CRIM2 MODULE 8
Homicide/Murder
(1) People v. At a dance party in the home of Benedicto Campa, Sr. in Hda.
Campa Galispin, Barangay Mansilingan, Bacolod City, The guests that night
are as follows: Josefino Jagocoy, Freddie Mojica, Ricardo Pagunsan,
Jr., Jessie Parcon and Noli Malayang. At about 10 o'clock that night,
after dancing had been going on for about two (2) hours, Josefino
Jagocoy asked Mila, the wife of Dalmacio Campa, for a dance. Mila
(a.k.a. Indang) turned down Josefino's invitation, saying she was a
married woman; but Josefino allegedly tried to pull her towards
the dance area. Mila evidently felt so outraged that, "screaming and
shouting," she went up to the house of Benedicto Campa, Sr., her
father-in-law.
Without warning, Jorge Villacampa hit Josefino on the shoulder
with a cane cutter. Josefino fell on his buttocks and while thus
positioned on the ground, was again hacked with the cane cutter by
Villacampa. Dalmacio Campa then stabbed Josefino twice in the
abdomen with a double-bladed copper knife; and Dalmacio's
brother, Jimmy Campa, also stabbed Josefino with a stainless steel
knife. The other Campa brothers — Proceso, Mateo and Benedicto,
Jr. — surrounded Josefino and struck out at him with cane
cutters.After this feral outburst, which could not have lasted more
than a few minutes, Josefino Jagocoy was taken to the Bacolod
Doctors Hospital. He was attended to at the Emergency Room by
Dr. Roberto L. Garcia. Josefino was able to speak to the police
investigator, Pat Oscar Flor, to whom he identified his attackers.
Josefino died the next day, January 25, 1984, after he was operated
on in an attempt to save his life.
The Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had "satisfactorily
established with moral certainty the guilt of the accused in
conspiring to kill the deceased Josefino Jagocoy beyond reasonable
doubt . . .; and that, on the other hand, "testimony of defense
witnesses presented conflicting statements that were unreliable
and of doubtful veracity, if not downright incredible."
(2) People v. Abundio Roluna (Roluna), Carlos Daguing, Paterno Daguing,
Roluna Mamerto Asmolo, Teodulfo Daguing, Federico Simpron, Bienvenido
Whether or not The crime actually proven, however, is not murder but homicide
the defendants are simply, neither of the two (2) qualifying circumstances alleged in the
guilty of murder? information, treachery and evident premeditation​, having been
[NO] adequately established. As depicted by the proofs, the attack on Josefino
Jagocoy was made overtly frontally, no effort having exerted to employ
means, methods and forms in the perpetration of the killing tending directly
Whether or not and especially to insure its execution without risk to the offenders arising
the defendants from the defense which the offended party make. Neither do the proofs
should be charged demonstrate evident premeditation on appellants' part; indeed, no finding of
under Art 251, its existence has been made by the Court a quo.
Tumultuous The Court however agrees with the appellee that the commission of the
Affray? ​[NO] crime was attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of advantage
being taken of superior strength.
In the instant case, superior strength was taken advantage of when
Villacampa and the five (5) Campa brothers, who were all armed with bladed
weapons, ganged up and attacked Josefino Jagocoy, the victim who was
unarmed, resulting in the latter's death. In People v. Alitao (194 SCRA 120
[1991]), this Honorable Court held that there was abuse of superior strength
where the evidence showed that the victim was unarmed while he was
simultaneously attacked by the appellants, all of them with weapons.
Since superior strength was not alleged as a qualifying circumstance in the
information, its attendance in the killing incident cannot qualify the crime to
murder. However, it can be taken as a generic aggravating circumstance to
the crime of homicide
Tumultuous Affray
There was here a physical assault by a group of ​identified men​ against a
common, particular victim, and not, as the defense suggests, a "tumultuous
affray" within the meaning of Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code,i.e., a
melee or free-for-all, where several persons ​not comprising definite or
identifiable​ groups attack one another in a confused and disorganized
manner, resulting in the death or injury of one or some of them.
Footnote on Tumultuous Affray
There is a "tumultuous affray," according to Article 251, when "several
persons, not composing groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each
other in a confused and tumultuous manner." The penalty prescribed, where
it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased or actually injuries,
is made dependent on whether death, or physical injuries result from the
affray (Arts. 251 and 252).
Whether or not In this case, the prosecution witnesses testified that they merely saw one of
the circumstances the accused, Carlos Daguing, tie up the hands of Moronia. He was then taken
 Simpron and Didoc Bongcalos were charged with the crime of
kidnapping with murder. They hogtied and kidnapped Anatalio
Moronia (Moronia) and took him away to a place unknown up (to)
this time whereat said victim was killed. Only Roluna was arrested,
tried and convicted. The others
remain at large. 2 residents of barangay Amguhan, Baybay, Leyte
testified.
Conrado Sombilon’s testimony:​ On May 27, 1984, at 7AM, he was
on his way to sitio Bungabungan to attend to the pasture of his
carabao. At a distance of 30 meters, he saw his neighbor, Moronia,
stopped in his tracks and taken captive by Roluna. Roluna was then
accompanied by seven (7) other persons. The former was armed
with an armalite while the latter were carrying short firearms.
Using an abaca strip, he saw Carlos Daguing tie up the hands of
Moronia at the back. Frightened, he did not shout for help and
proceeded on his way. With the exception of his wife, he did not
inform anyone about what he saw that fateful day.
Buenaventura Nogalada’s testimony:​ On said day, at around 9AM,
he came from his farm in barangay Monterico and was on his way
home to barangay Amguhan. At a distance of about 25 meters, he
saw Moronia walking along a human trail in barangay Amguhan,
with his hands tied by a rope behind his back. Moronia was
followed by Roluna, Carlos Daguing and five (5) other persons
whom he did not recognize. Roluna was carrying an armalite while
Carlos Daguing was armed with a pistol. Frightened, Nogalada
immediately left the place.
Both testified that Moronia was never seen or heard from.
At trial, Roluna denied the accusations and claimed that his wife’s
cousin went to their house and the cousin said that his wife’s
grandmother (Iluminada) was bedridden and seriously ill. They
proceeded to the grandmother’s house and took care of her by
gathering some herbal plants to be placed on Iluminada’s body.
Such tesimony is corroborated by his wife and his
grandmother-in-law.
The trial court found Roluna guilty of the complex crime of
Kidnapping with Murder.
(3) People v. 1988 – 16 corpa laborers went to the coconut land of Sergio
Silong Baltazar in Manarog, Leyte. They went there to gather coconuts for
making corpa. They were divided in 2 grps – 6 people (1​st​ grp) and
Ambush 10 people (“Tiklos” grp).
against
copra In the next morning at 8am, while the first group was gathering
laborers their harvested coconuts, the second group was on their way to the
Baltazar land, passing through the land of Rufino Cua.
proved by the in the direction of barangay Monterico and was never seen or heard from
prosecution are since. During the trial, it was not established that any of the 8 accused beat
sufficient to up Moronia or in any way laid a violent hand on him. Nogalada even testified
establish the death that he did not hear any shot fired by any of the 8 armed accused so as to
of Anatalio warrant a reasonable conclusion that Moronia was killed by Roluna or any of
Moronia? ​[NO] his co-conspirators. Indeed, even the possible motive of Roluna and his
group for abducting Moronia was not definitively established. To be sure, the
circumstances proved are insufficient to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder.
The conviction of Roluna for the serious crime of kidnapping with murder
cannot be allowed to rest on the vague facts established by the prosecution.
The evidence presented by the prosecution surrounding the events of that
fateful day are grossly insufficient to establish the alleged liability of Roluna
for the death of Moronia.
It is a well-entrenched principle in criminal law that an accused is presumed
innocent until proven otherwise. No less than proof beyond reasonable
doubt is required to convict him. On the whole, the evidence adduced by the
prosecution would not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
accused-appellant should be convicted for the serious crime of kidnapping
with murder.
Since none of the circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code (kidnapping with serious illegal detention) was proved and only
the fact of kidnapping of Anatalio Moronia was established, we find that the
crime committed is ​slight illegal detention​ under Article 268 of the Revised
Penal Code. In the execution of the crime, more than three (3) armed
malefactors acted together in its commission. Thus, since the generic
aggravating circumstance of band attended the commission of the crime and
there being no mitigating circumstance present, the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period as maximum and prision mayor as
minimum should be imposed on accused-appellant.
W/N the accused An alibi is one of the weakest defences that can be resorted to. It is
were rightfully weak and unreliable. It is also easy to fabricate.
charged. ​[YES] For an alibi to be effective, the accused must establish that not only was he
somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crim. The
accused, by their admissions, were only about 1.5-3km away from the site of
the ambush. Therefore, it wasn’t clearly nor physically impossible for them
to be present at the scene.
 Suddenly, 33 armed men ambushed them and rained bullets. Shots
came from the upper level of the terrain, and there was an armed
group below.
Some of the laborers ran for cover behind the coconut trees. Some
members were fatally shot (Alejandro, Camahalan, Angel Ellaga,
Zosimo Ellaga, Gildo Doguiton, and Cesario Davis). Some were
killed, while Ceferino Azucenas died at the hospital. After they
fired, they calmly walked away.
After the ambush, witnesses Alcoser and Zamora went to Brgy
Binulho, Leyte to notify the victims’ families. They then notified the
barangay captain and the identity of the culprits.
Those who survived were able to identify some of the ambushers.
The ambushers were identified by Dominga Azucenas (Ceferino’s
wife), Felipe Narca (survivor), Joel Alcoser (witness) and Johnny
Zamora (witness). They were able to identify: Comaling, Alabat,
Relativo, Amahan, Pangilinan, and Abuyas.
An information for murder with frustrated murder was filed
against the accused. Only those identified were brought to court
while the others remained at large.
The court found them guilty of Multiple Murder with Frustrated
Homicide. Only Comaling, Alabat, and Amahan appealed for the
reversal of the judgment. They argued that there was grave abuse
by the court for not accepting their alibis.
Alibis:
Comaling and Alabat said that on the day of the ambush, they were
in Brgy Maslog, Baybay, Leyte; that they left their residence at
7:30am and worked until 4pm; and that they did not leave their
workplace. Amahan testified that he spent the night before the
ambush in someone’s (Guillermo Pestadero) house in Brgy
Binulho, Javier, Leyte.
(4) People v. Aurelio Cabalhin is married to Marianita Cabalhin and they were
Cabalhin living separately, with Aurelio in Sucat and Marianita working as a
housemaid in Taytay. Elevita Dagame told him that his wife was
not working as a housemaid in Lola Waway’s house which led him
to gather information about the whereabouts of his wife. He was
told that his wife was cheating on him with Rolito Saldivia. He went
to Saldivia’s house he saw his wife engaged in a sexual act with a
man (his wife was lying on her back with her legs apart while the
man was on top of her with his buttocks between the parted legs of
his wife). He lost control of himself because of anger and stabbed
the testicles of Rolito and when his wife tried to stop him, he also
stabbed her. He stabbed them repeatedly resulting to their death
and when Flaviana Saldivia (Rolito’s mother) tried to stop him, he
stabbed her resulting in the stab wounds on her breast. She was
An alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused
by the witnesses.
Here, the witnesses recognised the accused with absolute certainty. They
testified that the accused were residents of nearby barrios and that they
have known them for a long time.
The accused also contend that not one of the qualifying circumstances
of treachery, abuse of superior strength, and evident premeditation
alleged in the information was proven. ​Evidence clearly shows that the
accused waited in an elevated place. The accused were fully armed with M16
rifles, armalites, shotguns, carbines, garands, and M203s. The existence of
treachery cannot be gainsaid. That they were all armed and waiting in
ambush undoubtedly insured the execution of the crime.
*There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons, employing means, methods, and forms in the execution which tend
directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might take*
They also acted in conspiracy. ​There was a volley of shots. Each accused is
guilty of as many separate crimes of murder as there are victims killed.
6 people were killed but only 4 were included in the information. Ceferino
was not included because of the infliction of wounds was charged. The
accused couldn’t therefore be convicted of murder of Ceferino but of
frustrated murder.
There are no aggravating nor mitigating circumstances.
Each of the accused isd guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 5 crimes of
murder and 2 crimes of frustrated murder.
Is Aurelio guilty of Applicability of Article 247
homicide, Aurelio contends that he saw his wife engaged in a sexual act with another
parricide and man. Both the prosecution and defense witnesses gave different versions as
frustrated to the actual location, position and condition of Marianita and Rolito at the
homicide? ​[YES] time appellant saw them. The trial court gave great weight to the testimony
of del Monte (barangay tanod) who was believed to be an unbiased witness.
He testified that when he saw Nita Cabalhin and Lito Saldivia bloodied and
sprawled on the bed in one room of the house, Nita Cabalhin was fully
dressed while Lito Saldivia was wearing Khaki pants without T-shirt or
naked up. The trial court held that the claim of the accused that he saw his
wife lying on her back with her legs apart while Rolito Saldivia was on top of
