By:
JUDGE OSCAR B. PIMENTEL
Regional Trial Court, Branch 148
Makati City
BOOK 1
Self Defense as a Justifying Circumstance
One who invokes self-defense admits responsibility for the killing.
Accordingly, the burden of proof shifts to the accused who must then prove
the justifying circumstance. He must show by clear and convincing evidence
that he indeed acted in self-defense, or in defense of a relative or a stranger.
With clear and convincing evidence, all the following elements of self-defense
must be established: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2)
reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3)
lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense.
acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save them the trouble and expenses that
would be necessarily incurred in his search and capture. (G.R. No. 135222.
March 04, 2005)PETER ANDRADA, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondent.
No ex post facto Conspiracy
One who joins a conspiracy while the felony subject thereof is being
committed or before the said felony is committed and performs overt acts to
achieve the common design or purpose, is criminally liable for said felony.
On the other hand, one who joins a conspiracy after the felony subject of the
conspiracy has been completed or consummated is not criminally liable as a
conspirator. There can be no ex post facto conspiracy to do that which has
already been done and consummated. PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES
INC., and EDWIN YU,
vs. CA, (SEVENTH DIVISION) and HARLEY T.
SY G.R. No. 163593, December 16, 2005.
Conspiracy; Direct evidence of prior agreement not necessary;
Conspiracy need not be proven by direct evidence of prior agreement
to commit the crime. Neither is its necessary to show that all the conspirators
actually hit and killed the victim. What has to be shown is that all the
participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as
to unmistakably indicate a common purpose and design. People vs. Quirol
et.al. G.R. No. 149259, October 20, 2005)
Conspiracy; must be established, not by conjectures, but by positive
and conclusive evidence.
Conspiracy transcends mere companionship and mere presence at the
scene of the crime does not in itself amount to conspiracy. Even knowledge,
acquiescence in or agreement to cooperate, is not enough to constitute one
as a party to a conspiracy, absent any active participation in the commission
of the crime with a view to the furtherance of the common design and
purpose. Evangeline Ledonga vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
141066, February 17, 2005.
Circumstantial evidence; test of moral certainty sufficient to convict
an accused
Circumstantial evidence has been defined as that which goes to prove
a fact or series of facts other than the facts in issue, which, if proved, may
tend by inference to establish a fact in issue. Circumstantial evidence may
in the face
of positive
The defense of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear and
positive identification of appellant as the assailant of the deceased. The
The rule that an accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was never
intended to change or shift the burden of proof in criminal cases. It is basic
that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and
cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. Unless the
prosecution overturns the constitutional presumption of innocence of an
to the other.
(Razon vs. People, G.R. No. 158053, June 21, 2007)
RETALIATION DISTINGUISHED FROM SELF-DEFENSE
It is settled that the moment the first aggressor runs away, unlawful
aggression on the part of the first aggressor ceases to exist; and when
unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any right to kill or
wound the former aggressor; otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is
committed. Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the
aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the
accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression was still existing
when the aggressor was injured by the accused.
(Razon vs. People, G.R. No. 158053, June 21, 2007)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES; TREACHERY
There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes
against persons, employing means, methods or forms in their execution,
without risk to himself arising from the defenses which the offended party
might make. The essence of treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack
on the victim which renders him unable and unprepared to defend himself
due to the suddenness and severity of the attack.
