ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 1

99 HELD: No. The crime committed is homicide and not parricide.

From the testimony of Ebol Subano, father of the deceased, it
TITLE VIII → 123 CASES STATUS
appears that the Subano has three wives and that the
deceased was the last in point of time. Although the practice
Alaba 1-20 COMPLETE of polygamy is approved by custom among these non-
Christians, polygamy, however, is not sanctioned by the
Andoy 21-40 COMPLETE Marriage Law which merely recognizes tribal marriage rituals.
The deceased, under our law, is not thus the lawful wife of the
Mabborang 41-60 COMPLETE defendant and this precludes conviction for the crime of
parricide.
Nenaria 61-81 COMPLETE
3. People vs Cruz, 109 Phil 288 (1960)
Labendia 82-102 COMPLETE
FACTS: Remigio Cruz was married to Natividad Concepcion
Matilac 103-123 COMPLETE
in 1953. In 1954 Natividad separated from Cruz allegedly
because he used to beat her up. Eventually, they reconciled.
After learning that they left him, Cruz followed his wife and
daughter to Cabanatuan City where her parents lived. Cruz
- Digest Properly and his wife were talking but eventually, he started hacking
- Maximum of 5 sentences for facts, if possible
- Use the most important ruling related to the her with the bolo. Cruz contends that, assuming that he was
facts. E-scra will help. 😊 mentally fit at the time of the killing, he should not have been
- Some cases are found in the book of Reyes but convicted of the crime of parricide because his marriage to
do not contain any facts Natividad was not provided in accordance with the best
- Please do not use the “petitioner” or evidence rule.
“respondent” or “appellant” or “defendant”,
please rename it according to Atty. Dulay
ISSUE: May an oral evidence to prove the fact of marriage be
- DEADLINE: MARCH 18, admissible?

2019 (Monday) HELD: Yes. In a case of parricide, the best proof of the
relationship between the accused and the deceased is the
marriage certificate. If, however, the oral evidence presented
to prove the fact of marriage is not objected to, the said
TITLE VIII – CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
evidence may be considered by the court.
ALABA
4. People vs Berang, 69 Phil 83 (1939)
Article 246. Parricide.

FACTS: The accused Berang was charged with parricide

1. People vs Embalido, 58 Phil 154 (1933)
because he boloed to death his wife Mora Bayna and child.
The accused told the sergeant that he killed his wife and
FACTS: Feliciano Embalido was charged with the crime of
children because he was made with rage. There was doubt
parricide. He admits having killed his wife, but claims that he
regarding the evidence of the marriage of Berang and Mora
surprised her in the act of committing adultery. The lower court
Bayna.
found him guilty of the crime of parricide.

ISSUE: Whether or not Berang is guilty of parricide

ISSUE: Whether or not Embalido is guilty of parricide

HELD: Yes, he is guilty of parricide for killing his daughter.

HELD: Yes. In cases of parricide, prosecution is required to
However, as to Mora Bayna, the court considered it homicide
prove three facts, namely:
only in the absence of clear evidence of the marriage.
(1) That death of the deceased:
(2) that he or she was killed by the accused; and
5. People vs Jumawan, 116 SCRA 739 (1982)
(3) that the deceased was a legitimate ascendant or
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
FACTS: A complaint for murder was filed against Jumawan et
al. for the death of Rodolfo Magnaye. Magnaye was married
Here, the victim is the legitimate spouse of the accused
to Presentacion Jumawan but they had been living separately
Embalido.
from each other. During the trial, Presentacion admitted her
marriage to Rodolfo.
2. People vs Subano, 73 Phil 692 (1942)

ISSUE: Whether or not Presentacion Jumawan-Magnaye

FACTS: Pilos Subano and his wife Bankalot had quarrels in
should be convicted of Parricide
two separate occasions. When the wife refused to accompany
him in the river to catch fish, Subano dragged her and killed
HELD: No. Presentacion should have been accused of
her. It appears that Subano has three wives.
parricide but as it is, since her relationship to the deceased is
not alleged in the information, she, like the others, can be
ISSUE: Whether or not Subano is guilty of Parricide
convicted of murder only, qualified by abuse of superior
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 2
strength. Although not alleged in the information, relationship
as an aggravating circumstance should be assigned against
the Jumawan et al.. True, relationship is inherent in parricide,
but Presentacion stands convicted of murder. And as to the
others, the relationships of father-in-law and brother-in-law
aggravate the crime.
6. People vs Recote, 96 Phil 980 (1955)
FACTS: Ambrosio Recote alias “Bucio”, while struggling for
the possession of the gun with his children, without intent to
kill anyone, pulled the trigger of the gun which exploded and
hit his wife who was approaching them.
ISSUE: Whether or not Recote is guilty of parricide
HELD: Yes. Recote is guilty of parricide through reckless
imprudence. The deceased here is the legitimate spouse of
Recote.
7. People vs dela Cruz, 276 SCRA 352 (1997)
FACTS: Leonardo P. De La Cruz confronted his wife Violeta,
"I heard you have a lover." She denied and it led to a violent
quarrel between them. Leonardo boxed and slapped Violeta
until she died. He was found guilty of parricide before the trial
court and was ordered to indemnify his wife's heirs
P50,000.00.
ISSUE: Whether or not indemnity is proper in parricide cases
HELD: It depends. In this case before us where a husband
who killed his wife and was ordered to indemnify his wife's
heirs P50,000.00, the Supreme Court held that indemnity is
proper. However, in the case of People vs Berang, in a case
where the natural father killed his child, no indemnity was
imposed, "considering that the accused, as the father, is the
presumptive heir of the deceased."
8. People vs Echaluce, 66 SCRA 221 (1975)
FACTS: The accused Bonifacia Echaluce is married to the
victim Severiano Echaluce. Bonifacia, their son Jose
Echaluce, and a stranger Jose Sabas killed Severiano. The
trial court charged the three with parricide. Jose Sabas filed
a motion to quash the information as against him on the
ground that the facts charged with respect to him did not
constitute the offense of parricide since he was not related in
anyway to the victim as provided in Article 246 of the RPC..
ISSUE: Is Sabas guilty of parricide?
HELD: No. A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide, is not guilty of parricide
but only homicide or murder, as the case may be. In this case,
Sabas is guilty of murder.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances.
9. People vs Corazon Cortez, 59 Phil 568 (1934)
FACTS: Accused Corazon De Cortez is the wife of Angel De
Cortez. Corazon killed Maria Bigay, the concubine of his
husband. Corazon claims that she killed Bigay because she
saw them in the act of adultery at Lucia Celis’ house. -
ISSUE: Whether or not De Cortez is entitled to the benefits of
Article 247 of RPC
HELD: Yes. De Cortez is guilty of homicide for killing Bigay,
however, she killed her under the circumstances mentioned
in article 247 of the RPC which is death or physical injuries
inflicted under exceptional circumstances. She is to suffer 6
months and 1 day of destierro.
Summary: The wife who kills or inflicts serious physical
injuries on her husband and/or his concubine, under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 247, is entitled to the benefits
of said article.
10. People vs Marquez, 53 Phil 260 (1929)
FACTS: Guardiano Marquez admits that he killed his wife,
Oliva Sumampong; but he alleges that he caught her in the
act of adultery, and so took her life. He alleged that there was
a man who jumped out of the window, and when he asked his
wife why there was a man inside the house, she answered
that there was no man. He claims exemption under Article 423
of the Penal Code.
ISSUE: Whether or not Marquez can avail the benefits of
exemption under Article 423 of the Penal Code
HELD: No. In order that the Marquez might be entitled to the
benefits of article 423 of the Penal Code, it was necessary for
him to prove positively that he surprised his wife in the act of
committing adultery. No other inference can be made from the
wording of said article. The burden of proof, that he caught his
wife in the very act of adultery, is upon the husband who
alleges it by way of defense.
11. People vs Bituanan, 56 Phil 23 (1931)
FACTS: Moro Bituanan and Mora Sabay were married
according to Moro customs. They got divorced thru the same
customs. After 20 days, Bituanan caught Sabay and Ali Sabpa
sleeping on the same bed. Thereupon, Bituanan attacked Ali
Sabpa and Sabay, killing Sabpa and wounding Sabay. The
CFI found Bituanan guilty of the crime of murder.
The accused contends that CFI's decision should be modified
and he be exempt from according to Article 423 of the Penal
Code which provides that "Any husband who, having
surprised his wife in the act of adultery, shall kill her or her
paramour in the act, or shall inflict any serious physical injuries
upon either, shall suffer the penalty of destierro."
ISSUE: Whether or not Bituanan can avail the exempting
circumstance
HELD: No. The privilege given in Article 423 of the Penal Code
(now Art. 247 of RPC) extends solely to the case of a husband
who surprises his wife in the act of actual adultery, that is,
actual carnal knowledge with her paramour. The provision is
not applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the
act of sexual intercourse with another person. The phrase "in
the act of committing sexual intercourse" does not include
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 3
merely sleeping on the same bed.
12. People vs Gonzales, 69 Phil 66 (1931)
FACTS: Accused Marciano Gonzales testified that he
surprised his wife, Sixta Quilason, and Isabelo Evangelio in
the act of adultery in two occasions. In the second occasion,
he looked for her and found her with Isabelo near the toilet of
his house in a place covered with underbush. When he saw
them, his wife was rising up, while Isabelo, who was standing
and buttoning his drawers, immediately took to his heels.
Evangelio was able to escape. Then, Gonzales killed his wife.
Gonzales contends that he was entitled to the privilege
afforded by article 247 of the RPC.
ISSUE: Whether or not Gonzales can avail the benefits of Art.
247 of RPC
HELD: No. Art. 247 is not applicable as where the accused
surprised his wife after the act, as when he saw her already
rising up and the man buttoning his drawers. He did not
surprise the supposed offenders in the very act of committing
adultery.
13. U.S. vs Feliciano, 36 Phil 753 (1917)
Note: This is an adultery case and not about Art. 247.
FACTS: Margarita Feliciano, the accused, was married to the
complainant Felix Atacador on 1911. Five years after, she left
her husband and lived for three months with Pedro Velasquez
in a rented house. The owner considered them to be man and
wife. A photograph shows their intimate relations. A witness
testified to having seen the accused and Velasquez in scant
apparel and sleeping together. The woman and her paramour
had the opportunity to satisfy their adulterous inclination. Felix
filed a complaint against his wife Feliciano and Velasquez
charging them with adultery.
ISSUE: Whether or not acquittal of the man carries with it the
acquittal of the woman in the offense of adultery
HELD: No. Where a man and a woman are charged in the
same complaint with adultery, and on separate trial the case
against the man is dismissed, the acquittal of the man does
not necessarily carry with it the acquittal of the woman.
Moreover, the husband can testify against the wife in an
adultery case because adultery comes within the exceptions
of section 383, paragraph 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure,
as amended, as an action for a crime committed by the wife
against the husband.
Ruling in the book of Reyes (ang facts sa case dili jud related
sa Art. 247)
A husband to be justified, it is not necessary that he sees the
carnal act being committed by his wife with his own eyes. It is
enough that the circumstances show reasonably that the
carnal act is being committed or has just been committed.
14. U.S. vs Alano, 32 Phil 383 (1915)
FACTS: Teresa Marcelo, the wife of the accused Eufrasio
Alano went out the house to buy medicine in the store. Teresa
did not return immediately so Alano looked for her but couldn’t
find her. Upon returning home, he observed a man lying upon
a woman in a position to hold sexual intercourse with her in
the grass, but they both hurriedly arose from the ground,
startled by the noise made by the defendant in stumbling.
Alano recognized the woman as his wife, and the man as
Martin Gonzalez, who immediately started to run. Alano
chased the man but couldn’t see him so when he returned
home, he saw Teresa and killed her by stabbing.
ISSUE: Whether or not Alano can avail the benefit of Article
423 of the Penal Code (now Art. 247 of RPC)
HELD: Yes. This case fall within the scope of the provisions of
Article 423 of the Penal Code, for it is reasonable to hold that
the woman was killed immediately after she was caught in the
commission of adultery, for not even an hour elapsed between
the catching and the killing and the time that intervened was
only that necessarily employed by the husband in the
unsuccessful pursuit of his wife's paramour.
15. U.S. vs Vargas, et al., 2 Phil 194 (1903)
FACTS: Simeon Alberto was attacked and assaulted by
Mamerto Vargas et al., He died the next day. Vargas testified
that, he found his wife and Alberto lying together. Vargas drew
his bolo in which Alberto escaped but when Vargas pursued
him, Alberto was killed. There was an evidence that the
relations existing between Alberto and the wife of Vargas had
been the subject of common talk in the barrio.
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 423 of the Penal Code (now
Article 247 of RPC) is applicable
HELD: Yes. Where Vargas surprises his wife and her
paramour, and the latter takes flight and is immediately
pursued and killed, the killing is "in the act" within the meaning
of Article 423. Penal Code, and the penalty should be
destierro. In this case, the discovery, the escape, the pursuit,
and the killing were all parts of one continuous act.
16. People vs Coricor, 79 Phil 672 (1947)
FACTS: When he was approaching the room, Cirilo Coricor
heard low voices. He looked through a hole into the room and
saw Pedro Lego on top of the wife of Coricor who was naked
from the chest down. Then he unsheathed his bolo, slowly
went up passing through the kitchen door, and as he was
approaching the door of the room, Lego came out and he gave
him a thrust. Upon being wounded, Lego jumped out of the
window, but the accused pursued and killed him.
ISSUE: Whether or not the benefits under Article 247 of the
RPC is applicable
HELD: Yes. Art. 247 was applied and the accused was
sentenced to destierro only for 2 years, 4 months and 1 day
of banishment and to indemnify the heirs of the deceased in
the sum of P2,000.
17. People vs Abarca, 153 SCRA 735 (1987)
FACTS: Khingsley Paul Koh and Jenny, the wife of accused
Francisco Abarca, had illicit relationship. It started while the
accused was in Manila reviewing for the 1983 Bar exam. On
July 15, 1984, upon reaching home, the accused found his
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 4
wife and Khingsley Koh in the act of sexual intercourse. When
both noticed the accused, the wife pushed her paramour who
got his revolver. Abarca who was then peeping above the
built-in cabinet in their room jumped and ran away. Abarca
went to look for a firearm. About an hour later, he proceeded
to the "mahjong session" and found Koh playing. He fired at
Kingsley Koh several times which led to his death.
ISSUE: Whether or not Article 247 of the RPC is applicable
HELD: Yes. Though quite a length of time, about one hour,
had passed between the time the accused-appellant
discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim
and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be
understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim
by the accused-appellant. The RPC, in requiring that the
accused "shall kill any of them or both of them . . .
immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of
intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing
instantly thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be
the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused
after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of infidelity.
But the killing should have been actually motivated by the
same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by
external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of
the accused's rage.
There is no question that the accused surprised his wife and
her paramour, the victim in this case, in the act of illicit
copulation, as a result of which, he went out to kill the
deceased in a fit of passionate outburst. Article 247 prescribes
the following elements: (1) that a legally married person
surprises his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person; and (2) that he kills any of
them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter.
These elements are present in this case.
Article 248. Murder.
18. People vs Manalad, G.R. No. 128593, August 14, 2002
FACTS: Gerry Orbino saw accused Zenaida Manalad stab
Herman Miclat, Jr. twice. The victim later on died. The victim’s
daughter testified that one week prior to the killing, Diega
Manalad approached her and said, "Antang, wala ka ng
nanay, mawawalan ka pa ng tatay." The trial court found her
guilty of murder. It appreciated the qualifying circumstances of
treachery and evident premeditation.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed by Manalad was
murder
HELD: No. The trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying
circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation. Orbino
did not testify on the events that led to the stabbing. Hence,
there is no showing whether the attack was swift and
unexpected; or whether the victim did not expect the attack or
gave the slightest provocation. In order to appreciate
treachery as a modifying circumstance in a continuous
aggression, it must be shown to have been present at the
inception of the attack.
Also, the attendance of evident premeditation was not proved.
In order to appreciate this circumstance, the following must be
shown: (1) the time when the accused decided to commit the
crime; (2) an overt act manifestly indicating that he has clung
to his determination; and (3) sufficient lapse of time between
the decision and the execution to allow the accused to reflect
upon the consequences of his act. In the absence of proof of
the events immediately preceding the killing, the decision and
determination to kill the victim cannot be established.
Thus, the crime committed is Homicide, penalized under
Article 249 of the RPC.
19. U.S. vs Baluyot, 40 Phil 385
FACTS: Accused Jose Baluyot ran for Governor of Bataan but
lost to the deceased Conrado Lerma. After 2 years of such
defeat, Baluyot encountered series of unfortunate events,
which he attributed Lerma having played a significant part of
such. An assault was begun suddenly and unexpectedly by
the firing of a pistol by the Jose Baluyot at his victim, Governor
Conrado Lerma, who was unarmed. When Lerma attempted
to flee, Baluyot pursued him. Lerma driven to take refuge in a
closet, where he called aloud for help. Baluyot then tried" to
force open the door but was unable to do so. Thereafter, he
fired a shot at the door and the bullet passed through the panel
of the door and, entering the head of the deceased, produced
death. Lerma died 2 hours after. Baluyot was charged with
murder by the CFI of Bataan, qualified by: (1) Treachery, (2)
Evident premeditation; and (3) crime committed against a
public authority in discharge of his duty.
ISSUE: What crime was committed?
HELD: Where the accused killed the provincial governor while
engaged in the performance of his official duties. It is a
complex crime of direct assault with murder. Where the
accused entered the office of the provincial governor where
the latter was engaged in the exercise of his official functions
and slew him under conditions constituting murder, it is held
that two crimes were committed, namely, murder and assault
upon a person in authority, and that the penalty prescribed for
murder should be imposed in its maximum degree, in
accordance with section 89 of the Penal Code.
The qualifying circumstance of alevosía (treachery) essential
to the crime of murder was found to be present in the case at
bar not only because of the sudden and unexpected manner
in which the fatal assault with a deadly weapon was begun
against the defenseless victim, but also because of the
peculiar conditions under which the offense was finally
consummated.
20. People vs Salamillo, 404 SCRA 211 (2003)
FACTS: Brothers Liberato and Julian Solamillo, and two
others were armed with weapons, with treachery and evident
premeditation and with intent to kill, hacked Alexander Guiroy,
a proprietor of Liberty Bakery and Grocery. They forcibly took
the cash and other personal belongings of the victim. The trial
court convicted them of the crime of Robbery with Homicide
since the commission of which was attended by the following:
committed by a band; with evident premeditation; treachery;
and with deliberate cruelty. Solamillo brothers contend that
the trial court erred in finding them guilty of the crime of
robbery with homicide. Julian contends that he cannot be held
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 5

liable for homicide because he only took money but did not
participate in the victim’s killing.

ISSUE: Whether or not Solamillo brothers are guilty of robbery

with homicide

HELD: Yes.
In the offense of robbery with homicide, a crime primarily
classified as one against property and not against persons,
the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements:
(a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or
intimidation against a person;
(b) the property thus taken belongs to another;
(c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus
lucrandi; and
(d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the
crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense,
was committed.

In this case, the prosecution amply established the said

elements. Julian Solamillo’s contention that he cannot be held
liable for homicide because he only took money but did not
participate in the victim’s killing is untenable. What is essential
in robbery with homicide is that there is a direct relation and
intimate connection between robbery and the killing, whether
the latter be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both
crimes be committed at the same time.

