Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

Bataclan vs Medina:

In the instant case, there was no tumultuous affray between groups of


At about 2:00 o'clock that same morning, while the bus was running within
persons in the course of which Aro died. On the contrary, the evidence clearly
the jurisdiction of Imus, Cavite, one of the front tires burst and the vehicle
established that there were only two (2) persons, Wacoy and Quibac, who
began to zig-zag until it fell into a canal or ditch on the right side of the road
picked on one defenseless individual, Aro, and attacked him repeatedly,
and turned turtle. Among the passengers was Juan Bataclan. He, together
taking turns in inflicting punches and kicks on the poor victim. There was no
with 3 others could not get out of the bus. After half an hour, came about ten
confusion and tumultuous quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal
men, one of them carrying a lighted torch. Almost immediately, a tierce fire
aggression in that fateful incident.[25] Since Wacoy and Quibac were even
started, burning and all but consuming the bus, including the four passengers
identified as the ones who assaulted Aro, the latter's death cannot be said to
trapped inside it. It would appear that as the bus overturned, gasoline began
have been caused in a tumultuous affray.[26] Therefore, the CA correctly held
to leak and escape from the gasoline tank.
that Wacoy and Quibac's act of mauling Aro was the proximate cause [27] of
the latter's death; and as such, they must be held criminally liable therefor,
Was the overturning of the bus the proximate cause of Medina’s death?
specifically for the crime of Homicide. Accordingly, petitioners Guillermo
Wacoy y Bitol and James Quibac y Rafael are found GUILTY beyond
The overturning of the bus was the proximate cause. Had it not been for it,
reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide defined and penalized under
the gas leak would not have leaked. It was only natural for the locals to come
Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code with the mitigating circumstance of
in to the rescue and bring torches with them as the place was unlit. The
lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong under Article 13 (3) of the same
driver, who sought for help, should have been able to smell gasoline and
Code
therefore he should have warned the rescuers not to bring the torch.
People vs Iligan
Wacoy vs People
At around 2AM Esmeraldo Quinones (victim) and his companions Zaldy Asis
Wacoy was seen beating up Elner Aro. At the scence, Aro was kicked and
and Felix Lukban were walking home from barangay Sto. Domingo after
punched in the stomach. The defendant was even about to throw a rock at
attending a fiesta. On the way they met Fernando Iligan (accused) was caught
Elner but was restrained from doing so. Aro was eventually rushed to the
in an incident which led to a brawl. Iligan and his friends ran, when they
hospital. While under operation, Aro suffered from cardiac arrest. He was
noticed that they are no longer being followed, they headed back to
pulled out of the hospital due to financial constraints and died the following
Quinones’ home but Iligan and friends emerged from the road side. Iligan
day. Aro's death certificate indicated that the cause of his death was
hacked Quinones’ forehead with a bolo which caused him to fall down.
"cardiopulmonary arrest antecedent to a perforated ileum and generalized
Quinones’ companions ran, and upon returning they saw that he is already
peritonitis secondary to mauling," an autopsy performed on his remains
dead and his head busted. His medical certificate shows that he died of
revealed that the cause of his death was "rupture of the aorta secondary to
“shock and massive cerebral hemorrhages due to vehicular accident”.
blunt traumatic injuries."
WoN the accused are liable for victim’s death?
Should they be guilty of Homicide or Death Resulting From Tumultuous
Affray?
We are convinced beyond peradventure that indeed, after Quiñones, Jr. had motion for new trial based on the affidavit of the Barangay Captain who
fallen from the bolo-hacking perpetrated by Iligan, he was run over stated that he saw the deceased catching fish in the shallow irrigation canals
by a vehicle. This finding, however, does not in any way on November 5. The motion was denied; hence, this petition.
exonerate Iligan from liability for the death of Quiñones, Jr. The intentional
felony committed was the hacking of the head of Quiñones, Jr. by Iligan. The Whether the wound inflicted by Urbano to Javier was the proximate cause of
instrument used in hacking Quiñones, Jr. and the location of the wound, the the latter’s death
assault was meant not only to immobilize the victim but to do away with him
as it was directed at a vital and delicate part of the body: the head. The If the wound of Javier inflicted by the appellant was already infected by
hacking incident happened on the national highway[30] where vehicles are tetanus germs at the time, it is more medically probable that Javier should
expected to pass any moment. Under these circumstances, we hold have been infected with only a mild cause of tetanus because the symptoms
that while Iligan’s hacking of Quiñones, Jr.'s head might not have been the of tetanus appeared on the 22nd day after the hacking incident or more than
direct cause, it was the proximate cause of the latter's death. In other words, 14 days after the infliction of the wound. Therefore, the onset time should
the sequence of events from Iligan's assault on him to the have been more than six days. Javier, however, died on the second day from
time Quiñones, Jr. was run over by a vehicle is, considering the very short the onset time. The more credible conclusion is that at the time Javier's
span of time between them, one unbroken chain of events. Having triggered wound was inflicted by the appellant, the severe form of tetanus that killed
such events, Iligan cannot escape liability. On the other hand, him was not yet present. Consequently, Javier's wound could have been
Edmundo Asis did not take any active part in the infliction of the wound on infected with tetanus after the hacking incident. Considering the
the head of Quiñones, Jr. which led to his running over by a vehicle and circumstance surrounding Javier's death, his wound could have been infected
consequent death. by tetanus 2 or 3 or a few but not 20 to 22 days before he died.