her with his buttocks between her parted legs is hard to believe if not
unworthy of belief in view of his testimony that the two were covered with
blanket from their shoulders down to their feet when he first saw them.
 saved on time hence it did not result to her death. Afterwards, he
turned himself in as he approached a policeman saying that he was
a criminal.
Robin Saldivia (Rolito’s brother), Igdimio Ducay, and Romulo del
Monte testified with Robin and Igdimio testifying that they saw
him kill the victims and with del Monte testifying that he saw
Aurelio with his bloodied pants. Aurelio contends that he killed his
wife and Rolito under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247
of the RPC where the killing of the wife by the husband is justified
if the husband kills her while engaged in sexual intercourse with
another man or immediately thereafter. He also contends that the
crime he committed against Flaviana was only serious physical
injuries, not frustrated homicide.
(5) People v. Appellant Mario Barte was convicted by the trial court of Murder
Barte With Use of Unlicensed Firearm pursuant to PD 1866.
His conviction heavily relied on the testimony of Jovita Capua who
is the wife of victim, Sonny Capua. She and her husband were at
their canteen attending to customers, one of which was Mario
Barte, a barangay councilman, who was with 2 others. They had
just finished 11 bottles of beer when Barte left. He husband sat
down to rest, his back leaning against the wooden grilled window.
Jovita was standing in front of her husband and facing him while
wrapping dog meat ordered by another customer. A few minutes
later, at about 6:30PM, her husband was shot from behind by
appellant who was outside the canteen. She readily recognized the
appellant, immediately looking at him after he shot her husband.
The Supreme Court respected this factual finding of the trial court. Under
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, the killing of the wife by the husband
(or vice-versa) is justified if the husband kills her while engaged in sexual
intercourse with another man or immediately thereafter. Appellant failed to
prove that he killed Marianita and Rolito while in the act of sexual
intercourse or immediately thereafter. Therefore, appellant cannot invoke
Article 247 to be exempt from criminal liability. He is guilty of parricide
under Article 246 of the Code, which provides that any person who shall kill
his or her spouse shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death.
Frustrated Homicide
In applying Article 249 of the RPC, the essential element of intent to kill the
victim must be clearly established in order to convict one of the crime of
homicide. The trial court ruled that there was intent to kill on the part of the
appellant, considering "the number and location of the stab wounds inflicted
upon the victim (Flaviana) — two stab wounds on the lower right breast,
and the weapon used by the accused which was a double bladed dagger
measuring about 13 inches including the handle." Taking into consideration
the number and location of the stab wounds sustained by Flaviana, there
was intent to kill when appellant attacked and wounded Flaviana. Hence,
appellant is guilty of frustrated homicide in having attacked Flaviana.
Mitigating Circumstances
The Supreme Court agreed with trial court’s ruling that the appellant was
entitled to two (2) mitigating circumstances:
1. for having acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have
produced passion or obfuscation (as provided for in Article 13,
paragraph no. 6, of the Revised Penal Code)
2. for voluntary surrender (Article 13, paragraph no. 7)
The stabbing incident happened, according to the trial court, because
appellant acted upon an impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation. The evidence further discloses that after appellant
stabbed the 3 victims, he voluntarily went to the Taytay Police Station on
that same night and surrendered to Police Captain Davan.
W/N Mario Barte We are not persuaded by appellant's profession of innocence. The testimony
murdered Sonny of Jovita Capua clearly establishes his guilt. It was given in a straightforward,
Capua beyond detailed and unequivocal manner notwithstanding the grueling
reasonable doubt? cross-examination. She was able to demonstrate lucidly what transpired that
[YES] fateful evening and to identify appellant positively as her husband's
assailant.
A witness who testifies in a candid, categorical and consistent manner is a
credible witness. if credible and positive, the testimony of a single witness is
sufficient to convict. She remained consistent and free from
self-contradiction during the four days that she was cross examined.
We cannot set aside the factual findings of the trial court absent
capriciousness. Appellant did not even impute arbitrariness to the trial
 She was able to identify him as the place was lit with 2-25 watt
light bulbs and because they were childhood “barangaymates”. She
was brought to her sister’s place then to the house of Brgy Capt
Ernesto de Guzman as she was hysterical and had to calm down.
Another witness for the prosecution testified that appellant was
not a licensed firearm holder. Another witness confirmed the
autopsy report.
On the other hand, appellant denied participation In the killing. He
claims that he went home at about 6PM and stayed home until
midnight. He presented witnesses who confirmed that the accused
left the canteen at about 6PM and that the accused was not seen
returning to the canteen afterwards. Another witness presented by
the defense recounted that he was able to ask Jovita who killed her
husband but she said she did not know. Lastly, they presented a
witness who conducted a paraffin test (a test to check for
gunpowder residue on somebody) on Barte which turned out
negative.
(6) People v. This case involves 2 cases. First is a murder case filed against
Jumamoy Luciano Jumamoy (alias Junior). Second is a case regarding
qualified illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. These
court.
Appellant’s alibi remains uncorroborated. His witnesses merely confirmed
that the appellant left the canteen, but there was no certainty that the
appellant did not return.
For an alibi to prosper, the accused must show that it was impossible for him
to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. This the
appellant failed to do. He could have easily returned to the canteen after he
left. His house was only 50 meters away.
Positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the crime by the
widow has completely demolished his alibi. Defense of alibi cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused. Jovita was admittedly in a
position to see and identify the killer as she was only 3-4 meters away, and
the place was sufficiently lighted.
The defense’s claim¾ that when a police officer asked, Jovita said that she
didn’t know who killed her husband¾ is inconsistent with the testimony of
the defense witness who eventually became the Station Commander of the
PNP in Sta Barbara (I don’t know why this is relevant, but in case). This was
also denied categorically by Jovita arguing that no police could have asked
her there because she was immediately brought to the house to calm down.
We find the version of the prosecution more in harmony with human nature.
Witnesses for the defense is burdened with inconsistencies. The record
discloses that the inquiry took place in the house of Brgy Capt Ernesto de
Guzman, away from the scene of the crime.
Defense wrongfully cites a case claiming that a paraffin test is conclusive as
to the absence of gunpowder. In fact, SC ruled there that a paraffin test has
proved extremely unreliable and that it cannot be definitely established
from this test alone that the source of nitrates/nitrites was the discharge of a
firearm.
However, we cannot agree with the trial court that the accused should be
convicted of Murder with Use of Unlicensed Firearm under PD 1866
considering that nowhere in the Information is it alleged that he used an
unlicensed firearm. Hence, even if the prosecution has established that
accused-appellant was not legally issued any firearm, we cannot convict him
for this particular offense as that would violate a fundamental constitutional
precept, i.e., that the accused shall have the right to be fully informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him.
We, however, sustain the sentence of reclusion perpetua as this is the
correct penalty imposable for Murder, absent any modifying circumstance
under the RPC.
Whether or not 1)The accused alleged that there were serious and material inconsistencies
1)The prosecution in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. However, he failed to
was able to prove point out with specific references to the transcripts of the stenographic
cases were consolidated and jointly heard.
Jumamoy and Rolando Miel (murder victim) were once part of the
same barkada until 1970 when Rolando stabbed Jumamoy in his
left forearm appellant's left arm was deformed, despite medical
attendance, because the main vein of his left arm was severely cut.
On April 1, 1987, Rolando, his brother and his other companions
went to Cultural Center of Inabanga, Bohol, where a 'disco' dance
was being held in connection with the commencement exercises of
St. Paul Academy. While sitting out on a concrete bench, Jumamoy
came and shot Rolando 3 times which resulted to his death.
Dr. Enriquez, a Medico-Legal, found 4 gunshot wounds sustained
by Rolando. Although he found four (4) gunshot wounds on the
victim's body, Dr. Enriquez said it was possible that the victim was
shot at only three (3) times since the 4th wound on the right
forearm was through and through; hence, the same bullet may
have also caused the 2nd wound. The “bullet” found was found to
have been fired from a .38-caliber firearm, probably a homemade
(paltik) firearm.
Jumamoy entered a plea of not guilty, His defenses were that 1) the
inconsistent testimonies of witness presented by the prosecution
and that 2) he was in Cebu staying with a friend, Felicita Cenita, the
day Rolando was murdered. ​The trial court found these to be
alibis​ because he did not present Felicita as a witness. He
presented someone else to to corroborate his claim that in the
evening of April 1, 1987, he was in Cebu City driving a passenger
jeepney.
It is a well-settled rule that alibi as a defense is weak. Alibi is also
entitled to credit if the accused is not positively identified by the
prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the accused claiming alibi as a
defense must prove that it was impossible for him to be at the place
at the time of the commission of the crime. In this case the accused
was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses at the time
of the incident, police investigation, preliminary investigation and
trial proper. The prosecution witness said that Jumamoy could not
have been on a boat on March 29, 1987 going to Cebu because it
was a Sunday, so they couldn’t have been legally authorized to do
so.
The trial court ruled that Jumamoy is guilty of the the crimes of
Murder and Qualified Illegal Possession of Firearm and
Ammunition in the foregoing Criminal Cases Nos. 5064 and 5065
and, imposes upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment ​in each ​of the aforesaid criminal cases. He is further
ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased Rolando Miel.
that Jumamoy was notes of the testimonies of the witnesses, the so-called inconsistencies
guilty beyond committed by the three (3) prosecution witnesses.
reasonable doubt.
[YES] If the prosecution has several eyewitnesses, as in this case, the prosecutor
need not present all of them but only as many as may be needed to meet the
2)the lower court quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
erred in convicting reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the other witnesses may, therefore, be
him in 2 crimes dispensed with for being merely corroborative in nature. This Court has
and sentencing ruled that the non-presentation of corroborative witnesses would not
him to reclusion constitute suppression of evidence and would not be fatal to the
perpetua in each prosecution's case.
of the crimes ​[NO]
It was not indispensable for the prosecution to introduce and offer in
evidence the firearm which was used in the killing of the victim. There is no
law or rule of evidence which requires the prosecution to do so. For
conviction to lie it is enough that the prosecution establishes by proof
beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed and that the accused
is the author thereof. The production of the weapon used in the commission
of the crime is not a condition sine qua non for the discharge of such a
burden for the weapon may not have been recovered at all from the
assailant.
Against the overwhelming evidence consisting of his positive identification
as the author of Rolando Miel's death, accused has nothing to offer but alibi.
It is a fundamental judicial dictum that the defense of alibi cannot prevail
over the positive identification of the accused.
2) Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 penalizes the unlawful possession of firearms
NOTE (if sir asks): or ammunition with reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
According to the perpetua. However, under the second paragraph thereof, the penalty is
internet, reclusion increased to death if homicide or murder is ​committed with the use of an
perpetua falls unlicensed firearm​. It may thus be loosely said that homicide or murder
under the list of qualifies the offense because both are circumstances which increase the
penalties given for penalty. It does not, however, follow that the homicide or murder is
crimes prescribed absorbed in the offense. If this were to be so, an anomalous absurdity would
in the Revised result whereby a more serious crime defined and penalized under the
Penal Code. Revised Penal Code will be absorbed by a statutory offense, one which is
It entails merely malum prohibitum. Hence, the killing of a person with the use of an
imprisonment for unlicensed firearm may give rise to separate prosecutions for
at least 20 years (a) the violation of Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 and
and one day to a (b) the violation of either Article 248 (Murder) or Article 249 (Homicide) of
maximum of 40 the Revised Penal Code.
years while life
imprisonment The accused cannot plead one to bar the other; stated otherwise, the rule
does not have a against double jeopardy cannot be invoked as the first is punished by a
definite duration special law while the second — Murder or Homicide — is punished by the
for imprisonment. Revised Penal Code. Considering, however, that the imposition of the death
It is a sentence penalty is prohibited by the Constitution, the proper imposable penalty
given under would be the penalty next lower in degree, or reclusion perpetua.
special law, and
does not carry The trial court also correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua in

