Criminal Law II Digests

Criminal Law II Digests
Prof. Arreza Outline

Treason Digests
(c/o Anit. Cantos. Damasing. Dela Cruz. Hipolito. Regalao. !antos"
#.!. $s. A%a
&.R. 'o. L()*+, Octo%er --, .)/-
Ponente0 La, 1.
2acts0
Maximo Abad was charged with violation of oath of allegiance when he denied to an officer of the
United States Army the existence of certain rifles at the time of his surrender in April 1901 when
in fact, he was aware of the existence and whereabouts of such rifles Section 1! of Article "9" of
the United States #hilippine $ommission states that% &Any person who shall have ta'en any oath
before any military officer under the $ivil (overnment of the #hilippine )slands, whether such
official so administering the oath was specially authori*ed by law so to do or not, in which oath the
affiant is substance engaged to recogni*e or accept the supreme authority of the United States of
America in these )slands or to maintain true faith and allegiance thereto or to obey the laws, legal
orders, and decrees promulgated by its duly constituted authorities and who shall, after the
passage of this act, violate the terms and provisions of such oath or any of such terms or
provisions, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars or by imprisonment not
exceeding ten years, or both&
Abad is a former insurgent officer and is entitled to the benefit of the proclamation of amnesty if
the offense is one of those to which the proclamation applies +he denying of the whereabouts of
the rifles can be considered an act of treason, as being an act of adhering to the enemies of the
United States, giving them aid and comfort, the offense in this particular case might, perhaps, be
held to be covered by the amnesty as being, in substance, treason though prosecuted under
another name
+reason is defined in section 1 of Act ,o "9" to consist in levying war against the United States or
the (overnment of the #hilippine )slands, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and
comfort within the #hilippine )slands or elsewhere Sedition is defined in section - of the same act
as the rising publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal methods
certain enumerated ob.ects of a political character
Issue0
/hether or not the offense of violation of oaths of allegiance fall under the category of 0treason and
sedition1
Hel0 2es
Ratio0
+he offense of violation of oaths of allegiance, being one of the political offenses defined in Act
,o "9", is included in the general words &treason and sedition,& as used in the amnesty
proclamation of 3uly !, 190"
+he offenses listed in Act ,o "9" include% treason, misprision of treason, insurrection, conspiracy
to commit treason or insurrection, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, seditious words and
libels, the formation of secret political societies, and violation of oaths of allegiance /hen the
framer of the proclamation used the words &treason and sedition& to describe the purely political
offenses covered by the amnesty, we thin' it was his intention, without specially enumerating the
political offenses defined in Act ,o "9", to include them all under the terms 0treason and
sedition1
Ruling0 +he defendant is entitled to the benefits of the proclamation of amnesty, and upon filing in
the court the prescribed oath the cause will be returned to the court below with directions that he be
discharged
People $. Ariano
(45!66 7 3un 80, 19!6
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1
$ompiled by% <)#=9)+=
>n ?anc
#onente% +uason, J.
2ACT!0 Appeal from decision of the #eople@s $ourt sentencing Apolinario Adriano to life
imprisonment and a fine of #h# 10,000 plus costs Adriano was charged with treason for being a
Ma'apili and for bearing arms and assisting the 3apanese Army in its operations in the (apanASan
9eonardo Area from 3anAApr 19!- +he #eople@s $ourt established that% Adriano was a Ma'apiliB he
performed sentry duties in the 3apanese garrison in (apan, ,ueva >ci.aB he carried a rifle in drills led
by 3apanese commandersB he surrendered to the Americans with rifle in hand
I!!#30 /C, Adriano is guilty of treason
H3LD/RATIO0 ,o +he #hilippine law on treason follows the twoAwitness test derived from the AngloA
American law on treason +his test reDuires the concurrence of two witnesses to an overt act of
treason )n this case, each of the overt acts imputed to Adriano failed the test Although mere
membership in the Ma'apili organi*ation is a treasonous act in itself Eindicative of adherence and
giving aid and comfort to the enemyF, such membership is an overt act which should be proven by at
least two witnesses )n this case, no two witnesses saw Adriano doing the same single act as a
Ma'apili
Hilao, J. issenting0
Membership being a continuous and indivisible act, it is not necessary that two witnesses have
ascertained that Adriano was a Ma'apili on the same day +he witnesses agree on the fact that
Adriano is a Ma'apili, hence he should be convicted
P3OPL3 $sCAR43LITO 5ICTORIA
6G #hil 1"9,
(4 ,o 9A8;9
March 18, 19!6
#onente% #erfecto, 3
2ACT!0
Appellant was sentenced by the lower court to supreme penalty of death and fine of #"0,000 <is
crime% +reason Ein violation of duty of allegiance, wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and treasonably did
'nowingly adhere to their enemy, the >mpire of 3apan and the )mperial 3apanese Horces in the
#hilippines, with which the United States and the $ommonwealth of the #hilippines were then at war,
giving to said enemy aid andCor comfortF in the following events%
1 =ctober ;, 19!!% .oined an armed enemy patrol composed of about G spies and a 3apanese
soldier, which went to the house of Hederico Unson in 9ucena, accused Unson of hiding guerrillas ?ut
then, when the enemy was about to arrest Unson, guerrillas showed up and 'illed one of the spies
+he 3ap patrol left, but came bac' afternoon of the same day, arrested Unson and two others E#ere*
and (odoyF, tortured them, and set fire to the house of Unson #ere* and Unson sustained numerous
bayonet wounds A mutilated and were found rotting in the vicinity of the house Unson was tied to a
tree, and disembowelled by several bayonet wounds, while #ere* was mutilated and appeared an'leA
less (odoy was never heard of )t appears he was ta'en to 9ucena and was 'illed there
o Iersion of :efense% Although admitting his presence in the raid, he did not come along with
party that conducted the afternoon raid in which the actual arrest of Unson, #ere* and (odoy too'
place
o 9ower court@s decision% (uilty :efense doesn@t have enough weight to prevail over that of
the prosecuting witnesses
" :ecember "1, 19!!% accompanied other 3apanese spies to the house of 3ose Unson, arrested
said 3ose Unson and brought him to the 3apanese garrison on the charge that he had a short wave
radioB that he was furnishing radio information to the guerrillas and at the same time supporting
themB that said Unson was released on the same day, but on the next day he was again arrested and
brought to the 3apanese garrison at 9ucena, +ayabasB that said 3ose Unson never returned +he last
that was seen of 3ose Unson, was his s'ull as exhumed in a school yard in 9u'ban, several months
after the arrest
o :efense% <e admitted to have ta'en part in the raid but claims that he tried to save Unson
o 9ower court% =nly the latter Eact of savingJF was accepted by the lower court, in view of
appellantKs behaviour as recalled by witnesses Mercedes Unson, Ale.andro Unson, and >ugenio
4amon Unson (uilty as well
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "
8 Hebruary 10, 19!-% accompanied armed members of the )ntelligence Unit of the Lempei +ai to
the house of Helixberto 4omulo in San #ablo, 9aguna, placed him under arrest as a guerrilla suspect,
and turned him over to the 3apanese Military #olice who on that occasion were concealing themselves
near the house of 4omuloB and that, since the arrest of said 4omulo, nothing was heard of him
o :efense% Alibi A he was in (agalaMgin, Manila
o 9ower court% (uilty
! :ecember "1, 19!! E-AMF% accompanied two 3apanese Military #olice and two undercover
operatives to the house of <ermogenes $alauag in 9ucena, +ayabas, and apprehended said $alauag,
conducted a search of the house and afterwards brought $alauag to the 3apanese garrison where he
was sub.ected to inhuman torture on the charge being proAAmerican and adviser of the <unters 4=+$
(uerrillas
o :efense% <e alleged that he was merely as'ed by the 3apanese kempei to accompany them
in the raid, admitted that he was present throughout the investigation and torture of $aluag who,
according to the accused himself, was tied suspended in the air for fully twenty minutes
o 9ower court% (uilty $onsidered the account of the defense as corroborative of the facts
alleged in the information and proved by the witnesses for the prosecution
- March 9, 19!! E-AMF% acting as an informer of the 3apanese Lempei +ai, caused the 3apanese
Military police to arrest and apprehend Antonio San Agustin, a guerrilla officer, who was thereupon
brought to Hort Santiago and there torture and unlawfully detained
o ,ot proven
; 3une, 19!!% accompanied by an armed group of undercover operatives to the house of Melecio
9abalan, Sr, and arrested and brought him to the 3apanese garrison in 9ucena, +ayabas, where he
was tortured on the charge of being a guerrilla
o :efendant% Heigned ignorance of the arrest
o 9ower court% (uilty Accused himself testified that he promised to see what he could do
about 9abalan and accepted three chic'ens from the latterKs wife which he gave to the interpreter at
the kempei office
6 Hebruary, 19!-% that as a member of the (anap, a proA3apanese party, he .oined the Ma'apili
organi*ation designed to support the )mperial 3apanese Horces in levying war against their enemiesB
