I've long been contng to come up with a blog that would help the barristers,law students and anyone whand digested cases to aid them in their respective endeavors. Finally, it came into fruition. Thanks to my boredom coz it drives me to nuts in setting this up. MARTES, MAYO 08, 2012
Criminal aw !igests "
PEOPLE V MAMAC G.R. No.-130332 May 31,2000 #ppellant woke up the victim by poking her with along stick while lying alongside her brother #ppellant and sister.$hen she opened the window, she saw appellant brandishing a bolo and ordered her to go dwon.#ppellant dwon.#ppellant brought her to the bank of the river and raped her there while sticking the bolo at her. %&! $e have long recognized that different people react differently to a given type of situation and there is no standard behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange,startling or frightful e(perience.#ppe e(perience.#ppellant llant cannot claim that the victim had no reason to be cowed outside by his mere act of stabbing her with a stick or mere brandishing of the bolo. The information information does not charge appellant with )ualified rape and he cannot be sentenced to death.*nlike a gene ge neric ric ag aggra gravat vating ing cir circu cumsa msance nce wh which ich may be pro prove ved d eve even n if no nott all alleg eged ed,, a) a)ua ualif lifyin ying g aggravating cannnot be proved unless alleged in the information.It must be alleged to properly inform the acused of the nature and cause of accusation against him in order not to violate due process. The appellant is not a step+gran step+grandfather dfather.he .he co+habited and lived with the materialgrandmother materialgrandmother of erna e rnade dette tte wi witho thout ut the be bene nefit fit of mar marria riage ge.Th .The e wo word rd -st -step ep-, -, wh when en us used ed as a pre prefi( fi( in conunction with a degree of kinship, is repugnant to blood relationship and is indicative of relationship by affinity.There is no relationship by affinity between ernadetted and appellant, thus he cannot be considered as a step+grandfather.#t most he is a common law husband of ernade ern adette' tte's s gran grandmo dmother ther thu thus s not a pare parent, nt, asce ascenda ndant, nt, ste step+pa p+parent rent,, gua guardia rdian, n, rela relative tive by consanguinity or affinity within the /rd civil degree or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.Thus only recusion perpetua may be imposed. .
PEOPLE V DECENA G.R. No.-131843 May 31,2000 #ppellantt raped the #ppellan the daughter daughter of his common+law wife. %&! The minority and the relationship of the complainant to the accused must be alleged in the information in order to convict the appellant of )ualified rape.0ualifying circumstances under
1ec22 of 3#4567 must be alleged with particularity in the information to be proved and used in 1ec22 the imposition of the penalty.It would be a denial of due process, if he is charged with simple rape but convicted of its )ualified form punishable by death although the attendant circumstance )ualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment was not aleged in the indictment under which he was arraigned.
PEOPLE V COTAS G.R. No.132043 May 31,2000 #ppellantt stabbed #ppellan stabbed the victim whiles sleeping. sleeping. %e alleges alleges that that it was self+defense self+defense.. %&! &ven #ssuming that the victim was the aggressor, it is clear that at the time was killed, the danger to accused has already ceased.It is a settled rule that when unlawful aggression ceases, the defende has no longer any right to kill or wound the former aggressor, aggressor, otherwise, retaliation and not self+defense is committed. There was treachery.It is settled that if the victim, whenkilled, was sleeping or had ust awakened, the killing is with treachery because in such cases, the victim was not in a position to put up any form of defense.
PEOPLE V OBOSA G.R. No.-132069 May 31, 2000 The appellant, with two other persons, waylaid former 1ecretary of ocal 8overnment 9aime Ferrer and his driver. The appellant's defense is that as aprison inmate who based on prison records was inside the compound of the :at'l ilibid ;risons ;risons on the date and time of the incident, he could not have participated in the ambush< and if indeed he was able to leave the prison premises it is unbelievable that an escaped convict would return to prison. %&! The cited circumstanc circumstances es do not present present a phy physical sical impossibili impossibility ty for the app appella ellant nt to have participated in the commission of the crime.First, the log book presented in court referred only to the south gate.The !irector of the ureau of ;risons testified that =bosa was given preferential preferential treatment in prison and was allowed to park his vehicle inside the prison compound despite prohibition. #ppellant's #ppellan t's obection obection to the admissibility admissibility of the testimony of of an inmate that the accused accused confided confided his participation in the crime is without merit.# convicted convicted felon is not dis)ualified by the 3ules of &vide &v idence nce fro from m tes testif tifyin ying g in Co Court urt.Th .The e u udg dgmen mentt of co convi nvicti ction on did no nott re rest st on th the e al alleg leged ed confession made by =bosa.Treachery is present for the car was shot at while it was slowing down as it approached a corner ensuring ensuring the accomplishment accomplishment of the attack and eliminating any risk from possible defenses that the victim may put up.
PEOPLE V GOME G.R. No.-1321!1May 31,2000 #ppellantt stabbed #ppellan stabbed the victim while in a drinking session. session. %&! ;hysica ;hy sicall ipos ipossibil sibility ity in rela relation tion to alib alibii take takes s into considerati consideration on not only the geo geograp graphica hicall distance between the scene of the crime and the place where accused maintains he was at, but more importantly, the accessibility between these two points+++in the instant case, how this
distance distanc e tran translat slate e to hou hours rs of trav travel.T el.Thus, hus, although although geo geograp graphica hicall dist distanc ances es may be take taken n udicial notice of, this alone will not suffice for purposses purposses of proving an alibi, because it remains for the defense to prove the relative accessibility of accused from the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed.The defense should have introduced evidence evidence of a verage travel time as of that day from between the two points+++and it should have done so during the trial, not on appeal. The burden is upon the accused to present credible and tangible proof of physical impossibility to be at the scene of the crime< otherwise, an alibi may not prevail over the positive testimony and clear identification of the accused by prosecution witnesses. #lso, the presence of treachery is not discounted by the fact that the killing was effecte effected d by a single stab wound or that the attack was frontal+++for as long as the method employedtended directly and especially to ensure the e(ecution of the crime without risk of defense or retaliation of the offender.
P V LEONARDO G.R. No.-133109 May 31,2000 The appellant was convicted of homicide.The lower court relyed solely on the testimony of victim's father. %&! The rule as to motive and how it affects the witness' credibility is absent evidence to show any reason or motive why witnesses for the prosecution should have testified falsely, the logical conclusion is that no improper motive e(isted and that their testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.=n the other hand, if for any motive there is a possibility that a witness might have been prompted to testify falsely, courts should be on guard in assessing the witness' credibility. it is basic in criminal law that the prosecution has the obligation of proving beyond reasonable doubt the ide identi ntity ty of th the e mal malefa efacto ctorr an and d his pa parti rticip cipati ation on in th the e cri crime me or of offen fense se cha charge rged.1 d.1uch uch degree deg ree of proo prooff doe does s not mean e(cluding e(cluding the pos possibil sibility ity of erro error, r, as pro produci ducing ng abso absolute lute certainty.=nly certainty .=nly moral certainy is re)uired or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unpreudiced unpreud iced mind.=nly when the conscience is satisfied that the crime has been committed by the person on trial should the sentence be for conviction.
PEOPLE V CONTEGA G.R. No.-133"!9 May 31,2000 The victim was found bleeding while lying face down on the floor. $hen asked who his assailant was he answered< -3ogelio,former pakyaw worker.%&! It is a(iomatic that the prosecution bears not only the onus to show that a crime has been committed but also to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the person or persons who should be responsible therefor.The utterance of the victim did not sufficiently identify the appellant.The appellan t.The prosecution has not eliminated the possibility that anothe anotherr piecemeal worker with the name -3ogelio- was employed by the arbas. The conclusion that accused was the same person referred to by the prosecutio prosecution n has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. #libi is a weak defense because it is easy to fabricate and concoct between relative, friends and even those not related to the offender. In order to sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, it is necessary that the robbery itself be established as conclusively as any other essential element of the crime.
9*:& ">>>
PEOPLE V ROBLES
G.R. No.-10133" #$%& 8,2000 #ppellant was convicted of robbery with homicide.% #ppellant homicide.%e e was apprehe apprehended nded after admitting the crime. %e was with the other perpetratorsin a ta(i which was stopped in a routine inspection. %&! The une(plained possession of stolen articles gives rise to apresumption of theft, unless it is proved that the owne of the articles was deprived of possession by violence, intimidation, in which whic h case the pres presump umption tion becomes becomes one of robb robbery ery.In .In robbery with hom homicide icide cases, the prosecution prosecuti on need only to prove these elements 2?the taking of personal property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation against a person< "?property taken belongs to another< /?the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi, and @?on the occasion of the robb ro bber ery y or by re reas ason on th ther ereo eoff th the e cr crim ime e of ho homi mici cide de,, he here re us used ed in a ge gene neri ric c se sens nse e is committe comm itted.Th d.The e hom homicide icide may prec precede ede the robb robbery ery or may occu occurr afte afterr the robb robbery ery.$ .$hat hat is essential is that there an intimate connection between robbery ad the killing whether the latter be prior or subse)uent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time.The rule is that wheneve wheneverr homicide has been committed as a conse)u conse)uence ence of or on occasion of the robbery,, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals robbery of the crime of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it clearly appears they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
PEOPLE V ANTON'O G.R. No.-1224!3 #$%& 8,2000 This is a case of incestuous rape. %&! 3ape may be committed even when the rapist and the victim are not alone, or while the rapist's spouse are asleep, or in a small room where other family members also slept.# daughter would not accuse her own father of such unspeakable crime as incestuous rape had she really not been aggrieved.It is highly improbable for a woman, especially one of tender age, to concoct a brutal tale of ravishment, allow a gynecologic e(amination, and undergo the humiliation of a public trial if she is not motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished.
PEOPLE V M(MAR G.R. No.-1231"" #$%& 8,2000 The victim was shot while his back was turned towards his assailants. %&!
# direct proof to show that the accused had come to an agreement to commit a felony is not necessary.It is sufficient that all the accused manifested by their acts a common intent to do harm to the victim.
PEOPLE V MON'EVA G.R. No.123912 #$%& 8,2000 The victim was hacked with a bolo and was decapitated by the appellant. %&! Inconsistencies and discrepancies in the testimony referring to minor details and not upon the basic aspect of the crime do not impair the witness credibility. credibility. &ven where a witness is found to have deliberately falsified the truth in some particular, and it was not shown that there was such intended inte nded prevaricat prevarication, ion, it is not re)u re)uired ired that the entire test testimon imony y be ree reected cted,, sinc since e such portions thereof deemed worthy of belief may be credited. #buse of of superior strength strength means means to purposely purposely use use e(cessive e(cessive force out out of proportion proportion to the means available to the person attacked to defend himself. efore it may be appreciated, it must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent on the part of the malefacto to take advantage thereof.The prosecution is of the opinion that since the appellant was armed with a bolo and was chasing the unarmed victim who was trying to flee, this shows that the latter was powerless to offer resistance thereby admitting his inferiority and superiority of the defendant.This is mere conecture, it was not all apparent that the appellant consciously adopted that particular means. The mere fact that the victim was running away from the appellant who was wielding a bolo shows that the victim was aware of the danger to himself, thus negating the suddenness of the attack for which reason treachery cannot be appreciated.
PEOPLE V CAMB' G.R. No.12!131 #$%& 8, 2000 The 26 yr old complainant was rape by the appellant. %&! The absence of illumination in the place of the commission of the crime does not detract from the positive identification by Aargie of the appellant as her assailant. #lthough visibility is an important factor in the identification of a criminal offender, its relative significance depends largely on the attending circumstances and the discretion of the trial court.In the case at bar, the assailant was well known to Aargie as the former was her employer.#lso, the voice of the appellant was heard when he uttered threats against the complainant.It has been this Court's observation observati on that it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the looks and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which he crime was committed. :ot every rape victim can be e(pected to act conformably to the usual e(pectations of everyone.1ome may shout, some may faint< and some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may openly welcome the intrusion. The force or violence that is re)uired in rape cases is relative.$hen applied, it need not be overpowering or irresistible.It is enough that it has enabled the offender to consummate his purpose to bring about the desired result.It is not even necessary that the offender be armed with a weapon.
PEOPLE V. OSCAR CAR'LLO G.R. NO. 129"28
=scar Carillo together with &duardo &duardo Candare were accused of murder. The physical evidence evidence shows that the death of the victim was caused by " stab wounds probably caused by " separate instruments. Candare e(ecuted an an affidavit admitting sole responsibil responsibility. ity. ;rosecution presented a second cousin of the victim as its main witness. %&! ;hysical evidence evidence ranks high in the hierarchy of evidence. #s physical evidence is compatible compatible with the testimonies of the prosecutio prosecution n witnesses but inconsistent with the claim of the defense witnesses, the former former should prevail. For the same reason, the court cannot accept accept as true the affidavit of Candare owning sole responsibility for the crime. 3elationship per se does not automatically discredit a witness. In fact, kinship by blood or marriage to the victim would deter one from implicating innocent persons as oneBs natural interest would be to secure conviction by the real culprit.
PEOPLE V. ROMEO CAP'L' G.R. NO. 130"88 #ccused was convicted convicted of murder. Three high school students testified testified for the prosecution and claimed that they actually saw the accused in flagrante delicto actually striking and submerging the head of the victim in the river. 3ight after the incident, incident, accused apparently apparently saw them by the riverbank and offered them a ride across the river, to which they readily acceded. %&! &vidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must be credible in itself such as the common e(perience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under under the circumstances. There can never be a better gauge by which a witnessB testimony may be evaluated and analyzed than the ordinary common human e(perience. In this case, it is rather unnatural, to say the least, actually defying sound reasons for / young students, to allow themselves to be ferried by an adult male whom they have ust recently witnessed kill and drown a helpless helpless and unsuspecting unsuspecting victim. It makes the court wonder if the / supposed eye witness directly saw the actual killing in this case.
PEOPLE V. R()'NO TESTON * ROGEL'O GACO G.R. NO. 134938 The / accused were charged with murder. The prosecution presented presented one eyewitness. The defense interposed interposed self+defense. #ccused )uestions )uestions trial courtBs appreciation appreciation of the credibility of the prosecution witness as unbelievable and biased. %&! The trial courtBs evaluation of a witnessB trustworthiness is entitled to highest respect for it has the distinct opportunity to observe directly the demeanor of a witness and to determine whether he is telling the truth. Aoreover, the defense has not presented any evidence that witness was impelled by dubious or improper motives, therefore, it must be presumed that he was not so moved mov ed.. The tes testim timon ony y of a sin single gle pro prose secut cution ion wit witne ness, ss, if fo foun und d cre credi dible ble an and d po posit sitive ive,, is sufficient to convict, for the truth is not established by the number of witnesses, but by the )uality of their testimonies. esides, credibility of witness is no longer the issue since self+defense was invoked as ustifying circumstance. circumstanc e. $heneve $heneverr the accused admits inflicting a fatal inury on his victim and invokes self+defense, the burden of proof immediately shifts from the prosecution to the defense, the
accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecutionBs evidence.
PEOPLE V. #OSE GERAL AL'AS +#OSE G.R. NO. 122283 #ccused was convicted convicted of murder. %e assails the credibility of the prosecution witness and the sufficiency of evidence against him. %&! =n the credibility of witnesses, appellate courts accord the highest respect to the assessment made by the trial court. Aoreover Aoreover,, patent inconsistencies inconsistencies in and between appellantBs appellantBs testimony and those of his witnesses only undermine appellantBs defense.
PEOPLE V. MACAR'O (. CAST'LLO G.R. NO. 111!34-3" 1pouse 1pou ses s Ca Cast stil illo lo wer ere e co conv nvic icte ted d as co cons nspi pira rato tors rs in th the e ki kidn dnap appi ping ng for for ra rans nsom om of $ilhelmin $ilh elmina. a. The vict victim im is a busi business nesswom woman an eng engage aged d in the real esta estate te busi business ness.. The " accused are both her sales agents on commission basis. %&! Conspiracy need need not be proved by direct evidence. It may be inferred from the conduct of all accused before, before, during and after the commission of the crime. The conduct should point point to a oint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Conspiracy may be proved by circumstantial evidence or deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. perpetrated. %ere, the spouses referred referred the main perpetrator perpetrator to the victim. The perpetrator perpetrator who posed as buyer did not even inform the seller who referred him, which is contrary to common practice.
PEOPLE V. EP'E ARLALE#O G.R. NO. 12!841 The ac The accu cuse sed d was co conv nvic icte ted d fo forr 3o 3obb bber ery y wit ith h %o %omi mici cide de in an in info form rmat atio ion n al alle legi ging ng conspiracy.. The " accused hoisted the defense conspiracy defense of denial and alibi. =ne of the accused was ac)uitted and so the accused )uestions his conviction because in as much as conspiracy was not proved by the prosecution, the appellant should likewise be ac)uitted. %&! y its nature, conspiracy is a oint offense offense as one person cannot conspire conspire alone. In conspiracy, conspiracy, the commissio commission n of a crime is thro through ugh the oint act or inte intent nt of " or more persons. persons. %ow %owever ever,, there is nothing irregular with the ac)uittal of one of the supposed co+conspirators and the conviction of another. 8enerally, conspiracy is only a means by which a crime is committed as the mere act of conspiring is not by itself punishable. punishable. %ence, it does not follow that one person person alone cannot be convicted convicted when there is a finding of conspiracy. conspiracy. #s long as the ac)uittal of a co+conspirator does not remove the basis of a charge of conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense. In the case at bar, it is incorrect to state that the accused was ac)uitted because conspiracy was not prov proved. ed. The evidence evidence esta establis blished hed bey beyond ond dou doubt bt the e(istence e(istence of con conspira spiracy cy to rub. %owever %owever,, the evidence proved proved only the e(istence of a conspiracy but not the culpability culpability of the appellant. The trial court noted that the victims had no sufficient opportunity to recognize
the ac)uitted accused. accused. The evaluation of evidence evidence reveals that the same is true insofar as the appellant is concerned.
PEOPLE V. DOM'NADOR 'STOR'LLO G.R. NO. 130408 #ppellant was convicted for raping his 2" year old daught #ppellant daughter er and was sentenc sentenced ed to death de ath.. #p #ppea peall as assai sails ls the cri crimin minal al co compl mplain aintt wh which ich wa was s no nott un unde derr oa oath th an and d is th there erefor fore e void. #lso, prosecution prosecution failed to establish establish the use use of force in the occasion occasion of the crime. crime. Further Further,, the penalty of death was also )uestioned as the information does not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender. %&! # complaint complaint presented by a private person when not sworn by him is not necessari necessarily ly void. The want of an oath is a mere defect of form which does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant defenda nt on the merits. The law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving the resistan resi stance ce whe where re the there re is inti intimida midation tion.. Aore Aoreove over, r, in a crime of rape committed committed by a fath father er again ag ainst st his ow own n da daug ughte hter, r, the fa fath therBs erBs mor moral al asc ascen enda dancy ncy an and d in influ fluen ence ce ove overr the la latte tter r substitutes for violence or intimidation. #ge and relations relationship hip are special )ualifying circumstanc circumstances es that changes the nature of simple rape by producing producing a )ua )ualifie lified d form punishabl punishable e by death. 1inc 1ince e the charge charge of rape in the complaint is not in its )ualified form so as to fall under the special )ualifying circumstance stated in section 22 of 3# 4567, the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed.
PEOPLE V. ROBERTO ESTRADA G.R. NO. 13048! #ccused was convicted for murder and sentence sentenced d to death. !efense interposed insanity with proof of his history of mental illness filed for suspension of arraignment and suspension of proceedings. oth were denied without subecting accused to mental e(amination. %&! Case remanded for the conduct of a proper mental e(amination to determine competency to stand stan d tria trial. l. y dep deprivin riving g app appella ellant nt of ment mental al e(a e(amina mination tion,, the tria triall cou court rt eff effecti ectively vely deprived deprived appellant of a fair trial and the proceedings before the court are therefore nullified. %e who invo in voke kes s in insa sani nity ty as an e( e(em empt ptin ing g ci circ rcum umst stan ance ce mu must st pr prov ove e it by cl clea earr an and d po posi siti tive ve evidence.. The absence of direct proof howeve evidence however, r, does not entirely discount the probability that accus ac cused ed wa was s no nott of sou sound nd min mind d at tha thatt tim time. e. In pa passi ssing ng the )uestio )uestion n of th the e pro propri priety ety of suspending the proceedings, the test is found in the )uestion whether the accused would have a fair trial with the assistance which the law secures secures or gives. There are " distinct matters matters to be determined under this test 2? whether the defendant is sufficiently coherent to provide his counsel with information necessary or relevant to constructing a defense and "? whether he is able to comprehend the significance of the trial and his relation to it. The determination of whether a sanity investigation or hearing should be ordered rests generally in the discretion of the trial court. In the case, the trial court took it solely upon itself to dete de term rmin ine e th the e sa sani nity ty of th the e ac accu cuse sed. d. The The tr tria iall u udg dge e ho howe weve verr is no nott a ps psyc ychi hiat atri rist st or psychologist or some other e(pert e)uipped with the specialized knowledge of determining the state of a personBs mental health. The court should have at least ordered the e(amination of the accused, especially in the light of the latterBs history of mental item.
PEOPLE V. VENANC'O )RANC'SCO
G.R. NO. 130490 #ccused was was convicted of murder and and slight physical physical inuries. inuries. The trial court court imposed penalty penalty of of reclusion temporal temporal ma(imum to reclusion perpetua perpetua medium. In imposing the penalty, penalty, the trial court applied the Indeterminate 1entence aw stating that 3# 4567 #n act to impose the death penalty on certain heinous crimes? made the penalty of reclusion perpetua divisible. %&! :otw :o twit iths hsta tand ndin ing g 3# 45 4567 67,, th the e pe pena nalty lty of 3e 3ecl clus usio ion n ;e ;erp rpet etua ua re rema main ins s an in indi divi visi sibl ble e penalty. #lthough 3# 4567 has fi(ed the duration of reclusion perpetua to "> years and 2 day to @> years, there was no clear legislative intent to alter its original classification as an indivisible penalty. It remains as an indivisible penalty.
PEOPLE V. MARCELO NAVA #R. G.R. NO. 130"09-12 #ccused was convicted of @ counts of rape of his 2/ year old daughter. daughter. The information does not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender. offender. %e was sentenced to death and made to pay civil indemnity only. %&! Crime is only simple rape since the information does not allege the age of victim and her relationship relationsh ip with he offender. offender. Civil indemnity is mandato mandatory ry upon the finding of the fact of rape< it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which are based on different ural foundati foundations ons and assessed by the court in the e(ercise of sound discretion. #n award of 6>,>>> as moral damages for each of the counts of rape is granted in recognition of the victimBs inury as being inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape and to warrant per se an award of moral damages.
PEOPLE VS ROMEO AR'LLAS G.R. NO. 130"93 #ccused was was convicted for for raping his 25 25 year old daughter. daughter. %e was sentenced sentenced to death death despite the fact that the information does not allege the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender. %&! $hen the age and the relationship are not alleged in the information, such should not be considered as special )ualifying circumstances that will change the nature of simple rape and punish pun ish offender offender with the penalty penalty of death. If the )ualifying )ualifying circumstanc circumstance e is not alleged alleged but proved, it shall only be considered considered as an aggravating circumstance. circumstance. It is a denial of the right of an accused to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him and conse)uently a denial of due process if he is convicted of a crime in its )ualified form notwithstanding the fact that the information on which he was arraigned charges him only of the crime in its simple form by not specifying the circumstance that )ualifies the crime.
PEOPLE V. ANGEL R'OS G.R. NO. 132632
#ccused was convicted of murder murder.. The crime was precede preceded d by a heated argument argument.. The accused left and came back minutes after the altercation and stabbed victim at the latterBs terrace. %&! %omicide and not not murder. Treachery was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. 0ualifying and aggravating circumstances before being taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of the penalty to be imposed must be proved with e)ual certainty and clearness as that which establishes the commission of the act charged as a criminal offense. !welling was correctly considered considered aggravating. aggravating. The word dwelling includes every dependency dependency of the house that forms part thereof.
PEOPLE V. #OEL TANEA G.R. NO. 121668 #ccused was convicted of murder for shooting a bakery delivery man. The victim was brought to the hospital and subected subected to an operation. %e was interviewed and he named named the accused as his assailant. %e died a day after giving his statement. %&! The statement was considered as a dying declaration and is admissible in evidence as part of the res gestae. The re)uirements re)uirements for the admissibility of an ante+mortem statement statement are 2? it must concern the crime and the surrounding circumstances of the declarantBs death< "? at the time tim e it wa was s mad made, e, the de decla claran rantt wa was s un unde derr a con consci sciou ousne sness ss of imp impen endin ding g de death ath<< / /?? the declarant was competent as a witness< @? the declaration was offered in a criminal case for homicide, murder or parricide in which the decedent was the victim. #lthough it may not be ascertained from the written statement whether the victim was speaking with a consciousness of impending death, the degree and seriousness of the wounds and the fact that death supervened shortly afterwards may be considered as substantial evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full realization that he was in a dying condition.
PEOPLE V. 'LSON DRE( G.R. NO. 126282 #ccused was convicted of rape. %e interposed the defense that he and the victim was sweethearts. %e offered offered marriage but was reected. %&! The Dsweethea Dsweethearts rts defe defense nseEE cann cannot ot be app appreci reciated ated as the defense defense fail failed ed to come up with convincing proof. Indeed, the accused bears the burden of proving that he and the complainant had an affair which naturally naturally led to a se(ual relations relationship. hip. The guilt of the accu accused sed was also establish esta blished ed by the fact that he off offered ered marriage marriage to the complainan complainantt afte afterr the incident incident was reported to the authorities. #s a rule in rape cases, an offer of marriage is an admission of guilt.
PEOPLE V. PATROLMAN DOM'NGO BELBES G.R. NO. 1246!0 #ccused was convicted of murder murder.. %e interpose interposed d self+defen self+defense se and that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty. %&!