(7) People v. Accused-appellant Leon Marajas, Jr. y Ramos was found guilty by
Padica the RTC of the crime of Kidnapping for ransom with murder upon
an amended information reading as follows:
"That on or about the 8th day of February, 1978, in the
Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila, Philippines, within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring, confederating together with several others whose true
names, identities and whereabouts are still unknown and mutually
helping and aiding one another, with the use of three (3) firearms
with the different caliber (sic) by means of craft, violence against
and intimidation of person, did then and there kidnap Francis
Banaga, detain and deprive him of his liberty for a period of three
(3) days and demanded five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) for his release and while thus illegally detaining the
latter, said accused with intent to kill and with treachery shoot
Francis Banaga, thereby inflicting on him gunshot wounds on the
head and his body which caused his instantaneous death as a
consequences."
After killing Francis, his father received a call telling him not to
look for his son as he was in good condition, and demanding
P500,000 for his release. The amount was reduced to P200,000
then P23,000.
NOTE: Padica drove the car from the subdivision to the sugarcane
plantation. He was threatened/ warned by Leopoldo ('Pare, steady
ka lang, isang bala ka lang.’)​ ​of what they had in store for him
should he waver and ignore their warning.
Padica became a state witness against his co-accused after three
years of hiding in fear of his life.
(8) People v. At around noontime on 14 December 1978, a weapons carrier with
Buka several passengers on board was ambushed by armed men in Sitio
Samlang, Datal Batong, Malungon, South Cotabato, causing the
deaths of Elena Pamoso and Estelita Imarga and the physical
injuries of Felipe Noquera. As a consequence thereof, three (3)
separate informations were filed on 5 March 1980 against Lapnayo
Buka, Angel Pral, Pral Ngay, Beren Mandong, and Purong Bilaan
accessory Criminal Case No. 5065. However, the words "or life imprisonment"
penalties. following "reclusion perpetua" in the dispositive portion of the decision
should be deleted, for the latter is not the same as life imprisonment.
Whether or not NO. The court is NOT convinced that the crime of kidnapping for ransom was
the accused is committed as charged in both the original and amended informations.
guilty of
kidnapping for Rather the crime committed was murder, attended by the qualifying
ransom with circumstances of treachery and/or abuse of superior strength, ​and not the
murder. ​[NO, complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder as found by the
murder only] trial court​ without objection by either the prosecution or defense. The
essential element in the crime of kidnapping that the victim must have been
restrained or deprived of his liberty, or that he was transported away
against his will with the primary or original intent to effect that restraint, is
absent in this case. The malefactors evidently had only murder in their
hearts when they invited the trusting Francis Banaga to go with them to
Laguna, and not to confine or detain him for any length of time or for any
other purpose.
We have consistently held that where the taking of the victim was incidental
to the basic purpose to kill, the crime is only murder. In addition, Francis
Banaga was neither forced nor coerced unlawfully into going along with his
killers. He voluntarily boarded the car and went with the Marajas brothers.
The victim had every reason to trust them as they were his neighbors in
Gatchalian Subdivision. In fact, one of the brothers, accused Leonardo
Marajas alias "Eddie Boy," was his schoolmate and a playmate.
There was treachery since, under the aforestated circumstances, the victim
was lured by his killers into going with them to Laguna without the slightest
inkling of their nefarious design, coupled with the sudden and unexpected
assault by the malefactors on the hapless victim in the isolated sugarcane
plantation in Calamba, which thereby divested him of an opportunity either
to effectively resist or to escape. Abuse of superior strength was likewise
present, for the accused deliberately resorted to their collective strength for
the purpose of overpowering whatever feeble defense the poor Francis
Banaga could offer. They thus insured the commission of the crime with
practically no risk at all to themselves.
Under the factual features present in the commission of the crime, however,
we are inclined to grant that the circumstance of superior strength should
not be appreciated distinctly but should be considered as being absorbed in
and by treachery, and the same is true with regard to the allegation of craft.
Hence, abuse of superior strength may not be taken into account separately
in this case, either as a qualifying or as an aggravating circumstance.
Whether or not The People, in its Brief filed by the Solicitor General, disagrees with the
the defendants are Appellants and maintains that the prosecution was able to prove their guilt
guilty of beyond reasonable doubt.
murder/frustrated It stressed that at least four (4) eye-witnesses positively identified them as
murder? ​[NO] those who ambushed the victims. It further claims that as against the
positive identification by the prosecution witnesses, the Appellants' defense
of alibi is weak and not plausible.
The first charges them with the crime of Murder in connection with
the death of Elena Pamoso, committed as follows:
The second, charges them with Frustrated Murder in the case of
Felipe Noquera on account of the wounds he suffered which would
have "ordinarily cause his death . . ., but nevertheless did not
produce it by reason of causes independent of their will that is, due
to the timely and able medical assistance rendered to said Felipe
Noquera which prevented his death."
The third, docketed as Criminal Case No. 1895, charges them with
the crime of Murder in connection with the death of Estelita Imarga
Alvarez, Noquera, Esconde, and Salvador all testified that they
were ambushed upon reaching Sitio Samlang, Brgy Datal Batong
that resulted in the death of Imarga, Pamoso, and wounding
Noquera. They also testified that they saw Angel, Beren, Pral, and
Lapnayo as the ambushers.
The trial court rejected the defense of alibi presented by both
accused.
All the foregoing doctrines play a vital role against the
defense of alibi of the accused. It could not be improbable
for the accused to have been at the scene of the ambush
from the place where they allegedly were on the date of
December 14, 1978, considering the distance which is
approachable within few minutes or hours. Were it a fact
that the accused were not definitely identified by
witnesses for the prosecution, then the accused defense
of alibi assumes importance. But such was not the case,
for the accused were definitely identified by the
prosecution witnesses to be the companions of the
ambushers on that fatal day. Not only were they definitely
identified but that after the commission of the offense, on
December 14, 1978 these two accused went into hiding
and were only arrested on November 6, 1981 or there
about, after a period of over two years.
Under the circumstances, this court cannot exculpate the
accused based on a flimsy defense of alibi, against the
clear, convincing testimonies of government witnesses
that the accused were indeed the ones responsible for the
murder and frustrated murder or ambush shooting
resulting to the instantaneous death of Estelita Imarga,
Elena Pamoso and wounding Felipe Noquera.
In convicting each of the accused for murder as charged in Criminal
Cases Nos. 1893 and 1895 and frustrated murder in Criminal Case
No. 1894, the trial court considered the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation since the "ambush or
shooting was so sudden and unexpected assault (​sic)​ perpetrated
by all the accused insured the killing of the two defenseless victim
Estelita Imarga and Elena Pamoso and the frustrated death (​sic)​ of
Felipe Noquera."
Unable to accept the verdict, accused Angel Pral and Beren
Mandong, hereinafter referred to as the Appellants, filed their
Notice of Appeal .
The Court have meticulously examined and painstakingly scrutinized the
records of this case and the challenged decision and We are convinced that
the Appellants have been positively identified as two (2) of those who staged
the ambushcade whose guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt
by the testimonies given by the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of
Paquito Alvarez (driver of the weapons carrier), Felipe Noquera (the injured
victim) and Luis Esconde and Ricardo Salvador (both passengers of the
weapons carrier).
The inconsistencies in the testimonies of Alvarez and Noquera, which
Appellants capitalized on , pertain to minor details only and cannot destroy
their credibility. Inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses
with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the
substance of their declaration, their veracity or the weight of their
testimony. In fact, these inconsistencies, if only in minor details, reinforce
rather than weaken their credibility, for it is usual that witnesses to a
stirring event should see differently some details of a startling occurrence.
As to the defense of alibi, We agree with the trial court that it could not
prevail over the positive identification of the Appellants. Alibi is a weak
defense and cannot prevail over the testimony of truthful witnesses because
it is easy to fabricate. Furthermore, for alibi to prosper, it must be
established by clear evidence that the accused was in another place for such
a period of time as to negate his presence at the scene of the crime when it
was committed. In the case at bar, the trial court found that "it could not be
improbable for the accused to have been at the scene of the ambush from the
place where they allegedly were on the date of December 14, 1978,
considering the distance which is approachable within few (​sic​) minutes or
hours." We find no reason to disagree with the trial court as the Appellants
failed to show Us any basis for overturning this findings.
We agree, however, with Appellants that they cannot be convicted for
the crime of Murder in Criminal Case No. 1894 because, as testified to
by Dr. Casimiro Mansilla, the doctor who examined the victim, Felipe
Noquera, the latter would have lived even without medical attendance
because the "wound was just a slight physical injury."
A crime is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless,
do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator. However, if 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 crime is only attempted. It is quite
obvious that, in respect to Noquera, the crime never passed the "attempted"
stage.
The trial court, in ruling that murder was committed in the case of Elena
Pamaso and Estelita Imarga and frustrated murder in the case of Felipe
Noquera, considered the qualifying circumstances of evident premeditation
and treachery.