Urbano vs IAC The rule is that the death of the victim must be the direct, natural, and logical
consequence of the wounds inflicted upon him by the accused. And since we
On October 23, 1980, petitioner Filomeno Urbano was on his way to his are dealing with a criminal conviction, the proof that the accused caused the
ricefield. He found the place where he stored palay flooded with water victim's death must convince a rational mind beyond reasonable doubt. The
coming from the irrigation canal. Urbano went to the elevated portion to see medical findings, however, lead us to a distinct possibility that the infection
what happened, and there he saw Marcelino Javier and Emilio Efre cutting of the wound by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or between
grass. Javier admitted that he was the one who opened the canal. A quarrel the time Javier was wounded to the time of his death. The infection was,
ensued, and Urbano hit Javier on the right palm with his bolo, and again on therefore, distinct and foreign to the crime.
the leg with the back of the bolo. On October 27, 1980, Urbano and Javier
had an amicable settlement. Urbano paid P700 for the medical expenses of There is a likelihood that the wound was but the remote cause and its
Javier. On November 14, 1980, Urbano was rushed to the hospital where he subsequent infection, for failure to take necessary precautions, with tetanus
had lockjaw and convulsions. The doctor found the condition to be caused by may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death with which the
tetanus toxin which infected the healing wound in his palm. He died the petitioner had nothing to do. "A prior and remote cause cannot be made the
following day. Urbano was charged with homicide and was found guilty both be of an action if such remote cause did nothing more than furnish the
by the trial court and on appeal by the Court of Appeals. Urbano filed a condition or give rise to the occasion by which the injury was made possible,
if there intervened between such prior or remote cause and the injury a persons injured. He was not also committing a crime when he was firing his
distinct, successive, unrelated, and efficient cause of the injury, even though gun at Koh – it being under Art. 247. Abarca was however negligent because
such injury would not have happened but for such condition or occasion. If he did not exercise all precaution to make sure no one else will be hurt. As
no danger existed in the condition except because of the independent cause, such, he shall be liable for less serious physical injuries through simple
such condition was not the proximate cause. And if an independent negligent negligence for the injuries suffered by the two other persons who were in the
act or defective condition sets into operation the instances which result in adjacent room when the incident happened.
injury because of the prior defective condition, such subsequent act or
Intod vs CA
condition is the proximate cause."

In the morning of February 4, 1979, Sulpicio Intod, Jorge Pangasian, Santos


People vs Abarca
Tubio and Avelino Daligdig went to Salvador Mandaya's house... and asked
him to go with them to the house of Bernardina Palangpangan. Thereafter,
One day in 1984, Francisco Abarca, through a peephole, caught his wife Mandaya and Intod, Pangasian, Tubio and Daligdig had a meeting with
having sexual intercourse with one Khingsley Paul Koh inside the Abarca Aniceto Dumalagan. He told Mandaya that he wanted Palangpangan to be
residence. The two also caught Abarca looking at them and so Koh grabbed killed because of a land dispute between them and that Mandaya should
his pistol and thereafter Abarca fled. One hour later, Abarca, armed with an accompany the four (4) men, otherwise, he would also be killed. At about
armalite, went to the gambling place where Koh usually stays and then and 10:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, Mandaya, Pangasian, Tubio and
there shot Koh multiple times. Koh died instantaneously. However, two more Daligdig, all armed with firearms, arrived at Palangpangan's house
persons were shot in the adjacent room. These two other persons survived
due to timely medical intervention.Eventually after trial, Abarca was At the instance of his companions, Mandaya pointed the location of
convicted of the complex crime of murder with frustrated double murder. Palangpangan's bedroom. Thereafter, Petitioner, Pangasian, Tubio and
Daligdig fired at said room. It turned out; however, that Palangpangan was in
another City and her home was then occupied by her son-in-law and his
Whether or not the judgment of conviction is correct.
family. No one was in the room when the accused fired the shots. No one
was hit by the gun fire.
No. Article 247 prescribes the following elements: (1) that a legally married
person surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with Petitioner contends that, Palangpangan's absence from her room on the night
another person; and (2) that he kills any of them or both of them in the act he and his companions riddled it with bullets made the crime inherently
or immediately thereafter. These elements are present in this case. impossible.

The Revised Penal Code, inspired by the Positivist School, recognizes in the
Even though one hour had already lapsed from the time Abarca caught his offender his formidability, and now penalizes an act which were it not aimed
wife with Koh and the time he killed Koh, the killing was still the direct by- at something quite impossible or carried out with means which prove
product of Abarca’s rage. Therefore, Abarca is not liable for the death of Koh. inadequate, would constitute a felony against person or against property.The
rationale of Article 4(2) is to punish such criminal tendencies.Under this
article, the act performed by the offender cannot produce an offense against
However, Abarca is still liable for the injuries he caused to the two other
persons or property because: (1) the commission of the offense is inherently
persons he shot in the adjacent room but his liability shall not be for
impossible of accomplishment; or (2) the means employed is either (a)
frustrated murder. In the first place, Abarca has no intent to kill the other two
inadequate or (b) ineffectual.
To be impossible under this clause, the act intended by the offender must be NO. Petitioner is guilty of committing an impossible crime of theft only. The
by its nature one impossible of accomplishment. There must be either (1) requisites of an impossible crime are: (1) that the act performed would be an
legal impossibility, or (2) physical impossibility of accomplishing the intended offense against persons or property; (2) that the act was done with evil
act in order to qualify the act as an impossible crime. intent; and (3) that its accomplishment was inherently impossible, or the
means employed was either inadequate or ineffectual. Petitioner’s evil intent
Legal impossibility occurs where the intended acts, even if completed, would cannot be denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking the check meant for
not amount to a crime. Thus: Legal impossibility would apply to those Mega Foam showed her intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it not
circumstances where (1) the motive, desire and expectation is to perform an for the fact that the check bounced, she would have received the face value
act in violation of the law; (2) there is intention to perform the physical act; thereof, which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it was only due to the
(3) there is a performance of the intended physical act; and (4) the extraneous circumstance of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown to
consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a petitioner at the time, that prevented the crime from being produced. The
crime.The impossibility of killing a person already dead falls in this category. thing unlawfully taken by petitioner turned out to be absolutely worthless,
On the other hand, factual impossibility occurs when extraneous because the check was eventually dishonored, and Mega Foam had received
circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the the cash to replace the value of said dishonored check.
consummation of the intended crime.One example is the man who puts his
hand in the coat pocket of another with the intention to steal the latter's US vs Eduave
wallet and finds the pocket empty.