(People vs. Dulay, G.R. No. 174775, October 11, 2007)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; TREACHERY WHEN APPRECIATED
Treachery is a sudden and unexpected attack under the circumstances
that render the victim unable and unprepared to defend himself by reason of
the suddenness and severity of the attack. It is an aggravating circumstance
that qualifies the killing of the person to murder. Two essential
elements/conditions are required in order that treachery may be appreciated:
(1) The employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would
insure the offenders safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the
offended party, who has, thus no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation;
and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of
execution. Further, it must always be alleged in the information and proved
in trial in order that it may be validly considered. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES versus ZOSIMO AGUILA y ATIENZA,G.R. No. 171017
December 6, 2006
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE; ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
Basic is the principle in criminal law that the evidence presented must
be sufficient to prove the corpus delicti the body or substance of the crime;
and in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually
committed. The corpus delicti is a compound fact composed of two things: 1)
the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal
charge; and 2) the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or
result
(People vs. Barangan, G.R. No. 175480, October 2, 2007)
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP
Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, the alternative
Circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or
adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the
offender. The relationship between appellant and AAA as first cousins is not
covered by any of the relationships mentioned. (People vs. Fernandez,
G.R. No. 176060, October 5, 2007)
Having sexual intercourse with a female whose mental age is below 12
years old, even if she voluntarily submitted herself to the sexual desires of
the accused without force or intimidation, is rape within the context of Article
335 of the Revised Penal Code. (People vs. Constantino, G.R. No.
176069, October 5, 2007)
THEFT; ELEMENTS
The elements of theft are: (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be
done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of
the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of
violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Therefore, in
theft, corpus delicti has 2 elements, namely: (1) that the property was lost
by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by felonious taking.
(Galmatico vs. People, G.R. No. 146296, October 15, 2007)
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE OF RELATIONSHIP
The qualifying circumstance of relationship cannot be established by
mere testimony or even by the accuseds very own admission.
Lest it be forgotten, elementary is the doctrine that upon the
prosecution lies the burden of proving all the elements of a crime including
the qualifying circumstances.
(People vs. Mangubat, G.R. No. 172068, August 7, 2007)
10
CONSPIRACY
13
DOES
NOT
EXTINGUISH
CRIMINAL
In People v.
14
law and that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall first
be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him. The right to be informed of any such indictment is likewise
explicit in procedural rules. x x x
xxx
x x x Quite unlike the omission of an ordinary recital of
fact which, if not excepted from or objected to during trial, may
be corrected or supplied by competent proof, an allegation,
however, of conspiracy, or one that would impute criminal
liability to an accused for the act of another or others, is
indispensable in order to hold such person, regardless of the
nature and extent of his own participation, equally guilty with
the other or others in the commission of the crime. Where
conspiracy exists and can rightly be appreciated, the individual
acts done to perpetrate the felony becomes of secondary
importance, the act of one being imputable to all the others.
Verily, an accused must know from the information whether he
faces a criminal responsibility not only for his acts but also for
the acts of his co-accused as well
WHEN EVIDENCE OF THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME IS PURELY
CIRCUMSTANTIAL OR INCONCLUSIVE, MOTIVE IS VITAL.
15
16
STAGES OF CRIMES
17
Intent to kill may be proved by evidence of: (a) motive; (b) the
nature or number of weapons used in the commission of the crime; (c)
the nature and number of wounds inflicted on the victim; (d) the
manner the crime was committed; and (e) words uttered by the
offender at the time the injuries were inflicted by him on the victim.
(Epifanio vs. People, G.R. No. 157057, June 26, 2009)
ACCIDENT; THE EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCE OF ACCIDENT IS
APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THE ACCUSED IS PERFORMING A LAWFUL
ACT
19
The
AS
PRIMODIAL
ELEMENT
IN
Unlawful aggression is the first and primordial element of selfdefense. Of the three requisites, it is the most important. without it,
21
vs.
THE
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
DIRECT
EVIDENCE
OF
PRIOR
AGREEMENT
NOT
shown is that all the participants performed specific acts with such
closeness and coordination as to unmistakably indicate a common
purpose and design. People vs. Quirol et.al. G.R. No. 149259,
October 20, 2005)
CONSPIRACY; MUST BE ESTABLISHED, NOT BY CONJECTURES, BUT
BY POSITIVE AND CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE.
OF
MORAL
CERTAINTY
23
which is consistent with innocence and the other with guilt, the
evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is not
sufficient to convict the accused.[17] (ORLANDO SOLIS
UNGSOD vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G. R. No.