(9) People v. Luis Mision y Salipot (Mision) is accused of the crime of Murder
Mision with Frustrated Murder.
Mision sought to buy drinks on credit from Luciana Dagohoy at
Esperanza, Masbate. Luciana Dagohoy had a small store adjacent to
her house. She refused the accused.
At 7:30PM Luciana’s niece was about to close the door of the store
for the night but Mision pushed it open. Once inside, he
immediately stabbed Lelith on her left shoulder. The latter fell
down. Thereafter, Mision approached Luciana, who was sitting
some 3 meters away, and likewise stabbed her, hitting her on the
right breast. When Lelith saw her aunt being stabbed, she became
unconscious. Meanwhile, Mision fled. He used a knife 8 inches long.
When Lelith regained consciousness, she heard her aunt shouting
for help. Some neighbors responded. Soon Policeman Becamon of
the Esperanza Integrated National Police came. He brought the two
We disagree with the trial court on this score.
For evident premeditation to be present, the following requisites must
concur:
(1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
(2) an act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination; and,
(3) sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
It must be proved as clearly as the crime itself and cannot be deduced from
mere conclusions and inferences. The evidence presented against the
appellants miserably failed to prove the foregoing requisites.
Treachery is present when the offender commits any of the crimes against
persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which
tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended party might make.
For treachery to qualify the crime of homicide to murder, it must be alleged
in the information, otherwise it will only be considered a generic
aggravating circumstance, if proven. Therefore, treachery is only a generic
aggravating circumstance in these cases. The informations allege that the
aggravating circumstance of band attended the commission of the crimes
charged. There is a band whenever more than three (3) armed malefactors
shall have acted together in the commission of an offense. ​Evidently, the
prosecution did not intend to make the aggravating circumstance of aid
of armed men as a qualifying circumstance under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code.​ Otherwise, it would have expressly alleged it as such
as in the case of the qualifying circumstance of treachery and evident
premeditation. Accordingly, band absorbed aid of armed men.
Accordingly, the Appellants are guilty of homicide on two (2) counts
and of attempted homicide, with the generic aggravating circumstances
of treachery and band.
Whether or not In the present case, however, the evidence established that appellant
Luis Mision is inflicted a stab wound on each of the 2 victims who were separated from
liable for the each other by a distance of 3 meters. There were 2 distinct acts, directed at 2
complex crime​ of different victims successively, separated from each other by a brief but
murder with discernible interval of time and space. A ​delito compuesto​, in contrast, arises
frustrated from a single physical act resulting in simultaneous (or almost
murder? ​[NO. He simultaneous) injury to 2 or more victims. ​The 2 distinct offenses here
is liable for 2 having arisen from 2 distinct physical acts cannot be characterized as
separate crimes] constituting a delito compuesto.
With regard to Mision’s alibi, there is nothing improbable about Luciana's
belated call for help. The violence and suddenness of the attack must have
shocked her into inaction during its commission. Merceda's identification of
the accused was not belated at all. She saw her aunt stabbed; she herself was
stabbed. Bleeding, weakening and in pain from her own shoulder wound,
she had to undergo a 7-hour nighttime trip to Cataingan for treatment,
probably apprehensive all the way that her injury might prove fatal. At the
hospital, all attention was focused at stabilizing their condition. By
 wounded victims to the Cataingan Emergency Hospital, arriving
there at about 2:00 o'clock in the morning. That morning,
Policeman Gavino Castro, Jr. of the Cataingan Integrated National
Police interviewed the two wounded victims. He reduced this in
writing, duly signed by the two victims. In both documents, the
accused, Luis Mision, was identified as the assailant. The day after,
Luciana Dagohoy died of septicemia or blood poisoning which set
in twenty-four hours after the infliction of the injury, and
hemorrhage due to the stab wounds. Lelith was discharged from
the hospital after 5 days.
Appellant interposed the defense of alibi before the trial court. He
testified he never went to the store of the victims either in the
afternoon or evening of 24 October 1978. He admitted he had
known the victims for more than 3 years; he had regularly served
as a porter of goods sold at the Dagohoys' store.
The contention of appellant is that Merceda, uncertain of the
identity of the assailant, belatedly identified the accused only upon
suggestion of Pat. Castro; that the latter had fixed his suspicions on
the accused because blood stains had been found behind the
Esperanza municipal building leading to the accused's house; and
that Pat. Castro had informed Merceda to convince her that the
accused was her probable assailant.
The trial court found that Mision had committed the complex crime
of murder with frustrated murder. The Solicitor General contends
that the two (2) offenses imputed to the appellant cannot be
treated as a single offense because the manner in which he
committed them prevented them from constituting a complex
crime under either of the two (2) ways by which multiple offenses
may be "complexed" under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
(10) People Summary​: Whisenhunt stabbed and mutilated Elsa’s body (his
v. lover). Demetrio Ravelo (his driver) testified. Whisenhunt refuted
Whisenhunt the testimony. The trial court found him guilty. He now appeals.
mid-morning of the next day, however, Merceda was able to give a statement
to Pat. Castro. Merceda's knowledge of the blood stains behind the
Esperanza municipal building certainly came from the results of the police
investigation. But she had shown in her testimony, corroborated by the
accused's own testimony, that she had dealt with and had come to know the
accused during the time he had worked as a porter for their store. Such
acquaintance was quite sufficient to have enabled her to recognize easily the
accused during the stabbing, rendering redundant any alleged police
suggestion on the identity of the probable assailant.
The trial court found that the ​qualifying circumstance of treachery
attended the attack upon the Dagohoys. The assault was mounted by the
accused against his victims in such a manner that caught them by surprise. It
was so swift that they were unable to even defend themselves, unarmed as
they were, or to flee from the culprit. The attack was clearly a treacherous
one. This circumstance qualified the crime to Murder.
It appears from the evidence that ​appellant timed his murderous visit to the
store of the Dagohoys at closing time​, that is, a time when it was likely there
would be no other persons in the vicinity of the store who could have
witnessed the assault or interfere with the same. In other words, the
appellant consciously adopted a mode of attack designed to facilitate the
killing without risk to himself. In addition, as pointed out by the trial court,
the surprise attack upon the 2 women was carried out so swiftly that they
were unable to defend themselves or to flee from the attacker. We believe
that alevosia was properly found in the instant case.
The evidence also established that appellant had inflicted the stab wound on
the shoulder of Merceda Dagohoy. The defense now attempts to suggest that
the injury upon the person of Merceda was merely "superficial" and that it
was improper for the trial court to convict appellant of the crime of
frustrated murder. However, the evidence showed that secondary infection
had set in within 24 hours of the time Merceda and Luciana were stabbed
and that the hospital to which they were taken was 7 hours away from the
scene of the attack. Merceda was in fact discharged from the hospital after 5
days confinement. Even so, we agree with the trial court that the assault
upon Merceda constituted frustrated murder, her relatively quick recovery
being the result of prompt medical attention which prevented the infection
in the wound from reaching fatal proportions which would otherwise have
ensued.
Luis Mision is guilty of 2 separate crimes of murder and frustrated murder.
He shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the death of Luciana
Dagohoy. He shall likewise suffer imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1)
day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum
for the frustrated murder of Merceda Dagohoy.
W/N the trial All in all, the testimony of Demetrio Ravelo bears the ring of truth and
court correctly sincerity. The trial court even said that the Court had opportunity to observe
convicted him of the demeanour of Demetrio Ravelo when he took the witness stand on
murder several occasions. He was extensively cross-examined by one of the defense
Chop-chop Whisenhunt and Elsa were lovers, estranged from their respective
Lady spouses. They worked and met in the Apex Motor Corporation. Elsa
was the Assistant Personnel Manager and Whisenhunt was the
Manager. Whisenhunt lived in Platinum Condominium in
Greenhills.
On September 23, 1993​, Demetrio was asked to pick up Elsa from
Blumentritt. Elsa was wearing a violet-colored blouse with floral
prints, and was carrying three bags — a paper bag, a violet
Giordano bag and a thick brown leather bag. Though Demetrio was
told to wait until 10pm to bring Elsa home, he did not hear from
Whisenhunt so he went home.
On Sept 24, 1993​, Lucy (housemaid) was looking for a missing
kitchen knife. Demetrio heard Whisenhunt tell Lucy that the knife
was in his bedroom, and handed her the knife. He was then asked
to buy cigarettes for him. He then went home at 5pm.
On Sept 25, 1993​, when Demetrio went to Apex to follow up his
slaray, Amy Serrano handed him black garbage bags which he then
gave to Whisenhunt. When he returned to the condo, Whisenhunt
asked him to pick up clothes because they were leaving for Bagac,
Bataan.
At the servant’s quarters, Whisenhunt went to him and said that
Elsa died of bangungot. Demetrio said her body should be
autopsied but Whisenhunt said he beheaded her. Demetrio then
helped him wrap the body and place the body parts in black trash
bags. He saw recognised Elsa’s face when he picked up the head.
They packed all the garbage bags in a big grey bag. They loaded the
bag in the trunk.
They headed south towards Sta. Rosa, Laguna. They stopped at a
narrow road near Puting Kahoy and Silangan and dumped the bag
by the roadside. They returned the empty bag in the trunk, then
headed north for Bagac, Bataan. Before reaching Bagac, they
stopped a number of times to throw Elsa’s belongings.
On Sept 26, 1993​, Demetrio was told to clean the trunk. They then
returned to Manila. When Demetrio got home, he immediately told
his family about what happened.
On Sept 27, 1993​, in the National Bureau of Investigation,
Demetrio gave his statement before Atty. Sacaguing, head of the
Anti-Organized Crime Division. Demetrio accompanied the NBI
agents to Brgy. Polong, Sta. Rosa, Laguna. The body parts have
already been discovered and investigated.
On Sept 28, 1993​, Whisenhunt was arrested and brought to the
NBI in his car. When he opened the trunk to place some items
inside, a foul stench emanated from inside. Atty. Sacaguing
inspected the trunk and found blood stains on a board inside the
[YES with counsels and he withstood the same creditably. Findings of fact of the trial
modifications] court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses command great weight and
respect since it had the opportunity to observe their demeanour while they
testified in court.
Before Whisenhunt told Demetrio about Elsa’s death, he asked how long he
was willing to work for him. This was logical because Whisenhunt wanted to
ensure that Demetrio would stay faithful to him despite the crime he just
committed. Demetrio’s description of Elsa’s body jibed with the photographs
of the body parts. The body parts and items they threw confirms that
Demetrio witnessed how Whisenhunt disposed of Elsa’s body and
belongings.
Also, the physical evidence clearly point to Whisenhunt’s guilt. The findings
of the forensic biologist on the examination of the hair samples and
bloodstains all confirm Elsa's death inside accused-appellant's bedroom. The
autopsy report revealed that Elsa was stabbed at least three times on the
chest. Taken together with Demetrio's testimony that Whisenhunt kept the
kitchen knife inside his bedroom on September 24, 1993, leads to the
inescapable fact that he Elsa inside the bedroom or bathroom.
While it may be true that there was no eyewitness to the death of Elsa, the
confluence of the testimonial and physical evidence against
accused-appellant creates an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence that
naturally leads to the fair and reasonable conclusion that accused-appellant
was the author of the crime, to the exclusion of all others. Circumstantial
evidence may be resorted to in proving the identity of the accused when
direct evidence is not available, otherwise felons would go scot-free and the
community would be denied proper protection. The rules on evidence and
jurisprudence sustain the conviction of an accused through circumstantial
evidence when the following requisites concur: (1) there must be more than
one circumstance; (2) the inference must be based on proven facts; and (3)
the combination of all circumstances produces a conviction beyond doubt of
the guilt of the accused.
The following circumstances were successfully proven by the prosecution
without a shadow of doubt:
- that Elsa Santos Castillo was brought to accused-appellant's
condominium unit on September 23, 1993;
- that on September 24, 1993, accused-appellant's housemaid was looking
for her kitchen knife and accused-appellant gave it to her, saying that it
was in his bedroom;
- that on September 25, 1993, accused-appellant and Demetrio Ravelo
collected the dismembered body parts of Elsa from the bathroom inside
accused-appellant's bedroom;
- that accused-appellant disposed of the body parts by a roadside
somewhere in San Pedro, Laguna;
- that accused-appellant also disposed of Elsa's personal belongings along
the road going to Bagac, Bataan;
- that the mutilated body parts of a female cadaver, which was later
compartment. After a medical examination, the Medico-Legal
Officer found contusions on his left periumbilical region, right
elbow, left and right forearms and right leg.
In the afternoon, Whisenhunt moved for a preliminary
investigation and signed a waiver of Art 125 (delay in the delivery
of detained persons to proper judicial authorities). He was
detained.
On Sept 29, 1993​, with a search warrant, the NBI agents searched
the condo unit, recovering hair strands from the bathroom mats
and rug, as well as bed covers. They also found a pair of Topsider
shoes with bloodstains.
Demetrio accompanied the NBI agents to retrace the route they
took going to Bataan. They were able to recover the violet bag, a
brown sandal, and a shirt with violet and green prints.
In the meantime, the Supervising Forensic Biologist confirmed the
blood and hair samples as belonging to Elsa. The Medico-Legal
Officer concluded that Elsa died of stab wounds. He found that the
stabs penetrated Elsa’s right lung, liver, and diaphragm.
*graphic*He reported that the head, hands, legs, and feet were
severed at the joints, that the pelvic bone was partially exposed
and the abdominal organs removed.
Whisenhunt’s defense.
- That he stayed home on Sept 23 because he didn’t feel well
- Denied asking Demetrio to fetch Elsa
- That he did not see Demetrio anytime in the afternoon on Sept
24
- That on Sept 25, he decided to go to Bagac because he was
feeling better, and that they went straight to Bagac.
- That his bruises were caused by jetskiing and falling down the
stairs while in Bagac
- That he first learned of Elsa’s death when he was arrested and
that there’s no reason for him to kill his lover
- That he received 2 letters from an anonymous person before
Elsa’s death, and that Elsa said they were from her estranged
husband
Whisenhunt’s aunt and mother testified they did not see anyone
else in the condo when they visited him before they met him in
Bagac. His sister-in-law said that she used to stay in the condo
(sometime in 1992) and that the blood stains were from her
menstruation, and that her blood type was B (same as what was
confirmed through investigation).
The ​trial court​ convicted him of murder. Whisenhunt appealed,
arguing that the trial court erred in finding that the prosecution
was able to present enough evidence to support the charge.
identified as Elsa, were found by the police and NBI agents at the spot
where Demetrio pointed;
- that hair specimens found inside accused-appellant's bathroom and
bedroom showed similarities with hair taken from Elsa's head; and
- That the bloodstains found on accused-appellant's bedspread, covers and
in the trunk of his car, all matched Elsa's blood type.
Whisenhunt said that the autopsy did not look at the pancreas which caused
the bangungot. Dr. Brion, a lawyer-doctor, supported this argument. What
the trial court simply did was to choose which — between two conflicting
medico-legal opinions — was the more plausible. The trial court correctly
lent more credence to Dr. Mendez's testimony, not only because Dr. Brion
was a biased witness, but more importantly, because it was Dr. Mendez who
conducted the autopsy and personally examined Elsa's corpse up close.
Whisenhunt also said that he had reprimanded Demetrio many times for
reckless driving and that imputing Elsa’s death on him was a way for him to
get revenge. The court found this to be too flimsy. The court noted that
Demetrio’s prompt reporting of the incident showed his genuine desire to
bring justice to Elsa.
Whisenhunt said that he was arrested without a warrant. However, this was
not entered in his plea, therefore this was deemed waived.
The Supreme Court does not agree that the trial court sufficiently
proved the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength.
Abuse of superiority is present whenever there is inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of
strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor and selected or taken
advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. The fact that the victim
was a woman does not, by itself, establish that accused-appellant committed
the crime with abuse of superior strength. There ought to be enough proof of
the relative strength of the aggressor and the victim. Abuse of superior
strength must be shown and clearly established as the crime itself. In this
case, nobody witnessed the actual killing. Nowhere in Demetrio's testimony,
and is not indicated in any of the pieces of physical evidence, that
accused-appellant deliberately took advantage of his superior strength in
overpowering Elsa. Whisenhunt was of a small frame, hence the attendance
of the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not
adequately proved and cannot be appreciated against accused-appellant.
The other circumstance of outraging and scoffing at the corpse of the
victim was correctly appreciated by the trial court. ​Mere decapitation of
the victim's head constitute outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim,
thus qualifying the killing to murder. Not only beheaded Elsa. He further cut
up her body like pieces of meat. Then, he strewed the dismembered parts of
her body in a deserted road in the countryside, leaving them to rot on the
ground. The sight of Elsa's severed body parts on the ground, vividly
depicted in the photographs offered in evidence, is both revolting and
horrifying.
No aggravating or mitigating circumstance was alleged or proved.