The case at bar belongs to this category. Petitioner shoots the place where Defendant was charged of the crime of rape resulting to the pregnancy of
he thought his victim would be, although in reality, the victim was not present Ms. X who happens to be the daughter of his paramour. Incensed, defendant
in said place and thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end. rushed to the girl and struck here from behind, in part at least, with a sharp
In the Philippines, the Revised Penal Code, in Article 4(2), expressly provided bolo producing a frightful gash in the lumbar region and slightly to the side 8
for impossible crimes and made them punishable. WE hereby hold Petitioner 1/2 inches long and 2 inches deep severing all of the muscles and tissues of
guilty of an impossible crime that part. There was no question that defendant was guilty. The only dilemma
is the precise crime of which he should be convicted.
Jacinto vs People
Whether or not accused should be convicted of frustrated murder.
Petitioner Jacinto was an employee of Megafoam International, received a
check amounting to Pho 10, 000 as payment of Baby Aquino to her purchase Accused is guilty of frustrated murder. The fact that Eduave attacked the
to Megafoam. However, instead of delivering it to Megafoam, she deposited victim from behind, in a vital portion of the body, shows treachery qualifying
it to her account. The check was later discovered to be unfunded. Both RTC it as murder. The crime was not consummated because the elements of the
and CA ruled that the petitioner was guilty of qualified theft. Petitioner filed crime’s execution and accomplishment were not complete as the victim did
a petition for review of certiorari to SC. not die. Neither was the crime an attempted one because the accused’s
actions has already passed the subjective phase, that is, there was no
WON petitioner is correctly convicted for the crime of Qualified Theft. external force preventing defendant from performing all the acts of
execution necessary to commit the felony. Consequently, the victim did not
die because an external element has prevented such death after Eduave has
performed all the necessary acts of execution that would have caused the acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
death of the victim. the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. Although the wounds sustained by the victim were
Rivera vs People merely superficial and could not have produced his death, it does not negate
criminal liability of the accused for attempted murder. The intent to kill was
As Ruben Rodil went to a nearby store to buy food, Edgardo Rivera mocked already presumed based on the overt acts of the accused. In fact, victim could
him for being jobless and dependent on his wife for support. Ruben resented have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.
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 3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, which
to buy food, Edgardo together with his brother Esmeraldo and Ismael Rivera gives no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself. In the
emerged from their house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael present case, the accused attacked the victim in a sudden and unexpected
mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he fell to the ground, Edgardo hit him manner as he was walking with his three-year-old daughter, impervious of
three times with a hollow block on the parietal area. The Rivera brothers fled the imminent peril to his life. He was overwhelmed with the assault of the
when policemen came. The doctor declared that the wounds were slight and accused and had no chance to defend himself and retaliate. Thus, there was
superficial, though the victim could have been killed had the police not treachery.
promptly intervened.
Valenzuela vs People
(1) WON there was intent to kill.
(2) WON the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime from While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a
frustrated to attempted murder. supermarket, he saw the accused, Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart
(3) WON the aggravating circumstance of treachery was properly applied. loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-accused,
Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the
1) Yes. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes supermarket, and later emerged with more cartons of detergent. Thereafter,
against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the malefactors, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the boxes of detergent inside. As
the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim, the the taxi was about to leave the security guard asked Valenzuela for the
conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the receipt of the merchandise. The accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were
killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was committed subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted both
and the motives of the accused. In the present case, Esmeraldo and Ismael Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela
pummeled the victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three times with appealed before the Court of Appeals, arguing that he should only be
a hollow block. Even though the wounds sustained by the victim were merely convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of the
superficial and could not have produced his death, intent to kill was articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for
presumed. Review was filed before the Supreme Court.

2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt Whether or not petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.
when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when all the by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will
elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. In the logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. In the case of robbery,
crime of theft, the following elements should be present – (1) that there be it must be shown that the offender clearly intended to take possession, for
taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) the purpose of gain, of some personal property belonging to another. In the
that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done instant case, it may only be inferred as a logical conclusion that his evident
without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished intention was to enter by means of force said store against the will of its
without the use of violence against or intimidating of persons or force upon owner. That his final objective, once he succeeded in entering the store, was
things. The court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of to rob, to cause physical injury to the inmates, or to commit any other
personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that the offense, there is nothing in the record to justify a concrete finding.
offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has
already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the It must be borne in mind that in offenses not consummated, as the material
owner has already ensued from such acts. Therefore, theft cannot have a damage is wanting, the nature of the action intended (accion fin) cannot
frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated. exactly be ascertained, but the same must be inferred from the nature of the
acts executed (accion medio). The relation existing between the facts
People vs Lamahang submitted for appreciation and the offense which said facts are supposed to
produce must be direct; the intention must be ascertained from the facts and
The defendant Aurelio Lamahang is on appeal from a decision finding him therefore it is necessary, in order to avoid regrettable instances of injustice.
guilty of attempted robbery. At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose
Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Delgado and C.R. Fuentes streets Under article 280 of the Revised Penal Code, the Court is of the opinion that
of the City of Iloilo, caughtthe accused in the act of making an opening with the fact under consideration does not constitute attempted robbery but
an iron bar on the wall of a store of cheap goods. At that time the owner of attempted trespass to dwelling. Against the accused must be taken into
the store, Tan Yu, was sleeping inside with another Chinaman. The consideration the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and former
accusedhad only succeeded in breaking one board and in unfastening convictions, — inasmuch as the record shows that several final judgments for
another from the wall, when the policeman showed up, who instantly robbery and theft have been rendered against him — and in his favor, the
arrested him and placed him under custody. mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction.

