People vs.

Labiaga
G.R. No. 202867, July 15, 2013
Carpio, J.
Facts: Accused-appellant Regie “Banok” Labiaga was convicted of murder
in Criminal Case No. 2001-155, and frustrated murder of Criminal Case
No. 2002-1777.
On December 23, 2000, in Criminal Case No. 2001-1555, Banok,
Alias Balatong Barcenas, and Cristy Demapanag was charged with
Murder using an Unlicensed Firearm. The mentioned accused assaulted
and shot Judy Conde with the unlicensed firearm, hitting her and
inflicting gunshot wounds on the different parts of her breast which
caused her death.
On December 23, 2000, the same individuals were charged with
Frustrated Murder with the Use of Unlicensed Firearm in Criminal Case
No. 2002-1777. They attacked, assaulted, and shot Gregorio Conde with
the unlicensed firearm, hitting him on the posterior aspect, middle third
right forearm thereby performing all acts of execution which would have
caused the crime of Murder as a consequence, but did not produce it by
reason of the timely medical assistance given to Gregorio Conde which
prevented his death.
Issue: Is the accused-appellant guilty of Attempted Murder or Frustrated
murder in Case No. 2002-1777?
Ruling: Regie Labiaga Banok is Guilty of Attempted Murder. In frustrated
murder, there must be evidence that the wound would have been fatal
were it not for timely medical assistance. In the case at bar, the evidence
failed to show the court this, therefore the accused should be convicted
of attempted murder and not frustrated murder. It does not appear that
the wound sustained by Gregorio Conde was mortal. This was admitted
by Dr. Edwin Figura, who examined Gregorio after the shooting incident,
stating that the gunshot wound was ambulatory and not in distress.
 Valenzuela vs. People
G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007
Tinga, J.
Facts: On May 19, 1994, Valenzuela, the petitioner, and Calderon were
sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a supermarket within SM Complex,
by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard on duty at the open parking area of the
supermarket. Lago saw the petitioner with a push cart containing cases
of the detergent “Tide”. Petitioner unloaded these cases in an open
parking space where Calderon was waiting, then returned inside and
brought out more detergent. Petitioner then left the parking and haled a
taxi, boarding the cab towards where Calderon was waiting. Lago
witnessed this and tried to stop the taxi as it was leaving. He asked the
petitioner for the receipt but failed to show one, resulting in the attempt
of petitioner and Calderon to run away. Lago fired a warning shot to alert
other security guards. Petitioner and Calderon were brought to the SM
security office and the stolen merchandise recovered.
The petitioner, argued that he should only be convicted of
frustrated theft, citing decisions People v. Diño and People v. Flores,
rendered by the Court of Appeals as upholding the existence of
frustrated theft which the accused in both cases were found guilty.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the crime committed was consummated or
frustrated theft.
2. Can People v. Diño and People v. Flores be used as a doctrine for
the case at bar?
Ruling:
1. The Court ruled that under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code,
theft cannot have a frustrated stage, it can only be attempted or
consummated. There is no language in Article 308 that expressly or
impliedly allows that the “free disposition of the items stolen” is in
any way a determinant of whether the crime of theft has been
produced. Hence, the crime committed was not frustrated theft,
but consummated theft.
2. No. People v. Diño did not rely on Philippine Laws or jurisprudence
in its conclusion. On the other hand, People v. Flores relied on the
decision of People v. Diño for legal support. Both cases cannot
apply stare decisis, and their appreciation of the law on theft leaves
them susceptible to reversal.
People vs. Canceran
G.R. No. 206442, July 1, 2015
Mendoza, J.
Facts: On October 6, 2002 at Ororama Mega Center Grocery
Department of Cagayan De Oro, Canceran, petitioner, conspired
together with Vequizo, URC Merchandiser, and Diaz, a Unilever
Philippines merchandiser both of Ororama Mega Center, stole and
carried away 14 cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream valued at
P28,627.00 belonging to Ororama Mega Center, performing the acts
of execution which would produce the act of theft but did not because
they were discovered by the employees of Ororama Mega Center who
prevented them from further carrying away said cartons.
Canceran denied the charges against him and further claimed that
an earlier Information for theft was already filed on October 9, 2002
which was eventually dismissed. In January 2003, a second
Information was filed for the same offense over the same incident.
Hence, Canceran argues that the CA erred in affirming his conviction.
He insists that there was double jeopardy as the first criminal case for
theft was already dismissed and yet he was convicted in the second
case. Canceran also contends that there was no taking of the Ponds
cream considering “the information in Criminal Case No. 2003-141
admits the act of the petitioner did not produce the crime of theft.”
Thus, absent the element of taking, the felony of theft was never
proved.
Issue:
1. Whether Canceran should be acquitted in the crime of
consummated theft as it was not charged in the information.
2. Whether there was double jeopardy.
Ruling:
1. YES. The designation of the prosecutor of the offense, which was
“frustrated theft” may be just his conclusion. The accused was not
able to produce the act of theft due to the Ororama Mega Center
employees who prevented them from further carrying away the
cartons of Ponds White Beauty Cream. Furthermore, a crime
cannot go through frustrated theft, rendering the charge doubtful.
Hence in pursuant to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, “A felony
is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present but do not produce it by reason of
causes independent of the will of the perpetrator.” This was in favor
of the accused, holding that Canceran was not properly informed
that the charge against him was consummated theft.
