CRIMINAL LAW CASE UPDATES January 2006-June 2007 By: Prof. Ramon S. Esguerra I.

2006 JANUARY 2006 Rivera vs. People [GR No. 166326 (HOMICIDE/MURDER; Intent to kill) ] An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony by dolo. Magno vs. People [GR No. 133896 (LIBEL; Unsealed letters)] Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended party constitutes publication. MARCH 2006 Buatis vs. People [GR No 142509 (LIBEL; What constitutes publication; Fine Instead of Imprisonment)] There is publication in this case. In libel, publication means making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone other than the person against whom it has been written. Petitioners subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished to all concerned. Also, petitioner had dictated the letter to his secretary. It is enough that the author of the libel complained of has communicated it to a third person. Furthermore, the letter, when found in the mailbox, was open, not contained in an envelope thus, open to public. While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find the reasons behind the imposition of fine instead of imprisonment applicable to petitioners case of libel. We note that this is petitioners first offense of this nature. He never knew respondent prior to the demand letter sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his assistance thereto. He appealed from the decision of the RTC and the CA in his belief that he was merely exercising a civil or moral duty in writing the letter to private complainant. In fact, petitioner could have applied for probation to evade prison term but he did not do so believing that he did not commit a crime thus, he appealed his case. We believe that the State is concerned not only in the imperative necessity of protecting the social organization against the criminal acts of destructive individuals but also in redeeming the individual for economic usefulness and other social ends. Consequently, we delete the prison sentence imposed on petitioner and instead impose a fine of six thousand pesos.

2
This is not the first time that we removed the penalty of imprisonment and imposed a fine instead in the crime of libel. In Sazon v. Court of Appeals, petitioner was convicted of libel and was meted a penalty of imprisonment and fine; and upon a petition filed with us, we affirmed the findings of libel but changed the penalty imposed to a mere fine. APRIL 2006 Villanueva vs. Defamation)] People [GR No. 160351 (SLANDER; Slight Oral

The Court does not condone the vilification or use of scurrilous language on the part of petitioner, but following the rule that all possible circumstances favorable to the accused must be taken in his favor, it is our considered view that the slander committed by petitioner can be characterized as slight slander following the doctrine that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some provocation on the part of the offended party, constitutes only a light felony. Davalos vs. People [GR No. 145229 (MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE; Delayed Return not analogous to Voluntary Surrender)] The return of the said amount cannot be considered a mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender considering that it took petitioner almost seven (7) years to return the amount. Petitioner has not advanced a plausible reason why he could not liquidate his cash advance which was in his possession for several years. Llave vs. People [GR 166040 (MINORITY; Discernment)] Article 12, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code provides that a person over nine years of age and under fifteen is exempt from criminal liability, unless he acted with discernment. The basic reason behind the exempting circumstance is complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action of the offender which is an essential element of a felony either by dolus or by culpa. Intelligence is the power necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act. On the other hand, discernment is the mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong. The prosecution is burdened to prove that the accused acted with discernment by evidence of physical appearance, attitude or deportment not only before and during the commission of the act, but also after and during the trial.[85] The surrounding circumstances must demonstrate that the minor knew what he was doing and that it was wrong. Such circumstance includes the gruesome nature of the crime and the minors cunning and shrewdness. In the present case, the petitioner, with methodical fashion, dragged the resisting victim behind the pile of hollow blocks near the vacant house to insure that passersby would not be able to discover his dastardly acts. When he was discovered by Teofisto Bucud who shouted at him, the petitioner hastily fled from the scene to escape arrest. Upon the prodding of his father and her mother, he hid in his grandmothers house to avoid being arrested by policemen and remained thereat until barangay tanods arrived and took him into custody. JUNE 2006

