HOMICIDE

The People of the Philippine Islands, plaintiffs-appellee,

vs Felipe Kaloka, et al, defendants

Felipe Kalalo, Marcelo Kalalo, Juan Kaloka and Gregorio Ramos, appellants.

(G.R. Nos. L-39303- 39305, March 17, 1934)

Facts:

On Nov. 1932, appellants were tried for three criminal cases: the first two for murder and the last for
frustrated murder. Marcelo Kalalo was cultivating a land in Calumpang, San Luis, Batangas form 1931 to
1932. However, when harvest time came, Isabela Holdago reaped all that have been planned thereon.
Kalalo, then filed a complaint on Sept. 28, 1931 and on Dec. 8, 1931 but both cases were dismissed by a
motion filed by Hidalgo. Prior to Oct. 1, 1932, Kalalo and Holgado had a litigation over a parcel of land.
On Oct. 1, Holdago and her brother (one of the deceased) Arcadio employed several laborers and had
the land plowed. They (laborers and Arcadio) went to the land early that day. But apparently, Kalalo was
aware of this so him and the others waited for them, 5 of which were armed with bolos. Upon arrival,
they ordered them to stop. The laborers did in view of the threatening attitude of the appellants. Shortly
after 9am, Isabela and two others arrived and distributed food to the laborers (one of the deceased)
Marcelino Panaligan arrived and ordered them to continue their work. The appellants then approached
them (Marcelino and Arcadio) and after a remark by Fausta (mother of Kalola) , what is detaining you?
they simultaneously struck with their bolos. Marcelo on Arcadio Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalolo and Gregorio
Ramos on Marcelino Arcadio and Marcelino died instantly from the wounds received. Arcadio bore six
wounds and Marcelino garnered an astounding number of 14 wounds. After the two dropped dead,
Marcelo Kalalo took a revolver from Marcelino and fire four shots at Hilarion Holgado who was fleeing
from the scene. Their sentences: In case No. 6858: (murder of Marcelino) 17 years, 4 months and one
day of reclusion temporal. Accessory penalties: indemnify the heirs in the sum of P1,000 In case No.
6859: (murder of Arcadio Holgado) 17 years, 4 months and one day of reclusion temporal. Accessory
penalties: indemnify the heirs in the sum of P1,000 In case No. 6860: Court of First Instance of Batangas,
held that the crime committed was simply discharge of firearms (not frustrated murder), and Marcelo
kalalo was sentenced to 1 year, 8 months, and 21 days of prision correccional and to pay proportionate
part of the costs of the proceedings

ISSUE: Whether or not said sentences were in accordance with the law

RULING:

Appellants were saying that the fight was provoked by Marcelino who fired at Marcelo. This was
countered by: A testimony of Maria Gutierrez, a disinterested witness, which shows that Marcelino was
already dead when Marcelo took the revolver and fired at Hilarion. Since his aggression was exclusively
against Arcadio (Marcelo was the one who slashed Arcadio), and not to Marcelino. If it was true that
Marcelino provoked the fight, Marcelo should have directed his attacks to him. Marcelino was an expert
with the revolver but not one of Marcelos wounds was caused by a bullet. Also, none of the appellants
received any bullet wounds whatsoever. And, the fact that the appellants went there, armed with bolos
and determined to prevent the Holgados from plowing the land. They did not need any provocation in
order to carry out their intent. Appellants were attempting to prove that Marcelo fought alone and it
was an act of self-defense. This was countered by: One man alone could not have inflicted on the two
deceased, causing their death. Since Marcelino was an expert shot, he could have just shot Marcelo if
that was the case. There were two witnesses refuting such allegations. Even though Arcadio did use his
bolo to defend himself from Marcelo, it does not explain why Marcelinos wounds were at his back. If
they were fighting, Marcelino wouldnt have turned his back on him. Testimony of Isabela Holgado and
Maria Gutierrez that the appellants attacked simultaneously. And since Marcelino had a revolver, he
should have wounded if not Marcelino, at least the other appellants. TC was correct in finding them
guilty The fact that they were not arrested until after several days because they had been hiding is
corroborative evidence of their guilt. They were actuated by the same motive which was to get rid of all
those who might insist on plowing the land On the issue of whether they are guilty of murder or of
simple homicide The circumstance of abuse if superior strength, if proven to have been present, raises
homicide to murder. The Attorney-General maintains that they are guilty of murder in view of the
presence of abuse of superior strength. Trial court is of the opinion that they are guilty of simply
homicide but with the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. SC: This is not apparent
here since the deceased were also armed, one with a revolver and the other with a bolo. Therefore, the
two cases are mere homicides with no modifying circumstance to be taken into consideration. On Case
No. 6860: Since Marcelo fired four successive shots, it shows that he was bent on killing Hilarion. He
performed everything necessary to on his part to commit the crime but he failed by reason of causes
independent of his will, either because of his poor aim or because victim simply was successful in
dodging the shots. This constitutes attempted homicide with no modifying circumstance Sentences were
modified: Case 6858: crime is homicide, sentenced to 14 years, 8 months and one day of reclusion
temporal each. Minimum is fixed at 9 years Case 6859: crime is homicide, sentenced to 14 years, 8
months and one day of reclusion temporal each. Minimum is fixed at 9 years Case 6860: crime is
attempted homicide, sentenced to 2 years, 4 months and one day of prision correccional. Minimum
penalty is 6 months.