1elf defense defense cann cannot ot be appreciated appreciated.. $he $here re the accused accused admi admits ts to killi killing ng the victim in self defense, the burden of evidence shifts to him. For a person not to incur criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty, " re)uisites must concur 2? that the offender acted in the performance of a duty< "? that the inury or offense committed be the necessary conse)uence of the due performance of such right or office. %owever %owever,, second re)uisite here was was not proved since killing need not be a necessary conse)uence of his duty.
PEOPLE V. #ONNY DELA CR( G.R. NO. 133921 #ccused was convicted convicted of rape. The charge was filed 2" years years after the alleged incident, incident, when the victim was already "> years old. %&! #n accusation accusation of rape rape can be made made with facility facility and while while the accusation accusation is difficult difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, although although innocent to disprove the charge. In rape cases, the testimony of the complainant must stand or fall on its own merits and should never be allowed to draw strength from the weakness weakness of the evidence of the defense. defense. The long delay of the complainant in reporting the incident makes it difficult for the court not to have compelling doubts on the veracity of her episode. ;roof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt not proven.
PEOPLE V. ROLANDO )LORES G.R. NO. 1249!! #ccused was was convicted of murder. murder. The conviction conviction was based purely purely on circumstantial circumstantial evidence because there was no eye witness to the actual killing of the victim. %&! # udgmen udgmentt of conviction based purely on circumstanti circumstantial al evidenc evidence e can be upheld only if the following re)uisites concur 2? there is more than one circumstance< "? the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven< /? the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce prod uce con convicti viction on bey beyond ond reas reasona onable ble dou doubt. bt. The coro corollary llary rule is tha thatt the circu circumsta mstance nces s proven must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the e(clusion of all others, as the guilty person.
PEOPLE V. )EL'PE O)'LENA G.R. NO. 134!!2 #ccused was was convicted convicted of raping raping a 2" year year old girl. girl. The accused accused interposed interposed alibi as as defense. defense. %&! $hen a victim of rape says that she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility,, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. In the absence of strong and credibility convincing convincin g evidence, alibi could not prevail over the positive testimony of the victim, who had no improper motive to testify falsely against him.
PEOPLE V. ENRY )LORES G.R. NO. 116!94 #ccused was was convicted convicted of murder. murder. =nly one eyewitne eyewitness ss was presented. presented.
%&! The Th e te test stim imon ony y of a si sing ngle le wi witn tnes ess, s, if cr cred edib ible le an and d po posi siti tive ve,, is su suff ffic icie ient nt to pr prod oduc uce e a conviction.
PEOPLE V. ERMOGENES )LORA G.R. NO. 12"909 The " accused %ermogenes and &dwin? were convicted for the murder of &merita and Ireneo and the attempted attempted murder of Flor. Flor. The " were found found to have conspired conspired to kill Ireneo. %owever %owever,, during the commission of the crime, &merita was also killed and Flor hit by a bullet. %&! Co+conspirators Co+conspira tors are liable only for acts done pursuant to the conspiracy. conspiracy. For other acts done outside the contemplation of the co+conspirators or which are not the necessary and logical conse)uence of the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are liable. &vidence only shows conspira con spiracy cy to kill Ireneo and no one else. %enc %ence, e, both can be convicted convicted for the murder of Ireneo. Iren eo. %ow %oweve ever, r, only %ermogene %ermogenes s who fired at &mer &merita ita and Flor can be conv convicte icted d for the murder of &merita and Flor respectively.
PEOPLE V. EDDY PANEA G.R. NO. 131829 The / accused were convicted of highway highway robbery. robbery. They assert that they cannot be convicted convicted of highway robbery as the crime was not committed by at least @ persons as re)uired in #rticle />5 of the 3evised ;enal Code. %&! %ighway robbery is now governed by ;! :o. 6/", otherwise known as #nti+;iracy and #nti+ %ighway 3obbery aw of 274@. It is no longer re)uired that there be at least @ armed persons forming a band of robbers. robbers. The no. of offenders offenders is no longer an essential essential element of the crime of highway robbery. ;! 6/" only re)uires proof that persons were organized for the purpose of committing highway robbery indiscriminately indiscriminately.. The robbery must be directed not only against specific, intended or preconceived victims but against any and all prospective victims.
PEOPLE V. #(DGE ESTRELLA ESTRADA G.R. NO. 124461 Aotion for the return of seized goods on the ground ground that the warrant was illegal. Further Further,, the seized medicines were found genuine but were only illegally imported. %&! &ven if the medicines were genuine if the seller has no permit from the appropriate government government agency, the drugs or medicines cannot be returned although the search warrant was declared illegal.
PEOPLE V. MAR'ANO A(STR'A G.R. NO. 123"39
#ccused, " years old at the time of the commission of the offense, was convicted convicted of the crime of rap rape. e. %e rai raises ses as de defen fense se the " we week ek de delay lay in rep report ortin ing g th the e of offe fens nse e an and d hi his s all allege eged d impotency. %&! !elay !el ay or va vacil cilla latio tion n in cri crimin minal al acc accusa usatio tions ns do no nott ne neces cessar sarily ily imp impair air th the e co compl mplain ainan antBs tBs credibility if such delay is satisfactorily e(plained. e(plained. It is not uncommon to conceal rape because of rapistBs threats to life, fear of public humiliation and lack of courage. courage. 1ilence is not an odd beha be havio viorr of a rap rape e vic victim tim.. The pre presu sumpt mptio ion n is alw always ays in fav favor or of po poten tency cy.. Imp Impote otency ncy is considered considere d an abnormal condition and should not be presumed. The doctorBs testimony stated that th at hi his s se se( ( or orga gan n wa was s di dise seas ased ed bu butt ne neve verr wa was s th ther ere e ev even en a hi hint nt th that at ac accu cuse sed d wa was s impotent impo tent.. The trial court also observed observed that accu accused sed was still strong, strong, agil agile e and capable capable of committing the se(ual act and seriously doubts that he is " years old.
PEOPLE V. ABD(LA#'D SABDAN' G.R. NO. 134262 The accused was convicted of murder. %e interposed self+defense as defense. %&! The accused who invokes self+defense admits authorship of the killing and therefore the burden of proof shifts to him who must then establish with clear and convincing evidence all the elements of self+defense. self+defense. #ccused failed to prove unlawful unlawful aggression. *nlawful aggression aggression presupposes not merely a threateningGintimidating attitude, but an actual and sudden attack or an imminent danger thereof, which imperils oneBs life or limb. In the case at bar, there was no sign si gn th that at vi vict ctim im wa was s ar arme med d ot othe herr th than an th the e fa fact ct th that at hi his s ha hand nds s we were re tu tuck cked ed in insi side de hi his s shirt. shir t. #ccu #ccused sed did not asce ascertai rtain n whe whether ther victim was really armed, or war warn n him to drop his weapon.
PEOPLE V. ROLANDO TABANGGAY G.R. NO. 130"04 #ccused was was convicted of raping raping his " minor children. children. %e was sentenced sentenced to suffer suffer the supreme penalty of death. %&! ;enalty reduced reduced to reclusion perpetua. The victimBs minority was not sufficiently proved. In accusations involving incestuous rape, the relationship of the accused with the offended party as well as the latterBs age must be alleged in the informatio information n and proven by the prosecution with competentt evidence during their trial. # bare photocopy competen photocopy of the victimBs birth certificate certificate which is neither certified nor offered formally in evidence is not sufficient proof of the victimBs age.
PEOPLE V. PEPE LOADA G.R. NO. 130"89 #s !anilo Aorin and his cousin were walking one evening evening,, ozada followed from behind and shot Aorin to death. ozada was convicted of murder appreciating appreciating treachery as a )ualifying circumstance. %&!
#ffirmed. There was treachery #ffirmed. treachery since Aorin was was unsuspectingly unsuspectingly shot from behind. behind. The essence essence of treachery is the sudden and une(pected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring its commission withou wit houtt ris risk k to him himsel self. f. Th The e " co cond nditi ition ons s for tre treac ache hery ry to be co consi nside dered red as )u )uali alifyi fying ng circumstance are 2? employment of means, methods and manner of e(ecution to ensure the safety of the malefactor from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim< "? and the deliberate adoption of such means, methods and manner of e(ecution.
PEOPLE V. ARMANDO REANARES G.R. NO. 1306"6 #ccused was held guilty of highway robbery with homicide homicide.. #ccused interpose interposed d alibi as defense. %e )uestions credibility of witness. %&! For alibi to be believed it must be shown that a? the accused was in another place at the time of the commission of the offense< and b? it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scen sc ene. e. Th This is was no nott sh show own n he here re.. %o %owe weve verr, he ca cann nnot ot be he held ld li liab able le fo forr hi high ghw way robbery. Conviction for highway robbery re)uires proof that several accused were organized for the purpose purpose of comm committin itting g it indi indiscrim scriminat inately ely.. The There re is no proof in the instant instant case that the accused and his cohorts organized themselves themselves to commit highway robbery. robbery. :either is there prooff that they atte proo attempte mpted d to com commit mit robb robbery ery as to show the Dind Dindiscri iscrimina minateE teE perp perpetra etration tion thereo the reof. f. =n the oth other er ha hand nd,, wh what at th the e pr prose osecu cutio tion n es estab tablis lishe hed d wa was s onl only y a sin single gle ac actt of depredation is not what is contemplated under ;! 6/" as its obective is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another. #ccused should be held liable for the special comple( crime of robbery with homicide as the allegation in the information are enough to convict him therefore.
PEOPLE V. REYNALDE LAARTE G.R. NO. 130!11 #ccused was was convicted convicted of the crime of murder. murder. #ccused interposed self+defen self+defense. se. %&! In instances where an accused acknowledges full responsibility for the death of the victim but claims self+defense, the burden of evidence is transferred to the accused to prove that his taking of a life was ustified and and that he did not incur incur any criminal liability for the same. same. In order that he may be ac)uitted, the accused must prove that the / circumstances are present, namely a? unlawful aggression on the part of the victim< b? reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it< c? lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the accused. *nlawful aggression aggressio n was not proven. The alleged revolver revolver used by the victim was not even presented presented in evidence.. Further evidence Further,, accused did not even voluntarily surrender and opted to remain silent about the incident. # person person claiming self+defense would would have reported the incident to the police as he has nothing to hide. #s to civil liability liability,, aside from the ordinary indemnity of ;6>,>> ;6>,>>> > accused is obliged to compensate the heirs of the victim for the latterBs lose of earning capacity and pay the heirs of the victim moral damages for the mental anguish suffered by them.
PEOPLE V. ERNESTO SANTOS
G.R. NO. 131103 * 1434!2 #ccused was found guilty of " counts of rape of his 2@ year old daughte daughter. r. The informatio information n alleges that the crime was committed on or about about sometime in 27 and 277. %e avers that such allegations are indefinite and have deprived him of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. %&! It is too late for the accused to )uestion the form or substance of the information in these cases since he did not move to )uash the information before he was arraigned. Further, in the crime of rape, the date of the commission is not an essential element of the crime.
PEOPLE V. PAC'TA PAC'TA ORDONO G.R. NO. 1321"4 The " accused were convicted of the special comple( crime of rape with homicide attended with conspiracy on the bases bases of their e(tra udicial confession. #n interview with a radio announcer announcer was also done where the " accused accepted accepted responsibility for the crime. They now assail their conviction as their confession was attended by infirmitiesB i.e. mainly the lack of counsel to assist them during custodial investigation. %&! The absence of counsel renders the e(tra udicial confession inadmissible. inadmiss ible. The presence of the mayor, municipal udge and the family of the accused during the confession did not cure the defect. %owever, statements spontaneously made by a suspect to a news reporter on televised interview are deemed voluntary and are admissible in evidence. y analogy, analogy, statements made by herein accused accused to a radio announcer announcer should likewise be held admissible. admissible. The interview was was not in the nature of an investigation, and thus, the uncounselled confession did not violate accusedBs constitutional rights.
PEOPLE V. BEN'DO ALCARTADO G.R. NO. 1323!9-82 The " accused, stepfather and step grandfather of the victim, were convicted of rape and sentenced sentence d to suffer supreme penalty penalty of death. The information, however, however, does not allege the relationship of the accused with the victim. %&! The absence of the allegation of relationship in the information converted the crime to simple rape which is not punishable by death. death. 0ualifying circumstances circumstances must be properly pleaded pleaded in the indictment. indictment. If the same are not pleaded, but are proved, proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances.
PEOPLE V. ARNOLD RAT(N'L G.R. NO. 13!2!0 The accused accused was con convic victed ted of th the e cri crime me of rap rape e wit with h th the e us use e of fo force rce.. #c #ccus cused ed use used d sweethe swe etheart art defense. defense. %e presented presented a let letter ter written by the victim asking for mon money ey from the accused since she was leaving town. %&!
In a rape case, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with great caution, for the crime is usually known only to her and to her rapist. The dubious behavior behavior of the alleged victim after the rape detracts from her credibility and creates reasonable doubt that may lead to the ac)uittal of the accused. Conviction always rests on the strength of the prosecutionBs evidence, never on the weakness of that of the defense.
PEOPLE V. ED'SON ARELLANO G.R. NO. 1224!! #ccused was was convicted convicted of murder. murder. %e assails credibility of of the witnesses. witnesses. %&! ;ositive identification, where categorical and consistent, without any showing of ill+motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the matter prevails over alibi and denial which if not subst su bstan antia tiated ted by cle clear ar an and d co convi nvinci ncing ng evi eviden dence ce are ne nega gativ tive e an and d se self+ lf+se servi rving ng evi evide dence nce undeserving of weight in law. %owever, appellant should be convicted of homicide not murder since sin ce tre treach achery ery wa was s no nott es estab tablis lishe hed. d. #p #ppel pella lantB ntBs s st stab abbin bing g of th the e vic victim tim wa was s do done ne on an impulse. impu lse. #s app appellan ellantt did not con consciou sciously sly adopt the means of atta attack, ck, treachery treachery can cannot not be appreciated. #s regards the monetary award, aside from the civil indemnity in the amount of ;6>,>>> in accordance with #rt. "">5 of the Civil Code, the defendant shall be liable for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased and the indemnity shall be paid to the heirs of the latter< such indemnity shall be assessed and awarded by the court, unless the deceased on account of permanent and physical disability not caused by the defendant, had no earning capacity at the time of award. The amount amount of loss of earning earning capacity capacity is bas based ed mainly on " fact factors ors 2? the number of years of which the damages damages shall be computed< computed< and "? the rate at which the losses sustained by the respondent should be fi(ed.
#(LY 200 2000 0 PEOPLE V. AGAP'TO L'STER'O G.R. NO. 122099 The accused was convicted of murder and frustrated murder committed committed with conspiracy. %e assails the testimony of the witness as insufficient to convict him of her crime charged. %&! It is well settled that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, such that the testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict an accused. The trial court found the witnessB testimony testimony as candid and straightfo straightforward. rward. Court defer to the lower courtBs findings consistent with the principle that the trial udge is the best and the most competent person who can weigh and evaluate the testimony of witnesses. Conspira Cons piracy cy was also proven. # con conspira spiracy cy e(is e(ists ts whe when n two or more persons persons come to an agreementt concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish the agreemen e(istence of a conspiracy, direct proof is not essential since it may be shown by facts and circumstances from which may be logically inferred the e(istence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged, or it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect, conspiracy can be established.
PEOPLE V. ELMER YPARRAG('RE G.R. NO. 124391 #ccused was was convicted of of raping a mentally mentally retarded retarded girl. #ppellant contends contends that that the trial court court never ac)uired urisdiction over the case because the complainant was signed and filed by the chief of police and not by the complainant. %&! ;ursuant to 1ection 6, 3ule 22> of the 3ules on Criminal ;rocedure, the offended party can initiate a prosecution for rape even if she is a minor, unless she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. minority. #lthough the victim in this case is no longer a minor, it is undisputed undisputed that she is a mental retardate retardate and suffering from physical deformity. deformity. :o woman would come out in the open, inform the authorities of the inustice done to her, unless her purpose purpose is to redress the wrong done against against her honor. honor. =nce the violation violation of the law becomes known through a direct original participation initiated by the victim, the re)uirement of #rt /@@ of the 3;C to the effect that that the offense of rape shall not be prosecuted prosecuted e(cerpt e(cerpt upon a compl co mplain aintt fil filed ed by the offend offended ed pa party rty or he herr pa paren rents ts are sa satis tisfie fied. d. 1a 1aid id pro provis vision ion is no nott determin dete rminativ ative e of the urisdiction urisdiction of cour courts ts over the priv private ate offenses offenses bec because ause the same is governed by the 9udiciary law, not the 3;C. The complaint re)uired in #rt /@@ is but a condition prece pre cede dent nt to the e( e(erc ercise ise by th the e pro prope perr au autho thorit ritie ies s of th the e pow power er to pro prose secut cute e the gu guilt ilty y parties. The complaint simply starts the prosecutory prosecutory proceeding but does not confer urisdiction urisdiction on the court to try the case.
PEOPLE V. /ENNET CANEDO G.R. NO. 128382 #ccused was was convicted convicted of murder. murder. %&! #ccused ac)uitted on reasonab reasonable le doubt. The records do not show how witness described appellantt and which description enabled an anonymous person to point at appellant as the one appellan who stabbed stabbed the victim. In the absence absence of thes these e criti critical cal details of desc descripti ription, on, we cann cannot ot adudge whether whether the appellan appellantt was correctly and properly identified. Further Further,, the crime was committe comm itted d when a dan dance ce was bein being g held. The fight was a rumb rumble, le, participat participated ed in by a lot of people. #ll theses circumstances should make the identification of appellant difficult and we should be e(tra careful careful in evaluating witnessB testimony testimony.. ;ositive identification identification of malefactors malefactors should not be disregarded ust because the name of some of them were supplied to the eyewitnes eyew itness. s. ut in such cases, cases, the descriptio description n of the crimi criminal nal was deta detailed iled and fitte fitted d the accused accu sed.. In the inst instant ant case, these reliable details details whic which h cou could ld prov provide ide a goo good d inde inde( ( for identification are missing.
PEOPLE V. PETRON'L CAST'LLO G.R. NO. 13020" #ccused was convicted of raping the 7 year old daught daughter er of his live+in partner. %e assails the credibility of testimony since there are inconsistencies with the e(ecuted affidavit. %&!
#lthough there are omissions in the affidav affidavit, it, such omissions did not diminish nor affect her credibility as a witness. &( parte affidavits are generally generally considered incomplete incomplete and inaccurate and will thus not prevail over a witness statements on the stand.
PEOPLE V. ORL'E S(LTAN S(LTAN G.R. NO. 130"94 #ccused was convicted of carnappin carnapping g with homicide. #ppellan #ppellantBs tBs defense is alibi and denial. They also content that their identification identification in the police line up was a violation of their constitutional right and thus inadmissible. %&! #libis are generally considered with suspicion and are always received with caution, not only beca be cause use the they y are inh inhere erent ntly ly we weak ak an and d un unrel relia iable ble,, bu butt als also o be becau cause se th they ey can ea easil sily y be fabricated.. &rgo, for alibi to serve as a basis for ac)uittal, the accused must establish by clear fabricated and convincing evidence evidence a? his presence at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime and b? that it would be physically impossible for him to have her at the scene of the crime. 1ince accused was unable to present witnesses to corroborate his testimony, his alibi cannot be appreciated. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out of court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors 2? he witnessB opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime< "? the witness degree of attention at that time< /? the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness< @? the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification< identification< 6? the length of time between the crime and the identification and 5? the suggestiveness suggestiveness of the identification procedure. #pplying #pplying this,, ther this there e was no viola violation tion of con constitu stitution tional al righ right. t. The witnesses witnesses posi positive tively ly iden identifie tified d the / accused inside inside the ail. The / accused accused were in the company company of other inmates. inmates. Thus, they were were in a group.
PEOPLE V. ROBERT ARANETA G.R. NO. 13!604 The accused accused was convicted convicted of the crime of murd murder. er. %e anch anchors ors his def defense ense on mist mistaken aken identity and denial and alibi. %&! The appellantBs claim that witness was mistaken in naming him as D8ilbert #ranetaE and not D3obert #ranetaE does not destroy her credibility and is not sufficient to e(culpate him. For even assuming that the accused real name is 3obert, it is sufficient that she was positive as to his physical identity as a participant in the shooting of her son from her personal knowledge for purposes purpose s of identifying him in the present case. 8iven the positive identification identification made by the lone prosecution witness, the appellantBs uncorroborated defense of denial and alibi must fail. %owever %ow ever,, trea treache chery ry and evid evident ent pre premedi meditati tation on were not esta establis blished hed,, the therefo refore, re, the crime comm co mmit itte ted d ca can n on only ly be ho homi mici cide de,, no nott mu murd rder er.. #b #bus use e of su supe peri rior orit ity y wa was s ho how wev ever er established. establishe d. Considering that the victim when assaulted was unarmed, he was therefore no match to his / adversaries who were all armed with handguns. =ur urisprudence is e(emplified by the holding that where / armed persons attacked the defenseless victim but there was no proof as to how the attack commence and treachery was not proved, the fact that there were / armed assailants would constitute abuse of superior strength.
PEOPLE V. ROSENDO MENDE G.R. NO. 132"46 #ccused was found guilty of raping his 25 year old step daughte daughter. r. %e assails the defectiv defective e information. %&! The failure of the information to state that the accused raped the victim Dthrough force or intimidationE is not a fatal omission in this case because the complaint alleged the ultimate fact that the accused accused raped the victim Dby mean means s of forceE. forceE. 1o at the outset, outset, the app appella ellant nt could have readily ascertained that he was being accused of rape committed through force, a charge that sufficiently complies with #rt //6. %owever, since the information alleges that the victim was his daughter, when in truth the actual relationship of the appellant with the victim is that of stepfather and stepdaughter, the appellant can be held liable only for simple rape.
PEOPLE V. BERNARD'NO CARANG('AN G.R. NO. 124"14 #ccused was convicted of murder murder.. %e assails credibility of witness and interpose interposed d alibi as defense. %&! The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was appellan appellantt who perpetrate perpetrated d the killing. The information information given by the witnesses at the identity of appellant appellant is hearsay. hearsay. The hearsay rule bars the testimony of a witness who merely recites what someone else has told him, whether orally or in writing. writing. 1ection /5 of 3ule 2/> 2/> provides that a witness witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge that is, which are derived from his own perception, perceptio n, e(cept as otherwise provided in the rules. In fact, the witnessB testimony is even double or multiple hearsay since it is based upon Dthird handE information information related to the witness by someone who heard it from others. others. Ault Aultiple iple hearsay hearsay is no more comp competen etentt than single single hearsay.
PEOPLE V. )ERNANDO D'ASANTA G.R. NO. 128108 #ccused was convicted of the crime of rape committed against his 2" year old daughte daughter. r. %e interposed alibi ad defense. %&! &stablished is the rule that testimonies of rape victims especially of child victims are given full weight and credit. $ell settled is the rule that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been rapes, she says in effect all that is necessary to prove that rape was committe comm itted. d. Con Conside sidering ring the cate categori gorical cal and une une)uiv )uivoca ocall test testimon imonies ies of the victim and an eyewitness, appellantBs alibi and self+serving denial cannot prosper.
PEOPLE V. RAEL'TO L'BRANDO G.R. NO. 1322"1 The accused accused wer were e conv convicte icted d of murder. murder. #ppe #ppellan llants ts poin pointt out that they have no reas reason on to assault assa ult the deceased deceased since they had never any )ua )uarrel rrel with the victim. They also assail assail the credibility of the child witness.
%&! $hile it is true that they have no motive to assault the deceased, nevertheless, it is hornbook knowledge that crimes have been attributed to persons who appear to have no reasons for committing them as long as they have been clearly identified as the offenders. Aotive gains importance only when the identity of the culprit is suspect. It is also well+established that any child regardless of age can be competent witness if he can perceive and can make known his perce pe rcepti ption ons s to oth others ers and th that at he is cap capab able le of rel relat ating ing tru truthf thfull ully y fac facts ts fo forr wh which ich he is e(amined.. The childBs competence e(amined competence as a witness are a? capacity of observation< b? capacity of recollection< recollectio n< c? capacity of communication. The childBs lone testimony testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
PEOPLE V. ROBERT )'G(EROA G.R. NO. 1340"6 #ccused was was convicted of violating 1ec 2@+# of the !angerous !angerous !rugs !rugs #ct #ct of 74" H *nauthorized *nauthorized manufa man ufactu cture re of reg regul ulate ated d dru drugs gs.. %e con conte tend nds s tha thatt sin since ce hi his s al alleg leged ed co+ co+co consp nspira irato torr wa was s ac)uitted due to insufficiency of evidence to prove that she conspired with him, he should likewise be ac)uitted. %&! =nce a conspiracy is established, the act of one is the act of all, and each of the conspirators is liable for the crimes committed by the other conspirators. conspirators. It follows then that if the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, the alleged conspirators should be held individually responsible for their own respective acts. #ccordin #ccordingly, gly, appellantBs appellantBs criminal criminal liability in this case must be udged on the basis of his own acts as established by the )uantum of proof re)uired in criminal cases.
PEOPLE V. EVANGEL'NE ORDONO G.R. NO. 129"93 143"33-3" #ccused was was convicted convicted of " counts counts of illegal illegal recruitment recruitment and " counts of estafa. estafa. %&! To be convicted for illegal recruitment, " elements must concur 2? the offender has no valid licen lic ense se or au autho thorit rity y re) re)uir uired ed by law to en enabl able e on one e to law lawful fully ly en enga gage ge in rec recrui ruitme tment nt an and d placem pla cemen entt of wo worke rkers< rs< an and d "? he un unde derta rtakes kes eit eithe herr any ac activ tivity ity wit within hin the mea meanin ning g of Drecruitmentt and placemen Drecruitmen placementE. tE. The " elements were proven. The testimonies of complainant corroborated each other and were buttressed by other prosecution witnesses. The elements of estafa are 2? the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit< and "? damage or preudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused by offended party. These were also established in the case.