that he too' military training from the 3apanese and bore arms and .oined the enemy forces as a
Ma'apili soldier, ta'ing orders from the 3apaneseB that he participated in the raid and burning of the
barrio of ?autista, San #ablo, 9aguna, upon orders of the 3apaneseB that he carried ammunitions and
foodstuffs for the 3apanese ArmyB that he performed sentry duty
o ,ot proven
)n all of these instances, appellant maintains that he is not a spy, and was only forced to be one <e
also claims to be a guerrilla and that he tried to help Hilipino prisoners
Aggravating circumstances Elower courtF% treachery, the aid of armed persons to insure or afford
impunity, and deliberately augmenting the crimes by causing other wrongs not necessary in the
commission thereof
I!!#3!0
N /hether or not the accused is guilty of counts 1,",8,! and ;
o )f guilty, whether or not his act of saving some Hilipinos .ustify or mitigate his criminal
responsibility
N /hether or not the penalty should be death, considering the aggravating circumstances
H3LD0
N (uilty
RATIO0 Appellant@s 180Apage brief failed completely to point out any specific error in the conclusions
of fact of the lower court,
o +he fact that he helped some Hilipinos does not relieve him from criminal
responsibility for the acts he had committed +he performance of righteous action, no matter
how meritorious they may be is not a .ustifying, exempting, or mitigating circumstance in the
commission of wrongs
N Sentence is reclusion perpetua
4A+)=% +he voters are divided as to what the sentence should be Ma.ority is of the opinion that
the sentence should be death while the ponente is of the opinion that the circumstances in Duestion
are essential elements of the treason appellant has committed +here being no unanimity of all the
members of the $ourt in the imposition of the death penalty, the #eopleKs $ourtKs decision is
modified, and appellant is sentenced to reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of #1-,000 and costs
People $ Pero 4arcaia
69 #hil "G8
Sept 1G 19!6
2ACT!0
N #edro Marcaida% charged with treason by the #eople@s $ourt
N Marcaida alleges that the court erred in saying that his citi*enship was sufficiently proven
N :efense claims that Marcaida testified in +agalog that he is 0tagaA9ope*1 Ein +ayabas, Oue*onF
and that he was born in 9ope*, but there are no such details in the records
I!!#30
N /hether or not Marcaida can be convicted of treason
H3LD/RATIO0
N ,o <is citi*enship is not sufficiently proven +he name #edro Marcaida can be Hilipino, Spanish
of South American ,o evidence of citi*enship of parents means there is no way to ascertain whether
or not he is a Hilipino citi*en, as he could be a descendant of Spanish sub.ects who chose to retain
Spanish citi*enship even after the signing of the +reaty of #aris, or even by South Americans who
refused to go through the naturali*ation process
Laurel $ 4isa
Anastacio Laurel $s. 3ri%erto 4isa
** P6il 78+, &.R. 'o. L(9/)
1anuar: ;/, .)9*
DOCTRI'30 Allegiance is either permanent or temporary A Hilipino citi*en owes permanent
allegiance to the #hilippines while a resident alien owes a temporary allegiance to our country
+reason cannot be committed in time of peace )t is a war crime /hile there is peace, there are no
traitors +here must be a war in which the #hilippines is involved
2ACT!0
+his is a resolution of the decision of the S$ denying the petition for the writ of habeas corpus filed
by 9aurel Anastacio 9aurel was arrested by the US Army and was interned under a commitment
order for collaborating with the 3apanese during the 3apanese occupation <e was turned over to
the $ommonwealth (overnment and since then has been under the custody of the respondent
:irector of #risons <e filed an original action in the Supreme $ourt invo'ing the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus
<e maintains that his arrest was illegal and in violation of his constitutional rights and that the
#eople@s $ourt Act ;G" which suspends the application of the sixAhour limitation on detention to
political prisoners is unconstitutional +he S$ court in its decision, denied his petition and re.ected
the petitioner@s contention mainly because no vested right was violated as the Act is not an exA
post facto law Although the 4#$ was in effect during his arrest, he could not have as'ed for
release after ; hours as (en :ouglas McArthur revived the laws of $ommonwealth but held the
active collaborationists in restraint 0for the duration of the war1
9aurel, not discouraged, filed a motion and contends that he cannot be prosecuted for the crime
of treason because aF the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the #hilippines, and
conseDuently, the allegiance of Hilipino citi*ens was suspendedB bF there was a change of
sovereignty over the )slands upon the proclamation of the #hilippine 4epublic
I!!#3!0
aF /hether the sovereignty of the legitimate government in the #hilippines is suspended upon
occupation
bF /hether the occupation by an enemy suspends the allegiance of Hilipino citi*ens to the
sovereignty
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests !
cF /hether the temporary allegiance by inhabitants of a territory to their occupants removes the
permanent allegiance of a citi*en to his legitimate government
dF /hether political laws, such as crimes against national security, are suspended or inapplicable
against the occupants
eF /hether political laws, such as crimes against national security, are suspended or inapplicable
against the inhabitants
fF /hether the occupant may repeal or suspend the operation of the law of treason
gF /hether there was a change of sovereignty of the )slands upon proclamation of the 4epublic and
therefore petitioner can be released as treason was not committed against this sovereignty
hF /hether petitioner can be granted the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
H3LD/RATIO0
aF ,o Sovereignty of the government or sovereign de jure is not transferred to the occupier but
remains with the legitimate government )t cannot be suspended because the existence of
sovereignty cannot be suspended without putting it out of existence or divesting the possessor
thereof /hat is suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty with the control and
government of the territory occupied by the enemy which passes temporarily to the occupant
bF ,o A citi*en owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his legitimate government and it
cannot be transferred to the occupant Moreover, sovereignty itself is not suspended and subsists
during enemy occupation so the allegiance to the sovereign subsists and therefore there is no such
thing as suspended allegiance
cF ,o +he temporary allegiance of inhabitants to occupants is similar to temporary allegiance of a
resident alien to the territory wherein he resides )n the same way that the citi*en of a sovereign or
government can be convicted of treason committed in a foreign country, the inhabitant of a territory
occupied by military forces of an enemy may also commit treason against his own legitimate
government Allegiance is not merely the obedience to laws in return for a man@s protection in his
place of residence because by obeying said laws, he is not bound to obey the laws of his own
government
dF 2es /ith the suspension of the exercise of the rights of sovereignty by the legitimate government,
the authority to govern has passed into the hands of the occupant and political laws are suspended
+hey are inoperative or not applicable to the government established by the occupant because they
exclusively bear relation to the legitimate government $rimes against national security Eof the
legitimate governmentF such as treason as penali*ed by the 4#$ are also deemed suspended against
the occupant because they cannot be committed against it
eF ,o +reason is applicable to treason committed against the national security of the legitimate
government because the inhabitants of the occupied territory are still bound by their allegiance to the
latter during enemy occupation
fF ,o +his is not necessary to control the inhabitants and it is tantamount to practically transfer
temporarily to the occupant their allegiance to the sovereign )f an inhabitant is compelled illegally,
he can lawfully resist or submit without becoming a traitor
gF ,o +here is no change of sovereignty so the crime of treason committed during the 3apanese
occupation was committed against the same sovereign people and the same government
hF ,o <e cannot be released
Perfecto, concurring0
+reason is a war crime and cannot be committed during time of peace Allegiance to the government
was not suspended during the enemy occupation ! 'inds% ,atural, AcDuired, 9egal, 9ocal +he idea of
suspended sovereignty of suspended allegiance is incompatible with the $onstitution which states
that 0Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them1
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests -
Hilao, concurring0
Allegiance to citi*ens of the country to the legitimate government and US was not suspended during
the 3apanese occupation ?ecause of the ?rianALellogg #act in which 3apan is an asignatory, the
un.ustifiable war is a crime committed by 3apanB hence it is an illegal war
:issent%
:uring the long period of 3apanese occupation, all the political laws of the #hilippines were
suspended +hus, treason under the 4evised #enal $ode cannot be punishable where the laws of the
land are momentarily halted 4egarding the change of sovereignty, it is true that the #hilippines
wasn@t sovereign at the time of the $ommonwealth since it was under the United States <ence, the
acts of treason done cannot carry over to the new 4epublic where the #hilippines is now indeed
sovereign
#! $. Dalmacio Lagnason
8 #hil !9-
(4 ,o 1-G", March "G, 190!