The rule is well-established that whenever homicide has been

committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery
shall also be held guilty as principals of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they actually
participated in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 6
ANDOY
21. People vs Gregorio, 412 SCRA 90
FACTS: At around 10 in the evening, Juanito Regachio was
standing in front of a store when Juancho Osorio alighted from
a tricycle and immediately shot the former but the he was able
to parry Osorio’s hand. Regachio then ran to the alley towards
his house. Meanwhile, Mateo Gregorio came out from a
nearby alley and fired his gun in the air. He approached Osorio
and asked, “Nasaan na?” Osorio and Mateo followed
Regachio to the alley. Thereafter, gunshots were heard. The
2 came out from the alley still holding their guns. Earlier that
day, Alberto Gregorio and Regachio had a heated altercation
after they came from a mahjongan. Alberto challenged
Regachio, “Kung gusto mo, tapusin na natin ito.” RTC found
Osorio and Mateo guilty.
ISSUE: Are they guilty of Murder?
RULING:No.
The qualifying circumstances of treachery and abuse of
superior strength were not sufficiently established by the
prosecution. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor on an unsuspecting
victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend
himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the
aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of the
victim. Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there
is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the
aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength
notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken
advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. It must
be shown by clear and convincing evidence that this qualifying
circumstance was consciously sought by the assailants.
The actual killing of Regachio occurred in an alley and was no
longer seen by the prosecution witnesses. Hence, there is no
way of determining whether the elements of treachery and
abuse of superior strength were met.
22. People vs Caraig, 400 SCRA 67
FACTS: At past midnight inside a beerhouse, Donato Caraig,
then member of Phil. Constabulary, confronted Diaz, Raagas,
Castro, and Agustin asking them if they were military men.
They did not answer. A rumble or fight suddenly ensued
between them. It was a brief scuffle. Caraig then ran back to
the beerhouse. Diaz, et al, rode on a taxi. They were chased,
however, by a white car, which eventually blocked the taxi.
Caraig, Renato Laxamana, and Rolando Laomoc alighted
from the said car. Each of them held a .45 caliber gun, which
they simultaneously upon Diaz, et al. While the hail of bullets
went on, Diaz played dead. He then heard somebody utter:
“Pare, tama na yan. Patay na lahat ang mga iyan.” The trial
court appreciated treachery and conspiracy among Caraig, et
al in the commission of the crime.
ISSUE: Are they guilty of murder?
RULING: Yes, they should be held liable for 3 counts of
murder and 1 count of frustrated murder.
Their acts undoubtedly showed unanimity in design, intent,
and execution of the attack on the part of Caraig and his co-
assailants. They performed specific acts with closeness and
coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common purpose
and design to bring about the death of the victims. Conspiracy
among Caraig and his co-assailants was thus established with
moral certainty. The attack upon the victims was likewise
attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender
employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of any of
the crimes against persons that tend directly and especially to
ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make.
23. People vs Avendano, 306 SCRA 309
FACTS: Jeffre Castillo suddenly awakened when he heard a
commotion. However, by the time he woke up, the room was
very dark because the lamp was already turned off. He heard
his mother shout, “Dikong, tulungan mo kami.” He
immediately eased his way to where they kept their pillows
and tried to hide. Then, there was silence. Then he heard
somebody going downstairs. His brother Melvin lit the lamp,
while Jeffre stayed where he was. He then heard the person
downstairs going up again. He saw through his blanket that
the person had come that was when he distinctly heard his
Kuya Melvin say, “Kuya Willie (Willie Avendano), tama na,
tama na!”. That was just before Melvin was killed. Jeffre
recalled that someone coughed and he recognized the cough
as that of his Kuya Willie. He recognized it because he had
heard a similar cough on several occasions in the past when
Willie frequented their house. He remained where he was until
Willie left.
ISSUE: whether or not Willie may be convicted of the crime
murder
RULING: No
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes against the person,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make. In this case, we find no adequate
proof of treachery.
Evidence on record does not show that Avendano consciously
and purposely adopted means and methods to ensure the
commission of the crime without any risk to himself. Thus,
absent treachery or any circumstance that would otherwise
qualify an offense to murder, the crime committed is only
homicide. The trial court appreciated the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, dwelling, and unlawful entry. Of
the three, however, only nighttime was properly alleged in the
information. As to nighttime, this circumstance is considered
aggravating only when (1) it was especially sought by the
offender; or (2) the offender took advantage of it; or (3) it
facilitated the commission of the crime by ensuring the
offenders immunity from identification or capture.
Hence, Avendano should only be held for two counts of
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 7
homicide, not double murder.
24. People vs Escarlos, 410 SCRA 463
FACTS: Around 9PM Antonio Balisacan went to the residence
of Jaime Ulep to attend a benefit dance which was near the
place. In the benefit dance was his son Crisanto Balisacan,
who attended the dance with his friends. While Ceasario was
calling Antonio to come to the the stage as he was a kagawad,
Crisanto heard the people at his back shout "Ay!", he saw
Timoteo Escarlos stab his father several times. The trial court
convicted Escarlos for Murder qualified by treachery.
ISSUE: Is treachery present as qualifying circumstance?
RULING: No
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on
the part of the victim, thus depriving the latter of any real
chance to put up a defense, and thereby ensuring the
commission of the attack without risk to the aggressor. There
is no treachery when the assault is preceded by a heated
exchange of words between the accused and the victim; or
when the victim is aware of the hostility of the assailant
towards the former.
In the instant case, the verbal and physical squabble prior to
the attack proves that there was no treachery, and that the
victim was aware of the imminent danger to his life. Moreover,
the prosecution failed to establish that Escarlos had
deliberately adopted a treacherous mode of attack for the
purpose of depriving Antonio of a chance to fight or retreat
25. People vs Felipe, 418 SCRA 146
FACTS: About 10 in the evening, Willy, Gerardo, Randy and
Eduardo [EB], all surnamed Bagtas, were walking along the
irrigation canal going home from a wake. Upon reaching the
part of the feeder road where both sides are covered by about
7 feet tall talahib grasses, Eduardo [EF]], Ma. Lourdes and
Dionisio, all surnamed Felipe, suddenly emerged from the
talahib grasses. Since the moon was brightly shining and
being their neighbors, Willy, Gerardo and Randy were able to
recognize them. As Eduardo was coming out from the talahib
he uttered "wala na kayong ligtas" and suddenly hacked by
the use of a scythe the neck of Eduardo, which caused the
latter to fall down on the ground. Lourdes and Dionisio uttered
"[s]ige patayin mo, patayin mo." While blocking the road, the
2 told the group "[h]uwag kayong makialam, pati kayo
mamamatay". Dionisio stated, "mamatay kayong lahat dahil
galit kami sa mga Bagtas." Willy, Gerardo and Randy were
shocked and when they recovered their wits, they tried to help
EB. But because of the threats of the Felipes, they got scared
and ran away from where EB was being hacked. The lower
court held that the killing was qualified by treachery.
ISSUE: Are they guilty of Murder qualified by treachery?
RULING: Yes
oTo prove the qualifying circumstance of treachery, the
following must be shown: (1) the employment of such means
of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity
for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and
conscious adoption of the means of execution. Case law
requires that where treachery is alleged, the manner of attack
must be proven. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
unexpected attack by an aggressor without the slightest
provocation on the part of the victim, thereby depriving the
latter of any real opportunity for self-defense and ensuring the
commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor.
In this case, treachery was already present when the Felipes
emerged from the talahiban -- one of them armed with a
scythe and another, with a piece of wood -- and suddenly
attacked EB. He and his companions were vulnerable to the
attack. Due to its suddenness, the Bagtas were not able to do
anything. They were shocked by its viciousness. Its
suddenness and the absence of the slightest provocation from
the victim -- who was unarmed and had no opportunity to repel
the aggression or defend himself -- necessarily qualifies the
crime with treachery.
26. Luces vs People, 395 SCRA 524
FACTS: At 6:30PM, Dante Reginio, Nelson Magbanua, and
the victim, Clemente Dela Gracia, were on their way to the
house of Didoy Elican. As they were walking along the road,
they met Joel Luces who collared Clemente, saying, "Get it if
you will not get it tonight, I will kill you." Thereafter, Luces
immediately stabbed the victim on the chest with a Batangueo
knife. The place was illuminated by a street light 3 to 4 arms
length away from Luces, enabling Reginio to easily recognize
the latter who happened to be his barangay mate. Clemente
was rushed to the hospital while Luces fled from the crime
scene. The trial court rendered a decision finding Luces guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide
ISSUE: Is Luces correctly charged with homicide?
RULING: Yes
Treachery is absent the case, hence the killing is not qualified
to Murder. Treachery (alevosia) is present when two
conditions concur, namely: (1) that the means, methods, and
forms of execution employed gave the person attacked no
opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and (2) that such
means, methods and forms of execution were deliberately and
consciously adopted by the accused without danger to his
person. In the case at bar, Clemente was not deprived of a
real chance to defend himself.
Note that the attack in the instant case was frontal and that
the victim sustained a defensive wound on his left palm.
Moreover, the presence of the victim's companions, Reginio
and Magbanua, reveals that Clemente was not completely
helpless. Neither wais there sufficient evidence to establish
that Luces consciously adopted the mode of attack.The
meeting between Clemente and Luces was a casual
encounter. Absent evidence showing that Luces deliberately
planned or adopted the mode of execution of the offense,
treachery cannot be appreciated.
27. People vs Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28,
2003
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 8
FACTS: At about 5AM, Allan Bulaclac left their place and
proceeded to the farm of his brother, Dionisio. Allan had a
"lente" placed on his forehead to illumine his path as it was
still dark. When Allan was about a hundred meters away from
Dionisio's hut, he noticed Rafael Caloza, Jr at a distance of 10
meters coming from the direction of the hut of Dionisio. Rafael
was no stranger to Allan because the latter used to help
Dionisio till the field. Allan readily recognized Rafael from the
illumination coming from the "lente" on his forehead. Allan
noticed bloodstains on the clothes of Rafael. Allan was
perplexed when Rafael tried to evade him as they met. Allan
then entered Dionisio's hut which at that time was lighted by a
kerosene lamp. Allan called but nobody answered. He peeped
through the window and was horrified to see his brother's feet
as well as blood under the bed. It turned out that Dionisio, his
wife Edna and their young son Mark Joseph Anthony were
already dead. Dr. Embuscado concluded that judging from the
nature of the wounds sustained by the victims, two types of
instruments were used in inflicting their injuries, namely — a
sharp instrument and a hard object.
ISSUE: Are the charges against Rafael correct?
RULING: No, the charge must be 1 count of Murder and 2
counts of Homicide.
As regards Mark, he was only an infant, about 4-8 months old.
It is evident that Mark was helpless and could not be expected
to defend himself. The killing by adults of minor children aged
up to 13 years old is treacherous because they could not be
expected to put up a defense even if the method of attack is
not shown. Hence, treachery attended the commission of the
crime.
As regards the death of Dionisio and Edna, it cannot be
considered as Murder due to absence of qualifying
circumstance. There is treachery when the offender employs
means, methods or forms in the execution of the crime which
tends directly and specially to insure its execution without risk
to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. For this qualifying circumstance to be
considered, it must be established as conclusively as the
crime itself. It has been held that for treachery to exist, there
must be evidence showing that the mode of attack was
consciously or deliberately adopted by the culprit to make it
impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend himself
or retaliate. In the case at bar, the evidence for the prosecution
is bereft of any particulars as to the manner in which the
aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the
death of the victims unfolded considering that the principal
witness for the prosecution, Allan, never saw how the victims
were actually attacked and killed.
The prosecution likewise failed to prove that abuse of superior
strength attended the killing of Dionisio and Edna. Rafael
killed the victims all by himself. Even if Rafael used a crowbar
and sharp instrument in killing the victims, it cannot be
conclusively established that Rafael abused his superior
strength absent evidence that he deliberately took advantage,
of his superior strength.
28. People vs Alcodia, 398 SCRA 673
FACTS: Arnold Salvador was selling chicharon inside Victory
Liner Bus. Within his view was Edwin Alcodia who was seated
at the 4th row of the bus. He tarried while waiting for the other
passengers to board the vehicle. Thereupon, he noticed Ryan
Feria boarding the bus. While Feria was still at the first rung of
the bus' doorsteps, he suddenly stood up, held Feria's neck
and stabbed him 3 times with a balisong. Feria managed to
get off the bus and ran towards the parking space where he
fell down. Alcodia chased Feria but Sarmiento, a security
guard, stopped him, ordered him to raise his hand and took
the balisong. RTC found Alcodia guilty of murder, as qualified
by treachery.
ISSUE: Is Alcodia guilty of Murder?
RULING: Yes
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. Like a beast
waiting for his prey, Alcodia stealthily rushed towards Feria,
swiftly held him at the neck, and successively stabbed him in
the chest. By holding Feria at the neck, Alcodia chose a mode
of attack intended to facilitate and insure the killing without
danger to himself. Apparently, Feria who was then boarding
the bus was not aware of any impending danger to his life. He
had no reason to suspect that an assailant lurked inside the
bus considering that there was no prior verbal altercation or
heated argument that could have infuriated Alcodia.
Undoubtedly, the manner of killing shows the existence of
treachery. The essence of treachery is that the attack is
deliberate and without warning done in a swift and unexpected
manner of execution affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape
29. People vs Nicolas, 400 SCRA 217
FACTS: At about 1:30 a.m., Delbie Bermejo, his two children
Ruby and Rodel and nephew Ariel were walking along a small
alley after attending a New Years party at a relative's house.
Behind them was Arturo Nicolas, a dismissed Army Sergeant,
who greeted the Delbie and Ariel. Delbie, in turn, greeted
Nicolas. Suddenly, a gunshot was heard by Delbie's
companions and on turning around to see what had
happened, they saw him falling to the ground as Nicolas was
pointing a gun at him. Terrified at what she saw, Ruby ran and
went home to engage the help of others to aid her in bringing
her father to the hospital.In the meantime, as Ariel remained
where he was, he saw Nicolas shoot Delbie, prompting him to
run and report the incident to a relative.
ISSUE: Is Nicolas guilty of murder?
RULING: Yes
As for the presence of treachery in the killing, the trial court
correctly appreciated the same. Delbie was caught
defenseless when Nicolas suddenly shot him from behind as
he was walking along an alley. The attack was so swift and
unexpected that Delbie who was unarmed could not have
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 9
resisted. Whereas, on the other hand, Nicolas was not thereby
exposed to any danger.
30. People vs Abut, 401 SCRA 498
FACTS: Couples Maricar&Edgar and Al&Rosie were sitting in
the concrete benches in the park when Winchester, Gregmar
and Ritchie arrived. Winchester told Maricar that he wanted to
get acquainted with Edgar, and asked her permission. Maricar
agreed. Edgar introduced himself to Winchester, at the same
time, extending his hand towards Winchester for a handshake
and said: "I am Edgar". Winchester shook hands with Edgar.
When Edgar asked for his name, Winchester curtly
responded: "King-king ko, Bay." Edgar was dumbfounded
when Winchester yanked his hand and immediately boxed
him. Edgar fell to the ground. He tried to stand up but
Winchester, Gregmar and Ritchie ganged up on him, kicked
and mauled him. Ritchie struck the two bottles of red horse
beer against the table and hit Edgar with the broken bottles.
Winchester astraddled the victim while Ritchie and Gregmar
positioned themselves on each side of the victim. The three
continued their assault on Edgar and stabbed him. Although
mortally wounded, Edgar stood up and staggered towards the
direction of the national highway only to fall down near one of
the cemented benches. Winchester wanted to run after Edgar
but was prevailed upon by Rosie not to. Gregmar and Ritchie
ran after Edgar but returned to the park when Edgar fell down.
Afraid that he would be the next victim, Al fled from the park
towards the national highway with Ritchie and Gregmar in hot
pursuit. Al was able to elude his pursuers.
ISSUE: Are they guilty of Murder?
RULING: Yes
They committed murder with the qualifying circumstance of
abuse of superior strength. They boxed and kicked Edgar
without let up. They mauled and kicked him even as he was
already sprawled on the ground. Edgar was outnumbered. As
against the combined strength of the accused, Edgar was
helpless. There was indubitably inequality of strength between
Edgar and the three.
However, treachery is absent in this case. There is treachery
when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. Treachery must be proved by clear and
convincing evidence as conclusively as the killing itself. In the
absence of any convincing proof that the accused consciously
and deliberately adopted the means by which they committed
the crime in order to ensure its execution, the Court must
resolve the doubt in favor of the accused.
31. People vs Almoguera, 415 SCRA 647 (double “r” ang
Almoguerra pag yan ang citation)
FACTS: Gina (14), Lyn (8) and Rey (7), all surnamed Julaton,
were instructed by their parents, who went to the polling
precincts to cast their votes, to watch their store and prevent
strangers from entering their house. Jessie Genova, Jr. was
gathering malunggay leaves at their farm, about 30 meters
away from the Julaton's house, when he heard Dante Aton
shouting and inviting him to smoke cigarettes. As he was
approaching the house, he noticed that Aton was hiding his
right hand behind the door while his left hand was holding a
cigarette. Near the door were the bodies of 2 dead children,
Gina and Rey. Charlie Almoguerra immediately went down
the stairs holding assorted coins at his right hand and a bladed
knife or machete at his left hand. Almoguerra then forced
Jessie to accept the loose coins. Frightened, he received the
coins, placed them inside his pocket and ran away.
ISSUE: Are they properly charged by the trial court for the
crime of Robbery with Homicide aggravated with treachery
and dwelling?
RULING: Yes
The elements of this crime are: (a) the taking of personal
property is perpetrated by means of violence or intimidation
against a person; (b) the property taken belongs to another;
(c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus
lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason
thereof, the crime of homicide, here used in its generic sense,
is committed. From the circumstantial evidence offered by the
prosecution, it is clear that Almoguerra and Aton, acting in
conspiracy, took P15,000.00 from the Julatons by means of
violence against the 3 children.
Treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance when the
victim of homicide is killed with treachery. The killing of minor
children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be
expected to put up a defense is considered attended with
treachery even if the manner of attack was not shown.
Likewise, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling is present
here. Almoguerra and Aton deliberate intrusion in the privacy
of the Julaton's domicile shows perversity.
32. People vs Escarlos, 410 SCRA 463
FACTS: Around 9PM Antonio Balisacan went to the residence
of Jaime Ulep to attend a benefit dance which was near the
place. In the benefit dance was his son Crisanto Balisacan,
who attended the dance with his friends. While Ceasario was
calling Antonio to come to the the stage as he was a kagawad,
Crisanto heard the people at his back shout "Ay!", he saw
Timoteo Escarlos stab his father several times. The trial court
convicted Escarlos for Murder qualified by treachery.
ISSUE: Is treachery present as qualifying circumstance?
RULING: No
The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected
attack by an aggressor without the slightest provocation on
the part of the victim, thus depriving the latter of any real
chance to put up a defense, and thereby ensuring the
commission of the attack without risk to the aggressor. There
is no treachery when the assault is preceded by a heated
exchange of words between the accused and the victim; or
when the victim is aware of the hostility of the assailant
towards the former.
In the instant case, the verbal and physical squabble prior to
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 10
the attack proves that there was no treachery, and that the
victim was aware of the imminent danger to his life. Moreover,
the prosecution failed to establish that Escarlos had
deliberately adopted a treacherous mode of attack for the
purpose of depriving Antonio of a chance to fight or retreat
33. People vs Mantes, 368 SCRA 661
FACTS: Efren Mantes and Danilo Flores barged inside the
house of Elicazar Napili while the latter was having supper
with his wife Elizabeth and their children. Mantes and Flores,
armed with guns and bolos, introduced themselves as men of
the barangay captain and told Elicazar that he was being
summoned by the barangay captain, when in fact he was not.
Elicazar went with the two. The three sought shelter from the
rain, huddling under the roof overhanging Violeta Latagan's
house. Violeta heard them quarrelling. Peering outside her
door, she saw Mantes and Flores hacking at Elicazar. The
latter managed to force his way inside Violeta's house, but
Mantes and Flores still pursued him. Grabbing her child,
Violeta and her husband fled the scene, but not before she
was hacked in the left buttock by Flores.
ISSUE: Are they guilty of murder?
RULING: No. They are guilty of Homicide, not of Murder.
The qualifying circumstance of treachery not having been
proven as conclusively as the killing itself. There is treachery
when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof
which tend to directly and specially insure the execution of the
crime, without risk to himself arising from the defense which
the offended party might make. The elements of treachery are:
(i) the means of execution employed gives the victim no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (ii) the methods
of execution were deliberately or consciously adopted. These
two conditions are clearly wanting in the case at bar. Although
Elicazar was unarmed at the time he was attacked with bolos
by Manted and Flores, such circumstance alone does not
satisfy the legal requirements of treachery.
Treachery cannot be presumed, it must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. Moreover, the essence of treachery
is the sudden, unexpected, and unforeseen attack on the
person of the victim, without the slightest provocation on the
part of the latter. In the instant case, Elicazar was already
alerted to the fact that Mantes and Flores meant him harm.
34. People vs dela Cruz, 416 SCRA 24
FACTS: Felipe Pajunar, Victoriano Francisco, Agaton Rubia
and Paulino Tabuay were drinking tuba outside a store in the
market. Pablo dela Cruz and another man approached the
formers' table and asked for a glass of tuba from Paulino.
Paulino willingly obliged but Pablo refused to accept the glass
offered to him, saying it might contain poison. To show Pablo
that it did not, Paulino drank the glass of tuba he was offering
a0nd refilled it for Pablo, who then drank without hesitation.
Pablo joined the group. Suddenly, Pablo placed his right arm
around Felipe and, with his left hand, stabbed him, whispering,
"Pinaskuhan nako nimo Brod", and then Pablo turned to
Victoriano and likewise stabbed the latter. Victoriano died,
while Felipe was treated. William Tacaldo, another victim,
testified that on the day of the incident, he was typing a church
program when a commotion broke out about 2 meters away.
He continued with his typing until he was suddenly stabbed
right below his heart. He stood up, pressed his wound to
control the bleeding and cried for help. He failed to recognize
the person who stabbed him since he was concentrated on
his typing when the incident happened.
ISSUE: Is Pablo dela Cruz guilty of murder?
RULING: Yes
This case is murder qualified by treachery. There is treachery
when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof
which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without
risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended
party might make. There is nothing in the records to
conclusively show that the stabbing was preceded by an
altercation or that any of the victims gave the slightest
provocation. Although Felipe was seated among his friends at
the time he was stabbed, this did not afford him any protection
since his companions were likewise caught off-guard by the
suddenness of the unprovoked attack. Moreover, Pablo's act
of putting his right arm around Felipe’s shoulder right before
stabbing Felipe ensured that his victim would not be able to
dodge his attack.
While it is true that Tacaldo and Florencio noticed the
commotion moments before they were attacked, this fact
alone does not rule out the presence of treachery. While a
victim may have been warned of possible danger to his
person, in treachery, what is decisive is that the attack was
executed in such a manner as to make it impossible for the
victim to retaliate.
35. People vs Dizon, 558 SCRA 395 [October 10, 2008]
FACTS: While Rodel Dizon, Virgilio Pascua and Isaias Dizon
were drinking at a videoke bar, Jeto Santos entered and
started dancing along to the music.
Isaias Dizon and Jeto Santos exit from the bar and proceed
towards the creek which was about 15-20 meters away from
the bar. Upon reaching the stone-littered edge of the creek,
Isaias picked up a fist-sized stone with which he smashed the
face of Jeto who, as a result fell down. Rodel Dizon thus
rushed to the two and tried to pacify Isaias. Unrestrained,
Isaias attempted to again hit Jeto by picking up another stone
but Rodel was able to arrest the attempt and the stone fell on
the ground. Isaias thereupon shoved him, picked up the same
stone and succeeded in dropping it at the already sprawled
victim.
ISSUE: Is Isaias guilty of murder qualified by treachery?
RULING: Yes
In determining the existence of treachery, the Court considers
the manner of execution of the criminal act which renders it
impossible for the victim to defend himself. Treachery can thus
exist even if the attack is frontal if it is sudden and unexpected.
Isaias' picking up of a stone and crashing it upon Jeto was so
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 11
sudden. It bears noting that Isaias' attack was directed to the
head of Jeto, indicating that he intended to render him
unconscious, if not to kill him instantly, to thus render him
defenseless. The gravity of the head wounds suffered by Jeto
even lacerated wounds two of which exposed the brain
tissues, hence fatal.
36. People vs Alfon, 399 SCRA 64
FACTS: Vicente Eusebio saw Tomas Alferez walking from the
opposite direction being followed by Expedito Alfon. Alfon
came from behind the unsuspecting victim, Alferez, and
suddenly stabbed the latter twice with a knife
ISSUE: Is Alfon guilty of murder qualified by treachery?
RULING: Yes
The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden
attack on the victim which renders the latter unable and
unprepared to defend himself by reason of the suddenness
and severity of the attack. This criterion applies, whether the
attack is frontal or from behind. Even a frontal attack could be
treacherous when unexpected and on an unarmed victim who
would be in no position to repel the attack or avoid it.
Alfon came from behind before stabbing Alferez since the
former was following the latter prior to the sudden attack. Alfon
aimed to stab the front of Alferez while holding the latter's
shoulder from behind, to ensure the execution of the act and
the instant death Alferez. One of the injuries inflicted on
Alferez was so severe that death most likely occurred in not
more than five minutes.
37. People vs Samaro, 570 SCRA 449 [November 3, 2008]
FACTS: Alfonso Bacar, Jr saw a person being chased by
another. The person being chased passed in front of Dante
Nueva y Samaro and Porpirio Maribuhok who were then
standing. At that point, Dante held the Virgilio Revollido, Jr.
left hand and led him to the other side of the road. There,
Porpirio took a piece of wood and hit Virgilio on the head,
causing the latter to fall to his knees. Dante continued to box
Virgilio until "John Doe" came. John Doe immediately stabbed
Virgilio at the back. Dante, who was then at Virgilio's front,
then pulled out a knife and likewise stabbed the latter.
ISSUE: Is Dante guilty of murder qualified by treachery?
RULING: No
Treachery is not presumed. The circumstances surrounding
the murder must be proved as indubitably as the crime itself.
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the
crimes against persons, employing means, method or forms
which tend directly and especially to insure its execution,
without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the
offended party might make. We see no evidence indicating
that Dante, Porpirio and 'John Doe' made some preparation to
kill Virgilio in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the
crime or to make it impossible or hard for Virgilio to defend
himself. There was nothing in the record that shows that 3
assailants carefully considered the mode or method of attack
to ensure the killing of the victim. While the intent to kill was
patent, the manner of attack did not appear to have been
deliberately adopted.
Murder here was only qualified by taking advantage of
superior strength
38. People vs Guevarra, 570 SCRA 288 [October 29, 2008]
FACTS: Inspector Barte was sitting inside the jeep when
Agripino Guevarra suddenly appeared and approached him.
The latter asked the former if he was Major Barte. However,
before Inspector Barte could respond or utter a word,
Guevarra quickly shot him several times in the head and
chest.
ISSUE: Is Guevarra guilty of murder?
RULING: Yes
The qualifying circumstance of treachery and the special
aggravating circumstance of use of an unlicensed firearm
attended the killing of Inspector Barte. There is treachery
when the offender commits any of the crimes against the
person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution, without risk to himself arising from any defensive
or retaliatory act which the victim might make. The essence of
treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack that renders the
victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of
the suddenness and severity of the attack.
The suddenness and unexpectedness of Guevarra's attack
rendered Inspector Barte defenseless and without means of
escape. Guevarra's use of a caliber .45 pistol, as well as his
act of waiting for Inspector Barte to be seated first in the jeep
before approaching him and of shooting IB several times on
the head and chest, was adopted by him to prevent Inspector
Barte from retaliating or escaping. Considering that Inspector
Bartewas tipsy or drunk and he was seated inside the jeep
where the space is narrow, there was absolutely no way for
him to defend himself or escape.
39. People vs Cando, 334 SCRA 331
FACTS: Vargas, Rapcing, Cando and Sayson were having a
drinking session at a canteen in front of the factory where they
are working. Upon the prompting of Vargas, Cando went to
the factory to get his salary. Cando came back angry because
he was unable to get his salary from the secretary, nor was he
able to get a loan of P100.00 from Remoriata, the caretaker.
Apparently, Cando already had previous misunderstandings
with Remoriata, so this time, the former threatened to kill the
latter. At around 11P.M., Vargas, Rapcing, and Cando,
climbed the fence of the factory. The trio proceeded to
Remoriata's room, which was lighted by a fluorescent lamp.
When Vargas pulled open the door, the mosquito net snapped
and Cando struck Remoriata on the head with the lead pipe.
Remoriata awakened and Cando demanded money from him.
When the former replied that he had no money, Cando struck
him again with the lead pipe. Blood oozed from the
Remoriata's head. Cando asked Remoriata if he recognized
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 12