PEOPLE V. MEYNARD PANGAN'BAN G.R. NO. 133028 #ccused was convicted of estafa. #ppellant contend contends s that his conviction should be reversed because the element of fraud or deceit was not proven. %e insists that the Dstop paymentE order was made in good faith and was not meant to evade payment of the debt. %&!
!espite his denials during testimony, it is obvious that appellant was aware at the time he made the postdated checks for several creditors that he would have several debts maturing at the same time, of whic which h are recoverabl recoverable e from the same ban bank k acco account unt.. Then knowing knowing that the balance is not sufficient to cover complainantBs check, he immediately ordered the drawee bank to stop its payment. These circumstances, taken together, indicate appellantBs intent to deceive and defraud defraud at the time he issu issued ed the che check. ck. The indetermi indeterminate nate sentence sentence law must also be applied.
PEOPLE V. LEONC'O AL'V'ANO G.R. NO. 13398" #ccused was convicted of raping a 4 year old girl. %e interpose interposed d denial and assails the admissibility of the medical certificate since the doctor who prepared it was not presented. %&! Concededly, Concede dly, the the subect medical certificate cannot be given any probative value. value. It is settled that since a medical certificate involves an opinion of one who must first be established as an e(pert witness, it could not be given weight nor credit unless the doctor who issued it be pres pr esen ente ted d in co cour urtt to sh show ow hi his s )u )ual alif ific icat atio ions ns.. In an any y ca case se,, me medi dica call ce cert rtif ific icat ate e is no nott indispensable to prove the commission of rape. It is merely a corroborative evidence. The lone testimony of the complainant which is credible and free from serious and material contradictions is sufficient to warrant the conviction of appellant.
PEOPLE V. L(D'GAR'O CANDELAR'O G.R. NO. 12"""0 #ccused was convicted of the crime of robbery with multiple rape. =ne of the accused is a youth you th off offend ender er and was thus placed under the cust custody ody of !1$! !1$!,, 3eg 3egiona ionall 3eh 3ehabil abilitat itation ion Center Cent er for outh. outh. !1$! recommend recommended ed tha thatt the case of the accused accused be dism dismisse issed d and his custody be transferred to his father after taking into account the minorBs performance in the rehabilitation center. %&! The Final 3eport and 3ecommendation of the !1$! should be referred to the 3TC for its appropriate appropria te action and disposition. $here the !1$! recommends recommends the discharge of a youthful offender, it is the trial court before whom the report and recommendation is subect to udicial revi re view ew.. 3eco 3ecomm mmen enda dati tion on al alon one e is no nott su suff ffic icie ient nt to wa warra rrant nt th the e re rele leas ase e of a yo yout uthf hful ul offender. offend er. The youthful youthful offender however however is not to be tries anew by the trial court. court. The in)uiry is not a criminal prosecution but is rather limited to the determination of the offenderBs proper education and his moral and social fitness to re+oin the community.
PEOPLE V. )EDER'CO (LGASAN G.R. NO. 131824-26 #ccused was convicted of / counts of rape committed against an 22 year old girl. #ccused interposed denial and alibi. %e assails the credibilit credibility y of witness. %&! # witness who testified in a categorical categorical,, straightfo straightforward, rward, spontan spontaneous eous and frank manner and remained rema ined consistent consistent on cros cross+e( s+e(amin aminatio ation n is a cred credible ible witn witness. ess. $he $hen n the accu accused sed was positively identified by the victim who harbored no ill motive against the accused, the defense of
alibi must fail. For the defense alibi defense of alibi to pros prosper per,, it is essential essential that he can show physical physical impossibility for him to be at the locus criminis. In the case at bar, it is possible for appellant appellant to be present at the scene of the crime.
PEOPLE V. ROLDAN BOOL G.R. NO. 130"8! #ccused was was convicted convicted of kidnapping kidnapping with with murder. murder. %e interposed interposed alibi as as defense. defense. %&! For alibi to be tenable, accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was somewhere somewhe re else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime. %ere, the alleged place where the accused was at the time of the crime was only @> meters from the place where the victim was shot. It was not physically impossible impossible for him to be at the scene scene of the crime at the time of the shooting.
PEOPLE V. MARCOS M(CAM G.R. NO. 13!2!6 #ccused was convicted of robbery with homicide. %e )uestion )uestions s sufficie sufficiency ncy of evidence to warrant conviction. %&! #s a rule, the trial courtBs assessmen assessmentt of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonie testimonies s is binding on appellate courts, absent any fact or circumstanc circumstance e of weight and substance that may have been overlooked, overlooked, misapprehended misapprehended or misapplied. misapplied. In this case, the court a )uo committed serious lapses which warrant the ac)uittal of the appellant.
PEOPLE V. ERNESTO DELA CR( G.R. NO. 11896! #ccused was was convicted of murder. murder. !efense interposed interposed denial and alibi. %e )uestions )uestions credibility credibility of so sole le wi witn tnes ess s an and d te test stim imon onie ies s be bein ing g in insu suff ffic icie ient nt to su sust stai ain n co conv nvic icti tion on.. %e %e po poin ints ts incon in consis sisten tencie cies s be betw tween een the wi witne tnessB ssB te testi stimo mony ny an and d he herr de decla clarat ration ions s du durin ring g pre prelim limina inary ry investigation. %&! The testimony of a sole witness, if found convincing and credible by the trial court is sufficie sufficient nt to support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable reasonable doubt. !eclarations at the preliminary investigation investigation which are conducted to determine the e(istence of a probable cause and to secure the innocent against hasty, malicious and oppressive prosecution, should not be e)uated with testimonies before the court. $hile transcripts of a preliminary investigation investigation may form part of the records of the case, testimony taken at the trial on the merits of the case where the adverse party has the fulll op ful oppo portu rtunit nity y to cro cross+ ss+e(a e(amin mine e the wi witne tness ss an and d to fe ferre rrett ou outt the tru truth, th, de dese serve rves s mor more e credence.. 1imilarly credence 1imilarly,, sworn statements that are taken e(+parte are generally incomplete and therefo ther efore, re, disc discrepa repancie ncies s betw between een stat stateme ements nts mad made e on the witn witness ess stan stand d and those in an affidavits affidav its are generally subordinated subordinated in importan importance ce in open court declarations because they are often times not in such a state as to afford him a fair opportunity of narrating in full the incident which transpired.
PEOPLE V. ALBERTO ANTON'O G.R. NO. 128900 #ccused was convicted of murder murder.. %e )uestions credibility of witness because the latterBs first statement differed with his succeeding statements and his testimony in open court. %&! #ffidavits #ffidav its or statemen statements ts taken e(+parte are generally considere considered d incomplete and inaccurate.. Thus, by nature, they are inferior inaccurate inferior to testimony given in court and whenever whenever there is inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness in court, the testimony commands greater weight. Aoreover, inconsistencies between the declaration of the affiant in his hi s sw swor orn n st stat atem emen ents ts an and d th thos ose e in op open en co cour urtt do no nott ne nece cess ssar aril ily y di disc scre redi ditt sa said id witness. ;revious statements statements cannot serve as bases for impeaching impeaching the credibility of a witness unless his attention was first directed to the discrepancies and he was then given an opportunity to e(plain them. It is only when no reasonab reasonable le e(planation is given by a witness in reconciling his conflicting declarations that he should be deemed impeached. Further, in an appeal, where the culpability or innocence of an accused would hinge on the issue of credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of trial court are entitled to and given the highest degree of respect. There There was no treachery. It is not only the sudden attack that )ualifies )ualifies a killing into murder. There must be a conscious and deliberate adoptio ado ption n of the mod mode e of attack for a spec specific ific purpose. purpose. #ll the evid evidence ence shows shows was that the incident was was an impulse killing. It was a spur of the moment moment crime. # sudden sudden and une(pected une(pected attack would not constitute alevosia where the aggressor did not consciously adopt a mode of attack intended to penetrate the homicide without risk to himself.
PEOPLE V. ROLANDO BAYBADO G.R. NO. 132136 #ccused was convicted for raping his own daughte daughter. r. %e interposed defense,. Information however failed to allege the minority of the complainant.
alibi
as
%&! For evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself such as the common e(perience and observation of mankind can approve as probable under the circumstances. The test to determine the value of the testimony of a witness is whether such is in conformity with knowledge and consistent with the e(perience of mankind. $hatever is repugnant repugnant to these standards becomes incredible incredible that lies outside pf udicial cognizance. cognizance. In this case, case, the testimony testimony of appellant appellant barely meets the minimum minimum standard standard of credibility. #ccus #ccused ed however is guilty only of simple rape as there was no allegation as to the minority of the complainant.
PEOPLE V. VALENT'N VALENT'N MAT MAT'BAG 'BAG G.R. NO. 110"1" #ccused was convicted of murder murder.. 1tateme 1tatements nts from " witnesses were taken. %owever %owever,, only 2witnes was presented. %&! Their e(traudicial e(traudicial statement of the witness who was not placed placed in the witness stand should not be considered because because it deprived the defense defense of its right to cross+e(amination. cross+e(amination. The veracity of her statements, not having been ascertained, should not have been given any probative value
at all. e that as it may, her testimony is merely corroborative and its e(clusion will not affect the finding of guilt of the accused.
PEOPLE V. BERNARDO DAROY G.R. NO. 118942 The accused was convicted of murder. !efense )uestions the credibility of witnesses. %&! $ell+entrenched is the tenet that this Court will not interfere with the trial courtBs assessment of the cre credib dibili ility ty of the wi witne tnesse sses s ab abse sent nt any in indic dicati ation on or sh showi owing ng th that at the tri trial al cou court rt ha has s overlooked some material facts or gravely abused its discretion. The matter of assigning values to declarations at the witness stand is best and most competently performed or carried out by a trial udge, who, unlike appellate magistrate, magistrate, can weigh such testimony in light of the accusedBs behavior, demeanor, conduct and attitude at the trial.
PEOPLE V. AN'CETA AN'CETA A('NO G.R. NO. 130!42 #ccused was convicted of estafa. Trial court found conspiracy on the acts of the accused appe ap pella llant nt of fa facil cilita itatin ting g an and d ini initia tiatin ting g the mee meetin ting g be betw tween een the oth other er " acc accus used ed an and d the complainant and in convincing the latter to sell rice to the former and following it up till the delivery of the same. %&! Court is not convinced that conspiracy to defraud complainant complainant was proven. # conspiracy conspiracy e(ists when " or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit commit it. It is the unity of purpose purpose and intention intention in the commission commission of a crime. To estab es tablis lish h con consp spira iracy cy,, th there ere mu must st be pro proof of tha thatt " or mo more re pe perso rsons ns ag agree reed d to co commi mmitt th the e crime. %owever %owever,, mere knowledge, ac)uiescence ac)uiescence or agreemen agreementt to cooperat cooperate e is not enough to constitute one as a conspirator, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtheran furtherance ce of the common common design and purpose. purpose. #nd to be he basis of conviction, conspiracy must be proven in the same manner as any element of the criminal ct itself. itse lf. The same degree of pro proof of re)u re)uired ired to esta establis blish h the crime is nec necessa essary ry to support support a find fi ndin ing g of th the e pr pres esen ence ce of co cons nspi pira racy cy,, th that at is is,, it mu must st be sh show own n to e( e(is istt s cl clea earl rly y an and d convincingly as the commission of the offense itself.
PEOPLE V. BET BANALES G.R. NO. 132289 #ccused was found guilty of illegal recruitmen recruitmentt in large scale. !efense challenge challenges s the sufficiency of the prosecutionBs evidence. %&! !espite non presentation of ;=&# officer to testify, the ;=&# certification will suffice to prove that she has no permit to eng engage age in the business. business. ;=& ;=&# # certificat certification ion is a pub pubic ic document document issued by a public officer in the performance of an official duty, hence, it is a prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. ;ublic documents documents are entitled to presumption of regularity, conse)uently, the burden of proof rests upon him who alleges the contrary.
PEOPLE V. ANTONY MELCOR PALMONES G.R. NO. 136303 The accused were convicted of murder. !efense interposed alibi as defense. The conviction of the " accused was based largely on the alleged dying declaration of the victim made to " witnesses of the prosecution and the apparent weakness of their defense. %&! !yin !y ing g de decl clar arat atio ion n is on one e of th the e e( e(ce cept ptio ions ns to th the e ru rule le of in inad admi miss ssib ibil ility ity of he hear arsa say y evid ev iden ence ce.. The The re re)u )uir irem emen entt ar are e 2 2?? it mu must st co conc ncer ern n th the e cr crim ime e an and d th the e su surr rrou ound ndin ing g circumstances of the declarantBs death< "? at the time it was made, the declarant was under a consciousness of impending death< /? the declarant was competent as a witness< @? the declaration declaratio n was offered in a criminal case for murder, homicide homicide or parricide where the declarant was the victim. In the instant case, it was not established by the prosecution that the statements of the decl declaran arantt were made under under the conscious consciousnes ness s of impending impending death. death. :o proof to this effect was ever presented by the prosecution. :either may the alleged alleged statements statements be admissible as part of the res gestae. gestae. 3es gestae refers refers to those e(clamations and statements made by either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, or after the commission of a crime when the circumstances are such that the statements were made as a spontaneous spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired inspired by the e(citementt of the occasion ands there was no opportun e(citemen opportunity ity for the declaran declarantt to deliberate and to fabricate a false statement. In order to admit the statements as evidence part of res gestae, the element of spontaneity is critical.
PEOPLE V. ROLANDO CARDEL G.R. NO. 10""82 The accused were convicted of murder. murder. They bo(ed and stabbed a snatcher who was caught while running with the loot. Conspiracy, treachery and abuse of superior strength were found by the trial court. !efense interposed alibi. %&! The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the appellants by the prosecut pros ecution ion witn witnesse esses. s. Con Conspira spiracy cy was not prov proven. en. The e(is e(istenc tence e of cons conspirac piracy y is neve never r presumed.. It is a(iomatic that the prosecution must establish conspiracy presumed conspiracy beyond reasonable reasonable doubt. %ence, appellant appellant will be separate separately ly adudged according to the e(tent of their individual participation in the commission of the crime charged in the information. Treachery was also not present. The fact that the victim had a stab wound at the back is not, in itsel its elf, f, ind indica icativ tive e of tre treac ache hery ry.. $h $here ere tre treach achery ery is all alleg eged ed,, the man manne nerr of at attac tack k mu must st be proven. It cannot be presumed presumed or concluded concluded merely on the basis of the resulting resulting crime. #lso, the appellant does not appear to have consciously adopted the mode of attack to facilitate the killing of the victim without risk to himself. The stabbing was was the result of a rash and impetuous impulse of the moment, rather than from a deliberate act of will, thus negating the e(istence of treachery. #buse of superior strength may not be appreciated to )ualify the killing to the crime of murder for the reason that the same is not alleged in the information. It has been the rule that )ualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment.
PEOPLE V. AR'EL PEDROSO G.R. NO. 12"128
The accused was convicted convicted of robbery with homicide. homicide. %e was sentenced sentenced by the trial court to suffer the penalty of 3eclusion ;erpetua to death. %&! *nder #rt. #rt. 5/ of the 3evised ;enal Code, if an accused is found guilty of a felony for which the law prescribes a penalty composed of " indivisible penalties, penalties, the trial court udge has to impose one or the other, not both. 1ince no aggravating circumstance circumstance was alleged in the information and since neit neither her was any mitigating mitigating circu circumsta mstance nce esta establis blished hed by the defense, defense, the lesser penalty of 3eclusion ;erpetua should be imposed.
PEOPLE V. DOM'NADOR G('LLERMO G.R. NO. 111292 The accused were convicted of murder. !efense interposed alibi. %&! ;rosecution witnessB inconsistencies are more than enough to engender some doubt as to the guilt of the appellants. The Donus probandiE in establishing the guilt of an accused for a criminal offense lies with the prosecution. prosecution. The burden must be discharged discharged by it on the strength of its own evidence and and not on the weakness of the evidence evidence for the defense or the lack of it. ;roof beyond reasonable doubt, or that )uantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who are to act in udgment, is indispensable to overcome the constitutional constitutional presumption of innocence. The overriding consideration consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
PEOPLE V. L'BERATO G'GANTO, SR. G.R. NO. 1230!! The accused were convicted of murder. The defense interposed alibi. Conviction was rendered based on the testimony of he eyewitness. %&! Trial court relied on the weakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the prosecution evidence, by emphasizing that alibi is a weak defense. It is settled that where the evidence of the prosecution is itself feeble, particularly as to the identity of the accused as the author of the crime, the defense of alibi assumes importance importance and ac)uires commensurate commensurate strength. The rule that alibi must be satisfactorily proven was never intended to change the burden of proof in criminal cases, otherwise, the accused would be put in the difficult position of proving his innocence innocenc e even where the prosecutio prosecutionBs nBs evidence is vague and weak. The prosecution cannot cannot profit from the weakness weakness of the appellantBs appellantBs alibi. It must rely on the strength of its evidence evidence and establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE V. ERNST GEORG OLER G.R. NO. 132323 The accused were were convicted of estafa. estafa. #ppellan #ppellants ts contend that their their liability is only civil and not criminal since the check was issued only to secure the loan they obtained from complainant and that there was no deceit on their part because they duly informed the complainant that the check was not yet funded.
%&! The elements of estafa involved in this case are 2? the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance< "? at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender offender has no funds in the bank or the funds depo de posit sited ed we were re no nott suf suffic ficien ientt to co cover ver th the e amo amoun untt of th the e ch check eck<< /? the pa paye yee e ha has s be been en defrauded. The drawer of the dishonored check is given / days from receipt of the notice of disho di shono norr to de depo posit sit the amo amoun untt ne nece cessa ssary ry to cov cover er the che check. ck. =th =therw erwise ise,, a pri prima ma fac facie ie presumption of deceit will arise which must then be overcome by the accused. In this case, no evide ev idenc nce e of de decei ceitt ac accom compa panie nied d the iss issua uanc nce e of the ch check eck.. Th The e pro prosec secuti ution on pre presen sente ted d evidenc evid ence e to show tha thatt a not notice ice of dish dishonor onor had been sen sentt to app appella ellant. nt. The complainan complainantt actually knew at the time of the issuance of the check that it was not funded and that the money to cover it was still to come from 1witzerland.
PEOPLE V. #'MMY ANTON'O G.R. NO. 128149 The accused was found guilty of / counts of rape. #ppellan #ppellants ts make issue of the trial< courtBs reliance on the victimBs testimony. %&! Credible Cred ible,, nat natural ural and conv convinci incing ng test testimon imony y of the victim is suf sufficie ficient nt bas basis is to con convict vict.. The inconsistencies inconsiste ncies pointed out cannot overthrow the trial courtBs conviction. conviction. For a discrepancy in testimony to ac)uit, such must refer to significant facts crucial to the guilt or innocence of the accused.. Inconsiste accused Inconsistencies ncies irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds to reverse the conviction.. Further, appellants conviction appellants were at large for 6 years. Flight indicates guilt. guilt. #ccusedB #ccusedBs s acts of not confronting their accuser goes against the principle that the first impulse of an innocent man when accused with wrong doing is to e(press his innocence at the first opportune time.
PEOPLE V. ALE#ANDRO S(R'LLA G.R. NO. 129164 The accused was found guilty of the crime of rape committed against his 2@ year old daughter. %&! There are / guiding principles in rape cases 2? an accusation for rape can be made with facility< it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent to disprove< "? in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only " persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with e(treme caution< and /? 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. %ere, the trial courtBs finding as to the credibility of the complaina complainantBs ntBs testimony deserve respect. Further Further,, the accused escaped from ail and was only recaptured. Flight is an implied admission of guilt and his desire to evade responsibility therefore. !eath penalty however cannot be imposed because relationship of complainant with the accused was not alleged in the information.
PEOPLE V. SALVAC'ON SALVAC'ON CAPARAS G.R. NO. 133"68 #ccused was found guilty of violating the !angerou !angerous s !rugs #ct of 2>4". #ppellan #ppellantt )uestions udgment of convictio conviction n because there was no showing that a sale of prohibite prohibited d drug took
place. 1he argu place. argues es tha thatt the prosecution prosecution has fail failed ed to est establi ablish sh that money or spe specific cifically ally Dmarke Dma rked d mon moneyE eyE wa was s pa paid id or e( e(cha chang nged ed ha hand nds s be betwe tween en he herr an and d the su supp ppose osed d po pose seur+ ur+ buyer.. 1he theorizes buyer theorizes that in a contract of sale, the payment of the contract price is essential to consummate consumma te the transaction. Considering that there was no payment made, the contract of sale was not consummated and inevitably, the accused cannot be convicted for the illegal sale of prohibited drug. %&! *nder 1ec @, the act of selling or acting as broker in a sale of mariuana and other prohibited drugs consummates the crime. It punishes the mere act of delivery of prohibited drugs after the offer to buy by the entrapping officer has been accepted by the seller. The absence of the marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of th the e da dang ngero erous us dru drugs gs is ad ade)u e)uate ately ly pro proven ven an and d the drug su sube bect ct of th the e tra transa nsact ction ion is presented presente d before the court. In every prosecution prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, what what is material and indispensable is the submission of proof that the sale of illicit drug took place between the seller and the poseur+buyer.
PEOPLE V. ROLAND MOL'NA G.R. NO. 134!!!-!8 #ccused was found guilty of murder and frustrated murder. murder. #ccused denied denied commission of the crime and imputed the same to another person. %&! #s weighed against the positive identificatio identification n of accused by one of his victims, which was further corroborated by an eyewitness to the scene, and the absence of any showing of ill+ motive on their part other than their )uest for ustice, appella appellantBs ntBs denial of the commission of the crime and imputation of the same to another person is demolished to obscurity. esides, the imputation of the crime to another malefactor was heard of only during his testimony, and was never nev er rais raised ed bef before ore the police aut authori horities ties duri during ng the inve investig stigatio ation. n. Clea Clearly rly,, his bare denial amounts to nothing more than negative and self+serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. #s to the amount of damages damages,, prevailing urisprudence urisprudence sets the civil indemnity for death in the amount of ;6>,>>>, which can be awarded without need of further proof other than the death of the victim. $ith respect to actual actual damages, the court can only grant grant such amount for e(penses e(penses if they are sup support ported ed by rece receipts ipts.. Aora Aorall dam damage ages s may be reco recovere vered d in crimi criminal nal off offense enses s resulting in physical inuries inuries but there must be a factual basis for the award. #s to e(emplary damages, there being one aggravating circumstance, e(emplary damages in the amount of ;/>,>>> may be awarded in both murder and frustrated murder case pursuant to #rt ""/> of the :ew Civil Code.
PEOPLE V. )EDER'CO CAMPANER G.R. NO. 130"00 * 143834 The accused was found guilty of " counts of rape against his 26 year old daughter of his common law spouse. %&! In evaluating the credibility of rape victims, the court has repeate repeatedly dly held that it is not unnatural for inconsistencies to creep into the testimony of a rape victim, especially one who is of tender age, as the witness is narrating the details details of a harrowing e(perience. e(perience. 1o long as the testimony is consistent on material points, slightly conflicting statements will not undermine the witnessB
credibility nor the veracity of her testimony testimony.. =n the contrary, these these mistakes in fact strengthen, rather than weaken, the complainantBs credibility as they erase suspicion that the testimony is rehearsed. %owever, death cannot be imposed since the relationship of the complainant with the accused was not alleged in the information.
PEOPLE V. MARCEL'NO SAN #(AN G.R. NO. 112449-"0 #ccused was convicted of 2? robbery with rape and "? highway robbery robbery.. %e contend contends s that since he did not flee from his residence, he should be e(onerated. %&! It is true that the flight of an accused is competent evidence against him tending to establish his guilt. %owever %owever,, no law nor urisprudence holds that non+flight non+flight per se is conclusi conclusive ve proof of his innocence. Further, for alibi to be validly invoked, the accused must not only prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but must also establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE V. R'CARDO TORTOSA G.R. NO.116!39 #ccused was was convicted convicted of murder. murder. %e )uestions )uestions the credibility of witnesses witnesses.. %&! The trial court did not err in giving full faith and credit to the testimonies of the prosecution witness. The record is bereft of any evidence to show that that the witnesses had improper improper motive to testify falsely against appellant and the rule is well settled that absent evidence showing any reason or motive for a prosecution witness to perure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive e(ists, and that the testimony is worthy of full faith and credit.
PEOPLE V. #A'ME BALACANO G.R. NO. 12!1"6 #ccused was found guilty of the crime of rape committed against his 2@ year old step daughter. %e contends that there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt to warrant his ac)uittal. %&! D3easonable doubtE is not a mere guess that the appellant may or may not be guilty. It is such a doub do ubtt th that at a rea reaso sonab nable le ma man n may enterta entertain in aft after er a fa fair ir re revie view w an and d co consi nsider derati ation on of the evidence.. It is a state of mind engend evidence engendered ered by insufficient insufficient proof. ut, time and again, the Court has ruled that the lone testimony testimony of the victim may suffice to convict convict the rapist. $hen a victim says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been committed and if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. Further, absence of threats does not negate the charge of rape. #lthough it is true that there were no physical inuries found in the victimBs body, in rape cases, absence of bodily threats does not matter where there is an e(isting relationship between the appellant and the victim, resulting to moral ascendancy of the former over the latter.
PEOPLE V. RAM'L SAMOLDE G.R. NO. 128""1
#ccused was convicted of murder murder.. #ccused e(ecute e(ecuted d an e(traudicia e(traudiciall confessio confession. n. %e also admitted in open court to the commission of the crime. %&! &(traudicial &(traudi cial confession of accused accused is not admissible in evidence. %e was not informed of his constitu con stitution tional al righ rightt befo before re his sta stateme tements nts were taken. %ow %owever ever,, his ope open n cou court rt test testimon imony y is enough to convict him. %is subse)uent allegation that he was given money to accept culpability deserves scant consideration. consideration. 9udicial confession constitutes constitutes evidence of a high order. The presumption is that no sane person would deliberately confess to the commission of a crime unless prompted prompted to do so by truth and conscience. Further Further,, accused went into hiding. hiding. Flight has been held to be an indication of guilt.