Marzonia vs. People [GR No. 153794 (SELF-DEFENSE; Reasonable Means to Repel Aggression)] As the Court previously held, mortally wounding an assailant with a penknife is not a reasonably necessary means to repel fist blows. Recuerdo vs. People [GR No. 168217 (INTENT; In General)] General criminal intent is an element of all crimes but malice is properly applied only to deliberate acts done on purpose and with design. Evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a felony. A deliberate and unlawful act gives rise to a presumption of malice by intent. On the other hand, specific intent is a definite and actual purpose to accomplish some particular thing. The general criminal intent is presumed from the criminal act and in the absence of any general intent is relied upon as a defense, such absence must be proved by the accused. Generally, a specific intent is not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of fact, must be proved by the State just as any other essential element. This may be shown, however, by the nature of the act, the circumstances under which it was committed, the means employed and the motive of the accused JULY 2006 Suson vs. People [GR No. 152848 (DRUG CASES; Absence of Marked Money)] The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is adequately proven. In the case at bar, SPO2 Patio, the poseur-buyer, testified on the circumstances regarding the sale of the shabu for which petitioners were charged and convicted. Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the court. AUGUST 2006 Figeroa vs. People [GR No. 159813 (LIBEL; Effect of Name-calling)] While it is true that a publication's libelous nature depends on its scope, spirit and motive taken in their entirety, the article in question as a whole explicitly makes mention of private complainant Rivera all throughout. It cannot be said that the article was a mere general commentary on the alleged existing state of affairs at the aforementioned public market because Rivera was not only specifically pointed out several times therein but was even tagged with derogatory names. Indubitably, this name-calling was, as correctly found by the two courts below, directed at the very person of Rivera himself.

SEPTEMBER 2006

4
Palaganas vs. Court of Appeals [GR No. 165483 (ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARM; Special Aggravating, not Generic, circustamce)] With the passage of Republic Act. No. 8294 on 6 June 1997, the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide is now considered as a SPECIAL aggravating circumstance and not a generic aggravating circumstance.

People v. Cabalquinto [G.R. No. 167693 (RAPE; Anonimity of the Victims)]

Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the AntiViolence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 and its implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect her privacy. Batulanon vs. People [GR No. 139857 (FALSIFICATION; Private vs. Commercial Documents)] Cash vouchers are private documents and not commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor are they defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law. Rather, they are private documents, which have been defined as deeds or instruments executed by a private person without the intervention of a public notary or of other person legally authorized, by which some disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set forth. OCTOBER 2006 Manzanares vs. People [GR No. 153760-61 (CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE; Effect of Victims Contributory Negligence)] Finally, as to petitioners argument that Jesus Basallo (Victim; deceased) should be presumed negligent because he was driving with an expired license and the passenger jeepney owned by his brother Teodorico did not have a franchise to operate, we hold that the same fails to convince. The defense of contributory negligence does not apply in criminal cases committed through reckless imprudence, since one cannot allege the negligence of another to evade the effects of his own negligence. Spouses Sia vs. People [GR No. 159659 (PD 957; Failure to comply with Registration Requirements)] Simply stated, P.D. No. 957 provides that when a registered owner of a parcel of land wishes to convert the same into a subdivision project, he must register the subdivision plan with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) (Section 4). Should he decide to sell the lots therein, he must also register the subdivision project with the HLURB and the subdivision plan with the Register of Deeds (Section 17, paragraph 2). Thereafter, a registration certificate is issued to the subdivision owner and he may then apply for a License to Sell the lots in the subdivision project. Whenever a lot is subsequently sold, the subdivision owner is required to register the contract to sell, deed of sale and/or other similar instrument with the Register of Deeds (Section 17, paragraph 1). From the foregoing, it is clear that petitioners are required to register the Contracts to Sell in favor of respondent Lee, and their failure to do so is a violation of Section 17 of P.D. No. 957.