158904, December 16, 2005)
TREACHERY; AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
The defense of denial and alibi must fail in light of the clear and
positive identification of appellant as the assailant of the deceased.
The positive identification of the assailant, when categorical and
consistent without any ill motive on the part of the prosecution
witnesses, prevails over alibi and denial which are negative, selfserving and undeserving of weight in law. The defense of denial, like
alibi, is considered with suspicion and is always received with caution,
not only because it is inherently weak and unreliable, but also because
it can be fabricated easily. Ibid.
25
2008
People
of
the
Phil.
Vs.
Perlito
Mondigo
26
Upon the cessation of the unlawful aggression and the danger or risk
to life and limb, the necessity of invoking self-defense to attach his
adversary ceases;
29
30
TREACHERY
TREACHERY
There is treachery when the following essential elements are
present, viz: (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and (b) the accused consciously and
deliberately adopted the particular means, methods or forms of attack
employed by him.
The essence of treachery is the swift and
unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest
provocation on the part of the victim. It was clearly established that
private complainant, while washing his jeep, was suddenly fired upon
by petitioner for no reason at all. The suddenness of the shooting and
the fact that he was unarmed left private complainant with no option
but to run for his life. Velasco v. People, G.R. No. 166479, Feb. 28,
2006
allow the accused to reflect upon the consequences of his act. People
v. Tubongbanua, G.R. No. 171271, Aug. 31, 2006
Distinctions between
summarized as follows:
frustrated
and
attempted
felony
are
There are four elements of the crime under Article 218. First, the
offender is a public officer. Second, he must be an accountable officer
for public funds or property. Third, the offender is required by law or
regulation to render accounts to the COA, or to a provincial auditor.
Fourth, he fails to render an account for a period of two months after
such accounts should be rendered.
Campomanes is clearly not a public officer. He is the president of the
FIDE, a private foreign corporation with whom the PSC, through
Hechanova, negotiated to conduct the 1992 Chess Olympiad and
35
Congress in Manila.
The Sandiganbayan acknowledged that
Campomanes is not a public officer and applied Article 222 of the
Revised Penal Code in relation to Article 218. The Sandiganbayan
enumerated the elements of the crime as applied to Campomanes
thus:
1. That the offender is [a] private individual.
2. That he has charge of any insular (now national),
provincial, or
municipal funds, revenues, or property
or [is an] administrator or depository of funds, property
attached, seized, or deposited by public authority, even
if such property belongs to a private
individual.
3. That he is required by law or regulation to render
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
For voluntary surrender to be considered, the following requisites
must concur:
a) the offender was not actually arrested;
b) he surrendered to a person in authority or to an agent of a
person in authority
c) his surrender was voluntary.
There must be showing of spontaneity and an intent to surrender
unconditionally to the authorities, either because the accused
acknowledges his guilt or he wishes to spare them the trouble and
expense concomitant to his capture.
(People vs. Concepcion, G.R. NO. 169060, February 6, 2007)
CRIMINAL CASES; BURDEN OF PROOF
The rule that an accused must satisfactorily prove his alibi was
never intended to change or shift the burden of proof in criminal
cases. It is basic that the prosecution evidence must stand or fall on
its own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the
36
CONSPIRACY
When conspiracy or action in concert to achieve a criminal design
is shown, the act of one is the act of all the other conspirators, and the
precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes
secondary.
Corollarily, the rule is well-established that whenever homicide
has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also
be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide,
unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the
homicide. In the present case, it has not been shown that the
appellants tried to prevent the shooting of the two (2) victims. Hence,
their cooperative acts toward their common criminal objective render
them equally liable as conspirators.
WHEN ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH IS PRESENT.
We find, however, that the aggravating circumstance of abuse of
superior strength attended the killing.