PEOPLE V. ER'C BA'D G.R. NO. 12966! #ccused was convicted of rape committed against a mental patient. %e contend contends s that as complainant is schizophrenic, her testimony should not have been given credence by the trial court. Further, he contends that victim consented with the se(. %&! :otwi :o twith thsta stand nding ing he herr men menta tall ill illne ness, ss, co compl mplain ainan antt sh show owed ed tha thatt sh she e wa was s )u )uali alifie fied d to be a witness. 1he could perceive perceive and was was capable of making making known her her perceptions perceptions to others. %er testimony indicates that she could understa understand nd )uestions particularly relating to the incident and could give her responsive answers to them. #lthough complainant herself admitted that she agreed to have se( with him after he gave her a stick of cigarette, it should be stressed that complainant complaina nt was in no position to give her consent. consent. #ccused is to be convicted convicted under #rt #rt //6 par ", rape of a woman deprived of reason or otherwise otherwise unconscious. unconscious. The phrase Ddeprived Ddeprived of reasonE has been construed to include those sufferin suffering g from mental abnormality or deficiency or some other form of mental retardation, those who are feebleminded although coherent.
PEOPLE V. ANTON'O DE LA TONGGA G.R. NO. 133246 #ccused was convicted of murder. !efense argues that prosecu prosecution tion failed to establish the identity of the assailant. %&! The finding of the trial court as to the credibility of the witnesses deserves deserves respect. Further Further,, the defense defe nse of alibi is so weak. In order to prosper, prosper, it must be so conv convincin incing g as to preclude preclude any doubt that the accused could not have been physically present at the place of the crime or its vici vi cini nity ty at th the e ti time me of th the e co comm mmis issi sion on of th the e cr crim ime. e. Fu Furt rthe her, r, tr trea each cher ery y wa was s pr prop oper erly ly appreciated. The fact that the victim had been forewarned by somebody against possible attack does not negate the presence presence of treachery. $hat is important is that the victim was attacked even before he and his companions companions could get get out of the tricycle. The mode of attack ensured ensured the commission of the crime without risk to the accused.
PEOPLE V. OSCAR MANS(ETO G.R. NO. 13"196 The accused was convicted of murder. !efense interposed denial and alibi.
%&! #libi is an inherently weak defense, defense, easy to fabricate fabricate and highly unreliable. unreliable. For said defense to prosper,, he accused must not only prove that he was at some other place at the time the crime prosper was committed but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. %owever, this was not shown here.
A(G(ST 2000
PEOPLE V. )RANC'SCO V'LLANOS G.R. NO. 126648 #ccused was was convicted convicted of rape. rape. The victim was was raped when when unconscious. unconscious. %&! In cases where the victim is raped in a state of unconsciousness, unconsciousness, the fact of se(ual assault and the identity of the assailant can be established from the events preceding or following the victimBs loss of consciousness. True, True, there was no test conducted to determine the presence of any sedative or drug in the drinks given to the victims which caused them to lose momentarily control of their faculties. ut this is of little conse)uence as the same is not an indispensable element in a prosecution for rape. *nder the circumstances, it suffices that the victim was found to have been unconscious at the time the offender had carnal knowledge of her.
PEOPLE V. BLAS ROSAR'O G.R. NO. 122!69 #ccused were were convicted convicted of murder. murder. !efense assails assails credibility credibility of prosecutionB prosecutionBs s lone witness. witness. %&! #ssessment #ssessme nt of the credibility of witnesses lies within the province and competen competence ce of the trial courts. #ppellate courts courts will not disturb the credence, or lack of it, accorded by the trial court to the testimonies of the witnesses, unless it be clearly shown that the latter could have overlooked or disregarded arbitrarily arbitrarily the facts and circumstances circumstances of significance significance in the case. In the case at bar, the findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence.
PEOPLE V. PONC'ANO AGL'PA G.R. NO. 130941 #ccused was was found guilty guilty of murder murder and frustrated murder murder.. !efense interposed interposed self+defen self+defense. se. %&! The burden of proof shifts to the person invoking self+defense, who, with clear and convincing evidence must establish all the following re)uisites a? unlawful aggression on the part of the victim< b? reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it< c? lack of sufficient sufficie nt provocation on the part of the person claiming self+defense. self+defense. *pon failure to establish these thes e re)u re)uisit isites, es, conv convictio iction n is inev inevitab itable le bec because ause the accu accused sed,, by set setting ting up self self+def +defens ense, e, admits being the author of the killing.
PEOPLE V. RAMELL LOM'BAO G.R. NO. 13"8""
#ccused was was convicted convicted of raping raping his 22 22 year year old daughter daughter.. !efense interposed denial. %&! !efense of alibi is the weakest of all defenses defenses for it is easy to contrive and difficult to prove. # positive identification identificat ion of the accused made by an eyewitness prevails over such a defense. The denial of the accused cannot prevail over the categorical testimony of the victim that he raped her.. The absence her absence of conv convincin incing g evid evidenc ence e show showing ing any impr imprope operr motiv motive e on the part of the principal witness for the prosecution strongly tends to sustain the conclusion that no such improper motive e(ists, and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. &ven if the victim was not familiar with the precise date of the commission of the offense and the time of its occurrence,, this fact does not convince the court occurrence court that she was not raped by him. The date of commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime. %owever, since relationship was not alleged in the information, death sentence cannot be imposed in the absence of the )ualifying circumstance.
PEOPLE V. ELMER )EG'DERO G.R. NO. 113446 #ccused was convicted of robbery with homicide. %e was committed based on circumstan circumstantial tial evidence. %&! !irect evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matri( wherefrom a trial court may draw its conc conclusio lusion n and finding finding of guil guilt. t. Circu Circumsta mstantia ntiall evid evidence ence suffices suffices to con convict vict if the ff. elements are present 2? there is more than one circumstance< "? the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven< /? the combination of all the circumstances is such as to prod pr oduc uce e a co conv nvic icti tion on be beyo yond nd re reas ason onab able le do doub ubt. t. # u udg dgme ment nt of co conv nvic icti tion on ba base sed d on circum cir cumsta stant ntial ial evi evide dence nce ca can n be su susta staine ined d on only ly wh when en th the e cir circum cumsta stanc nces es pro prove ved d for form m an unbroken chain which leads to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the e(cl e( clus usio ion n of al alll ot othe hers rs,, as th the e cu culp lpri rit. t. In th the e ca case se at ba bar, r, th the e co comb mbin inat atio ion n of al alll th the e circumstancial evidence presented established the participation of the accused in the robbery and death of the victim.
PEOPLE V. CR'SP'N CANON'GO G.R. NO. 133649 #ccused was was convicted of statutory statutory rape committed committed against an 22 22 year year old girl in full view of the latterBs latterB s 6 year old sister. !eath was imposed. %&! !eath cannot be imposed. In the case at bar, the attendant aggravating aggravating circumstance that the victim was raped in full view of a relative within the third civil degree of consanguinity was not alleged in the information filed against the accused. Further, trial court erred in considering this as statutory rape. To effectively prosecute for statutory rape, its elements must be set out in the complaint or information information to apprise the accused accused of the crime of which he is being charged. The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is in having carnal knowledge with a girl under 2" years of age. In the case a bar, although although it was established during the trial that the victim was only 22 years old at the time the crime was committed, the information filed against the accused charged him with having carnal knowledge of a girl who is 2" years of age.
PEOPLE V. BERNALDO DOCDOC G.R. NO. 1346!9 #ccused was was convicted convicted of rape. rape. %&! There is an absence of physical evidence to corroborate corroborate victimBs claim of resistance. Je Jerily, rily, the the law does not impose on the rape victim the burden of proving resistance where force was used on her. %owever %owever,, in the case at bar, where the victimBs narration narration of the rape incident is open to doubt and does not ibe with human e(perience, physical physical evidence of bruises and scratches on her face or arms which were allegedly pinned behind her back would have spoken louder than words.
PEOPLE V. DELANO MEND'OLA G.R. NO. 134846 #ccused was was convicted convicted of raping raping his 6 year year old daughter daughter.. %&! # rape victim who testifies testifies in a categorical, straightforward, straightforward, spontaneous spontaneous and frank manner and remains consistent consistent is a credible witness. The lone testimony testimony of the victim, which if credible and free from any serious and material contradictions, as in this case, is enough basis for the accusedBs prosecution and conviction.
PEOPLE V. #OCELYN ACBANG'N G.R. NO. 11!216 #ccused was was convicted of of kidnapping kidnapping and serious serious illegal detention. detention. Tw Two o days after after the taking of the child, she informed the childBs parents of the whereabouts of the child. %&! In cases of kidnapping, if the person detained is a child, the )uestion is whether there was actual deprivation of the childBs liberty and whether it was the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the custody of the child. The The child in this case was deprived of liberty. True, she was wa s tre treate ated d we well, ll, how howeve ever, r, th there ere is sti stillll kid kidna napp pping ing.. Fo Forr th there ere to be kid kidna napp pping ing,, it is no nott necessary necessa ry that the victim be placed in an enclosure. It is enough that the victim is restrained from going home. The intention to deprive deprive the childBs parents of her custody is indicated indicated by the accusedBs hesitation for " days to disclose the whereabouts of the child and more so by her actual taking taking of the child. #ccusedB #ccusedBs s motive at this point point is not relevant. relevant. It is not an element element of the crime. The fact that she later on felt remorse remorse and show showed ed the chil childBs dBs parents parents where the former was, cannot absolve her. #t that point, the crime was consummated. The testimony of the child is also credible. # witnessB witnessB young age will not deter him or her from being a competent and credible witness. To be a competent child witness, the following must be met a? capacity of observation< b? capacity of recollection< c? capacity of communication
PEOPLE V. V'VENC'O LAB(G(EN G.R. NO. 12!849
#ccused was convicted convicted of robbery with homicide. !efense interposed interposed denial and alibi. %e was convicted based on circumstantial evidence. %&! Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if a? there is more than one circumstance< b? the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven< c? the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the testim tes timon onies ies of the pro prose secut cution ion wit witne nesse sses s spa spawn wn an and d ge gene nerat rate e fac facts ts wh which ich con consti stitu tute te an unbro un broke ken n cha chain in of eve events nts lea leadin ding g to th the e in inevi evitab table le co concl nclus usion ion of gu guilt ilt on the pa part rt of the appellant.
PEOPLE V. POTENC'ANO ARCO G.R. NO. 132062 #ccused was was convicted convicted of raping raping a 2> year year old child. child. !efense interposed interposed alibi. %&! :ot only was accusedBs alibi weak, it also did not rule out the possibility of his having committed the crime. It was not physically impossible therefore, therefore, for the accused to be at the crime scene, rape the victim and go back to his work.
PEOPLE V. AGAP'TO AGAP'TO AGRAV AGRAVANTE ANTE G.R. NO. 1199"" #ccused was was convicted convicted of raping a 2@ year old retardate. retardate. %e contends contends that victimBs victimBs testimony testimony is unreliable because of her mental capacity or state of mind. %&! # mental retardate is not for this reason alone dis)ualifie dis)ualified d from being a witness. In this case, the victim was able to intelligently make known such perceptions or narrate them truthfully despite the grueling e(amination by both prosecutor and defense counsel.
PEOPLE V. PEDRO D(CTA G.R. NO. 134608 #ccused was was convicted convicted of raping raping a @/ year year old retarded retarded woman. woman. %&! 1tate of mental retardation of a victim of rape can be established by evidence other than the medica med icall fin findin dings gs of a sp speci eciali alist. st. 1o als also, o, the court court ha has s sa said id tha thatt a wo woman man need not be completely deprived of reason for se(ual intercourse by a man with her to constitute the crime of rape. The term Ddeprived of reasonE has been construed to include the feeble+minded although although coherent and those suffering from mental deficiency or some form of mental disorder. Further, a mental retardate who has the ability to make known her perceptions is still a competent witness.
PEOPLE V. MAR'O MYRNO TAN TAN G.R. NO. 1206!2 #ccused was was found guilty guilty of estafa. estafa. #ppellan #ppellantt contends contends that the the prosecution prosecution failed to sufficiently sufficiently prove that the merchandise he ordered were delivered to and received by him or his authorized
representatives. Thus, he argues, he cannot be held liable for estafa since he was not able to representatives. obtain the goods from the private complainant by means of the check he issued. %&! #rt /26 "?d? of the 3;C penalizes any person who shall defraud another by postdatin postdating g a check or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender has no funds in the bank. ban k. The transact transaction ion between between the parties parties here is in the nature of contract contract of sale sale.. The contract of purchase and sale is reciprocal and from it arises not only the obligation to deliver the thing but also that of paying the price. In this case, there is no ample proof that appellant or his repre represen sentati tatives ves ever rece received ived the merc merchan handise dise.. 1ince no dam damage age was sus sustain tained ed by complainant complaina nt in as much as appellant received nothing of value from the complainant, appellant cannot be held guilty of estafa. %e had no obligation to pay or to make good the issued check.
PEOPLE V. PEDRO GAB'ANA G.R. NO. 123"43 #ccused was was convicted of raping raping an 22 year old girl. #ppellan #ppellantt interposed the defense defense of denial denial and alibi. %&! asic is the rule that alibi which is easy to concoct cannot prevail over the positive identification by the wi witne tnesse sses. s. $hat is mor more, e, ap appe pella llant nt utt utterl erly y fai failed led to pro prove ve th that at it wa was s ph physi ysical cally ly impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the appro(imate time of his commission.
PEOPLE V. 'AN CONTRERAS G.R. NO. 13!123-34 #ccused was was convicted of of raping several several children. =n appeal appeal to C#, the accused accused escaped escaped from ail. %&! %is appeal should be dismissed. %e cannot invoke the urisdiction of the Court to seek a review of his convict conviction ion after he ha has s mad made e a moc mocke kery ry of th the e u udic dicial ial pro proce cess ss by esc escapi aping ng fro from m prison. pris on. %ow %owever ever,, thi this s doe does s not affect affect the review in crimi criminal nal cases where death penalty penalty had been imposed because review in such case is not only automatic but also mandatory.
PEOPLE V. AG(ST'N AGPAAN G.R. NO. 1238"3 #ccused was was convicted convicted of murder. murder. Conspiracy and treachery treachery were found by court. %&! Conspiracy e(ists when " or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide decide to commit it. ;roof of the agreement agreement need not rest on direct direct evidence as the same may be inferred from the conduct of the parties indicating a common understanding among them with respect to the commission of the offense. Conspiracy was established in the instant case by the concerted and synchronized actions of the accused and his companions in carrying out the ambush. Treachery was also correctly appreciated as the method employed in the e(ecution of the crime ensured no risk to the assailants arising from the defense which their victims might put up.
PEOPLE V. )EL' ANT'DO G.R. NO. 12921! The " accused were convicted of murder. !efense )uestions ade)uacy of evidence and and finding of treachery. %&! =ne of the witnesses is a victim himself having been stabbed by the appellant. appellant. #s such, his testimony, standing alone, can be made the basis of accusedBs prosecution and conviction, if such testimony meets the test of credibility. credibility. The matter of accuracy of the identification by the victim of the offend offenders ers is a factual issue resolved by the trial court which should be given weight on appeal, unless there are convincing indications indications that certain facts or circumstances of weight and significance have been overlooked. #n une(pected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared unprepared to defend himself by reason of the sudden suddenness ness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia and the fact that the act was frontal does not preclude the presence of treachery.
PEOPLE V. ROBERTO BAN''T G.R. NO. 13204" #ccused was convicted of raping his 7 year old niece. %e contends that death penalty should nott be imp no impos osed ed sin since ce th the e in infor format matio ion n acc accuse use him of rap rape e un unde derr #r #rtt // //6 6 pa parr / wh which ich is punishable by reclusion perpetua. %&! $hat is controlling in an information should not be the title of the complaint, nor the designat designation ion of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, these being, by and large, mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor, but the description of the crime charg ch arged ed an and d the pa parti rticul cular ar fac facts ts the therei rein n cit cited ed.. The rea reall na natur ture e of the cri crimin minal al ch charg arge e is determined determine d not from the caption or preamble of the information nor from the specification of the law allegedly violated, but from the actual recital of facts alleged in the body of the information. %owever, the relationship to the victim, while proven by competent evidence, was not sufficiently alleged in the information.
PEOPLE V. RENATO P(ON G.R. NO. 1231"6-"9 #ccused was found guilty of statutory rape for raping his own daughters. The victims testified that appellant was not able to insert his penis into their vagina because they kept on moving in an effort to evade the se( organ of the appellant. %owever %owever,, they recounted that the penis of appella app ellant nt touched the lips of the their ir vagi vagina na and they felt pain in the proc process. ess. The informatio information n indicted him for the crime of rape with force and intimidation under par 2 of #rt. //6, although the prosecutor established that complainants were below 2" years old at the time of the rape. %&! Convictio Conv iction n of app appella ellant nt for sta statuto tutory ry rap rape e abs absent ent any allegation allegation in the information information that the complainants were below 2" years old at the time of the rape and not for rape through force or intimidation which was the method alleged would violate the right of the appellant to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, which right is granted by the
Constitution. Convicting appellant Constitution. appellant of a crime not alleged while he is concentrating his defense against the offense alleged would be unfair and underhanded. %owever, the force or intimidation employed by the culprit and resistance put up by the victim are not nece necessary ssary for the conviction conviction of the perpetrato perpetrator. r. In ince incestuo stuous us rape rape,, the absence absence of violence or offer of resistance by the victim would not matter because of the overpowering and overbearing moral ascendancy by the father over his daughter. ack of penetration cannot e(culpate appellant appellant.. 1ettled is the rule that that complete penetration penetration is not essential. essential. The slightest slightest touching of the lips of the female organ or labia of the pudendum constitutes rape.
PEOPLE CARLOS MENE(E G.R. NO. 129964-6" #ccused was was convicted convicted of " counts counts of murder. murder. #ccused invoked invoked self+defense. self+defense. %&! # plea of self+defen self+defense se automat automatically ically shifts the burden of proof from the prosecutio prosecution n to the defense since such a plea means that the accused admits to having performed performed the criminal act, but disclaims legal liability on the ground that his life had been e(posed to harm first before he committed the act in defense of himself. Thus, when the accused invokes self+defense, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecutionBs evidence, for even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accusedBs open admission of responsibility for the killing. In the case at bar, apart from self+serving statements, appellantBs appellantBs testimony is uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, thus cannot be given weight.
PEOPLE V. SEG(NDO CANO G.R. NO. 130631 #ccused was convicted of " counts of rape committed against his 26 year old daughte daughter. r. %e assails delay in filing of complaint and interposed alibi as defense. %&! y itself, delay in prosecuting rape is not an indication of fabricated charges. The charge is only rendered doubtful if the delay was unreasonable and une(plained.
PEOPLE V. MAR'O LACBAY L ACBAYAN AN G.R. NO. 12"006 The " accused were convicted of murder. In their defense, appellants denied any knowledge of the in incid ciden ent. t. They as assai saill th the e cr credi edibil bility ity of pro prosec secuti ution on wi witne tnesse sses s by po point inting ing to all alleg eged ed inconsistencies. %&! It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some details which one witness may notice while the other may not observe or remember. remember. In fact, urisprudence even warns warns against a perfect dove tailing of narration by different witnesses as it could mean that their testimonies were prefabricated and rehearse rehe arsed. d. Finally, Finally, a care careful ful e(a e(amina mination tion of the evidence evidence on reco record rd show shows s tha thatt whil while e the prosecution witnesses differ in their narration of trivial details like those mentioned on appeal, they did not waver in their identification of the appellants as the perpetrators of the crime.
PEOPLE V. CESAR MELENDRES G.R. NO. 133999-4001 #ccused was convicted of / counts of rape committed against the 22 year old daughter of his common law wife. %e contends that accused and complainant were actually lovers. %&! In rape cases falling under #rt //6 /? H when the woman is under 2" years of age or is demented, " elements must be established to hold the accused guilty of rape 2? that the accused had carnal knowledge knowledge of a woman< "? that the woman is below 2" years of age. ;roof of consent of the woman woman is immaterial. 1e(ual intercourse intercourse with a woman below 2" years years old is statutory rape. %er consent to the intercourse is involuntary because because she is considered to have no will of her own.
1&;T&A&3 ">>>
PEOPLE V. ALBERTO DANO G.R. NO. 11!690 #cused was convicted of murder murder.. #n e(traudicia e(traudiciall confession was made. !efense interposed self+defense. %&! &(traud &(tr audicia iciall stat statemen ementt is inad inadmiss missible ible beca because use of viol violatio ation n of con constitu stitution tional al righ rights ts duri during ng custodi cust odial al inve investig stigatio ation. n. # susp suspectB ectBs s con confess fession, ion, whe whether ther verb verbal al or non non+verb +verbal, al, whe when n take taken n without the assistance of counsel without a valid waver of such assistance regardless of the absence of coercion, or the fact that it had been voluntarily given, is inadmissible in evidence, even ev en if ap appe pella llantB ntBs s co confe nfessi ssion on we were re go gospe spell tru truth th.. %ow %oweve ever, r, hi his s sta statem temen ents ts mad made e to the barangay captain, who is neither police officer nor a law enforcement agent is admissible. $hen an accused invokes self+defense, the onus probandi to show that the killing was ustified shifts to him. &ven if the prosecutionBs prosecutionBs evidence evidence was weak, it could not be readily dismissed after after the accused had openly admitted his responsibility for the killing.
PEOPLE V. PA(L LAP' G.R. NO. 129239 #ccused was convicted of rape. %e )uestion )uestions s the credibility of the testimony of the complainant. %&! There are / guiding principles in the review of rape cases 2? to accuse a man of rape is easy, but to disprove it is difficult though the accused may be innocent< "? considering that in the nature of things, only " persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant complaina nt should be scrutinized with great caution< and /? evidence for the prosecut prosecution ion must stand or fall on its own merits and should not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence evidence for the defe defense nse.. &)ua &)ually lly un)uestion un)uestionable able is the principle principle tha thatt as long as the complainantBs testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on its basis.
PEOPLE V. ARMANDO #(ARE
G.R. NO. 1281"8 The accused were found guilty of rape. !efense put up denial and alibi. %&! #libi is a weak defense which becomes even weaker in the face of the positive identification identification of appellants by the prosecution witness. !enial and alibi unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evid ev iden ence ce ar are e ne nega gati tive ve an and d se self lf+s +ser ervi ving ng ev evid iden ence ce be bear arin ing g no re real al we weig ight ht in la law w an and d urisprudence. urispruden ce. Aoreover Aoreover,, alibi might be aptly considere considered d only when an accused had been shown to be in some other place at the crucial time and that it would have been physically impossible form him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime. The presence of the appellants appellants at the crime scene immediately after the victim was raped indicates indicates strongly strongly that the they y wer were e the culprits. culprits. #lso, #lso, there is not nothing hing to show that the victim was moved by any ill motive to testify falsely falsely against the accused. accused. 1he did not know them before the fateful evening. %er honest and straightforward straightforward testimony deserves full faith and credence.
PEOPLE V. ROBERTO BAN'G('D G.R. NO. 13!!14 #ccused was was found guilty guilty of raping raping his minor minor daughter. daughter. %e )uestions )uestions credibility credibility of complainant. complainant. %&! There are / guiding principles in reviewing rape cases 2? an accusation of rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove< "? in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only " persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant is scrutinized with e(treme caution< and /? the evidence for the prosecution stands or falls on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. &ven if the complainant is less than chaste, this fact would not detract from the fact that appellant appellant violated her. #s long as the victimBs testimony measures up to the standard of credibility, the fact that she had se(ual relations with other men would not destroy or affect her credibility. The moral character of the victim is immaterial in rape cases. For even a prostitute can be the victim of rape.
PEOPLE V. #'MMY DAGAM' G.R. NO. 123111 #ccused was found guilty of murder murder.. In his defense, he denied responsib responsibility ility and pointed to a certain person as the real culprit. =ne eyewitness was presented by prosecution. %&! The Th e te test stim imon ony y of a si sing ngle le wi witn tnes ess, s, if cr cred edib ible le an and d po posi siti tive ve,, is su suff ffic icie ient nt to pr prod oduc uce e a conviction.. #ppellan conviction #ppellants ts likewise failed to show show any ill+motive on on the part of the witness. witness. There is no showing of improper motive, the presumption is that they were not so actuated and their testimonies are entitled to full faith and credit.
PEOPLE V. L'TO ROSALES G.R. NO. 126402 #ccused was was convicted convicted of rape. rape. %e raises the credibility credibility of complainantBs complainantBs testimony testimony..
%&! The general rule in criminal cases is that the conclusions as to the credibility of witnesses in rape cases lie heavily on the sound udgment of the trial court which is accorded great weight and respect, if not conclusive effect. In this case, there is nothing that would would warrant a deviation from the general rule.
PEOPLE V. EDGARDO ALORO G.R. NO. 129208 #ccused was convicted of " counts of rape. %e was convicted on the basis of the lone testimony of the victim despite lack of physical inuries. %&! It is doctrinally settled that the lone testimony of a rape victim, by itself, is sufficient to convict if credible. &)ually settled is the principle principle that when a woman declares declares that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to mean that she has been raped and where the testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on the basis thereof. Further, in proving rape cases, it is not necessary that the act was committed with genital inury. #nd a finding that the victimBs hymen is intact, as in this case, does not disprove rape. In fact, a medial e(amination is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape.
PEOPLE V. )A(ST'NO CAMPOS G.R. NO. 1333!3-!! #ccused, 4" years of age, was convicted of 6 counts of rape committed against " minors. %e insists in his appeal that he could not be convicted considering that the medical e(amination showed that the complaining witnesses suffered no lacerations, abrasions or contusions. %&! Aedical e(amination e(amination is not indispensable indispensable in a prosecution for rape. In fact, there can be rape even if the medical e(amination shows no vaginal laceration. laceration. Aedical findings only serve to corroborate the testimonies testimonies of the victims. The accused may be convicted convicted on the basis of the lone uncorroborated testimony of the rape victim provided that her testimony is clear, positive, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of this.