#onente% 3ustice /illard
2acts0
:efendant charged under Act"9" with treason, sentenced to death /hen Americans occupied
,egros =ccidental, there were a band of men in arms against US government led by defendant +heir
aim was to establish an independent government =n =ctober "9, 190", defendant with band
attac'ed pueblo Murcia, driven off by $onstabulary :efendant captured +hey carried no banners,
but did carry two large wooden crosses which were captured, together with the cannon
Issue0
/hether or not defendant is guilty
Hel0
2es Acts of violence committed by an armed body of men with the purpose of overthrowing the
(overnment was levying war against the US, and therefore treason, regardless of number of men ,o
distinction made between foreign enemy and rebel or insurgent so far as act of levying is concerned
9evying of war had a definite meaning +hat the acts committed by the defendant constituted a
&levying of war& as that phrase was understood at the time the act of the $ommission was passed,
can not be doubted ,either can it be doubted that these same acts constituted a &rebellion or
insurrection& within the meaning of the third section of Act ,o "9" +he two sections can only be
reconciled in the manner employed in the case against (reathouse Ea case mentionedF, and that
decision should be followed )f rebellion and insurrection are treason, a defendant can not be
convicted under section 8 except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or by
confession in open court )f they are not treason he could be convicted upon the testimony reDuired in
ordinary cases +he provisions as to two witnesses applied to prosecutions under the second section
of the act of 1G;" )t is not necessary, however, to decide that Duestion in this case, as the overt act
of the defendant was proved by two witnessesB neither is it necessary to decide whether the omission
in section 8 of the phrase &owing allegiance to the United States,& which is found in section 1 ta'en in
connection with section 16 of the act, ma'es a difference between the two sections in the case at bar
the defendant was a native of $ebu and is therefore covered both by section 1 and section 8 )n a
case, an accused has been acDuitted because no overt act of treason was proved, and in another
there was acDuittal because there were not two witnesses to the same overt act
People Of T6e P6ilippines 5s. &auencio Ro%le
+uason, 3B March ", 19!9
(4 ,o 9A!88
2ACT!0
P =n March "0, 19!!, in :umagete, $ebu, (audencio 4obles, as a member of the #hilippines
$onstabulary lead 10 other proA3ap constabulary, all of them armed, to arrest #aulino =sorio for
helping guerillas, whom they maltreated and detained in the municipal .ail of :umagete
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ;
P =n the same day, the same group arrested Melchor $ampomanes and 6 other people and tortured
them for supporting and sympathi*ing with the guerillas 4obles then shot $ampomanes, 'illing him
P Someday after, 4obles again lead other constabulary officers to arrest Hortunato 9inares and others
in :alaguete, $ebu 4obles cut their ears and tortured them severely that Antolin 4odrigue* died as a
result
P +hen on May 1G, 19!!, 4obles again lead a group of constabulary officers to Mambaling and other
areas in $ebu $ity to arrest >leuterio #adilla for being a guerilla +he group tortured and detained him
before he was 'illed by 4oble on May ";
P 4oble was caught and charged with 8 counts of treason
P <e pleaded guilty and was sentenced to death by the Hirst :ivision of the #eopleKs $ourt sitting in
+acloban, 9eyte
Issues0
P /hether or not the penalty of death was correct
Hel0
P No. Decision was modified and sentence was reduced to reclusion perpetua
Ratio0
P +he trial court erred in stating that it was a complex crime of treason with murders +he
torture and murders he committed formed part of treason
P +reachery, evident premeditation and abuse of superior strength are circumstances
inherent in treason and are not aggravating
P )gnominy EtortureF is an aggravating circumstance
P #lea of guilt is also ta'en into consideration
People $s. Perez
7; P6il ;.9
&.R. 'o. L(78+, April .7, .)9)
Ponente0 Tuason, 1.
Susano #ere* was convicted of treason by the -th :ivision of the #eopleKs $ourt sitting in $ebu $ity
and sentenced to death by electrocution =nly five E1, ", !, -, ;F out of seven counts of information
were substantiated by the prosecution
2acts0
$ount 1% #ere*, with other Hilipinos, recruited women girls and women against their will to satisfy
the lust of $olonel Mini +he victims included Helina 9aput, >riberta 4amo, >duarda :aohog,
>utiDuia 9amay, Heliciana ?onalos and Hlaviana ?onalos >riberta 4amo testified that on 3une 1-,
19!", the accused came to her house to get her and told her that she was wanted in the house of
her aunt, but instead, she was brought to the house of the #uppet (overnor Agapito <ontanosasB
that she escaped and returned to ?aclayon her hometownB that the accused came again and told
her that $olonel Mini wanted her to be his )nformation $ler'B that she did not accept the .obB that
a wee' later the accused came to ?aclayon to get her, and succeeded in ta'ing some other girls
#uppet (overnor Agapito <ontanosasB that (overnor <ontanosas told her that $olonel Mini
wanted her to be his wifeB that when she was brought to $olonel Mini the latter had nothing on but
a &(& stringB that he, $olonel Mini threatened her with a sword tied her to a bed and with force
succeeded in having carnal 'nowledge with herB that on the following night, again she was
brought to $olonel Mini and again she was rapedB that finally she was able to escape and stayed
in hiding for three wee's and only came out from the hiding when $olonel Mini left +agbilaran
$ount "% #ere*, in company with some 3apanese and Hilipinos, too' >riberta 4amo and her sister
$leopatra 4amo from their home in ?aclayon to attend a banDuet and a dance organi*ed in honor
of $olonel Mini in order that Mini might select those who would later be ta'en to satisfy his lust ?y
means of threat, force and intimidation, the above mentioned two sisters were brought to the
headDuarters of the 3apanese $ommander at the Mission <ospital in +agbilaran
$ount !% =n 3uly 1;, 19!", >duarda S :aohog and >utiDuia 9amay, were ta'en from their homes
in $orella, ?ohol, by #ere* and his companion named Iicente ?ullecer, and delivered to the
3apanese =fficer, :r +a'ibayas to satisfy his lust, but #ere* and ?ullecer raped the women first
before bringing them to +a'ibayas #ere* raped >duarda and ?ullecer raped >utiDuia 9amay
>duarda S :aohog testified that while on the way to +agbilaran, #ere* through force and
intimidation, raped her in an uninhabited houseB that upon arriving in +agbilaran, she was
delivered to the 3apanese =fficer named +a'ibayas who also raped her >utiDuia 9amay testified
that on 3uly 1;, 19!", the accused and his companion, ?ullecer, went to her house to ta'e her and
her sisterB that her sister was then out of the houseB that the accused threatened her with a
revolver if she refuses to goB that she was placed in a car where >duarda :aohog wasB that while
they were in the car, the accused carried >duarda out of the car, and their companion ?ullecer
too' >utiDuia 9amayB that later, she and >duarda were ta'en to the (overnorKs houseB that the
accused and ?ullecer brought the two girls to the 3apanese headDuartersB that >duarda was raped
by +a'ibayas and >utiDuia was raped by another 3apanese
$ount -% =n or about 3une !, 19!", #ere* commandeered Heliciana ?onalos and her sister Hlaviana
and that they were to be ta'en as witnesses before a 3apanese $olonel in the investigation of a
case against a certain $hinese E)nsi' >pingF, and upon arriving at +agbilaran, ?ohol, the accused
brought the two girls to the residence of $olonel Mini and by means of violence, threat and
intimidation, Mini abused and had sexual intercourse with Hlaviana ?onalosB that #ere* followed in
having carnal 'nowledge with HlavianaB that two days later, #ere* brought Heliciana ?onalos to a
secluded place in +agbilaran, ?ohol, and in the dar'ness, by means of threat and violence had
carnal 'nowledge with her against her will
$ount ;% #ere*, together with his Hilipino companion, apprehended ,atividad ?arcinas, ,icanora
4alameda and +eotima ?arcinas, nurses of the provincial hospital, for not having attended a
dance and reception organi*ed in honor of $olonel Mini and other 3apanese high ran'ing officers
which was held in +agbilaran mar'et on 3une "-, 19!"B that on 3uly G, 19!", said nurses were
forced to attend another banDuet and dance in order that the 3apanese officers might ma'e a
selection which girls would suit best their fancy
Issue% /hether or not the acts of #ere* in luring women to satisfy the lust of 3apanese officials
constitute treason
Hel0 ,o
Ratio0
As general rule, to be treasonous the extent of the aid and comfort given to the enemies must
be to render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals and in addition, be
directly in furtherance of the enemiesK hostile designs <is &commandeering& of women to
satisfy the lust of 3apanese officers or men or to enliven the entertainment held in their honor
was not treason even though the women and the entertainment helped to ma'e life more
pleasant for the enemies and boost their spiritB he was not guilty any more than the women
themselves would have been if they voluntarily and willingly had surrendered their bodies or
organi*ed the entertainment Sexual and social relations with the 3apanese did not directly and
materially tend to improve their war efforts or to wea'en the power of the United State
Ruling0 #ere* is guilty of four counts of rape and sentenced for each of them to an indeterminate
penalty of from 10 year of prision mayor to 16 year and ! months of reclusion temporal
People $. Alunan
#eople@s $ourt $riminal $ase ,o 8!;1 7 Heb "6, 19!6 A !8 =( 1"GG
#onente% 9eopoldo 4ovira
E,=+>% The decision was rendered in Spanish Apparently the #eople@s $ourt was the postAwar
court set up to try collaborators with the 3apanese 4afael Alunan served in the puppet 3apanese
government in the #hilippinesF
2ACT!0 4afael 4 Alunan was charged with treason before the #eople@s $ourt for accepting and
discharging official duties in the #hilippine >xecutive $ommission Ethe puppet governmentF Among
these functions were% accepting and serving in the ff positions% Minister of Agriculture and
$ommerceB Member of the >xecutive $ouncilB Member of the #reparatory $ommission on #hilippine
)ndependence which drafted the 19!8 $onstitutionB Minister of Agriculture and ,atural 4esourcesB
participating in a gratitude mission to +o'yoB voting in favor of declaration of war against the Allied
#owersB conferring with the 3apanese emperorB and helping draft and circulate a 09etter of 4esponse1
which promised cooperation with the 3apanese, among others Alunan pleaded not guiltyQ
I!!#30 /C, Alunan is guilty of treason
H3LD0 ,o Motion to dismiss granted
RATIO0
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests G
Although the witnesses have been able to prove Alunan@s participation in the puppet government, his
acts were duties of a public position held under abnormal circumstances Such acts cannot be
considered as giving aid or comfort to the enemy Mere acceptance of public office and performance
of the duties of such offices under the 3apanese puppet government do not constitute treason per se
(ranting arguendo that Alunan@s acts did constitute giving aid or comfort to the enemy, he cannot be
punished because his adherence to the enemy cause was not proven
Diaz, J. concurring% E) put this in LAS) >+= 9A,( 2U,( >,(9)S< RRF
8 elements of treason% 1F allegiance of the accusedB "F treasonable adherence to the enemy 8F
commission by the accused of an overt act giving =4 at least tending aid and comfort to the enemy
+he testimonies of the prosecution witnesses ESychangco, Hormoso, Silayan, and 3avaleraF do not
establish intent on Alunan@s part to adhere to the enemy +hey only establish certain overt acts
committed by Alunan Hor treasonous intent to be inferred from overt acts, there must be absolutely
nothing in the proof of such overt acts which may negate the element of adherence +he same
records which showed that Alunan indeed served in the puppet government also showed that Alunan
was serving only out of necessity, and was more sympathetic to the Allied cause
E#=S+S$4)#+% Almost none of the other highAran'ing officials of the 3apanese puppet govt were
convictedF
People $ A%a
TH3 P3OPL3 O2 TH3 PHILIPPI'3!