Death Under Exceptional Circumstances
(11) People Francisco Abarca and Jenny Abarca are married. However, when
v. Abarca Francisco went to Manila to review for the 1983 Bar Examinations,
Jenny and Khingsley Paul Koh had an affair. When Francisco went
home in Tacloban, he found them in the act of sexual intercourse.
Jenny pushed Khingsley to get his revolver when they found
Francisco peeping above the built-in cabinet in their room but then
he ran away to look for a firearm. He went to the house of C2
Arturo Talbo, a PC soldier, and got an M-16 rifle. He then went back
to the house but he didn’t find them there which led him to go to
the mahjong session, Khingsley’s “hangout”, where he fired at
Khingsley thrice. Khingsley died instantaneously of
cardiorespiratory arrest due to shock and hemorrhage as a result
of multiple gunshot wounds on the head, trunk and abdomen.
Meanwhile, Arnold and Lina Amparado, who were occupying a
room adjacent to the room where Khingsley was playing, were also
hit. The spouses got hospitalized and Arnold was operated on in
the kidney to remove a bullet while Lina was also treated for being
hit by bullet fragments.
RTC sentenced him to death for the complex crime of murder with
double frustrated murder. It was with evident premeditation and
with treachery. He was also armed with with an unlicensed
firearm. The case was elevated to the SC in view of the death
sentence imposed. With the approval of the new Constitution, the
penalty of death was abolished and all existing death sentences to
life imprisonment are commuted.
Damages. ​The trial court erred when it awarded the amount of
P100,000.00. Basic is the jurisprudential principle that in determining actual
damages, the court cannot rely on mere assertions, speculations, conjectures
or guesswork but must depend on competent proof and on the best
obtainable evidence of the actual amount of the loss. of moral damages in
murder cases is justified because of the physical suffering and mental
anguish brought about by the felonious acts, and is thus recoverable in
criminal offenses resulting in death. Moral damages are not intended to
enrich the victim's heirs or to penalize the convict, but to obviate the
spiritual sufferings of the heirs
Is Abarca guilty of Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code defines death inflicted under
the complex crime exceptional circumstances.​ There is no question that the accused
of murder with surprised his wife and her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act
double frustrated of illicit copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the
murder? ​[NO] deceased in a fit of passionate outburst.​ Article 247 prescribes the
following elements: (1) that a legally married person surprises his spouse in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person; and (2) that
he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter.
These elements are present in this case. Though quite a length of time, about
one hour, had passed between the time the accused- appellant discovered
his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the latter
was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of
the pursuit of the victim by the accused-appellant. RPC only requires that the
death caused be the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the
accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the
killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse, and
must not have been influenced by external factors. The killing must be the
direct by-product of the accused's rage.
Article 247, or the exceptional circumstances mentioned therein,
amount to an exempting circumstance, for even where death or serious
physical injuries is inflicted, the penalty is so greatly lowered as to
result to no punishment at all.​ It need not be pleaded in a complaint or
information for a circumstance which mitigates criminal liability or exempts
the accused therefrom, not being an essential element of the offense charged
— but a matter of defense that must be proved to the satisfaction of the
court — need not be pleaded. It does not define and provide for a specific
crime, but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of
another or the infliction of serious physical injuries under the circumstances
therein mentioned.
Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances, not being a
punishable act, cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating
or other qualifying circumstances.​ Hence, treachery cannot be
appreciated in this case. Furthermore, the accused-appellant was not
committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the deceased.
Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. Hence, the