People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee

Vs.

Pedro Ravelo, Jerry Ravelo, Bonifacio “Patyong” Padilla, Romeo Aspirin, Nicolas Giadalupe and Hermie
Pahit, accused-appellants

(G.R. No. 78781-82 October 15, 1991)

Facts:
Accused-appellants allegedly kidnapped by means of force Reynaldo Gaurano on May 21, 1984. They
then detained Reynaldo at the house of Pedro Ravelo, one of the accused. Accused-appellants
assaulted, attacked, and burned Reynaldo Gaurano and latter die as consequence thereof. On May 22,
1984; the accused-appellants kidnapped by means of force Joey Lugatiman and was brought to Ravelo's
house where he was tortured. Lugatiman was able to escape. Lugatiman reported what happened to
him and to Gaurano to the police authorities. RTC convicted the accused-appellants of murder of
Gaurano and frustrated murder of Lugatiman. In this appeal, counsel contends that there can be no
frustrated murder absent any proof of intent to kill, which is an essential element of the offense of
frustrated murder.

Issue:

Whether the statement by the accused stating that “Lugatiman” would be killed is sufficient proof of
intent to convict a person of frustrated murder.

Ruling:

No, in a crime of murder or an attempt of frustration thereof, the offender must have the intent or the
actual design to kill which must be manifested by external acts. A verbal expression is not sufficient to
show an actual design to perpetrate the act. Intent must be shown not only by a statement of the
aggressor, but also by the execution of all acts and the use of means necessary to deliver a fatal blow
while the victim is not placed in a position to defend himself.

RAPE:

[G.R. No. 129433. March 30, 2000]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
vs.
PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO, accused.

Facts:
Campuhan was a helper in the business of the family of the victim, a 4-year-old girl.
One time, the mother of the victim heard the latter cry, “Ayoko!”, prompting her to
rush upstairs. There, she saw Campuhan kneeling before the victim, whose pajamas
and pany were already removed, while his short pants were down to his knees.
Campuhan was apprehended. Physical examination of the victim yielded negative
results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted. Her hymen was
intact and its orifice was only .5 cm in diameter.

Trial court found him guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death.

Issue:
Whether or not Campuhan is guilty of statutory rape.

Held: NO.

The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of woman below
12 as provided in RPC 335(3). The victim was only 4 years old when the molestation
took place, thus raising the penalty from “reclusion perpetua to death” to the single
indivisible penalty of death under RA 7659 Sec. 11, the offended party being below 7
years old. In concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the
vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of hymen necessary;
the mere touching of external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should
be understood as inherently part of the entry of penis into the labias of the female
organ, and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum (the part
instantly visible within the surface).

Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of
either labia by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be
attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.

Here, the prosecution failed to discharge its onus of proving that Campuhan’s penis
was able to penetrate the victim’s vagina however slight. Also, there were no external
signs of physical injuries on the victim’s body to conclude that penetration had taken
place.

Issue #2:

What crime did Campuhan commit?