vs
2RA'CI!CO 4. A<AD (alias PA=#ITO"
(4 ,o 9A!80
3uly 80, 19!6
#>4H>$+=, J.
2ACT!0
Accused Hrancisco Abad was found guilty of the complex crime of treason with homicide and
sentenced to death, to pay a fine of #1-,000, to indemnify the heirs of =sias Salvador in the amount
of #",000, and to pay costs
1 :ecember "!, 19!8% as an informer and spy of the 3apanese Army, .oin participate in a raid
conducted by about fifteen 3apanese soldiers of the Military #olice at the house of Magno )barra,
apprehended the said Magno )barra, charging him of possession of a revolver which had been
previously surrendered by Magno )barra to the 3apanese that Magno )barra still had the revolver
" March 11, 19!!, caused the arrest and incarceration for more than two months, of one Mr
Hrancisco, for having remar'ed that the Americans would soon return many places in the #hilippines
had already been reta'en
8 September "G, 19!!% forced, coerced, and compelled =sias Salvador and his two brothers to go to
the 3apanese garrison where in accused@s presence, were tortured as guerrilla suspects, and although
>pifanio and 9iberto Salvador managed later to escape from imprisonment, the said =sias Salvador
was unable to do so and died
! ,ovember 1", 1G!!% handed over one Hrancisco :onato to the 3apanese soldiers who slapped and
'ic'ed the said :onato, for an incident in which the accused was entirely to blame in that the said
accused annoyed Hlora >steban, wife of Hrancisco :onato, by throwing sugar cane butts at her
+he lower court found the accused guilty on the first three counts
I!!#3!0
N /hether or not the accused is guilty of the first count :efense maintains that only one witness
testified to the overt act alleged therein
o H3LD0 ,ot guilty
o RATIO0 +wo witnesses were called by the prosecution to prove the first count, Magno )barra and
his wife, )sabel AppellantKs going to the )barra house, in search of the revolver Etestimony of )sabelF,
is a single overt act, distinct and independent from appellantKs overt act in reDuiring Magno )barra,
when the latter went to the garrison, to produce his revolver Etestimony of MagnoF Although both
overt acts are interArelated it would be too much to strain the imagination if they should be identified
as a single act or even as different manifestations, phases, or stage of the same overt act
N /hether or not the arrest and incarceration of Hrancisco was caused by accused :efense
maintains that there could be other spies who heard Hrancisco@s remar's
o H3LD0 (uilty
o RATIO0 +he fact that appellant caused the arrest of Hrancisco at the auditorium night dance, by
pointing him as the man sought for to the 3apanese soldiers who accompanied him and his brother
Mariano, in itself alone is sufficient to find him guilty of adherence to the 3apanese enemies and of
giving them aid in the attainment of their was purposes
N /hether or not the accused caused the arrest of Salvador brothers :efense maintains that it
was improbable for 9iberato Salvador to have seen the accused ma'ing signs to 3aps to arrest the
Salvador brothers
o H3LD0 (uilty
o RATIO0 )t is satisfactorily explained by 9iberato that &because a man wanted to by the
3apanese begins to observe everything,& he had to observe &because ) 'new they were ma'ing signs&
N )n relation to the above, whether or not accused is responsible for the death of =sias Salvador
o H3LD0 ,ot responsible
o RATIO0 )t was the escape of >pifanio, and later the escape of 9iberato, which must have enraged
the 3apanese to the extent of 'illing =sias Salvador, who, were not so wea', had the same chance as
his brothers to escape )f his brothers did not escape, there is no ground to presume that =sias would
have been 'illed by the 3apanese if we ta'e into consideration that, after almost two and a half
months of confinement, the 3apanese allowed Hausto Hrancisco to be released +here is absolutely no
evidence that appellant was present or had anything to do with the 'illing of =sias Salvador
N /hether or not the court erred in admitting evidence of supposed treasonable acts not
specifically alleged in the information Ereferring to the gathering of info on the whereabouts of
guerrilla army members and the shooting of :omingoF
o H3LD0 2es, the court erred ,ot guilty
o RATIO0 +he fact that accused is described therein as an informer is not enough, because the
description is a conclusion made by the author of the information based on the facts specifically
alleged in the four counts Also, the lower court erred in finding the facts proven when the testimony
of has not been corroborated by any other witness, thus violating the twoAwitness rule in treason
cases
N /hether or not the trial court erred in finding accused as informer based on mere assertions of
witnesses on charges not alleged in the information
o H3LD0 2es, the trial court erred ,ot guilty
o +he pronouncement appears to be based on the testimonies of #ublio :umaual, 4afael (uillermo,
and Agustin de la $ru*, each one of whom testified about facts not alleged in any of the counts of the
information, and their testimonies on said facts appear not to be corroborated by another witness, as
reDuired by the twoAwitness rule
N /hether or not the court erred in not appreciating " mitigating circumstances% the fact that the
Abad family was persecuted by guerrillas, the persecution ending in the 'illing of 9ino Abad #ine and
Antonio Abad, father and brother, respectively, of the accused, and, appellantKs age
o H3LD0 Hirst circumstance not appreciated Age is appreciated
o RATIO0 +he 'illing of the father and brother of accused is not considered to mitigate appellantKs
guilt as they are not of a similar nature or analogous to those mentioned in article 18 of the 4evised
#enal $odeAppellantKs age can be considered <e was born on =ctober "0, 19"!, and when he
committed the acts alleged in counts two and three, the latter on September "G, 19!!, he was not
yet "0 years old +he circumstances of this case .ustify crediting appellant with a mitigating
circumstance of similar nature to that of number " of article 18 of the 4evised #enal $ode
:ecision of the lower court modified E1 mitigatingF Sentenced to 1! years, G months, and 1 day of
reclusion temporal and to pay a fine of #-,000 and the costs
People $ 2austino 2lores,
#eople v 9eon (utierre*, #eople v Helipe 4eyes E19-0F
G- #hil !08
3an 81 19-0
2acts0
N Haustino Hlores, 9eon (utierre*, Helipe 4eyes% charged with several counts of treason E"," and
-, respectivelyF $ase concerns the second count, as they are acDuitted of their other counts due to
lac' of proof
N :ec 1 19!!, ?arrio +ipas, +aguig, 4i*al% Accused lead 3apanese troops into a 0*onification1
Erounding up the men suspected of being guerillas into an area, having makapilis point guerillas out,
and torture or abduct themF, arrest "6; men in the process, search houses in the area for supplies to
gicve to the 3apanese troops, load the ";6 men into truc's which drove them to #asig, from which
they were never heard of again
N #eople@s $ourt finds the three guilty of treason
Issue0
N /hether or not the accused are guilty of the second account of treason
N /hether or not the 0Soning1 of +ipas constitutes one act of treason for the purposes of the rule
that there should be testimonies from at least two witnesses
Hel/Ratio0
N ,o /itnesses@ testimonies for each of the accused fail to disclose that they refer to the same
act, therefore these are uncorroborated +his is a violation of the twoAwitness rule
N ,o >ach of the acts of the accused must be supported by at least two witnesses, or each
witness must testify to the whole act, in order for the rule to be complied with
People $. 2ilemon 3scleto
79 P6il .-., &.R. 'o. L(.//+
1une -7, .)9)
Tuason, 1.