WON the accused was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery People vs Trinidad

YES, he was erroneously declared guilty of attempted robbery. The accused Lolito Soriano is a fish dealer. His helpers were Ricardo Tand and Marcial
is then held guilty of attempted trespass to dwelling, committed by means of Laroa. While the three were driving on their way to Davao City to sell fish,
force, with the aforesaid aggravating and mitigating circumstances and accused Emeliano Trinidad asked for a ride to Agusan Del Norte. Tan, the
sentenced to three months and one day of arresto mayor. driver at that time, suddenly heard two gunshots – Soriano and Laroa
slumped dead for both were hit on the head. Trinidad had used his carbine
It is necessary to prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its in killing the two victims. Tan was able to get off the car and hail a jeepney
complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated passing by. However, he noticed that Trinidad was also seated at the back of
the said jeepney. Tan immediately got off the jeepney, followed by Trinidad. hacked appellant on the head and forearm and between the middle and ring
When the jeepney started to drive away, Tan suddenly clung to its side, but fingers in order to defend himself. The appellant retreated, and the
Trindiad fired two shots, one of which hit Tan on his right thigh. Tan jumped complainant did not pursue him but went home instead. The following day,
from the jeep and fortunately a Philippine Constabulary member chanced the complainant was treated by Dr. Alfredo Jamandre, Municipal Health
upon him and helped him board a bus for Butuan. Trinidad was charged with Officer of Miagao, Iloilo.
Frustrated murder in relation to the shooting of tan.
The issue raised by the petitioner in the present appeal is that the Court of
WoN Trinidad is correct in contending that he can only be convicted of Appeals erred in finding him guilty of the crime of attempted homicide and
attempted murder not of the crime of less serious physical injuries.