him. He weakly replied "Yes, You are Roger (Cando)".

Thereafter, Cando repeatedly hit him with the lead pipe until
he became unconscious.

ISSUE: What was the crime committed?

RULING: Robbery with Homicide with the aggravating

circumstances of treachery

There is treachery when the offender commits any of the

crimes against the person, employing means, methods, or
forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and
specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising
from the defense which the offended party might make. The
essence of treachery lies in the adoption of ways that minimize
or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the
offended party.The killing of the sleeping Remoriata was
attended by treachery since he was in no position to flee or
defend himself. The presence of treachery, though, should not
result in qualifying the offense to murder, for the correct rule
is that when it obtains in the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, such treachery is to be regarded as a generic
aggravating circumstance, robbery with homicide being a
case of a composite crime with its own definition and special
penalty in the Revised Penal Code.

It matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of
the personal properties of the victim and the other occupants
of the house. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that
there be a direct relation, and intimate connection between
robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or
subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be
committed at the same time.

40. People vs Guillermo, 302 SCRA 257

FACTS: Eric Guillermo enter the premises of Keyser Plastics,

company owned by Victor Keyser. An hour later, Keyser
arrive. Guillermo confessed to Romualdo Campos, security
assigned to Greatmore, a company sharing the same building
with Keyser Plastics, that he killed Victor.Guillermo bashed
Victor on the head with a piece of wood, and after Victor fell,
he dismembered, with a carpenters saw, the limbs and
chopped the torso of Victor. The latter's head was found
stuffed inside a cement bag. Guillermo said Victor had been
maltreating him and his co-employees.

ISSUE: Is Guillermo guilty of Murder?

RULING: Yes

There is no treachery in this case as we find insufficient the

prosecution's evidence to prove that the attack on Victor came
without warning and that he had absolutely no opportunity to
defend himself, or to escape. None of the prosecution
witnesses could know how the attack was initiated or carried
out, simply because there was no eyewitness to the offense.
But the crime was qualified to murder under Art. 248 (6) of the
Revised Penal Code, by outraging or scoffing at the corpse.
Dismemberment of a dead body is one manner of outraging
or scoffing at the corpse of the victim.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 13
MABBORANG
41. People vs Lobingas, et al., December 17, 2002 [394
SCRA 170]
Facts:
Frank Lobrigas, Marlito Lobrigas and Teoderico Mante were
accused of murder. On February 1996, they mauled the 76
years old, Felix Taylaran in Mante’s store. They inflicted
injuries in the vital parts of Taylaran’s body, which resulted his
death.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are liable for murder
Held:
No, they are liable for homicide.
To appreciate abuse of superior strength, there must be a
deliberate intent on the part of the male-factors to take
advantage of their greater number. They must have
notoriously selected and made use of superior strength in the
commission of the crime. To take advantage of superior
strength is to use excessive force that is out of proportion to
the means for self-defense available to the person attacked;
thus, the prosecution must clearly show the offenders’
deliberate intent to do so.
There was no clear indication in this case that the Lobrigas
and his companions purposely used their joint efforts to
consummate the crime. Consequently, the crime committed
by accused-appellant was only homicide.
42. People vs Delim, 396 SCRA 386
Facts:
Marlon, Manuel and Robert Delim are brothers. They are the
uncles of Leon Delim and Ronald Delim. Modesto Manalo
Bantas, the victim, was an Igorot and a carpenter. He took the
surname Delim after he was “adopted” by the father of Marlon,
Manuel and Robert.
One evening, Marlon, Robert and Ronald suddenly barged
into the house and closed the door. Each of the three intruders
was armed with a short handgun. Marlon poked his gun at
Modesto while Robert and Ronald simultaneously grabbed
and hog-tied the victim. A piece of cloth was placed in the
mouth of Modesto.
Days later, Modesto’s body was found beneath some bushes,
already decomposing with multiple gunshot and stab wounds.
Only 3 of 6 were apprehended by the authorities. The
accused argued that they are not criminally liable for the death
of Modesto but only for kidnapping.
Issue:
Whether or not they are liable for kidnapping or murder
Held:
They are liable for murder. Specific intent must be alleged in
the information and proved by the prosecution.
To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely
use force that is out of proportion to the means of defense
available to the person attacked. In this case, it is evident on
the face of the Information that the specific intent of the
malefactors in barging into the house of Modesto was to kill
him and that he was seized precisely to kill him with the
attendant modifying circumstances. The act of the malefactors
of abducting Modesto was merely incidental to their primary
purpose of killing him. Irrefragably then, the crime charged in
the Information is Murder under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code and not Kidnapping under Article 268 thereof.
43. People vs Hugo, 410 SCRA 62
Facts:
On August 1997, Remegio Talon with his cousin Joel Talon
was on their way home, when they meet Ernesto, Lorenzo,
and Rudy. Ernesto was walking along the left side of the road,
while Rudy and Lorenzo took the right side. Ernesto came
face to face with Remegio. Suddenly Ernesto hacked
Remegio twice with a bolo, first on the forearm and then on
the right shoulder, causing the latter to fall to the ground.
Ernesto quickly ran away, and his bolo slipped from his hand.
Remegio then told Joel to run after Ernesto. Joel promptly
gave a chase. Though wounded, Remegio stood up to follow
them. Lorenzo and Rudy also chased Remegio and Joel.
The prosecution failed to prove the acts of Rudy and Lorenzo
Hugo as evidenced by the discrepancies in Joel’s affidavits.
On the other hand, Joel was consistent in his sworn
statements and testimony in court that the assault was
sudden, unexpected, and unprovoked. There was no
exchange of words between the victim and Ernesto at any
time before the actual attack.
Issue:
Whether or not Ernesto, Lorenzo, and Rudy are liable for
murder
Held:
NO, only Ernesto Hugo is liable for murder. Lorenzo and Rudy
were acquitted.
The elements for murder are: that a person was killed, that the
accused killed him, that the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248 and the killing
is not parricide or infanticide. In this case, Ernesto committed
all this acts, with an aggravating circumstance of treachery.
The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength
to be appreciated, the size, age and strength of the parties
must be considered. There must be a notorious inequality of
forces between the victim and the aggressor, giving the latter
a superiority of strength which is taken advantage of by him in
the commission of the crime. Abuse of superior strength is
absorbed in treachery.
The presumption of innocence enjoyed by Lorenzo and Rudy
was not overcome by the prosecution, which has the burden
to prove that they conspired with Ernesto in killing Remegio.
Jurisprudence is replete that conspiracy must be proved as
clearly as the commission of the offense itself. Hence, Rudy
and Lorenzo were acquitted.
44. People vs Casitas, Jr., 397 SCRA 382
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 14
Facts:
On 1998, Haide Bombales-Marbella was found dead in the
house of Mario Chan, where she is a caretaker. During the
incident, the appellant, Jose Casitas was seen inside the
compound. Nemesio Capiz saw Jose Casitas jumped over the
fence with his shirt and pants with blood.
The next day, a warrant of arrest was served. Upon serving
the warrant, he ran off and was shot on the leg. He was
brought to the police station, later detained in Quezon City
Jail.
Issue: Whether or not Jose Casitas is guilty of murder
Held:
NO, he is only guilty of homicide because to qualify a killing
to murder, the circumstances invoked must be proven as
indubitably as the killing itself—it cannot be deduced from
mere supposition.
The accused may be convicted on the basis of circumstantial
evidence, when the circumstances constitute an unbroken
chain leading to one fair reasonable conclusion and pointing
to the accused—to the exclusion of all others—as the guilty
person.
The RTC qualified the killing to murder by appreciating the
circumstance of abuse of superior strength. Settled is the rule
that such circumstance is present whenever there is inequality
of forces between the victim and the aggressor, superior
strength is advantageous for the aggressor, and the latter
takes advantage of it in the commission of the crime.
45. People vs Roxas, 410 SCRA 451
Facts:
On 1996, from a distance of barely four to five meters, Joelyn
Puno could see Lorna Puno running away from Roger Roxas.
Roxas, apparently drunk, had no clothes from waist up, was
wearing shorts and carrying a gun. Joelyn promptly closed the
door but appellant was able to kick it open. Joelyn, her
forehead hit by the door, was pushed aside. Roxas, grabbed
Lorna’s bag, opened it and, apparently not finding what he
could have been looking for, hurled the bag to the floor. Joelyn
tried to hold the hand of Roger Roxas but he pushed her hand
away. Appellant then shot Lorna with a caliber .45 gun with its
muzzle just two feet away from Lorna’s face. Lorna fell on the
floor with half of her body outside the door and the other half
inside the house. Three days after, Lorna died.
Issue:
Whether or not Roger Roxas is liable for murder
Held:
Yes, Roxas is liable for murder.
An attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an
unarmed and defenseless woman constitutes the
circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and
the weapon used in the act afforded him and from which the
woman was unable to defend herself.
In this instance, Lorna was 27 years old trying to escape from
appellant, an armed “hulk of a man,” 5’7” in height, and around
33 years of age, when she was senselessly shot at close
range.
46. People vs Aliben, 398 SCRA 255
Facts:
On October 1997, Bonifacio Aliben, Diosdado Nicolas and
Ronnie Nicolas was accused of killing Juanito P. Bongon, Sr.
Romeo Barsaga saw Bonifacio strike Juanito with a bolo and
Nicolas and Ronnie hitting him with pieces of wood.
The doctor testified that based on his post-mortem
examination, that the victim died immediately after sustaining
the injuries on the right side of his head.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused are guilty of murder
Held:
Yes, they are liable for murder. The attendant circumstance of
taking advantage of superior strength qualifies the killing to
murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code:
ART. 248. Murder.—Any person who, not falling within the
provisions of Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of
murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death,
if committed with any of the following circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the
defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity.
Superiority in number does not necessarily mean abuse of
superior strength. It is still necessary to prove that the accused
cooperated and took advantage of their superior strength.
In the instant case, the 3 accused were all armed. Ronnie
Nicolas and Diosdado Nicolas were armed with a piece of
wood while Bonifacio Aliben was armed with a bolo and they
helped one another in assaulting the victim who was alone.
Furthermore, the victim at the time of his death was 52 years
old while appellant Ronnie Nicolas at the time of the incident
was 23 years old; Diosdado Nicolas was 29 years old and
Bonifacio Aliben was 41 years old. There is a wide gap of the
age between the victim and the accused, showing that the
victim was much older than the three (3) accused who are
younger and physically stronger
47. People vs Astudillo, 401 SCRA 723
FACTS:
Brothers Clarence, Crisanto and Hilario Astudillo, went to
house of Alberto Damian who was celebrating the eve of his
birthday. Clarence greeted Alberto and thereafter asked the
victim, Silvestre Aquino, who was one of the visitors, to go with
him. Silvestre acceded and the two walked towards Floras'
Store, where they were later joined by Crisanto and Hilario.
While at the store, Crisanto and Silvestre had an
argument.Prosecution eyewitnesses Manuel Bareng and
Eduardo Bata, 12 and 11 years of age, respectively, were
selling balut in front of Floras' Store. They saw Clarence stab
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 15
Silvestre with a bolo while Crisanto and Hilario held him by the
wrists. Clarence delivered several stab blows at the back and
on the chest of the victim until the latter fell to the ground.
Thereafter, the three appellants fled on board a tricycle.
Silvestre was rushed to the Municipal Health Office of
Bangued, Abra, where he was pronounced dead on arrival.
Issue:
Whether or not they are liable for murder
Held:
Yes, they are liable for murder because the killing was
qualified with treachery.
The use of motor vehicle is not aggravating where the use
thereof was merely incidental and was not purposely sought
to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the
escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult.
However, it is clear that treachery qualified the killing of the
deceased to murder, considering that the appellants
deliberately restrained the victim so as to enable one of them
to successfully deliver the stab blows without giving the latter
a chance to defend himself or to retaliate.
48. People vs Comadre, 461 SCRA 366 [Bar question
2008]
Facts:
Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry Bullanday, Rey Camat
and Lorenzo Eugenio (drinking group) were having a drinking
spree on the terrace of the house of Robert’s father (Jaime).
As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others
noticed appellants Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and
Danilo Lozano (appellants) walking. The three stopped in front
of the house.
While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly throw a
hand grenade, ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Drinking
group were hit by shrapnel (fragments of the grenade) and
slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed to the
Hospital. However, Robert died before reaching the hospital.
Short facts: [The accused dropped a hand grenade inside a
house, killing one and causing 4 others to suffer shrapnel
wounds on their bodies.]
Issue: Whether or not the accused should be punished under
the RPC or under PD 1866
Held:
The accused must be punished under the Revised Penal
Code.
When the illegally possessed explosives are used to commit
any of the crimes under the Revised Penal Code, which result
in the death of a person, the penalty is no longer death, unlike
in P.D. No. 1866, but it shall be considered only as an
aggravating circumstance.
The accused was found guilty of the complex crime of murder
with multiple attempted murder under Article 48, and the
penalty for the most serious crime (murder) shall be imposed.
49. People vs Cañete, 410 SCRA 544
Facts:
Joel Quimod and Lilio Tundag were on their way home after
attending a wedding party. Tumayao was walking ahead of
Tundag and Quimod. As they passed by the houses of
Canete, Quimod and Tundag heard successive gunshots.
Quimod and Tundag immediately looked in the direction
where the bursts of gunfire were coming from and saw Ruben,
Alfredo, Sergio, Sotero and Trinidad all surnamed Cañete,
shooting at Tumayao who slumped to the ground. Apparently
not satisfied, all the accused approached the fallen Tumayao
and continued shooting him.
On order of his father Sotero, Alfredo shot Tumayao in the
head. Quimod, who was ten meters behind the victim, ran and
hid behind the bushes. As soon as the accused left, Quimod
went home and narrated the incident to Tumayao’s wife.
On the other hand, Tundag, who was behind Tumayao, saw
Ruben fire his gun at the victim. Tundag attempted to come to
the aid of Tumayao but the latter shouted at him to flee. Thus,
he ran back to the wedding party while hearing more
gunshots. At the wedding party, Tundag informed the people
about the ambush. Thereafter, he went back to the crime
scene where he saw Tumayao’s lifeless body on the road
Issue: Whether or not they are liable for murder?
Held:
Yes, they are liable for murder.
We likewise agree that treachery attended the commission of
the crime. There is treachery when the offender commits any
of the crimes against persons, employing means or methods
in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from
the defense which the offended party might make. The
essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack
without the slightest provocation on the part of the person
being attacked.
In this case, the events narrated by the eyewitnesses point to
the fact that Tumayao could not have been aware that he
would be attacked by appellants. There was no opportunity for
Tumayao to defend himself as appellants, suddenly and
without any provocation, fired their guns at him, one after the
other.
Saving the authorities the trouble and expense for his search
and capture, and freely placing himself at their disposal, the
accused should be given the favor of a mitigated penalty for
his voluntary surrender; The mitigating circumstance of
voluntary surrender is personal, and can only be appreciated
in favor of the accused who surrendered voluntarily.
50. People vs Baldogo, 396 SCRA 31
Facts:
On February 1996, the accused Gonzalo Baldogo and Edgar
Bermas who were both serving time for the crime Murder at
the Iwahig Penal Colony, were employed as domestic helpers
by Julio Camacho Sr. One evening while their master was
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 16
away, they killed his son Jorge and kidnapped his daughter
Julie whom they took to the mountains and detained her for
more than five days.
Issue:
What are the crime/s committed by Baldogo
Held:
Baldogo committed two separate crimes, which are murder
and kidnapping.
There is no evidence that Jorge was kidnapped or detained
first by Baldogo and Bermas before he was killed. The last
paragraph of Article 267 of the Code is applicable only if
kidnapping or serious illegal detention is committed and the
victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the kidnapping or
serious illegal detention.
Baldogo is guilty of murder, but it is not qualified by evident
premeditation and abuse of superior strength. A finding of
evident premeditation cannot be based solely on mere lapse
of time that he actually commits it—the prosecution must
adduce clear and convincing evidence as to when and how
the felony was planned and prepared before it was effected.
Instead, in light of the evidence on record, it is clear that the
killing of Jorge was qualified by treachery. When Jorge was
killed by accused-appellant and Bermas, he was barely 14
years old. Hence, Baldogo committed murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code.
51. People vs Clamania, 85 Phil 350
Facts:
On September 1942, Apolinario Inciso and Modesto Delantar
were forced by Fausto Clamania at the point of a revolver to
accompany him to the beach. At the beach they saw Juan
Grafil and Apolinario Gahoy in a boat with their hands tied
behind their backs. With Apolinario Inciso at the helm,
Delantar and Clamania rowed the boat with. the victims on
board to Can-usod Island. There, Grafil and Gahoy were taken
ashore and beaten to death by Fausto Clamania with an oar.
After Grafil and Gahoy were killed the accused ripped their
abdomens to let out the bowels, attached stones as weights
to the bodies, tied the bodies to the craft, and then hauled
them to deep water where they were released.
Issue:
Whether or not Clamania is liable for murder
Held:
Yes, as the killing was qualified by treachery.
Nocturnity is absorbed by treachery by which the killing is
qualified; there is no proof that Canusod Island was
uninhabited, and the disemboweling of the deceased was not
an unnecessary mutilation or deliberate and wanton
augmentation of the suffering of the offended parties. For
when the disemboweling was effected, the victims were
already dead, and the operation was conceived solely for the
purpose of facilitating the sinking of the cadavers and
preventing their discovery.
52. People vs Alban, et al., 245 SCRA 549
Facts:
The facts of this case are based mainly on the testimony of
the prosecution’s sole eyewitness, Joseph Salinas, thirteen-
year old son of the victim Roberto Salinas. On July 1991, he
saw his father, Roberto Salinas, being attacked by four men.
Joseph saw Robert and Demetrio stabbing his father while the
other two men restrained his hands.
The testimony of Joseph was straightforward, coherent and
convincing. He was able clearly to describe the manner in
which his father was killed and he positively identified Robert
and Demetrio as among the four malefactors responsible for
his father’s death.
Issue: Whether or not Alban is liable for murder
Ruling:
Yes, Alban is liable for murder under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code with no aggravating or mitigating
circumstance.
It is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that questions
regarding the competency of a child to testify rest primarily
with the trial judge who sees the proposed witness, observes
his manner, his apparent possession or lack of intelligence, as
well as his understanding of the obligation of an oath.
Cruelty cannot be appreciated in the absence of any showing
that appellants, for their pleasure and satisfaction, caused the
victim to suffer slowly and painfully and inflicted on him
unnecessary physical and moral pain.
The mere fact that wounds in excess of what was
indispensably necessary to cause death were found in the
body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such
wounds were inflicted with cruelty and with the intention of
deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the
sufferings of the victim.
53. U.S. vs Campo, 23 Phil 369
Facts:
Patricio Campo took the life of one Isidro Palejo. Campo was
convicted of the crime of homicide by the Trial Court.
However, it was appealed that it should be murder, as defined
by the Penal Code as the unlawful taking of the life of another,
other than parricide, when the act is marked by any of the
following qualifying aggravating circumstances: (1) With
treachery ( alevosia); (2) for a price or promise of reward; (3)
by means of an inundation, fire, or poison; deliberately and
inhumanly increasing the sufferings of the offended party.
Issue:
Whether or not Campo is liable for murder
Ruling:
No, Campo is not liable for murder but only for homicide.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 17
The Court held that an accused person cannot be convicted
of a higher offense than that with which he is charged in the
complaint or information on which he is tried. It matters not
how conclusive and convincing the evidence of guilt may be,
an accused person cannot be convicted in the courts of these
Islands of any offense, unless it is charged in the complaint or
information on which he is tried, or necessarily included
therein.
In this case, since alevosia (treachery) is not expressly
charged in the complaint, it was improper for the court to take
it into consideration in imposing the prescribed penalty for the
homicide of which the appellant was convicted.
54. People vs Valerio, 112 SCRA 231
Facts:
The case revolves around a plot of murder of an eight-year old
boy for insurance. Sometime in August 1972, Amador Castro
brought home a boy whom he met in a Pantranco bus during
a flood. “I will live with you to take care of the cows” said the
boy. On November 8, 1972, accused VALERIO, one Celestino
de la Cruz and Amador Castro, while at the latter’s yard at Bo.
Tamayo, San Carlos City, conferred about obtaining life
insurance on the boy living with Castro, who would be
subsequently killed so that the policy proceeds could be
“divided 50-50”.
Based on their plan and upon instructions of Valerio, Castro
had the boy baptized as his child, examined by Dr. Romero
on whose behalf an application for life insurance had been
filed. Herminigildo Solar, agent of Cardinal Life Insurance
Corporation approved the application by issuing Insurance
Policy No. 727 of P 20,000 in favor of "Amador Castro, Jr."
with spouses Castro as parents and beneficiaries. For the
payment of the premiums, de la Cruz, Valerio and Castro
contributed. The insured boy left the Castro household after
losing money, through gambling. Castro then informed de la
Cruz and Valerio about the departure of the boy but the latter
told him that they will substitute a boy for him. Valerio then
gave Amador Castro a boy, who began staying with the
Castros. Thereafter, Valerio, Castro and de la Cruz planned
the killing of the new boy at Lido beach, Cavite. Valerio and
de la Cruz told Castro that if the plan were to be executed in
Pangasinan, they might get caught.
On 1973, VALERIO, and De la Cruz together with the new boy
went swimming. When they reached a depth of four feet,
Celestino de la Cruz who was at the back of the boy hit the
latter’s head with a piece of iron. Castro was at the left side of
the boy while VALERIO was at the boy’s right side. De la Cruz
then held the boy by the neck and submerged him in water.
VALERIO and Castro left De la Cruz and the boy in the water.
Issue: Whether or not Epifanio Valerio, Jr. is liable for murder
Held:
YES, he is liable for murder.
Killing of child is murder and treachery even if manner of
attack is not shown. Treachery, as alleged in the Information,
must be considered qualifying and must be appreciated
against the accused. The killing of a child is murder even if the
manner of attack was not shown. The qualifying
circumstances of treachery or “alevosia” exists in the
commission of the crime of murder when an adult person
illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death.
Also, evident premeditation present in the case at bar. In the
case at bar, from the time the insurance was taken in
November, 1972, and even after the boy insured got lost, the
culprits did not relent in the pursuit of their scheme for money
culminating in the killing of the substitute boy and the filing of
a death claim with the Cardinal Life Insurance Corporation.
55. People vs Gavarra, 155 SCRA 327
Facts:
On August 1972, Celerina Leyco, nicknamed “Baby”, an eight
year old, Grade 1 pupil, was sent by her elder sister Elizabeth
Leyco Gabelo to fetch water from a well near the house of one
David Garcia about 100 meters away. On that same
afternoon, Fe Garcia, wife of David Garcia, while answering
the call of nature near her house, saw Celerina pass by on her
way to the well carrying an empty pail. About five minutes
later, while looking around, she saw the accused, Dominador
Gavarra, up a coconut tree some 35 to 40 meters from the
path taken by the victim. Thereafter, Fe sat on the stairs of her
house and she again saw Celerina on her way home, carrying
the pail filled with water.
After about an hour of waiting for Celerina, Elizabeth Gabelo
got worried and wondered why she had not yet returned. After
informing them that Celerina could not be found, the three of
them started searching for Celerina along the path taken by
the latter. While searching thus, they came upon the
Dominador sitting on a stone inside a clearing cultivated by
him.
And it was there at about 1:00 o’clock in the afternoon of
August 20, 1972 that Bitonio discovered the lifeless body of a
little girl, whom Elizabeth Gabelo and her husband Eleno
identified as that of Celerina Leyco. The spot where the body
was found was only about five arms length from the stone
where Dominador Gavarra was seen sitting when approached
by Eleno Gabelo the previous afternoon.
Issue:
Whether or not Gavarra is liable for murder
Held:
Yes, Gavarra is liable for the crime of murder qualified with
treachery and taking advantage of his superior strength.
The court held that the only crime the accused can be found
guilty of committing is murder. It is clear that in killing an 8-
year old defenseless girl, he did so with treachery, taking
advantage of his superior strength. He is therefore guilty of
murder. In view of the abolition of the death penalty under
Section 19, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, the penalty that
may be imposed for murder is reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 18

