Amployo vs.

People
Facts:
Alvin Amployo was charged with violation of RA 7610 or Child Abuse. Private complainant
Kristine Joy alleged that one morning, while she was walking to school, Alvin approached her
and placed his hand on her shoulder where it went down to her breast. Kristine Joy told her
grandmother about it. Along with her mother and grandmother, they went to DSWD to report the
incident. The latter filed a complaint with the RTC. The latter rendered decision finding Alvin
Amployo guilty of the crime charged. CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Amployo contends
that the element of lewd design was not sufficiently proven. Furthermore, he posits that even if
lewd design was sufficiently proved, he must only be charged for the offense of Acts of
Lasciviousness and not Child Abuse.

Issue:
Whether or not Alvin Ampayo is guilty of Child Abuse under RA 7610?

Held:
Yes. The term 'lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene. It is characterized
by or intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste
design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts
carrying out such intention. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature
of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.

In the present case it would have been easy to entertain the possibility that what happened was
merely an accident if it only happened once. Such is not the case, however, as Alvin Ampayo did

the very same act to Kristine Joy in the past. As to Alvins argument that human experience
negates the presence of lewd design as Kristine Joy had no developed breasts with which to
entice him, human experience has taught us painfully well that sexual misconduct defies
categorization and what might be an unusual, unlikely or impossible sexual conduct for most
might very well be the norm for some.

Pursuant to Sec. 5 of RA 7610, before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through
lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness
under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under
Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7610. Thus, Alvin Ampayo is guilty for the crime of Child Abuse
because the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of acts of lasciviousness.

People vs. Marianito Monteron

FACTS:
On March 7, 1996 at 12;00 pm, fifteen year-old Mary Ann Martenez was walking home from
Wangon National Agricultural School, Davao City. While she was walking on a secluded portion
of the road, Mary Ann was hit on the head by a slingshot. She turned to see where the stone came
from and was hit again on the mouth which led her to fall down unconscious. When Mary Ann
regained her consciousness, she found herself lying on the grass naked with the accused
Monetron lying on top of her, also naked. She struggled but accused restrained her. Thereafter,
the accused placed his penis on top of her vagina, which caused her to feel pain. Mary Ann
frantically grabbed his erect penis which caused him to stand up in pain and her to escape.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is guilty of consummated rape.

Held:
Accused is guilty of rape in its attempted stage. This could be clearly deduced by the petitioners
testimony that the accused only placed his penis on top of her vagina. In the case at bar, accused
has commenced the commission of the rape directly by undressing himself and the victim and

lying on top of her, but he did not perform all the acts of execution which should consummate
the crime of rape because of the victims own violent resistance.

People v. Perez Case Digest

People v. Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998
FACTS:
Accused-appellant was charged for rape. The information alleged that the victim was his
stepdaughter but did not allege that the victim was only 13 years old at the time of the rape.
During arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the accusation against him. During trial it was
proved that the victim was the stepdaughter of the accused and was in fact 13 years old at the time
the crime of rape was committed. Accused was then convicted of qualified rape and was meted out
the penalty of death.
ISSUE: WON an accused may be convicted of qualified rape when the information alleged only
simple rape?
HELD: NO. Citing People vs. Garcia, the court held that 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 and be convicted of its qualified form punishable

by death, although the attendant circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital
punishment was not alleged in the indictment on which he was arraigned. Procedurally, then,
while the minority of Maribel and the relationship of appellant and his victim were established during
the trial, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape because he cannot be punished for a graver
offense than that with which he was charged.
Under the rules of criminal procedure, a qualifying circumstance to be considered as such must
be so alleged in the information, which is not required of aggravating circumstances.
The requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of
the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charge against him, so that be may adequately
prepare for this defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.

People vs. Collado

Facts:
Messeah confronted her mother about the sexual abuses she sustained from her distant cousin,
accused Jessie Ventura Collado who also lives with them in one roof. Since Messeahs father was
a seaman, their children were left in the care of Jessie. Messeah recounted four occasions where
she was molested. The first of which happened on 27 April 1993 when Jessie tied her on the bed
and attempted to insert his penis to her vagina. When he was unsuccessful, he then inserted the
same to her anus.

The second instance happened on 5 June 1993 when Messeah was grabbed by Jessie and dragged
her upstairs. He told her to take off her shorts and panties, took off his shorts, pressed her legs
apart with his two (2) legs, and rubbed his penis against her thighs, until it touched her vagina.

On 7 July 1993, the third molestation occurred when Messeah and her brother Metheor were
again left home with Jessie. Armed with a knife, Jessie forced Messeah to sit on a chair. He took
off her shorts and underwear and spread her legs. He inserted and rubbed his penis between her
thighs until it touched her vagina.

Another similar incident happened on 17 October 1993. While, Messeah was changing her
clothes, Jessie entered the room and inserted his smallest finger into her vagina. He then
removed his pants and briefs and went on top of her but his penis was not able to touch her
vagina because Messeah cried for help and Metheor came and told Jessie to get away.

After Messeahs parents learned about their daughters ordeal they decided to file complaints
against him for one (1) count of consummated rape and three (3) counts of acts of lasciviousness.
RTC rendered decision holding Jessie liable for statutory rape and 3 counts of acts of
lasciviousness.

Issue:

Whether or not Jessie should be held liable for acts of lasciviousness and statutory rape?

Held:
The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of three (3) counts of acts of
lasciviousness. However, RTC erred in sentencing him guilty for statutory rape because he
should only be convicted for acts of lasciviousness.

While Jessie succeeded in touching her genitalia with his private parts there was no indication
that it successfully penetrated at least the labia of the victim.

