Contents: shot hitting the victim.
shot hitting the victim. It was only at this time when the victim drew his gun and
Araneta vs CA Valenzuela vs People
Orande vs People People vs Pareja
People vs. Orita
Araneta Jr. vs. CA and People
Bautisa vs. CA and people
FACTS:
Manuel Esteban, Jr. (Victim) and his companions were having a drinking spree at
the mezzanine floor of the Sands Kitchenette, Rizal Avenue, Manila. A napkin
container was thrown to their table coming from the group of the petitioners
(Araneta Jr., Bautista, Ng and Santiago). Esteban Jr. approached the group of
Araneta, Jr. and an argument ensued.
Bautista pushed the left shoulder of the victim causing the latter to spin and
petitioner Araneta, Jr. fired his gun with his left hand (his right hand is atrophied),
hitting the victim at the back. Having been shot, the victim drew his gun and fired
indiscriminately hitting de Guzman (companion of petitioner) on his left thigh.
Petitioner Bautista then held the victim who was bent forward, on his right wrist and
poked a gun at him. Then Bautista suddenly fired his gun hitting the chest of the
victim. Roque and Saguil together with a bouncer from a nearby Soda Fountain
brought the victim to the Jose Reyes Memorial Hospital where he was pronounced
dead on arrival.
Petitioners were charged with murder for the death of Esteban Jr. due to multiple
gunshot wounds. They pleaded not guilty and trial court rendered a decision: guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for homicide (mitigating circumstance for voluntary
surrender for Araneta jr.) and Ng and Santiago were acquitted for failure to prove
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
On their appeal to the supreme court, Araneta Jr raised two issues: He should be
charged for slight physical injuries and he should be acquitted on the ground of self
defense and/or self defense of strangers.
For the second issue which is self defense, The rule is that a requirement of self-
defense and defense of strangers under paragraphs 1 and 3, respectively, of Article
11, Revised Penal Code is unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. This
element is not present in the case at bar. For unlawful aggression to be present in
self-defense, there must be an assault or at least a threatened assault on the
person defending himself.
In this case, there was no actual physical assault on petitioner Araneta, Jr. or any
member of his group. Neither was it shown that the victim exhibited an intimidating
attitude that is offensive and positively strong, showing the wrongful intent to cause
an injury. If there was any unlawful aggression, it came from the group of Araneta,
Jr. when Bautista pushed the victim's shoulder after which Araneta, Jr. fired the first
fired indiscriminately.
There being no unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, Araneta Jr. cannot
claim the justifying circumstance of self-defense to absolve him from criminal
liability for inflicting injury upon the victim.
For slight physical injuries, according the post-mortem findings, the victim died of
"shock and hemorrhage due to multiple (2) gunshot wounds in the anterior and
posterior chest lacerating the diaphragm, liver, stomach and spleen." Wound 1,
inflicted by Bautista, was fatal and Wound 2 was inflicted by Araneta Jr. which was a
slight wound making it possible for the victim to fire the gun even sustaining such
wound (not fatal).
Araneta pointed out that since the wound he caused was nor fatal, he is not
criminally liable for the death of the victim. He points out that had not Bautista
subsequently shot the victim, the victim would not have died. He asserts that since
there was no conspiracy established, the liability of petitioner Araneta, Jr. should
only be for the crime of slight physical injuries and not homicide.
ISSUE:
WON Araneta who admittedly shot the victim but is shown to have inflicted only a
slight wound be held accountable for the death of the victim due to a fatal wound
caused by his co-accused.
HELD:
Yes. The gunshot wound inflicted by petitioner Araneta, Jr. was a slight wound
which did not cause the death of the victim nor materially contributed to it in order
that he may be held liable for homicide. His liability should therefore be limited to
the slight injury he caused. However, the fact that petitioner Araneta Jr. inflicted a
gunshot wound on the victim shows the intent to kill. The use of a gun fired at
another certainly leads to no other conclusion than that there is intent to kill. He is
therefore liable for the crime of attempted homicide and not merely for slight
physical injuries.
Valenzuela vs People
FACTS:
The accused Aristotel Valenzuela was seen by a security guard hauling a cart filled
with cases of Tide Detergent at the open parking area of a supermarket. Valenzuela
was next seen unloading the contents of the cart at an area where the other
accused, Jovy Caleron was posted. He then went back inside the store and then
came out again with more cases of Tide. He got a taxi and started putting the cases
in the car when the security guard approached them to ask for their receipt. Instead
of handing said receipt, the two accused ran away. They were pursued and were
later apprehended. The case of Consummated Theft was filed against them and
both were convicted.