Since in the instant case, no aggravating or mitigating

circumstances have been shown or proven, the penalty that
should be imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum
period. Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the
minimum term to which the accused may be sentenced should
be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, i.e.,
reclusion temporal in its medium and minimum period.

56. People vs Lopez, 157 SCRA 304

Facts:
On January 31, 1982, about 7:30 p.m, on their way home,
Adelina and her husband went ahead. While the others were
outside in front of Encounter waiting for a ride, all of a sudden
Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale appeared and attacked
Jaime Cano. Appellant Roberto Ansale hit Cano on the neck
with his balisong. Unarmed and sensing danger Cano with his
other companions started to run and disappeared. The
assailants however were able to gang up on Jaime, Gloria
who was just beside and about three (3) arms length away
from Cano. Appellants Lopez and Ansale took turns in
stabbing Gloria in various parts of his body.

Issue:
Whether or not Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale are liable
for murder.

Held:

Yes, they are liable for murder.

The general denial by the accused of the stabbing incident
cannot prevail over the positive identification made by the
prosecution witnesses.

The general denial by Domingo Lopez and Roberto Ansale is

limp. It is highly improbable that LOPEZ would not have known
of the stabbing incident immediately near the parking area that
he was tending. Obviously, he was not telling the truth. Neither
was the Manager of the Beer House whom the Trial Court
found to be “evasive, talkative and pretending to be smart.”
Moreover, such denial cannot prevail over the positive
identification made by prosecution witnesses. Thus, Alex
Pilapil, who works as a parking boy in the compound of the
Encounter Disco, and who happened to be eating at the time
of the incident, saw the stabbing of the two victims from a
distance of four (4) armslengths.

Three other witnesses, Jaime Cano, Federico Malinao and

Basilisa Polinar, identified accused-appellants as the
assailants. Alex Pilapil, Federico Malinao and Basilisa Polinar
all gave written statements to the police in the early morning
of February 1, 1982 soon after the incident (Exhibits “C”, “D”
& “1”). Jaime Cano, himself a victim, testified that while
running away and when he was about three (3) armslengths
distant, he looked back and saw accused-appellants stab the
victim Gloria with their balisongs.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 19
Article 249. Homicide.
57. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 398
FACTS:
On August 1942, there was a heated argument between
Santiago Cerrado, a cousin of Rosario and Timoteo Penesa
because Santiago refused that Rosario and Timoteo will live
in another place.
Angered by this remark, Timoteo unsheated his bolo and
assaulted Santiago. Crescencio Doro, the eldest son of
Rosario, who tried to prevent another blow upon Santiago and
had made a remark similar to that of Santiago before the latter
came to the house, was also assaulted by Timoteo. At this
juncture, Rosario went down through the stairway, preceded
by Santiago. Crescencio and Timoteo grappled for the
possession of the bolo and both fell to the floor. A brother of
Rosario appeared upon the scene and snatched the bolo and
a dagger from the hands of Timoteo. As a result of the assault
upon Santiago Cerrado, two wounds were inflicted upon him,
one on the left forearm and another under the left axilla. They
were not serious.
Issue:
Whether or not Timoteo Penesa is liable for homicide
Held:
NO, in the absence of proof as to the period of the offended
party’s incapacity for labor or of the required medical
attendance, is slight physical injuries against Santiago
Cerrado, as provided for in article 266 of the Revised Penal
Code; and against Crescencio Doro is serious physical
injuries.
When he went to the house of Rosario, it was not with the
intention to kill anybody, for he went there to entreat Rosario
Aguillón to live with him in another house. The bolo with which
the appellant inflicted the wounds upon Santiago Cerrado and
Crescencio Doro was one ordinarily used by farm laborers.
The dagger was carried for selfdefense. The wounds inflicted
upon the offended parties by the appellant were caused
indiscriminately and not deliberately. Appellant’s purpose in
going to the house, and not the kind of weapons he carried,
nor the parts of the victims’ bodies on which the wounds were
inflicted indiscriminately, is indicative and determinative of his
intent.
58. Mondragon vs People, G.R.No. L-17666, June 30, 1966
FACTS:
On July 1954, Serapion Nacionales was opening the dike of
his ricefield to drain the water therein and prepare the ground
for planting the next day, he heard a shout from afar telling
him not to open the dike, Nacionales continued opening the
dike, and the same voice shouted again, ‘Don’t you dare open
the dike.’ When he looked up, he saw Isidoro Mondragon
coming towards him. Nacionales informed appellant that he
was opening the dike because he would plant the next
morning. Without much ado, Mondragon tried to hit the
Nacionales who dodged the blow. Thereupon, appellant drew
his bolo and struck Nacionales on different parts of his body.
Nacionales backed out, unsheathed his own bolo, and hacked
appellant on the head and forearm and between the middle
and ring fingers in order to defend himself. Mondragon
retreated, and Nacionales did not pursue him but went home
instead.
Issue:
Whether or not Mondragon is liable for homicide
Held:
Mondragon is not guilty of homicide because when intent to
kill was not manifest, offense is physical injuries.
The facts brought out by the decision appealed from indicate
that the petitioner had no intention to kill the offended party.
Thus, petitioner started the assault on the offended party by
just giving him fist blows; the wounds inflicted on the offended
party were of slight nature, indicating no homicidal urge on the
part of the petitioner; the petitioner retreated and went away
when the offended party started hitting him with a bolo,
thereby indicating that if the petitioner had intended to kill the
offended party he would have held his ground and kept on
hitting the offended party with his bolo to kill him. The element
of intent to kill not having them fully established, and
considering that the injuries suffered by the offended party
were not necessarily fatal and could be healed in less than 30
days, the offense committed by the petitioner is only that of
less serious physical injuries.
The intent to kill being an essential element of the offense of
frustrated or attempted homicide, said element must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence and with the same
degree of certainty as is required of the other elements of the
crime. The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the
absence of circumstances sufficient to prove such intent
beyond reasonable doubt (People vs. Villanueva, 51 Phil.
488).
59. U.S. vs Abiog, 37 Phil 143
Facts:
The deceased Anacleto Cudiamat coming upon the VICENTE
ABIOG and LUIS ABIOG cleaning a caua said to them, "What
of it if you throw away the water as I also can get water as
easily as you can?" Vicente Abiog indignant at this allusion
replied. "Do you want a fight? Wait there." Immediately
proceeding to the house, Vicente procured a revolver and
returned to the field. A brother of V. Marcelino Abiog,
attempted to gain possession of the revolver and was killed
(probably accidentally) for his pains. Loading the revolver
anew, Vicente pointed it at Cudiamat wounding him in the
stomach. The wife of Cudiamat tried to succor her husband,
but the other brother Luis Abiog stopped her and attacked
Cudiamat with a bolo. Cudiamat's nephew, Urbano Banastas,
was also wounded. While the points indicated stand out
sharply in the record, they fail adequately to portray the
passing of events or the words spoken during this affray.
Issue: Whether or not they are liable for homicide
Held:
Yes, they are liable for homicide. That both Vicente and Luis
are liable for the death of Cudiamat. As the spark of life went
out, each wound was a contributing cause. Although a man
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 20

can not be killed twice, two persons, acting independently,

may contribute to his death and each be guilty of a homicide.

Drop by drop the life current went out from both wounds, and
at the very instant of death the gunshot wound was
contributing to the event. // the throat cutting had been by a
third person, unconnected with the defendant, he might be
guilty; for, although a man cannot be killed twice, two persons,
acting independently, may contribute to his death and each be
guilty of a homicide. A person dying is still in life, and may be
killed, but if he is dying from a wound given by another both
may properly be said to have contributed to his death."

Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, or

homicide.

60. U.S. vs Poblete, 10 Phil 582

Facts:
On May 1907, Gliceria Dolac, a young woman, 19 years of
age was walking in the direction of the church, for the purpose
of hearing mass, accompanied by her aunt, Toribia Unson,
and another young woman, Gliceria Velgrado. When nearing
the parish house she was unexpectedly met by Candido
Poblete, who seized her with his left hand and immediately
attacked her with an open penknife, inflicting several wounds
in her chest, back, sides, arms, and thigh, and although she
fell to the ground senseless upon being cut in the breast with
the penknife, Poblete continued to attack her; as the two
women who accompanied Dolac promptly attempted to render
assistance. Poblete with the same knife also attacked Toribia
Unson who was crying out for help, wounding her in the
forehead.

Issue: What is the crime committed?

Held:
The crime committed was FRUSTRATED MURDER.