We recall that during the first incident of 27 April 1993, accused-appellant tried forcing
his penis into her vagina, but when he failed in his first attempt, he inserted it into her anus
instead. This could have been attempted rape, or even consummated rape but the Complaint
filed was only for acts of lasciviousness. By then he must have realized that it was difficult to
penetrate his victims sex organ. Touching of the female organ will result in consummated rape
if the penis slid into or touched either labia of the pudendum. Anything short of that will only
result in either attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness.

Dulla vs. Court of Appeals (326 SCRA 32)

Facts:

An information for rape was filed against Nicanor Dulla. During the trial, it was established that
three year old Andrea Ortega came home crying with bruises on her thighs saying that his uncle
showed his penis to her. In her own words she said inaano ako ni uncle while doing a pumping
motion on her lower body. The medical report on Andrea showed that her hymen was still intact.
Based on the foregoing evidence, the trial court found petitioner guilty of acts of lasciviousness
and not of rape.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of acts of lasciviousness and if so, whether or not he should
be convicted for the said crime even though the information alleged against him is for rape?

Decision:

Yes. The trial court correctly convicted petitioner of acts of lasciviousness. Andrea told the court
that petitioners penis was never inserted in her vagina, nor was there even a touching of her
external organ by petitioners penis. There could, therefore, be no rape.

Andrea Ortega recounted the event while she was on witness stand and was given full credence
by the trial court. The lewd design of petitioner is evident and, although the information filed
was for the crime of rape, he can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because the latter is
necessarily included in rape.

PEOPLE v. JAVIER
Auto Review of decision of RTC of Agoo, La Union
Facts:
Dec 1954: Accused-appellant Eduardo Javier was married to Florentina Laceste. They begot 10
children. On June 96, after 41 yrs of marriage, Javier admitted killing his wife.

Testimonies of SPO1 Rotelio Pacho, a desk investigator, and Consolacion Javier Panit & Alma
Javier, daughters of the sps:
Between 23am, Consolacion, who lived 10-15m. away, heard her mom shouting, your father is
going to kill me! (translated from local dialect). She ran outside & met her sister Alma who
was weeping & informed her of their parents quarrel. Together, they went to their brother
Manuels house, about 70-80m. away from their parents house.
Upon reaching the latter, Manuel, who entered first, found the lifeless body of his mother in their
bedroom and his father, wounded in the abdomen.
Their father, Eduardo, confessed to son Manuel that he killed his wife and thereafter stabbed
himself.
April 1997: RTC held Javier guilty of the crime of parricide and sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of death, and to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of PhP50K as moral
damages and PhP21,730 as actual expenses.
In his appeal, Javier claims he killed his wife because he was suffering from insomnia for a
month and at the time of the killing, his mind went totally blank and he did not know what he
was doing. He claims that he was insane then.

Issues and Held:

1.WON accused-appellant Javier can claim mitigating circumstances of illness and of passion
and obfuscation
No to both. On illness, since Javier has already admitted to the killing, it is incumbent upon him
to prove the claimed mitigating circumstance. OSG found no sufficient evidence or medical
finding to support his claim. For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be
appreciated, the law requires the presence of the ff requisites:

Illness must diminish the exercise of the willpower of the offender, and
Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.

For the circumstance of passion and obfuscation of the offender to be appreciated, the law
requires the presence of the ff requisites:
There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind, and
Such act w/c produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by
a considerable length of time, during w/c the perpetrator might recover his moral equanimity.

The defense never presented any medical record of the accused nor was a psychiatrist presented
to validate the defense of insanity. None of the elements-requisites were proved to be present &
in his testimony, Javier even stated that he was not jealous of his wife. Equally important, the
defense, during the trial, never alleged the above-claimed mitigating circumstances of illness &
passion & obfuscation, thus weakening the case of accused-appellant. The alleged mitigating
circumstances are mere afterthought to whittle (to shape) down his criminal liability.

2.WON he should be sentence to suffer a lower penalty

Yes. The crime of parricide, not being a capital crime per se is not punishable by mandatory
death penalty but by the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, two indivisible penalties.
The application of the lesser of greater penalty depends on the presence of mitigating and
aggravating circumstances. Thus, in the absence of any aggravating or mitigating circumstance
for the accused, the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.

Holding: Appealed decision affirmed w/ modification. Javier to suffer reclusion perpetua and
PhP50K imposed as civil indemnity instead of moral damages.

NOTES: There is passional obfuscation when the crime is committed due to an uncontrollable
burst of passion so provoked by prior unjust or improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus so
powerful as to overcome reason.

PEOPLE vs. MANANSALA

Facts:
Accused-appellant Dante Manansala y Lumibao, is the father of herein complainant Jennifer
Manansala. He was a taho vendor. He lived in the taho factory located at Tondo, Manila,
after separating from Jennifers mother with whom he had lived in common law relation.
Complainant Jennifer, lodge a complaint before the RTC Manila for several counts of rape
against her father from November 1-8, 1991.
Per complainants direct testimony, she averred that her father called for her through a niece
named Josephine. When she came, she was taken by her father to the taho factory in Tondo,
where she was ordered to proceed to a room on the upper floor of the factory. Accused-appellant
undressed himself, spat at her vagina, took out his penis and put it inside her private part and
then proceeded to do the sexual act. As Jennifer described the incident, Dinuraan po niya ang
harap ko at pinilit niya pong ipasok ang kanya sa akin. Minumura niya ako. She saw a white
sticky substance coming out of her fathers sexual organ as the latter pulled it from her vagina.
After her ordeal, she said she was sent home. on November 2, 3, 4 6, 7 and 8 she was summoned
again by her father and was also repeatedly subjected to the same sexual torture on said dates,

