People v Robles

G.R. No.-101335 June 8,2000

Appellant was convicted of robbery with homicide.He was apprehended after admitting the crime.
He was with the other perpetratorsin a taxi which was stopped in a routine inspection.
Held:
The unexplained possession of stolen articles gives rise to apresumption of theft, unless it is
proved that the owne of the articles was deprived of possession by violence, intimidation, in
which case the presumption becomes one of robbery.In robbery with homicide cases, the
prosecution need only to prove these elements: 1)the taking of personal property is perpetrated
by means of violence or intimidation against a person; 2)property taken belongs to another; 3)the
taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and 4)on the occasion of the robbery
or by reason thereof the crime of homicide, here used in a generic sense is committed.The
homicide may precede the robbery or may occur after the robbery.What is essential is that there
an intimate connection between robbery ad the killing whether the latter be prior or subsequent
to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time.The rule is that whenever
homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on occasion of the robbery, all those who
took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of the crime of robbery
with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.

People v Antonio
G.R. No.-122473 June 8,2000
This is a case of incestuous rape.
Held:
Rape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapists
spouse are asleep, or in a small room where other family members also slept.A daughter would not
accuse her own father of such unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been
aggrieved.It is highly improbable for a woman, especially one of tender age, to concoct a brutal
tale of ravishment, allow a gynecologic examination, and undergo the humiliation of a public trial
if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.

People v Mumar

G.R. No.-123155 June 8,2000

The victim was shot while his back was turned towards his assailants.
Held:
A direct proof to show that the accused had come to an agreement to commit a felony is not
necessary.It is sufficient that all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent to do harm
to the victim.

People v Monieva
G.R. No.123912 June 8,2000
The victim was hacked with a bolo and was decapitated by the appellant.
Held:
Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the
basic aspect of the crime do not impair the witness credibility. Even where a witness is found to
have deliberately falsified the truth in some particular, and it was not shown that there was such
intended prevarication, it is not required that the entire testimony be rejected, since such
portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited.
Abuse of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means
available to the person attacked to defend himself. Before it may be appreciated, it must be
clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefacto to take advantage
thereof.The prosecution is of the opinion that since the appellant was armed with a bolo and was
chasing the unarmed victim who was trying to flee, this shows that the latter was powerless to
offer resistance thereby admitting his inferiority and superiority of the defendant.This is mere
conjecture, it was not all apparent that the appellant consciously adopted that particular means.
The mere fact that the victim was running away from the appellant who was wielding a bolo shows
that the victim was aware of the danger to himself, thus negating the suddenness of the attack for
which reason treachery cannot be appreciated.

People v Cambi
G.R. No.127131 June 8, 2000
The 15 yr old complainant was rape by the appellant.

Held:
The absence of illumination in the place of the commission of the crime does not detract from the
positive identification by Margie of the appellant as her assailant. Although visibility is an
important factor in the identification of a criminal offender, its relative significance depends
largely on the attending circumstances and the discretion of the trial court.In the case at bar, the
assailant was well known to Margie as the former was her employer.Also, the voice of the
appellant was heard when he uttered threats against the complainant.It has been this Courts
observation that it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the
looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which he crime was committed.
Not every rape victim can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of
everyone.Some may shout, some may faint; and some may be shocked into insensibility, while
others may openly welcome the intrusion. The force or violence that is 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 to bring about the desired result.It is not even necessary
that the offender be armed with a weapon.

PEOPLE V. OSCAR CARILLO

G.R. NO. 129528
Oscar Carillo together with Eduardo Candare were accused of murder. The physical evidence
shows that the death of the victim was caused by 2 stab wounds probably caused by 2 separate
instruments. Candare executed an affidavit admitting sole responsibility. Prosecution presented a
second cousin of the victim as its main witness.
HELD:
Physical evidence ranks high in the hierarchy of evidence. As physical evidence is compatible with
the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but inconsistent with the claim of the defense
witnesses, the former should prevail. For the same reason, the court cannot accept as true the
affidavit of Candare owning sole responsibility for the crime.
Relationship per se does not automatically discredit a witness. In fact, kinship by blood or
marriage to the victim would deter one from implicating innocent persons as ones natural interest
would be to secure conviction by the real culprit.