When the aggressor of a young woman of 19 years of age

inflicts upon her, with a cutting weapon, sixteen wounds more
or less serious, for the purpose and with the criminal intent of
causing her death, at the same time doing everything which
should naturally have resulted in the death of the assaulted
party, although the same did not take place for reasons which
did not depend on the will of the aggressor, who continued to
attack her notwithstanding the fact that she was lying
senseless on the ground, and only refrained when he believed
her to be dead, and that the act which he had committed
treacherously and with perfect safety to himself had been
consummated, the crime thus committed is unquestionably
that of frustrated murder.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 21
NENARIA
61. U.S vs. Villanueva
2 Phil 62
Facts: Villanueva assaulted Loreto Estacio with fist blows on
the face. Loreto Estacio immediately filed a criminal complaint
for slight physical injuries against Emiterio Villanueva.
Villanueva asked Mendoza to persuade Estacio to drop his
complaint. Mendoza, who was married to a niece of Estacio,
declined to intervene in the case, and so Villanueva got
disgusted and stated that he would not stop until something
untoward would happen to Estacio. On December 27, 1955,
Estacio did not return home. Four days later his cadaver was
found floating on a marshy place called "tikiwan" in barrio
Linga, Calamba, Laguna. The dark stains on different parts of
the "taklab" of Villanueva proved to be of human blood.
Issue: WON Villanueva is guilty of a crime of murder?
Held: Yes, Loreto was mauled and badly beaten on different
parts of the body and when he was already unconscious, he
was stabbed in the abdomen; that the persons who took part
in the killing were Villanueva, one of his sons, Pedro Percal,
Elpidio Habacon and Felix Jasmilona.
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray.
62. U.S vs. Tandoc
40 Phil 954
Facts: De Vera and his laborers were attacked by Jose
Bengzon’s men led by respondent Tandoc. This resulted to
the death of Luis Moyalde. The attack was due to the dispute
between De Vera and Bengzon regarding the harvesting of
palay in the land where the attack took place.
Issue: WON the accused were guilty of tumultuous affray?
Held: No, there was no confusion in the aggression as well as
in the defense of the two groups. They were united in their
common purpose of the attack. As such, they were convicted
of homicide instead.
63. Pp vs. Corpuz
102 SCRA 674
Facts: Corpuz and the other members of Commando gang,
while being confined at the New Bilibid Prison feloniously
assault and wound Legaspi, Silva, Fartin, Fuentes and
Arciaga committed with treachery and evident premeditation.
Issue: WON there was a crime of tumultuous affray?
Held: There is no crime of tumultuous affray if the quarrel is
between two well- known groups of prisoners as in the case
at bar.
Article 252. Physical Injuries inflicted in a tumultuous
affray.
NO CASES
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide.
NO CASES
Article 254. Discharge of firearms.
64. Pp vs. Agbuya
57 Phil 238
Facts: For several years enmity had existed between two
families, the Palisocs and Agbuyas. As Martin Palisoc with his
two companions approached the place where Hipolito and
Agustin were waiting, the latter arose. Agustin confronted
Martin who was then about fifteen or twenty paces away.
Upon being told of the trouble Feliciano Palisoc at once
proceeded in the direction of the scene, but when he was
about sixty meters away from the spot where Martin had
fallen, Agustin Agbuya discharged his gun at Feliciano and the
latter also fell.
Issue: What was the crime committed?
Held: The crime is discharge of firearm. The distance of 200
meters was so great that it is difficult to impute an intention on
the part of the offender to kill the offended party. The
discharge was intended merely to frighten away the offended
party.
65. Pp vs. Kalalo
59 Phil 715
Facts: Kalalo and Holgado had a litigation over a parcel of
land. Holgado and her brother Arcadio employed several
laborers and had the land plowed. They went to the land early
that day. But apparently, Kalalo was aware of this so him and
6 others waited for them, 5 of which were armed with bolos.
Upon arrival, they ordered them to stop. Marcelo Kalalo took
a revolver from Marcelino and fire four shots at Hilarion
Holgado who was fleeing from the scene.
Issue: WON the sentences committed were in accordance
with the law?
Held: No, where there is intent to kill, because the accused,
not having contented himself with firing once, fired successive
shots at the offended party, added to the circumstance that
immediately before, he had already killed a cousin of the
offended party, the crime committed is attempted homicide.
66. U.S vs. Sabio
2 Phil 485
Facts: Sabio and Reyes were members of the Constabulary,
they were engaged in gambling in their quarters. During the
game a dispute arose between them regarding a debt of 30
cents, which the Sabio claimed Reyes owed him. A quarrel
ensued between the two. Sabio went to the gun rack, Reyes
caught hold of the gun and tried to take it away, and during
the struggle the shot was fired.
Issue: What crime was committed by Sabio?
Held: Sabio is convicted of the crime of discharging a firearm
at a person. Sabio had no intent to kill. Nor can it be inferred,
that an intent to kill was proved when Sabio testified that he
intended to hit Reyes with the butt end of his gun. Such a blow
might do bodily harm and might not, depending on its force
and the part of the body struck; it might even result in death,
but the conclusion does not follow that Sabio with deliberate
premeditation tried to kill Reyes.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 22
67. U.S vs. Samonte
10 Phil 642
Facts: Samonte, a public officer fired his revolver at close
range at one Simeon Ona, with intent to kill, and failed to
accomplish his purpose solely because of the inaccuracy of
his aim. Samonte admitted that he discharged his revolver in
the air just outside of Ona’s house, but alleged that when he
did so he was attempting, with the aid of two policemen, to
capture a number of gamblers who had been playing
prohibited games of chance in Ona’s house, he thought it
prudent to fire his revolver in the air, partly to frighten them
and partly to prevent them from attempting to escape by fight.
Issue: WON Samonte is guilty of illegal discharge of firearm?
Held: No, a public officer who fired his revolver in the air in
order to capture some gamblers and to prevent them from
escaping should be acquitted as he was not guilty of any
crime.
Article 255. Infanticide.
68. Pp vs. Jaca and Rasalan
55 Phil 952
Facts: Jaca's new-born baby died during labor. The evidence
for the prosecution points to Rasalan as the offender; but
Jaca, the latter's wife, affirms that it was Zabella, the midwife
who attended Jaca in her delivery, who caused the death of
the child. This accusation of Jaca against Zabella. The
appellant himself does not blame Aurea for the death of the
infant, for he assured in his testimony that he had only heard
the child cry once, and when Zabella, who was assisting the
woman in labor, went to attend to the baby, she found it
already dead.
Issue: WON a crime was committed?
Held: Yes, that the infant really died, through asphyxiation, is
amply shown by the testimony of Doctor Potenciano, who
examined the corpse. Only the mother and maternal
grandparents of the child are entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of concealing the dishonor. The accused who
killed the new born baby of his sister- in- law in order to
conceal her dishonour, was convicted of infanticide.
69. U.S vs. Vedra
12 Phil 96
Facts: Vedra, an unmarried woman, gave birth to a living child.
She hastily left the house, taking the infant with her. In a place
nearby, she buried the child. When the body was found, there
was an abrasion on both sides of the nose which might have
been caused by pressure exerted by another person
Issue: WON Vedra is guilty of a crime?
Held: Yes,Vedra is guilty of infanticide. The facts proven
clearly revealed her decided intent to kill the newly born child
in order to conceal her dishonor. Inasmuch as it was born alive
and in a healthy condition, it is not to be presumed, without
some just reason therefor, that is died in a natural death within
extremely short time that elapsed between its birth and its
burial.
70. U.S vs. Aquino
34 Phil 813
Facts: Aquino, a widow, and the married couple Lazaro and
Antonina were engaged in reaping rice in a field. At about six
o’clock in the evening Aquino, commenced to feel the pains of
approaching childbirth. A few moments afterwards she did
give birth to a child, which, as it was born dead and lifeless,
Genoveva arranged to have Casipit bury the body. The
owners of the said house couple Pedro and Magdalena, all
testified that they awoke when Aquino was giving birth to a
child; stated the child was born alive, for which reason they
believe that it was thrown into the pit by Casipit while still alive,
in obedience to the orders of its mother.
Issue: WON Aquino is guilty of a crime?
Held: No crime committed. The crime of infanticide is
committed where the child was born. Since the crime consists
of killing a child, the prosecution must prove that the mother
gave birth to a living creature.Casipit is liable for misdemeanor
fro throwing a child in pit instead of burying it in the cemetery.
Article 256. Intentional abortion.
71. U.S vs. Boston
12 Phil 134
Facts: Boston, believing that the child in the womb of the
woman was a sort of a fish-demon, gave to her a portion
composed of herbs, for the purpose of relieving her of this
alleged fish-demon. After the birth of the child, Boston, with
the permission and aid of the husband and the brother of the
infant child, destroyed it by fire in order to prevent its doing,
which the Boston believed it was capable of doing.
Issue: WON Boston is be liable of Intentional Abortion?
Held: Yes. The guilt of appellant is conclusively established by
the evidence of record, the testimony of the witnesses for the
prosecution leaving no room for reasonable doubt. These
facts constitute, in our opinion, prima facie proof of the intent
of the accused in giving the herb potion to the mother of the
child, and also of the further fact that the herb potion so
administered to her was the cause of its premature birth. The
defense wholly failed to rebut this testimony of this
prosecution and we are of opinion, therefore, that the trial
court with which he was charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article 257. Unintentional abortion.
72. U.S vs. Jeffrey
15 Phil 391
Facts: Saguinsin was in a Chinese shop when a man named
Jeffrey appeared therein, and, without any apparent reason,
struck the woman three times on the hip with a bottle that he
was carrying, in consequence of which the woman fell to the
ground with an abundant hemorrhage from the womb, being
three months pregnant she had a miscarriage on the following
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 23
day. The woman was ill and unable to attend to her usual
duties for forty-five days.
Issue: WON Jeffrey commited of the crime of unintentional
abortion?
Held: Yes, even though it was not the criminal intent of the
defendant to cause the abortion, the fact that, without any
apparent reason, he maltreated Saguinsin, presumably not
knowing that she was pregnant, as author of the abuse which
caused the miscarriage, he is liable not only for such
maltreatment but also for the consequences thereof which is
abortion.
73. Pp vs. Salufrania
159 SCRA 401
Facts: Salufrania was found guilty by the trial court of the
complex crime of Parricide with Intentional Abortion. Pedro
Salufrania, son of the accused, was one of the witnesses of
the prosecution which stated that he saw his father box his
pregnant mother on the stomach and, once fallen on the floor,
his father strangled her to death; that he saw blood ooze from
the eyes and nose of his mother and that she died right on the
spot where she fell.
Issue: WON Salufrania is liable with the complex crime of
Parricide with Intentional Abortion?
Held: No, mere boxing on the stomach, taken together with
the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight, is not sufficient
proof to show an intent to cause an abortion. In fact, appellant
must have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily
to cause an abortion. Filomeno is liable is liable for complex
crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. The abortion, in
this case, was caused by the same violence that caused the
death of Marciana Abuyo, such violence being voluntarily
exerted by the herein accused upon his victim.
74. People vs. Villanueva
242 SCRA 47
Facts: A lifeless body of a barrio lass sprawled on the cold
cement floor of their conjugal home. She was six months
pregnant. The suspected assailant was her husband who
allegedly beat her to death after she slapped him earlier in
front of his friends. Manolo Villanueva claims that he was
watching a live concert when his wife, Nora Magpantay,
committed suicide by taking sodium cyanide.
Issue: WON Villanueva is liable for the crime of complex crime
of parricide with unintentional abortion?
Held: Yes, we have repeatedly said that absence of external
injuries does not rule out the possibility that a blow had in fact
been administered by the offender. Even the assertion of the
accused that his wife took sodium cyanide is very doubtful, not
only because her toxicological examination yielded negative
result for the presence of poison, but also because the pieces
of broken bottle which supposedly contained the poison were
also found negative for "volatile, non-volatile and metallic
poisons.
A husband who with violence kills his pregnant wife,
occasioning the death of the fetus, is guilty of parricide with
unintentional abortion.
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or
by her parents.
NO CASES
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and
dispensing of abortive.
NO CASES
Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel.
NO CASES
Article 261. Challenging to a duel.
75. Pp vs. Tacomoy
G.R. No. L-4798
Facts: Accused who had ill-feelings and moved by hatred,
challenged the offended party to a duel, inciting the latter to
accept said challenge by uttering: “Come down, let us
measure your prowess, we shall see whose intestine will
come out. You are a coward if you do not come down.” The
offended party refused to come down and accept the
challenge. Later when the accused saw the offended party
running toward a nearby house, the accused chased him but
desisted upon seeing that the offended party had a
companion.
Issue: WON accused is liable under Art. 261 of RPC which is
Challenging to a duel?
Held: No. The accused was found guilty only of light threats.
Accused did not specifically challenged the offended party to
a duel. To be liable under this article, the parties involved are
the challenger and instigators. In this present case, no
instigator was involved, thus, the court sufficiently ruled out
the possibility of duel.
Article 262. Mutilation.
76. U.S. vs Esparcia
36 Phil 840
Facts: The Baldomero Esparcia were charged in the Court of
First Instance of Oriental Negros with the crime of serious
physical injuries as punished by article 416, paragraph 1, of
the Penal Code. She was convicted and sentenced under this
provision.
Issue: WON mutilation was committed
Held: YES. Mutilation known by the name of ’castration’ which
consists of the amputation of whatever organ is necessary for
generation. According to this article in order for ’castration’ to
exist, it is indispensable that the ’castration’ be made
purposely. The law does not look only to the result but also to
the intention of the act. Consequently, if by reason of an injury
or attack, a person is deprived of the organs of generation, the
act, although voluntary, not being intentional to that end, it
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 24

would not come under the provisions of this article, but under
No. 2 of article 431.
Article 263. Serious physical injuries.
77. U.S. vs Villanueva
31 Phil 412
Facts: Villanueva while quarreling with his opponent, Isidoro
Benter, with having suddenly snatched the bolo which the
latter was carrying at his belt and with it inflicting upon him a
wound in the palm of the right hand that incapacitated the
aggrieved party from performing work for more than thirty days
and which rendered the said principal member entirely
useless. But it turns out that Villanueva was not Benter's
opponent nor was there any quarrel between the two. Neither
did Villanueva inflict any wound upon Benter. The latter injured
himself by an accident arising out of his own act.
Issue: WON the accused is guilty of the crime?
Facts: Hernandez willfully and feloniously attack, assault and
use personal violence on the person of Palor as a result of
which the latter sustained physical injuries in the different
parts of his body which required and will require medical
attendance for the period of 25 days, and incapacitated and
will incapacitate him to perform his customary labor for the
same period of time, and as a consequence of said injuries
the offended party lost the power to hear of his right ear.
Issue: WON Hernandez committed serious physical injuries
against Palor?
Held: Yes, Article 263, paragraph 3, prescribes prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods if the person
injured shall have lost "the use of any other part of his body."
Palor was deprived of the use of his right ear, a part of his
body, and the offense described in the information was
cognizable by the court of first instance.

Held: No, the law speìaks of a person who by reckless

imprudence commits an act which, if maliciously performed,
would constitute a grave felony. But the act of the accused in
the case at bar does not constitute a felony, grave, or less
grave, nor is it a misdemeanor. The only act which he
performed was to take, or attempt to take, from its sheath the
bolo which Benter was carrying at his belt, and that was an act
which is not defined in any law as being a crime or
misdemeanor.

78. U.S vs. Santos

17 Phil 87

Facts: Santos, who was then standing in the street and

carrying a cane and a bolo, the latter caught hold of Willey’s
right arm. In view of the threatening attitude of Santos, Willey
requested that the former deliver to him the bolo that he had
but the latter raised his bolo and immediately gave Willey a
cut. Thereafter, Willey was attended by Doctor Silva and on
the following day he was removed from, where he remained
for treatment of his wounds until the end of the 23d day of
April. On the following day, the 24th, he returned to his house,
where he continued under medical treatment without being
able to work until the 7th of May of that year.

Issue: WON Santos is guilty of the crime of serious physical

injuries?

Held: Yes, because of the number of days he was unable to

work the crime charged is one of a serious nature. Inasmuch
as the offended party was left deformed and in a certain
manner the use of other teeth, which appendages form a part
of the mouth, a principal organ of the human body. For the due
classification of the crime of lesiones, it is not sufficient to take
account of the number of days of treatment of the wounds or
of the incapacity to work; the injury occasioned and the
consequences of the wound received by the offended party
must also be considered. For this reason, the preinserted
article was divided into four paragraphs, with the specification
of each case and the penalty corresponding to each of them.

79. Pp vs. Hernandez

94 Phil 49
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 25

80. Pp vs. Sto. Tomas

138 SCRA 206

Facts: Pacito asked his mother-in-law's permission to bring his

wife and children to Legaspi City. Grulla did not permit him
because her daughter can no longer endure the sufferings she
is undergoing because of Pacito’s jealousy. Later, while
Natividad was already in her room she heard a series of
gunshots that caused her to stopped reading, and she went
out her room to see Pacito firing at her sister. Natividad
pleaded with Pacito to spare Salvacion's life telling him that
the latter would go with him to Legaspi. But her pleas merited
no more than an expression from Pacito.

Issue: What crime did Pacito committed?

Held: Pacito committed the crime of serious physical injuries

along with other crimes such as parricide. It was indubitably
shown that Natividad is now permanently mained. Her left arm
became shorter than her right arm as a result of the gunshot
wound sustained by her. All hope of her left arm being
restored to its normal length had been totally foreclosed. In
short, her present condition is beyond medical repair. By
reason thereof, she is now exposed to public ridicule aside
from having spent some for her hospitalization. The two (2)
bullets pumped into her body from the gun of the accused
deprived her of a better life. .

81. Pp vs. Balubar

60 Phil 699

Facts: Balubar struck the injured party on the mouth with the
iron instrument used for turning the engine of a motor truck,
causing loss of four front teeth.

Issue: WON Balubar is guilty of the crime of serious physical

injury?

Held: YES, one who unlawfully wounds another is responsible

for the consequences of his act. If as a result thereof, the
offended party is impaired in his appearance in such a way
that the disfigurement cannot be removed by nature, the
person causing the injuries is responsible for the
disfigurement, and he is not relieved of that responsibility
because the offended party might, if he had the means, lessen
the disfigurement by some artificial contrivance.

The offended party in the case at bar was twenty-five years

old, and he was conspicuously disfigured by the loss of four
front teeth. We are therefore of the opinion that the defendant
is guilty of a violation of subsection 3 of article 263 of the
Revised Penal Code.