An appeal was made by Valenzuela contending that since he was not able to make
use or dispose of the merchandise that he stole, his crime should only be frustrated
not consumated theft. The CA agreed with the lower courts decision.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the felony committed was frustrated theft.
HELD:
No. The crime committed by Valenzuela was in the consummated stage. Article 6 of
the Revised Penal Code states that a felony is consummated when all the elements
necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. The following presence
of all of the following elements prove that theft as a crime has been consummated:
(1) the taking of personal property; (2) said property belongs to another; (3) the
taking be done with intent to gain; (4) the taking is done without the consent of the
owner; and (5) the taking is done without violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things. All of these were present in the case at bar.
The judgment on Dino and Flores cases are already considered stray decisions,
since there is in fact nowhere in the RPC that says when the thief has not been able
to dispose of the stolen goods, he has not consummated the act. This being the
reason given by Valenzuela on appeal, was not accepted. The court denied
Valenzuela's petition and ruled once and for all that theft can only be in the
attempted or consummated stage, and never in the frustrated stage.
People vs Pareja
FACTS:
Antonio Pareja, Jose Toledo and another unnamed man forcibly entered the house
of the Jacobs with the intention of robbing them of their TV set and Betamax.They
tried to lift the appliances but those prove to be to heavy for thgem. Their faces
were covered at the time they entered the house but Pareja and Toledo were
unmasked and identified. Pareja tried to stab Amada Jacob after she's unmasked
him but he was unsuccessful. When the neighbors started to respond to one of the
Jacobs' pleas for help, the three men flee.
Soon after the men were gone, Generoso Jacob was found by his wife in the
kitchen, bleeding profusely from stab wounds. He died from said wounds according
to the autopsy report.
The case of Attempted Robbery with Homicide was filed against Apareja and Toledo.
Their defense - alibis were found weak, and although there were some
inconsistencies with the statements of the victims, the accused were still convicted.
Toledo filed an appeal; CA affirmed the lower court's decision.
ISSUE:
WON Toledo is guilty of Attempted Robbery With Homicide even when it was Pareja
and not him who stabbed Generoso Jacob
HELD:
YEs. Even if Toledo is not the one who actually stabbed and killed Generoso, he is
stil liable for the crime he was accused of because he was not able to prove that he
did anything to prevent such killing from happening. Moreover, the general rule on
homicides committed during or because of a robbery, is that all perpetrators of the
robbery will be liable for the homicide.
PEOPLE vs. ARNULFO ORANDE y CHAVEZ
[G.R. Nos. 141724-27. November 12, 2003]
FACTS:
The victim Jessica Castro was raped by the husband of her mother (but not her
father), here the appellant, Arnulfo Chavez. The victim was raped four times
between January 1994 and November 1996, her age at those times was around 9 to
13 years old. Sometime in 1997, the teacher of Jessica, Mrs. Mojica, noticed the
unusual treatment to Jessica by the appellant. Mrs. Mojica confronted Jessica and
the latter confessed that the appellant raped her several times. Mrs. Mojica
accompanied Jessica to the police station to file a complaint and subsequently to the
Philippine General Hospital, Child protection unit for the examination. The
examination resulted to the finding of Estrogenized, attenuated hymen.
The appellant were arraigned on September 5, 1997 and pleaded not guilty.
However, the trial was postponed for 8 months as the victim suffered from
psychological and emotional trauma. The appellants defenses were grounded on
denial and alibi. The trial court convicted the appellant on the grounds of one count
statutory rape, two counts of simple rape, and one count of FRUSTRATED RAPE.
The court oversight the interchanging of Criminal Case Nos. 97-159185 and 97-
159187. In the former case (CC nos. 97-159185) the significant fact is that the
appellant succeeded in nudging her sex organ with the tip of his penis, but was
unable to accomplish penetration, due to the resistance offered by her by struggling
and kicking him. On the other hand, in latter case, appellant succeeded in having
carnal knowledge.
Consequently the conviction for frustrated rape should pertain to the incident in
April 1994 described in Criminal Case No. 97-159185 and not Criminal Case No. 97-
159187 since this case refers to the November 1996 rape incident where the
findings of the trial court was that there was carnal knowledge.
ISSUE:
WON the appellant is liable of frustrated rape, where in fact it is that under the
prevailing jurisprudence there is no such crime.
HELD:
The appellant is NOT liable of FRUSTRATED RAPE. However, it was decided that
appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of CONSUMATED RAPE.
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of
his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to
be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to
produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line of cases (People
vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People vs. Royeras,
G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 666; People vs. Amores, G.R. No. L-
32996, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 505), We have set the uniform rule that for the
consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the
female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female
organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to
warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the
female organ (People vs. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559; People vs. Rabadan, et al., 53 Phil.
694; United States vs. Garcia, 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of execution was
performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by
overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the
crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the
frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed.
Pursuant to Section 11 of RA 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law, the penalty of death
is imposed if rape is committed when the victim is under 18 years of age and the
offender is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. However, the trial
court was correct in not imposing the death penalty in Criminal Case Nos. 97-
159184 and 97-159187 because the qualifying circumstances of age and
relationship of the victim to the appellant were not alleged in the information.[29]
Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape punishable by reclusion
perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. However, in Criminal Case
Nos. 97-159185 and 97-159186, the appellant can be convicted of statutory rape
also punishable by reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
inasmuch as the age of Jessica was alleged in the information[30] and duly proven
during the trial by the presentation of her birth certificate.[31]
*forgive me in copy pasting the last two paragraphs. I strongly believe that
information from these paragraphs will be very useful upon recitation.
People vs Pareja
FACTS:
Antonio Pareja, Jose Toledo and another unnamed man forcibly entered the house
of the Jacobs with the intention of robbing them of their TV set and Betamax.They
tried to lift the appliances but those prove to be to heavy for thgem. Their faces
were covered at the time they entered the house but Pareja and Toledo were
unmasked and identified. Pareja tried to stab Amada Jacob after she's unmasked
him but he was unsuccessful. When the neighbors started to respond to one of the
Jacobs' pleas for help, the three men flee.
Soon after the men were gone, Generoso Jacob was found by his wife in the
kitchen, bleeding profusely from stab wounds. He died from said wounds according
to the autopsy report.
The case of Attempted Robbery with Homicide was filed against Apareja and Toledo.
Their defense - alibis were found weak, and although there were some
inconsistencies with the statements of the victims, the accused were still convicted.
Toledo filed an appeal; CA affirmed the lower court's decision.
ISSUE:
WON Toledo is guilty of Attempted Robbery With Homicide even when it was Pareja
and not him who stabbed Generoso Jacob
HELD:
YES. Even if Toledo is not the one who actually stabbed and killed Generoso, he is
stil liable for the crime he was accused of because he was not able to prove that he
did anything to prevent such killing from happening. The general rule on homicides
committed during or because of a robbery, is that all perpetrators of the robbery
will be liable for the homicide.
PEOPLE vs. ORITA
FACTS:
In the early morning of March 20, 1983, Lito Orita unlawfully and feloniously lay
with with Cristina S. Abayan against her will and without her consent. Orita used a
knife, and threat and intimidation, in the process of accomplishing his intent to rape
the victim.
With one hand holding the knife, Orita undressed himself and ordered Abayan to
take off her clothes. Scared, she took off her T-shirt, then he pulled off her bra,
pants and panty. He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He
made her hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. She followed his order as he
continued to poke the knife to her. At said position, however, appellant could not
fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as she kept on moving.
At some point, Orita had both his hands flat on the floor and the victim had the
opportunity of escaping. She fled to another room and jumped out through a
window. Still naked, she darted to the municipal building, where she was helped by
3 policemen, and brought to the provincial hospital. She was then physically
examined.
On August 5, 1985, the trial court convicted the accused of frustrated rape, to
suffer prision mayor, and to indemnify the victim the amount of P4,000.