PEOPLE V. ROMEO CAPILI

G.R. NO. 130588

Accused was convicted of murder. Three high school students testified for the prosecution and
claimed that they actually saw the accused in flagrante delicto actually striking and submerging
the head of the victim in the river. Right after the incident, accused apparently saw them by the
riverbank and offered them a ride across the river, to which they readily acceded.
HELD:
Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must
be credible in itself such as the common experience and observation of mankind can approve as
probable under the circumstances. There can never be a better gauge by which a witness
testimony may be evaluated and analyzed than the ordinary common human experience.
In this case, it is rather unnatural, to say the least, actually defying sound reasons for 3 young
students, to allow themselves to be ferried by an adult male whom they have just recently
witnessed kill and drown a helpless and unsuspecting victim. It makes the court wonder if the 3
supposed eye witness directly saw the actual killing in this case.

PEOPLE V. RUFINO TESTON & ROGELIO GACO

G.R. NO. 134938
The 3 accused were charged with murder. The prosecution presented one eyewitness. The
defense interposed self-defense. Accused questions trial courts appreciation of the credibility of
the prosecution witness as unbelievable and biased.
HELD:
The trial courts evaluation of a witness trustworthiness is entitled to highest respect for it has
the distinct opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness and to determine whether
he is telling the truth. Moreover, the defense has not presented any evidence that witness was
impelled by dubious or improper motives, therefore, it must be presumed that he was not so
moved. The testimony of a single prosecution witness, if found credible and positive, is sufficient
to convict, for the truth is not established by the number of witnesses, but by the quality of their
testimonies.
Besides, credibility of witness is no longer the issue since self-defense was invoked as justifying
circumstance. Whenever the accused admits inflicting a fatal injury on his victim and invokes
self-defense, the burden of proof immediately shifts from the prosecution to the defense, the
accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the
prosecutions evidence.

PEOPLE V. JOSE GERAL ALIAS JOSE

G.R. NO. 122283
Accused was convicted of murder. He assails the credibility of the prosecution witness and the
sufficiency of evidence against him.
HELD:
On the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment
made by the trial court. Moreover, patent inconsistencies in and between appellants testimony
and those of his witnesses only undermine appellants defense.

PEOPLE V. MACARIO U. CASTILLO

G.R. NO. 111734-35
Spouses Castillo were convicted as conspirators in the kidnapping for ransom of Wilhelmina. The
victim is a businesswoman engaged in the real estate business. The 2 accused are both her sales
agents on commission basis.
HELD:
Conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of all
accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. The conduct should point to a
joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Conspiracy may be proved
by circumstantial evidence or deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetrated. Here, the spouses referred the main perpetrator to the victim. The perpetrator who
posed as buyer did not even inform the seller who referred him, which is contrary to common
practice.

PEOPLE V. EPIE ARLALEJO

G.R. NO. 127841
The accused was convicted for Robbery with Homicide in an information alleging conspiracy. The
2 accused hoisted the defense of denial and alibi. One of the accused was acquitted and so the
accused questions his conviction because in as much as conspiracy was not proved by the
prosecution, the appellant should likewise be acquitted.
HELD:

By its nature, conspiracy is a joint offense as one person cannot conspire alone. In conspiracy, the
commission of a crime is through the joint act or intent of 2 or more persons. However, there is
nothing irregular with the acquittal of one of the supposed co-conspirators and the conviction of
another. Generally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed as the mere act of
conspiring is not by itself punishable. Hence, it does not follow that one person alone cannot be
convicted when there is a finding of conspiracy. As long as the acquittal of a co-conspirator does
not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense.
In the case at bar, it is incorrect to state that the accused was acquitted because conspiracy was
not proved. The evidence established beyond doubt the existence of conspiracy to rub. However,
the evidence proved only the existence of a conspiracy but not the culpability of the appellant.
The trial court noted that the victims had no sufficient opportunity to recognize the acquitted
accused. The evaluation of evidence reveals that the same is true insofar as the appellant is
concerned.