"To appreciate abuse of
superior strength as an aggravating circumstance, what should be
considered is not that there were three, four or more assailants of one
victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined
strength in order
to consummate the offense.
It is therefore
37
VEHICLE
AS
QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING
"The home is a sort of sacred place for its owner. He who goes
to another's house to slander him, hurt him or do him wrong, is more
guilty than he who offends him elsewhere."
(PP -vs- JOSE &
NESTOR BiAS, Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 121630, Dec. 8, 1999)
EVEN FRONTAL ATTACK WOULD AMOUNT TO TREACHERY
BOOK 2
RAPE AS CRIME AGAINST PERSONS
(R.A. 8353)
Rape, When And How Committed
"a)
conscious, when the man mounted her and lusted after her virtue. Her
justification was that she never objected to the sexual act from the
start because she thought that the man was her boyfriend with whom
she was having sex almost every night for the past three (3) weeks as
they were getting married and wanted already to have a baby. In other
words, her urge could not wait for the more appropriate time. (People
v. Salarza, Jr.)
NATURE OF INTIMIDATION
IN RAPE CASES
43
unlikely and high-risk venues for sexual advances. Thus, rape has
been committed even in places where people congregate, in parks,
along the roadside, within school premises, inside a house where
there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other
members of the family are also sleeping. (People
v.
Gementiza;
1/29/98)
WHEN SWEETHEART DEFENSE
IS TENABLE IN RAPE
In the case before us, the accused raped his own flesh and blood
at such a tender age of eleven. He thus violated not only he purity
and her trust but also the mores of his society which he has scornfully
defined. By inflicting his animal greed on her in a disgusting coercion
of incestuous lust, he forfeits all respect as human being and is justly
spurned by all, not least of all, by the fruit of his own loins whose
progeny he has forever stained with his shameful and shameless
lechery. People v jenelito Escober Y Resuento, Nov 6/97)
MERE DISCIPLINARY CHASTISEMENT
45
AS
IGNOMINY
NOR
CAN
IT
BE
appellant and complainants' mother were not legally married but were
merely living in common-law relation. In fact, Lenny and Jenny
interchangeably referred to accused-appellant as their stepfather,
"kabit," "live-in partner ng Mama ko," "tiyo," and
"tiyuhin."
Complainants' sister-in-law, Rosalie Macaro, also testified that her
"mother-in-law is not legally married to accused-appellant." Accusedappellant likewise said on direct and cross-examination that he was
not legally married to the mother of the complainants, and he referred
to her as his live-in partner. This was confirmed by Emma Macaro,
mother of the complainants. Although the rape of a person under
eighteen (18) years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim's
mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on
accused-appellant in these cases because this relationship was not
what was alleged in the information's. What was alleged was that he
is the stepfather of the complainants.
47
The elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; (2) that such act is accomplished by using
force or intimidation; or when the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or when the woman is under twelve years of
age or is demented.
48
49
This Court has ruled in a long line of cases that the circumstance
under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act 7659,
the attendance of any of which mandates the single indivisible penalty
of death are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be
proved as such unless alleged with particularity in the information
unlike ordinary aggravating circumstances which affect only the period
of the penalty and which may be proven even if not alleged in the
information. It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be
informed of the charge against him and consequently, a denial of due
process, if he is charged with simple rape and will be convicted of its
qualified form punishable by death although the attendant
circumstance qualifying the offense and resulting in capital punishment
was not alleged in the indictment under which he was arraigned.
Procedurally, then, while the minority of Renelyn and her relationship
to the accused-appellant were established during the trial, the
accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape because he
cannot be punished for a graver offense that that with which he was
charged. Accordingly, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua.
(PP -vs- EDWIN R. DECENA, G.R. No. 131843, May 31, 2000)
50
First.
