Criminal Law Case Digests

November 2017
(RPC Books 1 and 2)

Janzl B. Ong

JD 4-1
Topic: Treachery as qualifying circumstance for murder

People vs Rafael Daroya

Nov 8 2018 Gr. No. 229502

Doctrine:

Treachery cannot be presumed from the mere suddenness of an attack; the suddenness of an
attack does not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill.It
must be shown proved that the accused consciously adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the
perpetration of the killing without risk to himself. Treachery cannot be appreciated if the accused
did not make any preparation to kill the deceased in such manner as to insure the commission of
the killing or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to retaliate or defend
himself

Facts:

In the evening of October 19, 2002, Ceralde, who was then ferrying his pedicab along Bonuan-
Gueset, Dagupan City, saw Daroya suddenly appear. Ceralde noticed that Daroya's left hand was
holding a piece of metal wrapped with a towel. Thereafter, Daroya suddenly punched Rolando,
which caused the latter to fall down. Daroya then continued to punch Rolando using his left
hand. Rolando was not able to fight back. Therafter, Daroya immediately ran away. Rolando
then fell down facing the ground. After Daroya left, Ceralde and the other pedicab drivers
brought Rolando to the hospital where he subsequently died.

On the other hand, Daroya admitted that he punched Rolando, but claimed that he did so in self-
defense. He maintained that it was Rolando who started the fight. He claimed that on the date of
the incident, at around 8:00 P.M., he was riding his pedicab waiting for passengers in the corner
of Bonuan-Gueset in Dagupan City; that he was the first in line of about 80 pedicab drivers while
Rolando was at the end of the line. Daroya averred that when the passengers were already
coming, Rolando suddenly parked his pedicab in front of the line. Daroya and Rolando then
fought on who among them should be the first in line. Daroya alleged that he punched Rolando
three or four times and immediately went home after seeing Rolando fell on the ground

Daroya was charged for murder on the ground that the killing was made with treachery by the
suddent puches of Daroya.

Issue: Is there treachery?

Ruling: None.

The Court holds that the prosecution has not proven that the killing was committed with
treachery. Indeed, other than their respective findings that Daroya "suddenly appeared" and
continuously punched Rolando, while holding a piece of metal wrapped in a towel, until the
latter fell to the ground, the lower courts failed to indicate any circumstance which would show
that Daroya consciously adopted such mode of attack to facilitate the perpetration of the killing
without risk to himself. The prosecution has likewise failed to present any evidence showing that
Daroya specifically chose to punch Rolando in his plan to kill him.

It appears that Daroya's decision to punch Rolando, which eventually caused the latter's death,
appears to be the result of a rash and impetuous impulse of the moment brought about by their
argument as to who among them should be first in line among the pedicab drivers. It is basic that
a killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous.

Accordingly, the Court is compelled to disregard the finding of the existence of treachery by the
lower courts. Daroya's guilt is thus limited to the crime of homicide.
Topic: Rape by sexual intercourse; Elements

People vs Benjamin Austria

Nov 8 2017 Gr. No. 210568

Doctrine: The absence of external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not
necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration not being, to repeat, an element of
the crime of rape. A healed or fresh laceration would of course be a compelling proof of
defloration. What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's
testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the
victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credibly is
sufficient to convict.

Facts: Victim AAA testified in court that her stepfather Benjamin Austria, in several occasions,
raped her. During trial however, the prosecution themselves presented an expert witness who
testified that AAA’s hymen remain intact. Accused Austria was convicted in the lower courts.
Comes now this appeal, where the accused argues that the fact that the hymen of AAA remained
intact, as established by the expert wintess by the prosecution themselves, rebuts and negates the
possibility of rape.

Issue: Can an accused be convicted of rape by sexual intercourse despite the fact the the hymen
of victim remained intact?

Ruling:

Yes.Hymenal Laceration is not an element of rape.

An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped, and a freshly broken hymen
is not an essential element of rape.