brought her to said taho factory. She reported the incident to her mother several times but was
told that she was taking time before taking action against him.
However, on her cross examination, Jennifer changed her statement as to the place of the alleged
rape, only the November 1 transpired at taho factory in Tondo and the rest in Tarlac. She
reasoned that such change was due to jurisdictional issue. She was just afraid her complaints
might be dismissed for improper venue. She further mentioned that her father gave her money
every time they had sexual intercourse. Medico-legal officer also testified that Jennifer was no
longer a virgin at the time of the examination and that it was possible for her to have been raped..
Accused-appellant denied the accusations against him. He interposed that the complaint was
merely orchestrated by his wife due to an ulterior motive against him. However, trial court found
him guilty of having raped his daughter in the taho factory in Tondo on November 1, 1991.
The rest of the rapes allegedly committed in Tarlac were all dismissed by the court for lack of
jurisdiction.

Issue:
Whether accused-appellants conviction for rape be sustained.
Held:

No, accused-appellants conviction for rape cannot be sustained.The prosecution must stand or
fall on its own evidence; it cannot draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the
defense. Prosecutions evidence is not only shot through with inconsistencies and contradictions,
it is also improbable. If complainant had been raped on November 1, 1991, the Court cannot
understand why she went with her father to Tarlac on November 2 and stayed there with him
until November 14, 1991. She was supposed to have gone through a harrowing experience at the
hands of her father but the following day and for thirteen more days after that she stayed with

him. It is true the medico-legal examination conducted on November 17, 1991 showed that she
was no longer a virgin and that she had had recent sexual intercourse. But the fact that she had
voluntarily gone with her father to Tarlac suggests that the crime was not rape but, quite possibly
qualified seduction, considering the age of complainant (14 at the time of the crime). This is
especially true because she said she had been given money by her father every time they had an
intercourse. But, considering the allegations in the complaint that the rape in this case was
committed by means of force, violence and intimidation, accused-appellant cannot possibly be
convicted of qualified seduction without offending his constitutional rights to due process to be
informed of the accusation against him. That charge does not include qualified seduction.
Neither can qualified seduction include rape. Hence accused-appellants ACQUITTAL on the
ground of reasonable doubt is in order.

PEOPLE vs. SUBINGSUBING

Facts:
Complainant Mary Jane Espilan, 16 years old, was living with her grandmother. She was then a
high school student while the accused, Napoleon Subingsubing, is her uncle, the brother of her
mother and the son of her grandmother. Said accused was then living also with her grandmother,
hence, he and her were then living under the same roof.
On Nov. 25, 1989, at 1:00 P.M., Mary Jane and Napoleon were alone in the house, the
grandmother having gone to the fields. When Mary Jane was about to go to school, Napoleon

forcibly pulled her to the bedroom of the grandmother, pointed his Garand rifle at her, then
punched her in the stomach rendering her unconscious. After regaining senses, she noticed her
vagina was bloody. She felt pain in her private parts and is quite certain she was raped. The
accused who was then standing outside the room warned her not to tell anybody what happened
or else he will kill her. Hence Mary Jane did not report the incident to anybody.

Issue:
Whether accuseds guilt for two counts of Rape be sustained.

Held:
NO, accuseds guilt cannot be sustained. Complainants testimony discloses contradictions and
inconsistencies on vital details which lead one to seriously doubt the veracity of her story. By his
admission that of having sexual intercourse with complainant when the latter was only 16 years
of age, living with him in the same house and his niece, Qualified Seduction was undoubtedly
committed by him. It is the act of having carnal knowledge of a virgin over 12 years to 18 years
of age and committed by any person in public authority, priest, home-servant, domestic,
guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education and
custody of the woman seduced. Abuse of confidence is the qualifying circumstance in the
offense. Notably, among the persons who can commit qualified seduction is a "domestic". It
pertains to persons usually living under the same roof, pertaining to the same house, and
constituting, in the sense, a part thereof, distinguishing it from the term servant whereby a person
serving another on a salary is designated. Hence, conviction for Qualified Seduction is proper
since complainant established that the accused, her uncle, who was living with her in the same
house, had sexual intercourse with her, took advantage of his moral ascendancy if not dominance
over her, presumably, she was a virgin and the accused was a domestic in relation to her within
the meaning of Art. 337 of the RPC. Hence, accused is convicted of the crime of QUALIFIED
SEDUCTION instead of RAPE.

People v. Alvarez (G.R. No. L-34644)

Facts:

On June 6, 1969, Loreta T. dela Concepcion, a 13-year old girl, was raped by
her brother-in-law, Nicanor Alvarez.
Loreta narrated that the accused raped her in the presence of her sister (wife of
the accused) while they were sleeping in the sala. Loreta resisted but she was not able
to shout because she was allegedly weak and tired. She told the incident to her sister
the following morning but the latter did not pay heed. She eventually got pregnant and a
child was born.
An Information was filed. The trial court found the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of rape or quite possibly, of the crime of
qualified seduction?
Decision:
SC acquitted the accused for the crime of rape but charged him of the crime of
qualified seduction, the elements of which were included in the facts alleged in the
Information.
Viewed from human observation and experience not even a confirmed sex
maniac would dare do his thing before the eyes of strangers, how much more for a
healthy husband before the eyes of his very wife? Then, again, testimony that her sister
before whose very eyes the alleged raping incident took place did not lift a finger to her,
mocks at human sensibility. In the natural course of things, this piece of evidence is
repugnant to common experience and observation in that the natural reaction wife
would be that of righteous indignation rather than passive [acquiescence] and the