Private complainant never objected or showed any
resistance when accused-appellant allegedly dragged her forcibly
across the pedestrian overpass and brought her to an undisclosed
place at Quiapo. Although he was holding her wrist tightly, she could
have easily extricated herself form him on several occasions: (a)
while they were inside the bus bound for Quiapo; (b) when they
alighted form the bus and roamed the sidestreets of Quiapo; and
especially so, (c) when they entered the hotel and finally the room
where the alleged rape took place. Accused-appellant was unarmed
and his tight grip could not have prevented private complainant from
at least shouting for help. Her demeanor was simply inconsistent with
that of the ordinary Filipina whose instinct dictates that the summon
every ounce of her strength and courage to thwart any attempt to
besmirch her honor and blemish her purity. True, women react
differently in similar situations, but it is too unnatural for an intended
rape victim, as in this case, not to make even feeble attempt to free
herself despite a myriad of opportunities to do so.
Second. The deportment of the private complainant after the
alleged rape accentuates the dubiety of her testimony. After the
alleged rape, she did not leave immediately but even refused to be
separated from her supposed defiler despite the prodding of the latter.
Worse, she went with him to the house of his sister and there they
slept together. Indeed this attitude runs counter to logic and common
sense. Surely private complainant would not risk a second molestation
and undergo a reprise of the harrowing experience. To compound
matters, it took her four (4) days to inform her parents about this
agonizing episode in her life. Truly, her insouciance is very disturbing,
to say the least.
Finally.
The prosecution failed to substantiated any of its
allegations. Instead, it opted to stand or fall on the uncorroborated
and implausible testimony of the private complainant. It is elementary
51
in our rules of evidence that a party must prove the affirmative of his
allegations.
(PP -vs- TOMAS CLAUDIO Y MENIJIE, G.R. No.
133694, Feb. 29, 2000)
outrage is perpetrated on one's own flesh and blood for the culprit is
further reduced to a level lower than the lowly animal and forfeits all
respect otherwise due him as a human.
(PP -vs- MELANDRO
NICOLAS Y FAVELLA, G.R. Nos. 125125-27, Feb. 4, 2000)
AT
NIGHT
IS
Considering that the place where the crime took place was
"notorious for hold-ups done at night, precisely to maximize the
advantage of darkness," we cannot but agree with the trial court that
nighttime was purposely sought by accused-appellants "for the more
successful consummation may be perpetrated unmolested or so that
they could escape more thoroughly." (PP -vs- FELIMON ALIPAYO Y
TEJADA, ET AL., G.R. No. 122979, Feb. 2, 2000)
school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and
even in the same room in the presence of other members of the
family. |An overpowering wicked urge has been shown not to be
deterred by circumstances of time or place.
"Complainant could have been raped the first time accusedappelant had carnal knowledge of her, when she was 13 years old. This
however, is not a prosecution for such rape. When she complained of
having been raped in this case, she was already 30 or 31 years old, 17
or 18 years after she had been allegedly ravished for the first time by
her father, the herein accused-appelant. During the said period of 17
or 18 years, neither complainant nor her parents denounced accusedappellant despite the fact that he continued to have sexual relation
allegedly without the consent of complainant. During this period, four
children were born to complainant and accused-appellant. Complainant
and accused-appellant practically cohabited, choosing the baptismal
sponsors for their children, and even inviting friends and relatives to
55
57
Rape; Incestous
In incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not
even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who
is private complainants father would suffice.
The moral and physical
dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his
beastly desires. Ibid.
59
light of the victims perception and judgment at the time of the rape and not
by any hard and fast rule. It is therefore enough that it produces fear fear
that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused,
something would happen to her at the moment or thereafter, as when she is
threatened with death if she reports the incident. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES vs.EMETERIO RICAMORA Y SUELLO,.G.R. No.
168628 December 6, 2006.
LACERATIONS IN RAPE
It is well-settled that lacerations, whether fresh or healed, are
the best physical evidence of forcible defloration.
