People vs.

Marquez
G.R. No. 138972-73; September 13, 2001
PLAINTIFF: People of the Philippines
ACCUSED: Eugenio Marquez y Briones (petitioner), Jose Magtibay, Anselmo
Magtibay,
Nicasio Bacolo
FACTS:
On the 17th day of February 1995, along Maharlika Highway at
Barangay Sampaloc II, Municipality of Sariaya, Quezon Province; the
appellant-Marquez, Magtibay, Bacolo were armed with a caliber .38 Smith &
Wesson revolver and bladed and pointed weapons with the intention to
feloniously hold-up JAC Liner bus bound to Lucena City. They would have
succeeded in producing the crime of robbery if not for the timely intervention
of SPO1 Rizaldy Merene, one of the passengers of the said bus, who
responded when the accused announced hold-up poking a gun at the driver.
While Marquezs companions also poked a knife at the conductor and Merene
who was seated, quickly drew his firearm, although Marquez was able to fire
at him first causing Merene to fire in return. Marquez and his companions
panicked and immediately jumped out of the bus. The conductor, Halum, fell
on the floor of the bus fatally wounded. Injured Merene asked the driver to
bring him to the nearest hospital. On the other hand, Marquez having been
injured as well asked help in a house at Barangay Sampaloc II Sariaya,
Quezon, who incidentally belonged to spouses Mauricio and Zenaida Ilao.
Mauricio asked the man (Marquez) if he knew anybody in the area, Marquez
mentioned one Julie Ann Veneosa, whom they contacted. When Julie-Ann
arrived she recognized Marquez and immediately brought him to a hospital
in Candelaria. The next morning, Mauricio Ilao found a firearm at the back of
his house. He immediately reported such finding to the Sariaya Police
Station. On the version of the defendant-appellant, he was a mere passenger
who wascaught, hit and wounded in the crossfirejumped off the bus to
save himself.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not a discrepancy between the testimonies of witnesses
with regards to the whereabouts of the crime affects or even obstructs
the credibility their statements.
2. Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the appellant for
violation of PD 1866 (illegal possession of firearms).
HELD:

No, the discrepancies between the testimonies of witnesses with

regards to the whereabouts of the crime do not obstruct the credibility of
their testimony. It must noted that total recall or perfect symmetry is not
required as long as witnesses concur on material points. In this case, it must
be understood that Merene and Fleta have different points of recall. Merene
was an active participant in a gunfight and thus cannot be expected to
remember the peripherals of the incident. Fleta, on the other hand, was a
passive eyewitness who docked himself for safety as soon as the firing
begun. With regards to the conviction of the appellant for the violation of PD
1866, the trial court erred in such charge. The prosecution has the burden of
proving the following before convicting an accused of such violation: 1)
existence of the subject firearm and 2) the fact that the accused who owns it
does not have a license or permit to carry it. In this case, the prosecution, in
consideration of the circumstances that took place, assumes that the
appellant brought the gun there; such conjecture does not satisfy the
elements of the crime. The subject gun was not found in the possession of
the appellant and was rather discovered at the back of Mauricio Ilaos house,
from which the appellant sought help after the bus incident. With that,
Marquezs appeal was partially granted reversing and setting aside the
decision of the Regional Trial Court. However, his conviction for frustrated
robbery, with homicide and frustrated homicide, together with the penalty
imposed by the trial court is affirmed.

Rivera vs. People

G.R. No. 166326; January 25, 2006
PETITIONERS: Esmeraldo Rivera, Ismael Rivera and Edgardo Rivera
RESPONDENT: People of the Philippines
FACTS:
As the victim, Ruben Rodil, went to a nearby store to buy food, accused
Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being jobless and dependent on his wife for
support. Ruben resented the rebuke and thereafter, a heated exchange of
words ensued. In the evening of the following day, when Ruben and his
three-year-old daughter went to the store to buy food, Edgardo, together
with his brother Esmeraldo Rivera and Ismael Rivera, emerged from their
house and ganged up on him. Esmeraldo and Ismael mauled Ruben with fist
blows. And as he fell to the ground, Edgardo hit him three times with a
hollow block on the parietal area. Esmeraldo, Ismael and Edgardo fled to
their house only when the policemen arrived. Ruben sustained injuries and
was brought to the hospital. The doctor declared that the wounds were slight
and superficial, though the victim could have been killed had the police not
promptly intervened. The trial court found the accused guilty of the crime of
frustrated murder. An appeal was made by the accused, but the Court of