In People v. Gabayron, we sustained the conviction of accused for rape even though the victim's
hymen remained intact after the incidents because medical researches show that negative
findings of lacerations are of no significance, as the hymen may not be torn despite repeated
coitus. It was noted that many cases of pregnancy had been reported about women with
unruptured hymens, and that there could still be a finding of rape even if, despite repeated
intercourse over a period of years, the victim still retained an intact hymen without signs of
injury.
In People v. Capt. Llanto, citing People v. Aguinaldo, we likewise affirmed the conviction of the
accused for rape despite the absence of laceration on the victim's hymen since medical findings
suggest that it is possible for the victim's hymen to remain intact despite repeated sexual
intercourse. We elucidated that the strength and dilatability of the hymen varies from one woman
to another, such that it may be so elastic as to stretch without laceration during intercourse; on
the other hand, it may be so resistant that its surgical removal is necessary before intercourse can
ensue.

In People v. Palicte and in People v. Castro, the rape victims involved were minors. The medical
examination showed that their hymen remained intact even after the rape. Even then, we held
that such fact is not proof that rape was not committed
Topic: Treachery as qualifying circumstance of Murder

Peope vs Paul Duran Jr. y Mirabueno

Nov 20, 2017 Gr. No. 215748

Doctrine: The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by an aggressor on the
unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any chance to defend himself and thereby ensuring
its commission without risk of himself.

Repeatedly upheld has been the rule that chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed
at the spur of the moment, are generally not attended by treachery, for lack of opportunity of the
accused deliberately to employ a treacherous mode of attack.

Facts:

A witness testified that on January 9, 2009 at around 1:48 in the morning, she was awakened by
someone calling for her, uttering "Ninang". At that time she was inside her house She recognized
the voice of the person as her godson named Gilbert Grimaldo. She then asked why. Grimaldo
replied from outside saying "Ninang tulungan mo ako yung taong ito ay kinukursunada ako,"
"kinukursunada ako ng taong ito, me dala siyang baril". Then she opened the door for her
godson. She then saw the accused Paul Duran shot Grimaldo with a .38 caliber revolver from
behind at a distance of 2 1/2 feet. Grimaldo was hit at the nape, and then fell to the ground lying
with his face down. Duran then left the place passing between their houses. Moments later
accused returned and shot Grimaldo three more times to make sure that the latter was dead.

For his part, the accused countered that he merely defended himself, as Grimaldo initially tried to
rob him. Such act of Grimaldo resulted into an altercation, constraining the accused to chase and
shoot Grimaldo.

Accused Duran was charged for murder.

Issue: Was there treachery?

Ruling: There was no treachery. The victim was able to seek help from the eyewitness, and it
was not established that the accused intentionally sought the means to insure the execution of his
killing.

The prosecution did not prove that Duran intentionally sought the victim for the purpose of
killing him. The confrontation between Duran and Grimaldo appears to have been a chance
encounter. It was also not proven that Duran deliberately and consciously employed means,
methods, or forms in the execution of the criminal act to ensure that Grimaldo could not defend
himself.

Notably, eyewitness Quilana only witnessed the moment of the actual shooting but did not
witness the inception of the fatal altercation. The prosecution failed to establish that Duran had
deliberately adopted a treacherous mode of attack for the purpose of depriving the victim of a
chance to fight or retreat. In this case, Grimaldo was aware of the impending attack and was even
able to seek help from eyewitness Quilana.
Topic: Extinguishment of Criminal Liabilty

People vs Calomia

Nov 20, 2017 Gr.No.229856

Doctrine: The death of an accused pending the appeal of his conviction extinguishes the
criminal action, as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; and the civil action
instituted therein for the recovery of civil liability ex delictois likewise ipso facto extinguished,
as it is grounded on the criminal action.

Facts:

In two criminal cases, accused-appellant Ruben Calomia was charged before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) two counts of qualified rape of his minor daughter, AAA, which he allegedly
committed sometime in August 2007 and April 2008.

After trial on the merits, the RTC promulgated its Decision on March 11, 2015 finding accused-
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both counts of qualified rape. He appealed to the
CA, which also affirmed his conviction. He then filed a notice of appeal before the Supreme
Court on Sept. 21 2016. The accused however, died during the pendency of the appeal.

Issue:What is the effect of the death of the accused pending the appeal of his conviction?

Ruling:

Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well
as the civil liability based solely thereon.

Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil
Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a
result of the same act or omission: a) Law b) Contracts c) Quasi-contracts e) Quasi-delicts

Where the civil liability survives, an action for recovery therefor may be pursued but only by
way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure as amended. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator or the estate of the accused, depending on the source of obligation upon
which the same is based as explained above.
Finally, the private offended party need not fear a forfeiture of his right to file this separate civil
action by prescription, in cases where during the prosecution of the criminal action and prior to
its extinction, the private-offended party instituted together therewith the civil action. In such
case, the statute of limitations on the civil liability is deemed interrupted during the pendency of
the criminal case, conformably with provisions of Article 1155 of the Civil Code, that should
thereby avoid any apprehension on a possible privation of right by prescription. (Emphases
supplied.)

The death of an accused pending the appeal of his conviction extinguishes the criminal action, as
there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; and the civil action instituted therein for
the recovery of civil liability ex delictois likewise ipso facto extinguished, as it is grounded on
the criminal action.

In the instant case, accused-appellant's death occurred prior to the finality of the judgment of
conviction rendered against him. Irrefragably, accused-appellant's death extinguished his
criminal liability and his civil liabilities directly arising from and based solely on the crime/s he
committed. Accused-appellant's conviction by the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
must therefore be set aside as the same had already been rendered ineffectual.
Topic: Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610 (Sexual Abuse)

Rizaldo Orsos vs People of the Philippines

Nov 20, 2017 Gr. No. 214673

Doctrine: Lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is
some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the
offended party's free will. The term 'influence' means the 'improper use of power or trust in any
way that deprives a person of free will and substitutes another's objective.' Meanwhile, 'coercion'
is the 'improper use of power to compel another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it.

Facts:

At around 9:30 in the morning of April 21, 2007, while the CAT trainees, including AAA, were
at the Sohot Spring in Dumalag for a cleanup drive, petitioner called AAA and asked her if she
had decided on becoming a CAT officer, to which she answered yes. Petitioner then instructed
her to go to his house at 1:00 in the afternoon of the same day for her supposed initiation. As she
did not know where petitioner's house was located, she went back to the school at around 12:30
in the afternoon instead and waited for him to arrive. When petitioner saw AAA, he told her to
follow him to his house and keep a little distance between them.

Upon arrival thereat, petitioner instructed her to take a seat while he went to the bathroom for a
few minutes. AAA noticed that except for the two of them, no one else was in the house.
Thereafter, he emerged from the bathroom and asked her if she was really determined to become
a CAT officer, to which she replied yes. Petitioner then told her that he had a crush on her, that
he wanted her to become his mistress, and that he will give her all her needs.Then, he pulled her
to his lap and asked her to kiss him. Thinking it was part of the initiation rites, AAA kissed his
right cheek. Thereafter, petitioner asked her to sit on the sofa and proceeded to kiss her on the
lips, leading her to cry. Petitioner then instructed her to lie down on the sofa, lifted her shirt and
underwear, and sucked her right breast for about two minutes.AAA was frightened and could not
complain. Petitioner was about to unzip her pants when she pleaded for him not to do so as she
had her menstrual period then.At this point, petitioner stood up and went back to the bathroom.
When he re-emerged, he told her to stop crying and not to report the incident if she truly wanted
to become a CAT officer.

Accused was later on charged with acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610, where he was
convicted. In his appeal, accused contended that the element of force and intimidation was not
established.
Issue: Was there force and intimidation to warrant the conviction for the crime of acts of
lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610?

Ruling:

Yes.

Under the law, There must be a confluence of the following elements before conviction can be
had for acts of lasciviousness: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness; (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) through force, threat,
or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
(c) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (d) when the offended
party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex.

On the other hand, The requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7 610 are as
follows: (1) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said
act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse;
and (3) that the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

It was established that petitioner, who was then a teacher and CAT Commandant in AAA' s
school, and therefore, a person who exercised moral ascendancy and influence upon her,
committed lascivious or lewd conduct against her by kissing her lips and sucking her right breast.

It was established that petitioner, who was AAA's teacher and then the CAT Commandant in her
school, was able to carry out his lewd acts by asking her twice if she was determined to become a
CAT officer. Petitioner's inquiry strongly suggested that if AAA really wanted to become a CAT
officer, she should accede to his demands and allow him to commit lascivious conduct upon her
person. Therefore, petitioner exercised influence and coercion upon AA.A in order to commit the
crime against her, thereby satisfying the element of force and intimidation in this case. Besides,
although petitioner was not armed nor did he threaten AAA, his moral ascendancy over her is a
sufficient substitute for the use of force or intimidation.

Hence, conviction is proper.