(People vs. Miranda, G.R. No. 176064, August 7, 2007)
GUILTY OF RAPE WITH A FEMALE WHO WAS SUFFERING FROM A
BORDERLINE MENTAL DEFICIENCY
60
RAPE
In the review of rape cases, the credibility of the private
complainant is the single most important factor for consideration. The
case of the prosecution stands or falls on the credibility of the victim.
This rule is in accordance with the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two parties, namely the victim and the accused, are usually
involved. In this regard, the appellate court will generally not disturb
the assessment of the trial court on matters of credibility owing to its
unique opportunity to observe the deportment and manner of
testifying of witnesses firsthand during the trial unless certain facts of
substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might
affect the result of the case. People v. Bang-ayan, G.R. No.
172870, Sept 22, 2006
GUIDED PRINCIPLES IN RAPE CASES;
61
With the enactment of Republic Act No. 8353 (R.A. No. 8353),
otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, the concept of rape
was revolutionized with the new recognition that the crime should
include sexual violence on the womans sex-related orifices other than
her organ, and be expanded as well to cover gender-free rape. The
transformation mainly consisted of the reclassification of rape as a
crime against persons and the introduction of rape by sexual assault
as differentiated from the traditional rape through carnal knowledge
or rape through sexual intercourse.
Section 2 of the law provides:
Sec. 2. Rape as a Crime Against Persons. The crime of rape shall
hereafter be classified as a Crime Against Persons under Title Eight of
Act No. 9815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code. Accordingly, there shall be incorporated into Title Eight of the
same Code a new chapter to be known as Chapter Three on Rape, to
read as follows:
Article 266-A.
Committed
Rape Is
1)
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
(a)
(b)
When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise is unconscious;
(c)
By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority; and
(d)
When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be
present.
2)
By any person who, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault
by inserting his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or
any instrument or
object,
into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
62
STATUTORY RAPE
63
The phrase under twelve years of age makes the offense Statutory
Rape, and is punishable by reclusion perpetua under Art. 266-B of the
Revised Penal Code.
Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code,
however, also states that the death penalty shall be imposed in the
crime of rape if any of the aggravating/qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Article 266-B is present.
Aggravating/qualifying
circumstances are circumstances that change the nature of the crime
when these circumstances are present in the commission of the crime.
Particularly, qualifying circumstances are aggravating circumstances,
which, by express provision of law, change the nature of the crime to a
higher category. In this case, such qualifying circumstance is that the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent
of the victim. The presence of the foregoing qualifying circumstance
raised the crime of Statutory Rape to Qualified Rape. Simply stated,
under the circumstances obtaining in this case, Qualified Rape is
Statutory Rape in its qualified form.
As previously stated, under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code,
an accused found guilty of Qualified Rape is meted out the supreme
penalty of death. Republic Act No. 9346 enacted on June 24, 2006,
however, prohibited the imposition of the death penalty and
repealed/amended all the laws insofar as they impose the death
penalty. In lieu thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole is imposed. People v. Gloria, G.R. No. 168476,
Sept/ 27, 2006
SWEETHEART DEFENSE, NOT CREDIBLE IN RAPE CASES
Absent any other tangible and concrete evidence of a
relationship beyond acquaintanceship or neighborly relations, we
cannot give credence to accused-appellants self serving claim of
intimate association.
(People vs. Barangan, G.R. No. 175480, October 2, 2007)
RAPE VICTIM
64
STATUTORY RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LAYCO, SR., GR NO. 182191, MAY 8,
2009
Estafa, to exist:
In order for estafa to exist under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal
Code, it is essential that the false pretense or fraudulent
representation be made prior to or at least simultaneously with the
delivery of the thing or property, it being essential that such false
statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only
motive which induces the offended party to part with his money.[55] In
the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused,
however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as
basis for prosecution of estafa under the said provision.The
representor must have knowledge of the falsity of his representation or
his ignorance of the truth. He must have the intention that his false
representation be acted upon by the representee and in the manner
reasonably contemplated. The representee must be ignorant of the
falsity of the representations, must have relied on the truth thereof,
and as a consequence, must have sustained injury.Material injury,
however, is not essential in the crime of estafa. It is enough that there
is disturbance of personal rights. PREFERRED HOME SPECIALTIES
INC., and EDWIN YU,
T. SY G.R. No. 163593
xxxx
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with
the commission of fraud:
(a) by using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of
other similar deceits.
