1
CRUZ v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014
Ponente: Bersamin, J.
FACTS
In December 1993, Norberto Cruz (Norberto) and his wife went to La
Union to sell plastic and glasswares. Along with them is AAA and BBB.
Upon reaching their destination, they set up a tent in order that they will
have a place to sleep.
Criminal Case No. 2388 (Attempted Rape)
That on or about the 21st day of December 1993, at about 2:00 o'clock
in the morning, along the Bangar-Luna Road, Barangay Central West
No. 2, Municipality of Bangar, Province of La Union, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and by means of force
and intimidation commenced the commission of rape directly by overt
acts, to wit: While private complainant AAA, an unmarried woman,
fifteen (15) years old, was sleeping inside the tent along Bangar-Luna
Road, the said accused remove her panty and underwear and lay on top
of said AAA embracing and touching her vagina and breast with intent
of having carnal knowledge of her by means of force, and if the accused
did not accomplish his purpose that is to have carnal knowledge of the
said AAA it was not because of his voluntary desistance but because the
said offended party succeeded in resisting the criminal attempt of said
accused to the damage and prejudice of said offended party.
Criminal Case No. 2389 (Acts of Lasciviousness)
That on or about the 21st day of December 1993, at about 3:00 o'clock
in the morning, along the Bangar-Luna Road, Barangay Central West
No. 2, Municipality of Bangar, Province of La Union, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused with lewd design, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously touch the vagina of BBB against the latter's will and with no
other purpose but to satisfy his lascivious desire to the damage and
prejudice of said offended party.
IN SUMMARY
• The petitioner Norberto Cruz was charged with attempted rape
and acts of lasciviousness involving different victims. The
Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals found Cruz guilty
of both crimes charged, hence, this appeal.
• Norberto and his wife employed AAA and BBB to help them in
selling their plastic wares and glass wares in La Union. Upon
reaching the place, they set up their tents to have a place to sleep.
• Petitioner’s wife and their driver went back to Manila to get
more goods.
• While sleeping, AAA felt that somebody was on top of her
mashing her breast and touching her private part. Norberto
ordered her not to scream or she will be killed. AAA fought back
and Norberto was not able to pursue his lustful desires.
• AA left the tent to seek for help. When she returned to their tent,
she saw Norberto touching the private parts of BBB. This
prompted Norberto to leave the tent.
CRUZ’S VERSION
• The accused maintains that it was not possible for him to commit
the crimes hurled against him.
• On the date of the alleged incident, there were many people
around who were preparing for the "simbang gabi".
• Considering the location of the tents, which were near the road
and the municipal hall, he could not possibly do the dastardly
acts out in the open, not to mention the fact that once AAA and
BBB would scream, the policemen in the municipal hall could
hear them.
• He believes that the reason why the complainants filed these
cases against him was solely for the purpose of extorting money
from him.
• The petitioner assails the behavior and credibility of AAA. He
argues that AAA still continued working for him and his wife
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

until December 30, 1994 despite the alleged attempted rape in
the early morning of December 21, 1994, thereby belying his
commission of the crime against her; that he could not have
undressed her without rousing her if she had gone to sleep only
an hour before, because her bra was locked at her back; that her
testimony about his having been on top of her for nearly an hour
while they struggled was also inconceivable unless she either
consented to his act and yielded to his lust, or the incident did
not happen at all, being the product only of her fertile
imagination; that the record does not indicate if he himself was
also naked, or that his penis was poised to penetrate her; and that
she and her mother demanded from him P80,000.00 as
settlement, under threat that she would file a case against him.
• The petitioner assails the glaring inconsistencies in the
testimony of AAA that cast doubt on her veracity.
RTC found Norberto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of
ATTEMPTED RAPE and ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS. Court of
Appeals promulgated its decision affirming the conviction of the
petitioner for attempted rape in Criminal Case No. 2388, but acquitting
him of the acts of lasciviousness. In this appeal, the petitioner posits that
the CA's decision was not in accord with law or with jurisprudence,
particularly in giving credence to the incredulous and unbelievable
testimony of the alleged victim; and in convicting the accused
notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused was guilty of attempted rape
RULING:
No, Cruz is guilty only of acts of lasciviousness. The basic element of
rape is carnal knowledge of a female. Carnal knowledge is defined
simply as “the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a
woman,” in other words, rape is consummated once the penis capable
of consummating the sexual act touches the external genitalia of the
2
female. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis
indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely
stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of
consummated rape.
Rape in its frustrated stage is a physical impossibility. Nonetheless,
rape admits of an attempted stage. In attempted rape, the concrete felony
is rape, but the offender does not perform all the acts of execution of
having carnal knowledge. If the slightest penetration of the female
genitalia consummates rape, and rape in its attempted stage requires the
commencement of the commission of the felony directly by overt acts
without the offender performing all the acts of execution that should
produce the felony, the only means by which the overt acts performed
by the accused can be shown to have a causal relation to rape as the
intended crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie with the
female.
The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim and was already
touching her genitalia with his hands and mashing her breasts when she
freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on her.
Yet, inferring from such circumstances that rape, and no other, was his
intended felony would be highly unwarranted. Such circumstances
remained equivocal, or “susceptible of double interpretation,” such that
it was not permissible to directly infer from them the intention to cause
rape as the particular injury. The intent to penetrate is manifest only
through the showing of the penis capable of consummating the sexual
act of touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such
showing, only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed.
Petitioner’s embracing and touching the victim’s vagina and breasts did
not directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The lack of evidence
showing his erectile penis being in the position to penetrate her when he
was on top of her deterred any inference about his intent to lie with her.
At most, his acts reflected lewdness and lust for her. The intent to
commit rape should not easily be inferred against the petitioner, even
from his own declaration of it, if any, unless he committed overt acts
leading to rape.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