(12) People An Information for rape with the use of deadly weapon was
v. Bondoy filed against Bondoy.
Bondoy works for Patria Sabularce, victim, as a baggage carrier. On
August 12, 1986, Patria’s house, where she has a store, was
burglarized by Bondoy. He took bottles of gin and beer, cash, bars
of soap, after attacking Patria with a kitchen knife. He was charged
with the crime of robbery with physical injuries.
In the evening of September 14, 1986, Patria slept in the room
beside the kitchen with her 2 sons and nephew, Rommel. At around
2:00 o'clock the following morning, Patria was roused from her
sleep by the crushing noise of a wall being broken down. She made
her way to the kitchen where he found Bondoy who grabbed
Patria, poking a sharp instrument at her. Bondoy told her not to
shout or else she would be killed. When he asked her to withdraw
the case she had filed against him, Patria told him that she could
not very well do it; wherewith, Bondoy ordered her to take off her
clothes. When she refuse, a struggle ensure, and she fell to the
ground. Bondoy ordered her to lie down.
When she refused, Bondoy slashed her abdomen twice. Even as she
fought back, Bondoy poked his knife at her. With his left hand,
Bondoy pinned both her hands to the ground, lay on top of her and
pulled down her panty. Although she tried to wiggle away from
him, he succeeded in consummating his bestial desire. Since Patria
was shouting, he covered her mouth.
After raping her, Bondoy asked her for the key to the kitchen door
and unlocked the same. As she sat, she heard her child call out for
Mama. Bondoy ordered her to go upstairs while pointing the knife
appellant is not liable for frustrated murder for the injuries suffered by the
Amparados. The accused-appellant did not have the intent to kill the
Amparado couple. Although as a rule, one committing an offense is liable for
all the consequences of his act, that rule presupposes that the act done
amounts to a felony. This penalty is mere banishment and, as held in a case,
is intended more for the protection of the accused than a punishment. And
where physical injuries other than serious are inflicted, the offender is
exempted from punishment.
This does not mean, however, that the accused-appellant is totally free from
any responsibility. Granting the fact that he was not performing an illegal act
when he fired shots at the victim, he cannot be said to be entirely without
fault. While it appears that before firing at the deceased, he uttered warning
words ("​an waray labot kagawas"​ ) that is not enough a precaution to
absolve him for the injuries sustained by the Amparados. This amounts to
negligence on his part. He is therefore liable under the first part, second
paragraph, of Article 365, that is, less serious physical injuries through
simple imprudence or negligence.
Rape
W/N Bondoy is Bondoy: Argues that since not one of the other prosecution witnesses was
guilty of rape able to confirm or corroborate Patria's testimony on the matter, this should
[YES] be treated with extreme caution.
SC: Considering the nature of the crime, more often than not, it is committed
without any witnesses. This Court has repeatedly held that when a woman
says that she has been raped, and she says all that is necessary to show that
rape was indeed committed, and if her testimony meets the test of
credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on its basis. Thus, even if the
victim's testimony on how she was raped is uncorroborated, it is sufficient
to justify a conviction for rape as long as it is credible and positive and
satisfies the court of the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The sordid details related by private complainant about how, when, and
where the crime was committed belies the denial and innocence by the
accused. Her willingness to divulge even the intimate details cannot be a
mere product of her concoction. Furthermore, contrary to appellant's
contention, the testimony of the doctor who examined Patria and the
specimen taken from her body corroborated rather than contradicted the
complainant's testimony that she was raped.
Bondoy: Emphasized the fact that the spermatozoa found was nonmotile and
therefore, no sexual intercourse could have occurred.
SC: … is a desperate but futile attempt at exoneration. It should be
underscored that the presence or absence of spermatozoa in the vagina is
not determinative of the commission of rape. A sperm test is not a sine qua
non for the successful prosecution. The lack of spermatozoa in the victim's
body does not even negate the crime of rape. The important element in rape
is penetration of the pudenda and not emission of seminal fluid.
menacingly at her. Inside the room, Bondoy held the hands of her
two children, kicked Rommel and told him not to shout; otherwise, Bondoy: There were lapses in the complaint’s testimony that belie the
he would kill them all. Bondoy told Patria that they would go to victim’s claim of rape.
town to withdraw the case against him. Patria told him that she
could not very well go with him without her clothes on. Bondoy SC: Credibility is the sole province of the trial court. In the absence of any
then flicked the knife at her abdomen. Upon seeing this, Rommel showing that it overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or
pleaded with Bondoy, "Manoy Rogel, do not do that to Tiya. It's a circumstances of weight and substance that would have affected the result of
pity." Bondoy hit Rommel and as the latter reeled, his forehead hit the case, trial court's findings on the matter of credibility will not be
the wall. disturbed on appeal, as the trial court had the advantage of having directly
observed witnesses’ demeanor in court. While there might have been lapses
Promising that she would go with him, she asked for the sharp in the complainant's testimony, it is understandable that such details might
instrument he was holding. As she approached him, she held his have escaped her attention due to the stress of the moment.
hand that was holding the sharp instrument. Having succeeded in
taking the knife, Patria stabbed Bondoy near the armpit. Bondoy The Court, however, finds inaccurate the ruling below that the crime
retook the knife and stabbed her right forarm, whereupon she committed is "rape with physical injuries and use of deadly weapon." The
managed to shout for help. Somebody responded, "What's that, physical injuries sustained by Patria are part and parcel of the commission
Patty?" Bondoy then dashed out of the house. of the crime of rape, there being no separate treatment in the case of the
physical harm done to Patria. Moreover, although mentioned in the
At the hospital where she was brought after the incident, a doctor complaint filed by Patria, the crime of physical injuries (lesiones), whether
conducted a vaginal examination on Patria finding the presence of serious, less serious or slight, was not specifically alleged in the information.
spermatozoa in the cervical opening of her vaginal pool and canal. As such, the ambiguity of the information in this regard should be resolved
However, the sperm cells were non-motile or dead. Medical in favor of the accused. Lastly, qualifying circumstance of breaking down a
certificate also showed that she sustained an incised 1.5cm wound wall should be deemed absorbed in unlawful entry.
on her right forearm and 3 abrasions in the area surrounding her
navel. WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court convicting Rogelio Bondoy of
the crime of rape by the use of a deadly weapon and imposing on him the
Patria’s Witnesses. penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby affirmed.
According to Milagros Boral, sister-in-law of Patria and mother of
Rommel, she was awakened by the call of nature at around 2AM.
She went to their kitchen, opened its door and went out. Then she
heard someone weeping from the store of Patria which was more
or less 2 ½ meters from her own kitchen door. She saw that the
wall of Patria's store had been destroyed. She went to Patria's
house, peeped through the pantry and saw Bondoy poking a sharp
instrument at the latter and telling her not to make a noise;
otherwise he would kill all of them. [At this time, Bondoy hasn’t
raped Patria yet]. Milagros sought the help of Manuel who lived
just beside her house, but told her that he was in no position to
help because of his old age. Milagros then went to seek help from
Alfredo Boqueo, another neighbor who lived 200m away. [While
this was happening, frikking Manuel was just peeping through the
bamboo slats of Patria’s house saw them both in underwear and
Bondoy pointing a knife at Patria]. When Milagros and Alfredo
learned from Manuel that Bondoy was still inside, the two men told
her to fetch Domingo, the husband of Patria. Learning from Manuel
that Bondoy was still inside, [frikking] Milagros held Alfredo and
Domingo by their pants, pleading with them not to enter
the house of Patria as something untoward might happen. But
when they heard Patria shouting for help, the 2 men ran to give
succor.
 13 year old Rommel Boral also testified against Bondoy.