natural response of a sister would be to protect the virtue of a younger sister from abuse
of her husband.
Our criminal law is not susceptible to such a reproach, it being clear from the
information that the elements of the crime of qualified seduction were included in the
facts alleged. He cannot be heard to complain thereafter that he is entitled to complete
acquittal. As a matter of fact, in his defense, rightfully given credence by us, he did
admit his having taken advantage of an inexperienced adolescent, the younger sister of
his wife, to whom he ought to have been bound by the closest ties of affinity,
considering also, as testified to by him, how close she felt towards him.
In the case of People v. Fontanilla, it is said that when the offender is a public
officer, a priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or under any title is in
charge of the education or keeping of the offended woman, as in the present case, the
act is punishable although fraud or deceit may not have been used or, if employed, has
not been proved. The seduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years of age,
committed by any of the persons enumerated in art. 337 is constitutive of the crime of
qualified seduction, even though no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal
knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin, because in such a case, the law
takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of the said crime
and punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple seduction, taking into
account the abuse of confidence on the part of the agent (culprit), an abuse of
confidence which implies deceit or fraud.
As early as 1908, in the leading case of United States v. Arlante, the penalty for
qualified seduction was rightfully visited on an accused whose conduct was similar to
the appellant. The facts, as set forth in the very able opinion of no less than Chief
Justice Arellano, reads as follows: "That the accused had carnally abused two orphan
girls, relatives of his wife, who were sheltered in his house; that they respectively gave
birth to a boy and a girl, one of them on the 5th of November, 1905, this being the one
who files the complaint for seduction, and the other on the 15th of October of the same
year, the latter appearing in the case as a witness for the prosecution x x x x And even

though the accused were not, as a matter of fact, in charge of the keeping of the
offended girl, it is beyond doubt that, as she was a domestic, the crime is included
within paragraph 1 of said article. 'Upon the word domestic being employed in said legal
provision segregating it from that of a servant, the term is applied to persons usually
living under the same roof, pertaining to the same house, and constituting, in this sense,
a part thereof, distinguishing it from the term servant whereby a person serving another
on a salary is designated; in this manner, it has been properly used."
Nothing remains to be added except that in a situation like the present, where, in
keeping with Filipino mores, a younger sister is called upon to be of help to those ahead
of her and to stay, even if intermittently, in the latter's house, especially so after marital
ties are formed and children born, may give rise to situations of this character
considering that among the poorer elements of our society, all the members of a family
are huddled together within briefest confines, and insistence on personal modesty and
privacy is practically out of the question. If the ascendancy of a brother-in-law, instead,
were used for moral purposes, then, certainly, there is more than a justification for
adherence to the view first announce in the landmark Arlante decision that thereby the
offense qualified seduction was in fact committed.

People v Pascua

Facts:
On four separate incidents and as early as August 1995, accused-appelant Hipolito Pascua, a 65year old man, had succeeded in having sexualintercourse twice with Liza Paragas and also twice
with her twin sister Anna, bothof whom were of 12 years of age then. On said four separate
incidents, accused-appellant would always call on the twins while they were playing in front of
his house; instruct them to go inside his house; and once inside order them to take off their pants
and insert his penisinside their vaginas, while threatening them not to scream for he would kill
them. After his sexual advances, he would give them money from P5 to P10 and threaten them
again not to tell their mother about what happened or he would killthem. Fearing for their lives,
the twins did not tell their mother about what happened. It was only when their older sister,
Rosalina, had told their mother about it, based on the confession of accusedappellants granddaughter who saw him rape Liza, had she learned of the incidents. Wasting no
time and propelled by her rage of what she had learned, their mother filed four separate
complaints for rape against accused-appellant. Thiswas after she had her twins physically
examined by a doctor who, based on hisfindings, confirmed that the twins were indeed sexuallyabused. The trial court found accused-appellant guilty of all the charges, sentencedhim with the

penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered him to pay each twin withP100,000 as indemnity for
moral damages. On appeal, appellant, maintained and consistently argued that the intercourse he
had with twins were all consensual and that the complainants in fact, would always visit him at
his house asking for money and sexual satisfaction. He further argued that if any, he would, be
only held liable for simpleseduction.

Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellant may be held liable for the crime of rape even if allegedly he
did not employ force in order to have sexual intercourse withthe twins? Whether or not he is
liable for simple seduction?

Held:
Yes. It is clear from the foregoing testimony that private complainants tried toscream but the
appellant prevented them by threatening to kill them. Also, after each rape incident, private
complainants were warned by the appellant not to telltheir mother what happened to them. It is
settled that a rape victim is not requiredto resist her attacker unto death. Force, as an element of
rape, needs not beirresistible; it need only be present and so long as it brings about the
desiredresult, all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside thepoint.
Indeed, physical resistance need not be established in rape when, as inthis case, intimidation was
used on the victim and she submitted to the rapists lust for fear of her life or her personal safety.
Jurisprudence holds that eventhough a man lays no hand on a woman, yet, if by an array of
physical forces, he so overpowers her mind that she does not resist or she ceases

resistancethrough fear of greater harm, the consummation of unlawful intercourse by theman is

rape. Without question, the prosecution was able to prove that force or intimidation was actually
employed by the appellant on the two victims to satisfyhis lust. No. Equally untenable is the
argument of the appellant that, if he is at all liable for anything, it should only be for simple
seduction. Under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, to constitute seduction, there must in all
cases be some deceitful promise or inducement. The woman should have yielded because of this
promise or inducement. In this case, the appellant claims that the acts of sexual intercourse with
the private complainants were in exchange for money. He declared that, prior to every sexual
intercourse with Liza and Anna, he would promise them P20. However, aside from his bare
testimony, the appellant presented no proof that private complainants consent was secured by
means of such promise. As aptly opined by the trial court, the money given by the appellant to
private complainants was not intended to lure them to have sex with him. Rather, it was for the
purpose of buying their silence to ensure that nobody discovered his dastardly acts. The evidence
for the prosecution was more than enough to show that the element of voluntariness on the part
of privatecomplainants was totally absent. Liza and Annas respective testimonies established
that the appellant had sexual intercourse with them without their consent and against their will.
Considering that the victims accounts of what the appellant did to them were absolutely credible
and believable, the trial courtcorrectly convicted the appellant of several crimes of rape against
the 12-year-old twins, Liza and Anna Paragas