VALENZUELA v. PEOPLE
G. R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007
Ponente: Tinga, J.
FACTS
• May 19, 1994 – At 4:30 P.M., Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy
Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale Club, a
supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North
EDSA, by Lorenzo Lago, a security guard who was then
manning his post at the open parking area of the supermarket.
Lago saw Valenzuela, who was wearing an ID with the mark
“Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU)” who hauled a pushcart
with cases of detergent of “Tide” brand and unloaded them in an
open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. He then
returned inside the supermarket and emerged 5 minutes after
with more cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these
boxes to the same area in the open parking space. Thereafter, he
left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and
directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was
waiting. Calderon loaded the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside
the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. As Lago watched, he
proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open parking area
and asked Valenzuela for a receipt of the merchendise but
Valenzuela and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot. Lago fired
a warning shot to alert his fellow security guards. Valenzuela
and Calderon were apprehended at the scene and the stolen
merchandise recovered worth P12,090.00.
• Valenzuela, Calderon and 4 other persons were first brought to
the SM security office before they were transferred to the Baler
Station II of the Philippine National Police but only Valenzuela
and Calderon were charged with consummated theft by the
Assistant City Prosecutor.
• Valenzuela and Calderon pleaded not guilty.
• It was only Valenzuela who filed an appeal with the Court of
Appeals. Petitioner contends that he should only be convicted of
frustrated theft since at the time he was apprehended, he was
3
never placed in a position to freely dispose of the articles stolen.
The Court of Appeals rejected this contention, hence, this
Petition for Review.
• Calderon’s Alibi:
o On the afternoon of the incident, he was at the Super Sale
Club to withdraw from his ATM account, accompanied by
his neighbor, Leoncio Rosulada. As the queue for the ATM
was long, he and Rosulada decided to buy snacks inside the
supermarket. While they were eating, they heard the
gunshot fired by Lago, so they went out to check what was
transpiring and when they did, they were suddenly grabbed
by a security guard.
• Valenzuela’s Alibi:
o He is employed as a “bundler” of GMS Marketing and
assigned at the supermarket. He and his cousin, a Gregorio
Valenzuela, had been at the parking lot, walking beside the
nearby BLISS complex and headed to ride a tricycle going
to Pag-asa, when they saw the security guard Lago fire a shot
causing everyone to start running. Then they were
apprehended by Lago.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of consummated theft
RULING:
Yes, Valenzuela is guilty of consummated theft. Article 6 defines the
three stages of execution, namely the consummated, frustrated and
attempted felonies.
o A felony is consummated “when all the elements necessary
for its execution and accomplishment are present.”
o It 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.”
o It is attempted “when the offender commences the
commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
Each felony under the Revised Penal Code has a "subjective phase," or
that portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act
which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by
the offender which, with prior acts, should result in the consummated
crime.
After that point has been breached, the subjective phase ends and the
objective phase begins. It has been held that if the offender never passes
the subjective phase of the offense, the crime is merely attempted. On
the other hand, the subjective phase is completely passed in case of
frustrated crimes, for in such instances, "subjectively the crime is
complete." So long as the offender fails to complete all the acts of
execution despite commencing the commission of a felony, the crime is
undoubtedly in the attempted stage.
In the crime of theft, the following elements should be present:
1) that there be taking of personal property;
2) that said property belongs to another;
3) that the taking be done with intent to gain;
4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence
against or intimidating of persons or force upon things.
The court held that theft is produced when there is deprivation of
personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is immaterial that
the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since
he has already committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation
from the owner has already ensued from such acts.
According to Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have
a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted (no unlawful taking) or
consummated (there is unlawful taking).
4
PRINCIPLES:
1. actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea - ordinarily, evil intent
must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime or there
can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting
2. In crimes mala in se, mens rea has been defined before as “a
guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent” and
“essential for criminal liability.”
PALAGANAS v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006
Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J.
FACTS
• Servillano, Melton and Michael were on a drinking spree to
celebrate the visit of their brother Melton Ferrer. January 16
1998 around 8:00 pm
• They decided to proceed to Tidbits Videoke Bar at the corner of
Malvar & Rizal streets, Poblacion, Manaoag. Around 9:45pm
• Jaime Palaganas, Ferdinand Palaganas, and Virgilio Bautista
arrived in this bar. Now bar only has the two groups as
customers. Both in separate tables.
• The song “My Way” came to pass and the aggressors tried to
outdo each other.
• Melton sung along with Jaime which irritated the latter who
proceeded to:
o Went to the table of the Ferrer
o said in Pangasinan dialect "As if you are tough guys." Jaime
further said "You are already insulting me in that way."
o struck Servillano Ferrer with the microphone, hitting the
back of his head.
• Ferrer brothers and Palaganas brothers fought. Bautista did not
join and left.
• Edith Palaganas found and pacified them. Fight stops.
• Servillano lost his wristwatch and searched for it outside. They
saw Ferdinand Palaganas with a companion 8m in the street:
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

• Ferdinand said "Oraratan paltog mo lara", meaning "They are
the ones, shoot them."
• Companion is petitioner Rujjeric Palaganas, proceeded to shoot
them
o hitting Servillano first at the left side of the abdomen,
causing him to fall on the ground, and followed by
[Melton] who also fell to the ground.
• When Servillano noticed that [Melton] was no longer moving,
he told Michael "Bato, bato." Michael picked up some stones
and threw them at petitioner and Ferdinand. The latter then left
the place
• the police officers came and the Ferrer brothers were brought to
the Manaoag Hospital and later to Villaflor Hospital in Dagupan.
Servillano later discovered that Melton was fatally hit in the
head while Michael was hit in the right shoulder.
• Petition for Certiorari to reverse decision of Court of Appeals
which affirmed with modification the decision of the Regional
Trial Court ruling:
o Petitioner found guilty beyond reasonable doubt (Article
6 Sec 6 & 50 RPC)
Background Facts
Criminal Case No. U-9608
• Petitioner shot Servillano Ferrer, Jr. with intent to kill, treachery
and evident premeditation, conspiring together,
• "gunshot wound penetrating perforating abdomen, urinary
bladder, rectum bullet sacral region,"
• Servillano Ferrer, Jr. survived due to timely medical help. Crime
became Homicide & Frustrated Homicide instead of Murder
• Criminal Case No. U-9609
• Petitioner shot MICHAEL FERRER alias "Boying Ferrer", with
intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation, conspiring
together,
• gunshot wound on the right shoulder
5
• MICHAEL FERRER alias "Boying Ferrer", survived due to
timely medical help. Crime became Homicide & Frustrated
Homicide instead of Murder
Criminal Case No. U-9610
• Petitioner shot MELTON FERRER alias "TONY FERRER",
with intent to kill, treachery and evident premeditation,
conspiring together, inflicting upon him mortal gunshot wounds
in the head and right thigh
• MELTON FERRER alias "TONY FERRER", instantaneous
death.
Criminal Case No. U-9634
• Accused did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
bear and carry one (1) caliber .38 without first securing the
necessary permit/license to do the same.
Apellant Defense
• While Jaime was singing, Tony Ferrer ‘mockingly’ sung My
Way
• Ferdinand ran towards Rujjeric’s house and woke him up.
• Before reaching the bar, he was stoned by Ferrer brothers
• Rujjeric then noticed that Ferdinand was carrying the gun, and
he took the gun from his brother by instinct.
• Rujjeric claimed to fire one shot in the air to force Ferrer brothers
to retreat.
• After Ferrer Brothers kept throwing stones, Rujjeric closed his
eyes and shoot.
Summary of Rulings before final:
• RTC ruling is made. CA takes notice of voluntary submission of
Rujjeric and modifies penalties of RTC ruling. Then Rujjeric
proceeds to Supreme Court still claiming self-defense.
• RTC ruled that the petitioner liable for Homicide and Frustrated
Homicide but not for murder as there was no conspiracy between
Rujjeric and Ferdinand to kill Melton.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

• Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with
modifications on the penalty.
ISSUE:
Whether Rujjeric Palaganas was guilty of the crime of homicide and 2
counts of frustrated murder
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Yes, Rujjeric Palaganas is guilty of homicide for the death of Melton
Ferrer, frustrated homicide for fatally wounding Servillano Ferrer and
attempted homicide for shooting Michael at his right shoulder. Article
6 of the Revised Penal Code states and defines the stages of a felony in
the following manner:
ART. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies. —
Consummated felonies, as well as those which are frustrated and
attempted, are punishable. A felony is consummated when all the
elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present;
and it 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 or causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
Based on the foregoing provision, the distinctions between frustrated
and attempted felony are summarized as follows:
1) In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of
execution which should produce the felony as a consequence;
whereas in attempted felony, the offender merely commences
the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not
perform all the acts of execution.
2) In frustrated felony, the reason for the non-accomplishment of
the crime is some cause independent of the will of the
perpetrator; on the other hand, in attempted felony, the reason
for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other
than the offender's own spontaneous desistance.
6
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision of the Court of
Appeals dated 30 September 2004 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS (see full case).
VELASCO v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 166479, February 28, 2006
Ponente: Chico-Nazario, J.
FACTS:
• April 19, 1998 – At about 7:30 o’clock in the morning, private
complainant Frederick Maramba was cleaning and washing his
owner type jeep in front of his house at Lasip Grande, Dagupan
City when a motorized tricycle stopped near him. Accused
Rodolfo Velasco dashed out of the tricycle, approached the
complainant and fired at him several times with a .45 caliber
pistol. The accused missed with his first shot but the second one
hit the complainant at the upper arm
• The incident was reported by Barangay Captain Dacasin of
Lasip Grande which describes the accused as wearing a
“Chaleco”
• The accused tried to get away by riding the tricycle of Armando
Maramba but the police caught up with the tricycle and brought
the accused to the police sub-station
• Private complainant further testified that he was hospitalized and
treated byDr. Arturo de Vera, Jr. who issued a Medico-Legal
Certificate stating that the victim sustained, "Gunshot wound”
• Complainant identified him as the one who shot him and
Armando Maramba executed an affidavit before the Police
Headquarters in Dagupan City that he is the one who picked up
the accused who was wearing a chaleco and identified him as
the one who shot the complainant.
• The accused, on the other hand, interposed the defense of alibi.
He said that on April 18, 1998, he went to a friend’s house and
when he is on his way to Calasiao three men approached him
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

and introduced themselves as policemen. They confiscated his
gun and then brought him to the police station for interrogation.
Thereafter, the police lodged him in the City Jail of Dagupan
• Accused testified that he did not know personally the
complaining witness and denied having fired at him RTC 41 of
Dagupan City found petitioner guilty of the crime charged
• Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal on CA
• Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision
of the RTC
• Petitioner filed petition for review on certiorari in SC claiming
that CA erred in when it affirmed the decision of RTC and for
denying his motion for reconsideration
• The Petitioner justified that the Court of Appeals sanctioned
substantial and jurisprudential departures committed by the trial
court. He maintains that (1) the trial court precipitately observed
that alibi is a weak defense; (2) the trial court did not consider
that the prosecution had no evidence proving his intention to kill;
(3) the trial court did not consider the fact that victim did not
know him and vice-versa; (4) it was impossible for him, a navy
man a protector of the people to have failed to fatally hit the
victim after firing seven shots; and (5) the instant case is a frame
up.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioner is guilty for the crime of attempted murder
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Yes, the petitioner is guilty and the petition is denied. It was not
physically impossible for Velasco to be at the crime scene when the
crime was committed since it only takes a 10-minute ride from the place
where he allegedly alighted from the car of one Berting Soriano to the
crime scene Even without a ballistic report, the positive identification
by prosecution witnesses is more than sufficient to prove accused’s guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. It must be stressed that motive is a state of
(one’s) mind which others cannot discern. It is not an element of the
crime, and as such does not have to be proved. In fact, lack of motive
7
for committing a crime does not preclude conviction. It is judicial
knowledge that persons have been killed or assaulted for no reason at
all. Even in the absence of a known motive, the time-honored rule is that
motive is not essential to convict when there is no doubt as to the identity
of the culprit. Motive assumes significance only where there is no
showing of who the perpetrator of the crime was. Since petitioner has
been positively identified the lack of motive is no longer of consequence
Relationship could strengthen the witnesses’ credibility, for it is
unnatural for an aggrieved relative to falsely accuse someone other than
the actual culprit. The fact that the shooting occurred in broad daylight
does not render its commission impossible. The fact that petitioner was
a navy man, a protector of the people, does not mean that he is innocent
of the crime charged or that he is incapable of doing it. The suddenness
of the shooting and the fact that he was unarmed left private complainant
with no option but to run for his life – treachery.
Having commenced the criminal act by overt acts but failing to perform
all acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of some cause
other than his own desistance, petitioner committed an attempted felony.
Petitioner already commenced his attack with a manifest intent to kill
by shooting private complainant seven times, but failed to perform all
the acts of execution by reason of causes independent of his will, that is,
poor aim and the swiftness of the latter. Private complainant sustained
a wound on the left arm that is not sufficient to cause his death. The
settled rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not
sufficient to cause his death, the crime is only attempted murder, since
the accused did not perform all the acts of execution that would have
brought about death.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