Bondoy’s Witnesses.
Emelita, the wife of Bondoy, claims that he could not have had
sexual intercourse with Patria without her consent because they
were lovers. She claims to have seen the 2 in Patria’s home months
before, talking about running away together. Emelita heard Patria
say that she wanted vengeance on her husband Domingo who was
having an affair. [To buttress her testimony, she produced in court
a ring which Patria allegedly gave her husband. She claims that the
ring was given to her by her husband after the rape case was filed.
When asked by the fiscal to wear the ring, it fitted Emelita's ring
finger.]

[Juan Bongalos, Bondoy’s brother-in-law, also testified, claiming

that on September 14, he had supper with Bondoy while talking
about his affair with Patria. Walking home, Patria called Bondoy
over to her house, Bondoy walked over to her kitchen door. Patria
allegedly asked him to come inside, and when he refused, she
stabbed him on his left side, where after Juan and Bondoy ran
away.]

Bondoy admitted having been employed by Patria until they had a

“love relationship”. He related that on one occasion, while riding
together in a "sibid-sibid" towards Hacienda, he and Patria kissed
each other. Patria gave him a ring as a symbol of her love for him.
He admitted wearing the ring on his left little finger. However,
when asked by the fiscal to try on the ring, the court noticed that it
did not fit him.

The trial court convicted Bondoy of rape with physical injuries and
use of a deadly weapon, attended to by the following aggravating
circumstances: (1) it was committed in the dwelling of the offended
party without the latter giving any provocation; (2) the crime was
committed after unlawful entry; and (3) as a means to the
commission of a crime a wall was broken. There is no mitigating
circumstance.

(13) People Orita, a Philippine Constabulary soldier, raped a freshman college
v. Orita student, Cristine Abayan in Eastern Samar.
In the early morning of March 20, 1983, Cristine Abayan arrived at
her boarding house from a party. After her friends left, a man came
up behind her, wrapped his arm around her neck and held a
balisong to her neck. They entered the boarding house from the
back door. It was in Abayan’s room that Orita order her to take off
her clothes. Orita then mounted her and ordered her to hold her
penis and insert it in her vagina. In this position only a portion of
the penis entered her vagina because she kept moving. Orita then
asked her to mount him and again, only a portion of the penis was
inserted in her vagina. Scared for her life, Abayan tried to escape by
Whether or not We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect
rape in this case penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male
was consummated organ is sufficient. ​Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without
[YES] rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant
conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the
female organ because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender
merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. ​Taking
into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of
rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the
frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed.
In the case of People v. Eriña​, S​ C ​found the offender guilty of frustrated rape
there being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the
 going to another room in the boarding house. This was to no avail
because Orita followed her and climbed the partition. Still naked,
she jumped out the window and ran to the municipal building.
Policemen were inside the building and found Abayan crying. After
hearing from Abayan what happened, they went to the boarding
house, saw someone trying to escape and eventually failed to
apprehend him due to the darkness.
Abayan was brought to a clinic where they found her hymen intact
but her vulva was erythematous (abnormal redness of skin due to
capillary congestion; inflammation)
Orita was convicted of frustrated rape by the trial court. He
appealed this to the Court of Appeals, to which the CA convicted
him of consummated rape.
(14) People AAA and her three minor children — BBB, CCC, and DDD — slept
v. Cabigquez inside AAA's small sari-sari store. AAA was awakened when clothes
fell on her face. When she looked up, she saw a man whose face
was covered with a handkerchief and wearing a camouflage jacket
and cycling shorts. He immediately poked a gun at her. AAA
shouted "Ayyy!," rousing her three children from sleep. Despite the
cover on the burglar's face, BBB was able to identify him as Romulo
Grondiano, one of their neighbors, based on the hanging mole
located below his left eye. Armed with a stainless handgun,
Grondiano ordered AAA and her children to lie face down. Though
stricken with fear, BBB noticed that Grondiano had a companion
who stayed at the balcony keeping watch. Grondiano then
ransacked the store.
As soon as Grondiano left the store, the other man entered. BBB
identified the man as appellant Juanito Cabigquez as the latter did
not conceal his face. Armed with Grondiano's gun, Cabigquez
stripped AAA of her short pants and underwear, placed a pillow on
her lower abdomen and mounted her from behind. He lifted and
twisted one of her legs and pinned the other. AAA shouted "Ayaw!"
(No!), but offered no further resistance. Cabigquez inserted his
offended party. However, it appears that this is a "stray" decision inasmuch
as it has not been reiterated in Our subsequent decisions. Likewise, We are
aware of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
No. 2632 and Republic Act No. 4111 which provides, in its penultimate
paragraph, for the penalty of death when the rape is attempted or frustrated
and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. We are of
the opinion that ​this particular provision on frustrated rape is a dead
provision. The Eriña case, ​supra,​ might have prompted the law-making
body to include the crime of frustrated rape in the amendments introduced
by said laws.
The alleged variance between the testimony of the victim and the medical
certificate does not exist. On the contrary, it is stated in the medical
certificate that the vulva was erythematous and tender. It bears emphasis
that Dr. Zamora ​did not rule out penetration of the genital organ of the
victim. He merely testified that there was uncertainty whether or not there
was penetration. Anent this testimony, the victim positively testified that
there was penetration, even if only partially. The fact is that in a prosecution
for rape, the accused may be convicted even on the sole basis of the victim's
testimony if credible. Dr. Zamora's testimony is merely corroborative and is
not an indispensable element in the prosecution of this case.
Article 335, paragraph 3, of the Revised Penal Code provides that whenever
the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty
shall be ​reclusion perpetua to death. The imposition of the death penalty is
prohibited since Feb 2, 1987 and reduced the same to reclusion perpetua.
Reclusion perpetua​, being a single indivisible penalty under Article 335,
paragraph 3, is imposed regardless of any mitigating or aggravating
circumstances.
Whether or not For purposes of criminal investigation, DNA identification is indeed a fertile
Cabigquez is source of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence. In this case, however,
guilty of Rape. the result of the DNA test is rendered inconclusive to exculpate or inculpate
(Yes) the appellant since the sample tested by the NBI merely contained vaginal
discharges. In the laboratory test earlier conducted by Dr. Villapañe on the
vaginal swab obtained from AAA's genitalia, the presence of spermatozoa
was confirmed. This notwithstanding, the totality of evidence satisfactorily
established that it was indeed appellant who raped AAA.
A positive DNA match is unnecessary when the totality of the evidence
presented before the court points to no other possible conclusion, i.e.,
appellant raped the private offended party. A positive DNA match may
strengthen the evidence for the prosecution, but an inconclusive DNA test
result may not be sufficient to exculpate the accused, particularly when
there is sufficient evidence proving his guilt. Notably, neither a positive DNA
match of the semen nor the presence of spermatozoa is essential in finding
that rape was committed. ​The important consideration in rape cases is
not the emission of semen but the penetration of the female genitalia
by the male organ.
 penis into AAA's vagina, and proceeded to ravish her in full view of
her children, and even as the latter cried for mercy. Before he left,
Cabigquez threatened to kill AAA and her children if they would tell
anyone about the incident.