People vs. Teodoro [GR No. 170473 (RAPE; Absence of Medical Findings)] Thus, the contention of appellant that there were no lacerations in the vagina does not merit any consideration. In that regard, it has been held that the medical examination of the victim is merely corroborative in character and is not an element of rape. Likewise, a freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed lacerations do not negate rape. People vs. Lara [GR No. 171449 (ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; Does not include taking the gun to shoot its previous holder] The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that appellant committed the crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No. 9713706. There is nothing in the records that would show that the principal purpose of appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun (Serial No. 9600942). It must be emphasized that when the victim and appellant met and had a heated argument, the absence of the intent to rob on the part of the appellant was apparent. Appellant was not trying to rob the victim. Appellants act of taking the shotgun was not for the purpose of robbing the victim, but to protect himself from the victim. No one would in ones right mind just leave a firearm lying around after being in a heated argument with another person. Having failed to establish that appellants original criminal design was robbery, appellant could only be convicted of the separate crimes of either murder or homicide, as the case may be, and theft. People vs. Bon [GR No. 166401 (DEATH PENALTY; Effect of Abolition)] Yet in truth, there is no material difference between imposition and application, for both terms embody the operation in law of the death penalty. Since Article 71 denominates death as an element in the graduated scale of penalties, there is no question that the operation of Article 71 involves the actual application of the death penalty as a means of determining the extent which a persons liberty is to be deprived. Since Rep. Act No. 9346 unequivocally bars the application of the death penalty, as well as expressly repeals all such statutory provisions requiring the application of the death penalty, such effect necessarily extends to its relevance to the graduated scale of penalties under Article 71. We cannot find basis to conclude that Rep. Act No. 9346 intended to retain the operative effects of the death penalty in the graduation of the other penalties in our penal laws. Munoz cannot enjoin us to adopt such conclusion. Rep. Act No. 9346 is not swaddled in the same restraints appreciated by Muoz on Section 19(1), Article III. The very Congress empowered by the Constitution to reinstate the imposition of the death penalty once thought it best to do so, through Rep. Act No. 7650. Within the same realm of constitutional discretion, Congress has reversed itself. It must be asserted that today, the legal status of the suppression of the death penalty in the Philippines has never been more secure than at any time in our political history as a nation. People vs. Taan [GR No. 169432 (DAMAGES; Crime Results in Death)] Regarding damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recovered: (1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4)

6
exemplary damages; (5) attorneys fees and expenses of litigation; and (6) interest, in proper cases. NOVEMBER 2006 People vs. Arnaiz [GR No. 171447 (RAPE; Delay in Reporting the Rape)] Neither does AAAs failure to tell her mother about the incident nor her long delay in reporting the matter to the authorities negate rape. As correctly observed by the OSG, the delay in reporting the rape incident does not weaken the case for the prosecution. It is not uncommon for a young girl to conceal assaults on her virtue, especially when the rapist is living with her. In fact, we have previously ruled in People v. Coloma, that even a delay of 8 years is not a sign of fabrication. Astudillo vs. People [GR No. 159734 (QUALIFIED THEFT; Abuse of Confidence)] Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees of Western does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy that the law requires. The element of grave abuse of confidence requires that there be a relation of independence, guardianship or vigilance between the petitioners and Western. Petitioners were not tasked to collect or receive payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping, preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely assisted customers in making a purchase and in demonstrating the merchandise to prospective buyers. While they had access to the merchandise, they had no access to the cashiers booth or to the cash payments subject of the offense. DECEMBER 2006 People vs. Wa-Acon [GR No. 164575 (MALVERSATION; Presumptions)] Article 217 no longer requires proof by the State that the accused actually appropriated, took, or misappropriated public funds or property. Instead, a presumption, though disputable and rebuttable, was installed that upon demand by any duly authorized officer, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which said officer is accountableshould be prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or properties to personal use. When these circumstances are present, a presumption of law arises that there was malversation of public funds or properties as decreed by Article 217. Campomanes vs. People [GR No. 161950 (FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNTS; Private Persons)] As gleaned from the parties stipulation of facts, the PSC and the FIDE entered here into a contract requiring the PSC to provide the FIDE the funds for the latter to organize the Chess Olympiad and Congress in Manila. The PSC delivered the funds to the FIDE, which apparently successfully organized the Chess Olympiad and Congress since the PSC does not claim that the FIDE failed to organize the two events. In short, the FIDE complied with its undertaking under the contract. There is no claim by the PSC or the COA that the FIDE, a foreign nongovernmental entity, is obligated under the contract to render an accounting.

7
There is also no showing that the PSCs charter or any law or regulation requires the FIDE to render an accounting to the PSC or the COA as a condition for the receipt of funds. Clearly, this situation cannot give rise to criminal liability on the part of the FIDEs officers under Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code which admittedly requires that there must be a law or regulation requiring the rendering of accounts by private individuals. Macalalag vs. People [GR No. 164358 (BP 22; Only full payment accepted as a defense)] Only a full payment of the face value of the second check at the time of its presentment or during the five-day grace period could have exonerated her from criminal liability. A contrary interpretation would defeat the purpose of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, that of safeguarding the interest of the banking system and the legitimate public checking account user, as the drawer could very well have himself exonerated by the mere expediency of paying a minimal fraction of the face value of the check.