Held #2: ATTEMPTED RAPE.

Under RPC 6 in relation to RPC 335, rape is attempted when the offender commences
the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and does not perform all acts of
execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some cause or
accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. All the elements of attempted
rape are present in this case.

The penalty of attempted rape is 2 degrees lower than the imposable penalty of death
for the crime of statutory rape of minor below 7 years. Two degrees lower is reclusion
temporal, which is 12 years 1 day to 20 years.

Applying ISLAW, and in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstance, the

maximum penalty shall be medium period of reclusion temporal (14 years 8 months 1
day to 17 years 4 months), while the minimum is the penalty next lower in degree –
prision mayor (6 years 1 day to 12 years).

Issue #3:
May there be a crime of frustrated rape?

Held #3: NO.

In People vs Orita, SC finally did away with frustrated rape. Rape was consummated
from the moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim. All elements of the
offense were already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do. Perfect
penetration was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ,
however slight, was sufficient.

For attempted rape, there was no penetration of the female organ because not all acts
of execution were performed or the offender merely commenced the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee

Vs.

Amado V. Hernandez, et al. accused, defendant- appellant

(G.R. NO. L-6025) May 20, 1964

FACTS:

Amado HERNANDEZ (member of the CPP and President of the Congress of Labor Organizations) re-filed
for bail (previous one denied) for his conviction of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies. The
prosecution said to deny this again because the capital punishment may be imposed. The defense however
contends that rebellion cannot be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery. The information states that the
“…murders, arsons and robberies allegedly perpetrated by the accused “as a necessary means to commit the crime
of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof.”

ISSUE: W/N rebellion can be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery.

Held: NO!

RATIO:
 Under the allegations of the amended information, the murders, arsons and robberies described therein
are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion allegedly committed by HERNANDEZ, as means “necessary” for the
perpetration of said offense of rebellion and that the crime charged in the amended information is, therefore,
simple rebellion, not the complex crime of rebellion with multiple murder, arsons and robberies. Under Article
1346 and 1357, these five (5) classes of acts constitute only one offense, and no more, and are, altogether, subject
to only one penalty. One of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 135, is by
“engaging in war against the forces of the government” and “committing serious violence” in the prosecution of
said “war”. These expressions imply everything that war connotes. Since Article 135 constitute only 1 crime, Article
48 doesn’t apply since it requires the commission of at least 2 crimes.

G.R. No. L-2189 November 3, 1906

THE UNITED STATES,Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

FRANCISCO BAUTISTA, ET AL.,Defendants-Appellants.

Facts: In 1903 a junta was organized and a conspiracy entered into by a number of
Filipinos in Hongkong, for the purpose of overthrowing the government of the United
States in the Philippine Islands by force of arms and establishing a new government.

LFrancisco Bautista (1), a close friend of the chief of military forces (of the
conspirators) took part of several meetings. Tomas Puzon (2) held several conferences
whereat plans are made for the coming insurrection; he was appointed Brigadier-
General of the Signal Corps of the revolutionary forces. Aniceto de Guzman (3)
accepted some bonds from one of the conspirators.

The lower court convicted the three men of conspiracy. Bautista was sentenced to 4
years imprisonment and a P3,000 fine; Puzon and De Guzman to 3 years
imprisonment and P1,000.

Issue: Whether or not the accused are guilty of conspiracy?

Ruling: Judgment for Bautista and Puzon was CONFIRMED. Judgment for de
Guzman REVERSED. Yes, Bautista and Puzon are guilty of conspiracy. Bautista was
fully aware of the purposes of the meetings he participated in, and even gave an
assurance to the chief of military forces that he is making the necessary preparations.
Puzon voluntarily accepted his appointment and in doing so assumed all the
obligations implied by such acceptance. This may be considered as an evidence of the
criminal connection of the accused with the conspiracy.
However, de Guzman is not guilty of conspiracy. He might have been helping the
conspirators by accepting bonds in the bundles, but he has not been aware of the
contents nor does he was, in any occasion, assumed any obligation with respect to
those bonds.

FRED M. HARDEN, petitioner

Vs.