The defense is correct, however, in contending that in the Frustrated Murder We hold that the facts brought out in the decision of the Court of Appeals in
case, TRINIDAD can only be convicted of Attempted Murder. TRINIDAD had the present case do not justify a finding that the petitioner had the intention
commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts but was to kill the offended party. On the contrary, there are facts brought out by the
unable to perform all the acts of execution which would have produced it by decision appealed from which indicates that the petitioner had no intention
reason of causes other than his spontaneous desistance, such as, that the to kill, namely: the petitioner started the assault on the offended party by
jeep to which TAN was clinging was in motion, and there was a spare tire just giving him fist blows; the wounds inflicted on the offended party were of
which shielded the other parts of his body. Moreover, the wound on his thigh slight nature, indicating no homicidal urge on the part of the petitioner; the
petitioner retreated and went away when the offended party started hitting
was not fatal and the doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted on the
him with a bolo, thereby indicating that if the petitioner had intended to kill
victim is not sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only Attempted
the offended party he would have held his ground and kept on hitting the
Murder, the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that offended party with his bolo to kill him.
would have brought about death.
The element of intent to kill not having been duly established, and
Mondragon vs People considering that the injuries suffered by the offended party were not
necessarily fatal and could be healed in less than 30 days, We hold that the
At about 5:00 in the afternoon of July 11, 1954, while complainant Serapion offense that was committed by the petitioner is only that of less serious
Nacionales was opening the dike of his ricefield situated in Antandan, physical injuries.
Miagao, Iloilo, to drain the water therein and prepare the ground for planting
the next day, he heard a shout from afar telling him not to open the dike, People vs Sy Pio
Nacionales continued opening the dike, and the same voice shouted again,
"Don't you dare open the dike." When he looked up, he saw Isidoro the defendant-appellant entered the store at 511 Misericordia, Sta. Cruz,
Mondragon coming towards him. Nacionales informed appellant that he was Manila. Once inside he started firing a .45 caliber pistol that he had in his
opening the dike because he would plant the next morning. Without much hand. The first one shot was Jose Sy. Tan Siong Kiap, who was in the store
ado, Mondragon tried to hit the complainant who dodged the blow. and saw the accused enter and afterwards fire a shot at Jose Sy, asked the
Thereupon, appellant drew his bolo and struck complainant on different defendant-appellant, "What is the idea?" Thereupon defendant-appellant
parts of his body. Complainant backed out, unsheathed his own bolo, and turned around and fired at him also. The bullet fired from defendant-
appellant's pistol entered the right shoulder of Tan Siong Kiap and passed
through his back. Upon being hit, Tan Siong Kiap immediately ran to a room military authorities had surrounded the lumber yard. After the negotiation
behind the store to hide. From there he still heard gunshots fired from fails to proceed, the police makes their move in assaulting the robbers thus
defendant-appellant's pistol, but afterwards defendant-appellant ran away. Mary and Mimmie are injured as well the accused also got an injury.
Tan Siong Kiap was brought to the Chinese General Hospital, where his
wound was treated. The defendant-appellant shot two other persons in the WoN Robbery was consummated
morning of September 3, 1949, before shooting and wounding Tan Siong
Kiap; one was Ong Pian and the other Jose Sy. Yes. The robbery shall be deemed consummated if the unlawful “taking” is
complete. Unlawful taking of a personal property is an essential part of the
defendant-appellant claims that the trial court erred in not finding that Tan crime of robbery. The respondent claimed that none of the items (money,
Siong Kiap received the shot accidentally from the same bullet that had been watches and walltwt) were recovered from them. However, based on the
fired at Jose Sy, and in finding that defendant-appellant has committed a evidence, the money demanded, the wallet and the wristwatch were within
crime distinct and separate from that of murder for the slaying of Jose Sy. the dominion and control of the appellant and his co-accused and thus the
taking was completed. It is not necessary that the property be taken into the
it is not necessary that the accused actually commit all the acts of execution hands of the robber or that he should have actually carried the property
necessary to produce the death of his victim, but that it is sufficient that he away, out of the physical presence of the lawful possessor, or that he should
believes that he has committed all said acts. In the case at bar, however, the have made his escape with it.
defendant-appellant fired at his victim, and the latter was hit, but he was able
to escape and hide in another room. The fact that he was able to escape, People vs Orita
which appellant must have seen, must have produced in the mind of the
defendant-appellant that he was not able to hit his victim at a vital part of Ceilito Orita was accused of frustrated rape by the RTC. He appealed to the
the body. In other words, the defendant-appellant knew that he had not Court of Appeals for review. The accused poke a “balisong” to college
actually performed all the acts of execution necessary to kill his victim. Under freshman Cristina Abayan as soon as she got into her boarding house early
these circumstances, it can not be said that the subjective phase of the acts morning after arriving from a party. She knew him as a frequent visitor of
of execution had been completed. And as it does not appear that the another boarder. She was dragged inside the house up the stairs while his
defendant-appellant continued in the pursuit, and, as a matter of fact, he ran left arm wrapped around her neck, and his right hand poking the Batangas
away afterwards a reasonable doubt exists in our mind that the defendant- knife to her neck. Upon entering her room, he pushed her in and got her head
appellant had actually believed that he had committed all the acts of hit on the wall. He immediately undressed while still holding the knife with
execution or passed the subjective phase of the said acts. This doubt must be one hand, and ordered her to do the same. He ordered her to lie down on
resolved in favor of the defendant-appellant. the floor and then mounted her. He asked her to hold his penis and insert it
in her vagina, while still poking the knife to her. She followed, but the
People vs Salvilla appellant could not fully penetrate her in such a position. Next, he laid down
on his back and commanded her to mount him, but he cannot fully penetrate
The accused Bienvenido Salvilla together with his co-accused armed with her. When Orita’s hands were both flat on the floor, complainant escaped
homemade guns and hand grenade robbed Rodita Habiero in the latter’s naked. She ran from room to room as appellant pursued her, and finally
office. In the office of Rodita; her two daughters Mary and Mimmie were jumped out through a window. She went to the municipal building nearby
also inside. One of the accused asks Mary to get the paper bag which and knocked on the back door for there was no answer. When the door
contained money. All accused held victims as hostage when the police and opened, the policemen inside the building saw her crying and naked. She was
given a jacket for covering by the first policeman who saw her. The policemen
dashed to her boarding house but failed to apprehend the accused. She was WON the accused committed a consummated statutory rape
brought to a hospital for physical examination. Her PE revealed that she is
still a virgin, with abrasions on the left breast, left and right knees, and Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be
multiple pinpoint marks on her back, among others. The trial court convicted consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the
the accused of frustrated rape. female organ. Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined
to the oft-quoted "touching of the female organ," but has also progressed
Whether or not the frustrated stage applies to the crime of rape?
into being described as "the introduction of the male organ into the labia of
the pudendum," or "the bombardment of the drawbridge." But, to our mild,
The decision of the RTC is hereby MODIFIED. The accused Ceilito Orita is
the case at bar merely constitutes a "shelling of the castle of orgasmic
hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape
potency," or as earlier stated, a "strafing of the citadel of passion.
[consummated] and sentenced to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify
Antithetically, in the instant case, the possibility of Primo's penis having
the victim in the amount of P30,000.00. Clearly, in the crime of rape, from
the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim he actually breached Crysthel's vagina is belied by the child's own assertion that she
attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of resisted Primo's advances by putting her legs close together. Further, it is
the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the pertinent to mention the medico legal officer's finding in this case that there
offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the were no external signs of physical injuries on complaining witness' body to
crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. [Art. 266 and Art. 6] conclude from a medical perspective that penetration had taken place.
We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect
penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male Hence, Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape
organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without is attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape directly
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should
conviction produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or accident other than
his own spontaneous desistance. All the elements of attempted rape — and
People vs Campuhan only of attempted rape — are present in the instant case, hence, the accused
should be punished only for it.
As provided for under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by
RA 7659, an automatic review of the case is brought before the Supreme Cruz vs People
Court. That on May 27, 1997, Primo Campuhan was convicted guilty of
statutory rape and sentenced by the court a quo to the extreme penalty of Norberto and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help them in selling their
death. The conviction was based on the statements of Ma. Corazon plastic wares and glass wares in La Union. Upon reaching the place, they set
Pamintuan, the mother of the victim Chrystel, saying that on April 25, 1996, up their tents to have a place to sleep. Petitioner’s wife and their driver went
she found the accused kneeling down on his 4-year old daughter with his back to Manila to get more goods. While sleeping, AAA felt that somebody
pants down and “forcing his penis into Chrystel’s vagina”. However, the was on top of her mashing her breast and touching her private part. Norberto
accused kept his innocence and contested that Pamintuan’s statements were ordered her not to scream or she will be killed. AAA fought back and Norberto
not credible for the latter has ill will against him. was not able to pursue his lustful desires. AA left the tent to seek for help.
When she returned to their tent, she saw Norberto touching the private parts be highly unwarranted. Such circumstances remained equivocal, or
of BBB. This prompted Norberto to leave the tent. “susceptible of double interpretation,” such that it was not permissible to
directly infer from them the intention to cause rape as the particular injury.
Norberto denies the commission of the crime alleging that he could not
possibly do the acts imputed out in the open as there were many people The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis
preparing for the “simbang gabi”. He further assails the credibility AAA for capable of consummating the sexual act of touching the external genitalia of
the crime of rape, alleging that the complaints were filed only for the purpose the female. Without such showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is
of extorting money from him. committed. Petitioner’s embracing and touching the victim’s vagina and
breasts did not directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The lack of
WON accused was guilty of attempted rape. evidence showing his erectile penis being in the position to penetrate her
when he was on top of her deterred any inference about his intent to lie with
NO, Cruz is guilty only of acts of lasciviousness. The basic element of rape is her. At most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust for her. The intent to
carnal knowledge of a female. Carnal knowledge is defined simply as “the act commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner, even from
of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman,” in other words, his own declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts leading to
rape is consummated once the penis capable of consummating the sexual rape.
act touches the external genitalia of the female. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the Baleros vs People
female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an
accused to be convicted of consummated rape. Herein petitioner Renato “CHITO” Baleros, Jr. seeks for the reversal of the
Court of Appeals affirming his conviction of attempted rape before the
Rape in its frustrated stage is a physical impossibility. Nonetheless, rape Manila RTC in 1991.
admits of an attempted stage. In attempted rape, the concrete felony is rape,
but the offender does not perform all the acts of execution of having carnal Petitioner was a medical student in UST at that time when he was accused of
knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates attempting to rape Malou Albano, also a medical student in UST by covering
rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the commencement of the the victim’s face with a piece of cloth covered with a chemical inducing
commission of the felony directly by overt acts without the offender dizziness and unconsciousness and lying on top of Albano, pinning down its
performing all the acts of execution that should produce the felony, the only body. The victim was able to escape such perpetrator when she had the
means by which the overt acts performed by the accused can be shown to chance to hold its sex organ, squeezed it and thereafter ran away and sought
have a causal relation to rape as the intended crime is to make a clear help from its classmates who stays at room 310 of the same floor and building
showing of his intent to lie with the female. where the victim lives.