BALEROS v. PEOPLE
G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006
Ponente: Garcia, J.
FACTS
• December 13, 1991 – That about 1:50 in the morning in Manila,
the accused, by forcefully covering the face of Martina Lourdes
T. Albano with a piece of cloth soaked in chemical with dizzying
effects, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
commenced the commission of rape by lying on top of her with
the intention to have carnal knowledge with her
• However, he was unable to perform all the acts of execution by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance, said acts being committed against her will and
consent to her damage and prejudice.
• To prove its case, the prosecution presented thirteen (13)
witnesses. Among them were private complainant Martina
Lourdes Albano (Malou), and her classmates, Joseph Bernard
Africa, Rommel Montes, Renato Alagadan and Christian Alcala.
• The RTC found the accused guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE
beyond reasonable doubt establishing its ruling on accounts of
the circumstantial evidences presented.
• Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated the case to the CA. However,
the appellate court affirmed RTCs judgment.
• Petitioner argued that the CA erred on the following:
o In not finding that it is improbable for petitioner to have
committed the attempted rape imputed to him, absent
sufficient, competent and convincing evidence to prove
the offense charged.
o In convicting petitioner of attempted rape on the basis
merely of circumstantial evidence since the prosecution
failed to satisfy all the requisites for conviction based
thereon.
o In not finding that the circumstances it relied on to
convict the petitioner are unreliable, inconclusive and
contradictory.
8
o In not finding that proof of motive is miserably wanting
in his case.
o In awarding damages in favor of the complainant despite
the fact that the award was improper and unjustified
absent any evidence to prove the same.
o In failing to appreciate in his favor the constitutional
presumption of innocence and that moral certainty has
not been met, hence, he should be acquitted on the
ground that the offense charged against him has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
o The prosecution contended that the evidences presented,
namely, the narrative of the witnesses, proves the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUES:
Whether the CA erred in affirming the decision of the RTC finding the
accused guilty of attempted rape beyond reasonable doubt
a) Whether positive identification pertains essentially to proof of
identity and not per se to that of being an eyewitness to the very
act of commission of the crime
b) Whether the act of the petitioner i.e., the pressing of a chemical-
soaked cloth while on top of Malou, constitutes an overt act of
rape
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
a) YES. The SC Ruled that there are two types of positive
identification. A witness may identify a suspect or accused as
the offender as an eyewitness to the very act of the commission
of the crime. This constitutes direct evidence. There may,
however, be instances where, although a witness may not have
actually witnessed the very act of commission of a crime, he may
still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the
perpetrator of a crime as when, for instance, the latter is the
person or one of the persons last seen with the victim
immediately before and right after the commission of the crime.
This is the second type of positive identification, which forms
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

part of circumstantial evidence. In the absence of direct
evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial
evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually committed
in secret and under condition where concealment is highly
probable. If direct evidence is insisted under all circumstances,
the prosecution of vicious felons who committed heinous crimes
in secret or secluded places will be hard, if not well-nigh
impossible, to prove.
In the present case, the positive identification of the petitioner
forms part of circumstantial evidence, which, when taken
together with the other pieces of evidence constituting an
unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable conclusion,
which is that petitioner was the intruder in question.
b) NO. The SC ruled that harmonizing the above definition to the
facts of this case, it would be too strained to construe petitioner's
act of pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in the mouth of Malou
which would induce her to sleep as an overt act that will logically
and necessarily ripen into rape. As it were, petitioner did not
commence at all the performance of any act indicative of an
intent or attempt to rape Malou. It cannot be overemphasized
that petitioner was fully clothed and that there was no attempt on
his part to undress Malou, let alone touch her private part. For
what reason petitioner wanted the complainant unconscious, if
that was really his immediate intention, is anybody’s guess.
The SC ruled that the acts rather constitute unjust vexation
punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph of
Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code. As there is no need to
allege malice, restraint or compulsion in an information for
unjust vexation. As it were, unjust vexation exists even without
the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that this
term is broad enough to include any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material harm,
would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person. The
paramount question is whether the offender’s act causes
9
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the
mind of the person to whom it is directed. That Malou, after the
incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what
she perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a
case for attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was
disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of petitioner.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming
that of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and a new one entered ACQUITTING petitioner Renato
D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for attempted rape. Petitioner, however, is
adjudged GUILTY of light coercion and is accordingly sentenced to 30
days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of ₱200.00, with the accessory
penalties thereof and to pay the costs.
Principles:
• DIRECT EVIDENCE was referred to this case as a kind of
evidence that covers the example of a situation where a witness
may identify a suspect or accused as the offender as an
eyewitness to the very act of the commission of the crime.
• CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE refers to evidences that
covers the example wherein although a witness may not have
actually witnessed the very act of commission of a crime, he may
still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the
perpetrator of a crime as when, for instance, the latter is the
person or one of the persons last seen with the victim
immediately before and right after the commission of the crime.
In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to
adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.
• Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides the
conditions when circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for
conviction. The provision reads:
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient –
Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if –
a) There is more than one circumstance;
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven;
and
c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
• ATTEMPTED FELONY refers to an attempt which the Penal
Code punishes and that which has a logical connection to a
particular, concrete offense; that which is the beginning of the
execution of the offense by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading
directly to its realization and consummation. In the crime of
rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to produce the
felony. Thus, for there to be an ATTEMPTED RAPE, the
accused must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual
organ to the vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous desistance, the penetration,
however, slight, is not completed. The act of lying on top of the
complainant, embracing and kissing her, mashing her breasts,
inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual
organ, while admittedly obscene and detestable acts, do not
constitute attempted rape absent any showing that petitioner
actually commenced to force his penis into the complainant’s
sexual organ.
EMERGENCY RECIT DIGEST:
This petition for certiorari refers to the decision of CA affirming the
decision of the RTC finding the accused guilty of the crime of attempted
rape. The petitioner was alleged to have feloniously pinned down the
victim with a piece of cloth soaked with chemicals with dizzying effects.
The petitioner contends that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of direct evidence. The SC ruled
that circumstantial evidence is sufficient enough to prove his guilt in
this case. However, it further ruled that the acts committed only
constitutes unjust vexation for the elements to constitute attempted rape
is absent, i.e. penetration.
10
RIVERA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 166326 (January 25, 2006)
Ponente: Callejo, Sr., J.
FACTS:
• On May 2, 1998, petitioner Edgardo Rivera mocked Ruben
Rodil for being jobless and dependent on his wife for support
which resulted to a heated exchange of words.
• The following day, when Ruben and his three-year-old daughter
went to the store to buy food and look for his wife, Edgardo,
together with his brothers Esmeraldo Rivera and Ismael Rivera,
emerged from their house and ganged up on him.
• Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist blows. And as he
fell to the ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow
block on the parietal area while Esmeraldo and Ismael continued
mauling him. Ruben felt dizzy but managed to stand up. Ismael
threw a stone at him, hitting him at the back. The Rivera brothers
fled to their house upon the arrival of the policemen.
• Ruben was brought to the hospital, His attending physician, Dr.
Lamberto Cagingin, Jr., declared that he sustained several
wounds and that the lacerated wound in the parietal area was
slight and superficial and would heal from one to seven days.
• On April 12, 1999, an information was filed in the RTC of Imus,
Cavite, charging the Rivera brothers of attempted murder. On
August 30, 2002, the trial court rendered judgment finding all
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of FRUSTRATED
MURDER.
• The accused appealed to the CA. CA rendered judgment on June
8, 2004 affirming the appealed decision with modification,
finding all the accused guilty of ATTEMPTED MURDER.
• Petitioner’s arguments were the following:
o The prosecution failed to prove that they had the
intention to kill Ruben Rodil. Based on the testimony of
Dr. Cagingin, Ruben sustained only a superficial wound
in the parietal area; hence, they should be held criminally
liable for physical injuries only.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