DOCTRI'30 0,o person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of " witnesses at least
to the same overt act or on confession of the accused in open court1 +he "Awitness rule is severely
restrictive >ach of the witnesses must testify to the whole overt act
2ACT!0
+his is an appeal from a .udgement of the #eople@s $ourt
March 11 19!!% 3apanese patrol with 16 men and 1 officer were ambushed and liDuidated by
guerillas in ?ibito, 9ope*, +ayabas Enow Oue*onF
4esidents of ?ibito and neighboring barrios were arrested and others were ordered to report at
the poblacion which included Antonio $onducto, a guerilla and former USAHH>, his wife, parents
and relatives
/itnesses%
Sinforosa Mortero EAntonio@s motherF% =n March 1G, 19!!, at about -#M, she and her family went
to the poblacion from barrio :anlagan Still in :anlagan, in front of Hilemon >scleto@s house,
>scleto told them to stop and too' down their names /ith her were her daughterAinAlaw, #atricia
Araya, her son Antonio $onductor, and three grandchildren After writing their names, >scleto
conducted them to the #$ garrison in the poblacion where they were Duestioned by some whose
name she did not 'now +his man as'ed her if she heard gunshots and she said yes but did not
'now where they were +he next day they were allowed to go home with many others, but Antonio
$onducto was not released Since then she had not seen her son =n crossAexamination she said
that when >scleto too' down their names Antonio $onducto as'ed the accused if anything would
happen to him and his family, and >scleto answered, 0,othing will happen to you because ) am to
accompany you in going to town1
#atricia Araya EAntonio@s wifeF% Hilemon >scleto stopped them and too' down their namesB that
after ta'ing their names >scleto and the #hilippine $onstabulary soldier too' them to the #$
garrisonB that her husband as'ed >scleto what would happen to him and his family, and >scleto
said 0nothing1 and assured $onducto that he and his family would soon be allowed to go homeB
that >scleto presented them to a #$ and she heard him tell the latter, 0+his is Antonio $onducto
who has firearmB1 that afterward they were sent upstairs and she did not 'now what happened to
her husband
Hilemon >scleto was charged in the #eople@s $ourt with 8 counts of treason for%
o going out with 3apanese military in patrols in search of guerrillas and guerrilla hideouts, and
of persons aiding or in sympathy with the resistance movements in the #hilippinesB bearing
arms against the American men and guerrilla forces and mounting guard and performing
guard duty for the )mperial 3apanese Horces in their garrison in 9ope*, +ayabas Enow
Oue*onF
o going out in patrols in search of guerillas
o treasonably arrested or caused arrest of Antonio $onducto as a guerilla and turned him
over to the 3apanese authorities on Mar 1G, 19!! who has not been seen since then
+he #eople@s $ourt dismissed the first " counts because no true overt act was established and
there was no " witnesses to corroborate <owever, the 8rd count was deemed fully substantiated
I!!#3!0
1F /hether Hilemon >scleto is guilty of treason
"F /hether >scleto@s ma'ing note of persons who went to the poblacion is evidence of an overt act of
treason
8F /hether #atricia Araya@s testimony is availing as proof of an overt act of treason
H3LD0
1F ,= <e is acDuitted of the crime of treason
"F ,= +he only point of agreement between the " witnesses@ testimonies is that the accused too'
down the names of $onducto and of the witnesses and came along with them to the town +his does
not show betrayal of $onducto because he may be merely doing his duties as lieutenant of the barrio
Also, it is not necessary to write down $onducto@s name because >scleto can merely report him
secretly +hat there were spies with mas's during the registration and that others were released
further support the theory that >scleto was merely following orders in ordering them to write their
names
8F ,= +he only damaging evidence is Araya@s testimony that the accused told a #hilippine
$onstabulary Soldier that the deceased has a firearm <owever, the testimony was not shown to have
been made for a treasonable purpose nor did it necessarily have that implication )n addition, this was
not corroborated by another witness
T#eople vs Adriano % +he authors of the twoAwitness provision in the American $onstitution, from
which the #hilippine treason law was ta'en, purposely made it >se$erel: restricti$e? and
conviction for treason difficult
T/igmore% >ach of the witnesses must testify to the whole overt actB or if it is separable, there must
be two witnesses to each part of the overt act
T9earned <and% )t is necessary to produce two irect witnesses to the whole overt act )t may be
possible to piece bits together of the same overt actB but, if so, each bit must have the support of two
oat6sB
T$ramer% +he very minimum function that an overt act must perform in a treason prosecution is that
it s6ow sufficient action by the accused, in its setting, to sustain a finding that the accuse
actuall: ga$e ai an comfort to t6e enem: >very action, movement, deed, and word of the
defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses
Conspirac: to commit Treason
#! $. 2rancisco <autista
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1"
; #hil -G1
(4 ,o 9A"1G9, ,ovember 8, 190;
#onente% 3ustice $arson
2acts0
Appellants convicted in $H) Manila of conspiracy to overthrow by force US government and #<
government as defined in Act"9" Hrancisco ?autista was sentenced with Aniceto de (u*man and
+omas #u*on to imprisonment with fine and hard labor :uring latter 1908 a junta was organi*ed and
a conspiracy entered into by Hilipino residents in <L for overthrowing the government by force of
arms and establishing in its stead a government 'nown as Republica Universal Democratica Filipina
+oward the end of 1908, Artemio 4icarte would come to Manila from <ong Long and hold meetings to
further the conspiracy hatched in <L, li'e for the plan to enlist a revolution army and raising money
for it +he conspirators too' to the field and offered armed resistance, only failing because of their
failure to combat and of the failure of the people to rise en masse in response to their propaganda
?autista, a Manila resident, was an intimate friend of 4icarte, notified by 4icarte of his coming to
Manila, ?autista giving him money for the trip, present in meetings, 0held the people in readiness1
#u*on distributed the bonds and appointed certain officials for the revolutionary forces #u*on said he
only acted to not vex his friend, that 0.o'ing tone,1 that he did not 'now 4icarte was organi*ing a
conspiracy
Issue0
/hether or not appellants are guilty
Hel0
,o #u*on himself signed a written statement at the time he was arrested saying he was part of the
new revolution presided over by 4icarte, that he was brigadierAgeneral, chief of signal corps since
they were childhood friends #u*on did not deny this statement <is confession was clear and in no
way supports his pretense that he was excited as not to 'now what he was saying when he made it
+he accused voluntarily accepted the appointment and in doing so assumed all obligations implied by
such acceptance 0Mere possession of such an appointment, when it is not shown that the possessor
executed some external act by the virtue of the same, does not constitute sufficient proof of the guilt
of the defendant,& applies only the case of >nriDue $amonas, against whom the only evidence of
record was Uthe fact that a soAcalled appointment of sergeant was found at his house@1 )t may be the
case that conspirators may send appoints to an unsuspecting person in the hope that such person
would accept it, and the person is entirely innocent of all intention to .oin A genuine conspiracy must
be shown to exist, and it must be proven that accused voluntarily accepted the appointment +he
twoAwitness rule cannot apply in proving conspiracy to commit treason, only in treason Aniceto de
(u*man cannot be convicted on his acceptance of a number of bonds from conspirators )t does not
mean he 'new about the conspiracy, receiving the wrapped bonds not 'nowing what they were, then
destroying them thereafter
#nite !tates 5s. Apolonio Ca%alleros
Mapa, 3B March "9, 190-
(4 ,o 18-"
2ACT!0
P 4oberto ?aculi was in his banana plantation gathering bananas when he heard some shots fired <e
tried to run, but was seen by :amaso and )sidro, leaders of the band who fired the shots and stri'ing
him with the butts of their guns, forced him to bury the victims% four American school teachers shot to
death
P Apolonio $aballeros and ?aculi was then arrested for the crime
P +he two confessed their guilt and was sentenced to seven years of presidio mayor as accessories
Issues0
P /hether or not the penalty was correct
Hel0
P No. Decision reversed and defendants acquitted.
Ratio0
P ?aculi is exempt from liability for he acted under the compulsion of an irresistible force
since he was under threat by the band
P As for $aballeros, ther was no proof of his participation in any way to the crime charged
/itnesses confirm that he was not even in the place where the burial too' place
$ovarrubias, a witness, said that his confession of guilt was made through a promise that
0nothing will be done to them1 Under such circumstance, the confession cannot be accepted
as proof on trial, for it was not made freely and voluntarily
P +heir failure to report the crime to the authorities is not a crime punishable by the 4#$
3spionage
!antos $s. 4isa
&.R. 'o. L(;.), 4arc6 -7, .)9+
6; #hil !1-
Ponente0 <engzon@, 1.