THE DIRECTOR OF PRISONS, respondent

(G.R NO. L-2349 October 22, 1948)

FACTS:

Petitioners was confined in prison for contempt of court for failure to comply with a
court order Arising from a civil case between him and his wife.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner’s detention violates constitutional right against cruel and
unusual punishment.

RULING:

No, the penalty complained of is neither cruel, unjust nor excessive. Punishment are
cruel when they involve torture or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is
not cruel, within the meaning of the word as used in the constitution. It implies there
something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of
life. The petition was denied.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee

Vs.

PACIANO NIERRA alias PACING, GUADENCIA NIERRA, FELICISIMO

DOBLEN, alias Simoy and VICENTE ROJAS, accused -appellants: GASPAR MISA
, accused whose death sentence is under automatic review

FACTS:

Juliana Gadugdug Nierra, 52, and Paciano Nierra, 39, her brother-in law, were
competitors in the businesses of launch transportation and the sale of soft drinks in
Barrio Tinago, General Santos City. Juliana sold Coca Cola while Paciano sold Pepsi
Cola. Juliana was the owner of two motor launches, Elsa I and II, while Paciano was
the owner of two launches, Sylvania I and II.

In order to monopolize those businesses in the locality, Paciano Nierra conceived the
idea of liquidating his competitor, Juliana. Felicisimo Doblen, a cousin in-law of
Paciano, accompanied to Paciano’s house in the afternoon of July 4, 196, Gaspar
Misa, 29 a convicted murderer who in 1965 had escaped from Davao Penal Colony. In
the presence of Gaudencia Garrido-Nierra, the wife of Paciano, agreed to kill Juliana
in consideration of three thousand pesos. Paciano promised that in the morning after
the killing, he would pay Misa four hundred pesos and that the balance would be paid
on August 12,1969. The arrangement was confirmed by Guadencia. When Misa
scheduled the assassination on July 8, 1969, Paciano said that it was up to Misa since
he was the one who would kill Juliana. In the evening of July 6, 1969, Doblen
delivered to Misa a package containing a calibre 38 pistol with five bullets. Misa
asked Rojas to act as lookout on the night of July 8, 1969, when the killing would be
perpetrated. On the said night, Rojas posted himself at the Bernadette store near the
creek or canal, Gaudencia was stationed near the house of Maning Desinorio and
Paciano was near the house of Juanito Desinerio, all near the scene of the crime.

Between 7 and 8 o’clock that night, Juliana went to the beach where she was
accustomed to void when she squatted, Misa unexpectedly appeared behind her. He
inserted into her mouth the muzzle of the pistol and fired it. Paciano and Guadencia,
who were near the beach, witnessed the actual killing.

Misa. Doblen, Rojas and the Nierra spouse, as co-conspirators, were charged with
murder aggravated by reward, treachery, evident premeditation, nocturnity, ignominy
and abuse of superiority and as to Misa, recidivism, since he had been sentenced to
reclusion perpetua for the murder of Antonio Abad Tormis in Cebu City.
ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the judgement of the lower court to Gaspar Misa and Paciano
Nierra is in accordance with the law.

2. Whether or not Doblen and Rojas co-conspirators in the said crime

RULING:

the lower court's judgment is affirmed with respect to Gaspar Misa and Paciano Nierra.Yes,
Doblen's role was that of having introduced Misa to the Nierra spouses and delivering the
murder weapon to Misa. He was not present at the scene of the crime. On the other hand,
Rojas acted as lookout and received fifty pesos for his work.After a conscientious
reflection on the complicity of Doblen and Rojas, we have reached the conclusion that
they should be held guilty as accomplices. It is true, strictly speaking, that as co-
conspirators they should be punished as co-principals. However, since their participation
was not absolutely indispensable to the consummation of the murder, the rule that the
court should favor the milder form of liability may be applied to them (People vs.
Tamayo, 44 Phil. 38 and other cases). Appellants Felicisimo Doblen and Vicente Rojas
are convicted as accomplices. They are each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of ten
years of prision mayormedium as minimum to seventeen years of reclusion
temporal medium as maximum and to pay solidarily with the principals an indemnity of
six thousand pesos (as their quota) to the heirs of Juliana Nierra. They are each
subsidiarily liable to the extent of six thousand pesos for the principals' civil liability.
Costs against the accused.