o The prosecution failed to prove treachery; hence, they
should be held guilty only of attempted homicide.
o Intent to kill was shown by the fact that the Rivera
brothers helped each other maul the defenseless victim.
o The nature of the injury does not negate the intent to kill.
Dr. Cagingin stated that appellants could have killed the
victim had the hollow block directly hit his head.
o Petitioners attacked the victim in a sudden and
unexpected manner as Ruben was walking with his
three-year-old daughter, impervious of the imminent
peril to his life.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused should be convicted of attempted murder
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Yes. Accused is guilty of the crime Attempted Murder. Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt when the offender
commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Although the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial
and could not have produced his death, it does not negate criminal
liability of the accused for attempted murder. The intent to kill was
already presumed based on the overt acts of the accused. In fact, victim
could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.
The prosecution was able to prove the intent to kill and was also able to
prove treachery. Esmeraldo and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist
blows, while Edgardo hit him three times with a hollow block. Even
though the wounds sustained by the victim were merely superficial and
could not have produced his death, intent to kill was presumed.
11
The Court rejected petitioners’ contention that the prosecution failed to
prove treachery in the commission of the felony. Eyewitnesses to the
crime, Alicia Vera Cruz and Lucita Villejo’s testimonies revealed the
suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of the petitioners as Ruben
was walking with his three year-old daughter, impervious of the
imminent peril to his life. He had no chance to defend himself and
retaliate. He was overwhelmed by the synchronized assault of the three
siblings. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
on the victim. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected,
giving no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there
would be treachery. Obviously, petitioners assaulted the victim because
of the heated argument between him and petitioner Edgardo Rivera a
day before. Thus, treachery is considered against the petitioners.
Dispositive Portion:
The petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATION.
Principles:
The essential elements of an attempted felony are as follows:
1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly
by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony;
3. The offender’s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous
desistance;
4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause
or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements,
namely:
1. That there be external acts;
2. Such external acts have direct connection with the crime
intended to be committed.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere
planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination
following its natural course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will
logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense (The Court,
People v. Lizada).
PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 143838, May 9, 2002
Ponente: Kapunan, J.
FACTS:
• Complainant Julita Tria testified that in the morning of April 14,
1988, as she was doing household chores, Adelmo suddenly
appeared in the bedroom pulling her by the hand, embraced her
from behind and held her breasts. He pulled her to the bamboo
bed, positioned himself on top of her and placed her hands
behind her as he kissed her lips and neck. She tried to avoid his
kisses by moving her head from side to side. As she was pinned,
he managed to insert his right hand inside her t-shirt and bra and
squeezed nipples. Then, he tried to raise her skirt with his right
hand, inserted it inside her panty and while making up and down
motions. Adelm said: “Sige na, pagbigyan mo na ako.” She then
cried out “Inay”.
• Complainant’s mother, Eufemia Tria, testified on her account
that she was washing clothes at that time outside their house
when she heard someone cry "Inay". She peeped into their
window which was just a few meters from where she was and
there saw her daughter Julita lying flat on a bamboo bed with her
skirt raised and Adelmo on top of Julita as her hands pinned
down. She then rushed to the room and found Adelmo hiding
under the bamboo bed. She then ordered the accused to come out
which he did.
12
• Dr. Emmanuel Cortez-Asuncion who conducted the medical
examination on the complainant, testified as to the extent of
injuries sustained by her and that the slight physical injuries
could have been caused by attempted rape.
• The trial court rendered judgment finding petitioner guilty of
attempted rape. Petitioner appealed to the CA. The appellate
court, finding the appeal to be unmeritorious, affirmed
petitioner’s conviction.
• Petitioner insists that what transpired between them was a
consensual act as he claimed that he and Julita were already
becoming intimate.
• Medical examination conducted by Dr. Emmanuel Cortez-
Asuncion found physical injuries in the neck and navel which
could have been caused by blunt force, force would have been
unnecessary if Julita consented to these acts.
ISSUE: Whether the crime committed was attempted rape
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
No. A careful review of the records of the case shows that the crime
committed by petitioner was acts of lasciviousness not attempted rape.
Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt when the
offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts,
and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance.
In the crime of rape, penetration is an essential act of execution to
produce the felony. Thus, for there to be an attempted rape, the accused
must have commenced the act of penetrating his sexual organ to the
vagina of the victim but for some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance, the penetration, however slight, is not
completed. There is no showing in this case that petitioner’s sexual
organ had even touched complainant’s vagina nor any part of her body.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the Decision, dated December 16, 1999, of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 19971 is hereby MODIFIED. Petitioner
Adelmo Perez y Agustin is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined and penalized under Article
336 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of 6 months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to 4
years and 2 months of prision correccional, as maximum.
PEOPLE v. ALMAZAN
G.R. Nos. 138943-44, September 17, 2001
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
FACTS:
• On September 28, 1996, at about 4:00pm, accused-appellant
Henry Almazan went home accompanied by his friend Johnald
Molina. Henry Almazan’s wife informed him upon his return
that his twelve fighting cocks had been stolen. He then
proceeded to search for them and ended up in Vicente
Madriaga’s house where the latter was playing chess with a
certain Allan.
• The spectators were Vicente’s son Noli carrying his 2 year-old
daughter, his grandson Noel, and neighbor Angel Soliva.
• Henry Almazan brandished a .38 caliber revolver in front of the
group since he suspected Angel to be the culprit behind the theft
of his fighting cocks. He aimed at Angel and fired twice but to
no avail. Vicente tried to calm Henry down while Angel ran
away but the accused-appellant aimed instead at Noli, fired his
gun, and killed him. He then turned to Noel and shot him on the
thigh. Both Noli and Noel were rushed to the hospital; the former
dying along the way and latter surviving from a mere minor
injury from the gunshot.
• He claims that it was Angel who pulled out a .38 caliber
revolver. He also claims that he tries to get the gun from Angel
that leads to an accidental shot to Noli.
13
• Henry claims to have received a blow from behind which caused
him to fall and see Noel poised to attack him with a broken bottle
so he fired at the latter’s lower part of the body.
• The testimony of Vicente has alleged inconsistencies in various
vital points.
• He assails the testimony of Shirley Abordo, common-law wife
of Nilo Madriaga, for being hearsay
• Evidence of the prosecution is impugned for its failure to present
Angel who was primarily involved in the incident and whom the
defense claims to be the real transgressor.
• Note: The accused arguments was corroborated by Johnald
Molina (friend of Henry)
• Theft of Henry’s fighting cocks constituted sufficient motive for
the killing and that as a cockfight aficionado he must have found
it imperative to exact vengeance on his suspected culprits
• The testimony of Johnald Molina who corroborated the alibi of
Henry has no merit since they are friends, and friend are
expected to help a friend in need.
• The testimony given by the witnesses are consistence in their
narration of the manner which the event transpired
• Accused-appellant went into hiding after the shooting incident
and was only collared by the agents from the Western Police
District eight (8) months later. Flight indeed is an indication of
guilt, especially when accused-appellant failed to sufficiently
explain why he left his residence and resurrected only several
months after.
ISSUE: Whether the court erred in holding the defendant guilty of
frustrated murder
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Yes, the court erred in holding the defendant of frustrated murder, the
defendant should be liable only for attempted murder. Accused-
appellant should be held liable for attempted murder, not frustrated
murder since the victim did not sustain a fatal wound that could have
caused his death were it not for timely medical assistance.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