The injury contemplated by the Code is an injury that cannot

be repaired by the action of nature. The fact that the offended
party may have artificial teeth, if he has the necessary means
and so desires, does not repair the injury, although it may
lessen the disfigurement. The case of a child or an old man is
an exception to the rule.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 26
LABENDIA
82. U.S. vs Bugarin, 15 Phil 189
FACTS:
The accused, Antonio Bugarin, upon being caught by Miguel
Guillermo in the act of stealing a carabao, struck Guillermo
with his bolo, severing the index and middle fingers of
Guillermo’s right hand. As a result, Guillermo’s right hand was
rendered useless for work in the fields, his usual occupation.
The CFI sentenced Bugarin under the provisions of paragraph
2 of article 416 of the Penal Code to imprisonment for five
years.
ISSUE: Whether or not the sentence imposed was proper.
HELD:
No. The penalty should be under paragraph 3 of article 416
of the Penal Code.
Under paragraph 2 of said article 416, a person convicted of
lesiones graves is punished with prision correccional in its
medium and maximum degrees if, as a result of such injuries,
the person assaulted should have lost an eye or any principal
member, or should have been hindered in the use thereof, or
rendered unable to pursue the occupation in which, up to that
time, he had been habitually engaged.
Under paragraph 3 of article 416 of the Penal Code, a person
convicted of the crime of lesiones graves should be punished
with prision correccional in its minimum and medium degrees,
if the party injured was disfigured or lost a member, not a
principal one, or the member was thereby rendered useless.
The penalty shall be two years of prision correccional.
83. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 398
FACTS:
Timoteo Penesa and Rosario Aguillon lived as husband and
wife. The victim, Crescencio Doro is the eldest son of Rosario
by her late husband. Due to continuous wrangles between
Penesa and Rosario Aguillon’s children by her late husband,
both agreed to part. Penesa left the house on 30 August 1942.
The following day, Penesa returned to the house and asked
Rosario to live with him in another place. The request was
refused. Santiago Cerrado, a cousin of Rosario, came to the
house and, upon seeing Penesa, asked the latter why he was
there after they had agreed to live apart. Angered by this
remark, Penesa unsheathed his bolo and assaulted Cerrado.
Doro who tried to prevent them, was also assaulted by
Penesa. Doro and Penesa grappled for the possession of the
bolo. Wounds were inflicted upon Doro. In the left palm
affecting two fingers, a wound 3 inches long and from 1/2 to
3/4 inch deep, which on the day of the trial, was still bandaged
because it was not yet healed. Upon this evidence the trial
court found Penesa guilty of frustrated homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty of frustrated homicide was
proper.
HELD:
No. When Penesa went to the house of Rosario, it was not
with the intention to kill anybody.
The crime committed by Penesa against Doro is serious
physical injuries, for, although the physician who had treated
him did not state in his testimony the time during which the
wounds would heal or the period during which the offended
party would be incapacitated to perform his ordinary or usual
work, nevertheless the evidence shows that the wound
inflicted on the 31st of August upon Doro in the left palm
affecting two fingers, 3 inches long and from 1/2 to 3/4 inch
deep, was not yet cured on the day of the trial held on 9
October 1942, or that the wound did not heal within 30 days.
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or
beverages.
84. U.S. vs Chiong Songco, 18 Phil 459
FACTS:
Chiong Songco threw the contents of a bottle of sulphuric acid
into the face and on the body of the victim, inflicting wounds
which resulted in the illness of the victim for more than thirty
days. The trial court found the defendant guilty of the crime of
lesiones defined in subsection 4 of article 416 read together
with article 417 of the Penal Code.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime charged is correct.
HELD:
No. The infliction of injuries (lesiones) by throwing mordant
chemicals or poisons in the face or upon the body is not one
of the offenses defined and penalized in article 416 of the
Code.
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries.
85. U.S. vs Trinidad, 4 Phil 152
FACTS:
Trinidad, with a kitchen knife, inflicted a wound on
Margarita Maria Pando, in the right scapular region of her
body. This wound necessitated medical attendance for two
days and prevented her from attending to her ordinary labors
for a period of twenty-nine or thirty days. The cause of the
aggression seems to be the scolding that Margarita gave
Trinidad, who was her cook, for having broken a piece of china
ware. The lower court charged Trinidad the crime of
attempted homicide.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime charged is correct.
HELD:
No. The facts in the case are only constitutive of the
crime of lesiones menos graves, provided for and punished by
article 418 of the Penal Code, inasmuch as the wound inflicted
upon Margarita Pando did not cause her any sickness nor
incapacity to work for more than thirty days.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 27
The first and most essential element constitutive of
the crime of attempted homicide is the intention on the part of
the guilty party to cause the death of the person attacked.
There is nothing tending to show in a plain and conclusive
manner that Trinidad had formally made up his mind to kill
Margarita Pando when he assaulted her with a knife.
It is a well-known principle of criminal law that when
a particular act constitutes a crime by itself, and is separately
and distinctly punished by law, like that of lesiones, it is not
possible in law to qualify the act as a greater offense unless
well-defined circumstances should show beyond reasonable
doubt that the intention of the accused was to commit an
offense of greater criminal importance.
86. People vs Penesa, 81 Phil 398
FACTS:
Timoteo Penesa and Rosario Aguillon lived as
husband and wife. Due to continuous wrangles between
Timoteo and Rosario’s children by her late husband, both
agreed to part. Penesa left the house on 30 August 1942. The
following day, Penesa returned to the house and asked
Rosario to live with him in another place. The request was
refused. Santiago Cerrado, a cousin of Rosario, came to the
house and, upon seeing Penesa, asked the latter why he was
there after they had agreed to live apart. Angered by this
remark, Penesa unsheathed his bolo and assaulted Cerrado.
As a result of the assault upon Cerrado, two wounds were
inflicted upon him, one on the left forearm and another under
the left axilla. They were not serious.
ISSUE: Whether or not the crime committed by Penesa upon
Cerrado is less serious physical injuries.
HELD:
No. In the absence of proof as to the period of
Cerrado’s incapacity for labor or of the required medical
attendance, the crime is slight physical injuries, as provided
for in article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty to
be imposed upon Penesa is 15 days of arresto menor for the
wounds inflicted upon Cerrado.
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment.
87. People vs Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431
FACTS:
In the evening of August 16, 1982, Charly Ganohon
alias Dongdong, together with Gerardo Obod alias Meka, who
is still at large, conspired together and mutually helped one
another, with intent to kill, with the use of a double blade long
bolo (kris), attacked, assaulted and hacked Eduardo Anoos,
and members of his family: Elina Anoos, Edgar Nuera (12
y.o.), Gina Anoos (6 y.o.), and Tuto Anoos (1 y.o.), in their
dwelling, inflicting on them multiple wounds all over their body,
head and extremities, which caused their instantaneous
death. No one ever witnessed the horrible incident except the
accused Ganohon and Obod. The lower court charged
Ganohon guilty of the crime of murder.
ISSUE: Whether or not the charge was proper.
HELD:
Ganohon is guilty of homicide only against Eduardo
and Elina Anoos. In the absence of proof as to how the victims
were killed, the killings must be considered as homicide only
and not murder. There was not a single eyewitness to the
incident. The records are totally bereft of any evidence as to
the means or method resorted to by Ganohon in attacking the
victim.
With respect to the deaths of Tuto Anoos, who was
one year old, Gina Anoos, who was six years old and Edgar
Nuera, who was twelve years old, murder was proper. The
killing of a child is murder even if the manner of attack was not
shown. There exists a crime of murder when an adult person
illegally attacks a child of tender years and causes his death.
88. People vs Manolong, 85 Phil 829
FACTS:
On February 4, 1948, Manolong was charged with
the crime of less serious physical injuries for having inflicted
on the right arm of Fortunato Sanoy injuries which would take
from 20 to 30 days to heal. Pleading guilty to the complaint,
Manolong was on that same day convicted of the crime
charged and sentenced to 2 months and 1 day of arresto
mayor, and two days later he began to serve his sentence.
Sanoy’s injuries did not heal within the period formerly
estimated. And so, on March 12, 1948, an information was
filed charging Manolong with serious physical injuries. Again,
he pleaded guilty. The provincial fiscal, on May 5, 1948, filed
the corresponding information for the said crime, alleging that
the wounds inflicted by Manolong on the right hand of
Fortunato Sanoy required medical attendance and
incapacitated him for labor for a period of more than 90 days,
causing deformity and the loss of the use of said member.
Manolong moved to have this last information quashed on the
ground that it put him twice in jeopardy.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was double jeopardy.
HELD:
No. Where, after the first prosecution for a lesser
crime, new facts have supervened which, together with those
already in existence at the time of the first prosecution, have
made the offense graver and the penalty first imposed legally
inadequate, Manolong cannot be said to be in second
jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.
89. People vs Aquino, 71 Phil 143
FACTS:
Aquino was convicted for the crime of minor injuries
caused onto Guillermo Carreon, who required medical
assistance. The injury incapacitated Carreon for work for five
days. Aquino was sentenced to five days of arresto menor.
The provincial prosecutor presented another
complaint for the same facts, alleging that the injuries required
medical assistance and produced incapacity for work for
twenty days. After the evidence has been carried out, the First
Instance Court sentenced Aquino for the crime charged in the
prosecutor's complaint to one month and one day of arresto
mayor.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 28
ISSUE:
Whether or not the First Instance Court had
jurisdiction to convict Aquino for the crime charged in the
provincial prosecutor's complaint.
HELD:
No. Aquino was accused and convicted in the Court
of Peace for the crime of minor injuries, which took a long time
to heal and produced incapacity not later than five days, which
had jurisdiction originating from said Court.
The proceedings in the First Instance Court are for
these same injuries as they required medical assistance and
produced incapacity for work for a period of twenty days, of
which the Justice of the Peace has no jurisdiction. The
jurisdiction granted to the Court of First Instance by virtue of
the appeal of Aquino is limited to the offense that is the subject
of the judgment, which has been appealed.
The crime charged is punishable in Article 266,
paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. Therefore, in
accordance with the recommendation of the Attorney General,
with modification of the sentence appealed, Aquino is
sentenced to twenty (20) days of arresto menor.
Article 266-A. Rape. As amended by R.A. No. 8353
Article 266-B. Penalties (R.A. No. 8353)
90. People vs Reyes, 60 SCRA 126
FACTS:
Accused Rogelio Reyes, 24 y.o., and complainant
Teresita de Leon, 18 y.o., were sweethearts before she
transferred her affections to a common-law husband. One
evening she met up with Reyes who invited her for a tryst, and
she accepted. She went with him to his house where they
spent the evening making love three times. Teresita asserted
that all the while he was using a knife while he had his way on
her person. Reyes asserted that there was enthusiastic
cooperation on Teresita’s part. But Teresita would have the
court believe that it was merely passive acquiescence on her
part.
The lower court sentenced Reyes to three penalties
of reclusion perpetua for the crime of rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Reyes is guilty of rape.
HELD:
No. The guilt of Reyes had not been established
beyond reasonable doubt.
It is true that rape is a most detestable crime, and
therefore ought severely and impartially to be punished with
death; but it must be remembered that it is an accusation easy
to be made, hard to be proved, but harder to be defended by
the party accused, though innocent.
91. People vs Nazareno, 80 SCRA 484
FACTS:
The complainant Rayda Aumada was a maid in the
house of the accused Jesus Nazareno. She had been
Nazareno’s housemaid from November 1969 to January
1971. She gave birth to a child on April 14, 1971. That child
was thrown away by her to a creek after its birth. She admitted
that it was she who gave birth, the father, being Nazareno.
She said that she was under instruction by Nazareno to throw
the baby, but she did not mention that she was forced by
Nazareno when the sexual act took place.
The rape complaint against Nazareno was only filed
on May 5, 1971. Rayda alleged that she was compelled
against her will to submit to Nazareno’s desire twice, the first
time on the first week of January 1970 and then on the last
week of the same month. Her sister, who was another maid in
the same house, was not told about the matter. She was free
to visit her parents but she likewise made no complaint to
them about her being abused by Nazareno. She stayed in the
same household for one more year, but the wife of the
Nazareno was kept equally ignorant of the alleged rape and
did not even notice her pregnant condition all the while,
although the delivery occurred barely three months after she
left.
The lower court found Nazareno guilty of the crime
of rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Nazareno is guilty of rape.
HELD:
No. The constitutional presumption of innocence of
Nazareno has not been overcome.
This is an offense to which, as if often the case, only
two people can testify, thus requiring the most conscientious
effort on the part of the arbiter to weigh and appraise the
conflicting testimony. If a reasonable doubt exists, the verdict
must be one of acquittal.
92. People vs Lim, 206 SCRA 176
FACTS:
The accused, Ruben Lim, went to the house of his
cousin Delailah to request her to stay in his house so he may
go to the wake of his brother-in-law who was shot dead.
Complainant Delailah went to the house of Lim. At dawn,
before Lim went off to the wake of his brother-in-law, he went
to the room of Delailah. When Delailah woke, she saw Lim
doing the acts. Lim immediately covered her mouth with his
left hand, and pulled her hair with his right hand, and tried to
push down Delailah but as the latter was trying to resist and
fight him, Lim told her not to shout, otherwise he would kill her
and her family specially her father who is suffering from a
heart ailment. Lim drew his firearm from his right waist and
poked it at the neck of Delailah. The firearm was a .38
revolver. Lim succeeded in having a sexual intercourse with
Delailah despite her strong resistance and her plea not to do
so, since they were cousins. Lim even said ‘Anong pinsan-
pinsan, walang pinsan-pinsan sa akin, kaysa iba pa ang
mauna, ako na lang uuna.’ After the sexual intercourse, Lim
again threatened Delailah not to report to anybody or else he
would kill her and her family, and Delailah believed such
threat.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 29
The lower court charged Lim guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lim is guilty of rape.
HELD:
Yes. It is a settled principle that factual findings of
trial courts are accorded utmost respect, in the absence of
arbitrariness, since they had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor and deportment of witnesses.
93. People vs Canastre, 82 Phil 480
FACTS:
At about one o’clock in the morning of June 28, 1946,
Canastre and Sayuco, together with two unidgentified
companions, came to the house of Magdaleno Beri. Canastre
pointed his gun to Magdaleno with the warning to him and his
companions not to move and with the threat of death if they
did otherwise. After tying Magdaleno to the wall, Canastre
entered the room of Benedicta Beri, a 17-year old daughter of
Magdaleno. Canastre, who directed his flashlight to
Benedicta, dragged her out and, with the aid of Sayuco, he
brought her downstairs under a mango tree. In spite of
Benedicta’s resistance, Canastre, with the help of his three
companions, was able to have sexual intercourse with
Benedicta. Sayuco then took his turn in raping the girl,
followed in succession by the other two companions. Not
contented with merely satisfying their lust, Canastre, Sayuco
and another companion returned to the house and took away
a rice bowl, some rice and four chickens, all worth about
fifteen pesos.
Canastre and Sayuco were found guilty of robbery with rape.
Sayuco escaped from detention and had been at large. Only
Canastre had appealed contending that that there were no
lacerations, abrasions or rashes in the genital organ of
Benedicta that indicated forcible sexual intercourse.
ISSUE: Whether or not Canastre is guilty of rape.
HELD:
Yes. It is hard to believe that a young unmarried girl
would make such a revelation and allow an examination of her
private parts and thereafter permit herself to be the subject
even of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by a
desire to have the culprits apprehended and punished. And
the persuasive weight of this circumstance is such as to
negative the importance of the testimony of Dr. Parreñas to
the effect that there were no lacerations, abrasions or rashes
in the genital organ of Benedicta that indicated forcible sexual
intercourse. The absence of male sperm in the vagina does
not negate rape.
94. People vs Jimenez, 93 Phil 137
FACTS:
One midnight while the spouses Leorido Aggub and
Maria Bacalanao and their sons were asleep, four armed men
came to their hut. One of them is Pedro Jimenez who had a
revolver or pistol, another is Jimenez’s brother-in-law, Alberto
Rivera who had a rifle, and other two men who had a bayonet
each. Jimenez and Rivera entered into the hut and seized the
husband and the son and brought them outside, and
maltreated them with the aid of the other two men. The four
men returned to the hut and raped Maria one after the other.
With their lust satisfied, the malefactors gathered what they
could of the couple’s belongings: eggs, chickens, woolen
blankets, a bolo and aluminum kettle, and then left.
With their two companions still at large, Pedro
Jimenez and Alberto Rivera were prosecuted for the crime of
robbery in band with rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not the perpetrators are guilty of the
crime charged.
HELD:
Yes. There can be no doubt as to the perpetration of
the crime charged, for it is clearly established by the combined
testimony of the aggrieved spouses and their son Macario.
And beyond question too is Jimenez and Rivera’s participation
therein for they were positively identified by the offended
parties.
It is true that the hut was not lighted that night of the crime.
But it appears that the malefactors used a flashlight, and
outside the hut there was light from the moon, clear enough to
have enabled the offended parties to recognize Jimenez and
Rivera, who were well known to them and, unlike their
companions, did not have their faces covered.
95. People vs Savellano, 57 SCRA 320
FACTS:
In the morning of July 18, 1969, complainant Zosima
Jenilla, a 17-year old unmarried girl, who is barely four feet tall
and was sickly during her childhood, was sent by her mother
on an errand to the house of her elder sister, about a kilometer
from Zosima’s house. On her way to her destination, she
passed the cornfield which was 50 meters away from the
house of Antonio Savellano, the 20-year old unmarried
farmer, who is much taller than Zosima and whom she had
known since childhood. He was stealthily following her.
Suddenly, Savellano seized her from behind. He
dragged her away from the trail along a distance of 50 meters
to a place near his house and forced her to lie down. She tried
to shout but Savellano covered her mouth with his left hand.
She resisted the assault by kicking, slapping and boxing
Savellano and scratching him on the face, but she succumbed
to the superior force employed by Savellano. Weakened
considerably by her struggle and resistance and the persistent
force employed by Savellano, he succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her.
The lower court convicted Savellano of rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Savellano is guilty of rape.
HELD:
Yes. The conduct of Zosima in reporting immediately
to the barrio captain that she had been ravished negates
Savellano’s claim that she had voluntary sexual intercourse
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 30
with him. As noted by the trial court, it is hard to believe that a
17-year old unmarried girl like her would publicly disclose that
she had been raped and thus sully her honor and reputation
in the community, would allow an examination of her private
parts, and would undergo the trouble and humiliation of a trial
if her motive was not to bring to justice the person who had
grievously wronged her.
It is true that Savellano has only the full use of his left
hand. He has a physical handicap because he has no right
hand. But the petite complainant, a teenager, is only four feet
tall and used to be sickly, whereas, Savellano is five feet and
five inches tall and, as a young farmer, accustomed to manual
labor, was quite strong. It is credible that, with his physical
superiority, he was able to overcome the resistance of the
complainant and to have forcible carnal knowledge of her.
It is not necessary that the force employed against
the complaining woman in rape be so great or of such a
character as could not be resisted. It is sufficient that the force
used is sufficient to consummate the culprit’s purpose of
copulating with the offended woman. The force or violence
necessary in rape is naturally a relative term, depending on
the age, size and strength of the parties and their relation to
each other.
96. People vs Garcines, 57 SCRA 653
FACTS:
Complainant Rosella Tan is a 13-year-old first year
high school student. She customarily buys bread every
morning at a store near the supermarket. One morning, after
buying bread and while she was on her way home, R called
her. Garcines was a sixty-two year old, white-haired, married
man, and owns a store. He told her that he wanted to buy
bread from her, and that he would just buy inside his store.
Relying on the assurance that Garcines would not harm her,
Rosella entered his store.
When she was already inside the store, Garcines
closed the door. He commanded her to keep quiet and to
remove her pantie. She was speechless and afraid. When she
did not remove her pantie, Garcines said: "If you will not
remove your pantie, I am a policeman and I have a pistol and
something will happen to you." He pointed to his pistol
hanging against the wall behind him. Rosella was alarmed.
She was trembling and crying. She could not shout because
she was seized with fright. He was a big man. No other
persons were inside the store. The windows were closed. She
did not shout because she "was afraid of him and the gun".
Garcines succeeded with his carnal knowledge of Rosella.
ISSUE: Whether or not Garcines is guilty of rape.
HELD:
Yes. Garcines’s contention that the prosecution did
not prove that he used force in having a carnal knowledge of
Rosella does not mean that no rape was committed. The
crime can be committed by employing intimidation. Rosella
was thirteen years, four months and twenty days old at the
time she was raped. She was an immature teenager. She
could easily be coerced or cowed by a big old farmer and
former security guard like Garcines. Her case is not far
removed from that of an eleven-year-old girl with whom
voluntary carnal intercourse is considered rape. Intimidation
includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening
the girl with a knife or pistol.
It is unthinkable that an unmarried teenager, a high
school student, would endure the shame and humiliation of
being publicly known that she had been ravished, allow an
examination of her private parts and undergo the trouble and
expense of a court proceeding if her motive was not to bring
to justice the person who had grievously wronged her.
97. People vs Aldana, 175 SCRA 635
FACTS:
Stephanie Hutchison, a 13 1/2 year old high
school student, and Bernard Aldana, an 18 year old
college student, were sweethearts. Aldana claimed
that soon after Stephanie accepted his offer of love on
June 4, 1984, Stephanie suggested to Aldana that
they should see each other in her bedroom while her
mother is away working. Stephanie told him that she
would remove three slats of the ungrilled jalousie
window so that he could enter the room. Aldana
agreed to the plan. Thus, on four subsequent
occasions, Aldana climbed into Stephanie’s room at
around midnight, and the couple would spend about
an hour taking and caressing each.
On August 11, 1984, Aldana and Stephanie
had sexual intercourse for the first time. On two more
occasions, August 13 and 15, Aldana returned to her
room and the young lovers made love. In the early
morning of August 18, as Aldana once again entered
her room, Stephanie warned him that her maid was
sleeping in the room with her. But as he was about to
leave, the maid woke up and turned on the lights of
the room. The maid asked him what he was doing, and
he revealed that he was there at Stephanie’s
invitation. Aldana then hurriedly left the room.
Stephanie, on the other hand, presented doubtful
testimonies against Aldana during the trial.
ISSUE: Whether or not Aldana is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape.
HELD:
No. Aldana’s guilt have not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to
discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The implausible
tenor of the testimony of the alleged rape victim
weighed against the evidence presented for Aldana
casts serious doubt on the guilt of Aldana. The
uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim as to
the manner by which the accused allegedly
overpowered and violated her through force and
intimidation does not inspire belief. Testimony to be
believed must not only proceed from a credible
witness, but must itself be credible. No better test has
yet been found to determine the value of the
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 31
testimony of a witness than its conformity to the
knowledge and common experience of mankind.
While the Court generally desists from
disturbing the findings of the trial court considering
that the latter is in a better position to pass upon the
matter of credibility of witnesses, the Court will not
hesitate to take exception to this rule in order to keep
faith with the principle that every criminal conviction
must be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The proof against the accused must survive the test
of moral certainty. The conscience must be satisfied
that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility
for the offense charged. Aldana is hereby acquitted of
the crime charged.
98. People vs Bautista, 102 SCRA 483
FACTS:
Alejandro Bautista, a well-known fortune
teller and faith healer, was consulted by complainant
Remedios Abalayan,33 years old, married, who
submitted herself to a ritual repeated for two days,
whereby she was made to drink a potion supposedly
to protect Remedios against the possibility of losing
her husband to another girl. On the third day, when
Bautista brought Remedios to a cave and touched her
private parts, she instantly protested, stood up,
zipped close her pants and angrily rejected Bautista’s
proposal for sexual intercourse but agreed to take the
potion offered as a substitute for sexual intercourse.
Thereafter, Remedios felt dizzy and weak and while
remaining conscious, she lost control of herself and in
that state, Bautista had carnal knowledge of her.
ISSUE: Whether or not Bautista is guilty of rape.
HELD:
Yes. Bautista had undoubtedly committed the crime of
rape by depriving complainant of reason to be able to
have carnal knowledge of her without the latter having
the least shown any sign of consent and that slight
penetration even without emission is sufficient to
convict Bautista for rape.
Where complainant did not for a moment tolerate the
acts of Bautista, drawing herself from him instantly
and protestingly when Bautista started to touch her
private parts, and angrily rejecting the proposal for
sexual intercourse, her subsequent taking of the
potion proferred as substitute for the sexual
intercourse was not by any means to show her
agreement to Bautista’s indecent proposal.
99. People vs Eriñia, 50 Phil 998
FACTS:
The victim of the crime was a child of 3 years and
11 months old. Eriñia endeavored to have carnal intercourse
with the child, but there may be some doubt whether he
succeeded in penetrating the vagina before being disturbed
by the timely intervention of the mother and the sister of the
child. The physician who examined the genital organ of the
child a few hours after the commission of the crime found a
slight inflammation of the exterior parts of the organ, indicating
that an effort had been made to enter the vagina, but in
testifying before the court the physician expressed doubts as
to whether the entry had been effected. The mother of the
child testified that she found the child’s genital organ covered
with a sticky substance, but that cannot be considered
conclusive evidence of penetration.
The lower court found Eriñia guilty of the crime of
consummated rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Erinia is guilty as charged.
HELD:
No. There being no conclusive evidence of
penetration of the genital organ of the child, Erinia is entitled
to the benefit of the doubt and can only be found guilty of
frustrated rape.
______
Note: In the case of People vs. Orita, the Supreme Court
held that the Eriñia case appears to be a "stray" decision
inasmuch as it has not been reiterated in the Court's
subsequent decisions.
100. People vs Orita, 184 SCRA 105
FACTS:
Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year
old freshman student. Orita was a Philippine
Constabulary (PC) soldier.
Complainant arrived at her boarding house.
Her classmates had just brought her home from a
party. Shortly after her classmates had left, she
knocked at the door of her boarding house. All of a
sudden, somebody held her and poked a knife to her
neck. She then recognized Orita who was a frequent
visitor of another boarder. With a Batangas knife
poked to her neck, Orita commanded her to look for a
room on the first floor, then on the second floor until
they reached and entered complainant’s room. Orita
started his carnal knowledge of her but could not fully
penetrate her. Complainant, still naked, was able to
escape, and ran to the municipal building which was
about 18 meters in front of the boarding house. The
policemen in the municipal building rushed to the
boarding house. They heard a sound at the second
floor and saw somebody running away. Due to
darkness, they failed to apprehend Orita.
The trial court found Orita guilty of the crime
of Frustrated Rape.
ISSUE: Whether or not Orita is guilty of the crime charged.
HELD:
No. Orita is found guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape. The victim positively
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 32
testified that there was penetration, even if only
partially. The fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the
accused may be convicted even on the sole basis of
the victim’s testimony, if credible.
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. 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 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.
We are aware of our earlier pronouncement in
the case of People v. Eriñia, 50 Phil. 998 [1927] where
We found the offender guilty of frustrated rape there
being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the
genital organ of the offended party. However, it
appears that this is a "stray" decision inasmuch as it
has not been reiterated in Our subsequent decisions.
Likewise, We are aware of Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2632
(dated September 12,1960) and Republic Act No.
4111 (dated March 29,1965) which provides, in its
penultimate paragraph, for the penalty of death when
the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof We
are of the opinion that this particular provision on
frustrated rape is a dead provision. The Eriñia case,
might have prompted the law-making body to include
the crime of frustrated rape in the amendments
introduced by said laws.
101. People vs Dayo, 51 Phil 102
FACTS:
On the night of July 18, 1925, while Lamberta
Valdehuesa, sleeping by the side of her 13-year old son,
Higino Sabido, was awakened by the feeling of a certain
weight upon her and discovered that a man was having
carnal knowledge of her. She gave him a push in an
attempt to extricate herself from him and at the same
time screamed. Later on she recognized the accused
Amando Dayo as the man, who threatened to kill her with
a revolver which he carried with him, if she made an
outcry, whereupon Lamberta fainted. The boy Higino
Sabido, who had also awaked, seeing the accused
mounted on his mother, tried to awaken her, touching
her, but she did not wake up or answer him. Dayo
continued on lying with Lamberta and after having
consummated his purpose, he left but not before having
threatened to kill the boy Higino with his revolver if the
latter spoke of it to his father.
ISSUE: Whether or not Dayo is guilty of rape.
HELD:
Yes. Dayo having entered upon the commission
of the act of lying with the offended party, taking
advantage of the fact that she was asleep, the crime of
rape had already been consummated and the offended
party’s final consent, even supposing that she did consent
upon becoming aware of the outrage which was being
perpetrated against her, was not such consent as would
exclude the concept of the crime of rape, but a mere
resignation in the face of the consummation of the
outrage.
102. People vs Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961
FACTS:
Antonio Yu had carnal knowledge of one Delia
Abule, a 6 year old girl, against her will. On the
occasion of the said act, Yu, in order to silence Delia
Abule, who was then shouting, attacked, assaulted
and strangled Delia Abule, with abuse of superior
strength, and as a result thereof, Delia died.
ISSUE: Whether or not Yu is guilty of a complex crime of
rape with homicide/murder.
HELD:
Yes. Yu had committed the complex crime of
rape with homicide (homicide used in its generic
meaning). The raping and the killing of the victim were
simultaneously committed, making the crime a
complex one. The killing is murder, in view of the
attendance of the qualifying circumstance of superior
strength, considering the tender age of the victim,
who was just a 6 year old girl. As aptly stated by the
learned trial court, to which we agree: "There is unity
of thought in the criminal purpose of the accused, and
this unity of thought and action cannot be altered by
the circumstances that both the crime of rape and the
crime of murder resulted. Yu had to choke and
strangle the girl at the same time that he was
satisfying his lust on her. It was necessary for him to
silence her so that he could consummate the rape.
The brute force employed by Yu, completely
contradicts his claim that he had no intention to kill
the victim. He knew or ought to have known the
natural and inevitable result of the act of
strangulation, committed by men of superior strength,
especially on an occasion when the 6 year old girl was
resisting the onslaught upon her honor.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 33
MATILAC
103. People vs Laspardas, 93 SCRA 638
Facts: a Constabulary sergeant filed on December 17,
1976 against Laurencio Laspardas. It was alleged
therein that on December 1, 1976 inflicted twelve
wounds upon Elizabeth Arriesgado and Josephine
Arriesgado thereby causing their death. The certificates
of death show that the two victims were twelve and eight
years old. In view of Laspardas admission in his
confession that he raped Elizabeth, the complaint was
amended so as to add rape to the charge of double
murder. Upon arraignment in the municipal court,
Laspardas pleaded guilty.
Issue: WON Laspardas is guilty of the penalty of special
complex crime of rape with homicide.
Held: No, was not committed in this case and that two
separate murders were perpetrated. The murders were
qualified by treachery and aggravated by evident
premeditation and abuse of confidence, two
circumstances which are deducible from the testimony
of the accused.
Premeditation was evident because there was a
sufficient interval of time between the planning of the
murders and the execution thereof to allow the
conscience of the accused to overcome the resolution
of his will had he desired to hearken to its warnings.
There was abuse of confidence because, according to
the accused, he had stayed for two years with the family
of his two young and trusting victims who in their
immaturity and innocence never had an inkling that he
had homicidal intentions towards them. Presumably,
they looked upon him as their protector and guardian in
their parents' absence and not as their aggressor and
assassin. The two murders were specifically alleged in
the information. The accused cannot complain that he
was not duly informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. Even without his extrajudicial
confession, his plea of guilty and testimony establish his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Sec. 5, Rule 118, and
sec. 29, Rule 130, Rules of Court. The corpus delicti, or
the fact of the commission of the two murders, is
indubitably shown in the record. By his plea of guilty, he
himself supplied the necessary proof as to his
culpability, he was found guilty of two separate murders
and is sentenced to two death penalties.
104. People vs Taño, G.R. No. 133872 [2000]
Facts: Amy de Guzman, ALEXANDER TAO y
CABALLERO suddenly jumped over the counter,
strangled her, poked a knife at the left side of her neck, pulled
her towards the kitchen where he forced her to undress, and
gained carnal knowledge of her against her will and consent.
Thereafter, he ordered her to proceed upstairs to get some
clothes, so he could bring her out, saying he was not leaving
her alive. At this point, appellant conceived the idea of robbery
because, before they could reach the upper floor, he suddenly
pulled Amy down and started mauling her until she lost
consciousness; then he freely ransacked the place. Leaving
Amy for dead after repeatedly banging her head, first on the
wall, then on the toilet bowl, he took her bracelet, ring and
wristwatch. He then proceeded upstairs where he took as well
the jewelry box containing other valuables belonging to his
victim's employer.
Issue: WON ALEXANDER TAO y CABALLERO
is guilty of special complex crime of robbery with rape.
Held: No, ALEXANDER TAO y CABALLERO
cannot be convicted of the special complex crime of robbery
with rape. However, since it was clearly proven beyond
reasonable doubt that he raped Amy de Guzman and
thereafter robbed her and Ana Marinay of valuables totaling
P16,000, he committed two separate offenses -- rape with the
use of a deadly weapon and simple robbery with force and
intimidation against persons.
ALEXANDER TAO y CABALLERO may well be
convicted of the separate offenses of rape and robbery
notwithstanding the fact that the offense charged in the
Information is only "Robbery with Rape. In the case at bar, we
find the Information filed against ALEXANDER TAO y
CABALLERO to have sufficiently alleged all the elements
necessary to convict him of the two separate crimes of rape
and robbery. Needless to state, appellant failed, before his
arraignment, to move for the quashal of the Information which
appeared to charge more than one offense. He has thereby
waived any objection and may thus be found guilty of as many
offenses as those charged in the Information and proven
during the trial.
105. People vs Maglente, 306 SCRA 546 [1999]
Facts: Maylene (Mylene) Q. Maglente is accused-appellants
own daughter. She is the eldest child of spouses Eriberto
Maglente and Rebecca Q. Maglente. Mylene and her two
other sisters, Monalisa and Maritess, then aged 16 and 14,
were left in thecare of their father, as their mother Rebecca
left on January 2, 1994 to work as a domestic helper in
Hongkong. In eight (8) separate complaints filed on
September 15, 1995, Mylene accused her father of raping her
on eight different occasions in 1995.
Issue: WON Eriberto Maglente is liable for 8 counts of rape
and death is the proper penalty.
Held: Yes, Eriberto Maglente is liable for 8 counts of rape but
the penalty is lowered to reclusion perpetua. Art. 335 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended by 11 of R.A. No. 7659,
that the penalty of death shall be imposed on the offender in
rape cases if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
and the offender is a parent . . . of the victim. Certainly the fact
that the victim was below 18 when the rapes were committed
in order to justify the imposition of the death penalty. The fact
that accused-appellant has not denied the allegation in the
complaints that Mylene was below 18 years of age when any
of the crimes was committed cannot make up for the failure of
the prosecution to discharge its burden. Because of its failure
to discharge this burden and the corresponding failure of the
trial court to make a categorical finding as to the minority of
the victim, we are constrained to hold that the qualifying
circumstance of minority and relationship cannot be
appreciated in these cases. It is different with regard to the
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 34
relationship of the offended party and accused-appellant,
because the latter admitted that complainant is his daughter.
Perforce, the death penalty imposed by the trial court in each
of the eight (8) cases should be reduced to reclusion perpetua
as provided in the second paragraph of Art. 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended.
106. People vs Victor, 292 SCRA 186 [1998]
Facts: Raquel Villanueva is the daughter of the
common-law wife of herein ESTEBAN VICTOR y
PENIS. Both the said complainant and appellant lived in
the same house located at Phase quIV, Urban 2,
Payatas, Quezon City, since complainant's biological
father was estranged from her mother. Sometime in
June 1996, while the mother of Raquel was at work in
the factory where she was employed, ESTEBAN
VICTOR y PENIS entered Raquel's room while she was
folding clothes and unceremoniously poked a fan knife
("balisong") at her. He ordered her to take off her
clothes and lie on the floor. Out of fear, she complied.
Thereafter, ESTEBAN VICTOR y PENIS took off his
clothes and placed himself on top of complainant. He
then held her legs, spread them apart, inserted his penis
into her genitalia and proceeded to make the pumping
motions of the sexual act. The rape lasted for about ten
minutes. ESTEBAN VICTOR y PENIS warned Raquel
not to tell her parents about the incident. Terrified by his
threats and constant presence in the house, since he
was jobless and usually drunk, she maintained her
silence. She was admittedly only fifteen years old then.
Issue: WON death Penalty should be imposed.
Held: Yes, Republic Act No. 7659, insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty, is unconstitutional; but
they nevertheless submit to the ruling of the majority of
the Court that the law is constitutional and the death
penalty should be imposed in the case at bar.
The use of the accused of a bladed weapon in order to
have carnal knowledge with Raquel is sufficient
evidence to establish the presence of "force and
intimidation," an essential element of the crime of rape.
Added to this is the relationship of the accused and
Raquel wherein the accused, by accused's own
admission, is the stepfather of Raquel, and in light of the
prevailing doctrine that relationship may substitute for
"force and intimidation," as the stepfather exercises
"moral ascendancy and influence" over the
stepdaughter, the Court is overwhelmingly convinced
that the prosecution was able to clearly establish that
the carnal knowledge of June 1996 was without the
consent of Raquel.
107.
Facts: Emmie R. Rosales was seventeen years old
when the dastardly outrage befell her on March 24,
1994. She testified that she and her younger sister,
Melissa, were asleep in a room in their house and were
then the only persons at home because their
grandfather, who lived with them, was in the hospital at
that time. At around midnight, she suddenly awoke as
she felt a heavy weight pressing down upon her. She
thereupon realized that a man, clad only in his
underwear, lay on top of her. She was about to shout
when he poked a gun at her neck and warned her not
to create any noise or he would kill her. Although the
house lights were off, moonlight streamed through the
sawali door of the room, enabling complainant to see
the intruder. She recognized him as Senen Prades, her
barrio mate. It appears that he had gained entry into the
house through a passageway in the kitchen.
Issue: WON Death Penalty is Proper.
Held: Yes, the People having established the guilt of
appellant beyond reasonable doubt, his conviction and
the penalty imposed by the court a quo is correct and
must consequently be affirmed. Withal, four Members
of this Court maintain their position that Republic Act
No. 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty is
unconstitutional; but they nevertheless submit to the
ruling of the majority that the law is constitutional and
that the death penalty should be imposed in this case.
The fact that complainant has suffered the trauma of
mental, physical and psychological sufferings which
constitute the bases for moral damages are too obvious
to still require the recital thereof at the trial by the victim,
since the Court itself even assumes and acknowledges
such agony on her part as a gauge of her credibility.
What exists by necessary implication as being ineludibly
present in the case need not go through the superfluity
of still being proved through a testimonial charade.
108. People vs Mahinay, 302 SCRA 486 [1999]
Facts: 26th day of June 1995 in Valenzuela LARRY
MAHINAY Y AMPARADO, by means of force and intimidation
employed upon the person of MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y
CABALLERO, age 12 years old, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously lie with and have sexual intercourse
with said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO against
her will and without her consent; that on the occasion of said
sexual assault, LARRY MAHINAY Y AMPARADO, choke
and strangle said MARIA VICTORIA CHAN y CABALLERO
as a result of which, said victim died. "After a series of follow-
up operations, LARRY MAHINAY Y AMPARADO was finally
arrested in Barangay Obario Matala, Ibaan, Batangas. He was
brought to Valenzuela Police Station. On July 7, 1995, with
the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes, LARRY MAHINAY
Y AMPARADO executed an extra-judicial confession wherein
he narrated in detail how he raped and killed the victim. Also,
when LARRY MAHINAY Y AMPARADO came face to face
with the victim's mother and aunt, he confided to them that he
was not alone in raping and killing the victim. He pointed to
Zaldy and Boyet as his co-conspirators
Issue: WON the imposition of Death Penalty is Proper.
Held: Yes, The gravamen of the offense of rape, prior to
R.A. 8353, is sexual congress with a woman by force
and without consent (Under the new law, rape may be
committed even by a woman and the victim may even
be a man.) If the woman is under 12 years of age, proof
of force and consent becomes immaterial not only
because force is not an element of statutory rape, but
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 35
the absence of a free consent is presumed when the
woman is below such age. Conviction will therefore lie,
provided sexual intercourse is be proven. But if the
woman is 12 years of age or over at the time she was
violated, as in this case, not only the first element of
sexual intercourse must be proven but also the other
element that the perpetrators evil acts with the offended
party was done through force, violence, intimidation or
threat needs to be established. Both elements are
present in this case. Based on the evidence on record,
sexual intercourse with the victim was adequately
proven.
A violation of the dignity, purity and privacy of a child
who is still innocent and unexposed to the ways of
worldly pleasures is a harrowing experience that
destroys not only her future but of the youth population
as well, who in the teachings of our national hero, are
considered the hope of the fatherland. Once again, the
Court is confronted by another tragic desecration of human
dignity, committed no less upon a child, who at the salad age
of a few days past 12 years, has yet to knock on the portals of
womanhood, and met her untimely death as a result of the
"intrinsically evil act" of non-consensual sex called rape.
Burdened with the supreme penalty of death, rape is an
ignominious crime for which necessity is neither an excuse nor
does there exist any other rational justification other than lust.
But those who lust ought not to lust
109. People vs Robles, Jr., 305 SCRA [1999]
Facts: While the victim Gigi was crying in the morning
of August 29, 1995, appellant, who was then lying
outside the Cabatingan residence, went inside the said
house and approached Gigi and gave her P2.00. Then,
Gigi went along with him to the store where he bought
some foodstuffs for her; After they went back to the
house, RENANTE ROBLES y BURGOS, JR., alias
TITING put Gigi on his lap and caressed her thighs;
RENANTE ROBLES y BURGOS, JR., alias TITING
and Gigi were seen walking towards the back of the
barangay health center; RENANTE ROBLES y
BURGOS, JR., alias TITING and Gigi were seen at the
barangay health center;Gigis brother saw RENANTE
ROBLES y BURGOS, JR., alias TITING come out of
the back door of the health center, wiping something on
the walls, and appearing to be sweating and bloodied
on his right thigh; Sheila Yaez, who saw RENANTE
ROBLES y BURGOS, JR., alias TITING and Gigi
walking towards the barangay health Center, heard a
voice of a minor as if being beaten, coming from the
direction of the barangay health center; A voice
moaning in pain which sounded to be that of his younger
sister Gigi was heard by Randy Cabatingan coming
from the health center.When the health center was
opened, Gigi was found inside with a bloodied mouth,
lying on the sink, soiled all over, appearing to be
unconscious, without her panty and with her legs full of
blood; Gigi was diagnosed to have suffered multiple
head and body injuries resulting from a consummated
rape, and the cause of her death was cardio-pulmonary
arrest. Her genital organ was positive for spermatozoa;
Gigi died at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon of the same
date August 29, 1995.
Issue: WON Death Penalty is proper.
Held: Yes, Rape is a crime which as a rule is not
committed in the presence of witnesses. And the
prosecution for the complex crime of rape with homicide
is particularly difficult since the victim can no longer
testify against the perpetrator of the crime. In such
cases, the evidence against the accused is usually
circumstantial.
More important, the plea of guilty which the accused
knowingly and voluntarily made under the careful
inquiry of the court constituted very strong evidence of
his guilt. There is no higher evidence of guilt than the accused
own confession and unless it is vitiated by evidence of duress,
a voluntary plea of guilty is admissible as evidence of guilt of
a high quality. The Court is constrained to affirm the death
penalty imposed by the trial court. Four justices of the Court,
however, have continued to maintain the unconstitutionality of
Republic Act 7659 insofar as it prescribes the death penalty;
nevertheless they submit to the ruling of the majority to the
effect that this law is constitutional and that the death penalty
can be lawfully imposed in the case at bar.
110. People vs Dizon, 309 SCRA 669 [1999]
Facts: The supreme penalty of death was imposed upon
Arnold Dizon y Buluran after the Regional Trial Court, Branch
32 of San Pablo City, Laguna, found him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of special complex crime of Robbery with
Homicide aggravated by Rape and Dwelling. The Court
agrees with the trial court that rape was satisfactorily
established by the prosecution. Ruel testified that when his
sister Gesalyn slept that night, she was wearing a pair of
shorts. From his vantage point under his mothers bed, Ruel
saw his sister lying face down. A while later, he saw ARNOLD
DIZON y BULURAN @ APENG approach his sister. He noted
that his sister was lying on her back and uttering the words,
Tama na, Tama na!Thereafter, he found his sister lying face
down again. After ARNOLD DIZON y BULURAN @ APENG
had left, Ruel observed that his sister was sprawled on the
floor face down and her undergarments pulled down to her
knees. Ruel was only 12 years of age when this gruesome
event took place. As such, it is highly possible that he
possessed no complete understanding as to what was
happening to his sister when ARNOLD DIZON y BULURAN
@ APENG was having carnal knowledge of her. When the
body of Gesalyn was subjected to laboratory and autopsy
examination immediately after the discovery of the incident, it
was found by the examining physician that Gesalyn suffered
fresh lacerations.
Issue: WON the imposition of Death Penalty is proper.
Held: Yes, the Court have continued to maintain the
unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 7659 insofar as it
prescribes the death penalty; nevertheless they submit to the
ruling of the majority to the effect that the law is constitutional
and that the death penalty can be lawfully imposed in the case
at bar.
The crime of robbery was never satisfactorily
established by the prosecution beyond moral certainty.
Consequently, ARNOLD DIZON y BULURAN should only be
held liable for two counts of Homicide aggravated by dwelling.
Correspondingly, ARNOLD DIZON y BULURAN is sentenced
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 36