From the foregoing, swindling or estafa by false pretenses
or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud is committed by using fictitious name,
or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or
by other similar deceits.
In order to sustain a charge and conviction under paragraph 2(a)
of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution must be able
to prove beyond reasonable doubt the concurrence of the following
elements:
(1) the accused has defrauded another by abuse of confidence
or by means of deceit; and
(2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or third person.
Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise
anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and
concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust,
or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or
by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of
another. On the other hand, deceit is the false representation of
a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should
have been disclosed; and which deceives or is intended to
deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury.
70
ESTAFA
JOSON VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. 178836, JULY 23,
2008
(BORLONGAN, JR. et. al vs. Pea G.R. No. 143591, November 23,
2009)
OF
FALSIFIED
73
74
Perjury, Elements;
Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under
oath or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material
matter. The elements of the felony are:
(a)
That the accused
made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter. (b)
That the statement or affidavit was made before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath. (c)
That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and
75
G.R. No.
Article 363 of the Revised Penal Code penalizes any person who,
by any act not constituting perjury, shall directly incriminate or impute
to an innocent person the commission of a crime. The crime known as
the incriminating innocent person has the following elements: (1) the
offender performs an act; (2) by such act he directly incriminates or
imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime; and (3)
such act does not constitute perjury.
Article 363 does not, however, contemplate the idea of malicious
prosecution-someone prosecuting or instigating a criminal charge in
court. It refers to the acts of PLANTING evidence and the like, which
do not in themselves constitute false prosecution but tend directly to
cause false prosecutions. (Campanano, Jr. vs. Datuin, G.R. No.
172142, October 17, 2007)
inflicted shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the
injured person for more than 30 days, viz:
Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. Any person who shall
wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious
physical injuries and shall suffer:
xxxx
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correcional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries
inflicted shall have cause the illness or incapacity for labor of the
injured person for more than thirty days. x x x.
83
84
TECHNICAL MALVERSATION
xxx
xxx
2.
3.
4.
MALVERSATION
To find an accused guilty of malversation, the prosecution must prove
the following essential elements:
a.] The offender is a public officer;
b.] He has the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the
duties of his office;
c.] The funds or property involved are public funds or property for
which he is accountable; and
d.] He has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented
to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by
another person of, such funds or property.
87
FALSIFICATION
Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through
falsification of commercial document, appellant could be convicted of
falsification of private document under the well-settled rule that it is
the allegations in the information that determines the nature of the
offense and not the technical name given in the preamble of the
information. In Andaya v. People, we held:
From a legal point of view, and in a very real sense, it is of no
concern to the accused what is the technical name of the crime
of which he stands charged. It in no way aids him in a defense
on the merits. x x x That to which his attention should be
directed, and in which he, above all things else, should be most
interested, are the facts alleged. The real question is not did he
commit a crime given in the law some technical and specific
name, but did he perform the acts alleged in the body of the
information in the manner therein set forth. x x x The real and
important question to him is, Did you perform the acts alleged
in the manner alleged? not, Did you commit a crime named
murder? If he performed the acts alleged, in the manner
stated, the law determines what the name of the crime is and
fixes the penalty therefor. x x x If the accused performed the
acts alleged in the manner alleged, then he ought to be
punished and punished adequately, whatever may be the name
of the crime which those acts constitute.
The elements of falsification of private document under Article 172,
paragraph 2[36] of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that the offender
committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph 7,
88
Article 171; (2) that the falsification was committed in any private
document; and (3) that the falsification caused damage to a third
party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause
such damage. Batulanon v. People, G.R. No. 139857, Sept. 15, 2006
ELEMENTS OF HOMICIDE
the Revised Penal Code requires proof that (a) the offender is a public
90
2.