PEOPLE v. PAGADOR
G.R.No.140006-10, April 20, 2001
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
FACTS:
• Rolly Pagador, mere tricycle driver, and Nenita Mendez were
sweethearts for more than 2 years. The spouses Herminigildo
and Magdalena Mendez and their 7 children: Ricardo, the eldest
and only son, Emily, married and Shirley, 10 years old, Nenita,
Josephine, Marlyn and Rosalinda welcomed Rolly like a family
allowing him to drop by their house anytime and spend the night
with her or visit their household even at 1:00 o'clock or 2:00
o'clock in the morning.
• October 12, 1996 1:00 am: Nenita, Emily, Josephine and
Rosalinda were awakened by shouts of their mother Magdalena
shouting, "Aray ko! Aray ko!" thinking that it’s another bout of
her perennial ailment. They were shocked to see Rolly kneeling
and stabbing two handedly their mother’s back who was already
slumped on the floor with her legs outstretched. Shirley was
clutching her wounded stomach while lying on their mother's
lap. Their father Herminigildo was sprawled motionless on the
floor. The 4 sisters approached their mother in an attempt to
repulse Rolly but he swung his bolo at them, cutting Emily's left
index finger in the process. Emily rushed back to her room,
picked up her sleeping child and jumped out of the window.
• Meanwhile, Nenita retreated from the room, also jumped out of
the window and hid behind a tamarind tree.
• Rosalinda being the last one to leave her parents' room was
chased by Rolly who violently pulled her hair causing her to fall
down. Rolly sat astride on her stomach and furiously hacked and
stabbed her. Rolly made several more thrusts with the bolo
hitting her on the right ear, left breast, left upper portion of her
arm and right thigh. To stop the murderous assault, she played
dead which worked. Due to blood loss, she lowly lost
consciousness.
14
• Shirley testified that she was awakened when she felt someone
striking her on the stomach and other parts of the body. But she
could not ascertain who was responsible for her wounds
although she saw the accused wielding a bolo.
• Legal Necropsy Examination Report the following are the cause
of death:
o Herminigildo Mendez - massive intra-thoracic hemorrhage
from stab wounds on the chest, left shoulder, arm, nape, and
other portions of his body
o Magdalena Mendez - massive bleeding inside the abdomen
and the thoracic cavity
o Rosalinda Mendez – 14 hacked wounds on different parts of
her body
o Emily Mendez - amputated index finger and lacerated
wound on the 4th finger of the left hand
• Rolly’s Alibi: Herminigildo was the one who attacked him first
when he arrived at Nenita’s house to visit her.
• RTC convicted Rolly of 2 counts of Frustrated Murder
committed individually against Shirley and Rosalinda, and 2
counts of murder committed individually against the spouses
ISSUE: Whether the court erred in holding the defendant guilty of three
counts of frustrated murder
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
Yes, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos, Pangasinan
is MODIFIED.
The complexity and variance in the offenses committed against the five
(5) members of the Mendez family in contrast with the lower court's
sweeping conviction for murder and frustrated murder betray a glaring
disregard for the varying legal implications and the actual peculiarities
of accused-appellant's varied criminal acts. Judges, who are called upon
to administer the law and apply it to the facts, should be studious of the
principles of the law and diligent in endeavoring to ascertain the facts.
They are in the frontline of the sacred task of dispensing justice to all;
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

hence, a dispassionate, assiduous and devoted discharge of their duties
is demanded of them at all times.
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Alaminos,
Pangasinan is MODIFIED as follows (see full case):
1. In Crim. Case No. 3284-A, accused-appellant Rolly Pagador is
found guilty of Homicide (instead of Murder as found by the
trial court).
2. In Crim. Case No. 3285-A, accused-appellant is found guilty of
Murder (as likewise found by the trial court).
3. In Crim. Case No. 3286-A, accused-appellant is found guilty of
Less Serious Physical Injuries (instead of Frustrated Murder as
found by the trial court).
4. In Crim. Case No. 3287-A, accused-appellant is found guilty of
Frustrated Murder.
5. In Crim. Case No. 3288-A, accused-appellant is found guilty of
Serious Physical Injuries (instead of Frustrated Murder as found
by the trial court)
PEOPLE v. LISTERIO
G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000
Ponente: Ynares-Santiago, J.
FACTS:
Marlon Araque discloses that around 5:00 p.m. of August 14, 1991, he
and his brother Jeonito were in Purok 4, Alabang, Muntinlupa to collect
a sum of money from a certain Tino. Having failed to collect anything
from Tino, they then turned back. On their way back while they were
passing Tramo near Tino’s place, a group composed of Agapito
Listerio, Samson dela Torre, George dela Torre, Marlon dela Torre and
Bonifacio Bancaya blocked their path and attacked them with lead pipes
and bladed weapons. His brother, Jeonito, was stabbed from behind and
sustained three stab wounds causing him to fall down. Marlon was hit
on the head with lead pipes and momentarily lost consciousness. When
15
he regained his sense, he saw that his brother Jeonito was already dead.
Their assailants then fled after the incident. Marlon, who sustained
injuries in the arm and back, was thereafter brought to a hospital for
treatment.
Accused’s version: Listerio said he was in the store of Nimfa Agustin
having a little fun with Edgar Demolador and Andres Gininao drinking
beer. At around 2:00 o’clock he went to his house and slept. He was
awaken by the two and told him there was a quarrel near the railroad
track. He was invited by the two policemen for questioning with his co-
accused Samson dela Torre, and was implicated in the sinumpaang
salaysay of Marlon for the death of Jeonito Araque and the frustrated
murder of Marlon Araque. He professed his innocence and insisted that
Marlon’s testimony is insufficient to convict him of the crimes charged.
Trial Court rendered judgment only against accused Agapito Listerio
because his co-accused Samson dela Torre escaped during the
presentation of the prosecution’s evidence and he was not tried in
absentia. Their other co-accuseds have remained at large. The trial court
convicted the accused for the crime of Murder and Attempted Homicide
only on the basis of Dr. Manimtim’s testimony that none of the wounds
sustained by Marlon Araque were fatal.
ISSUE: Whether the accused should be charged with Attempted Murder
for the reason that none of the wounds sustained by Marlon were fatal
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
No, accused was guilty of Frustrated Homicide.
The reasoning of the lower court is flawed because it is not the gravity
of the wounds inflicted which determines whether a felony is attempted
or frustrated but whether or not the subjective phase in the commission
of an offense has been passed. By subjective phase is meant “that
portion of the acts constituting the crime included between the act which
begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the
offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the consummated
crime. From that time forward, the phase is objective. It may also be
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

