Anda di halaman 1dari 2

PEOPLE vs.

LORENO & MARANTAL (JULY 9, 1984)


Exempting Circumstances (RPC Art. 12) | Irresistible force or uncontrollable fear of greater
injury
FACTS
LC Ruling: Loreno Robbery wth double rape,
Jan. 7, 1978. Elias was at his house along with his daughters Monica (14), Cristina (22, married), Rachel
(4 mos.) wife Beata, sons Mario (11) and Nilo (13), and farm helper Fabie.
While Francisco was at the balcony, he saw four men with flashlights approaching. He then heard one
of them calling Elias that a he has a letter from the chief hepe. He then called Elias, who went out to
the balcony where a man in dark sweater (DS) handed him the letter. Because it was too dark for the
letter to be read, Elias invited the man inside the sala. Once inside, he called Monica to fetch his
reading glasses and subsequently, read the letter: "Kami mga NPA." Monica, scared (shitless), ran to
her mother. Cristina attempted to get a bolo from the kitchen but was held back by the DS guy and
threatened her no to make any ruckus. When Elias went to the kitchen to see the commotion, a gun
was pointed at his back by the DS guy who ordered everyone inside to be on the floor.
Meanwhile, another man in a red shirt (RS), who stayed with Francisco in the balcony, asked Mario for
a glass of water. Mario did not obey so Francisco himself went inside to get a glass, only to be followed
by the RS guy. When he reached the sala, a gun was pointed at his back and a knife at his neck.
Francisco then recognized RS guy as Loreno -- who was also recognized by Monica and Cristina who
were lying flat on their stomachs on the floor. Marantal (recognized by Francisco) stayed as lookout
outside the house.
DS guy then instructed Loreno to tie all their victims on the floor (hands behind backs) which he
complied. DS guy then got a hold of Monica and dragged her to a room where she was asked where
her piggy bank is. When she said there was none, he then forcibly removed her pants. She screamed
for help to her parents, only to be boxed. Despite the struggle, he managed to remove her panties and
successfully had sex with her. After this, he dragged Monica back to the sala and proceeded to do the
same to Cristina
While of this was happening, the other men then proceeded to ransack the house and found and took
a lot of valuables. Thereafter, Loreno entered the room where Cristina was lying on the floor and
proceeded to kiss and touch her vagina. Suddenly, he was called to hurry up because someone was
approaching the house. When he went back, DS guy warned everyone not to tell anyone, got their
valuables, and left.
They managed to untie themselves eventually and after positively affirming the identities of their
malefactors, along with Elias finding out the sexual abuse his daughters suffered, filed a report against
the robbery-rape incident. After substantial examination to his daughters and initial investigation, the
accused were detained, charged, and found guilty. Accused are before the SC claiming that they acted
under the compulsion of an irresistible force and/or under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury. Marantal admitted that they were in the house of Elias Monge on the night of January 7,
1978, but they were only forced by a man wearing black sweater and his five companions who claimed
to be members of the New People's Army (NPA), operating in the locality, with the threat that if they
did not obey, appellants and their families would be killed.
ISSUE: Whether or not the act was done under
force/uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury. NO.

compulsion

of

an

irresistible

HELD: Guilty of robbery with double rape.


A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the
impulse or uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability
because he does not act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere
instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation
must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded
apprehension of death of serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not

enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat (People vs. Villanueva, 104 Phil. 450).

In the case at bar, it does not met the requirements of under compulsion of irresistible
force or under the impulse of uncontrollable fear. A perusal of the appellants' statement of the
robbery-rape incident as, summarized in their joint brief, showed that they admitted their participation
in the commission of the crime of robbery and rape against Elias Monge and his family on January 7,
1978. Further established were facts inconsistent with appellant's claim of having acted under the
compulsion of an irresistible force and/or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or
greater injury. The records likewise revealed that on the two occasions Eustaquio Loreno brought Beata
Monge to the master's room and the teacher's room where he made her open the trunk and the
"aparador" with her keys and got the contents which he brought and poured on the floor of the sala,
appellant Loreno acted alone, without the threat and assistance of the man in dark
sweater. And after the man in the dark sweater consummated his lust on Cristina Monge in the
teacher's room and seeing Cristina Monge lying on the floor, Loreno embraced her and tried to
kiss her and touch her private parts.

Marantal, who was standing at the gate of the house below, must have heard the shouts of Monica
Monge for help and must have known by then that Monica Monge was being abused by his two
companions who earlier went up the house. As a "lookout" or guard, Marantal gave his companions
effective means and encouragement to commit the crimes of robbery and rape. There was no showing
that he raised a voice of protest or did an act to prevent the commission of the crimes. All these
demonstrated the voluntary participation and the conspiracy of the appellants. The
foregoing acts, though separately performed from those of their unidentified companions,
clearly showed their community of interest and concert of criminal design with their
unidentified companions which constituted conspiracy without the need of direct proof of
the conspiracy itself.
Conspiracy may be inferred and proven by the acts of the accused themselves and when said acts
point to joint purpose and concert of action and community of interest, which unity of purpose and
concert of action serve to establish the existence of conspiracy, and the degree of actual participation
petition by each of the conspirators is immaterial. Conspiracy having been establish, all the
conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation
because in contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all.