PEOPLE V. ALPAN LAD#AALAM G.R. NO. 136149-"1 The accused was convicted of the crime of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide for firing fir ing an A2@ rifle rifle to police police men who were about about to enter enter his house house to serve a se searc arch h warrant. Further, he was also convicted for illegal possession of firearm. %&! 3# no. "7@ penalizes simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that the person arrested committed Dno other other crimeE. Furthermore Furthermore,, if the person is held liable for murder or homicide, ille il lega gall po poss sses essi sion on of fi fire rear arms ms is an ag aggr grav avat atin ing g ci circ rcum umst stan ance ce,, bu butt no nott a se sepa para rate te offense off ense.. %en %ence, ce, whe where re an accu accused sed was con convicte victed d of dire direct ct assa assault ult with multiple attempted attempted homicide for firing an unlicensed A2@ rifle at several policemen who were about to serve a searc se arch h war warran rant, t, he ca cann nnot ot be he held ld gu guilty ilty of th the e sep separa arate te of offe fense nse of ill illeg egal al po posse ssessi ssion on of firearms. :either can such unlawful act be considered to have aggravated the direct assault.
PEOPLE V. AMADEO TRELLES G.R. NO. 13!6"9 #ccused was convicted of raping a "" year old retardate woman. %e )uestion )uestions s credibility of complainant. %&! # mental retardate or a feeblemin feebleminded ded person is not, per se, dis)ualified from being a witness, her mental condition not being a vitiation of her credibility. credibility. It is now universally accepted that intel in telle lectu ctual al we weak aknes ness, s, no mat matter ter wha whatt fo form rm it as assum sumes, es, is no nott a val valid id ob obec ectio tion n to th the e competency of a witness so long as the latter can still give a fairly intelligent and reasonable narrative of the matter testified to.
PEOPLE V. SPO1 ERNESTO (LEP G.R. NO. 132"4! #ccused was convicted of murder murder.. %e interpose interposed d self+defen self+defense se and ustifying circumstan circumstance ce of fulfillment of a duty. %&! ;reliminarily, having admitted the killing, the accused assumed the burden of proving legal ustification therefore. therefore. %e must establish establish clearly and convincingly convincingly how he acted in the fulfillment fulfillment of hi his s of offi fici cial al du duty ty an andG dGor or in co comp mple lete te se self lf+d +def efen ense se,, ot othe herw rwis ise, e, he mu must st su suff ffer er al alll th the e conse)uences conse)u ences of his malefaction. %e has to rely on the )uantitative and )ualitative )ualitative strength of his own evidence, not on the weaknes weakness s of the prosecution, prosecution, for even if it were weak, it could not be disbelieved after he had admitted the killing. To ustify the incident as fulfillment of a duty, " re)uisites must concur 2? that he acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful e(ercise of a right or an office< "? that the inury caused or the offense committed be the necessary conse)uence of the due performance of duty or the lawful e(ercise of such right or office. The second shot, which was the fatal shot was uncalled for and therefore was no longer a necessa nec essary ry cons conse)u e)uence ence of app appella ellantB ntBs s due perf performa ormance nce of duty duty.. Thus Thus,, only an inco incomple mplete te ustifying circumstance circumstance of fulfillment fulfillment of a duty duty can be be appreciated. appreciated.
PEOPLE V. EDGAR BACALSO G.R. NO. 1290"" #ccused was convicted of the comple( crime of double murder with frustrate frustrated d murder murder.. The conviction hinges on the testimony of " prosecution witnesses. %&! In every criminal case, the task of the prosecution is always two+pronged 2? to prove beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime charged< and "? to establish with the same )uantum of proof the identity of the person or persons responsible therefore, for even if the commi co mmissi ssion on of the crime is giv given en,, the there re ca can n be no con convic victio tion n wit witho hout ut the identit identity y of the malefactor being likewise clearly ascertained. The identificat identification ion of the perpetrato perpetratorr of the crime bea bears rs hea heavily vily on the reasonable reasonableness ness or probability of the testimony of the prosecution witness. witness. There is unfortunately, unfortunately, no single test to determine with all e(actitude the probity of testimony, and the courts can only give conformity to the )uotidian knowledge, observation and e(perience of man. It has been observed that the
most positive testimony of a witness may be contradicted on the fact that the testimony is contrary to common observation or e(perience or the common principles by which the conduct of mankind is governed. The courts are not re)uired to believe that which they udicially know to be incredible. # close scrutiny of the accounts accounts given by the witnesses produce a serious doubt as to the veracity of the malefactorBs identity almost as if it were merely contrived to pin the liability of the crime upon appellant.
PEOPLE V. ABE VALDE G.R. NO. 129296 #ccused was found guilty of violating the !angerou !angerous s !rugs #ct of 274"., #n e(traudic e(traudicial ial confession was made as to the ownership of mariuana plants. %&! The mariuana plants seized were product of an illegal search because of the absence of search warrant and are therefore inadmissible inadmissible in evidence. The voluntary confession confession of ownership of mariuana was in violation of the custodial rights because of the absence of competent and indepen inde pendent dent counsel, counsel, and thus thus,, ina inadmis dmissible sible too. In sum, both the obe obect ct evid evidence ence and the testimonial evidence as to the appellantBs voluntary confession of ownership of the prohibited plan pl ants ts re reli lied ed up upon on to pr prov ove e ap appe pell llan antB tBs s gu guil iltt fa fail iled ed to me meet et th the e te test st of co cons nsti titu tuti tion onal al competence. competen ce. $ithout these, the prosecutionBs remaining evidence evidence did not even appro(imate the )uantum of evidence necessary to warrant appellantBs conviction. conviction. %ence, the presumption of innocence on his favor stands.
PEOPLE V. )ER'GEL OL'VA G.R. NO. 122110 #ccused was was convicted convicted of arson arson and murder. murder. %&! There are " elements of arson 2? that there is intentional burning< "? that what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling. ;roof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecution for felonies and and offense. offense. Corpus delicti is the body body or substance substance of the crime. It refers to the fact that a crime has actually been been committed. Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission commission of the crime that may be proved by the testimonies testimonies of the witnesses. In arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible, may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant warrant conviction. %ere, corpus delicti of the arson and murder murder was duly proven beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE V. ELMED'O CA#ARA G.R. NO. 122498 #ccused was convicted of )ualified rape and sentence sentenced d to death. The victim was the sister of the common law wife of the accused. %&! #lthough the circumstance of relations relationship hip by affinity within the third civil degree was alleged in the information information,, evid evidence ence for the prosecutio prosecution n clea clearly rly show showed ed the lack or abse absence nce of such circumstance to )ualify the rape because the accused and the sister of the victim were common law husband and wife and were not legally married married at the time of the tape. The accused and
the victim cannot be said to be related by affinity within the third civil degree at the time of the commission of the crime.
PEOPLE V. OSCAR NOGAR G.R. NO. 133946 #ccused was convicted of statutory rape committed against a 7 year old girl. %owever %owever,, during trial, the fact of age was not proven. Can the accused be convicted convicted of simple rape when the charge against him was for statutory rapeK %&! It is too late to assail the duplicitous character of the information as no obection was raised in a motion to )uash before a plea to the information is made. The defect is deemed waived. waived.
PEOPLE V. E)REN TEMANEL G.R. NO. 9!138-39 The accused were convicted convicted of 3obbery with %omicide. They contend that that in as much as they were the only ones apprehended and held for trial, their non+flight should have been considered as indication of their innocence. %&! $hile flight indicates guilt, non+flight does not mean innocence.
PEOPLE V. ARMANDO ARMANDO ('LAT ('LATAN AN G.R. NO. 132!2" #ccused was convicted of incestuou incestuous s rape committed against his 2/ year old daught daughter. er. %e )uestions credibility of the complainant. %&! The bare denial of the accused cannot overcome the categorical categorical testimony of the victim. !enial, when unsubstantiated unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, as in this case, is a negative and self+ serving evidence which deserves no greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses who testify on affirmative matters.
PEOPLE V. PEDRO AB(NGAN G.R. NO. 136843 #ccused was was convicted convicted of murder. murder. %e died pending pending appeal. appeal. %&! The death of the appellant pending appeal and prior to the finality of conviction e(tinguished e(tinguished his criminal and civil liabilities liabilities civil liability e( delicto? arising from from the delict or crime. %ence, the criminal case against him, not the appeal, should be dismissed. %owever, it must be added that his civil liability may be based on sources sources of obligation other than delict. delict. For this reason, the victims may file a separate civil action against his estate, as may be warranted by law or procedural rules.
PEOPLE V. CAR(NGAL AND ESP'NOSA G.R. No.123299 S&. 29, 2000
This is a hold+up but a passenger was a policeman. %e was stabbed. ater a tabloid reported that his gun was found with a killed hold+upper not a party to the case. %&! In the light of positive identification, appellant's defense of alibi and denial must fail. ;ositive testimony is stronger that negative testimony, and alibi becomes worthless in the face of positive identification of the accused. For alibi to prosper it must be shown that it was physically impossible to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission place of alibi was only 6 minutes away?. &ven if there are flaws in the testimony as to who stabbed the victim is immaterial because conspiracy was proven. They mas)ueraded as passengers, positioned themselves strategically inside the eep, pulled out their knives simultaneously, concertedly inflicted stab wounds upon learning that he was a policeman. It is no moment that an accused has not taken part in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime. The precise modality or e(tent of participation of each individual conspirator becomes secondary since the act of one is the act of all. #s to the report of the gun, itit is merely hearsay hearsay.. The authors of of the newspaper newspaper reports reports had no personal knowledge of the identity of the perpetrators. 1uch was only obtained from the police investigators handling the case. This fact is of no moment for a possession thereof could have reached this person for a number of reasons.
PEOPLE V. PO2 RODEL SAMONTE G.R. No.126048 S&.29, 2000 There was a shooting incident resulting to the death of ;erez. #ccused was detailed in the Aayor's =ffice. %is revolver and a / palter was taken from him. ranch 7 ac)uitted him of the crime of homicide but ranch / found him guilty of illegal possession of firearms aggravated by homicide under ;!255. Issue $G: the doctrine of ; v 0uiada stating that )ualified illegal possession of firearms and homicide are distinct and separate offenses is still followed. %&! :o #pplying the new law 3#"@7 in ; v Aolina the Court has declared that under the amendment in said law that if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed forearm, such use of the same should only be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
PEOPLE V. #OSE PATR'ARCA G.R. No.13"4"! S&.29, 2000 #ccused was was found guilty guilty of murdering murdering a fellow member member of the :;# :;#.. #ccused #ccused now now appeals appeals on the ground that the crime of murder is an offense committed in pursuance or in furtherance of rebellion. %&! The court ac)uitted the appellant. %is application for amnesty was approved and one of the acts listed in the resolution of the :at'l #mnesty Commission is the killing of the victim in this case. The approval approval was pursuant to ;roc. ;roc. :o /@4 granting granting amnesty to all persons who shall apply apply who have committed crimes on or before 9une 2 2776 in pursuit of their political beliefs.
;ardon is granted by the Chief &(ecutive. It is a private act, which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof< while amnesty by ;roclamation of the C& with the concurrence of Congress is a public act of wGc the courts should take udicial notice. ;ardon is granted to one after conviction< while amnesty is granted to classes of person or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. ;ardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the conse)uences of an offense of which he has been convicted, it abolishes or forgives the punishment thus it does not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office or right of suffrage unless such rights be e(pressly restored by the terms of the pardon and it in no case e(empts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence #rt /5?.
PEOPLE V. GENOSA GRNo.-13"891 S&. 29, 2000 #ppellant was found #ppellant found guilty of of parricide. 1he 1he now re)uests re)uests an e(amina e(amination tion by psychologists psychologists to determine her state of mind then under the ground of the -battered woman syndrome-. %&! There are four characteristics of the syndrome2?woman believes that the violence was her fault<"?she has an inability to place the responsibility for the violence elsewhere
OCTOBER 2000 PEOPLE V. SANT'AGO GRNO.1293!1 OCT. 4, 2000 #ppellant was convicted #ppellant convicted of murder murder for shooting shooting the the victim after a prior prior street altercation altercation that erupted when the parties' vehicles collided. %&! =nly %omicide. :o treachery. Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, or as conclusively as the killing itself. $hen the witnesses did not see how the attack was carried out and cannot testify how it began, the trial court cannot presume from the circumstances of the case that there was was treachery. Treachery Treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness did
not see the commencement of the assault. 1ince the lone witness failed to witness the initial attack inflicted upon the victim, treachery cannot be considered a )ualifying circumstance. #ll the elements elements of evident premeditatio premeditation n must also also be proven. proven. ;remeditation ;remeditation to to kill must be be plain notorious and sufficiently proven by the evidence of outward acts showing the intent to kill. # 26+minute interval is not not sufficient sufficient time for the accused accused to coolly reflect reflect on their their plan to kill the victim. In one case, /> minutes was held also insufficient time between determination to commit and the e(ecution is insufficient for full meditation on the conse)uences of the act. iability of one whose participation in crime was limited to driving for the killers is only that of an accomplice. The lack of complete evidence of conspiracy, which creates the doubt whether he has acted as principal or an accomplice, implies the court to resolve the )uestion in favor of the accused.
PEOPLE V. BAANG GRNo.-131942 Oo5& ", 2000 # case of incestuous incestuous rape. %&! The %&! The fact that the hymen is intact does not prove absence of se(ual intercourse and the presence of laceration does not prove defloration. The hymen may be lacerated due to some other causes not se(ual intercourse. The )ualifying circumstance provided by 3#456 for the imposition of death penalty is present in the information++minority and relationship having been averred. %owever, it is the burden of the prosecution to prove the victim was below 2 when the rape was committed in order to ustify the imposition of the death death penalty. penalty. In this case, case, no evidence evidence was was given++not given++not even a Certificate of ive irth.
PEOPLE V. LOPE GRNo.-132168 Oo5& 10, 2000 #n old woman woman was hacked hacked to death by by appellant appellant because because of a land land dispute. dispute. %&! There was treachery. #ccused suddenly and une(pectedly grabbed the hair of the deceased and simultaneously hacked her to death. The deceased had no inkling whatsoever of the murderous intent of the accused. The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning and in a swift, deliberate and une(pected manner, affording the unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist, to avoid or escape. #buse of superiorit superiority y was proved. 1he was unarmed. The accused was a ""+year old male, in the prime of his life, and armed with a deadly weapon. 1ince aloveosia is already appreciated as a )ualifying circumstance, abuse of superiority is absorbed therein. The fact that the victim has 4 hacking wounds does not conclusively demonstrate cruelty. The number of wounds does not per se give rise to cruelty. The test is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by committing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanely increased the victim's suffering, or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse. 3ecords are bereft of evidence showing the accused continued to hack the victim when she was already dead. ;assion or obfuscation to be appreciated must arise from lawful sentiments. The act of victim demanding the family of appellant to vacate her land was not unlawful or unust. The e(ercise of a lawful right cannot be a proper source of obfuscation that may be considered a mitigating circumstance.
NOVEMBER 2000
PEOPLE V. BALMOR'A GRNo.-134"39 No7&5& 1", 2000 # case of rape rape of an an eight+year eight+year old. %&! It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their virtue because of the threat on their lives. # young girl, unlike a mature woman, can not be e(pected to have the courage and intelligence to immediately report a se(ual assault committed against her especially when a death threat hangs ver her head. $e cannot reect the testimony of victim on the ground that her / other companions were not awakened by her groans while while she was being raped. It is not impossible to commit rape in a small room even if there are several persons in it.
PEOPLE V. MOYONG 83:o.+2/6@2/+26 :ovember 26, ">>> Facts The hotel guests and manager were stabbed to death in a room. #ppellant was caught while fleeing the establishment with stained clothes. %&! # %&! # conviction based on circumstantial evidence is proper if2?there is more than ust one circumstance in attendance<"?the facts from which inferences can be derived are ade)uately proven
PEOPLE V. PACANA G.R. No.9!4!2-!3 No7. No7.20, 20, 2000 # case of murder murder and frustrated murder murder.. %&! If the accused was positively identified by the victim himself who harbored no ill motive against the former, the defense of alibi must fail. In any even the proof of motive is not indispensable for conviction when there is positive identification. Aotive assumes significance only when there is no showing of who the perpetrator of the crime might be. #n appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not effect those who did not appeal, e(cept insofar as the udgment of the appellate appellate court is favorable favorable and and applicable applicable to the latter latter.. %ence, %ence, the reduction reduction of of the indeterminate penalty for the frustrated murder case shall affect not only the appellant but also those who withdrew their appeal.
PEOPLE V. CAST(R'A
GRNo.-122819 No7 20, 2000 #ppellant was convicted #ppellant convicted of murder. murder. %&! For conspiracy to e(ist it does not re)uire an appreciable period lapsed prior to the occurence. It is sufficient that the form and manner in which the attack was accomplished clearly indicate unity of action and purpose. The accused act of mauling the victim and thereafter handling the bolo to his brother who hacked the victim.
PEOPLE V. ALVARE GRNo.-121!69 No7&5& 22, 2000 #ppellant was convicted #ppellant convicted of murder murder after after shooting shooting the victim with a bardog++a bardog++a locally locally made shotgun. %&! It %&! It is well+settled that the testimony of a self+confessed accomplice or co+conspirator imputing the blame for the killing and implicating his co+accused cannot by itself and without corroboration, be considered as proof to a moral certainty that the latter had committed or participated in the commission of the crime. Thus, it is re)uired that the testimony be substantially corroborated by other evidence in all its material points. The reason for the above cited rule is that the testimony of a co+conspirator proceeds from a polluted source. It must be received with caution because, as is usual with human nature, a culprit, confessing a crime, is likely to put to blame as far as possible on others rather than himself. The settled rule is that testimony of a witness ma be believed in part and disbelieved in part as the corroborative evidence or improbabilities of the case may re)uire. There was treachery. Jictim was unaware of the evil design of the accused and his group who concealed themselves behind colon grasses. eing unarmed, he could not offer resistance nor attempt to escape from their sudden and une(pected attack. Conspiracy was present, the assailants one after the other shot at the victim.
PEOPLE V. VELAS(E
GRNo.-13!383-84 No7. 23, 2000 #ppellantt used a toy gun in abductin #ppellan abducting g and raping raping the victim. victim. %&! The mere fact that Laren did not attempt to escape when the opportunity resented itself should not be construed as a manifestation of consent and does not necessarily negate her charge of rape or taint her credibility considering the accused employed force and intimidation. # complaina complainant's nt's act in immediately reporting reporting the the commission commission of rape is a factor in strengthening strengthening her credibility. #ppellantt imputes no #ppellan no ill motive towards the the victim to falsely accuse accuse him. In the absence absence of such such motive, it is presumed that no such motive e(ists. To support a conviction for rape, the court may rely solely on the testimony of the victim provided such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. y its nature, rape is committed with the least possibility of being seen by the public.
)EBR(ARY 2001 PEOPLE V. REYNALDO DE V'LLA GR 124639 )&51, 2001 #ccused was was charged of raping a 2"yr old minor who is is his niece by affinity. affinity.
I11*& :ature of 3ape ;enalty< $hether the death penalty should be imposed
%&! 1IA;& 3#;&M 3&C*1I=: ;&3;&T*#M #lthough, art. //6, 3;C says, death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under 2 and the offender...is a relative by affinity within the
third civil degree... such circumstances minority and relationship? are in the nature of )ualifying circumstances which should be alleged in the information and proved at the trial 3evised 3ules of Criminal ;rocedure, !ec2, ">>>?. I: T%I1 C#1&, the prosecution failed to allege the relationship of the accused with the victim, Thus the accused cannot be convicted of )ualified rape punishable by death but only simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE V. )ERNANDE GR 13!64! )&5.1, 2001 #ccused was was charged of raping the the 26yr old old daughter daughter of his his common law spouse.
%&! 1IA;& 3#;&M 3&C*1I=: ;&3;&T*#M #lthough art.//6 of the 3;C says that death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under 2 and the offender is ...the common+law spouse of the parent of the victim... having been charged only of simple rape in the information, the accused is held guilty only of simple rape with the penalty of reclusion perpetua
PEOPLE V. LA(T, LA(T, ET AL. GR 13!!"1 )&51, 2001 The three accused were charged of murder
%&! 8*ITM The !efense of self+defense and alibi was outweighed by the positive and categorical eyewitness accounts corroborated by the e(tent of hack wounds on the victim< A*3!&3M The killing was )ualified by abuse of superior strength.
PEOPLE V. BAYOD BAYOD GR 122664 )&5 ", 2001 #ccused was was charged with murder and frustrated frustrated homicide homicide
%&! #ccused is 8*IT of A*3!&3 and F3*1T3#T&! A*3!&3 not frustrated %=AICI!&. There was intent to kill and treachery, accused and his companions ganged up with advantage in number and strength, in both instances< a felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of e(ecution which would produce the felony as a conse)uence which nevertheless, do not produce it by reason or causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. In this case, timely medical attention.
PEOPLE V. BAYANG GR 134402 )&5 ", 2001 #ccused was was charged of robbery robbery with homicide homicide
%&! 8*IT and sentenced to reclusion perpetua under art. "7@, 3;C. #lthough there were := eyewitness accounts of the robbery with homicide, the circumstantial evidence presented
was sufficient to convict. *nder the revised rules on evidence, circumstantial evidence is sufficient, when a? there is more than one circumstance< b? the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven< and c? the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. In affirming convictions beyond reasonable doubt the degree of proof re)uired is :=T proof that e(cludes all possibility of error but only moral, not absolute certainty, is what the fundamental law re)uires.
PEOPLE V. PAB'LLANO GR 108618 )&5.6, 2001 #ccused was was found guilty guilty of the the comple( crime of robbery robbery with homicide by the trial trial court %&! #ccused are guilty or robbery with homicide and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua< #libi is a weak weak defense. defense. It should should be reected reected when when the identity identity of the the accused accused is sufficiently sufficiently and and positively established by eyewitnesses to the offense. :ote there is no law that a police line+up is an essential re)uisite to proper identification.
PEOPLE V. LOYOLA GR 126026 )&5.6, 2001 The trial court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua for the rape of a 25yr old girl while aboard a bus. %&! #ccused is guilty and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The defenses of alibi and denial by the accused were found unavailing in the face of positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses. :ote, no young Filipina of decent repute even in modern times, would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. #ccused was not able to prove that he and the victim were indeed lovers. ikewise, the claim of lack of force or intimidation cannot prevail. The T&1T is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that is she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. $here resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to se(ual assault. astly, an offer of marriage which occurred in this case is an admission of guilt.
PEOPLE V. RAYOS RAYOS GR 133823 )&5.!,2001 #ccused was was charged of raping a 7yr. old girl
%&! #ccused is guilty and sentenced to !&#T% in accordance with art //6 of the 3;C as amended by 3# 4567? or where on the occasion of a rape homicide was committed, the penalty is death. M The guilt of the accused was established through circumstantial evidence, taken in entirety unmistakably pointing to guilt. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted in the absence of eyewitnesses and is sufficient for conviction if, a?there is more than one circumstance< b? the facts from which that inferences were derived are proven< and c? the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE V. )RANC'SCO
GR 13"200 )&5.!,2001 The trial court found the accused guilty of )ualified rape sentencing him to death for raping his daughter.
%&! 1IA;& 3#;& with the penalty of 3eclusion ;erpetua< The prosecution failed to allege the )ualifying circumstance of relationship between the accused and the victim in the information. This is not a mere technicality but a concept of due process as provided in the Constitution.
PEOPLE V. CORDERO GR 136894-96 )&5.!, 2001 #ccused, a 5/yr old was charged charged of / counts counts of rape of the the :ana sisters, sisters, one was 2/ and and the other 26. %&! 8*IT and sentenced to reclusion perpetua on each information charged. The assertions of the accused cannot stand against the testimonies and positive identification of the two rape victims. #libi is weak and age is not a determinant of the inability to have carnal knowledge rather it is impotency, which nonetheless should be proven by the defense.
PEOPLE V. ROND'LLA GR 134368 )&5.8,2001 The accused was sentenced to death by the trial court in accordance with art //6 of the 3;C for raping his own daughter. %&! The accused is guilty but only of simple rape for the prosecution merely charged him of simple rape. :onetheless he is guilty and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. %ardly can any defense stand a chance against the unimpeached testimony of the young victim in great detail the se(ual assault. The testimony is even given greater weight when the victim accuses a close relative.
PEOPLE V. NAVARRO GR 132696 )&5.12,2001 #ccused was was convicted convicted by the trial court for for the crime crime of murder murder with the use use of an unlicense unlicensed d firearm. %&! 8*ITM Trial court #ffirmed and the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The crime was murder because the killing was attended with treachery. There was no opportunity for the deceased to retaliate or defend himself, the particular means employed which was the use of a motor vehicle, and, the circumstance of nighttime, all point to the nature of the killing. =n the issue of the firearm, there can be no separate conviction for the illegal use of a firearm. #s the law now stands, this is merely considered as an aggravating circumstance ;.!. 255 as amended by 3# "7@?. 1ince the death penalty was not yet effective at the time of the offense,
the penalty is reclusion perpetua. The original penalty for murder was reclusion temporal but since there was an aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty was raised to reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE. V. OPTANA GR 133922 )&5.12,2001 @ informations for the violation of the sec. 6 3#452> 1pecial ;rotection of Children against Child #buse? and @ informations for rape were filed against the accused. %&! The 1C affirms the decision of the trial court convicting the accused for one incident of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and one charge violating 3#452>, sentencing him to suffer yrs and 2 day of prison mayor as minimum to 24 yrs. and @mos of reclusion temporal as ma(imum. ma(i mum. The oth other er info informat rmations ions fail failed ed to be pro proven ven bey beyond ond reas reasona onable ble dou doubt. bt. ike ikewise wise,, charging the accused with two different offenses for the same act committed on the same date against the same victim is erroneous and illegal e(cept where the law itself so allows. This is not allowed by 3#452>. It specifically provides that in instances where the victim is under 2", the case should fall under art. //6 of the 3;C, thus only cases where the victim is over 2" but under 2 can fall under this law. In the case at bar, where the accused was charged for several occasions of rape and abuse the conviction or ac)uittal on the informations was based on the age of the child, the concept of non+multiplicity of suits, and the evidence presented. presented. Thus, only one rape case prospered incident when the child was below 2"? and one violation of 3#452> when the child was above 2" but below 2?.
