he took off
"AAAs" shorts and panty and spread her legs. He
pulled his pants down to his thighs and inserted his
penis into the little girls vagina. "AAA" felt intense
pain but she did not try to struggle because he had a
bolo on his waist. After satiating his lust, he
threatened to kill "AAA" and her family if she
reported the incident to anyone. At that time,
"AAAs" maternal grandmother was in the house but
was unaware that "AAA" was being ravished. Unable
to endure the torment, "AAA" confided her ordeal to
her mother but did not believe her. "AAA" ran away
from home and went to her maternal uncles house.
She disclosed her harrowing experience to her uncle.
Her uncle appeared to be angered by appellants
wrong doing. But nonetheless, her uncle allowed
appellant to bring her home when appellant fetched
her. For fear that she might be raped again, "AAA"
ran away and went to the house of her aunt. Her aunt
helped her file the complaint against her stepfather.
Held:
We find however that both the trial court and
the CA erred in convicting appellant of the crime of
qualified rape. According to both courts, the twin
qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship
attended the commission of the crime. We rule
otherwise.
15 | P a g e
People v Candellada
Crime charged: ATTEMPTED RAPE and 8 COUNTS OF
RAPE
ISSUE:
Ruling:
1. RTC: Acquitted in attempted rape; Guilty
of 8 counts of rape
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications (into
account the qualified aggravating
circumstances of minority of the victim
and her relationship with accusedappellant)
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
Facts:
AAA was the second of three daughters of
accused-appellant and his deceased first wife. She
lived with accused-appellant and the latters second
wife, while her two sisters lived with accusedappellants mother. While they were still living in
Davao, accused-appellant impregnated her. When
she was already five months pregnant, accusedappellant brought her with him to Lanao del Norte.
Accused-appellant approached Gemina, who
he came to know during a previous visit to Lanao del
Norte in 1993, and asked permission if he could stay
at Geminas old house with his wife, introducing AAA
to Gemina as his wife. Gemina immediately noticed
that AAA was pregnant and also commented that
AAA was so young she could already be accusedappellants daughter, but accused-appellant only
laughed. Gemina and her husband allowed accusedappellant and AAA to stay at their old house.
While they were staying at Geminas old
house, accused-appellant had intercourse with AAA
many times, but AAA could only remember eight
specific dates. AAA further testified that she
consistently resisted accused-appellants bestial acts
but he threatened to stab her with a knife. On
December 28, 2004, accused-appellant again made
amorous advances on AAA; she refused so accused-
Pielago v People
Crime charged: ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
ISSUE: CA erred in convicting the petitioner of the
crime of rape by sexual assault despite his being
charged in the information for acts of lasciviousness
only.
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of rape by sexual assault
(taking into account the qualifying
circumstance relating to the victims age,
"less than seven (7) years of age")
2. CA: Affirmed
3. SC: Affirmed w/ Modifications
Facts:
AAA and her two (2)-year old brother, CCC,
were playing with Pielago whom they call as Kuya
Alvin at the porch of Boyet Ros (Boyet) house. After
playing, the three (3) went inside Boyets house to
watch television. After a while, Pielago turned off the
television and brought AAA and CCC to a bedroom.
While CCC played with a toy carabao at a corner,
Pielago made AAA lie down on bed. Pielago then took
off AAAs short pants and inserted his right hands
forefinger inside her vagina and exclaimed "masiram"
(which means "delicious") as he brutely licked it and
spewed saliva in it. AAA felt pain and blood came out
of her vagina which frightened her. Unsatisfied,
Pielago made AAA lie on her chest on the same bed
then fingered her anus. After a few minutes, AAA and
CCC were called for lunch by their mother, BBB.
Pielago immediately replaced AAAs shorts then sent
her and CCC out of the bedroom. BBB noticed the
bloodstains at the back portion of AAAs shorts.
When BBB asked AAA what happened, AAA did not
answer immediately until she said "Kuya Alvin tugsok
buyay saka lubot ko buda dila pa." (which means
"Kuya Alvin inserted something in my vagina and my
anus and he licked me). Incensed by what AAA told
her, BBB went to a certain Manay Eden who
accompanied her to the house of Boyet where she
found Pielago still lying on bed. BBB continually hit
Pielago as she asked him what he did to AAA. Pielago,
Garingarao v People
Crime charged: ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS IN
RELATION TO RA 7610
ISSUE:
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
Facts:
AAA was brought to the Virgen Milagrosa
Medical Center by her father BBB and mother CCC
due to fever and abdominal pain. Dr. George
Morante (Dr. Morante), the attending physician,
recommended that AAA be confined at the hospital
for further observation. AAA was admitted at the
hospital and confined at a private room where she
and her parents stayed for the night. The next day,
BBB left the hospital to go to Lingayen, Pangasinan to
process his daughters Medicare papers. CCC also left
the hospital that same morning to attend to their
store at Urbiztondo, Pangasinan, leaving AAA alone in
her room.