said to be that period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he
has control – that period between the point where he begins and the point
where he voluntarily desists. If between these two points the offender
is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary
desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an
attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last
act, it is frustrated.”
Principles:
It must be remembered that a felony is frustrated when:
1. the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony;
2. the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the
perpetrator’s will.
On the other hand, in an attempted felony:
1. the offender commits overt acts to commence the perpetration of
the crime;
2. he is not able to perform all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony; and
3. his failure to perform all the acts of execution was due to some
cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.
It bears stressing that intent to kill determines whether the infliction of
injuries should be punished as attempted or frustrated murder, homicide,
parricide or consummated physical injuries. Homicidal intent must be
evidenced by acts which at the time of their execution are unmistakably
calculated to produce the death of the victim by adequate means. Suffice
it to state that the intent to kill of the malefactors herein who were armed
with bladed weapons and lead pipes can hardly be doubted given the
prevailing facts of the case. It also cannot be denied that the crime is a
frustrated felony not an attempted offense considering that after being
stabbed and clubbed twice in the head as a result of which he lost
consciousness and fell, Marlon’s attackers apparently thought he was
already dead and fled.
16
PEOPLE v. CAMPUHAN
G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000
Ponente: Bellosillo, J.
FACTS:
• April 25, 1996 – At around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, Ma.
Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year old Crysthel
Pamintuan, went down from the second floor of their house to
prepare Milo chocolate drinks for her two (2) children. At the
ground floor she met Primo Campuhan who was then busy
filling small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the
freezer located at the second floor. Primo was a helper of
Conrado Plata Jr., brother of Corazon. As Corazon was busy
preparing the drinks, she heard one of her daughters cry,
"Ayo'ko, ayo'ko!" prompting Corazon to rush upstairs. There,
she saw Primo Campuhan inside her children's room kneeling
before Crysthel whose pajamas or "jogging pants" and panty
were already removed, while his short pants were down to his
knees.
• Corazon’s statement: Primo was forcing his penis into
Crysthel's vagina. Horrified, she cursed the accused, "P - t - ng
ina mo, anak ko iyan!" and boxed him several times. He evaded
her blows and pulled up his pants. He pushed Corazon aside
when she tried to block his path. Corazon then ran out and
shouted for help thus prompting her brother, a cousin and an
uncle who were living within their compound, to chase the
accused.
• Physical examination of the victim yielded negative results. No
evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted by the
medico-legal officer on Crysthel's body as her hymen was intact
and its orifice was only 0.5 cm. in diameter.
• Primo Campuhan had only himself for a witness in his defense.
He maintained his innocence and assailed the charge as a mere
scheme of Crysthel's mother who allegedly harbored ill will
against him for his refusal to run an errand for her.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

• May 27, 1997 – Trial court convicted Campuhan guilty of
statutory rape and sentenced him to death.
• Campuhan appealed. He seriously assails the credibility of Ma.
Corazon Pamintuan. He argues that her narration should not be
given any weight or credence since it was punctured with
implausible statements and improbabilities so inconsistent with
human nature and experience.
• In convicting the accused, the trial court relied quite heavily on
the testimony of Corazon that she saw Primo with his short pants
down to his knees kneeling before Crysthel whose pajamas and
panty were supposedly "already removed" and that Primo was
"forcing his penis into Crysthel's vagina." The gravamen of the
offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below
twelve (12), as provided in Art. 335, par. (3), of the Revised
Penal Code. Crysthel was only four (4) years old when sexually
molested, thus raising the penalty, from reclusion perpetua to
death, to the single indivisible penalty of death under RA 7659,
Sec. 11, the offended party being below seven (7) years old.
ISSUE: Whether the act done by Campuhan constitutes consummated
statutory rape
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
No. The SC have said often enough that in concluding that carnal
knowledge took place, full penetration of the vaginal orifice is not an
essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen necessary. The mere
touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating
the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act
of touching should be understood here as inherently part of the
entry of the penis into the labias of the female organ and not mere
touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum.
Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to
be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of
the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or
touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute
17
consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of
the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the
penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be
attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the
oft-quoted "touching of the female organ," but has also progressed into
being described as "the introduction of the male organ into the labia of
the pudendum," or "the bombardment of the drawbridge." But in this
case, it merely constitutes a "shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency,"
or as earlier stated, a "strafing of the citadel of passion."
It is not enough that Corazon claims that she saw what was done to her
daughter. It is required that her claim be properly demonstrated to
inspire belief. The prosecution failed in this respect, thus the SCcannot
conclude without any taint of serious doubt that inter-genital contact
was at all achieved. To hold otherwise would be to resolve the doubt in
favor of the prosecution but to run over the constitutional right of the
accused to be presumed innocent.
What appears to be the basis of the conviction of the accused was
Crysthel's answer to the question of the court which she said that
Campuhan’s penis did not penetrate her vagina. This testimony alone
should dissipate the mist of confusion that enshrouds the question of
whether rape in this case was consummated. It has foreclosed the
possibility of Primo's penis penetrating her vagina, however slight.
Crysthel made a categorical statement denying penetration.
Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is
attempted when the offender commences the commission of rape
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution
which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. All the elements of
attempted rape — and only of attempted rape — are present in the
instant case, hence, the accused should be punished only for it.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