People v. Teodosio
Facts:
In a complaint filed against defendant-appellant Fernando Carreon, whowas a 4Th year college
student, Elaine Cesar, who was then only 12 years and 6months old, alleged therein that on
December 19, 1985 Fernando raped her against her will. According to her, she did not gave her
consent to said incidentas Fernando gave her soft drinks which made her unconscious and thus
enablehim to succeed in having carnal knowledge with her at the Champion Lodge Innat Sta.
Cruz Manila where she was dragged forcefully by Fernando. Fernando for his part denied in his

answer that she forced her in havingsexual intercourse with him because according to him she
agreed to go and stay with him at Champion Lodge Inn. Based on the record, it was undisputed
that prior to the said incident, Fernando and Elaine were together. Earlier that day he
accompanied her to her Christmas party at her school in Manila Central University in the
morning; went toLuneta Park and took a stroll; thereafter went to Cubao and ate at a fastfoodrestaurant; then she accompanied him to his school at Lyceum where he took
hisexamination; and then finally they went to Champion Lodge Inn where saidincident took
place. After said incident, Elaine told it to her mother who, without wasting time, brought her to
PC Crime Laboratory for a physical examination, the result of which revealed that she had a
fresh laceration on her hymen. Based on said findings, a complaint was filed against Fernando.
After arraignment, Fernando pleaded not guilty. In the meantime during her testimony before the
court, Elaine admitted that she knew Fernando because they were neighbours. She even admitted
that they were sweethearts and that she had given him her photo, at the back of which, she had
her personal message for him. The trial court rendered a decision convicting accused of the
offense charged on appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the assailed decision andimposed upon
defendant the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The case was brought to the Supreme court through
an automatic review.

Issues:
Whether or not the trial court had proven the guilt of defendant for the crime of rape beyond
reasonable doubt? Whether or not defendant may be held liable for the crime of simple
seduction?

Held:
NO. The contradictions in the testimony of Elaine where she attempted toprove that their coition
was involuntary rather than fortify the case of theprosecution, served to demolish the same.
Firstly, while Elaine claimed she was dragged to the hotel, her medicalexamination did not reveal

any contusions on her body showing use of any forceon her. Indeed, if she was under any
compulsion, she could easily have escapedduring the many hours they were together going from
one place to another, but she did not. She was enjoying their tryst. Secondly, if she was really
drugged she should have been given at least a blood and urine test to determine if there were any
remaining chemicals in her system. This was not done. Thirdly, after the incident, Elaine was
composed and was not disturbed at all. She did not show any sign of having had a traumatic
experience. It was only when her mother scolded her that she contrived her story. Fourthly, in
one part of her Sagot Salaysay submitted to the fiscal's office, shesaid she did not accept the
invitation of appellant for them to go to the Luneta. Inanother part thereof, she said she accepted
the same. 6 In court, she said sheagreed to go to the Luneta and thereafter she said she was
forced. She also stated in her Sagot Salaysay that she was only persuaded to give appellant her
photograph and appellant dictated what she wrote thereon. In court she admitted she gave the
photograph to appellant and that appellant did not ask her to write the dedication thereon. Verily,
the foregoing circumstances effectively disprove the theory of force and involuntariness in the
sexual interlude of the two. What is obvious and clear is that these two young lovers, carried by
their mutual desire for each other, in a moment of recklessness, slept together and thus
consummated the fruition of their brief love affair. Appellant cannot be held liable for rape as
there was none committed. It was a consensual affair.NO. Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code
provides:

Art. 338. Simple seduction.

The seduction of a woman who issingle or a widow of good reputation, over twelve but under
eighteen yearsof age, committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by arrestomayor. All the
elements of the offense are present. Frankly

1. Elaine was over 12 and under 18 years of age.2. She is single and of good reputation.3. The
offender had sexual intercourse with her.4. It was committed by deceit. Appellant said he planned
to marry Elaine and for this reason he successfully persuaded her to give up her virginity. This is
the deceit contemplated by law that attended the commission of the offense. Section 4, Rule 120
of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: Sec. 4. Judgment in case of variance between
allegation and proof.

When there is variance between the offense charged in the complaintor information, and that
proved or established by the evidence, and theoffense as charged is included in or necessarily
includes the offenseproved, the accused shall be convicted of the offense proved included inthat
which is charged, or of the offense charged included in that which isproved.