The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim and was already touching Due to panic and the immediacy of her instinct to call for help, the only
her genitalia with his hands and mashing her breasts when she freed herself identification Albano was able to recall from the perpetrator was that it was
from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on her. Yet, inferring from wearing a white cotton shirt and a dark short with a smooth texture similar
such circumstances that rape, and no other, was his intended felony would to that of satin. The following day, a white shirt and an addidas short with a
handkerchief- all garments covered with blue stain were retrieved from the Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning of April 28th of this year, when M. D.
bag owned by herein petitioner. Several days before such incident, Chito Lewin was absent from the house in which he was living with his family, at
confessed his feelings towards the victim but was rejected by the latter. The No. 328, San Rafael Street, San Miguel, Mrs. Auckback, who appears to have
security guard of the building, as well as the friends of Albano attested for been a resident of the neighborhood, called Mrs. Lewin and told her that
the prosecution. much smoke was issuing from the lower fioor of the latter's house, for until
then Mrs. Lewin had not noticed it, and as soon as her attention was brought
to the fact she ordered the servant Paulino Banal to look for the fire, as he
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming RTC Manila’s conviction of
did, and he found, soaked with kerosene oil and placed between a post of
Baleros with attempted rape amid the lack of proof its guilt without
the house and a partition of the entresol, a piece of a jute sack and a rag
reasonable doubt.
which were burning. At that moment the defendant Valdes was in the
entresol, engaged in his work of cleaning, whiletthe other defendant Hugo
Yes. Although the Court does not identify the petitioner to be innocent of the Labarro was cleaning the horses kept at the place.
acts imputed to him, such acts were not substantial enough to convict him of
attempted rape. For one, Baleros was not identified through direct evidence On the same morning of the occurrence, the police arrested the defendants,
but only from circumstantial identification (that is, from the congruence of having been called for the purpose by telephone. Severino Valdes, after his
Albano’s identification of what the perpetrator wore and the witnesses’ arrest, according to the statement, Exhibit C, drawn up in-the police station,
testimonies as to what Baleros wore that night). admitted before several policemen that it was he who had set the fire to the
sack and the rag, which had been noticed on the date mentioned, and he also
who had started the several other fires which had occurred in said house on
Article 335 in relation to Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code states the previous days; that he had performed such acts through the inducement of
circumstances that shows overt acts of a perpetrator in committing the crime the other prisoner, Hugo Labarro, for they felt resentment against, or had
of rape. Moreover, the Court has ruled in Perez v. CA that in order for a crime had trouble with, their masters, and that, as he and his coaccused were
of rape to have been committed in an attempted stage, the accused must friends, he had acted as he did under the promise on Labarro's part to give
have commenced the act of penetrating the woman’s vagina with his sex him a peso for each such fire that he should start.
organ but was not able to completely do so due to some reason or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance. The defendant Severino Valdes admitted, in an affidavit, that he made
declarations in the police station, although he denied having placed the rag
and piece of jute sack, soaked with kerosene, in the place where they were
Even with the acts of kissing the victim and mashing her breasts, the offense found, and stated that it was the servant Paulino who had done so. He alleged
would not have constituted attempted rape absent the accused’s that, on being arraigned, he stated that he had set fire to a pile of dry mango
commencement of penetrating the victim’s vagina with his sex organ. In the leaves that he had gathered together, which is contrary to the statement he
present case, the perpetrator was even fully dressed when it attacked made in the police station, to wit, that he had set the fire to the said rag and
Albano. The Court reversed and set aside the decision affirmed by the CA and piece of sack under the house.
adjudges Baleros guilty of unjust vexation punishable as light coercion under
article 287 of the RPC. For lack of evidence and on his counsel's petition, the case was dismissed
with respect to the other defendant Bugo Labarro.
US vs Valdes Owing to the repeated attempts, made for about a month past, since
Severino Valdes began to serve the Lewin family, to burn the house above
mentioned, occupied by the latter and in which this defendant was partition of the entresol, the partition might have started to burn, had the
employed, some policemen were watching the building and one of them, fire not been put out on time.
Antonio Garcia del Cid, one morning prior to the commission of the crime,
according to his testimony, saw the defendant Valdes climbing up the wall of People vs Aguilos
the warehouse behind the dwelling house, in which warehouse there was o Rafael, together with his wife, sons and brothers, went to poblacion of
some straw that had previously been burned, and that, when the defendant Tupi to mill corn
noticed the presence of the policeman, he desisted from climbing the wall o Upon approaching a hilly part, the carabao could not pull up the cart so
and entering the warehouse. Rafael, with his 2 brothers and son, Gumercindo, went up the hill,
The fact of setting fire to a jute sack and a rag, soaked with kerosene oil and carrying with them the sacks of corn
placed beside an upright of the house and a partition of the entresol of the o As they approached the house of Dela Cerna, the latter fired and hit
building, thus endangering the burning of the latter, constitutes the crime of Rafael. Sulpicio also ordered to burn down the house. Rafael's
frustrated arson of an inhabited house, on an occasion when some of its companions brought him to his father's house about 100m away
inmates were inside of it. This crime is provided for and punished by article o As they reached the house, Rafael's wound was washed away and he
549, in connection with articles 3, paragraph 2, and 65 of the Penal Code, and was made to stay inside the room to rest. Unfortunately, Sulpicio et al
the sole proven perpetrator of the same by direct participation is the arrived at the said house, armed with firearms, bolos and canes, stoned
defendant Severino Valdes, for, notwithstanding his denial and the house, thrust their bolos thru the house's bamboo walls and
unsubstantiated exculpations, the record discloses conclusive proof that it flooring, made the women go out of the house and finally, Rafael was
was he who committed the said unlawful act, as it was also he who was guilty shot by Serapio
of having set the other fires that occurred in said house. In an affidavit the o Rafael's son, Casiano, was able to escape however, Serapio followed
defendant admitted having made declarations in the police station, and him and shot him as well
though at the trial, he denied that he set fire to the sacks and the rag which o Sulpicio got the gun from Serapio and fired another shot against Rafael
were found soaked in kerosene and burning, and, without proof whatever, o Defense of Sulpicio:
laid the blame unto his codefendant, the fact is that he confessed to having - It was Rafael, et al, who were armed with bolo upon reaching his
set fire to a pile of dry leaves whereby much smoke arose from the lower part house
of the house, but which, however, did not forewarn his mistress, Mrs. Lewin, - Rafael ordered his companions to thrust their bolos in his house
though she should have noticed it, and he allowed the sack and the rag to and burn it down
continue burning until Mrs. Auckback, noticing a large volume of smoke in - He only fired against Rafael et al in order to drive them away
the house, gave the alarm. No proof was submitted to substantiate the - He surrendered before the authorities