Appeals affirmed the trial courts decision with modification, changing the
crime to attempted murder and imposed an indeterminate penalty of 2 years
of prision correccional as minimum to 6 years and 1 day of prision mayor as
maximum.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not there was intent to kill.
2. Whether or not the Court of Appeals was correct in modifying the crime
from frustrated to attempted murder.
3. Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of treachery was
properly applied.
4. Whether or not the correct penalty was imposed.
HELD:
1) Yes. The Court declared that evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes
against persons may consist, inter alia, in the means used by the
malefactors, the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the
victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately
after the killing of the victim, the circumstances under which the crime was
committed and the motives of the accused. In the present case, Esmeraldo
and Ismael pummeled the victim with fist blows, while Edgardo hit him three
times with a hollow block. Even though the wounds sustained by the victim
were merely superficial and could not have produced his death, intent to kill
was presumed.
2) Yes. Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is an attempt
when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce
the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance. Although the wounds sustained by the victim were
merely superficial and could not have produced his death, it does not negate
criminal liability of the accused for attempted murder. The intent to kill was
already presumed based on the overt acts of the accused. In fact, victim
could have been killed had the police not promptly intervened.
3) Yes. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack, which
gives no opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself. In the
present case, the accused attacked the victim in a sudden and unexpected
manner as he was walking with his three-year-old daughter. He was
overwhelmed with the assault of the accused and had no chance to defend
himself and retaliate. Thus, there was treachery.

4) No. Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic
Act No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. Since
the accused were guilty only of attempted murder, the penalty should be
reduced by two degrees, in accordance to Article 51 of the Revised Penal
Code. Thus, under Article 61 (2), in relation to Article 71 of the Revised Penal
Code, the penalty should be prision mayor. In the absence of any modifying
circumstance in the commission of the crime other than the qualifying
circumstance of treachery, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall
be taken from the medium period of prision mayor which has a range of from
eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. To determine the minimum
of the indeterminate penalty, the penalty of prision mayor should be reduced
by one degree, prision correccional, which has a range of six (6) months and
one (1) day to six (6) years. Hence, the accused were sentenced to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of from two (2) years of prision correccional in its
minimum period, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of
prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.

People vs. Campuhan

G.R. No. 129433; March 30, 2000
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE: People of the Philippines
ACCUSED-APPELLANT: Primo Campuhan y Bello
FACTS:
Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4)-year old Crysthel, went
down from the second floor of their house to prepare Milo for her children. At
the ground floor she met Primo Campuhan, a helper of her brother, who was
then busy filling small plastic bags with water to be frozen into ice in the
freezer located at the second floor. As she was busy preparing the drinks, she
heard one of her daughters cry, "Ayoko, ayoko!" prompting her to rush
upstairs. There, she saw Campuhan inside her childrens room kneeling
before Crysthel whose pajamas and panty were already removed, while his
short pants were down to his knees. According to Corazon, Campuhan was
forcing his penis into Crysthels vagina. Corazon called for help and
Campuhan was subdued. The barangay officials were called. Physical
examination of the victim yielded negative results. The medico-legal officer
on Crysthels body noted no evident sign of extra-genital physical injury, as
her hymen was intact. Campuhan said he was innocent but the trial court
found him guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to the extreme penalty
of death. Campuhans defense was that it was almost inconceivable that

Corazon could give such a vivid description of the alleged sexual contact
when from where she stood she could not have possibly seen the alleged
touching of the sexual organs of Campuhan on Crysthel. He asserts that the
absence of any external signs of physical injuries or of penetration of
Crysthels private parts more than bolsters his innocence.
ISSUE:
1. Whether the accused is guilty of attempted rape or consummated rape
when there is no doubt that he is guilty of rape.
HELD:
The accused is guilty of attempted rape. In this case, it is not
consummated because
it merely constitutes a "shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency," or as
earlier stated, a "strafing of the citadel of passion." There was no
bombardment of the drawbridge" according to Justice Bellosillo. The
prosecution utterly failed to discharge its onus of proving that Campuhans
penis was able to penetrate Crysthels vagina however slight. Furthermore
Corazons testimony could not prove that she saw inter-genital contact.
Campuhans kneeling position rendered an unbridled observation impossible.
Not even a vantage point from the side of the accused and the victim would
have provided Corazon an unobstructed view of Primos penis supposedly
reaching Crysthels external genitalia. Lastly, Crysthel said that Campuhans
penis did not penetrate her organ. Under Art. 6 (attempted/frustrated), in
relation to Art. 335 (rape) of the RPC, rape is attempted when the offender
commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not
perform all the acts of execution, which should produce the crime of rape by
reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance. All the elements of attempted rape - and only of attempted rape
- are present in the instant case, hence, the accused should be punished only
for it.