When BBB returned to the hospital, AAA told
him that she wanted to go home. Dr. Morante
advised against it but due to AAAs insistence, he
allowed AAA to be discharged from the hospital with
instructions that she should continue her
medications. When AAA and her parents arrived at
their house, AAA cried and told her parents that
Garingarao sexually abused her. They all went back to
the hospital and reported the incident to Dr.
Morante. They inquired from the nurses station and
learned that Garingarao was the nurse on duty on
that day.
AAA testified that Garingarao, who was
wearing a white uniform, entered her room and
asked if she already took her medicines and if she
was still experiencing pains. AAA replied that her
stomach was no longer painful. Garingarao then lifted
20 | P a g e
Held:
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual
Abuse. - Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to
the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or
group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon the following:
(a) x x x
(b) Those who commit the act of
sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse; Provided, That when the victim
is under twelve (12) years of age, the
perpetrators shall be prosecuted
under Article 335, paragraph 3 for
21 | P a g e
People v Dulay
Crime Charged: RAPE (a co-principal by indispensable
cooperation)
ISSUE: WON the court gravely erred in finding the
accused-appellant guilty of rape as co-principal by
indispensable cooperation
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of rape as a co-principal by
indispensable cooperation
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Modified, guilty of violating Section 5
(a), Article III R.A. 7610, as amended
Facts:
AAAs sister introduced her to appellant as
someone nice. They went to a wake together, and
then they went to the kubuhan to look for some
fish. At the kubuhan, AAA was pulled by the
appellant in a room where Speed was. She saw
appellant received money from Speed and left
them. She was threatened and tied by Speed and
raped her. She saw appellant peeping in the room
and asked for help but the latter did nothing.
Thereafter, she was threatened by Speed not
divulge the incident or else hell come after her. AAA
went to San Pedro, Laguna and told her sister what
happened, and then her sister told their mother and
filed a case against Speed and appellant.
Held:
The Supreme Court is of another view and
does not subscribe to the findings of the trial court,
as sustained by the CA that appellant is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt as co-principal by indispensable
cooperation in the crime of rape.
Under the Revised Penal Code, an accused may be
considered a principal by direct participation, by
inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. To be a
principal by indispensable cooperation, one must
participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or
unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the
22 | P a g e
Bongalon v People
Crime charged: CHILD ABUSE (act in violation of
Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610)
ISSUE: WON accused should be guilty of the crime
charged
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of violation of RA 7610
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Decision of CA set aside, guilty of
slight physical injuries
Facts:
Prosecution
Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his
older brother, both minors, joined the evening
procession for the Santo Nio at Oro Site in Legazpi
City. When the procession passed in front of the
petitioners house, the latters daughter Mary Ann
Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called
him "sissy".Petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan
and called them names like "strangers" and
"animals". He struck Jayson at the back with his hand,
and slapped Jayson on the face, and went to the
brothers house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz,
their father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out
of the house to take on the petitioner. Rolando later
brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police Station and
reported the incident. Jayson also underwent medical
treatment at the Bicol Regional Training and Teaching
Hospital. The doctors who examined Jayson issued
two medical certificates attesting that Jayson
suffered contusions.
Defense
The petitioner denied having physically
abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he
only talked with Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann
Rose and Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told
him about Jayson and Roldans throwing stones at
them and about Jaysons burning Cherrylyns hair. He
denied shouting invectives at and challenging
Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told Rolando
to restrain his sons from harming his daughters.
24 | P a g e
People v Mamantak
Crime charged: KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM
ISSUE: WON the accused is liable of kidnapping for
ransom
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of kidnapping for ransom
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
Facts:
Teresa went with Christopher and her elder
sister Zenaida to a McDonalds outlet in the KP Tower
in Juan Luna St., Binondo, Manila. Teresa and
Christopher looked for a vacant table while Zenaida
proceeded to order their food. Shortly after Teresa
took her seat, Christopher followed Zenaida to the
counter. Barely had Christopher gone from his
mothers sight when she realized that he had
disappeared. She and her sister frantically looked for
him inside and outside the premises of the fastfood
outlet, to no avail. As their continued search for the
child was futile, they reported him missing to the
nearest police detachment.