Topic: Grave and Slight Oral Defamation

Digna Ramos vs People of the Philippines

Nov 20, 2017 GR 226454

Doctrine:

Oral Defamation or Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. It is
defined as "the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood." The elements of oral defamation are:
(1) there must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, status or circumstances; (2) made orally; (3) publicly; (4) and maliciously; (5) directed
to a natural or juridical person, or one who is dead; (6) which tends to cause dishonor, discredit
or contempt of the person defamed. Oral defamation may either be simple or grave. It becomes
grave when it is of a serious and insulting nature.

An allegation is considered defamatory if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the

possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt or which tends to
blacken the memory of one who is dead. To determine whether a statement is defamatory, the
words used in the statement must be construed in their entirety and should be taken in their plain,
natural and ordinary meaning as they would naturally be understood by persons reading them,
unless it appears that they were used and understood in another sense. It must be stressed that
words which are merely insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of
general abuse however opprobrious, ill-natured, or vexatious, whether written or spoken, do not
constitute a basis for an action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special
damages. The fact that the language is offensive to the plaintiff does not make it actionable by
itself.

Facts:

Sometime in September 17, 2003, private complainant Patrocinia Dumaua (Dumaua) was
watering her plants in her yard, when suddenly, she noticed five (5) schoolchildren pick up dried
leaves and throw them into her yard. When Dumaua called the attention of the schoolchildren,
the latter ran towards the direction of Sto. Nifio Elementary School, where Ramos works as a
public school teacher.
 A little later, Ramos arrived, picked up dried banana leaves, and allegedly threw them into
Dumaua's yard, while saying "ta sinnu ti pabasulem nga agilappak ti bulung, siguro dakayo ta
nagpabirthday kayo" which means "Whom do you blame throwing leaves? Maybe you did
because you hosted a birthday party."

This prompted a quarrel between Ramos and Dumaua, during the course of which Ramos uttered
to the latter, "Ukininam, puta, awan ad-adalmo, nagbalay kayo ti nagdakkelan, magaburan
daytoy balay kon" which translates to "Vulva of your mother, prostitute, illiterate, you built a
very big house, it overshadows my house."

In her defense, Ramos denied making any derogatory remarks against Dumaua,
particularly "ukininam, puta, awan ad-adal mo." She then narrated that on the time and date in
question, she was traversing a pathway located between Dumaua's house and that of another
neighbor when she saw Dumaua standing at her yard. Suddenly, Dumaua got angry at her,
blamed her for the garbage in her yard, and threatened her not to use the pathway or else
something will happen.

An information for grave oral defamation was then filed against the accused, where she was
convicted. Hence this case.

Issue: Whether the accused shall be convicted for grave oral defamation?

Ruling:

Whether the offense committed is serious or slight oral defamation, depends not only upon the
sense and grammatical meaning of the utterances but also upon the special circumstances of the
case, like the social standing or the advanced age of the offended party. "The gravity depends
upon: (1) the expressions used; (2) the personal relations of the accused and the offended party;
and (3) the special circumstances of the case, the antecedents or relationship between the
offended party and the offender, which may tend to prove the intention of the offender at the
time. In particular, it is a rule that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some
provocation on the part of the offended party constitutes only a light felony."26 (Emphases and
underscoring supplied)

A judicious review of the records of this case reveals that Ramos indeed uttered the
words "ukininam, puta, awan ad-adal mo," which means "vulva of your mother, prostitute,
illiterate," against Dumaua. However, no evidence was presented to show that Ramos indeed
started the altercation by instructing her schoolchildren to throw leaves into Dumaua's yard, and
eventually, throwing dried banana leaves therein as well. It must be pointed out that Dumaua's
claim to that effect was not supported by her corroborative witnesses whose testimonies only
pertain to matters transpiring during the height of the verbal altercation as they were inside the
house when the fight started. Absent such evidence, the Court is inclined to lend more credence
to Ramos's narration that she was just passing through a pathway adjacent to Dumaua's house
when the latter got mad at her; started blaming her for the garbage in her yard; and warned her
not to use the pathway anymore or else something will happen to her - all of which resulted in
the two of them hurling invectives against one another. Thus, it may safely be concluded that
while Ramos indeed said defamatory words against Dumaua, the utterances were made in the
heat of anger and were with some sort of provocation on the part of the latter.

As such, the Court is constrained to hold that Ramos is only guilty of the crime of Slight Oral
Defamation.