PEOPLE VS. LINING

Facts:
That on or about the 5th day of October 1997, at 1am, more or less, in Sitio Buho,
Barangay Mabuslot, municipality of Pinamalayan Oriental Mindoro, the accused
Gerry Lining and Lian Salvacion, conspiring, confederating and acting in common
accord, with lewd and unchaste design, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously and with threat and intimidation with use of a deadly weapon, forcibly
abduct one Emelina Ornor, 15-year-old girl, towards an unoccupied house and
thereat and pursuant to their criminal conspiracy and motivated with lustful desire,
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously lay with and had carnal knowledge one after the
other of said victim against her will and without her consent, to the damage and
prejudice of the latter. In the commission of the crime, the aggravating
circumstances of nocturnity, use of deadly weapon and abuse of superior strength
are attendant.
Issues:
- Whether the trial court erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
- Whether the trial court erred in imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death.
Held:
Time and again, the straightforward and candid testimony of the Emelina Ornos,
who was crying as she recalled her ordeal before the trial court, is certainly more
credible than the testimonies of the defense witness. Furthermore, alibi is weak in
face of positive identification by the victim of the perpetrator of the offence. A
corroborative testimony is not absolutely necessary. Even women of loose morals
could still be a victim of rape, for the essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a
woman against her will and without her consent. When the rape is committed by
two or more persons, the imposable penalty ranges from reclusion perpetua to
death, however where there is no aggravating circumstance, the lesser should be
imposed.
Wherefore, accused appellant Gerry Lining is found guilty for two counts of rape
and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, he is likewise ordered to
indemnify Emelina Ornos, the sum of 50000.00 as civil indemnity and 50000.00 as
moral damages.

People vs. Egan

Facts:
Lito Egan, alias Akiao, 36 years old, a Manobo was an avid admirer of afellow Manobo, Lenie
Camad, 12 years old. Both are residents of Sitio Salaysay,Marilog, Davao City.On 6 January
1997, the accused appeared from nowhere and forciblydragged and pushed Lenie towards Sition

Dalag, Arakan, Cotabato. He threatenedLenie that he would kill her should the latter resisted.
Jessica, the cousin of Lenie, who witnessed the abduction, informedPalmones Camad, the father
of Lenie regarding the incident. For four (4) months, the datus attempted a customary settlement
of theabduction in accordance with Manobo traditions. In exchange of the hand of Lenie
inmarriage, the accused agreed to give 2 horses to the family of Lenie. When theaccused failed to
fulfill his promise, the father demanded the unconditional return of his daughter to his custody.
Since the amicable settlement was not realized, Akiao forcibly relocated Lenieto Cabalantian,
Kataotao, Bukidnon, where the latter was successfully rescued on15 May 1997. Information for
Forcible Abduction with Rape was filed against the accused. After several warrants of arrest and
attempts to arrest him, he was finally arrested at Arakan, Cotabato.The accused pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged. During the trial, accused tried to prove that he and Lenie had actually
been living together under Manobo rites in the house of her father after he has given the family,
the dowry. The accused allegedly delivered the horse to the father, but was again refused when
the latter increased the number of horses from one to two. The accused concluded that because
he failed to deliver two wild horses, the instant case was filed against him. The trial court
rejected the defenses of the accused and convicted him of forcible abduction with rape. The
accused appealed the decision of the trial court.

Issue
:Between the accused and the victim, whose version is more credible, more plausible and more
trustworthy considering the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime charged?

Held:
All the elements of forcible abduction were proved in this case. The victim who is a young girl
was taken against her will as shown by the fact that at knife-point, she was dragged and taken by
accused-appellant to a place far from her abode. At her tender age, she could not be expected to

physically resist considering the fact that even her companion, Jessica, had to run home to escape
accused- appellants wrath as he brandished a haunting knife.

The evidence likewise shows that the taking of the young victim against her will was done con
miras deshonestas or in furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs. The word lewd is defined as
obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious, lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has
relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on in a wanton manner. Such lewd designs
were established by the prurient and lustful acts which accused-appellant displayed towards the
victim after she was abducted. This element may also be inferred from the fact that while Lenie
was then a naive twelve (12)-year old, accused-appellant was thirty-six (36) years old and
although unmarried was much wiser in the ways of the world than she

Given the straightforward and candid testimony of Lenie and her father Palmones as well as the
absence of any motive to testify falsely against accused-appellant, the logical conclusion is that
there was no improper motive on their part, and their respective testimonies as to facts proving
forcible abduction are worthy of full faith and credit

Accused-appellant would however insist that he and Lenie had been engaged under Manobo
rituals to marry each other and that her companionship was willful and voluntary. Proof of this,
he said, was the alleged dowry of one (1) horse, two (2) pigs, ten (10) sacks of palay, and
P2,000.00, with two (2) wild horses forthcoming, he had given her father in exchange for her
hand in marriage. In moving from one place to another to look for the horses which the old man
Palmones had demanded, it was allegedly only his intention to realize his matrimonial aspiration
with Lenie.

The testimony of the victim negated this contrived posture of accused-appellant which in reality
is simply a variation of the sweetheart defense. If they were, surely, Lenie would not have
jeopardized their relationship by accusing him of having held her against her will and molesting
her and, on top of it all, by filing a criminal charge against him. If it had been so, Lenie could
have easily told her father after the latter had successfully traced their whereabouts that nothing
untoward had happened between her and the accused. Her normal reaction would have been to
cover-up for the man she supposedly loved and with whom she had a passionate affair. But, on
the contrary, Lenie lost no time in denouncing accused-appellant and exposing to her family and
the authorities the disgrace that had befallen her. If they had indeed been lovers, Lenie's father
would not have shown so much concern for her welfare and safety by searching for the couple
for four (4) months, desperately wanting to rescue her from captivity and seeking the
intervention of the datus in resolving the matter.