PEOPLE V. DOMINADOR HISTORILLO

G.R. NO. 130408
Appellant was convicted for raping his 12 year old daughter and was sentenced to death. Appeal
assails the criminal complaint which was not under oath and is therefore void. Also, prosecution
failed to establish the use of force in the occasion of the crime. Further, the penalty of death was
also questioned as the information does not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with
the offender.
HELD:
A complaint presented by a private person when not sworn by him is not necessarily void. The
want of an oath is a mere defect of form which does not affect the substantial rights of the
defendant on the merits. The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving the
resistance where there is intimidation. Moreover, in a crime of rape committed by a father
against his own daughter, the fathers moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes
for violence or intimidation.
Age and relationship are special qualifying circumstances that changes the nature of simple rape
by producing a qualified form punishable by death. Since the charge of rape in the complaint is
not in its qualified form so as to fall under the special qualifying circumstance stated in section 11
of RA 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

PEOPLE V. ROBERTO ESTRADA

G.R. NO. 130487

Accused was convicted for murder and sentenced to death. Defense interposed insanity with
proof of his history of mental illness filed for suspension of arraignment and suspension of
proceedings. Both were denied without subjecting accused to mental examination.
HELD:
Case remanded for the conduct of a proper mental examination to determine competency to
stand trial. By depriving appellant of mental examination, the trial court effectively deprived
appellant of a fair trial and the proceedings before the court are therefore nullified. He who
invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance must prove it by clear and positive evidence. The
absence of direct proof however, does not entirely discount the probability that accused was not
of sound mind at that time. In passing the question of the propriety of suspending the
proceedings, the test is found in the question whether the accused would have a fair trial with the
assistance which the law secures or gives. There are 2 distinct matters to be determined under
this test (1) whether the defendant is sufficiently coherent to provide his counsel with information
necessary or relevant to constructing a defense and (2) whether he is able to comprehend the
significance of the trial and his relation to it.
The determination of whether a sanity investigation or hearing should be ordered rests generally
in the discretion of the trial court. In the case, the trial court took it solely upon itself to
determine the sanity of the accused. The trial judge however is not a psychiatrist or psychologist
or some other expert equipped with the specialized knowledge of determining the state of a
persons mental health. The court should have at least ordered the examination of the accused,
especially in the light of the latters history of mental item.

PEOPLE V. VENANCIO FRANCISCO

G.R. NO. 130490
Accused was convicted of murder and slight physical injuries. The trial court imposed penalty of
reclusion temporal maximum to reclusion perpetua medium. In imposing the penalty, the trial
court applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law stating that RA 7659 (An act to impose the death
penalty on certain heinous crimes) made the penalty of reclusion perpetua divisible.
HELD:
Notwithstanding RA 7659, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua remains an indivisible penalty.
Although RA 7659 has fixed the duration of reclusion perpetua to 20 years and 1 day to 40 years,
there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It
remains as an indivisible penalty.

PEOPLE V. MARCELO NAVA JR.

G.R. NO. 130509-12
Accused was convicted of 4 counts of rape of his 13 year old daughter. The information does not
allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender. He was sentenced to death
and made to pay civil indemnity only.
HELD:
Crime is only simple rape since the information does not allege the age of victim and her
relationship with he offender. Civil indemnity 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. An award of
50,000 as moral damages for each of the counts of rape is granted in recognition of the victims
injury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of
rape and to warrant per se an award of moral damages.

PEOPLE VS ROMEO ARILLAS

G.R. NO. 130593
Accused was convicted for raping his 16 year old daughter. He was sentenced to death despite the
fact that the information does not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the
offender.
HELD:
When the age and the relationship are not alleged in the information, such should not be
considered as special qualifying circumstances that will change the nature of simple rape and
punish offender with the penalty of death. If the qualifying circumstance is not alleged but
proved, it shall only be considered as an aggravating circumstance. It is a denial of the right of an
accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him and consequently a denial of
due process if he is convicted of a crime in its qualified form notwithstanding the fact that the
information on which he was arraigned charges him only of the crime in its simple form by not
specifying the circumstance that qualifies the crime.

PEOPLE V. ANGEL RIOS

G.R. NO. 132632

Accused was convicted of murder. The crime was preceded by a heated argument. The accused
left and came back minutes after the altercation and stabbed victim at the latters terrace.
HELD:
Homicide and not murder. Treachery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Qualifying and
aggravating circumstances before being taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the
degree of the penalty to be imposed must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as that
which establishes the commission of the act charged as a criminal offense. Dwelling was correctly
considered aggravating. The word dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms
part thereof.

