PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. AMBROSIO OHAYAS, ET.

AL
G.R. No. 207516, June 19, 2017
TIJAM, J.:
Facts: Appellant, together with his companions, walked towards the place where the
victim was conversing with his friends. Lou noticed appellant had in his hands a shotgun
while his companions were carrying torches. Appellant suddenly, and without any
warning, shot Armando Jr. who was hit in his right abdomen. Not contented, appellant
continued to fire at the victims. Sany was hit on his right finger, while Lou, although not
directly hit, nevertheless suffered injuries when the bullets ricocheted.
Appellant claimed that he was mauled at Sitio Bonbon by a certain "Toper" prior to the
shooting incident, and because of that, his cousins wanted to avenge him. Appellant,
however, prevented them from doing so. On the day of the shooting, appellant claimed
that he was fishing at sea. At around 8 o'clock in the evening, he heard gunshots coming
from Sitio Bonbon. He felt afraid, so he stopped fishing and went home. On the way
home, he was told by SP03 Bancog that someone died in the shooting incident, and that
appellant was the one to be blamed.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of murder.

Ruling: The elements of the crime of murder are: (I) a person was killed; (2) the accused
killed him or her; (3) the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 248 of the RPC; and (4) the killing is not parricide or infanticide.
In this case, the prosecution was able to clearly establish that: (1) Armando, Jr. was shot
and killed; (2) the accused-appellant was the person who killed him; (3) Armando, Jr.'s
killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of treachery; and (4) the killing of
Armando, Jr. was neither parricide nor infanticide.
Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere
else when the crime was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have
been at the scene of the crime. In this case, suffice it to state that the defense failed to
establish that it was physically impossible for the accused-appellant to have perpetrated
the offense.

Ratio Decidendi: Where there is the least chance for the accused to be present at the
crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RODOLFO DENIEGA
G.R. No. 212201, June 28, 2017
Gist: This is an ordinary appeal filed assailing the Decision of the CA, which affirmed in
toto the Decision of the RTC of San Pedro, finding accused-appellant guilty of the crime
of statutory rape.

Facts: In an Amended Information, accused was charged with the crime of statutory
rape, as follows: that the accused feloniously, have carnal knowledge with a minor (16
years old) AAA, whose mental age is only six (6) years old. Said carnal knowledge with
the said AAA is detrimental to her normal growth and development and that accused
knew fully well that the said AAA is suffering from mental disability and/or disorder.
In his defense, accused-appellant denied the allegations of the prosecution and also raised
the defense of alibi. He contended that between the hours of 8 o'clock in the morning and
12 o'clock midnight of May 2, 2007, he busied himself by painting the house of a
neighbor, then he went to GMA Cavite to have his electric fan repaired and,
subsequently, had a drinking session with his friend at the latter's house. He also admitted
that he and the victim were residing at the same place and, at the time of the incident, he
has known the victim for one month.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of statutory rape under Article 266- A,
paragraph 1 (d) of the RPC.

Ruling: Yes. It is a settled rule that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental
retardate, with a mental age below 12 years old, constitutes statutory rape. In People v.
Quintas, the Supreme Court held that if a mentally-retarded or intellectually-disabled
person whose mental age is less than 12 years is raped, the rape is considered committed
under paragraph 1 (d) and not paragraph l(b), Article 266-A of the RPC.
In the present case, the Information alleged that the victim, at the time of the commission
of the crime, was 16 years old but with a mental age of a 6-year-old child. The
prosecution was able to establish these facts through AAA's Birth Certificate, Clinical
Abstract prepared by a medical doctor who is a psychiatrist from the National Center for
Mental Health, as well as the testimonies of the said doctor29 and the victim's mother,
BBB.

Ratio Decidendi: In determining whether a person is "twelve (12) years of age" under
Article 266-A(l)(d), the interpretation should be in accordance with either the
chronological age of the child if he or she is not suffering from intellectual disability, or
the mental age if intellectual disability is established.