to suffer for each count of homicide the indeterminate penalty for rape to be committed, it is not necessary for the
of 11 years and 4 months of prision mayor as minimum to 20 place to be ideal, or the weather to be fine, for rapists
years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Dizon is charged bear no respect for locale and time when they carry out
with Frustrated Homicide for inflicting 32 stab and puncture
their evil deed. Thus, rape has been committed even in the
wounds on Ruel Gesmundo which could have resulted in his
same room where other family members also sleep. "In a rape
untimely demise if not for immediate medical intervention.
committed by a father against his own daughter, the formers
Finding ARNOLD DIZON y BULURAN guilty beyond
moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes for
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, this Court imposes
violence or intimidation. That ascendancy or influence
upon him the indeterminate penalty of 5 years and 8 months
necessarily flows from the fathers parental authority, which
of prision correccional as minimum up to 12 years of prision
the Constitution and the laws recognize, support and
mayor as maximum. this Court finds accused-appellant guilty
enhance, as well as from the childrens duty to obey and
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with
observe reverence and respect towards their parents. Such
Homicide.Correspondingly, he is sentenced to suffer the
reverence and respect are deeply ingrained in the minds of
supreme penalty of death.
Filipino children and are recognized by law. Abuse of both by
In the case at bar, this Court likewise finds that the chain of
a father can subjugate his daughters will, thereby forcing her
circumstances satisfactorily lead to the conclusion that
to do whatever he wants."
indeed, Dizon raped Gesalyn before killing her.
112. People vs Mosqueda, 313 SCRA 694 [1999]
111. People vs Bayona, G.R. No. 13343, March 2, 2000
Facts: JIMMY was charged with rape under seven
separate complaints filed by her daughter Jaymen
Facts: This involve 2 counts of rape, that On October
Mosqueda (hereafter JAYMEN) who was then only 9
31, 1994, at around 3:00 A.M., in Barangay Tibig,
years old when the first rape happened. The said
Silang, Cavite. ILDEFONSO BAYONA y CALOSO
incidents were allegedly committed on separate
entered the room where his daughter, Marilou, and his
occasions, to wit: on or about March 1991, June 1991,
three (3) sons, Michael, Melvin, and Marlon, were
June 1994, October 1994, November 1994, December
sleeping. . ILDEFONSO BAYONA y CALOSO, who
1994 and 27 May 1995.
was wearing only his briefs, woke up his daughter,
Issue: WON Death is the proper penalty.
pulled her feet and dragged her towards him. .
Held: Yes, the evidence fully sustains the findings of the
ILDEFONSO BAYONA y CALOSO started touching
trial court that JIMMY is guilty of the seven counts of
his daughter in her private parts. When Marilou
rape. The imposition by the trial court of death penalty
struggled ("nagwawala"), appellant boxed her in the
in each of the five rapes must be upheld, considering
abdomen until she lost consciousness. When Marilou
that the same were committed after the effectivity of
regained consciousness, she noticed that she was no
R.A. No. 7659, imposing the penalty of death in rape
longer wearing her shorts, only her t-shirt. She also
cases committed on a victim who is under eighteen
found blood on her private parts. On November 2, 1994,
years of age and the offender is a parent, and such
at around 10 oclock in the evening, . ILDEFONSO
circumstances were duly alleged in the complaints in
BAYONA y CALOSO again entered the room where his
this case.
daughter was sleeping. He told her that he would give
The failure of complainant to immediately disclose the
her everything if she would accede to his sexual desire
violations committed against her will not in anyway
("Ibibigay niya ang lahat, pumayag lang ako.") When
affect her credibility and the truth of her testimony that
Marilou refused, he boxed her. Then she lost
she was raped. One cannot expect an innocent, naive
consciousness. When she woke up, she found herself
and frail little girl to act like an adult or like a mature and
naked. She could barely stand up because of the pain
experienced woman who would know what to do under
in her private parts.
such difficult circumstances. In many instances, rape
Issue: WON death penalty is proper.
victims simply suffer in silence. With more reason would a girl
Held: No, sentence is reduced to reclusion perpetua for
ravished by her own father keep quiet about what befell her.
each count of rape. A cursory perusal of the two Furthermore, it is unfair to judge the action of children who
Informations reveal that they failed to allege the age of have undergone traumatic experiences by the norms of
the victim and her relationship to appellant. "In a criminal behavior expected of mature individuals under the same
prosecution, it is the fundamental rule that every element of circumstances. In a rape committed by a father against his
the crime charged must be alleged in the complaint or daughter, the moral dominance and parental influence that
information. The main purpose of this requirement is to enable essentially flows from the reverence and respect a child has
the accused to properly prepare his defense. He is presumed toward their parents which are ingrained and observed in the
to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute minds of the Filipino children, substitute for force and
the offense." This doctrine is not a mere technicality; it rests intimidation, which produce reasonable fear in the child.
on the constitutional principle that an accused is entitled "to
be informed of the nature and cause" of the accusation
against him, as stated in the information. Accordingly,
appellant can only be convicted of the crime of rape, which for Article 266-C. Effect of pardon. (R.A. No. 8353)
lack of a better term, has been designated as simple rape.
113. Laceste vs Santos, 56 Phil 472
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 37
Facts: Clemente Laceste, prays the court to set him at
liberty through the writ of habeas corpus, pleading that
there is no sufficient legal ground for continuing his
imprisonment any longer. Together with Nicolas Lachica, he
had been prosecuted, found guilty, and sentenced to
commitment for the crime of rape. Subsequently Nicola
Lachica married the victim, Magdalenba de Ocampo, and was
accordingly relieved from the criminal prosecution by virtue of
section 2, Act No. 1773, and article 448 of the Penal Code
then in force, which provided that such a marriage
extinguished penal liability, and hence, the penalty. But the
petitioner herein continued serving his sentence, which was
not affected by the marriage of his coaccused and the
offended party.
Issue: WON CLEMENTE LACESTE is entitled to the
benefits of marriage.
Held: Yes, the last paragraph of article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code, in force since the first of this year,
providing as follows: In cases of seduction, abduction,
acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the
offender with the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed
upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the coprincipals, accomplices and
accesories after the fact of the above-mentioned
crimes. last paragraph of article 344 of the Revised
Penal Code now in force, which has retroactive effect,
the petitioner is entitled to his liberty. It is believed that
the Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, article 344, last
paragraph, applies to the case of the herein petitioner,
and that he should be discharged from prison. All penal
laws have been declared retroactive by the Honorable
Supreme Court in the cases of People vs. Moran.
It may be clearly seen that as far back as the year 1884,
when the Penal Code took effect in these Islands until
the 31st of December, 1931, the principle underlying our
laws granting to the accused in certain cases an
exception to the general rule that laws shall not be
retroactive when the law in question favors the accused,
has evidently been carried over into the Revised Penal
Code at present in force in the Philippines through
article 22, quoted above. Article 22 of the new Penal
Code is applicable to the petitioner, who comes within
one of the cases especially provided for in article 344 of
the Code: this is a point upon which there neither is, nor
can be, any discussion between the parties to this case.
114. People vs Miranda, 57 Phil 264
Facts: Mranda prays that he may be granted pardon from the
crime he was charged by virtue of marriage of his co-accused
in this case.
Issue: WON Marriage extinguishes the penalty.
Held: Yes, Marriage extinguishes not only the Penal Action
but likewise the Penalty that may be imposed.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and
rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already
imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also
be applicable to the coprincipals, accomplices and accesories
after the fact of the above-mentioned crimes. last paragraph
of article 344 of the Revised Penal Code now in force, which
has retroactive effect, the petitioner is entitled to his liberty. It
is believed that the Revised Penal Code, Act No. 3815, article
344, last paragraph, applies to the case of the herein
petitioner, and that he should be discharged from prison. It
may be clearly seen that as far back as the year 1884, when
the Penal Code took effect in these Islands until the 31st of
December, 1931, the principle underlying our laws granting to
the accused in certain cases an exception to the general rule
that laws shall not be retroactive when the law in question
favors the accused, has evidently been carried over into the
Revised Penal Code at present in force in the Philippines
through article 22, quoted above. Article 22 of the new Penal
Code is applicable to the petitioner, who comes within one of
the cases especially provided for in article 344 of the Code:
this is a point upon which there neither is, nor can be, any
discussion between the parties to this case.
Article 266-D. Presumptions (R.A. No. 8353)
115. People vs Lim, 206 SCRA 176
Facts: on or about the 5th day of December, 1986 in
Quezon City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, RUBEN LIM Y ORTIZ,
with lewd design, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously, by means of force and intimidation through the
use of a gun, had carnal knowledge with DELAILAH LIM Y
GARCIA, without her consent and against her will, to her
damage and prejudice in such amount as may be awarded to
her under the provision of the Civil Code. t around 9:00 p.m.,
December 4, 1986, Delailah went to sleep upstairs believing
that the accused would leave the following morning, but at
about dawn of December 5, 1986, she felt somebody touching
her. When she woke she saw Ruben doing the acts. Ruben
Lim immediately covered her mouth with his left hand, and
pulled her hair with his right hand, and tried to push down
Delailah but as the latter was trying to resist and fight him, the
RUBEN LIM Y ORTIZ, told her not shout (sic) otherwise he
would kill her and her family specially the father who is
suffering from a heart ailment. RUBEN LIM Y ORTIZ, drew
his firearm from his right waist and poked it at the neck of the
victim. The firearm was a .38 revolver.
Issue: WON RUBEN LIM Y ORTIZ,should be liable of
rape.
Held: Yes, Delailah Lim, testified that the appellant
threatened to kill her and her family if she goes to the
police. It was established that after the alleged rape, the
appellant made periodic visits to the victim's house,
averaging twice a week, to repeat the threats. The entire
records of the case show that the appellant is a violence prone
ex-soldier and it is understandable why the victim should be
afraid of him. The affidavit of desistance itself is a product of
fear. The delay in filing the case is justified where such is due
to death threats against the victim and/or her family. There
appears to be no question that the threats were
sufficiently effective to deter the victim from reporting
such an outrage perpetrated upon her person.
Delailah Lim's testimony established that she has a
well-founded belief that the appellant is capable of
carrying out his threats. She knows that the appellant
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 38
owns a .38 caliber gun and an armalite — the former he
used at the time he raped her, and the latter, he showed
her before she left the appellant's house the following
morning. Delailah Lim also testified that she knows of a
frustrated murder case filed a few years back against
the appellant in the province
116. People vs Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142
Facts: That on or about 5:00 in the morning of February
14, 1993 at house No. 631, General Lucban Street,
Bagong Silangan, Quezon City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, Ricardo O. Rabosa,
did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously by
force and intimidation and with the use of fan knife, had
carnal knowledge with his daughter, Rizen T. Rabosa,
against her consent and that during the last week of
January, 1993 at house No. 631, General Lucban
Street, Bagong Silangan, Quezon City and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Ricardo O.
Rabosa, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously by force and intimidation and with the use of
fan knife, had carnal knowledge with his daughter,
Rizen T. Rabosa, against her consent.
Issue: WON RICARDO O. RABOSA should be held
liable for rape.
Held: Yes, Needless to say, a rape victim cannot be
expected to mechanically keep and then give an
accurate account of the traumatic and horrifying
experience she had undergone. The rule in rape cases is
that physical resistance need not be established when
intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits
herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of
fear for life and personal safety. In the instant case,
complainant was cowed into submission, not only because of
appellant's moral and physical ascendancy over her, but also
because of the very real and present threat of physical harm
on her person.
Rizen T. Rabosa fear was reinforced by appellant's
threats of harming her brothers should she report the
rapes. That complainant was calm and composed after the
February 14, 1993 incident is not a ground for dismissing her
testimony as unusual for a rape victim. Different people react
differently to different situations and there is no standard form
of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a
frightful experience. The victim's mien, rather than
composure, could mean resignation, considering her
continuing suffering, or apoplexy and numbness as
aftermaths of her ordeal. When a woman says that she has
been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show
that rape has been committed and that if her testimony meets
the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the
basis thereof.
117. People vs Castro, 58 SCRA 473
Facts: A six (6) year old Diana Rose Castro narrated
how, while playing with a neighbor sometime on 4
October 1986, she was pulled by the accused inside a
bathroom, prevented from going out, and made to stand
on the toilet bowl. Accused is a first cousin of Diana
Rose's mother. Kuya Delfin, as Diana Rose referred to
the accused, then put up her clothes, took off her panty,
made her lean on the wall and, despite her efforts to pull
away he inserted his private part into her causing pain.
Then she was told by the accused to go home. At home,
she refused to have her private part washed by her
Auntie Alice because it was hurting and painful.
Issue: WON DELFIN CASTRO y LOZADA should be
held liable for rape.
Held: Yes, Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or
laceration of the vagina are not essential for the offense
of consummated rape. Entry, to the least extent, of the
labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. Diana's
remaining a virgin does not negate rape. Sexual intercourse
in a standing position, while perhaps uncomfortable, is not
improbable. In statutory rape observed that, usually, the
average adult's hymen measures 2.8 to 3 centimeters in
diameter, making it compatible with, or easily penetrable by
an average size penis. The victim being of tender age, the
penetration of the male organ could go only as deep as the
labia. In any case, for rape to be committed, full penetration is
not required. It is enough that there is proof of entrance of the
male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ.
Even the slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate the
crime of rape.
118. People vs Conchada, 86 SCRA 683
Facts: It was sometime in the morning of January,
1974, that the accused Remigio Conchada, who was on
the ground floor of the Luzonian Building, Lucena City,
asked complainant Eden Lingcoran to go to the library,
located at the fourth floor of the same building. The
pretext, according to her, was that she would be given a
newspaper for her father. Upon reaching the library, she was
immediately taken to a place near the bookshelves where her
panties were taken off. ThenRE appellant took off his pants
and inserted his male organ into her private parts. To make
up for her lack of height, she was made to stand on a pile of
newspapers, the Balita, about a foot thick, folded one on top
of the other. In that position, she was made to spread her legs
about 1-1/2 feet apart. The result according to her, was that
her private parts became wet; after which, appellant moved
his body back and forth against her. He wiped the wet parts of
her thighs and legs; then gave her the newspaper, the Bulletin
which she brought to her father. Eden did not tell her parents
that she was dragged by Conchada to the library nor what was
done to her on that occasion.
Issue: WON REMIGIO CONCHADA Y ASTRERA is
liable for the crime of rape
Held: Yes, The Court finds it quite difficult to disregard
the direct, spontaneous, candid and consistent
testimony of Eden Lingcoran, the 8-year-old offended
party. It is highly extra-ordinary, if not improbable, for a
girl of her age to concoct and fabricate or retain in her
memory a concoction and fabrication of such a sordid
event, which happened not only once but three times,
without omitting a single material circumstance, such as
the embrace and kisses of the accused, the pile of
newspapers, the pain, the wetting of her thighs and
legs, the wiping of said wetness by the accused, and
above all, the act of the accused in inserting his penis
into her private parts, the child being able to relate well
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 39
and quite naturally at that, despite the rigid cross-
examination, each and every detail of the incidents,
including the sending out of accused's child to buy
"pansit", which apparently was the modus employed by
the accused to discard a witness while he consummated his
lustful desire.
Not to be overlooked is the unswayed and
unpretentious declarations of 9-year-old Marilyn
Albaciete who corroborated Eden's testimony on some
took the incidents that happened in the library on March
20
4, 1974." The testimony of complainant's mother
was appraised thus: "The Court finds it equally difficult
to ignore the testimony of Eden's mother, Elizabeth
Lingcoran, since it is certainly against the human nature
and ordinary course of things for a mother to sacrifice
the honor, dignity and the bright future of her daughter,
who is so young, so lovely and intelligent, by exposing
her to the shame and public scandal of this trial. The
opening and laceration of Eden's hymen, the doctor
declared, was abnormal for a girl of Eden's age. The
reddening of her vulva "all around' added even more in
making the doctor observe that such abnormal opening
and laceration could have been caused by an attempt
to have sexual intercourse with the child or by a male
organ coming in contact with the vagina of Eden,
notwithstanding the absence of spermatozoa."
119. People vs Estrebella, 164 SCRA 114
Facts: On October 25, 1981 at about 3:00 p.m., as he
was about to take a bath, he saw the ROMEO
ESTREBELLA under the house of Crisanto Cuevas
sitting on a long bench with the zipper of his pants
opened. He also saw the legs of a woman around the
waist of the ROMEO ESTREBELLA with the latter
making some movements. He did not readily recognize
who the woman was until he went to the faucet and saw
ROMEO ESTREBELLA stand up. Recognizing the
female partner of the accused as his mentally retarded
sister, witness Fernando immediately went to where
accused was and boxed him. His sister who was
frightened ran away while the neighbors tried to pacify
Fernando and Romeo Estrebella. The latter was able to
disengage himself from the former, but another brother
of complainant, named Armando, ran after Romeo
Estrebella and was able to catch up with him. The two
brothers then brought the accused to the police precinct
of Mandaluyong. Fernando's testimony was
corroborated by Wilfredo Davan, another witness for the
prosecution.
Issue: WON ROMEO ESTREBELLA should be held
liable for rape
Held: Yes, The fact that the hymen was not lacerated
does not negate rape. We have held that penetration by
entry of the lips of the female organ even without rapture
of hymen suffices to warrant conviction for rape.
It is established by the medical and phychological
examination that complainant is a mental retardate.
Sexual intercourse with a woman who is deprived of
reason or one who is weak in intellect to the extent that
she is incapable of giving rational consent to the carnal
intercourse constitutes rape. In this type of rape the
employment of force or intimidation on the part of the
man and resistance on the part of the woman are not
essential. In the instant case the fact that complainant
did not offer any resistance did not mean that she
consented, for clearly she could not comprehend the fun
implications of the libidinous act. Surely, she deserves
the protection of the law. In the case at bar, while the
complaint may have been technically in the sense that
complainant was incompetent, this defect has been cured
when complainant's brother Fernando Alcala took the witness
stand for the prosecution. The brother's testimony shows the
consent and willingness of the family of complainant, who can
not give her consent obviously, to have the private offense
committed against the latter publicly tried. Substantially, this
is what is required by the rules. Evidently, by undergoing trial,
the family of complainant chose to denounce the injustice
committed against the latter in public and thus agreed to bear
the personal effects of said exposure. Undoubtedly, therefore,
the trial court had jurisdiction to try the case.
120. D
Facts: Dolores Tapang, the eighth of fourteen children
of Juanito Tapang and Lourdes Garcia of San Roque,
San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, was born a deaf-mute
on October 10, 1960. She communicated only by
means of signs. She was feeble-minded (kulang-
kulang) and possessed a low mentality. While she was
over 13 years old at the time of the incident (June 17,
1974) her mental capacity was then equivalent only to
that of a 7-year old child. She usually played with small
children and took a bath naked. Sometimes, she would
jump over the bridge to take a bath. She slept on the
floor and moved her bowel in any place while eating.
She had no schooling because when her parents
enrolled her in school, she created trouble and
quarelled with her classmates so she had to be stopped
from going to school. Because of her physical and
mental deficiency, Dolores was not allowed by her
parents to leave their house unescorted. But in the
afternoon of June 17, 1974, she was able to leave their
house unnoticed. She went to the Golden Gate Theater
in San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, to see a movie. On
that same afternoon, appellant Domingo Burgos and
witness Eleuterio Arante were among the people
watching the movie in that theater.
At about 5:00 o'clock, Eleuterio went to the men's
comfort room to urinate and while inside the place, he
heard a moaning sound (daing) of a woman coming
from the adjacent women's toilet. Eleuterio stood on the
toilet bowl and looked at the adjacent ladies' room and
saw Dolores standing with her back against the wan
while appellant Domingo was holding her two hands
and having sexual intercourse with her. Eleuterio
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 40
immediately left the place and reported the matter to the
theater owner, Mrs. Castillo, but the latter told her not to
mind what he saw.
Issue: WON DOMINGO BURGOS alias "TOTOY"
should be liable of rape
Held: Yes, the trial court found that Dolores is a deaf-
mute "AND" a demented girl. Thus the lower court said,
"In the case at bar, it is established positively and
clearly, that the offended girl is a deaf-mute and
demented girl (kulang-kulang). The term "demented" is
perhaps not correctly descriptive of the mental condition
of Dolores. "Demented" means having dementia which
Webster defines as mental deterioration; also madness,
insanity. Dolores had no mental deterioration and she is
neither mad nor insane. She is instead feeble-minded.
That Dolores is not only a deaf-mute but also mentally
deficient is attested by her parents whose unrebutted
testimony is to the effect that her mentality at the time
of the incident was like that of their youngest daughter,
Edenly Tapang, who was then seven years old. Dolores'
actuations of taking a bath naked, jumping over the
bridge to take a bath, sleeping on the floor and moving
her bowel at any place while eating certainly indicate a
mentality equivalent to that of seven year old child or
even younger. The trial court did not therefore err in
holding that Dolores is mentally deficient. Because of
the physical and mental condition of Dolores, she could
not have given rational consent to the carnal intercourse
— as correctly ruled by the trial court. It would have
required a great deal of effort for a 13-year old deaf-
mute to resist the sexual assault of the 5'8" market
vendor especially so since the same was unexpected
considering the place and time of its perpetration. And
only a mind fully aware of the moral and social
consequences of the consummation of such sexual
assault could have given intelligent consent or to gather
the courage to put the resistance necessary to repel
such aggression. But how could the victim in the case
at bar have full awareness of the moral and social
consequences of the consummation of the sexual
aggression when she could not even understand the
implication of taking a bath naked in a public place,
jumping over the bridge to take a bath, and moving her
bowel at any place while eating. A rational consent to
an act could only be given by one who has the ability to
discern the consequences of said act. And Dolores
certainly did not have such mental ability not only
because of lack of formal education but also because of
her physical and mental deficiencies.
121. People vs Galano, 108 SCRA 405
Facts: Early in the evening of November 21, 1976 in
Taytay, Rizal, complaining witness Victoria Micaller, a
retardate, was going up her house when appellant
suddenly pulled her forcibly down to a dark room below
(. He embraced her, and as she was still standing, he
took off her panty. He pushed her down to the floor and
kissed her. Then, pervertedly, he had her take his penis
in her mouth twice, which made her feel like vomiting.
On the muddy floor, appellant rolled Victoria, removed
her clothes and bra, and kissed her profusely. By this
time, appellant was already on top of her and began
carnal intercourse with her many times (kinandot ako'),
all the while warning her that he would kill her if she
reported to the authorities. After satisfying his lust,
appellant reluctantly let her off
The vortex of controversy in this appeal is whether the
complainant is so mentally retarded that she could not
have given valid and legal consent to the sexual act
which appellant claims to have been voluntary,
although, according to complainant, force and threat
were employed to make her submit to his bestial
desires.
Issue: WON GUILLERMO U. GALLANO is criminally
liable of rape
Held: Yes, In subjecting herself to the bestial attack of
appellant, complainant did so not with voluntary
consent. Appellant's defense of allegedly not knowing
that Victoria was an imbecile or mentally retarded is
simply unbelievable. His claim of Victoria and he being
sweethearts with previous sexual intercourses having
taken place even before the incident of November 21,
1976 is likewise, incredible, specially with his admission
that he made no formal courtship nor sent her love
letters. His supposed intimacy, with Victoria would
certainly have made him realize her unsound and
retarded mental condition, that his sexual attack on her
would make him criminally liable as if he had copulated
with a girl too young to be capable of reason, as one
below 12 years, which is one way by which rape may be
committed even without violence or intimation. In her
defective state of mind, complainant could not have induced
appellant to nurse a desire to have her for a sweetheart nor
could she have possessed the capacity to understand the
meaning of having such a relationship with appellant. Her
mental condition was such that she would rot resist sexual
advances because she was so deprived of reason to make
and effective resistance. Hence, by her being 'So deprived,
the act is made possible in the same way when there is active
resistance but same is overcome by force and threat, is the
essence of the crime of rape.
122. People vs Magabo, 350 SCRA 126
Facts: On June 23, 1998, at about 1:00 in the
afternoon, Noemi Dacanay, a mental retardate, was
selling fried bananas at the Frisco Market in Quezon
City when Rolando Magabo, known to Noemi as Lanie,
approached her and invited her to go with him to his
house. Noemi immediately acceded. The two went to
Magabos house which was empty as Magabos mother who
was living with him was not around. Accused-appellant then
seized the opportunity and began kissing Noemi on the lips
and fondling her breasts. He made Noemi lie down on the
floor, and had sexual intercourse with her.Thereafter,
accused-appellant rested on the floor and embraced Noemi.
 ALABA | ANDOY | MABBORANG | NENARIA | LABENDIA | MATILAC | 41