PEOPLE V. JOEL TANEZA

G.R. NO. 121668
Accused was convicted of murder for shooting a bakery delivery man. The victim was brought to
the hospital and subjected to an operation. He was interviewed and he named the accused as his
assailant. He died a day after giving his statement.
HELD:
The statement was considered as a dying declaration and is admissible in evidence as part of the
res gestae. The requirements for the admissibility of an ante-mortem statement are: (1) it must
concern the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarants death; (2) at the time it
was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death; (3) the declarant was
competent as a witness; (4) the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or
parricide in which the decedent was the victim. Although it may not be ascertained from the
written statement whether the victim was speaking with a consciousness of impending death, the
degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death supervened shortly afterwards may
be considered as substantial evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full
realization that he was in a dying condition.

PEOPLE V. WILSON DREU

G.R. NO. 126282
Accused was convicted of rape. He interposed the defense that he and the victim was
sweethearts. He offered marriage but was rejected.
HELD:

The sweethearts defense cannot be appreciated as the defense failed to come up with
convincing proof. Indeed, the accused bears the burden of proving that he and the complainant
had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship. The guilt of the accused was also
established by the fact that he offered marriage to the complainant after the incident was
reported to the authorities. As a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage is an admission of guilt.

PEOPLE V. PATROLMAN DOMINGO BELBES

G.R. NO. 124670
Accused was convicted of murder. He interposed self-defense and that he acted in the fulfillment
of a duty.
HELD:
Self defense cannot be appreciated. Where the accused admits to killing the victim in self
defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him. For a person not to incur criminal liability when he
acts in the fulfillment of a duty, 2 requisites must concur: (1) that the offender acted in the
performance of a duty; (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of
the due performance of such right or office. However, second requisite here was not proved since
killing need not be a necessary consequence of his duty.

PEOPLE V. JOHNNY DELA CRUZ

G.R. NO. 133921
Accused was convicted of rape. The charge was filed 12 years after the alleged incident, when
the victim was already 20 years old.
HELD:
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. In rape
cases, the testimony of the complainant must stand or fall on its own merits and should never be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense. The long delay of
the complainant in reporting the incident makes it difficult for the court not to have compelling
doubts on the veracity of her episode. Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt not proven.

PEOPLE V. ROLANDO FLORES

G.R. NO. 124977

Accused was convicted of murder. The conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence
because there was no eye witness to the actual killing of the victim.
HELD:
A judgment of conviction based purely on circumstantial evidence can be upheld only if the
following requisites concur: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; (3) the combination of all the circumstances is such as to
produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The corollary rule is that the circumstances proven
must 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.

PEOPLE V. FELIPE HOFILENA

G.R. NO. 134772
Accused was convicted of raping a 12 year old girl. The accused interposed alibi as defense.
HELD:
When a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility,
the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. In the absence of strong and convincing
evidence, alibi could not prevail over the positive testimony of the victim, who had no improper
motive to testify falsely against him.

PEOPLE V. HENRY FLORES

G.R. NO. 116794
Accused was convicted of murder. Only one eyewitness was presented.
HELD:
The testimony of a single witness, if credible and positive, is sufficient to produce a conviction.

PEOPLE V. HERMOGENES FLORA

G.R. NO. 125909

The 2 accused (Hermogenes and Edwin) were convicted for the murder of Emerita and Ireneo and
the attempted murder of Flor. The 2 were found to have conspired to kill Ireneo. However,
during the commission of the crime, Emerita was also killed and Flor hit by a bullet.
HELD:
Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts done
outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical
consequence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. Evidence only shows
conspiracy to kill Ireneo and no one else. Hence, both can be convicted for the murder of Ireneo.
However, only Hermogenes who fired at Emerita and Flor can be convicted for the murder of
Emerita and Flor respectively.

