CASE: Adelmo Perez y. Agustin v.

People of the Philippines

FACTS:

That on or about April 14, 1988 in Morong, Bataan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the said accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
by means of force and intimidation, commence the commission of the crime of rape upon Julita
Tria y Balagao directly by overt acts, to wit:

That the said accused, without the permission of anyone, entered the room of Julita Tria and once
inside, embraced and kissed her on the neck, held and mashed her breast and compelled her to lie
down, and thereafter kissed her lips and neck and with the intent of having carnal knowledge
with her, touched her sex organ and tried to remove her panties thereby commencing [t]he
commission of the crime of Rape directly by overt acts but said accused did not accomplish his
purpose, that is, to have a carnal knowledge with her, it was not because of his spontaneous and
voluntary desistance but because the said Julita Tria succeeding in resisting his criminal attempt
and also due to the timely arrival of her mother to the damage and prejudice of the said Julita
Tria y Balagao.

ISSUES:

1. WAS THE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ATTEMPTED TO

RAPE OR ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
2. DID THE PROSECUTION PRESENT THE QUANTUM OF PROOF
NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated December 16, 1999, of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CR
No. 19971 is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner Adelmo Perez y Agustin is found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article
336 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 6 months
of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, as
maximum.

Notes:
 These acts of lasciviousness or lewdness:
1. That the offender commits any act of lewdness
2. That is done (a) by using force or intimidation (b) when the offended party is
deprived of reason or unconsciousness (c) when the offended party is under 12 years
of age
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.
 Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused must have commenced the act of
penetrating his sexual organ to the vagina or the victim but for some cause or accident,
the penetration, however slight, is not completed.
The penalty for acts of lasciviousness is prision correccional – a penalty that has a duration
from six years and one day to twelve years. (Art. 27, RPC)

ARRESTO MAYOR – penalty of imprisonment with a duration of which shall be from one
month and one day to 6 months.
ARRESTO MENOR – penalty of imprisonment with a duration of which shall be from one day
to 30 days.

ATTEMPTED RAPE – Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when
the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
CASE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. DECOROSO ACA-AC Y CESPON
G.R. N. 142500, April 20, 2001

FACTS:

A criminal case The People of the Philippines vs. Decoroso Aca-Ac y Cespon happened on April
20, 2001 stirred the nation. The case is on Decoroso Aca-Ac y Cespon, a 57-year old resident of
Tagbilaran, Bohol being guilty of statutory rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. It all started when the accused-appellant raped the 12-year old named Fritzie
Aca-ac, his practically granddaughter by blood for four times. The first information alleged
happened on the former’s house where he removed the victim’s pants and panty, let her down
and intent to have sexual intercourse. The second information alleged, the victim was lured again
by the accused, the third happened on a bushy place and the last happened to an uninhabited
house and raped the 12-year old victim.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals finding accused-appellant Decoroso

Aca-ac y Cespon guilty of statutory rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant is
ordered to pay complainant Fritzie Aca-ac P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and, in addition,
P50,000.00 as moral damages. The award of P20,000.00 as exemplary damages is hereby
deleted.
CASE: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. CABALLERO
G.R. NO. 149028 – 30 April 02, 2003

FACTS
The Court held that the trial court correctly found all the appellants conspired to kill Eugene and
assault Arnold; hence, they were criminally liable for the death of Eugene and for the injuries
sustained by Arnold. Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when
two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Once established, all the
conspirators are criminally liable as co-principals regardless of the degree of participation of
each of them for in contemplation of the law, the act of one is the act of all.

ISSUES:

1. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT ACQUITTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS IN

CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 1217-1219 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR GUILT
WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

2. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE AGGRAVATING

CIRCUMSTANCES OF TREACHERY AND ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH ON
THE ASSUMPTION THAT INDEED ACCUSED-APPELLANTS KILLED THE
VICTIMS.

3. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN IMPOSING THE DEATH PENALTY

UPON ACCUSED-APPELLANTS ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT INDEED THEY
KILLED THE VICTIMS.