accusation he made against the servant Paulino, who apparently is the same o Note that prior to this incident, there was a land dispute between Rafael
person as the driver Hugo Labarro. and Sulpicio's father wherein the former won and an ejectment suit was
filed against the latter
The crime is classified only as frustrated arson, inasmuch as the defendant o The accused were convicted of murder by the trial court wherein
performed all the acts conducive to the burning of said house, but Sulpicio and Serapio are principals, while the 3 more are accessories,
nevertheless, owing to causes independent of his will, the criminal act which with treachery and evident premeditation as aggravating circumstance
he intended was not produced. The offense committed cannot be classified
as consummated arson by the burning of said inhabited house, for the reason Issue: Is the ruling of the trial court with respect to the aggravating
that no part of the building had yet commenced to burn, although, as the circumstances cited?
piece of sack and the rag, soaked in kerosene oil, had been placed near the
Ruling: - However, there was no conspiracy to kill Casiano since it was not
o YES, although the aggravating circumstance of treachery is offset by the part of their intended plan. In fact, no harm was done to the
mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender, only with respect to companions of Rafael since their target was Rafael alone.
Sulpicio Dela Cerna - Co-conspirators are liable only for acts done pursuant to the
o There was treachery conspiracy. When there are acts done outside the intended crime,
- The second shot fired by Serapio was treacherous since at that only the actual perpetrator is liable
time, Rafael is wounded and defenseless o All of the accused are guilty as co-principals in the murder of Rafael.
- The third shot was also done when Rafael is lying down on the floor - There was positive identification by the prosecution witnesses.
and completely defenseless, after having been shot twice already Such must prevail over the alibis posted
- Note that treachery should be considered independently due to - Presence and active participation in the meeting in Abapo's house
the sufficient lapse of time (bringing of Rafael to his father's house, - They were also present and participated in the execution of their
washing of the wounds, ordering the women to get out of the criminal design, which is to kill Rafael
house) - The accused were armed upon their arrival at Demetrio's house
o There is also evident premeditation
- A meeting was held in the house of Andres Abapo (also one of the
accused), as testified by Maximo Cana (prosecution witness) Estrada vs Sandiganbayan
- According to Cana, the purpose of the meeting was to plan the In connection with the impeachment proceedings against President Joseph
killing of Rafael Estrada, five criminal complaints were filed against him, the members of his
- Note that almost 2 years after he testified, Cana retracted in his family, his associates, friends, and conspirators in the Office of the
previous testimony, saying that Rafael's wife, Hospicia, gave him Ombudsman. Respondent Ombudsman found probable cause warranting
P50.00 to testify for the prosecution. Such was denied by Hospicia the filing with the Sandiganbayan of several criminal information against the
since prior to the alleged "bribe," Cana had already executed an former President and the other respondents. One of the information filed
affidavit incriminating the accused. It is also highky improbable for was for the crime of plunder under R.A. 7080 and among the respondents
Hospicia to go to the house of a relative of the accused and bribe was petitioner Jinggoy.
Cana in the presence of the accused. According to the court, mere
retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate Petitioner filed a "Very Urgent Omnibus Motion" alleging that: 1) no probable
the original testimony otherwise credible. The Court said that cause exists to put him on trial and hold him liable for plunder, it appearing
Cana's original testimony is positive and replete with details. If the that he was only allegedly involved in illegal gambling and not in a "series or
stories were fabricated, he could not have withstood a long and combination of overt or criminal acts" as required in R.A. 7080; and 2) he is
thorough cross-examination. Also, his narration of the shooting entitled to bail as a matter of right.
incident was corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses.
Lastly, the charge inconsistencies and improbabilities are too Respondent Sandiganbayan denied petitioner's motion. Petitioner moved for
insignificant to affect the substance. reconsideration of the Resolution. Respondent court denied the motion and
o Conspiracy proceeded to arraign petitioner.
- There was conspiracy in the killing of Rafael since after the first shot
by Sulpicio, a second shot was fired by Serapio then another shot Whether or not the crime of plunder is proper
by Sulpicio again, thereby killing Rafael. The purpose was to kill
Rafael and him alone.
1) Yes. Contrary to petitioner's contention, he was not charged with the
commission of only one act, considering the phrase "on several 1) "Wheel or circle conspiracy," in which there is a single person or group
instances" stated in the Amended Information. (the "hub") dealing individually with two or more other persons or groups
(the "spokes"); and
Petitioner's contention that R.A. 7080 does not apply to him is principally
based on the premise that the amended information charged him with only 2) "Chain conspiracy," usually involving the distribution of narcotics or other
one act or offense which cannot constitute plunder. However, examination contraband, in which there is successive communication and cooperation in
of the information will show that it is divided into 3 parts: 1) first much the same way as with legitimate business operations between
paragraph charges President Estrada with the crime of plunder together with manufacturer and wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and then retailer
petitioner Jinggoy Estrada; 2)second paragraph spells out in general terms and consumer.
how the accused conspired in committing the crime of plunder; and 3) the
following four sub-paragraphs describe in detail the predicate acts constitute The case at bar appears similar to a wheel conspiracy. The hub is former
of the crime of plunder and state the names of the accused who committed President Estrada while the spokes are all the accused, and the rim that
each act. encloses the spokes is the common goal in the overall conspiracy, i.e. the
amassing, accumulation, and acquisition of ill-gotten wealth.
The allegation in the information is that petitioner Jinggoy received or
collected money from illegal gambling "on several instances", meaning he Under Philippine jurisdiction, conspiracy may be alleged as a mode of
committed the predicate act in series. Thus, contrary to petitioner's committing a crime or as constitutive of the crime itself.
contention, it cannot be said that he was charged with the commission of
only one act, considering the phrase "several instances". When conspiracy is charged as a crime, the act of conspiring and all the
elements of said crime must be set forth in the complaint or information.
It was held in Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (2001) that the
words "combination" or "series" are taken in their popular, not technical, When conspiracy is charged as a mode of committing a crime, as in the case
meaning. "Series" is synonymous with the clause "on several at bar, there is less necessity of reciting its particularities because conspiracy
instances". "Series" refers to a repetition of the same predicate act in any of is not the gravamen of the offence charged. The conspiracy is significant only
the items in Section 1 (d) of the law. "Combination" contemplates the because it changes the criminal liability of all the accused in the conspiracy
commission of at least any two different predicate acts in any of said items. and makes them answerable as co-principals regardless of the degree of their
participation in the crime. The liability of the conspirators is collective and
2) If conspiracy is proven, the penalty of the petitioner shall be the same as each participant will be equally responsible for the acts of others, for the act
former President Estrada. of one is the act of all.