2acts0
Santos is a $hinese citi*en apprehended in Hebruary, 19!-, by the $ounter )ntelligence $orps of
the United States Army, turned over last September, to the $ommonwealth (overnment, and
since then detained by the respondent as a political prisoner <e was detained due to active
collaboration with the 3apanese
Santos claims that the detention is illegal because he has not been charged before, nor convicted
by, the .udge of a competent court, and because he may not be confined under Act ,o ;G"
because he does not owe allegiance to the US or the $ommonwealth of the #hilippines
+he SolicitorA(eneral declared that Santos may be charged for espionage, a crime against national
security wherein allegiance is immaterial, and may, therefore, be held in custody under
$ommonwealth Act ,o ;G"
Issue0 /hether or not Santos is covered by $ommonwealth Act ,o ;G" E/ith regard to detention of
political prisonersF
Hel0 2es
Ratio0
Section 19, $ommonwealth Act ,o ;G"%
Upon delivery the $ommanderAinA$hief of the Armed Horces of the United States in the #hilippines of
the persons detained by him as political prisoners, to the $ommonwealth (overnment, the =ffice of
Special #rosecutors shall receive all records, documents, exhibits and such other things as the
(overnment of the United States may have turned over in connection with andCor affecting said
political prisoners, examine the aforesaid records, documents, exhibits, etc, and ta'e, as speedily as
possible, such action as may be proper% Provided, however, And, provided, urther, +hat, in the
interest of public security, the provisions of article one hundred twentyAfive of the 4evised #enal
$ode, as amended, shall be deemed, as they are hereby suspended, insofar as the aforesaid political
prisoners are concerned, until the filing of the corresponding information with the #eopleKs $ourt, but
the period of suspension shall not be than six E;F months from the formal delivery of said political
prisoners by the $ommanderAinA$hief of the Armed Horces of the United States in the #hilippines to
the $ommonwealth (overnment
Santos may be prosecuted for espionage, a crime not conditioned by the citi*enship of the offender
and considered as an offense against national security
Ruling0 #etition denied
Pirac:
People $. Lol(lo an !araw
(45169-G 7 Heb "6, 19""
#onente% Malcolm, J.
2ACT!0 :ays after leaving Matuta, :utch >ast )ndies Enow )ndonesiaF on 3un 80, 19"0, two boats
carrying 1" :utch nationals E1 person in one boat, 11 men, women and children in anotherF were
boarded by "! armed Moros Eincluding the accused 9olAlo and SarawF at around 6%00 #M +he Moros
too' all the cargo from the :utch +hey also raped and abducted the two women on board +he Moros
po'ed holes in the boat and left the rest of the :utch in it Ethey were later rescuedF +he two women
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1!
were able to escape once the Moros doc'ed in the island of Maruro Ealso a :utch possessionF 9olAlo
and Saraw were arrested after returning to their home in South Ubian, +awiAtawi +hey were char!ed
w" Piracy beore the #ulu $F% and were ound !uilty, with punishment of life imprisonmentB and to
return the stolen 89 sac's of copra plus 9"! rupees in damages, plus costs
I!!#3!0 1F /C, the Sulu $H) has .urisdiction over the crime "F /C, the defendants are guilty
H3LD0 1F 2es "F 2es
RATIO0
1F #iracy is a crime against all man'ind +he .urisdiction of piracy has no territorial limits, pirates
being hostes humani !eneris Eenemies of man'indF #iracy may be prosecuted in any court where the
offender may be found or into which he may be carried
"F +he provisions of the Spanish #enal $ode on piracy EArts 1-8A1-!F remained in force after the
American ta'eover, by virtue of #res McLinley@s )nstructions Art 1-! specified that piracy with rape
shall be punished by cadena perpetua to death 9olAlo, who was proven to have ta'en part in the rape
of the two women, should therefore be put to death A the crime being aggravated by cruelty,
ignominy, and abuse of superior strength Erape of the women, abandonment of the other victims, "!
armed men vs 1" men, women V childrenF with the mitigating circumstance of lac' of instruction
D3CI!IO'0 3udgment affirmed with respect to Saraw, modified with respect to 9olAlo
People $ !i:o6
(4 ,o 9A-6"9"
Hebruary 1G, 19G;
T6e People Of T6e P6ilippines
$s.
1ulaie !i:o6, Omar(Aa:am Airam, 'amli Inanan B Anaw 1ama6ali,
A?A: SA,+=S, J.&
2ACT!0
Siyoh, Liram, )ndanan and 3amahali were accused of Dualified piracy with triple murder and frustrated
murder =n 3uly 1!, 1969, accused fired their guns into the air and stopped the pumpboat wherein de
$astro, <iloen and " de (u*mans were riding, boarded the said pumpboat and too', stole and carried
away all their cash money, wrist watches, stereo sets, merchandise and other personal belongings
amounting to the total amount of # 1G,8!"00, #hilippine $urrency, ordered them to .ump into the
water, whereupon, the said accused, fired their guns at them which caused the death of de $astro
and one de (u*man while wounding the other de (u*man )t appears that Siyoh and Liram were with
the victims, also selling their goods, before the incident happened
9ower court decision% Sentenced to :>A+< <owever, considering the provision of Section 10; of the
$ode of Mindanao and Sulu, the illiteracy or ignorance or extreme poverty of the accused who are
members of the cultural minorities, under a regime of so called compassionate society, a
commutation to life imprisonment is recommended
I!!#30
/hether or not Siyoh and Liram are guilty beyond reasonable doubt, considering the credibility of the
witness
H3LD0
2es, they are guilty ?4:
RATIO0
Appellants contentions are unconvincing%
1 +hat if they were the culprits they could have easily robbed their victims at the Liram house or on
any of the occasions when they were travelling together Suffice it to say that robbing the victims at
LiramKs house would ma'e Liram and his family immediately suspect and robbing the victims before
they had sold all their goods would be premature <owever, ro%%ing an Cilling t6e $ictims w6ile
at sea an after t6e: 6a sol all t6eir goos was %ot6 timel: an pro$ie safet: from
pr:ing e:es
" +hat the accused immediately reported the incident to the #$ +he record does not support this
assertion
8 +hat the affidavits of :olores de (u*man, wife of the deceased Anastacio de (u*man, and
#rimitiva de $astro, wife of the deceased 4odolfo de $astro, state that Antonio de (u*man informed
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1-
them shortly after the incident that their husbands were 'illed by the companions of Siyoh and Liram
+he thrust of the appellantsK claim, therefore, is that ,amli )ndanan and Andaw 3amahali were the
'illers and not the former ?ut this claim is baseless in the face of the pro$en conspirac: among the
accused
! +hat there is no evidence Anastacio de (u*man was 'illed together with 4odolfo de $astro and
:anilo <iolen because his remains were never recovered +here is no reason to suppose that
Anastacio de (u*man is still alive or that he died in a manner different from his companions +he
incident too' place on 3uly 1!, 1969 and when the trial court decided the case on 3une G, 19G1
Anastacio de (u*man was still missing ?ut the number of persons 'illed on the occasion of piracy is
not material #: ,o -8" considers Dualified piracy, ie rape, murder or homicide is committed as a
result or on the occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime punishable by death regardless of the
number of victims
- +hat the death certificates are vague as to the nature of the in.uries sustained by the victimsB were
they hac'ed wounds or gunshot woundsJ +he cause is consistent with the testimony of Antonio de
(u*man that the victims were hac'edB that the appellants were armed with &barongs& while )ndanan
and 3amahali were armed with armalites
:ecision affirmed with the following modifications% EaF for lac' of necessary votes the penalty
imposed shall be reclusion perpetuaB and EbF each of the appellants shall pay in solidum to the heirs
of each of the deceased indemnity in the amount of #80,00000 ,o special pronouncement as to
costs
People $ Ang Aio C6o
9- #hil !6-
3ul "9 19-!