RULINGS:

WHEREFORE, accused Armando Caballero, alias "Baby", Ricardo Caballero, alias "Ricky" and
Marciano Caballero, Jr., alias "Jun", having been found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
offenses charged them as principals, are hereby sentenced to suffer:

1. In Criminal Case No. RTC-1217 for the murder of Leonilo Broce, there being no mitigating
circumstance present, with the attendant aggravating circumstances of treachery and abuse of
superior strength, the maximum penalty of death and to pay the heirs of Leonilo Broce the sum
of P75,000.00 as indemnity;

2. In Criminal Case No. RTC-1218, for the murder of Eugene or Eugenio Tayactac, there being
no mitigating circumstance present, with the attendant aggravating circumstances of treachery
and abuse of superior strength, the maximum penalty of death; and to pay the heirs of Eugene
Tayactac the sum of P75,000.00 as indemnity; and

3. In Criminal Case No. RTC-1219, for Frustrated Murder, for having seriously indicted injuries
upon the person of Arnold Barcuma which nearly resulted to his death, there being no mitigating
circumstance present, an imprisonment of twelve (12) years, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
years, four (4) months and one (1) day, with no award as to damages, no evidence having been
introduced to establish, the same; and

4. To pay the costs in all three (3) cases.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FREDIE LIZADA

(G.R. No. 143468-71. January 24, 2003)

Ponente: Justice Romeo Callejo, Sr.

Doctrine:

The spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts him from criminal liability for the intended
crime but it does not exempt him from the crime committed by him before his desistance.

FACTS:

In August 1998, the petitioner did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, by means
of force, violence and intimidation Analia Orillosa, his stepdaughter, by embracing, kissing, and
touching her private parts. He then proceeded with carnal knowedge to remove her skirt and
panty and placed himself on top of her and tried to insert his penis into her vagina. This
allegation was repeated four times in a different occasions.

However, medical examination revealed that Analia’s hymen was intact, and the other parts of
her vagina was not injured due to an insertion of average-sized adult Filipino male organ in full
erection.

The testimony of Rossel, Analia’s sister, also proved that no insertion of penis happened because
the petitioner stopped after he saw her.

Hence, petitioner was charged for four counts of qualified rape under four separate information.
RTC accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him and sentenced to
Death Penalty in each and every case as provided for in the seventh paragraph, no. 1, Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code.

However, petitioner averred in his brief that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt and that the testimony of Rossel was not taken into consideration in the
decision.

ISSUE:

WON Lizada is guilty of acts of lasciviousness only.

RULING:

NO. Accused-appellant is guilty of attempted rape and not of acts of lasciviousness.

There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of
some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. The essential elements of an
attempted felony are as follows:

The offender commencesthe commission of the felony directly by overt acts;

He does not performall the acts of execution which should producethe felony;

The offenders act be not stopped by his own spontaneousdesistance;

The non-performance of all acts of executionwas due to causeor accident other than his
spontaneous desistance.

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:

(1) That there be external acts;

(2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed.

If the malefactor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his spontaneous
desistance, he is not guilty of an attempted felony.The law does not punish him for his attempt to
commit a felony.

Applying the foregoing jurisprudence and taking into account Article 6 of the Revised Penal
Code, the appellant can only be convicted of attempted rape. He commenced the commission of
rape by removing his clothes, undressing and kissing his victim and lying on top of
her. However, he failed to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of
rape by reason of a cause other than his own spontaneous desistance, i.e., by the timely arrival of
the victims brother. Thus, his penis merely touched Mary Joys private organ. Accordingly, as the
crime committed by the appellant is attempted rape, the penalty to be imposed on him should be
an indeterminate prison term of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12)
years of prision mayor as maximum.
CASE: RIVERA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. NO 166326

Facts:
As Ruben Rodil went to a nearby store to buy food, Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being jobless
and dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a heated exchange
of words ensued. In the following day, when Ruben and his three year old daughter went to the store
to buy food, Edgardo together with his brother Esmeraldo and Ismael Rivera emerged from their
house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to
the ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. The Rivera brothers
fled when policemen came. The doctor declared that the wounds were slight and superficial, though
the victim could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.

Issues:
(1) WON there was intent to kill.
(2) WON the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from frustrated to attempted
murder.
(3) WON the aggravating circumstance of treachery was properly applied.

Held:
(1) Yes. The Court held that there was intent to kill as Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the
victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Even though
the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and could not have produced his
death, intent to kill is presumed.

(2) Yes. The Court of Appeals was correct since based on Art. 6 of the RPC, there is an attempt
when the offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.

(3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, which gives no
opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself. In the present case, the sudden attack to
the victim caused him to be overwhelmed and had no chance to defend himself and retaliate.
Thus, there was treachery.