Under the circumstances, the criminal liability of accused-appellant is only for forcible abduction
under Art. 342 of The Revised Penal Code. The sexual abuse which accused-appellant forced
upon Lenie constitutes the lewd design inherent in forcible abduction and is thus absorbed
therein. The indecent molestation cannot form the other half of a complex crime since the record
does not show that the principal purpose of the accused was to commit any of the crimes
against chastity and that her abduction would only be a necessary means to commit the same.
Surely it would not have been the case that accused-appellant would touch Lenie only once
during her four (4)-month captivity, as she herself admitted, if his chief or primordial intention
had been to lay with her. Instead, what we discern from the evidence is that the intent to seduce
the girl forms part and parcel of her forcible abduction and shares equal importance with the
other element of the crime which was to remove the victim from her home or from whatever
familiar place she may be and to take her to some other. Stated otherwise, the intention of
accused-appellant as the evidence shows was not only to seduce the victim but also to separate
her from her family, especially from her father Palmones, clearly tell-tale signs of forcible
abduction

People v. Garcia (G.R. No. 138470)

Facts:

Joselito Cortez, a taxicab operator based in Marilao, Bulacan, was approached

by Garcia and Bernabe because they wanted to borrow his brand new Mitsubishi L300
van for their trip to the Bicol region. Cortez refused, saying that the van was unavailable.
Instead, he got in touch with Ferdinand Ignacio, who had just purchased a brand new
Toyota Tamaraw FX. Ignacio agreed to lease his vehicle to Cortez for two days at the
daily rate of P2,000.00. Bernabe and Garcia, on the other hand, rented the vehicle from
Cortez for P4,000.00 a day inclusive of the P500.00 drivers fee. They agreed to pay the
rental fee upon their return from Bicol. Cortez and his driver, Wilfredo Elis, picked up
Ignacios Tamaraw FX at his residence in Meycauayan, Bulacan. Elis drove the same
back to Marilao, Bulacan and, at 8:00 a.m., he and the two accused left for Bicol.

However, four days passed without a word from Garcia and Bernabe. Cortez
began to worry about the vehicle he had borrowed from Ferdinand Ignacio so he
informed the Barangay Captain of Saog, Marilao, Bulacan. It was later found out that
the two accused attempted to sell the vehicle. They stabbed and dumped Elis him along
the highway near the sabana in San Rafael, Bulacan when Elis refused to join their plan
to sell the Tamaraw FX. The RTC found Artemio Garcia and Regalado Bernabe guilty

beyond reasonable doubt of special complex crime of carnapping with homicide. Hence,
this appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the two accused are guilty of the crime charged?

Decision:

Republic Act No. 6539, otherwise known as "An Act Preventing and Penalizing
Carnapping", defines "carnapping" as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle
belonging to another without the latters consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things." More specifically, the elements of
the crime are as follows: 1. That there is an actual taking of the vehicle; 2. That the
offender intends to gain from the taking of the vehicle; 3. That the vehicle belongs to a
person other than the offender himself; 4. That the taking is without the consent of the
owner thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.

A careful examination of the evidence presented shows that all the elements of
carnapping were proved in this case. In the case at bar, it cannot be denied that the
nature of the appellants possession of the Tamaraw FX was initially lawful.
Nevertheless, the unlawful killing of the deceased for the purpose of taking the vehicle
radically transformed the character of said possession into an unlawful one. Cortez

categorically stated that during his first visit to the Moncada Police Station where
appellant and his co-accused were detained, the two separately admitted to him that
they killed the deceased when the latter refused to join their plan to sell the vehicle.

Moreover, it must be stressed that the acts committed by appellant constituted

the crime of carnapping even if the deceased was the driver of the vehicle and not the
owner. The settled rule is that, in crimes of unlawful taking of property through
intimidation or violence, it is not necessary that the person unlawfully divested of the
personal property be the owner thereof. What is simply required is that the property
taken does not belong to the offender. Actual possession of the property by the person
dispossessed suffices. So long as there is apoderamiento of personal property from
another against the latter's will through violence or intimidation, with animo de lucro,
unlawful taking of a property belonging to another is imputable to the offender.

PEOPLE vs. NAPUD

FACTS:
At around 1:00 A.M. on September 21, 1994, appellant with his co-accused, Tomas Amburgo
and Romel Brillo, went to the house of the spouses Esmaylita and ErnestoBenedicto at Barangay
Jibolo, Janiuay, Iloilo. Amburgo called aloud for the occupants of thehouse to come down. The
Benedictos were awakened by the call, but just kept quiet sincethey sensed that it would be
dangerous to respond. Unable to elicit any response from theBenedictos, the trio then approached
the house of Esmaylitas parents, the spouses Evelyn and Manuel Cantiller, just a few meters
away. Again, they called for the residents of thehouse to come down. The Cantillers were
awakened by the call but chose to remainsilent. Their grandson Greg Cantiller, who was staying
with them, also remained quiet. Minutes later, Amburgo forcibly pushed the door of the
Cantillers house open. He foundEvelyn and Manuel lying on the floor. Amburgo at once pinned