PEOPLE v. DELA CRUZ
G.R. No. 120988, August 11, 1997
Ponente: Melo, J.
FACTS:
• Setting: September 27, 1994 – Around 11:30 o'clock in the
morning at Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School
• Victim: Whiazel Soriano (7 years old)
o She testified that she voluntarily went with Rosemarie
after being asked for help in looking for the school
dentist
o She also mentioned that accused-appellant asked for her
assistance in looking for Rosemarie's child in a place far
away from school
o She was neither threatened nor hurt in any way
o She was not led out of the school; in fact they never got
out of the school compound
o Whiazel did not try to escape. She did not even cry; well,
not until they went to a teacher
• Rosemarie de la Cruz y Nivea (accused-appellant) was caught
holding a seven-year old school girl by the hand and leading her
out of the school ground. She had inconsistent alibis.
• RTC convicted her of guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor.
o Whiazel was deprived of her liberty, the moment
Rosemarie, a person unknown to Whiazel, prevented her
from going over to her neighbor, Cecilia Caparos
(witness) considering that she is of such tender age,
deprivation of liberty was consummated even in the
absence of force or threats upon the victim
• Rosemarie entered a plea of not guilty and appealed to the
Supreme Court contending that her act of holding the child by
the hand and leading her out of the school premises cannot be
considered an act of kidnapping without leaving reasonable
doubt.
18
ISSUE: Whether the felony committed is kidnapping and illegal
detention of a minor in the consummated stage
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
No. The felony committed is on the attempted stage. Due to lack of
evidence that the child victim had been denied her liberty, the Court
hesitates to find that kidnapping in the case at bar was consummated,
rather it was in the attempted stage only.
The attempted phase of a felony is defined as when the offenderr
commences the commissios 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.
PEOPLE v. ORITA
G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990
Ponente: Medildea, J.
FACTS:
• March 20, 1983 - At around 1:30 in the morning Cristina S.
Abayan, 19 years old freshman student at the St. Joseph College
arrived at the boarding house after her classmate brought her
home from a party.
• She knocked at the door of her boarding house when a frequent
visitor of another boarder held her and poked a knife to her neck.
• Despite pleading for her release, he ordered her to go upstair
with him.
• Since the door which led to the first floor was locked from the
inside, they used the back door to the second floor.
• With his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand
poking a " balisong" to her neck, he dragged her up the stairs.
• When they reached the second floor, he commanded herewith
the knife poked at her neck to looked for a room.They entered
Abayan's room, then pushed her hitting her head on the wall.
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan

• With one hand holding the knife he underdressed himself.He
then ordered her to take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her
T- shirt, bra, pants and panty.
• He ordered her to lie down on the floor, and then mounted her.
He made her hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. Still poke
with a knife, she did as told but since she keep moving only a
portion of his penis entered her
• He then laid down on his back and commanded her to mount
him. Still only a small part of his penis was inserted into her
vagina. When he had both his hand flat on the floor . She darted
out to the next room and locked herself in.
• When he pursued her and climbed the partition, she ran to
another room then another then she jumped out through a
window
• Still naked, she darted to the municipal building 18 meters in
front of the boarding house and knocked on the door.
• •When there was no answer, she ran around the building and
knocked on the back door. When the policemen who were inside
the building opened the door, they found her naked sitting on the
stairs crying.
• Pat Donceras, took off his jacket and wrapped it around her. Pat
Donceras and two other policemen rushed to the boarding house
where they heard and saw somebody running away but failed to
comprehend him due to darkness.
• She was taken to the Eastern Samar Provincial Hospital where
she was physically examined by Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude, the
resident physician and issued a Medical Certificate states that;
• Physical Examination- patient is fairly built, came in with loose
clothing with no under clothes; appears is state of shook per
unambulatory
• PE findings - pertinent findings only
• Neck - circumscribed hematoma at ant. neck
• Breast - well developed, conical in shape with prominent
nipples; linear abrasions below (L) breast.
• Back multiple pinpoint marks
• Extremities - Abrasions at L and R knees
19
• Vulva - no visible abrasions or marks at the perineal area or over
vulva, erythematous areas noted surroundings vaginal orifice,
tender hymen intact, no laceration fresh and do noted; examining
finger can barely enter and with difficult vaginal canal tight; no
discharged noted.
• The accused contends that there is no crime of frustrated rape.
The trial court erred in disregarding the substantial
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses; and the trial
court erred in declaring that the crime of frustrated rape was
committed by the accused. He was not able to fully penetrate in
her.
• The accused also question the failure to the prosecution to
present other witnesses to corroborate the allegations in the
complaint. The accused used the Article 335 of the RPC to show
that he is not guilty of frustrated rape and article 6 to stress the
difference of consummated, frustrated, and attempted felonies.
• The trial court convicted the accused of Frustrated Rape.
ISSUE: Whether the accused’s conviction for frustrated rape is proper
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
No, the accused is convicted of the crime of consummated rape, not just
frustrated rape. Ruling of the RTC was modified.
The victim's testimonies from the time she knocked on the door of the
municipal building up to the time she was brought to the hospital was
corroborated by Pat Donceras. Rather than discreet the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses, discrepancies on minor details must be
viewed in adding credence and veracity to such spontaneous
testimonies.
Article 335 of the RPC, Defines and enumerates the element of the
crime of rape. Art. 335b when and how the rape is committed. Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
following circumstances
1. by using force or intimidation
Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)
Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan
 20
2. when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious, and
3. when the woman is under 12 years of age, even though neither
of the circumstances mentioned in the 2 next preceding
paragraph shall be present.

Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man in having sexually

bodily connections with a woman.

Felony as a consequence but which nevertheless do not produce it by

reason of causes independent if the will of the perpetrator. There is an
attempt when the offender commences the commission of the felony
directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident
other then his own spontaneous desistance.

Clearly, in the crime of rape , from the moment the offender has carnal
knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that
moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because
he jas performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the
felony is consummated. The uniform rule that for the consummation of
rape, perfect penetration is not necessary. Any penetration of the female
organ by male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female
organ without rapture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is
sufficient.

There is no conclusive evidence of penetration of genital organ of the

victim, the trial court relied on the testimony of Dr. Zamira which he
categorically declared that the findings in the vulva does not give a
concrete disclosure of penetration.

Prepared by Group 2, Block 2 for Criminal Law I (TOPIC: Article 6)

Abeleda, Balindan, Bautista, Capulong, Catindig, Del Castillo, Flores, Menes, Ochigue, Rey, Sandigan