3.
4.
money
Even assuming that appellant was a mere employee, such fact is not
a shield against his conviction for large scale illegal recruitment. In
the case of People v. Cabais, we have held that an employee of a
company or corporation engaged in illegal recruitment may be held
liable as principal, together with his employer, if it is shown that he
actively and consciously participated in the recruitment process. Ibid.
THEFT
2.
3.
4.
That the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
5.
That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Baltazar v.
People, G.R. No. 164545, Nov. 20, 2006
ELEMENTS OF THEFT
95
ESTAFA BY MISAPPROPRIATION
(2)
96
(3)
(4)
(2)
(3)
the payee was not informed by the offender and the payee
did not know that the offender had no funds or insufficient
funds. Andan v. People, G.R. No. 136388, Mar. 14, 2006
The crime defined in P.D. No. 115 is malum prohibitum but is classified
as estafa under paragraph 1(b), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code,
or estafa with abuse of confidence. It may be committed by a
corporation or other juridical entity or by natural persons. However,
the penalty for the crime is imprisonment for the periods provided in
said Article 315. Ching v. Sec. of Justice, G. R. No. 164317, Feb. 6,
2006
COMPLEX CRIME OF ESTAFA THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC
DOCUMENT
99
(2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage
to the payee thereof. It is criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a
check which is made punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and
not the non-payment of a debt. Deceit is the false representation of a
matter of fact whether by words or conduct by false or misleading
allegations or by concealment of that which should have been
disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he
shall act upon it to his legal injury. Concealment which the law denotes
as fraudulent implies a purpose or design to hide facts which the other
party ought to have. The postdating or issuing of a check in payment
of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his
funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check is a false pretense or a fraudulent act.
There is no false pretense or fraudulent act if a postdated check is
issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation. Estafa is a felony
committed by dolo (with malice). For one to be criminally liable for
estafa under paragraph (2)(d) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code, malice and specific intent to defraud are required. Recuerdo v.
People, G.R. No. 168217, June 27, 2006
ESTAFA BY MISAPPROPRIATION
102
ARSON
There are two (2) categories of the crime of arson: 1)
destructive arson, under Art. 320 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659; and 2) simple arson, under
Presidential Decree No. 1613. Said classification is based on the kind,
103
104
LIBEL
Publication, in the law of libel, means the making of the defamatory
matter, after it has been written, known to someone other than the
person to whom it has been written. If the statement is sent straight
to a person for whom it is written there is no publication of it. The
reason for this is that a communication of the defamatory matter to
the person defamed cannot injure his reputation though it may wound
his self-esteem. A mans reputation is not the good opinion he has of
himself, but the estimation in which others hold him. Writing to a
person other than the person defamed is sufficient to constitute
publication, for the person to whom the letter is addressed is a third
person in relation to its writer and the person defamed therein.
Magno v. People, G.R. No. 133896, Jan. 27, 2006
LIBEL; REQUISITES
105
107
108
A public official may not successfully sue for libel unless the
official can prove actual malice, which was defined as with knowledge
that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether
or not it was true.
ACT OF POKING A DIRTY FINGER IS SLIGHT SLANDER BY DEED.
Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code classifies robbery with
homicide as a crime against property with the following elements: 1)
the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation
against persons; 2) personal property thus taken belongs to another;
3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and
4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of
homicide, which is therein used in its generic sense, was committed.
The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life. So long as
the intention of the felons was to rob, the killing may occur before,
during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would
supervene by mere accident or that the victim of homicide is other
than the victim of robbery or that two or more persons are killed. It is
likewise not necessary to identify who among the conspirators inflicted
the fatal wound on the victim. Once a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the
special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BULLAN, G.R. NO. 178196, AUGUST
6, 2008
QUALIFIED THEFT
112
114