PEOPLE V. EDDY PANEZA

G.R. NO. 131829
The 3 accused were convicted of highway robbery. They assert that they cannot be convicted of
highway robbery as the crime was not committed by at least 4 persons as required in Article 306 of
the Revised Penal Code.
HELD:
Highway robbery is now governed by PD No. 532, otherwise known as Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974. It is no longer required that there be at least 4 armed persons forming a
band of robbers. The no. of offenders is no longer an essential element of the crime of highway
robbery. PD 532 only requires proof that persons were organized for the purpose of committing
highway robbery indiscriminately. The robbery must be directed not only against specific,
intended or preconceived victims but against any and all prospective victims.

PEOPLE V. JUDGE ESTRELLA ESTRADA

G.R. NO. 124461
Motion for the return of seized goods on the ground that the warrant was illegal. Further, the
seized medicines were found genuine but were only illegally imported.
HELD:
Even if the medicines were genuine if the seller has no permit from the appropriate government
agency, the drugs or medicines cannot be returned although the search warrant was declared
illegal.

PEOPLE V. MARIANO AUSTRIA

G.R. NO. 123539
Accused, 82 years old at the time of the commission of the offense, was convicted of the crime of
rape. He raises as defense the 2 week delay in reporting the offense and his alleged impotency.
HELD:
Delay or vacillation in criminal accusations do not necessarily impair the complainants credibility
if such delay is satisfactorily explained. It is not uncommon to conceal rape because of rapists
threats to life, fear of public humiliation and lack of courage. Silence is not an odd behavior of a
rape victim. The presumption is always in favor of potency. Impotency is considered an abnormal
condition and should not be presumed. The doctors testimony stated that his sex organ was
diseased but never was there even a hint that accused was impotent. The trial court also
observed that accused was still strong, agile and capable of committing the sexual act and
seriously doubts that he is 82 years old.

PEOPLE V. ABDULAJID SABDANI

G.R. NO. 134262
The accused was convicted of murder. He interposed self-defense as defense.
HELD:
The accused who invokes self-defense admits authorship of the killing and therefore the burden of
proof shifts to him who must then establish with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of
self-defense. Accused failed to prove unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression presupposes not
merely a threatening/intimidating attitude, but an actual and sudden attack or an imminent
danger thereof, which imperils ones life or limb. In the case at bar, there was no sign that victim
was armed other than the fact that his hands were tucked inside his shirt. Accused did not
ascertain whether victim was really armed, or warn him to drop his weapon.

PEOPLE V. ROLANDO TABANGGAY

G.R. NO. 130504
Accused was convicted of raping his 2 minor children. He was sentenced to suffer the supreme
penalty of death.

HELD:
Penalty reduced to reclusion perpetua. The victims minority was not sufficiently proved. In
accusations involving incestuous rape, the relationship of the accused with the offended party as
well as the latters age must be alleged in the information and proven by the prosecution with
competent evidence during their trial. A bare photocopy of the victims birth certificate which is
neither certified nor offered formally in evidence is not sufficient proof of the victims age.

PEOPLE V. PEPE LOZADA

G.R. NO. 130589
As Danilo Morin and his cousin were walking one evening, Lozada followed from behind and shot
Morin to death. Lozada was convicted of murder appreciating treachery as a qualifying
circumstance.
HELD:
Affirmed. There was treachery since Morin was unsuspectingly shot from behind. The essence of
treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim,
depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission without
risk to himself. The 2 conditions for treachery to be considered as qualifying circumstance are:
(1) employment of means, methods and manner of execution to ensure the safety of the
malefactor from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim; (2) and the deliberate adoption of
such means, methods and manner of execution.

PEOPLE V. ARMANDO REANZARES

G.R. NO. 130656
Accused was held guilty of highway robbery with homicide. Accused interposed alibi as defense.
He questions credibility of witness.
HELD:
For alibi to be believed it must be shown that: (a) the accused was in another place at the time of
the commission of the offense; and (b) it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime
scene. This was not shown here. However, he cannot be held liable for highway robbery.
Conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were organized for the
purpose of committing it indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case that the accused
and his cohorts organized themselves to commit highway robbery. Neither is there proof that they

attempted to commit robbery as to show the indiscriminate perpetration thereof. On the other
hand, what the prosecution established was only a single act of depredation is not what is
contemplated under PD 532 as its objective is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit
acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who
travel from one place to another.
Accused should be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide as the
allegation in the information are enough to convict him therefore.