PEOPLE V. VELASCO GR 128089 )&513,2001 The accused was indicted for parricide under art "@5 of the 3;C for the killing of his wife.
%&! The accused is guilty of parricide and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. ;arricide is committed when 2? a person is killed< "?the deceased is killed by the accused< /?the deceased is the...or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element is the relation of the offender to the victim. In case of a marital relationship the best evidence is the marriage certificate. The own testimony of the accused as married to the victim may also be taken as an admission against penal interest. The case was proved through circumstantial evidence sufficiently establishing the malefactor, destroying the presumption of innocence, and fulfilling the standard of moral certainty. Circumstantial evidence may be resorted in the absence of eyewitnesses and is sufficient for conviction if, a?there is more than one circumstance< b? the facts from which that inferences were derived are proven< and c? the combination of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Further, a conviction based on such can be upheld if the circumstances established would lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the e(clusion of all others, as the author of the crime.
PEOPLE V. PERE GR 134!"6 )&5.13,2001 #ccused was was found guilty guilty of murder murder and sentence sentenced d to reclusion reclusion perpetua perpetua by the the trial court. court.
%&! #ccused is guilty of murder. # frontal attack does not necessarily rule out treachery. #lthough the shots shots were taken taken facing the the accused, accused, according according to witnesses, witnesses, the the victim was was eating merienda with her back turned to the accused when he came< the victim only stood and faced him after he cursed her. The accused deliberately sought the manner of the attack, going to the victim's barangay, armed with a pistol, approaching the victim from behind and shooting her at close range. Treachery was present. The attack was sudden and the victim was defenseless, had no opportunity to escape, and lastly, there was no risk to the accused when he fired his gun.
PEOPLE V. G(MAN GR 11!9"2-"3 )&5.14,2001 The accused was found guilty by the trial court of violating 3# 5@"6 !angerous !rugs #ct of 274"?.
%&! The accused is 8*IT. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto, possessing an unlicensed firearm. The search conducted thereafter was valid. It was within the immediate control of the arrested person. ikewise, the drugs and paraphernalia obtained where in plain view of the police when the accused was arrested. 0uoting ;&=;& v. Lhor, the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are 2? the accused is in possession of an item or obect which is identified as a prohibited drug< "? such possession is not authorized by law< and /? the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. #ll elements concurring, the accused is thus guilty. astly, the accused failed to )uash the information against him before arraignment thus he is estopped from )uestioning the legality of his arrest.
PEOPLE V. YBANE GR 1362"! )&5.14, 2001 #ccused was charged of raping a 2>yr old girl who is the daughter of his common law spouse. %e was sentenced to death by the trial court. %&! #ccused was sentenced by the 1C to reclusion perpetua convicting him only of simple rape. The prosecution failed to indicate the relationship of the accused to the victim in the information thus merely charging banez of simple rape. Convicting the accused of an offense not specifically charged in the complaint is a violation of his right to due process.
PEOPLE V. AVEC'LLA AVEC'LLA GR11!033 )&5.1", 2001 #ccused was was charged of )ualified )ualified illegal possession possession of a firearm< firearm< accused willfully willfully,, unlawfully, unlawfully, and feloniously with intent to kill, and actually killing a victim as a conse)uence, possess and carry an unlicensed firearm. I11*& Conviction and 3etroactivity of 3#"7@ #n act #mending the ;rovisions of ;! 255? %&! 1C dismissed the case. =riginally he could have been convicted of illegally possessing a firearm separately from his conviction on the killing that occurred as a conse)uence thereof,
which happened in 2772. $ith the passage of 3# "7@ in 2774 amending ;!255, the possession of an unlicensed firearm has become merely an aggravating circumstance to a murder or homicide charge. #s a general rule, penal laws have prospective effect &NC&;T where the new law will be advantageous to the accused, as in this case, sparing him of two separate convictions.
PEOPLE V. PAGDAYAON GR 130"22 )&5.1",2001 #ccused, a police officer officer was was charged of raping his 22yr 22yr.. =ld stepdaugh stepdaughter. ter. oth circumstances, circumstances, minority and relationship was indicated in the complaint. The trial court sentenced the accused to death. %&! The accused is guilty. The witness is credible and there was indeed force and intimidation in the act. The penalty prescribed by the trial court was also correct. *nder art//6 of the 3;C, death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is under 2 and the offender is the stepparent of the victim. 1uch information was formally included in the charge.
PEOPLE V. B. T(MANON GR 13"066, )&5.1", 2001 The accused were charged on murder.
%&! The accused are guilty of murder. There was abuse of superior strength shown through superiority in number and the use of arms. To take advantage of superior strength is to use force out of proportion to the means available to the person attacked to defend himself. Conspiracy was also present. It is not necessary that there be a previous plan or agreement to commit the assault. It is sufficient that at the time of the aggression, all the accused, by their acts, gave evidence of common intent to kill the victim, so that the act of one becomes the act of all and all of them will thus be liable as principals.
PEOPLE 7. NAAG GR No. 136394 )&5. 1", 2001 #ccused was was charged and found found guilty by the lower court court of the the special comple( crime crime of robbery with rape.
I11*& $as there rapeK $as he guilty of the special comple( crime of robbery with rapeK
%&! There was rape. In rape cases, what is material is that there is penetration no matter how slight. The only essential point is to prove the entrance or at least the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum. The moment the accusedOs penis knocks at the door of the of the pudenda it suffices to constitute the crime of rape. #ccused is guilty of separate crimes of rape and theft. Facts show that the primary intent of accused was to rape the victim
and not to rob her. Aoreover, the crime of taking away the property is theft and not robbery because of the absence of violence and intimidation.
PEOPLE 7. MACAYA MACAYA GR No. 13!18"-86 )&5 1", 2001 #ccused was was charged of raping the the two children children of his common+law common+law spouse spouse in two separate separate complaints and was found guilty in both cases and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua in one case and death in the other.
%&! :=. The accused was charged only with simple rape. *nder #rt. /66 of the 3evised ;enal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed when rape is committed against a victim who is under 2 years of age, and the offender among other circumstances, is the common+law spouse of the parent of the victim. ut these circumstances must be alleged in the complaint or information. =therwise, even if the minority of the victim and the relationship of the victim and the accused are established during the trial, he cannot be punished for a graver offense than that with which he is charged. %e can only be convicted of simple rape the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE 7. ALB'OR GR No. 11"0!9 )&5 19, 2001 #ccused was was charged and found found guilty by the lower court court of rape rape and was was sentenced sentenced to a penalty of reclusion perpetua.
I11*& Is the absence of spermatozoa in the victimOs genitalia negate rapeK !o minor inconsistencies inconsiste ncies in victimOs testimonies destroy credibilityK
%&! #bsence of spermatozoa in the victimOs genitalia does not negate rape. Further, as for appellantOs claim that the victim did not suffer complete lacerations and other signs of physical violence, suffice it to say that even the absence of hymenal laceration does not rule out se(ual abuse, especially when the victim is of tender age. :or is it necessary for the victim to suffer e(ternal inuries in order for the crime of rape to be established. #s for the minor inconsistencies, these are badges of truthfulness and candor for they erase the suspicion the testimony was rehearsed. #lso, victims are not e(pected to have a total recall of the incident.
PEOPLE 7. NAVARRA NAVARRA GR No. 119361, )&5 19, 2001 The accused+appellants were charged and found guilty by the 3TC of illegal recruitment committed in a large scale resulting to economic sabotage and sentenced to life imprisonment.
I11*& !id the 3TC err in disregarding their defense of denial and in finding them guilty of the offense charged.
%&! !enials, without clear and convincing evidence to support them, can not sway udgement. udgemen t. They are self+serving self+serving statements statements and and are inherently inherently weak. weak. !ecision of lower court court affirmed. Illegal recruitment has " essential elements first, the offender has no valid license or authority re)uired by law to enable him to lawfully engage in recruitment or placement of workers< second, the offender undertakes any activity within the meaning of recruitment and placement defined under #rticle 2/ b?, or any prohibited practices enumerated under #rt /@ of the abor Code. # non+licensee or non+holder of authority means any person, corporation or entity without a valid license or authority to engage in recruitment or placement from the 1ecretary of abor, or whose license or authority has been suspended, revoked or cancelled by the ;=&# or the 1ec. of abor. *nder #rticle 2/ b? of the abor Code, recruitment and placement refer to, any act of canvassing, enlisting, contracting, transporting, utilizing, hiring, or procuring workers, and includes referrals, contract services, promising, or advertising for employment, locally or abroad, for profit or not ;rovided, that any person or entity which in any manner, offers or promises for a fee employment to " or more persons shall be deemed engaged in recruitment or placement. #ccused+appellants #ccused+a ppellants committed acts of recruitment recruitment and and placement, placement, such as promises promises to the complainants of profitable employment abroad and acceptance of placement fees. They were also not authorized to recruit workers for overseas employment as certified by the !=&. #rt. / b? of the abor Code provides that illegal recruitment shall be considered an offense involving economic sabotage if any of the following )ualifying circumstances e(ists first, when illegal recruitment is committed by a syndicate< second when it is committed in a large scale, committed against three or more persons individually or as a group.
PEOPLE 7. BLAO GR No. 12!111 )&5 19, 2001 #ccused was was charged and found found guilty of of rape and and was sentenced sentenced to suffer the the penalty penalty of reclusion perpetua.
I11*& $hether the prosecution proved the accusedOs guilt beyond reasonable doubtK
%&! !elay in criminal accusation is not an indication of a fabricated charge, if such charge is satisfactorily e(plained. # young girl, such as the victim in this case, cannot be e(pected to have the courage and intelligence of a mature woman to immediately report her defilement, especially when accompanied by a death threat. # medical e(amination and a medical certificate are merely corroborative and are not indispensable to the prosecution of a rape case. acerations of the hymen, while considered as the most telling and irrefutable physical evidence of a penile invasion, are not always necessary to establish the commission of rape, where other evidence is available to show consummation
PEOPLE 7. M(R'LLO GR No. 1288"1-"6 )&5 19, 2001
#ccused were were charge and found found guilty of of rape and and were sentenced sentenced to death. death.
I11*& $hether the penalty of death was correctK
%&! :=. The death sentence given to the accused was based on the following attendant circumstances first, the victim is under the custody of the police or military officers, and second, when committed by and member of the #rmed Forces of the ;hilippines or the ;hilippine :ational ;olice or any law enforcement agency. To merit the punishment of death, these circumstances must be properly alleged in the information. For the prosecutionOs failure to do so, these circumstances cannot be appreciated as aggravating circumstances, therefore the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE 7. MOL'NA GR No. 13391! )&5 19, 2001 #ccused were were charged charged and found found guilty of violating violating the !angerous !angerous !rugs !rugs #ct #ct of 274" 274" for having having in their possession
[email protected] grams of mariuana and were sentenced to death.
%&! :=. #ccused+appellants manifested no outward indication that would ustify their arrest. In holding a bag on board a trisikad, accused+appellants could not be said to be committing, attempting to commit, or have committed a crime. There was no probable cause in arresting the accused thus making the arrest illegal. ecause the arrest was illegal, so was the search made by the police officers. This being the case, the evidence is inadmissible and the accused are found not guilty of the alleged offense.
PEOPLE 7: A'NG GR No. 133919-20 )&5 19, 2001 #ccused was was charged and found found guilty of of " counts counts of rape against his his stepdaughter stepdaughter..
I11*& $hether the lower court gave him the correct sentence of deathK
%&! :=. 1ec. 22 of 3.#. :o. 4567 imposes the death penalty when the rape victim is under 2 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common+law spouse of the victimOs parent. oth the age of the offended party and the filiation or kinship with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. In this case, complainantOs age n the accusatory portion of the informations were omitted, hence appellant was only charged of simple rape and not )ualified rape. The proper penalty to be imposed to the appellant is reclusion perpetua and not death.
PEOPLE 7. TOLENT'NO
GR No. 139834 )&5 19, 2001 #ccused was was charged and convicted convicted for committing committing the the crime of rape.
%&! Jictim will not go through the humiliation if it is not to seek ustice, hence her testimony is credible. #lso, there was no showing that the victim was impelled by ill motive to testify against the accused. Conviction for rape may be based on circumstantial evidence when the victim cannot testify on the actual commission of the rape because she was unconscious when the act was committed, provided that one circumstance is duly proved and the totality or the unbroken chain of the circumstances proven lead to no other logical conclusion than accusedOs guilt.
PEOPLE 7. M(STAPA GR No. 141244 )&5. 19, 2001 #ccused was was charged and found found guilty of of violating 1ec. 25 of of 3# :o 5@"6 5@"6 !angerous !angerous !rugs #ct? and sentencin sentencing g him to suffer suffer the penalty of of reclusion perpetua perpetua..
I11*& $hether the court erred in not appreciating the accusedOs testimony denying ownership of bag containing shabuK
%&! ower CourtOs decision affirmed. !enial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The defense of denial or frame+up, like alibi, has been viewed by courts with disfavor for it can easily be concocted and is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violation of the !angerous !rugs #ct. #lso, issues raised by the defense are factual and involves credibility of witnesses, a matter addressed to the trial court because it is in a better position to decide such )uestions. It is a well+entrenched doctrine that the trial courtOs findings are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. #lso, minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses refer merely to minor details and does not impair the credibility of witnesses. $itnesses are not e(pected to remember everything that happened in e(act detail, since a long time has already lapsed.
PEOPLE 7. CONSE#ERO GR No. 118334 )&5 20, 2001 #ccused+appellant was #ccused+appellant was charged and found found guilty of of the crime of robbery robbery with homicide homicide and was was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. I11*&
$hether
accused+appellant
was
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubtK
%&! The circumstances proved constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair conclusion, that the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances or a combination thereof should point to overt acts of the appellant that would logically lead to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty. 3ule 22/, 1ec @ of the 3ules of Court provides the
re)uisites for the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence a? there is more than one circumstance< b? facts from which the inferences are derived are proven< and c? combination of all the circumstances is such to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. %owever, the crime committed was not robbery with homicide< in this case, the primary purpose of the accused was not to rob but to take the life of the victim, the taking of property came only as an afterthought subse)uent to the killings. The crimes committed are separate offenses of homicide, murder, and theft.
PEOPLE 7. T'O GR No:. 132482-83 )&5 20, 2001 #ccused was was charged and found found guilty of of committing the crime of murder )ualified )ualified by treachery and with the aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed firearm and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. I11*& $hether relationship of witnesses to the victim affects their credibilityK
%&! :=. 3elationship per se does no give rise to a presumption of bias or ulterior motive, nor does it ipso facto impair the credibility or tarnish the testimony of the witnesses. The eyewitnesses were not shown to have any ill feeling or resentment against the appellant as to prevaricate and impute upon him a heinous crime. esides, there is also a mere chance witness that pointed to the appellant as the assailant and whose account of the incident coincided with the accounts of the other witnesses. Aoreover, the eyewitness accounts of the prosecution witnesses not only reinforced and corroborated each other but were also confirmed by the physical evidence.
PEOPLE 7. END'NO GR. No. 133026 )&5 20, 2001 The crime of murder was charged against accused &ndino and accused+appellant 8algarin. 8algarin was arrested and convicted for the crime of murder )ualified by treachery, while on the other hand &ndino remained at large. %&! #dmission of videotaped confessions is proper. The interview was recorded on video and it showed accused+appellant unburdening unburdening his guilt willingly, openly openly and publicly in the presence of newsmen. 1uch confession does not form part of custodial investigation, as it was not given to police officers but to media men in an attempt to elicit sympathy and forgiveness from the public.
PEOPLE 7. DE LEON GR No. 12429! )&5 21, 2001 #ccused+appellant was #ccused+appellant was charge and convicted convicted of several several counts counts of the crime of rape rape and was was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death.
%&! 8*IT. 3ule 22>, 1ec. 22 provides that it is not necessary for the information to allege the e(act date and the time of the commission of the crime is such is not an essential ingredient of the offense. In the crime of rape, the date of the commission is not an essential element. The delay in reporting the crime committed can also be attributed to the tender age of the victim and the moral ascendancy of the accused over the victim. =ftentimes, a rape victim's actions are moved by fear rather than by reason, and because of this, failure of the victim to report the crime immediately is not indicative of fabrication. #lso, victims are not e(pected to recall the e(act and accurate account of their traumatic e(periences. %owever, accused cannot be sentenced to death because the information against him failed to allege victimOs minority and her relationship to the accused. 3# 4567 enumerates the circumstances that ustify the imposition of the death penalty. Consistent with the accusedOs right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him, these circumstances must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information and proven during the trial. #ccused is guilty only of simple rape and sentenced only to reclusion perpetua on each count of rape.
PEOPLE V. (N'EGA GR 12611! )&5. 21,2001 #ccused was was charged for the murder murder of a certain #uero #uero..
%&! #ccused is guilty of murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua since the accused was found guilty by the trial court prior to the effectivity of the death penalty law the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua?. The facts show that the accused perpetrated the crime in such a way that he easily rendered his victim totally defenseless, with no opportunity to escape or defend himself, and without the slightest provocation. :=T& 2?The circumstance that the udge who penned the decision did not personally hear the testimonies of witnesses does not disturb the decision more so when the udgment is supported by evidence on record such as the transcript of stenographic notes. "? Failure of a witness to reveal at once the identity of the perpetrator of a felony does not impair the credibility of the witness more so if the delay has been ade)uately e(plained, such as due to fear of a great danger to his life andGor his family.
PEOPLE V. BOL'VAR GR130"9! )&5. 21, 2001 Three accused were charged of murder.
%&! The accused were guilty of murder and were sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The accused alibi cannot prosper against positive identification of prosecution witnesses. For alibi to prosper " re)uisites must concur 2? accused must prove that he was at another place at the time of the crime< and "?the accused must demonstrate that it would be physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. The court also found that there was conspiracy, as inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the crime, which are indicative of a oint purpose, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments.
PEOPLE V. VELAS(E GR13263" * 1438!2-!" )&5. 21, 2001
#ccused was was found guilty guilty by the the trial court court of #cts of ascivious asciviousness ness against against his " yr. yr. old granddaughter and the crime of 3ape against his alleged stepdaughter who is a minor. %e was sentenced to death for the rape. %&! 1C found the accused guilty of acts of lasciviousness and simple rape which modified his sentence for the rape to reclusion perpetua. :=T& #?=n the 2st charge acts of lasciviousness... 2?y failing to invoke the lack of a preliminary investigation during the trial, the court deems that the accused has waived the same< "?The testimony of the mother of the " yr. =ld childGvictim is sufficient considering the victim's age and the medical e(amination conducted. ? =n "nd charge rape of his alleged minor stepdaughter...2?The sole testimony of the victim is sufficient< "? The three yr. delay in the filing of a complaint does not necessarily mean that the charge was fabricated. The delay was due to fear< /? The penalty for the rape is reclusion perpetua since the court found the marriage of the accused to the victim's mother as doubtful, the information against the accused being different from what was actually proven, that the relationship of the accused to the victim is one of daughter of a common law spouse, the crime was considered as only simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE V. MANALO GR 13"964-!1 )&5. 21, 2001 #ccused was was charged of counts counts of rape of two minors minors @ counts counts of rape rape for each child?. =ne was 5 yrs. old and the other 4. %&! The accused is guilty and is sentenced to death. #ccording to art.//6 of the 3;C, the death penalty shall be imposed if rape is committed on a child below seven yrs. of age.
PEOPLE 7. )ERNANDO SABALAN G.R. No. No. 134"29. )&5$ay 26, 2001. #ccused was convicted of incestuou incestuous s rape r ape raped 2"+yr old daughter?, and meted out with the supreme penalty of death. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court, but lowered the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The settled rule is that when the issue involves the credibility of a witness, the trial court's assessment is entitled to great weight, even finality, unless it is shown that it was tainted with arbitrariness or there was an oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence. It must be stressed that the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance, particularly when intimidation is e(ercised upon the victim and the latter submits herse he rself lf to th the e rap rapist ist's 's wil willl fo forr fe fear ar fo forr lif life e or pe perso rsona nall sa safe fety ty.. It suf suffic fices es tha thatt th the e thr threa eatt or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused+appellant, the threat would be carried out. #ccused was meted out with the penalty of reclusion perpetua, since the special circumstance of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender was not alleged and proven. In the case at bar, the information alleged the special )ualifying circumstance of relationship and minority. The prosecution evidence, however, is insufficient to prove the minority of the victim. esides the bare declaration of the victim as to her age, there was no independent evidence presented by the prosecution that could accurately show her age. $e have held that the
minority of the victim must be proved with e)ual certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Failure to sufficiently establish the victim's age will bar any finding of rape in its )ualified form.
PEOPLE O) TE P'L 7. RAYM(NDO V'SAYA G.R. No. 13696! )&5$ay 26, 2001 #ccused was was convicted of murder with circumstances circumstances of treachery treachery and conspiracy?, conspiracy?, and meted out with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court. It is well settled that conspiracy e(ists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a crime and decide to commit it. The presence of the element of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by their conduct before, during or after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design. In such case, the act of one becomes the act of all, and each of the accused will thereby be deemed e)ually guilty of the crime committed. The prosecution was able to establish that accused and the other suspects, by their acts at the time of the aggression, manifested a common intent or desire to kill the victim, so that the act of Jisaya became also the act of appellant =campo. Aoreover, their coordinated escape from the crime scene when somebody shouted -sibat na- confirmed the e(istence of conspiracy. $ith regard to the circumstance of treachery, it e(ists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the e(ecution of the offense which tend directly and specially to insure its e(ecution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In the cas case e at ba bar, r, the ev evide idence nce sh show owed ed tha thatt the un unsus suspe pecti cting ng vic victim tim wa was s co compl mplete etely ly unprepared for the une(pected attack as he was facing a wall and totally deprived of a chance to ward off or escape from the criminal assault.
TE PEOPLE 7. EDGAR CAAY CAAYAN y CR( G.R. No. 12811!. )&5$ay 28, 2001. #ccused was found guilty of murder attended by the generic aggravating aggravating circumstance that the crime was committed in the dwelling of the offended party morada?, but offset by the alternative mitigating circumstance of into(ication. %e was sentenced to the penalty of 3eclusion ;erpetua. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court. Two witnesses, Jilma and Aaricris, positively identified accused+appellant as the assailant. #ccused's alibi cannot overcome the eyeball testimonies, especially since it has not been shown that it was impossible for him to be physically at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. For the defense of alibi to prosper, it is not enough that the accused can prove his being at another place at the time of its commission< it is likewise essential that he can show physical impossibility for him to be at the locus delicti.
PEOPLE 7. DAN'EL MA(R'C'O Y PERE G.R. No. No. 13369". )&5$ay 28, 2001. The trial court found accused guilty of raping his 22+yr old daughter and sentenced him to death. %e was also found guilty of attempted rape in the other case, and sentenced to seventeen 24? years, four @? months, and one 2? day to twenty ">? years of reclusion temporal ma(imum.
%&! $ith regard to the first criminal case, the 1C convicted the accused of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. In the case at bar, although the Information did properly allege the complain comp lainant' ant's s mino minority rity,, it fail failed ed to spec specify ify the rela relation tionship ship betw between een the comp complain lainant ant and accused+appellant. It is not enough that the relationship was subse)uently proved during the trial. oth relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to )ualify the crime as punishable by death. $ith regard to the second criminal case, the 1C ruled that the evidence on record cannot sustain a conviction for attempted rape. 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 e(ecution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. #pplying the above definition to the facts of the case, it would be stretching the imagination to construe the act of the accused of throwing the victim to her bed as an overt act that will -logically and necessarily ripen- into rape. The e(ternal act must have a direct and necessary connection with the crime that the accused intended to commit. $hether accused indeed intended to commit the crime of rape cannot be seen merely from this particular act. Thus, accused should be ac)uitted of the charge of attempted rape.
PEOPLE 7. CASTAN'TO GANO G.R. No. 1343!3 )&5$ay 28, 2001 #ccused was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide, and sentenc sentenced ed to the penalty of death. The core issue now before us is whether the three /? killings should be appreciated as separate aggravating circumstances to warrant the imposition of the penalty of death. %&! The 1C found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide, but imposed the penalty of reclusion perpe pe rpetua tua.. It sho should uld be no noted ted th that at the there re is no law pro provid viding ing th that at th the e ad addit ditio iona nall rap rapeGs eGs or homicideGs should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under #rticle 2@ of the 3evised ;enal Code is e(clusive as opposed to the enumeration in #rticle 2/ of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph paragraph 2>? providing for analogous circumstances. It is true that the additiona additionall rapes or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery? would result in an -anomalous situation- where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. %owever, the remedy lies with the legislature. # penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute.
PEOPLE O) TE P'L 7. BLES'E VELASCO G.R. No:. 13"231-33 )&5$ay 28, 2001 The accused was convicted of / counts of rape rape of his 2"+yr old stepdaughter?, and sentenced to death for each count. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court. In )ualified rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must both be alleged and proved with certainty, otherwise the death penalty cannot be imposed. 1ince the allegation of minority twelve 2" years old? in the Informations Informations was establish established ed by the complainant herself, who is considered competent to testify on her age as it constitutes an
assertion of family tradition, 54 and by the open admission of the accused as well as the categorical finding of the trial court, then such fact is deemed established with certainty. In this case,, the birth cert case certific ificate ate or any other off officia iciall doc documen umentt prov proving ing minority serves no oth other er purpose than to corroborate the testimonies of the competent witnesses and the categorical finding of the trial court. The second circumstance to be established is the relationship of the accused to the complaining witness. In this case, such a relationship was also shown by the testimonies of witnesses.