II. 2007 JANUARY 2007 People vs. Jamilosa [GR No. 169076 (ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT; Elements)] Any recruitment activities to be undertaken by non-licensee or nonholder of contracts shall be deemed illegal and punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code of the Philippines. Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons individually or as a group. To prove illegal recruitment in large scale, the prosecution is burdened to prove three (3) essential elements, to wit: (1) the person charged undertook a recruitment activity under Article 13(b) or any prohibited practice under Article 34 of the Labor Code; (2) accused did not have the license or the authority to lawfully engage in the recruitment and placement of workers; and (3) accused committed the same against three or more persons individually or as a group. People vs. Pascual [GR No. 166895 (MURDER; Non-fatal Wounds)] At any rate, the doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted on the victim is not life threatening, the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that would have brought about death, the crime committed is only attempted murder.

People vs. Guzman [GR NO. 169246 (TREACHERY; Attack on Minors)] It should be made clear that the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim without the slightest provocation on his part. This is even more true if the assailant is an adult and the victim is a minor. Minor children, who by reason of their tender years, cannot be expected to put up a defense. Thus, when an adult person illegally attacks a minor, treachery exists.

8
Tan vs. People [GR No. 153460 (ESTAFA; Essence of Misappropriation)] The words convert and misappropriate connote an act of using or disposing of anothers property as if it were ones own or devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for ones own use includes not only conversion to ones personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without any right. Baleros vs. People [GR No. 138033 (UNJUST VEXATION; Essence of)] We wish to stress that malice, compulsion or restraint need not be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation. Unjust vexation exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the 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. Navarrete vs. People [GR No. 147913 (CHILD ABUSE; Definition of Lascivious Conduct)] The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 that must be proven in addition to the elements of acts of lasciviousness are as follows: 1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. Lascivious conduct is defined under Section 2 (h) of the rules and regulations of RA 7610 as: [T]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person. FEBRUARY 2007 Mamangun vs. People [GR NO. 149152 (JUSTIFYING CIRC; Performance of Lawful Duty)] To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a duty, without more, do not completely justify the petitioners firing the fatal gunshot at the victim. True, petitioner, as one of the policemen responding to a reported robbery then in progress, was performing his duty as a police officer as well as when he was trying to effect the arrest of the suspected robber and in the process, fatally shoot said suspect, albeit the wrong man. However, in the absence of the equally necessary justifying circumstance that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty, there can only be incomplete justification, a privileged mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the Revised Penal Code.

9
There can be no quibbling that there was no rational necessity for the killing of Contreras. Petitioner could have first fired a warning shot before pulling the trigger against Contreras who was one of the residents chasing the suspected robber. People vs. Nicolas [GR No. 170234 (BUY BUST OPS; Prior Surveillance)] Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was conducted without need of any prior surveillance for the reason that the informant accompanied the policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous drugs. People vs. Delantar [GR No. 169143 (CHILD ABUSE; Pandering Child Prostitutes)] Appellants violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A. No. 7610 is as clear as day. The provision penalizes anyone who engages in or promotes, facilitates or induces child prostitution either by: (1) acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; or (2) inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means; or (3) by taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as a prostitute; or (4) threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute; or (5) giving monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefits to the child with the intent to engage such child in prostitution. The purpose of the law is to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development. A child exploited in prostitution may seem to consent to what is being done to her or him and may appear not to complain. However, we have held that a child who is a person below eighteen years of age or those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age or mental disability or condition is incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. In fact, the absence of free consent is conclusively presumed when the woman is below the age of

twelve
MARCH 2007 People vs. Ausa [GR No. (ALIBI; Weak Defense)] Appellants defense of denial and alibi must fail. For an alibi to be credible and given due weight, one must show that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense and could not prevail over witnesses positive identification. The denial of an accused cannot be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the positive declarations of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.