PEOPLE V. REYNALDE LAZARTE

G.R. NO. 130711
Accused was convicted of the crime of murder. Accused interposed self-defense.
HELD:
In instances where an accused acknowledges full responsibility for the death of the victim but
claims self-defense, the burden of evidence is transferred to the accused to prove that his taking
of a life was justified and that he did not incur any criminal liability for the same. In order that
he may be acquitted, the accused must prove that the 3 circumstances are present, namely: (a)
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 accused. Unlawful
aggression was not proven. The alleged revolver used by the victim was not even presented in
evidence. Further, accused did not even voluntarily surrender and opted to remain silent about
the incident. A person claiming self-defense would have reported the incident to the police as he
has nothing to hide.
As to civil liability, aside from the ordinary indemnity of P50,000 accused is obliged to compensate
the heirs of the victim for the latters lose of earning capacity and pay the heirs of the victim
moral damages for the mental anguish suffered by them.

PEOPLE V. ERNESTO SANTOS

G.R. NO. 131103 & 143472
Accused was found guilty of 2 counts of rape of his 14 year old daughter. The information alleges
that the crime was committed on or about sometime in 1988 and 1989. He avers that such
allegations are indefinite and have deprived him of the right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him.

HELD:
It is too late for the accused to question the form or substance of the information in these cases
since he did not move to quash the information before he was arraigned. Further, in the crime of
rape, the date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime.

PEOPLE V. PACITA ORDONO

G.R. NO. 132154
The 2 accused were convicted of the special complex crime of rape with homicide attended with
conspiracy on the bases of their extra judicial confession. An interview with a radio announcer
was also done where the 2 accused accepted responsibility for the crime. They now assail their
conviction as their confession was attended by infirmities i.e. mainly the lack of counsel to assist
them during custodial investigation.
HELD:
The absence of counsel renders the extra judicial confession inadmissible. The presence of the
mayor, municipal judge and the family of the accused during the confession did not cure the
defect. However, statements spontaneously made by a suspect to a news reporter on televised
interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. By analogy, statements made by
herein accused to a radio announcer should likewise be held admissible. The interview was not in
the nature of an investigation, and thus, the uncounselled confession did not violate accuseds
constitutional rights.

PEOPLE V. BENIDO ALCARTADO

G.R. NO. 132379-82
The 2 accused, stepfather and step grandfather of the victim, were convicted of rape and
sentenced to suffer supreme penalty of death. The information, however, does not allege the
relationship of the accused with the victim.
HELD:
The absence of the allegation of relationship in the information converted the crime to simple
rape which is not punishable by death. Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the
indictment. If the same are not pleaded, but are proved, they shall be considered only as
aggravating circumstances.

PEOPLE V. ARNOLD RATUNIL

G.R. NO. 137270
The accused was convicted of the crime of rape with the use of force. Accused used sweetheart
defense. He presented a letter written by the victim asking for money from the accused since she
was leaving town.
HELD:
In a rape case, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with great caution, for the crime is
usually known only to her and to her rapist. The dubious behavior of the alleged victim after the
rape detracts from her credibility and creates reasonable doubt that may lead to the acquittal of
the accused. Conviction always rests on the strength of the prosecutions evidence, never on the
weakness of that of the defense.

PEOPLE V. EDISON ARELLANO

G.R. NO. 122477
Accused was convicted of murder. He assails credibility of the witnesses.
HELD:
Positive identification, where categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill-motive on the
part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over alibi and denial which if not
substantiated by clear and convincing evidence are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving
of weight in law. However, appellant should be convicted of homicide not murder since treachery
was not established. Appellants stabbing of the victim was done on an impulse. As appellant did
not consciously adopt the means of attack, treachery cannot be appreciated.
As regards the monetary award, aside from the civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000 in
accordance with Art. 2206 of the Civil Code, the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the
earning capacity of the deceased and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter; such
indemnity shall be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of
permanent and physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the
time of award. The amount of loss of earning capacity is based mainly on 2 factors: (1) the
number of years of which the damages shall be computed; and (2) the rate at which the losses
sustained by the respondent should be fixed.