PEOPLE 7. )'LOMENO SERRANO G.R. No. 13!480 )&5$ay 28, 2001 #ccused was convicted for the crime of rape, aggrava aggravated ted by the fact that the victim was the minor daughter of the accused. %e was sentenced to suffer the penalty of !&#T%. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court. In imposing the penalty of death, the trial court took into consideration the testimonial and documentary evidence adduced. The 1C agreed that it has been duly established that the victim is the daughter of accused+appellant and that she was only thirteen years old at the time of her se(ual assault. ;roof of these circumstances are the marriage contract between accused+appellant and #deluisa -#del-? iato #gos, and the certificate of live birth of victim indicating therein that she was the second child of accused+ appellantt and #deluisa -#del-? iato #gos, and that she was born on 9une 2/, 27/. #ccused+ appellan appellantt never disowned this relationship when he was put on the stand during the trial. There appellan was likewise no competent evidence presented by accused+appellant to rebut the documents presented by the prosecution.
PEOPLE 7. RE)ORMADOR V'DAL y BALLADARES G.R. No. No. 13!946. )&5$ay 28, 2001. #ccused was was found guilty guilty of the the crime of of rape, and and was sentenced sentenced to suffer the the penalty penalty of reclusion perpetua. %&! The 1C upheld the decision of the lower court. The issues raised by accused+appellant boil down do wn to a )u )uest estion ion of the cre credib dibili ility ty of the co compl mplain ainan ant's t's te testi stimon mony y. Th The e 1C fou found nd the contentions to be without merit. First. The 1C found no reason to reverse the findings of the trial court that complainant was raped. It is settled that the evaluation by the trial court of the testim tes timony ony of a wit witne ness ss is acc accord orded ed the highes highestt res respe pect ct be beca cause use th the e tri trial al co court urt ha had d the oppo op portu rtuni nity ty to ob obser serve ve th the e fac facial ial e( e(pre pressi ssion on,, ge gestu sture re,, an and d voi voice ce ton tone e of a wit witne ness ss wh while ile testifyi test ifying ng and and,, the therefo refore, re, comp competen etentt to dete determin rmine e whe whether ther or not the witn witness ess is tell telling ing the truth. Furthermore Furthermore,, the alleged inconsistency is minor and inconse)uential inconse)uential in nature and does not detract from the fact that complainant was raped. 1econ 1e cond. d. In rap rape e ca cases ses,, the pro prosec secut ution ion is no nott bo bound und to pre prese sent nt wit witne nesse sses s oth other er tha than n compl co mplain ainan antt he herse rself, lf, as ac accus cused ed+ap +appe pella llant nt may be con convic victed ted so solel lely y on the te testi stimon mony y of complainant, provided the same is credible, natural, convincing, and otherwise consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. The testimony of complainant complied with such standards. Third. The failure of complainant to shout or offer tenacious resistance does not imply her submission to accused+appellant's desires. To be sure, it is not re)uired that the victim of rape resists her assailant unto death. #ll that is necessary is that the force or intimidation employed against complainant enabled the assailant to effect se(ual penetration.
Fourth. The absence of fresh inuries in complainant's private part does not negate rape as proof of hymenal lacerations is not an element of rape. Fifth. #ccused+appe #ccused+appellant's llant's contention that he and complainant were lovers is not worthy of any consideration at all. %e presented no witness to corroborate corroborate his claim. 1i(th. $hile it is true that flight raises the presumption presumption of guilt on the part of an accused, the converse does not necessarily mean innocence. innocence. There is no rule that, in every instance, the fact that the accused did not flee is a proof of his innocen innocence. ce. It is not unnatural for a criminal, as in this case, to desist from leaving the place where the crime was committed to feign innocence.
TE PEOPLE 7. SANDY 'NTO y B(ENO G.R. No:. No:. 138146-91. )&5$ay 28, 2001. In the first criminal case, accused was found guilty of the crime of rape, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. %e was also found guilty of @6 counts of acts of lasciviousness, there being the presence of the aggravating circumstance of relationship. %e was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve 2"? years, as minimum, to fifteen 26? years, both of reclusion temporal, as ma(imum, in each of the forty+five @6? cases and to pay the costs of the suit. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court. $ith regard to the credibility of witnesses, settled is the rule that the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of the testimony of witnesses is entitled to great respect. *nless shown that it has overlooked some facts which would affect the result of the case, the trial court's factual findings will not be disturbed by the appellate court. $ith regard to the defense of alibi, it is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, there must be proof not only that the accused was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. *nder #rt. //6, par. 42? of the 3evised ;enal Code, as amended by 3.#. 4567, if the victim is under eighteen 2? years of age and the offender is a common+law spouse of the parent of the victim, the imposable penalty is death. In these cases, the information for rape alleges that the victim was under 2 years of age at the time she was raped and that accused+appellant is the common+law spouse of her mother. %er birth certificate was offered as evidence in this case. It was also proven during the trial that accused+appellant is the common+law spouse of the victimBs mother. Considering the foregoing, the 1C was constrained to affirm the death sentence imposed by the trial court on accused+appellant.
PEOPLE 7. EDGARDO MACEDA G.R. No. 13880" )&5$ay 28, 2001 #ccused was convicted convicted for the crime of rape of a mental retardate, retardate, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. %&! $ith regard to the contention of accused that the prosecution failed to prove that force or intimidation was used against complainant, the 1C found the contention to be unmeritorious. To begin with, under #rt. "55+# 2?a? of the 3evised ;enal Code, as amended, /@ the crime of rape may be committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation. The force necessary in rape is relative. The intimidation must be udged in the light of the victim's perception and udgment at the time of the commission of the crime, and not by any hard and fast rule. It must be stressed that complainant in this case does not
possess the intelligence of an average individual. Indisputably, her mental faculties are different from those of a fully+functioning adult< hence, the degree of force or intimidation needed to overwhelm her is less than what it would take to frighten an ordinary woman. Furthermore, it is erroneous for accused+appellant to contend that no rape was committed because the prosecution failed to prove that the mental age of the victim was e)uivalent to a girl below 2" years old. It must be emphasized that this re)uirement is necessary if the charge is statutory rape under #rt. "55+#, par. 2d?. In this case, complainant was deprived of reason, and, under #rt. "55+#, par. 2b? of the 3evised ;enal Code, having se(ual intercourse with her, even if accomplished without the use of force or intimidation, constitutes rape. %owever, the trial court erred when it imposed the penalty of death on accused+appellant under #rt. "55+ 2>? 2>? of the 3;C. True True enough, enough, accused+appella accused+appellant nt knew of the mental mental condition condition of the victim prior to and at the time of the incident, as evidenced by his own admission in open court. e that as it may, accused+appellant cannot be meted the death penalty. *nder #rt. "55+ in relat rel ation ion to #rt. "5 "55+# 5+#,, pa par. r. 2?, of th the e 3e 3evis vised ed ;e ;ena nall Cod Code, e, as ame amend nded ed,, sim simple ple rap rape e is punishable punishab le by reclusion perpetua. perpetua. $hen rape is committed by an assailant who has knowledge of the victim's mental retardation, the penalty is increased to death. This circumstance must, however, be alleged in the information because it is a )ualifying circumstance which increases the penalty and cha change nges s the nature of the offense. offense. In thi this s case case,, whil while e accu accused+ sed+appe appellan llantt admitted that he knew complainant to be a mental retardate, this fact was not alleged in the information. Therefore, even if it was proved, it cannot be appreciated as a )ualifying, but only as a generic aggravating, circumstance. #ccordingly, accused+appellant must be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the crime of simple rape.
MARC 2001 PEOPLE 7. ROBERT N(;E N(;E y LAGASCA G.R. No. 112092. Ma< 1, 2001. #ccused was was found guilty of Illegal Illegal possession possession of firearm resulting resulting to the death death of the victim and and pursuantt to ;.!. pursuan ;.!. 255 in relation to the 274 Constitution the court sentenc sentences es the said accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and with costs. %&! #ppellantt was convicted #ppellan convicted of -illegal possession possession of firearms firearms resulting resulting to the death of the victim.- #t the time of the commission of the crime, the e(isting urisprudence was ;eople v. 0uiada. The 1C held then that the use of an unlicensed firearm in a killing results in two separate crimes P one for the aggravat aggravated ed form of illegal possession of firearm and two, for homicide or murder murder.. In the meantime, meantime, how however ever,, Con Congres gress s pas passed sed 3ep 3epubli ublic c #ct :o. "7 "7@, @, "4 whic which h lowe lowered red the penalties for illegal possession of firearms. Further, 1ection 2, third par. of 3.#. :o. "7@ provides P If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In the present case, there were four cases filed against appellant which were all separately tried. %ence, the evidence as to the homicide and frustrated homicide cases were neither adopted nor presented before the trial court trying the illegal possession case. For this reason, there is a dearth of evidence on record to support the finding of homicide andGor frustrated homicide. The Court held that accordingly, appellant should only be convicted of simple illegal possession of fir firea earms rms.. Th The e low lowere ered d pe pena nalti lties es as pro provid vided ed in 3.# 3.#.. :o :o.. " "7@, 7@, be bein ing g fav favora orable ble to th the e accused, should be applied retroactively.
PEOPLE 7. PEDRO SASPA, ET AL. AL. G.R. No. 123069 Ma< 1, 2001 The trial court found both ;edro 1aspa and 3afael 1umiling principally liable for the murder of Isidro %ayo, and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, together with its accessory penalties, and ordered them to indemnify the heirs of the victim in the amount of ;6>,>>>.>>. %&! The 1C affirmed the trial court's holding that appellants employed superior strength in the e(ecution of the crime, thus )ualifying the killing to murder. $hen appellants attacked the victim, they had the advantage of numerical superiority and were carrying high+powered firearms< whereas the victim was unarmed and utterly defenseless, not to mention that he was taken by surprise by the swiftness of the assault. Clearly, there was a notorious ine)uality between the strength of the victim and his assailants. The Court, however, did not sustain the trial court's appreciation of the aggravating circumstances of band and ignominy. # band consists of at least four armed malefactors acting together in the commission of an offense. The prosecution failed to prove that there were at least four armed men P Thelma testified that three of Isidro's assailants were armed, while 1ulpicio did make any declaration as to how many of his son's attackers were actually armed. :either did the prosecution prove the e(istence of ignominy, which is a circumstance that adds disgrace and oblo)uy to the material inury caused by the crime. There was no showing that appellants deliberately employed means which would cause more suffering or humiliation to the victim. #t the time the crime was committed the penalty for death was reclusion temporal in the ma(imum period to death. In the absence of any aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the pena pe nalty lty sho shoul uld d be imp impos osed ed in its medium medium pe perio riod, d, or rec reclu lusio sion n pe perpe rpetua tua.. The 1C fo foun und d appellants guilty of the crime of murder, and sentenced them each to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs.
PEOPLE 7. MAR'O CALDONA y LLAMAS G.R. No. 126019 Ma< 1, 2001 #ccused was found guilty of raping his 26+yr old daughter daughter.. %e was sentence sentenced d to suffer the penalty of death. %&! The 1C found accused guilty, but sentenced him to suffer reclusion perpetua instead of death. The Court said that when a victim of rape says she has been defiled, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, credibility, the accused accused may be convicted convicted on the basis thereof. thereof. #s in most rape cases, cases, accused+appellant assails the credibility of the victim. %owever, the 1C has consistently held that the trial court's assessment of the credibility of complainant's testimony is entitled to great weight, absent any showing that some facts were overlooked which, if considered, would affect the outcome of the case. :evertheless, while the guilt of the accused+appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds the imposition of the death penalty against him unwarranted. The circumstances under the amendatory provisions of 3.#. :o. 4567, 1ection 22, are in the nature of )ualifying circumstances circumstanc es which can not be proved as such unless alleged in the informatio information. n. &ven if such circumstances are proved, the death penalty can not be imposed where the sane were not properly alleged in the Information.
%owever, while the )ualifying circumstance of relationship has been alleged in the Information, it is devoid of any averment on private complainant's minority. 1ince one of the twin re)uirements mentioned, namely, minority, was not alleged in the Information, accused+appellant can neither be convicted for )ualified rape nor could the death penalty be meted upon him because to do so would be to deprive him of the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
PEOPLE 7. RODEL'O PERALTA PERALTA G.R. No. 13163! Ma< 1, 2001 #ccused was found guilty of the crime of murder murder,, )ualified by treachery as charged in the Information and sentenced to suffer the penalty reclusion perpetua. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court. $ith regard to the issue of conspiracy, the 1C held that it was amply and sufficiently proven in this case. #ccused+appellants approached the victim from behind. $hen accused+appellant 0uiambao told ;eralta to stab the victim, accused+ appellant ;eralta yanked the left shoulder of 3amon and immediately stabbed the latter on his chest. #fter the stabbing, both accused+appellants fled and were apprehended only after more than nine 7? years from the filing of the criminal case in court. These acts taken together, are sufficient to establish the e(istence of a common design among accused+appellants to commit the offense charged. $ith regard to the presence of the aggravating circumstance of treachery, the 1C also agreed with the lower court. In crimes against persons, treachery e(ists when the accused employs, means, methods, and forms which directly and specially ensure its e(ecution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. To rule that treachery e(ists in the commission of the crime it must be shown that at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself and accused+appellants consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of the attack employed by him. In the instant case, the victim was stabbed on his chest. $hile the stab wound appears frontal, it was shown that accused+appellants came from behind and yanked the victim's shoulder in order to inflict the fatal blow. The manner of attack was duly proven and the infliction of the stab wound was the result of a deliberate act. #t the time of the fatal attack, the victim was standing in front of of the parlor while waiting for his wife. The victim, at that moment was unaware of what would befall him and was not given an opportunity to defend himself or retaliate.
PEOPLE 7. AL)REDO NARDO G.R. No. 133888 Ma< 1, 2001 #ccused was found guilty of raping his 2@+yr old daughte daughter, r, and was sentence sentenced d to suffer the penalty of death. For humanitarian reasons, however, the trial court recommended that the !&#T% penalty be commuted to 3&C*1I=: ;&3;&T*#. %&! The 1C found accused guilty, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. The concurrence of the two special )ualifying circumstances, namely the victim's minority and the relationship between the victim and the culprit, increases the penalty of rape to one 2? degree, thus resulting in the imposition of the death penalty. In order to be appreciated as )ualifying circumstances, however, these must be properly pleaded in the indictment. In addition, the )ualifying circumstances should be duly proved during the trial.
The 1C held that these re)uirements were met in this case. The Information sufficiently sufficiently alleges that accused+appellant accused+appellant is the father of the victim, and that the latter was fourteen 2@? years old at the time of commission of the rape. These elements, furthermore, furthermore, were categorically affirmed by &lizabeth :ardo, the victim's mother and the most competent witness. Aoreover, the victimBs birth bi rth da date te an and d he herr rel relat ation ionshi ship p to ac accus cused ed+ap +appel pella lant nt we were re sh show own n by he herr Ce Certi rtific ficate ate of aptism. This was presented by her mother, &lizabeth, &lizabeth, in lieu of her Certificate of ive irth, which was destroyed by fire. The baptismal certificate, coupled by her mother's testimony, is sufficient to establish victimBs age.
PEOPLE 7. #ESS'E VENT(RA COLLADO G.R. No:. 13"66!-!0 1 . Ma< 1, 2001. The trial court found accused+appellant guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. ikewise, it found him guilty of three /? counts of acts of lasciviousness lasciviousnes s and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment of si( 5? years of prision correctional in its ma(imum period for each count. It also ordered him to indemnify the private complainant in the amount of ;6>,>>>.>>, and ;2>>,>>>.>> for moral damages. %&! The trial court was correct in finding accused+appellant guilty of three /? counts of acts of lasciviousness. lasciviousn ess. The 1C took however to its finding that statutory rape was committed by him on 6 9une 277/. # thorough thorough evaluation of the records will show that accused accused+appellant +appellant should only be convicted for acts of lasciviousness and not for consummated rape. The 1C held that absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e. touching of either the 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. The 1C found accused guilty of @ counts of acts of lasciviousness, aggravated by obvious ungratefulness. #pplying the Indeterminate 1entence aw, accused+appellant was sentenced to an ind indet eterm ermina inate te pri prison son term of fou fourr @ @?? mon months ths an and d twe twenty nty "> ">?? da days ys of arr arres esto to may mayor or ma(imum as minimum, to four @? years si( 5? months and ten 2>? days of prision correccional ma(imum as ma(imum, in each count of #cts of asciviousness. #ccused+appellant was further directed to pay the private complainant ;/>,>>>.>> as civil indemnity, ;@>,>>>.>> for moral dama da mage ges, s, ;" ;">,> >,>>> >>.>> .>> for e( e(emp emplar lary y da dama mage ges, s, in ea each ch of th the e fou fourr @? cou counts nts of #cts of asciviousness, and to pay the costs.
PEOPLE 7. BALT BALTAAR AAR AM'ON y D(GAD(GA G.R. No. 140"11. Ma< 1, 2001. #ccused was was found guilty guilty as ;rincipal ;rincipal by !irect ;articipation ;articipation of of the crime of of Aurder, Aurder, )ualified )ualified by treachery, defined and penalized under #rticle "@ of the 3evised ;enal Code as amended by 3. #. 4567. The following ordinary aggravating circumstances were present in the commission of the crime 2. #buse of public office due to the use of his service firearm in the killing< ". *se of motor vehicle which facilitated the commission of the crime< and /. #id of armed men in the commission of the crime. There is present only one 2? mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The accused was sentenced to suffer the A#NIA*A ;&:#T =F !&#T%. %&!
The 1C held that with respect to the attendant circumstances, the use of a motor vehicle cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance, circumstance, as the police vehicle used to reach the 1anicas residence was not used directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act. :either may the aggravating circumstance of aid of armed men be appreciated in this case. The trial court found that during the shooting, an armed companion was on board the patrol car pointing his rifle in the direction of !eoras. In the first place, this aggrava aggravating ting circumstance contemplates more than one armed man, as the use of the plural form easily suggests. In the second place, the re)uisites of this aggravating circumstance are 2? that armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly, and "? that the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was committed. :either circumstance was proven present< it is clear from the evidence that the accused+appellant carried out the killing all by himself and did not rely on his companion for assistance. The 1C also did not agree that the fact that accused+appellant used his service firearm in shooting Jaflor Jaflor should be considered as an aggrava aggravating ting circumstance as he took advanta advantage ge of his public position. There is authority to the effect that for public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the public official must use his influence, prestige and ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his purpose. purpose. In the absence of proof that advantage advantage was taken by appellant, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of position could not be properly appreciated against him. In view of the absence absence of agg aggrava ravating ting circumstanc circumstances es and the presence presence of one mitigating mitigating circumstance, circumstanc e, the penalty imposed by the trial court should be modified. The penalty for murder *nder #rticle "@ is reclusion perpetua to death. ;ursuant to #rticle 5/, in case of two indivisible penalties, when the commission of the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is no aggravat aggravating ing circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied. %ence the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE 7. MAN(EL PERE y MAGPANTA MAGPANTAY Y G.R. No. 11326". Ma< ", 2001. #ccused was found found guilty of raping a 2"+yr old, and sentenced sentenced to suffer the penalty penalty of reclusion perpetua. #ppellant is the common+law husband of the victim's mother. %&! %aving e(amined the entire record, the 1C found that the totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution proved beyond doubt all the elements of rape. ;rivate complainant testified as to how appellant had carnal knowledge of her. The carnal knowledge took place under circumstances of violence and intimidation. %er testimony is supported by the results of the medico+legal e(amination conducted upon her at the police crime laboratory. Aoreover, she positively pointed to appellant in open court as the person responsible for her defilement. #gainst said said positive positive identification, identification, appellant's appellant's puerile puerile defense defense of denial denial will not not hold water, water, for he does not even deny that he was with the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Aoreover, his attempts to cast ill motive on private complainant or her family for fabricating the charge of rape against him have no evidentiary weight. It would be most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story of rape by her mother's common+law spouse< allow a medical e(amination of her genitalia< and subect herself to a public trial and possible ridicule, all because her maternal relatives want her mother to separate from her common+law spouse. ;erforce, appellant's conviction must stand. #s to the penalty imposed, the 1C held that the trial court correctly sentence sentenced d appellan appellantt to reclusion perpetua. :ote that the rape complained of in this case took place on Aay /2, 277> or way before the restoration of the death penalty for cases of )ualified rape by virtue of 3.#. :o.
4567. The death penalty law took effect only on !ecember /2, 277/, as per the CourtBs holding in ;eople v. 1imon, "/@ 1C3# 666, 657 277@?.
PEOPLE 7. RO(E =(/'NG= ELLADO G.R. No. No. 124686. Ma< ", 2001. #ppellant was convicted #ppellant convicted of the the crime of murder, murder, and sentenced sentenced to suffer the the penalty penalty of reclusion reclusion perpetua. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court. The 1C held that both of the accused acted in concert in the assault on the victim. They had the same purpose and were united in its e(ecution. Conspiracy e(ists at the time of the commission of the offense. Their actuation could only point to the e(istence of a pre+conceived plan to maim and kill the victim. $here the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the e(istence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators perpetrato rs will be liable as principals. The 1C also held that the acts of appellant indicate that he and akunawa had planned the attack in a manner that would catch the victim unaware. Their move initially was in the guise of a conciliatory overture. It served to cover their nefarious plot. &ven if it was akunawa who inflicted infli cted the fata fatall wou wound, nd, liab liability ility also e(is e(ists ts on the par partt of app appella ellant nt notw notwiths ithstand tanding ing non non++ participation in every detail in the e(ecution of the crime. The deceptive manner by which the two accused fatally assaulted the victim shows that they had intended to catch him off guard, to insure the success of the attack. #n une(pected une(pected and sudden attack under circumstances which render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack constitutes alevosia. #s treachery attended the killing of the victim, the offense committed by appellan appellantt and his co+ accu ac cuse sed d a aku kuna nawa wa is mu murd rder er.. %o %ow wev ever er,, th the e ag aggr grav avat atin ing g ci circ rcum umst stan ance ces s of ev evid iden entt premeditation and abuse of superior strength alleged in the information to be attendant cannot be appreciated, as the elements of the former were not proven, and the latter is deemed absorbed by treachery.
PEOPLE 7. #(L'O ER'DA, ET AL. G.R. No. 12!1"8 Ma< ", 2001 #ccused was found guilty of the crime of murder murder,, and senten sentenced ced to suffer the penalty of reclu rec lusio sion n pe perpe rpetua tua.. #c #ccus cused ed 9a 9amil mila, a, on the oth other er ha hand nd,, was ac ac)u )uitt itted ed fo forr fa failu ilure re of th the e prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. %&! The 1C agreed with appellant that nowhere in the assailed udgment is it shown how the trial court arrived at its conclusion that the killing of the victim was attended by treachery. There was absolutely absolute ly no showing from the testimony of the witness how the attack commenced< commenced< no indicia whether the attack was so sudden and une(pected that it afforded the victim no chance to defend himself. In the absence of this information, treachery cannot be established from the circumstances. Treachery cannot be presumed< it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence as clearly as the killing itself. $here the attack was not treacherous, the number of aggressors would constitute abuse of superior strength. #buse of superior strength, therefore, )ualifies the killing as murder. In find finding ing the killi killing ng agg aggrava ravated ted by evid evident ent prem premedit editatio ation, n, the tria triall cour courtt cha charact racteriz erized ed the method of attack as deliberately and consciously adopted by the three attackers. For evident
premeditation to be appreciated, the following must be proven 2? the time when the accused decided to commit the crime< "? an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung to his determination< and /? sufficient lapse of time between the decision and the e(ecution to allow the accused to reflect upon the conse)uences of his act. In the instant case, however, there is no showing of the time when appellant and his confederates decided to commit the crime. :either is there proof to show how appellant and the other two assailants planned the killing of the victim. :or is there any evidence showing how much time elapsed before the plan was e(ecuted.. #bsent all these, the conclusio e(ecuted conclusion n by the trial court that evident premeditation )ualified the killing of !elara is devoid of any factual mooring. $ith regard to the issue of conspiracy, there was a transparent manifestation of their common sentiment to inflict harm and inury upon the victim. First, while 3ene and &dmund were hacking and stabbing the victim, appellant was with them, pounding him with a concrete hollow block. &vidently, appellant was performing overt acts, which directly or indirectly contributed to the e(ecution of the crime. 1econd, after the victim somehow managed to fend off his attackers and flee, all three attackers pursued him. Clearly, the aforementioned acts point to a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest among the assailants. In conspiracy, it is immaterial who inflicted the fatal blows. # conspirator, no matter how minimal his participation, is as guilty as the principal perpetrator of the crime.