BBB, fearing retaliation from the two men, decided not to divulge
the identities of Cabigquez and Grondiano to her mother and
brother. AAA reported the incident to the Puerto Police Station. No
criminal complaint, however, was filed since AAA was still
uncertain of the identities of the two men. AAA was physically
examined by resident physicians which revealed that the smear
recovered from AAA's vagina was positive for spermatozoa, they
also found a two-centimeter contusion on AAA's hand.

Cabigquez and Grondiano was arrested for possession of illegal

drugs. With the two men incarcerated, BBB finally mustered the
courage to reveal the identities of Cabigquez and Grondiano to her
mother. They filed an information for robbery against them and
rape against Cabigquez.

The specimen obtained from the vaginal swabs and submitted to

the NBI did not match appellant’s DNA since it was merely vaginal
discharge. RTC and CA found Cabigquez guilty of rape.

(15) People Prosecution presented [AAA], single, housekeeper and a resident of
v. Amarela [XXX], Davao City. On February 10, 2009, at around 6:00 o'clock in
the evening, she was watching a beauty contest with her aunt at
Maligatong, Baguio District, Calinan, Davao City. The contest was
being held at a basketball court where a make-shift stage was put
up. The only lights available were those coming from the vehicles
around.
She had the urge to urinate so she went to the comfort room beside
the building of the Maligatong Cooperative near the basketball
court. Between the cooperative building and the basketball court
were several trees. She was not able to reach the comfort room
because [Amarela] was already waiting for her along the way.
Amarela suddenly pulled her towards the day care center. She was
shocked and was no match to the strength of Amarela who pulled
her under the stage of the day care center. He punched her in the
abdomen which rendered her weak. Then Amarela undressed her.
She tried to resist him but he was stronger. He boxed her upper
thigh and she felt numb. He placed himself on top of her and
inserted his penis inside her vagina and made a push and pull
movement. She shouted for help and then three (3) men came to
her rescue [so] Amarela fled.
The three (3) persons brought her to a hut. But they closed the hut
and had bad intentions with her. So she fled and hid in a
neighboring house. When she saw that the persons were no longer
around, she proceeded on her way home. She went to the house of
Whether or not The following circumstances, particularly, would cast doubt as to the
Amarela and credibility of her testimony: (1) the version of AAA's story appearing in her
Rancho can be affidavit-complaint differs materially from her testimony in court; (2) AAA
convicted of the could not have easily identified Amarela because the crime scene was dark
charge of rape? and she only saw him for the first time; (3) her testimony lacks material
[NO, they are details on how she was brought under the stage against her will; and (4) the
acquitted] medical findings do not corroborate physical injuries and are inconclusive of
any signs of forced entry.
If we were to take into account AAA's initial claim that Amarela pulled her
away from the vicinity of the stage, people facing the stage would easily
notice that a man was holding a woman against her will. Thus, AAA's version
that she was on her way to the rest room, instead of being pulled away from
the crowd watching the beauty contest, would make it seem that nobody
would notice if AAA was being taken away against her will. If indeed AAA
was on her way to the rest room when she was grabbed by Amarela, why
does her sworn statement reflect another story that differs from her court
testimony? To our mind, AAA's testimony could have been concocted to just
make her story believable rather than sticking to her original story that
Amarela introduced himself and pulled her away from the stage. We cannot
say that this inconsistency is simply a minor detail because it casts some
doubt as to whether AAA was telling the truth — that she was abducted
against her will before she was raped.
Although we cannot acquit Amarela solely based on an inconsistency, this
instance already puts AAA's credibility in question. Again, we must
remember that if we were to convict based solely on the lone testimony of
Godo Dumandan who brought her first to the Racho residence
because Dumandan thought her aunt was not at home. Dumandan
stayed behind So Neneng Racho asked her son [Racho] to bring her
to her aunt's house instead.
xxx xxx xxx
[AAA] then said that [Racho] brought her to a shanty along the way
against her will. She was told to lie down. When she refused,
[Racho] boxed her abdomen and she felt sick. She resisted by
kicking him but he succeeded in undressing her. He, then,
undressed himself and placed himself on top of [AAA]. [Racho]
then inserted his penis into [AAA]'s vagina. After consummating
the act, [Racho] left her. So [AAA] went home alone.
When she reached home, her parents were already asleep. She
went inside her room and cried. The following morning, she
decided to leave home. Her mother was surprised at her decision
until eventually, [AAA] told her mother about what happened to
her. She told her [eldest] brother first who got very angry.
They reported the matter to the police and eventually [Amarela]
and [Racho] were arrested. For the defense, Amarela testified for
himself denying that he had anything to do with what happened
with AAA. He said he went to the fiesta and he met private
complainant, [AAA], at the cooperative building at around 4:00
o'clock in the afternoon. [AAA] asked him if he knew a person by
the name of Eric Dumandan who was allegedly her boyfriend. After
a while, Eric Dumandan passed by and so he told him that [AAA]
was looking for him. Then he left. Amarela said he had a drinking
spree with his friend Asther Sanchez. While drinking, he felt dizzy
and fell down from the bench. So Sanchez brought him to the house
of his elder brother Joey in Tawan-tawan. He did not know what
happened next because he slept and woke up at six o'clock in the
morning. 7 aScITE
On his part, Racho confirmed that he went with AAA to bring her
home but also denied raping her. He testified that he was at the
house of his mother on February 10, 2009. At around 10:00 o'clock
in the evening, [AAA] arrived with Godo Dumandan. [AAA] was
asking for help while crying because she was allegedly raped by
three persons in the pineapple plantation. His mother advised her
to just take a bath and change clothes and sleep at his brother's
house. But [AAA] wanted to go home. Since he was the only one
who was not drunk, Racho was instructed by [his] mother to
accompany [AAA] in going to her aunt's house.
When they reached Caniamo, [AAA] did not want to be brought to
her aunt's house because she knows the latter would just scold her.
Instead, she wanted to be conveyed to their house at Ventura. Since
Ventura was far, Racho did not go with her and instead went back
the victim, her testimony must be clear, straightforward, convincing, and
consistent with human experience. We must set a high standard in
evaluating the credibility of the testimony of a victim who is not a minor and
is mentally capable.
Second, we also find it dubious how AAA was able to identify Amarela
considering that the whole incident allegedly happened in a dark place. In
fact, she had testified that the place was not illuminated and that she did not
see Amarela's face
Third, her claim that she was forcibly brought under a makeshift stage,
stripped naked, and then raped seems unrealistic and beyond human
experience.
It is physically impossible for two human beings to move freely under a
stage, much more when the other person is trying to resist sexual advances.
Moreover, AAA failed to mention how exactly Amarela pulled her to the
makeshift stage without any sign of struggle or resistance. If indeed she was
being held against her will, AAA could have easily called for help or simply
run away.
Fourth, the challenge to AAA's credibility is further supported by the medical
findings of the medico-legal officer. The medico-legal certificate dated 12
February 2009 would reflect that AAA had no pertinent physical findings/or
physical injuries
Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or intimidation, that is,
against the will of the female. It is also committed without force or
intimidation when carnal knowledge of a female is alleged and shown to be
without her consent. Carnal knowledge of the female with her consent is not
rape, provided she is above the age of consent or is capable in the eyes of the
law of giving consent. The female must not at any time consent; her consent,
given at any time prior to penetration, however reluctantly given, or if
accompanied with mere verbal protests and refusals, prevents the act from
being rape, provided the consent is willing and free of initial coercion.
The prosecution in this case miserably failed to present a clear story of what
transpired. Whether AAA's ill-fated story is true or not, by seeking relief for
an alleged crime, the prosecution must do its part to convince the court that
the accused is guilty. Prosecutors are given ample resources of the
government to present a logical and realistic account of every alleged crime,
and they should, to the best of their ability, present a detailed story to get a
conviction. But here we cannot ascertain what happened based on the lone
testimony of AAA. It should have been the prosecution's duty to properly
evaluate the evidence if it had enough to convict Amarela or Racho.
home.

When asked about the charge of rape against him, Racho said he
could not have done that because his hand is impaired while
showing a long scar on his left arm. This was a result allegedly of a
hacking incident on September 21, 2008. He offered a Medical
Certificate issued by Dr. Lugi Andrew Sabal of the Davao Medical
Center which indicates that Racho was confined in the said hospital
from September 21, 2008 up to October 1, 2008 after an operation
on his left forearm. He said that his left arm was placed in a plaster
cast but that he removed the cast after three (3) months. He said
that even after he removed the cast, his arm was still painful and he
could not move it around.

Racho said he was surprised when policemen came to his house on

February 11, 2009 and invited him to the police station because
there was a complaint for rape against him.

Anita Racho testified that she was at home in the evening of

February 10, 2009 together with her husband and sons Bobby and
[Racho]. Godo Dumandan arrived together with [AAA] who was
allegedly raped by three (3) men. [AAA] appeared madly and wet
so she advised her to take a bath and not to go home anymore since
it was late. [AAA] insisted on going home, so she asked her son
[Racho] to accompany her. [Racho] at first refused pointing to his
elder brother Bobby to accompany her. He eventually brought
[AAA] home. He came back at around 10:00 o'clock in the evening
and then he went to sleep.

The following day, she was surprised when [Racho] was arrested
allegedly for raping [AAA]. [Racho] denied raping [AAA].