2ACT!0
N Ang Lio $ho% charged with murder of >duardo :iago and murder of #edro #erlas
N :ec 80 19-"% Ang $ho is a passenger in #A9 flight #)A$A8G from 9aoag to Aparri
o Ang $ho shoots purser :iago
o Ang $ho coerces pilot #erlas into changing course for Amoy, in $hina /hen #erlas refuses, Ang
$ho shoots him
N Ang $ho pleads guilty to both cases
o 1" years prision mayor to "0 years reclusion temporal, plus indemnification of :iago@s heirs for the
first case
o 4eclusion perpetua for the second case
N Attorney (eneral contends that the lower court committed errors in each of the two cases%
o Aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation should be offset by plea of guiltyB proper
penalty should be reclusion perpetua
o $rime charged should be the complex crime of grave coercion with murderB proper penalty should
be death
N Supreme $ourt recogni*es the error of the lower court in the first case, but rules that the claim
on the second case is baseless, as the coercion committed was not essential to the act of murder
I!!#30
N /hether or not the appeal made by the Attorney (eneral concerning the first case has merit
H3LD/RATIO0
N ,o #lacing upon the accused the ris' of being given a higher penalty that what is imposed by
the lower court, even if the lower court erroneously gives the wrong penalty, counts as double
.eopardy
N &,o error, however, flagrant, committed by the court against the state, can be reserved by it for
decision by the supreme court when the defendant has once been placed in .eopardy and discharged,
even though the discharge was the result of the error committed1
Illegal Detention
Lino $ 2ugoso
C3CILIO 4. LI'O
vs
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1;
5AL3RIA'O 3. 2#&O!O, LA4<3RTO 1A5AL3RA, an 1OH' DO3, in t6eir capacit: as 4a:or,
C6ief of Police an Officer in c6arge of municipal Dail, all of t6e Cit: of 4anila
&.R. 'o. L(..8) 1anuar: ;/, .)9*
4ORA', C.J.0
4ilo $ !alanga
c/o A-/.8 Crim Digests
4AM=, S M)9=, in his capacity as Assistant #rovincial Hiscal of #angasinan, and A4MA,:= IA9:>S
vs
A,(>9)+= $ SA9A,(A, in his capacity as 3udge of the $ourt of Hirst )nstance of #angasinanE?ranch
)IF, and 3UA, +UI>4A, S4
W(4 ,o9A86006 3uly "0, 19G6X
(A,$A2$=, 3
Doctrine%
Arbitrary detention is commited by a public officer who, without legal grounds, detains a person +he
elements of this crime are% 1F +hat the officer is a #U?9)$ =HH)$>4 or >M#9=2>>, "F +hat he :>+A),S
a person, and 8F +hat detention is without legal grounds
TTTMilo here is the the Assistant #rovincial Hiscal of #angasinan
2acts0
1F 1" =ct 196" 7 )nformation for Arbitrary :etention filed against 3uan +uvera Sr, +omas Mendo*a
and 4odolfo Mangsat in $H) of #angasinan stating%
a "1 April 1968 7 3uan +uvera, Sr Ebarrio captainF et al MA9+4>A+>: Armando Ialde*, hitting
the latter wC butts of guns and fist blows
b +uvera wCo legal grounds and wC members of the police force of Mangsat, #angasinan
conspiring, confedenrating and helping one another (1R<0 I put t6is for goo
measure" 9=:(>: and 9=$L>: Ialde* inside the municipal .ail of Manaoag, #angasinan
for about 11 hours
"F ! April 1968 7 +uvera filed motion to Duash the )nfo bec Acc +o him%
a Hacts do not constitute an offense Eie, barrio captain YCY public officialF
b #roofs adduced at the investigation are not sufficient to support the filing of the information
c +UI>4A@s A4(UM>,+S%
i <e didn@t have authority to ma'e an arrest nor .ail and detain Ialde* Ebec ?arrio
capt =nlyF
ii <e is neither a peace officer or policeman
iii <e was not a public official
iv <e had nothing to do with the detention of Ialde* Ecops did itF
v <e is not directly or indirectly connected in the admin =f the Manaoag #olice Horce
vi ?arrio capts on "1 April 196" were not yet 0#ersons in Authority1 and it was only
through #: "99 that they became such
vii #roper charge was )99>(A9 detention, and not A4?)+4A42 :>+>,+)=,
d Asst #rovincial Hiscal Milo filed an opposition to the motion
8F "- April 1968 7 3udge Salanga granted the motion to DuashB found that +uvera, Sr was ,=+ a
Public 'icer who can be charged with Arbitrary :etention Esee Ouic'(uide for reDuisites of Arbit
:etF
I!!#3!0
.." E6et6er Tu$era, !r. committe t6e crime of Ar%itrar: Detention against Armano
5alez (<: go, F3!G"
R#LI'&0 #etition for $ertiorari granted +he Duestioned order Egranting motion to DuashF is set
aside $AS> 4>MA,:>: to appropriate trial court for further proceedings
RATIO0
1F 4eDuisites of Arbitrary :etention are present
a +he )nformation charges +uvera Ebarrio captF to having conspired with $orporal Mendo*a and #at
Magsat who are members of the police force of Manaoag #angasinan in detaining peti Ialde* for
about 11 hrs in municipal .ail wCo legal ground
b 4eDuirement of a 0#ublic =fficer1 contemplated in Arbitrary :etention%
i Must have authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of ac rime
ii #ublic =fficers Y policemen, other agents of the law E.udges, mayorsF
c $ourt has held barrio lieutenants Eie, barrio captainsCbrgy captainsF as #>4S=,S in AU+<=4)+2
i U# v (ra!an)a A ?arrio 9ieutenant and a Municip $ouncilor arrested a priest in churchB no
crime committed by the priestB the " were convicted of arbitrary detention
ii U# v *ellada 7 a ?arrio 9ieutenant wC a Mr Soliman, tied his houseboy Sixto and delivered
him to a .ustice of the peace, where he was detained during the whole night until 9 am the
next day 3ustice of the peace released Sixto bec <e had not committed a crime ?arrio
9ieutenant (ellada was convicted of arbitrary detention
d 4A ,o 8-90 E4evised ?arrio $harterF
i #owers and duties of a barrio captain include loo'ing after maintenance of pu%lic orer in
the barrio and assist municipal mayor and councilor in the performance of duties in such
barrio, to loo' after gen welfare, enforce all laws and ordinances wCin barrio, organi*eClead
an emergency group when necessary to maintain peace and order
e. Prof. AruegoHs Treatise on <arrio &o$Ht Law an Aministration (53RF I4PORTA'T I
T6is part !3AL! t6e eal"
i 0Upon barrio capt :epends in the main the maintenance of public order in the barrioQ<e
is the peace officer in the barrio considered under the law as a person in authority As such
HE !" !#E !$$EST !ND DET!%N &E$S'NS ()%N *E+!* *%%TS.
ii 3R&O, one need not be a police officer to be chargeable wC Arbitrary :etention
iii #owers and Hunctions of Mayors S)M)9A4 to those of brgy captB only difference is in si*e of
.urisdiction
i$. T#53RA !T#PID AD4I!!IO'0
1 /C aid of his rural police, he as barrio capt $ould have led arrest of peti Ialde*
,'N-S &!$T .ainl/ &rocedural0
=n Motion to Ouash%
1F +uvera asserted Motion to Ouash was IA9): as he only sought the aid and assistance of the
Manaoag #olice Horce and that he only accompanied Ialde* to town for the latter@s personal
safety
a S$% 0Save it for your defense in trial, +uveraZ1
i +hese additional facts mentioned by +uvera are contrary to the )nformation filed or do
not appear on its face, and so cannot be heard on hearing for a motion to Duash
'OT3! 2RO4 TH3 CA!3 IT!3L20
1F +here is no criminal delay in the delivery of the accused to the court, where the two days following
his arrest were holidays Eedina vs. 'rosco0
"F A pu%lic officer or emplo:ee w6o D3TAI'! a person w/o L3&AL &RO#'D! is guilt: of
AR<ITRARF D3T3'TIO'.