PEOPLE 7. AL)REDO 'BO G.R. No. 1323"3 Ma< ", 2001 #ccused was convicted convicted of the crime of murder, and sentenced sentenced to suffer suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. %&! The 1C affirmed the decision of the lower court. The court found that there was treachery in the taking tak ing of th the e lif life e of th the e vic victim tim as wi witho thout ut any wa warni rning ng,, acc accuse used+a d+app ppell ellan antt sud sudde denly nly an and d une(pectedly shot the victim in front of his family right in his own home. :either the victim nor his family had any opportunity to put up any defense. The mode of attack was e(ecuted in such a manner that retaliation was not possible. The victim did not even have an inkling of the danger to his life, the attack against him being sudden and une(pected. The prosecution has effectively shown that the shooting was calculated as to ensure the infliction of the fatal wounds without giving the victim and his family any opportunity to put up a defense. The )ualifying circumstance of treachery having been likewise proven beyond reasonable doubt, the accused+appellant is guilty of the crime of murder. #t the time time of the commission of the crime in 2776, 2776, the penalty penalty for murder murder was reclusion reclusion perpetua to death. There being no aggravating nor mitigating circumstance, the 1C held that the trial court correctly sentenced accused+appellants to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE 7. #OMER CABANSAY y PALERMO PALERMO G.R. No. No. 138646. Ma< 6, 2001. #ccused was found guilty of the crime of murder. murder. #fter considerin considering g in his favor the mitigating circumsta circu mstance nce of surre surrende nder, r, the accu accused sed was sen sentenc tenced ed to suf suffer fer the pen penalty alty of 3ecl 3eclusio usion n ;erpetua. %&! The accused admits the killing of the victim but denies any liability by invoking self+defense. Taking into account the version of the prosecution, the theory of self+defense is not tenable. #t
the outset, we mentioned that for self+defense to prosper, all the essential elements thereof must be ade) ade)uat uately ely prov proven en by the accused. accused. *nla *nlawfu wfull agg aggressi ression, on, the firs firstt of thes these e thre three e essential elements, presupposes presupposes an actual, sudden and une(pected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of the person defending himself. $ithout this element, there can be no successful invocation of self+defense. $hen the accused stabbed the victim, the latter and his companions were conversing and sorting -bulang-. They posed no threat or danger to the accused. If there is any aggression present in this case, it would be that authored by the accused which resulted in the death of Castillo. #bsent #bsent the element of unlawful aggression, the theory of self+defense of the accused collapses. collapses. Inevitably, Inevitably, the result would be the conviction of the accused springing from his own admission that he killed the victim. #nent the )ualifying circumstan circumstance ce of treachery treachery,, the 1C held that it was duly proven by the prosecut pros ecution ion.. In this case, the )ualifying )ualifying circu circumsta mstance nce of trea treache chery ry was esta establis blished hed by the prosecution witness who testified that he and the victim, together with two other companions, were conversing and sorting -bulang- when the accused suddenly and without provocation stabbed the victim. The location of the wound indicates that the victim was stabbed by the accused from the back. #fter the victim fell to his side, the accused+appellant made a follow+up thrust. The witness, who was shocked by the suddenness of the attack, was likewise stabbed by the accused three times. The 1C held that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated by the trial court. ;rosecution witness 1;=@ ;atrocinio #besia himself testified that the mother of the accused interceded for the latter's surrender, and subse)uently, the accused voluntarily surrendered to him.
PEOPLE 7. ANTON'O SAM(D'O G.R. No. No. 126168. Ma< !, 2001. #ll of the accused+appellants accused+appellants were found guilty of the crime of murder murder,, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. %&! $ith $it h reg regard ard to the claim of sel self+d f+defe efense nse of 1a 1amud mudio, io, he fai failed led to dis discha charge rge thi this s bu burde rden n convi co nvinci ncingl ngly y fo forr he did no nott ad ade) e)ua uatel tely y su suppo pport rt hi his s all alleg egati ation on of se self+ lf+de defe fense nse.. :o on one e corroborated his testimony that the aggression was initiated by the victim. Thus, his testimony is self+serving. #n accused who invokes self+defense has to rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence, for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after his open admission of responsibility for the killing. It is alleged in the Information that the killing was )ualified by treachery, evident premeditation, abuse of superior strength and disregard of respect due to the offend offended ed party on account of his rank. %owever, the 1C held that the trial court failed to make a finding as to the e(istence of any of these )ualifying circumstances. In the instant case, treachery cannot be appreciated considering that the only eyewitne eyewitness ss to the actual stabbing, did not see the initial stage and particulars of the attack on the victim. 1imilarly 1imilarly,, the prosecution failed to establish the attenda attendance nce of evident premeditation. premeditation. There was no proof or showing of 2? the time when the offender determined to commit the crime< "? an act manifestly indicating that the offender had clung to his determination< and /? a sufficient lapse of time between the determination to commit and the e(ecution thereof, to allow the offend offender er to reflect on the conse)uence of his act. :one of these elements of evident premeditation can be fairly inferred from the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case at bar. :either :eit her can abu abuse se of sup superio eriorr stre strength ngth be app apprecia reciated. ted. Aere supe superiori riority ty in numb number er is not enough to constitute superior strength. The prosecution did not present any direct proof that
there was a deliberate intent on the part of the accused+appellants to take advantage of the obvious ine)uality of force between the victim and the accused+appellants. The )ualifying circumstance of -disregard of respect due to the offended party on account of his rank, being a barangay captain- alleged in the information is likewise unavailing. The prosecution failed to establish proof of the specific facts demonstrating that 1amudio's act of killing the victim was deliberately intended to disregard or insult the respect due him on account of his rank as a barangay captain. #bsent any of the above )ualifying circumstances, circumstances, the crime committed is not murder, but only homic ho micide ide un unde derr #r #rtic ticle le "@ "@7 7 of th the e 3ev 3evise ised d ;e ;enal nal Cod Code e wh which ich is pu puni nisha shabl ble e by rec reclu lusio sion n temporal. It appears, however, that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be appreciated in 1amudio's favor. To be thus considered, three /? re)uisites must be proven, namely, a? the offender had not actually been arrested< b? the offender surrender himself to a person in authority< and c? the surrender was voluntary. The acts of 1amudio vis+a+vis those of his co+accused failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the presence of conspiracy. 1ince the sole prosecution witness to the actual killing, did not see its inception and the details as to how it progressed, the prosecution failed to adduce sufficient evidence to completely establish the e(istence of conspiracy among the accused. It bears stressing that conspiracy must be proved as convincingly and indubitably as the crime itself. :onetheless, the failure of the prosecution to prove the e(istence of conspiracy does not eliminate any criminal liability liability on the part of the other accused+appellants. accused+appellants. #lthoug #lthough h they could not be convicted as a co+principal, they are liable as accomplices.
PEOPLE 7. ERNESTO 'CALLA y 'NES G.R. No. No. 1361!3. Ma< !, 2001. #ccused was was found guilty guilty of the the crime of of murder, murder, and sentenc sentenced ed to suffer suffer the penalty of of death. %&! The 1C noted that appellant faults the trial court for its reliance on circumstantial evidence. %owever, it is well+settled that direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only matri( wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. Conviction may still be proper if factual circumstances circumstances duly proven by the prosecution constitute constitute an unbroken chain which lead to a fair and reasonable conclusion that the accused is guilty to the e(clusion of all others. othe rs. To support support a conv convictio iction n bas based ed on circu circumsta mstantia ntiall evid evidence ence,, the conc concurre urrence nce of the following re)uisites is essential a? there must be more than one circumstance< b? the facts from which the inference of guilt is based must be proved< and c? the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt. &ven if there is no eyewitness to the crime, responsibility therefor can be established by the totality of the duly proven facts that yield an inevitable conclusion consistent with the guilt of the accused. The offense committed is not murder. #ppellant cannot be held liable for the crime of murder as charged in the information, but only for homicide, which was the offense proved. #s observed by the =18, there is no evidence as to the manner in which the assault was made or how the stabbing began and developed. #lthough the deceased sustained five wounds, some of which were at the back, this fact by itself does not constitute treachery which would )ualify the killing to murder. There being no eyewitness to the killing or evidence on the mode of attack adopted by appellant, treachery could not be appreciated in this case as a )ualifying circumstance. ikewise, there is a dearth of evidence to establish evident pre+meditation pre+meditation as either a )ualifying or ge gene neric ric ag aggra grava vatin ting g cir circu cumst mstan ance. ce. $hi $hile le the wi witne tnesse sses s may ha have ve te testi stifie fied d reg regard arding ing incid in ciden ents ts pri prior or to the kil killin ling, g, th there ere is no evi evide dence nce th that at ap appe pella llant nt ha had d eve everr co conce nceive ived d or e(pressed a resolve to kill the victim.
PEOPLE 7. CONRADO SALAD'NO Y D'NGLE G.R. No:. 13!481-83 * 1384"" Ma< !, 2001 #ccused was convicted of three /? counts of rape for raping his 2/+yr old niece. Ta Taking king into account the )ualifying circumstance of the minority of the victim and her relationship to accused+ appellant, the lower court meted three /? death penalties pursuant to 3# 4567. The trial court also al so fo foun und d acc accuse used+a d+app ppell ellan antt gui guilty lty of at attem tempte pted d rap rape, e, an and d se sente ntence nced d him to ser serve ve an indeterminate penalty of eight ? years and one 2? day of prision mayor minimum as minimum, to fourteen 2@? years, eight ? months and one 2? day of reclusion temporal minimum, as ma(imum. %&! The 1C sa said id tha thatt the victimBs victimBs failure failure to sho shout ut or of offer fer te tena nacio cious us res resist istan ance ce did no nott ma make ke voluntary her submission to the criminal acts of the accused+appellant. They held that the -i?ntimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and udgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule< it is therefore enough that it produces fear P fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused something would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident.- The failure to shout or offer resistance was not because she consented to the deed but because she honestly believed she would be killed if she shouted or resisted. 1uch threat is sufficient intimidation as contemplated by our urisprudence on rap rape. e. #nd be th that at as it may may,, if re resis sistan tance ce wo would uld neverth neverthel eless ess be fut futile ile because because of a continuing intimidation, then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault as to make the victim's participation in the se(ual act voluntary. %owever, the lower court erred in imposing the death penalty. In ;eople v. 3amos "> the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, being special )ualifying circumstances should be alleged in the information, otherwise, the death penalty cannot can not be imposed. imposed. In the case at bar bar,, alth although ough the pros prosecu ecution tion did prov prove e comp complain lainant' ant's s minority and relationship to accused accused+appellan +appellant, t, it failed to implead both minority and relationship in the four @? Informatio Informations ns filed against accused+appellant accused+appellant.. It is not enough that the relationship was subse)uently proved during the trial. oth relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to )ualify the crime as punishable by death. To hold otherwise would deny accused+ appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. Thus, he can only be convicted of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. The imposition of an indeterminate penalty of eight ? years and one 2? day of prision mayor minimum as minimum, to fourteen 2@? years, eight ? months and one 2? day of reclusion temporal minimum as ma(imum, in attempted rape is also erroneous. The proper penalty for rape in the attempted stage should be two "? degrees lower than the penalty for consummated rape, or prision mayor. #pplying the Indeterminate 1entence aw, the ma(imum imposable penalty should be taken from prision mayor in its medium period and the minimum from prision correccional.
PEOPLE O) TE P'L 7. E(GEN'O E(GEN'O MANGOMP'T G.R. No:. 139962-66 Ma< !, 2001 #ccused was found guilty for 6 counts of rape, and sentenced sentenced to suffer the penalty of death for each count. %e was found guilty for raping his 25+yr old niece. %&! The 1C found the accused guilty, but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua perpetua for each count. In the case at bench, the trial court apparently relied on the 2st special circumstance introduced
by 3.#. 4567, that of minority of the victim and relationship with the offender, in imposing the death penalty. penalty. %owever, the concurrence concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offend off ender er shou should ld be spe specific cifically ally alleged in the information information conformably conformably with the right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. &ven though the minority of Aarites and her relationship with accused+appellant were proven beyond doubt, the death penalty cannot be imposed because both of these )ualifying circumstances were not alleged in the information. Therefore, despite the five 6? counts of rape committed by accused+ appellant, he cannot be sentenced to the supreme penalty of death. #ccordingly, the penalty of death imposed by the trial court should be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The 1C held that the trial court likewise correctly imposed the amount of ;"6,>>> for each count of rape, or a total of ;2"6,>>>.>>, ;2"6,>>>.>>, as and by way of e(emplary damages. *nder #rticle #rticle ""/> of the :ew Civil Code, -I?n criminal offenses, e(emplary damages as a part of the civil liability may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances.circumstances.In the case at bench, the aggravating circumstances of relationship, dwelling, and, for two of the charges, nighttime were proven to have attended the commission of the crime. 3elationship, that of uncle and niece, was proven by the testimony of the victim and by the admission of accused+appellant accused +appellant himself. !welling was likewise proven as it was shown that the five incidents of rape were all committed inside the house of the family of the victim where accused+appellant accused+appellant was staying as a houseguest. Finally, the aggravating circumstance of nighttime was likewise proven in two of the five rape incidents as it was shown that accused+appellant accused+appellant waited until late in the night when the other family members were in deep slumber before consummating his carnal desire for the victim.
PEOPLE 7. ARNEL MATA MATARO RO G.R. No. No. 1303!8. Ma< 8, 2001. #ccused+appellants were found #ccused+appellants found guilty for for the crime of of murder, murder, and both were were sentenced sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay the heirs of the victim.
6?
%&! The accused appellants invoke the -e)uipoise- rule because their guilt had not been established beyond bey ond reasonable reasonable dou doubt. bt. The 1C said that it has enu enumera merated ted the re)u re)uisite isites s for credible identification in the case of ;eople v. Teehankee, 9r., "@7 1C3# 6@ 2776? as follows 2? the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime< "? witness' degree of attention at that time< /? the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness< @? the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identificati identification< on< the length of time between the crime and the identification< and 5? the suggestiveness of the identificati identification on procedure. 2 The Court held that in their view, these re)uirements were met. In the instant case, there is no )uestion that both witnesses witnesses had the opportu opportunity nity to view the incident as it unfolde unfolded d before them with a degree of attention that allowed them to take in the important details and recall them clearly. Aoreover, as repeatedly stressed, appellate court should accord to the factual findings of tri trial al co court urts s an and d th their eir eva evalua luatio tion n gre great at we weigh ightt an and d res respe pect ct con conce cerni rning ng th the e cre credib dibili ility ty of witnesses. The conditions of visibility being favorable and these witnesses not appearing to be biased, the conclusion of trial courts regarding the identity of the malefactors should normally be accepted. The 1C also held that the trial court did not err in )ualifying the killing as murder. There was treachery in this case since, as testified to by prosecution witness Fernandez, the victim had already dismissed the appellants after they talked to him. The victim was deliberately allowed to
enoy a false sense of security. They shot the victim when the latter had his hands raised. The 1C therefore affirmed the ruling of the lower court, but made modifications with the costs to be paid by the accused.
PEOPLE 7. R'C/Y ROGER A(STR'A A(STR'A G.R. No. 1342!9 Ma< 8, 2001 #ccused was was found guilty guilty of the the crime of of murder, murder, and sentenc sentenced ed to suffer suffer the penalty of of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law, and to pay the costs %&! The 1C held that the inconsistencies in 3owena 9unio's testimony do not refer to incidental or collateral matters. The basis of her identification of accused+appellant as the victim's assailant was precisely her purported familiarity with accused+appellant. 1he did not pick him out of a police line+up nor did she provide the police with a description of the assailant. 1he pointed to accused+appellant accused +appellant because because she allegedly knew him prior to the killing. If the witness was not at all familiar with accused+appellant, the prosecution's whole case collapses for such familiarity was its very foundation. In the face of doubts regarding the familiarity of the witness with the alleged assailant, the distance of the witness from the scene and the visibility conditions thereat assume greater significance. The prosecution did not show, however, whether the intensity of the defective lamp was sufficient to enable the witness to see accused+appellant's face, considering her distance from the scene. #ccused+appellant invoked alibi, which he failed to corroborat #ccused+appellant corroborate e with other evidence evidence.. :evertheless, this circumstance would not sustain his conviction. #s a rule, alibis should be considered considere d with suspicion and received with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable, but also because they can easily be fabricated. ut e)ually fundamental is the a(iom that evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. #nd, where the prosecution's evidence is weak or ust as e)ually tenuous, alibi need not be in)uired into. The prosecution has also failed to establish any motive on the part of the accused+appellant to kill the deceased. $hile generally, the motive of the accused is immaterial and does not have to be proven, proof of the same becomes relevant relevant and essential when, as in this case, the identity of the assailant is in )uestion. Considering the apparent unreliability of the evidence proffered by the prosecution, this Court is constrained to rule for an ac)uittal. In all criminal cases, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused on the principle that it is better to liberate a guilty man than to unustly keep in prison one whose guilt has not been proven by the re)uired )uantum of evidence. Conviction, it is said, must rest on nothing less than a moral certainty of guilt that we find here to be wanting. The 1C reversed the decision of the lower court, and ac)uitted the accused on ground of reasonable doubt.
PEOPLE O) TE P'L 7. RODOL)O V'LLADARES G.R. No. 13!649 Ma< 8, 2001 #ccused was found guilty of raping a 2"+yr old girl, and was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. %&!
#ccused assails the credibility of the witness and the supposed inconsiste inconsistencies ncies in the testimonies. The 1C still affirmed the ruling of the lower court. First. It is doctrinal that the evaluation by the trial court of the testimony of a witness is accorded with highest respect because the trial court had the direct and singular opportunity to observe the facial e(pression, gesture and tone of voice of a witness while testifying and therefore, competent to determine whether or not the witness is telling the truth. 1econd. The alleged inconsistency between the testimony of &liza victim? and &mma, that is, that the latter testified that &liza shouted, is trivial and cannot affect the veracity of their testimonies. Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details do not destroy their credibility. 1uch minor inconsistencies even manifest truthfulness and candor and erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. Third. The inconsistencies in &mma's statement before the police authorities and her testimony in open court cannot detract from &liza's testimony that she was raped on 9uly ">, 2775 by accused+appellant. !iscrepancies andGor inconsistencies between a witness' affidavit and testimony in open court do not impair credibility as affidavits are taken e( parte and are often incomplete or inaccurate for lack of or absence of searching in)uiries by the investigating officer. In any event, we find that &mma's testimony in court sufficiently corroborates that of &liza on material points. astly, with or without the medical certificate, the testimony of &liza, as corroborated by her sister &mma is sufficient to convict. This Court has ruled that a medical e(amination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape< and that a victim's testimony alone if credible is sufficient to convict the appellant of the crime.
PEOPLE 7. E)REN VALE VALE G.R. No. No. 136!38. Ma< 12, 2001. #ccused was was found guilty guilty of raping raping a 2"+yr old old girl, and sentence sentenced d to suffer suffer the penalty penalty of death. death. In the Information that was filed, it was indicated that there was abuse of confidence and trust, the accused being the husband of complainant's half+sister. %&! #ccused+appellant maintains #ccused+appellant maintains that that he should should only be convicted convicted for acts acts of lasciviousness lasciviousness because there was no se(ual intercourse. The 1C held that it is well+settled that where the accused tried to insert his penis into his victim's vagina, that was all that was necessary to commit consummated rape. Full penetration of the victim's genital organ is not re)uired in order to sustain a conviction for rape. In fact, so long as there was an attempt to insert, even without rupture of the hymen, rape is considered to have already been consummated. In this case, undoubtedly, there is no issue as to whether or not there was insertion or penetration which calls for a fine distinction between mere brushing or -epidermal contact- and actual touching or sliding into the female organ as enunciated in the case of ;eople v. Campuhan. The 1C found the accused guilty, but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua. Ainority and relationship relationsh ip under the first paragraph are special )ualifying circumstances circumstances which )ualify rape to warrant the mandatory penalty of death. #s such, they must both be specifically pleaded in the Information and proven during trial. These two circumstances, minority and relationship, must concur< otherwise, if only one is proven during trial, even if the Information alleged both, the death penalty cannot be imposed. #nd, as special )ualifying circumstances, the same must be proven beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself. In the case under review, the 1C found that evidence is wanting as to the special )ualifying circumstance of minority. The only proof as to the minority of the complainant is her testimony during direct e(amination that she was 2/ years old and a 8rade JI student. :o other proof,
was presented by the prosecutio prosecution n to establish complainant's complainant's minority at the time of the incident. &ven complainant's mother failed to testify as to her daughter's age on the witness stand. #s to filiation, filiation, the Court Court notes notes that the the circumstance circumstance of relationship relationship by affinity within the third civil degree was properly alleged in the Information which stated that accused+appellant -is the husband of complainant's half+sister and likewise duly proven during trial. Complainant herself declared that accused+appellant was the husband of her elder sister. The mother of the complainant and mother in+law of the accused also testified that accused+appellant is his son+in+ law. Aoreover, the accused himself admitted that the victim is his sister+in+law. This notwithstanding, for failure of the prosecution to establish minority by proof beyond reasonable doubt, the death penalty cannot be imposed.
PEOPLE V. NELL'E CABA'S Y GAM(ELA G.R. No. No. 1290!0. Ma< 16, 2001. #ccused was convicted of illegal recruitmen recruitmentt committed in large scale by a syndicat syndicate, e, and sentenced sentence d to life imprisonmen imprisonmentt and a fine. 1he was also convicted for two counts of estafa, and sentenced to a? in Criminal Case :o. 2/777+3, to si( 5? months and one 2? day of prision correccional, as minimum, to seven 4? years, eight ? months and twenty+one "2? days of prision mayor, as ma(imum, and to indemnify the offended party 9oan Aerante, in the amount of ;@>,>>>.>> ;@>,>>> .>> as actual damages, and costs< b? in Criminal Case :o. 2@>>>+3, to si( 5? months and one 2? day of prision correccional, as minimum, to si( 5? years, eight ? months and twenty ">? days of prision mayor, as ma(imum, and to indemnify the offended party, :ancy =idi, in the amount of ;"2,>>>.>> as actual damages, and costs. %&! The essential elements of illegal recruitment committed in large scale are 2? that the accused engaged in acts of recruitment and placement of workers as defined under #rticle 2/ b? or in any prohibited activities under #rticle /@ of the abor Code< "? that the accused had not complied with the guidelines issued by the 1ecretary of abor and &mployment, particularly with respect to the re)uirement to secure a license or an authority to recruit and deploy workers, either locally or overseas< and /? that the accused committed the unlawful acts against three /? or more persons, individually or as a group. #ccused+appellant #ccused+a ppellant contends that she was not involved in recruitment but was merely an employee of a recruitment agency. #n employee of a company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he actively and consciously participated in illegal recruitment. In this case, accused was the one who informed complainants of ob prospects in Lorea and the re)uirements for deployment. 1he also received money from them as placement fees. #ll of the complainants testified that they perso pe rsonal nally ly me mett acc accuse used+a d+app ppell ellan antt an and d tra trans nsact acted ed wit with h he herr reg regard ardin ing g the ov over ersea seas s ob placeme plac ement nt off offers. ers. Comp Complain lainants ants part parted ed with thei theirr mone money, y, evidenced evidenced by rece receipts ipts sign signed ed by accused Cabais and accused Forneas. Thus, accused+appellant actively participated in the recruitment of the complainants. Furthermore,, accused Furthermore accused+appellant +appellant did not possess any license to engage in recruitmen recruitmentt activities, as evidenced by a certification from the ;=&# and the testimony of a representative of said government agency. %er acts constituted recruitment, and considering that she admittedly had no license or authority to recruit workers for overseas employment, accused+appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment. !espite the fact that she was ust an ordinary employee of the company, her criminal liability would still stand for being a conspirator with the corporate officers in undertaking illegal recruitment activities. 1ince the recruitment involves three or more persons,
accused+appellant is guilty of illegal recruitment in a large scale punishable under #rticle /7 of the abor Code with life imprisonment and a fine of one hundred thousand pesos. #s to the charges of estafa, accused accused+appellant +appellant contends that she is not liable for the offens offenses es char ch arge ged d be beca caus use e sh she e di did d no nott ap appr prop opri riat ate e fo forr he herr ow own n us use e th the e mo mone ney y gi give ven n to he herr by complainants as placement and passport fees. The elements of estafa are a? that the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit, and b? that damage or preudice capable capable of pecuniary estimation estimation is caused to the offended offended party or third person. From the foregoing, the fact that the money was appropriated by accused for her own use is not an element of the crime of estafa. Thus, accused+appellant Cabais' contention under such ground is untenable. Aoreover, accused+appellan accused+appellantt misrepresented herself to complainan complainants ts as one who can make arrangements for ob placements in Lorea. Complainants were successfully induced to part with their money, causing them damage and preudice. Conse)uently, accused+appellant is guilty of estafa.
PEOPLE V. EDGARDO L'AD G.R. No:. No:. 13381"-1!. Ma< 22, 2001. Facts #ccused+appellants #ccused+a ppellants were were found guilty guilty as principals principals by direct participation participation of the crime of robbery with homicide, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. They were also found guilty of illegal possession of firearms, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of four @? years, nine 7? months and eleven 22? days to five 6? years, four @? months and twenty ">? days of prision correctional sic. %&! The Court finds that the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the e(istence of a conspiracy between accused+appellants and the deceased. In conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement agreement to commit a crime is not necessary. It may be deduced from the mode and manne man nerr by wh which ich th the e of offe fense nse wa was s pe perpe rpetra trated ted,, or in infer ferred red from the acts of the accused accused themselves when such point to a oint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. Conspiracy may be inferred from the conduct of the accused before, during or after the commission of the crime. In this case, there were several circumstances immediately before, during and after the robbery indubitably which show that the perpetrators were one in their purpose to rob the victim. $here conspiracy is shown, the precise e(tent of participation of each accused in the crime is secondary and the act of one may be imputed to all the conspirators. The 1C held that the trial court, therefore, did not err in convicting accused+appellants of robbery with homicide. $henever homicide has been committed as a conse)uence or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals for the special comple( crime of robbery with homicide, although they did not actually take part in the homicide. In cases involving illegal possession of firearm, the re)uisite elements are a? the e(istence of the subect firearm and b? the fact that the accused who owned or possessed the firearm does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess. The latter is a negative fact that constitutes an essential ingredient of the offense of illegal possession, and it is the duty of the prosecution not only to allege it but also to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The Court agrees with accused+appellants and the 1olicitor 8eneral that the prosecution in this case failed to prove the second element. The 1C doe does s not agree with the contention contention of the 1oli 1olicito citorr 8en 8eneral eral that since a palt paltik ik is a homemade gun, is illegally manufactured as recognized in ;eople v. Faardo, and cannot be issued a license or permit, it is no longer necessary to prove that it is unlicensed. This appears
to be, at first blush, a very logical proposition. The Court, however, yield to it because Faardo did not say that paltiks can in no case be issued a license or a permit, and that proof that a firearm is a paltik dispenses with proof that it is unlicensed