2. There was NO double jeopardy because the CA correctly observed
that Canceran never raised the issue of double jeopardy before the
RTC. He never entered a valid plea and admitted that he was just
about to enter a plea, but the first case was dismissed. There was
no unconditional dismissal of the complaint. The case was not
terminated by reason of acquittal nor conviction but simply
because he posted bail.
 People vs. Pareja
G.R. No. 188979, September 5, 2012
Brion, J.
Facts: The prosecution charged the appellant before the RTC with the
crime of rape.
AAA was sleeping beside her two-year old nephew, BBB, on the
floor of her sister’s room, when the appellant hugged her and kissed her
nape and neck. AAA cried, but the appellant covered her and BBB with a
blanket. The appellant removed AAA’s clothes, short pants, and
underwear; he then took off his short pants and briefs. The appellant
went on top of AAA, held her hands, and parted her legs using his own
legs, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina, while AAA was
resisting. The appellant stopped when AAA’s cry got louder. AAA then
kicked the appellants upper thigh as the latter was about to stand up.
The appellant put his clothes back on and threatened to kill AAA is she
told anyone about the incident. After the appellant left the room, AAA
covered herself with a blanket and cried.
Issue: Is the appellant guilty of consummated rape?
Ruling: NO. The Prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime consummated rape. The appellant is
instead convicted of attempted rape, as the evidence shows. Article 6 of
the Revised Penal code states that there is an attempt when the offender
commenced the commission of the crime directly by overt acts but does
not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In this case, the
louder shouting and kick to the upper thigh of the appellant by AAA.
 Cruz vs. People
G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014
Bersamin, J.,
Facts: The petitioner was charged in the RTC with attempted rape and
acts of lasciviousness involving different victims.
Norberto Bartolome Cruz and his wife Belinda Cruz employed AAA
and BBB to help them in selling their wares in Bangar, La Union. On
December 20, 1993, 8:00 in the evening, they parked and two tents were
fixed for them to sleep in. Belinda and the driver went to Manila to get
more goods to sell. On December 21, 1993, at 1:00 in the morning, AAA
and BBB were asleep. AAA woke when she felt somebody on top of her.
Norberto was mashing her breast and touching her private part. AAA
realized she was totally naked and Norberto ordered her not to scream
or she’ll kill her. AAA tried to push Norberto away and pleaded that he
stop, but he refused. She fought and kicked Norberto twice. Norberto
wasn’t able to pursue his desires, offering AAA money and to not speak
of the incident to her mother, or she will be killed. AAA went out to the
tent to ask help from Jess but failed to wake him up. When AAA returned
to their tent, she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB. When
she finally entered the tent, Norberto left and went outside.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner’s acts on constituted attempted
rape or acts of lasciviousness.
Ruling: The petitioner constituted acts of lasciviousness. The
fundamental difference between attempted rape and acts of
lasciviousness is the offender’s intent to lie with the female. In rape,
intent to lie with the female is indispensable, but this element is not
required in acts of lasciviousness. Attempted rape is committed,
therefore, when “touching” of the vagina by the penis is coupled with
the intent to penetrate. The intent to penetrate is manifest only though
the showing of the penis capable of consummating the sexual act
touching the external genitalia of the female. Without showing, only the
felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed. Hence, the petitioner is
guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness as defined and penalized in Article 355 in
relation with Article 6, paragraph 3, and Article 336 of the Revised Penal
code respectively.
 Baleros vs. People
G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006
Garcia, J.
Facts: The court finds accused Renato D. Baleros, Jr., alias “Chito”, guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of attempted rape. Aggrieved,
petitioner went to the CA and moved for reconsideration, however was
denied.
In the evening of December 12, inside Unit 307, Malou slept at
10:30. Outside, right in front of her bedroom door, her maid, Marvilou,
slept on a folding bed. Early morning the following day, Malou was
awakened by the smell of chemical on a piece of cloth pressed on her
face. She struggled but could not move due to someone pinning her
down on the bed and holding her tightly. She wanted to scream for help
but the hands covering her mouth with cloth wet with chemicals were
very tight. Malou continued fighting off her attacker, kicking him until her
right hand got free. She grabbed a hold of his sex organ, prompting the
man to let her go.
Issue: Whether or not the act of the petitioner, i.e., the pressing of a
chemical-soaked cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an over act or
rape
Ruling: NO. Under Article 6, in relation to Article 335, rape is attempted
when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt
acts and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other
than his own spontaneous desistance. As stated in the facts of the case,
it is unjust to assume that the pressing of chemical-soaked cloth in the
mouth of Malou which would induce her to sleep is an overt act that will
result into rape. The petitioner was also fully clothed and touched no
private parts. Hence, acts committed by the petitioner do not determine
attempted rape, but rather constitute unjust vexation punishable as light
coercion under the second paragraph of article 287 of the Revised Penal
Code. Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or
compulsion, it is to include any human conduct which would harm or
irritate an innocent person. Malou cried while relating to her classmates
what she perceived to be a sexual attack, and the fact that she filed a
case for attempted rape proved that she was in distress. Baleros is
therefore acquitted of the charge for attempted rape, but adjudged
guilty of light coercion.