In the crime of plundering, different parties may be united by a common In the case at bar, the information alleged in general terms how the accused
purpose. In the case at bar, the different accused and their different criminal committed the crime of plunder. It used the words "in connivance/
acts have a commonality - to help the former President amass, accumulate conspiracy with his co-accused." These words are sufficient to allege the
or acquire ill-gotten wealth. conspiracy of the accused with the former President in committing the crime
of plunder.
In American jurisdiction, the presence of several accused in multiple
conspiracies commonly involves two structures:
People vs Yu Hai Under Article 90, supra, "light offenses prescribe in two months". The
definition of "light offenses" is in turn to be found in Article 9, which
classifies felonies into grave, less grave, and light, and defines "light
On October 22, 1954, Yu Hai alias "Haya" was accused in the Justice of the
felonies" as "those infractions of law for the commission of which the
Peace Court of Caloocan of a violation of Article 195, sub-paragraph 2 of the
penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both
Revised Penal Code, for having allegedly permitted the game of panchong or
is provided"'. The offense charged is punishable by arresto menor or a
paikiu, a game of hazard, and having acted as maintainer thereof, in the
fine not exceeding 200 pesos (Article 195). Hence, it is a "light
municipality of Caloocan on or about the 26th day of June, 1954. The
offense" under Article 9 and prescribes in two months under Article 90.
accused moved to quash the information on the ground that it charged more
than one offense and that the criminal action or liability therefor had
already been extinguished; and the Justice of the Peace Court, in its order of The Solicitor General argues that as the crime charged may be punished by a
December 24, 1954, sustained the motion to quash on the theory that maximum fine of P200, which under Article 26 is a correctional penalty, the
the offense charged was a light offense which, under Article 90 of the time for prescription thereof is ten years, pursuant to paragraph 3 of
Revised Penal Code, prescribed in two months. Article 90. This argument is untenable. In the first place, while Article 90
provides that light offenses prescribe in two months, it does not define what
is meant by "light offenses", leaving it to Article 9 to fix its meaning. Article
The provincial fiscal appealed to the Court of First Instance of the province,
26, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the definition of offenses,
which affirmed the order of
but merely classifies fine, when imposed as a principal penalty,
dissmissal of the information. Wherefore, the provincial fiscal appealed
whether singly or in the alternative into the categories of afflictive,
directly to this Court.
correctional, and light penalties. As the question at issue is the prescription
of a crime and not the prescription of a penalty, Article 9 should prevail over
The sole issue is the period for the prescription of the offense Article 26.
charged, punishable under Article 195 of the Revised Penal Code by arresto
menor or a fine not exceeding P200.
In the second place, Article 90 could not have intended that light offenses
as defined by Article 9 would have two prescriptive periods—two months
Less grave felonies are those which the law punishes with penalties which if they are penalized by arresto menor and/or a fine of less than P200,
in their maximum period are correctional, in accordance with and ten years if penalized by a maximum fine of P200. Under the theory of
the above mentioned article. the Solicitor General, the difference of only one peso in the imposable fine
would mean all the difference of nine years and ten months in the
Light felonies are those infractions of law for the commission prescriptive period of the offense. And what is worse, the proper
of which the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos prescriptive period could not be ascertained until and unless the court
or both, is provided." decided which of the alternative penalties should be imposed; which the
court could not properly do if the offense had prescribed, for then it could
"Art. 26. Fine, when afflictive, correctional, or light.—A fine, whether no longer be prosecuted. These absurd results the law-makers could not
imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, shall be considered an have wittingly intended, especially since more serious offenses as those
afflictive penalty, if it exceeds 6,000 pesos; a punishable by arresto mayor (a correctional penalty) prescribe, also under
correctional penalty, if it does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is not less Article 90, in five years, while other "less grave" offenses like libel, and oral
than 200 pesos; and a light penalty if it be less than 200 pesos." defamation and slander, prescribe in even shorter periods of time, two years
and six months respectively. As held in the case of People vs. Florendo, 73
Phil. 679, there is no reason to suppose that the law-maker would raise the
prescriptive period for certain light offenses over other light offenses.

It should also be noted that under Article 9, a light felony is one punishable
by arresto menor of a fine not exceeding 200 pesos or both. Now, if we
are to follow the argument of the Solicitor General that Article 26 should
prevail over Article 9 if the offense is punishable by a maximum
fine of P200, we would again have the absurd situation that an offense
penalized by arresto menor or fine not exceeding P200 in the alternative,
would be a less grave felony, while the more serious one, which the law
penalizes with both imprisonment of arresto menor and a
fine not exceeding P200, remains only a "light offense".

Finally, criminal statutes are to. be strictly construed against


the government and liberally in favor of the accused. As it would be more
favorable to the herein accused to apply the definition of "light
felonies" under Article 9 in connection with the prescriptive period of the
offense charged, the same should be followed. Under Article 90, the offense
charged, being a light offense, prescribed in two months. As it was allegedly
committed on June 26, 1954 and the information filed only on October 22,
1954, the lower court correctly ruled that the crime in question has already
prescribed.

Похожие интересы