down Manuelshead. Meanwhile, appellant broke into the chicken coop beneath the Benedictos
house,caught ten (10) chickens, and handed them to Brillo who was waiting outside. Appellant
thenbarged into the Cantillers house.He asked Manuel if he had a daughter in the house. The
latter said he didnt.Appellant then told the 59 year-old Evelyn Cantiller to step out of thehouse.
He led her to the back of the house and told her to undress. When she refused,appellant
threatened her with a knife. Out of fear, Evelyn removed her skirt, appellant thenraped her. After
a few minutes of coitus, appellant asked Evelyn to assume the woman-on-top position. Warning
her that she and her husband would be killed should she attempt toflee, appellant then had
Evelyn mount him. The rape was ended when Amburgo saw themand asked appellant to stop,
reminding the latter that Evelyn was an old woman. (Criminal Case No. 44262 ) Amburgo then
grabbed Greg Cantiller and ordered him to summon the Benedictos. Greg didas he was told, but
the Benedictos would not respond. Angered, Amburgo threatened to burndown their house. Left
with no choice, the Benedictos stepped out. Amburgo then ordered Greg to return to the
Cantillers residence. Once outside, Esmaylita explained that her husband, Ernesto, had a
stomachailment. Ernesto then asked permission to answer a call of nature. Amburgo acceded to
hisrequest but warned Ernesto not to flee or report to the authorities. When Ernesto failed
toreturn, Amburgo then grabbed Esmaylita and brought her to a banana plantation located
inBarangay Calansonan, some 1-1/2 kilometers away from her house. Still wielding his knife,
Amburgo commanded her to lie down. He removed her lower garments, lay on top of her,
andhad sexual intercourse with her. Esmaylita pleaded with him to stop as she had a small
child,but Amburgo threatened to knife her. After Amburgos lust was spent, he told Esmaylita to
put on her clothes and brought her over to appellant, who had been watching the whole affair
from a short distance. (Criminal Case No. 44264) Appellant dragged Esmaylita some distance
away from Amburgo. He forcibly stripped her naked. He then told her to lie down. When
Esmaylita refused, appellant poked a knife at her and made signs that he would kill her. Faced
with imminent death, Esmaylita obeyed. Appellant had intercourse with her. After some minutes,
appellant made Esmaylitastand up. Esmaylita begged to be allowed to go home, but appellant
ignored her and orderedher to sit on top of him. Esmaylita remained motionless as he put his
organ into her vagina. Angered, appellant ordered her to do what she usually does with her
husband. Esmaylita then made up-and-down motions with her buttocks. After some five minutes

of sexual intercourse, appellant made her stand up, forced her legs apart, and again inserted his
penis inside her vagina. Appellant then had sexual intercourse with her until his lust was
satisfied. At around four oclock in the morning, Esmaylita was finally released and
allowed to go home. (Criminal Case No. 44263 )Meanwhile,Esmaylitas husband, Ernesto, had
fled to the house of their barangay councillor located a kilometer away from the Benedicto house
and reported the incident. The barangayofficial then accompanied Ernesto to the nearest police
detachment. When Ernesto and the law enforcers arrived at the Benedicto house, Esmaylita was
already there. She told themthat she had been raped.On November 3, 1994, the Provincial
Prosecutor of Iloilo filed an information for Robbery withRape against appellant and his coaccused with the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City.On the same day, Esmaylita also filed two
separate complaints, one for rape and another for forcible abduction with rapeWhen arraigned in
each of the three cases, both Napud and Amburgo pleaded not guilty to thecharges. The third
accused, Romel Brillo, has remained at large. Both Amburgo and Napudraised the defense of
denial and alibi.The trial court declared Napud and his co-accused, Amburgo, guilty beyond
reasonable doubtof the charges against them.Only Napud seasonably filed his notice of appeal.
His co-accused, Amburgo, opted not toappeal his conviction.

ISSUES:
Whether the appellant is correct in alleging that the trial court erred in convicting theappellant of
rape by means of force and intimidation absent physical injuries found on thebodies of either
complainants.Whether the penalties imposed for the offenses committed by the appellant is
proper.

HELD:
No. The absence of external injuries does not negate rape.Yes. The trial court correctly held that
the crime of rape charged and proved in Criminal CaseNo. 44263 already absorbed the forcible

abduction with rape complained of in Criminal CaseNo. 44264 and also found the accusedappellant guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape under Criminal Case No.
44262RATIOUnder Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the gravamen of the crime of rape is
carnalknowledge of a woman by force or intimidation and against her will or without her
consent.
What consummates the felony is penile contact, however slight, with the labia of the victims
vagina without her consent. Consequently, it is not required that lacerations be found on the
private complainants hymen. Nor is it necessary to show that the victim had a reddening of the
external genitalia or sustained a hematoma on other parts of her body to sustain thepossibility of
a rape charge. For it is well-settled that the absence of external injuries doesnot negate rape. This
is because in rape, the important consideration is not the presence of injuries on the victims
body, but penile contact with the female genitalia without the womans consent. Hence,
appellants reliance upon the findings of Dr. Renato Armada, who testified
that he examined Evelyn and found no lacerations or hematoma in any part of her body couldnot
prevail over the positive testimony of the offended party and her witnesses that she wassexually
abused. As to the propriety of the penalties imposed on appellant, the trial court found that the
forcibleabduction with rape alleged in Criminal Case No. 44264 was absorbed by the rape
charged inCriminal Case No. 44263. The evidence for the prosecution shows that Esmaylita
wasbrought by Amburgo and appellant to a banana plantation some 1-1/2 kilometers away
fromher house for the purpose of raping her. Both men then successively had carnal knowledge
of her at said place. Where complainant was forcibly taken away for the purpose of
sexuallyassaulting her, then the rape so committed may absorb the forcible abduction. The trial
court,thus, correctly held that the rape charged and proved in Criminal Case No. 44263
alreadyabsorbed the forcible abduction with rape complained of in Criminal Case No.
44264.Coming now to Criminal Case No. 44262, the information charged appellant and his coaccused with robbery with rape.
When appellant forcibly entered the Cantillers chicken coop and took their chickens, while his
confederate Amburgo was threatening the Cantiller spouses, he committed the crime of robbery.

The elements of the offense -viz : (a) personal154property belonging to another; (b) unlawful
taking; (c) intent to gain; and (d) violence or intimidation - were all present. Though robbery
appears to have preceded the rape of Evelyn,it is enough that robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape to be punished under theRevised Penal Code (as amended) for the Code
does not differentiate whether the rape wascommitted before, during, or after the robbery. Thus,
Accused- appellant is found guilty of thespecial complex crime of robbery with rape and
sentenced by this court toreclusion perpetua with damages.