Later, Noemi left and went home. She told her mother of what
happened, and they went to the police to report the incident.
Noemi was examined by Dr. Ma. Christina Freyra, the Medico-
Legal Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory, who found healed lacerations at 3, 6, and 9 oclock
positions on the victims hymen, and abrasions on her labia
minora.This was later confirmed by Dr. Freyra who was
presented as a witness for the prosecution.
Issue: WON ROLANDO MAGABO y MAGARTE
should be held liable of rape.
Held: Yes, Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a
mental retardate is rape under Article 266-A, paragraph
1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
8353. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary as a
mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual
act.[11] What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual
congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental
retardation of the latter. That the victim, Noemi Dacanay, had
sexual intercourse with the accused-appellant Rolando
Magabo was sufficiently established by her testimony,
corroborated by the testimony of the medico-legal officer, Dr.
Ma. Christina Freyra, to the effect that there were lacerations
and abrasion on the victims private parts.
Knowledge of the offender of the mental
disability of the victim at the time of the commission of
the crime of rape qualifies the crime and makes it
punishable by death under Article 266-B, paragraph 10
of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R. A. 8353.
An allegation in the information of such knowledge of the
offender is necessary as a crime can only be qualified by
circumstances pleaded in the indictment. In the case before
us, there was no allegation in the information that the accused
had knowledge of the mental disability of the victim at the time
rape was committed.Thus, notwithstanding proof of such
knowledge, the accused can only be held liable for simple
rape.
compadre was not around, Rogelio left and returned to his
house only to find out that the appellant was no longer there.
Issue : WON HECTOR ESTARES should be liable for
rape.
Held: Yes, Although the information alleged "force,
threats and intimidation," it nevertheless also explicitly
stated that Tessie is "a mentally retarded person." We
have held in a long line of cases that if the mental age
of a woman above twelve years is that of a child below
twelve years, even if she voluntarily submitted to the
bestial desires of the accused, or even if the
circumstances of force or intimidation or of the victim
being deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious are
absent, the accused would still be liable for rape under
the third circumstance of Article 335. The rationale
therefore is that if sexual intercourse with a victim under
twelve years of age is rape, then it should follow that carnal
knowledge of a woman whose mental age is that of child
below twelve years would also constitute rape.
The crime was committed in the domicile of the victim,
who had not given provocation. Hence, the generic
aggravating circumstance of dwelling may be
appreciated against the appellant even if it was not alleged,
since it was proved without any objection on his part.

123. People vs Estares, G.R. No. 12878, December 5, 1997

Facts: In a criminal complaint filed on 20 July 1993 with
the municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Buenavista,
Nueva Valencia, and Jordan in the Province of
Guimaras, appellant Hector Estares was charged with
the crime of rape allegedly committed on 3 June 1993
on his 39-year old mentally retarded aunt Tessie
Gange. On 3 June 1993, at about 8:00 a.m., Rogelio
went to the house of another sister to ask for viand.
Earlier, at about 6:00 a.m., his parents left for Arevalo,
Iloilo City, to buy bamboo slats. On his way home,
Rogelio saw a fishing boat docked along the seashore.
Upon reaching home, he heard sounds from upstairs.
Slowly, he went up the house, peeped through the door,
and saw his nephew, appellant Hector Estares, naked
on top of Tessie and having sexual intercourse with her.
Rogelio rushed toward the room and then struck with a
piece of wood the back of the appellant. The latter was
rendered unconscious. Rogelio brought the Tessie out
of the house and left him on the sand. Then, Rogelio
went to his compadre's house and asked for help. Since his