Not satisfied with the decision, the accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. On
December 29, 1988, the CA rendered its decision in favor of the victim, thereby
ruling that instead of frustrated rape, the accused is found guilty of rape and is
sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua, and to indemnify the victim the amount
of P30,000.
However, on January 11, 1989, the CA set aside its ruling and forwarded the
case to this [Supreme] Court.
The accused assailed that the testimonies of the victim and the witnesses "show
remarkable and vital inconsistencies and its incredibility amounting to fabrication
and therefore casted doubt to its candor, truth and validity." The court however
dismissed this when, through closer scrutiny, they found the witnesses are telling
the truth.
of performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. He is stopped short of
that point by some cause apart from his voluntary desistance.
Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge
of his victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to
be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to
produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated.
It should be stressed that in cases of rape where there is a positive testimony and a
medical certificate, both should, in all respect, compliment each other. Otherwise, to
rely on the testimony alone in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the
medical certificate, would be productive of mischievous results. There was an
alleged variance between the testimony and the medical certificate, but this was
found to be nonexistent.

ISSUE: The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted even on the
WON the conviction of frustrated rape is proper, in the defense of the accused sole basis of the victim's testimony if credible, and after a thorough review of the
that there is no such crime. records, the court found the evidence sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of consummated rape.
HELD:
No. There is only attempted and consummated rape. Thus, the previous ruling of the CA to convict the accused with rape is affirmed.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code defines and enumerates the elements of the
crime of rape:

Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the
circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be
present.

The requisites of a frustrated felony are: (1) that the offender has performed all the
acts of execution which would produce the felony and (2) that the felony is not
produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator's will.

A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after beginning the
commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by some
outside cause from performing all of the acts which should produce the crime.

If he has performed all of the acts which should result in the consummation of the
crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt. The
essential element which distinguishes attempted from frustrated felony is that, in
the latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency
between the beginning of the commission of the crime and the moment when all of
the acts have been performed which should result in the consummated crime; while
in the former there is such intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point