10
People vs. Oliquino [GR No. 171314 (RAPE; Offer of Marriage an Admission of Guilt)] What further destroys the veracity of appellants contention was his own testimony that it was only in July 1996, when he sent Ortile to BBB in order to tender his offer of marriage or support for AAA and the child. Such belated attempt on appellants part to appease AAA and BBB betrays his plea of innocence and amounts to nothing but a desperate attempt at evading the consequences of his offense. Not a few number of cases have established that an offer of marriage is considered an implied admission of guilt of the accused. Sabang vs. People [GR No. 168818 (MURDER/HOMICIDE; Effect of Powder Burns)] The distance from which a shot is fired affects the nature and extent of the injury caused on the victim. In close range fire, the injury is not only due to the missile but also due to the pressure of the expanded gases, flame and other solid products of combustion. In contrast, distant fire usually produces the characteristic effect of the bullet alone. A shot fired from a distance of more than 60 cm or about two (2) feet does not produce the burning, smudging or tattooing typically present in loose contact or near fire, short range fire and medium range fire. Powder burns is a term commonly used by physicians whenever there is blackening of the margin at the entrance of the gunshot wound. The blackening is due to smoke smudging, gunpowder tattooing and, to a certain extent, burning of the wound margin. The fact that there were no powder burns on Butads body indicates that the shots were fired at a distance of more than two (2) feet and not at close range as the defense suggests. Moreover, Butad sustained four (4) gunshot wounds, three (3) of which were in the chest area, circumstances which are inconsistent with the defenses theory of accidental firing

APRIL 2007 Pelonia vs. People [GR No. (Mitigating Circumstance; Vindication of Grave Offense)] The mitigating circumstance of having acted in the immediate vindication of a grave offense was, likewise, properly appreciated. Petitioner was humiliated in front of his guests and kin in his own house. It is settled, however, that the mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot be considered apart from the circumstance of vindication of a grave offense. These two circumstances arose from one and the same incident so that they should be considered as only one mitigating circumstance. Bernardo vs. People [G.R. No. 166980 (BP 22; Rule of Preference)]

11
As clarified by Administrative Circular 13-2001, the clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular 12-2000 is not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P. 22. People vs. Villanueva [GR No. 169643 (RAPE; Damages unaffected by the Anti-Death Penalty Law)] The Court stresses that even if the death penalty is not to be imposed on the appellant because of the prohibition in R.A. No. 9346, the award of damages under prevailing jurisprudence is not affected. This award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty, but on the fact that the qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. People vs. Noveras [GR No. 171349 (RAPE; Oga Guidelines Reiterated)] Indeed, a rape charge is a serious matter with pernicious consequences both for appellant and complainant; hence, utmost care must be taken in the review of a decision involving a conviction for rape. In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering the intrinsic nature of the crime, only two persons being usually involved, the testimony of complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense. Accordingly, in resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victims testimony. Gan vs. People [GR No. 165884 (THEFT; Corpus Delicti)] The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable for the charges on the ground that he was not caught in possession of the missing funds. This is clutching at straws. To be caught in possession of the stolen property is not an element of the corpus delicti in theft. Corpus delicti means the body or substance of the crime, and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually committed. In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking. In the case before us, these two elements were established. The amounts involved were lost by WUP because petitioner took them without authority to do so MAY 2007 People vs. Ogie Diaz [GR No. 159787 (LIBEL; Victim Identifiable)] The last element of libel is that the victim is identified or identifiable from the contents of the libelous article. In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not necessary that the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic reference the allusion is apparent or if the publication contains matters of description or reference to facts and circumstances from which others reading the article may know the person alluded to, or if the latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so

12
that those knowing such person could and did understand that he was the person referred to. Kunkle v. CablenewsAmerican and Lyons laid the rule that this requirement is complied with where a third person recognized or could identify the party vilified in the article. JUNE 2007 People vs. Bejic [GR No. 174060 (RAPE); Child Victims] It is a well-settled doctrine that the testimony of a child-victim is given full weight and credence considering that when a woman, especially a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity. People vs. Fetalino [GR No. 174472 (RAPE; Sexual Assault)] The insertion of ones finger into the genital or anal orifice of another person constitutes rape by sexual assault and not merely an act of lasciviousness Valenzuela vs. People Consummated only)] [GR No. 160188 (THEFT; Attempted or

The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the free disposition of the items stolen is in any way determinative of whether the crime of theft has been produced. We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of frustrated theft.