Teresa went to several TV and radio stations
to inform the public of the loss of Christopher and to
appeal for help and information. Despite the
publicity, however, Teresa received no word about
Christophers whereabouts. Worse, pranksters were
gleefully having a field day aggravating her misery.
Teresa received a call from a woman who
sounded like a muslim. The caller claimed to have
custody of Christopher and asked for P30,000 in
exchange for the boy. the same muslim-sounding
woman called and instructed Teresa to get a recent
photo of her son from the Jalal Restaurant at the
Muslim Center in Quiapo, Manila. True enough, when
Teresa went there, someone gave her a recent
picture of Christopher. She then contacted the
mysterious woman through the cellphone number
the latter had previously given her. When the woman
instructed her to immediately board a ship for
Mindanao, Teresa reasoned that she had not raised
26 | P a g e
Held:
Kidnapping is defined and punished under
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act (RA) 7659:
ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention. Any private individual who shall
kidnap or detain another, or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall
have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed
simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall
have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats to
kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained
shall be a minor, except when the
accused is any of the parents, female
or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or
detention was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other
person, even if none of the circumstances abovementioned were present in the commission of the
offense.
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.
The crime has the following elements:
(1) the offender is a private individual; not
either of the parents of the victim7 or a public
officer who has a duty under the law to
detain a person;
(2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
(3) the act of detention or kidnapping must
be illegal and
27 | P a g e
Held:
31 | P a g e
People v Suyu
Crime charged: ROBBERY w/ RAPE
ISSUE: WON court erred in finding the
accusedappellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime charged
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of robbery w/ rape
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications
Facts:
Clarissa Angeles was with her boyfriend,
William Ferrer. They were eating snacks inside a pickup truck parked in a vacant lot. Suddenly, a man, who
turned out to be Rommel Macarubbo, appeared in
front of the truck, pointed a gun at them and said:
"This is a holdup. If you will start the engine of the
car, I will shoot you." Thereafter, another man, who
turned out to be Willy Suyu, lifted the lock on
William's side and entered the pick-up. Willy Suyu
then took Ferrer's wallet which contained around
P150.00. A third man, who turned out to be Francis
Cainglet, took Clarissa's jewelry valued at around P2,
500.00 and cash amounting to P10.00. Thereafter,
Willy Suyu clubbed William and dragged him out of
the truck. Fortunately, William was able to escape
and immediately went to the police station to report
the incident. Meanwhile, Willy Suyu lifted the lock of
the pick-up truck at Clarissa's side. Macarubbo then
opened the door. The two and Cainglet dragged the
girl to a hilly place, not far away. Macarubbo and
Willy Suyu held her by the arms, while Cainglet poked
a fan knife at her. There, they ravished her.
Held:
The conviction thus of appellants for robbery
with rape defined and penalized under Article 294,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code is correct. The
law provides:
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons- Penalties. - Any
person guilty of robbery with the use of
35 | P a g e
People v Cabbab
Crime charged: DOUBLE MURDER AND ATTEMPTED
MURDER WITH ROBBERY
ISSUE: WON the crime charged is correct
Ruling:
1. RTC: Guilty of double murder with
robbery or better put, robbery with
double homicide and attempted murder
as defined in Art. 248 of the Revised Penal
Code in relation to Art. 294 of the same
Code or robbery with double homicide
defined and penalized under Art. 248 in
relation to Art. 6
2. CA: Affirmed w/ modifications (Guilty of
the special complex crime of Robbery
with Homicide and separate crime of
attempted murder)
3. SC: Affirmed w/ modifications (Guilty of
robbery with homicide and acquitted of
the separate crime of attempted murder
against the person of PO William Belmes)
Facts:
Father and son Vidal Agbulos and Winner
Agbulos, together with Eddie Quindasan, Felipe Abad
and Police Officer (PO) William Belmes, went to
Barangay Kimmalasag, San Isidro, Abra to attend a
"fiesta" celebration. Upon arrival in the area, they
found out that the fiesta celebration was already
over, thus, they decided to go home in Villaviciosa,
Abra. The group took their lunch at Sitio Turod,
located in the same area of Barangay Kimmalasag,
thereafter while on their way home, they were met
by accused-appellant Juan Cabbab, Jr. and Segundino
Calpito and invited them to play "pepito," a local
version of the game of "russian poker."
Only Winner Agbulos and Eddie Quindasan
played "pepito" with the group of accused-appellant.
Winner Agbulos played the dealer/banker in the
game while accused-appellant and Segundino Calpito
acted as players therein. Around 3:00 oclock p.m.,
36 | P a g e
37 | P a g e