HOE353R, a person so detained /)99 ,=+ ?> 4>9>AS>: if afterwards he is detained under a valid
information
People $ <ringas
Detention v #idnapping for $ansom
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S
vs
$<4)S+=#<>4 ?4),(AS y (A4$)A, ?42A, ?4),(AS y (A4$)A, 3=<, 4=?>4+ ,AIA44= y $4US,
>4)$LS=, #A3A4)99= y ?AS>4 EdeceasedF, and >:>, S2 $<U,(
W(4 ,o 1G9098 April "8, "010X
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1G
I>9AS$=, 34
#! $ Ca%anag
Detention v Slaver/
+<> U,)+>: S+A+>S
vs
+=MAS $A?A,A(
W(4 ,o9A8"!1 March 1;, 1906X
+4A$>2, 3
#! $ 5alleDo
+<> U,)+>: S+A+>S
vs
SA9IA:=4 IA99>3=, >+ A9,
W(4 ,o !8;6 September 8, 190GX
+4A$>2, 3
Crimes Against Pu%lic Orer Digests
(c/o Anit. <ernaro. CalleDa. Cantos. Damasing. Dela Cruz. Hipolito. Regalao. !antos"
Re%ellion
People $ Hernanez
+<> #>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S
vs
AMA:= I <>4,A,:>S, >+ A9,
99 #hil -1-
2acts0
+his refers to the petition for bail filed by defendant appellant Amado <ernande* on 3une ";, 19-!,
and renewed on :ecember "", 19-- +he prosecution maintains that <ernande* is charged with, and
has been convicted of, rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robberies, for which the capital
punishment, it is claimed, may be imposed, although the lower court sentenced him merely to life
imprisonment =n the other hand, the defense contends, among other things, that rebellion can not
be complexed with murder, arson, or robbery
+he amended )nformation contained the allegation that on or about March 1-, 19!-, and for some
time before the said date and continuously thereafter until the present time, in the $ity of Manila,
#hilippines, the said accused, conspiring, confederating, and cooperating with each other, as well as
with the 81 other defendants, being then officers andCor members of, or otherwise associated with
the $ongress of 9abor =rgani*ations E$9=F, formerly 'nown as the $ommittee on 9abor =rgani*ation
E$9=F, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously help, support, promote, maintain, cause,
direct andCor command the K<u'bong Mapagpalaya ng ?ayanK E<M?F or the <u'balahaps E0<u's1F to
rise publicly and ta'e arms against the 4epublic of the #hilippines, or otherwise participate in such
armed public uprising, for the purpose of removing the territory of the #hilippines from the allegiance
to the government and laws thereof, as in fact the said <u's have risen publicly and ta'en arms to
attain the said purpose by then and there ma'ing armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attac's against
police, constabulary and army detachments as well as innocent civilians, and as a necessary means
to commit the crime of rebellion, in connection therewith and in furtherance thereof, have then and
there committed acts of murder, pillage, looting, plunder, arson, and planned destruction of private
and public property to create and spread chaos, disorder, terror, and fear so as to facilitate the
accomplishment of the aforesaid purpose
Issue0 $an 4ebellion be made into a complex crimeJ
Hel0 ,o, it cannot
/herefore, the aforementioned motion for bail of defendantAappellant Amado I <ernande* is hereby
granted and, upon the filing of a bond, with sufficient sureties, in the sum of #80,000, and its
approval by the court, let said defendantAappellant be provisionally released )t is so ordered
Ratio0
Article !G of the 4evised #enal $ode provides that% &/hen a single act constitutes two or more grave
or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period&
#ursuant to Article 18- of the 4evised #enal $ode &any person, merely participating or executing the
commands of others in a rebellion shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period&
+he penalty is increased to prision mayor and a fine not to exceed #"0,000 for &any person who
promotes, maintains or heads a rebellion or insurrection or who, while holding any public office or
employment, ta'es part therein&%
1 &engaging in war against the forces of the government&,
" &destroying property&, or
8 &committing serious violence&,
! &exacting contributions or&
- &diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been appropriated&
/hether performed singly or collectively, these five E-F classes of acts constitute only one offense,
and no more, and are, altogether, sub.ect to only one penalty [ prision mayor and a fine not to
exceed #"0,000
=ne of the means by which rebellion may be committed, in the words of said Article 18-, is by
&engaging in war against the forces of the government& and &committing serious violence& in the
prosecution of said &war& +hese expressions imply everything that war connotes, namelyB resort to
arms, reDuisition of property and services, collection of taxes and contributions, restraint of liberty,
damage to property, physical in.uries and loss of life, and the hunger, illness and unhappiness that
war leaves in its wa'e [ except that, very often, it is worse than war in the international sense, for it
involves internal struggle, a fight between brothers, with a bitterness and passion or ruthlessness
seldom found in a contest between strangers ?eing within the purview of &engaging in war& and
&committing serious violence&, said resort to arms, with the resulting impairment or destruction of life
and property, constitutes not two or more offense, but only one crime [ that of rebellion plain and
simple )nasmuch as the acts specified in said Article 18- constitute, one single crime, it follows
necessarily that said acts offer no occasion for the application of Article !G, which reDuires therefor
the commission of, at least, two crimes
#olitical crimes are those directly aimed against the political order, as well as such common crimes as
may be committed to achieve a political purpose +he decisive factor is the intent or motive )f a
crime usually regarded as common li'e homicide, is perpetrated for the purpose of removing from the
allegiance &to the (overnment the territory of the #hilippines )slands or any part thereof,& then said
offense becomes stripped of its &common& complexion, inasmuch as, being part and parcel of the
crime of rebellion, the former acDuires the political character of the latter
+here is one other reason [ and a fundamental one at that [ why Article !G of our #enal $ode
cannot be applied in the case at bar% )f murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes
were punished separately Eassuming that this could be doneF, the following penalties would be
imposable upon the movant, namely% E1F for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding #"0,000 and
prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances present,
but never exceeding 1" years of prision mayorB and E"F for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present )n other words,
in theabsence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "0
<owever, under Article !G, said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a
singlea ggravating circumstance +hus, said provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of
the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant Upon the other hand, said Article !G was
enacted for the purpose of favoring the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than
that which would be proper if the several acts performed by him were punished separately
People $s &eronimo
100 #hil 90
&.R. 'o. L(7);+
Octo%er -;, .)8+
2acts0
)n an information filed on 3une "!, 19-! by the provincial Hiscal in the $ourt of Hirst )nstance of
$amarines Sur, Appellant Hederico (eronimo, together with Mariano # ?algos alias ?a'al alias +ony,
alias +ony $ollante alias +aoic, alias Mang #acio, alias ?onny Abundio 4omagosa alias :avid, 3esus
#olita alias 4ex, 3esus 9ava alias 3essie alias ,M+, alias ?albas, alias ,oli, alias ,oli Metangere, alias
,LI:, 3uan =compo alias $mdr ?undalian, alias +agle, 4osendo Manuel alias $mdr Sendong, alias
4ui*, >rnesto <errero alias $mdr >d, alias 4ene, alias >ddy, Santiago 4otas alias $mdr 3essie,
Hernando #rincipe alias $mdr Manding, Alfredo Saguni alias (odo, alias +erry, alias +erpy, Andres
:iapera alias Maclang, alias ?erto, alias +eny, 9oren*o Saniel alias /enny, Silvestre Sisno alias +omo,
alias Albert, +eodoro #rimavera alias ,estor, 9oren*o 4oxas alias Argos, Iivencio #ineda alias
MarDue*, #edro Anino alias Hernande*, Mauro 9lorera alias 3usto, 4ichard :oe alias $mdr :anny and
3ohn :oe alias $mdr ?erion, alias Mayo, alias $mdr #aulito and many others, were charged with the
complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and 'idnapping committed
)n $amarines Sur, the aboveAnamed accused being then ran'ing officers andCor members of, or
otherwise affiliated with the $ommunist #arty of the #hilippines E$##F and the <u'bong Mapagpalaya
,g ?ayan E<M?F or otherwise 'nown as the <u'balahaps E<ULSF the latter being the armed force of
said $ommunist #arty of the #hilippines E$$#F having come to an agreement and decide to commit
the crime of 4ebellion, and therefore, conspiring together and confederating among themselves with
all of the thirtyAone accused
Issue0
/hether or not accusedAappellants committed the crime of rebellionJ
Hel0
Accused Hederico (eronimo first entered a plea of not guilty to the information /hen the case was
called for trial on =ctober 1", 19-!, however, he as'ed the permission of the court to substitute his
original plea with one of guilty, and was allowed to change his plea =n the basis of the plea of guilty,
the fiscal recommended that the penalty of life imprisonment be imposed upon the accused, his
voluntary plea of guilty being considered as a mitigating circumstance (eronimo@s counsel, on the
other hand, argued that the penalty imposable upon the accused was only prision mayor, for the
reason that in his opinion, there is no such complex crime as rebellion with murders, robberies, and
'idnapping, because the crimes of murders robberies, and 'idnapping being the natural
conseDuences of the crime of rebellion, the crime charged against the accused should be considered
only as simple rebellion =n =ctober 1G, 19-!, the trial court rendered .udgment finding the accused
guilty of the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and 'idnappingsB and giving him the
benefit of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua, to pay a fine of #10,000, to indemnify the heirs of the various persons 'illed, as
listed in the information, in the sum of #;,000 each, and to pay the proportionate costs of the
proceedings Hrom this .udgment, accused Hederico (eronimo appealed, raising the sole Duestion of
whether the crime committed by him is the complex crime of rebellion with murders, robberies, and
'idnappings, or simple rebellion
<owever, the decision appealed from is modified and the accused convicted for the simple EnonA
complexF crime of rebellion under article 18- of the 4evised #enal $ode, and also for the crime of
murderB and considering the mitigating effect of his plea of guilty, the accusedAAppellant Hederico
(eronimo is hereby sentenced to suffer G years of prision mayor and to pay a fine of #10,000,
Ewithout subsidiary imprisonment pursuant to article 8G of the #enal $odeF for the rebellionB and, as
above explained, for the murder, applying the )ndeterminate Sentence 9aw, to not less than 10 years
and 1 day of prision mayor and not more than 1G years of reclusion temporalB to indemnify the heirs
of #olicarpio +ibay in the sum of #;,000B and to pay the costs
P3OPL3 $s. CR#J
; !CRA -.*
&.R. 'o. L(..7*/. Octo%er .+, .)+..
Concepcion, 1.
2ACT!0
A +he said accused, being then ran'ing officers andCor members of, or otherwise affiliated with the
$ommunist #arty of the #hilippines and the K<u'bong Mapagpalaya ng ?ayanK E<ULF, have all come
together and agreed to commit the crime of rebellion Eie rising publicly and ta'ing up arms against
the (overnment of the 4epublic of the #hiippines by ma'ing armed raids, sorties, ambushes, and
attac's against #hil $onstabulary, $ivilian (uards, #olice, Army patrols, as well as civiliansF )n
furtherance thereof, they have committed the acts of murders, pillages lootings, plunders, arsons,
and planned destructions of private and public property to create disorder
A March "0, 19-1B G80 AM% ?enito $ru*, and other <u' members, entered the house of 3ohn <ardie,
with violence and intimidation, then too' and carried away therefrom personal properties of material
values consisting of a typewriter, a radio, several pieces of .ewelry, boo's, clothings and other articles
belonging to the latter amounting to Hive +housand #esos E#-,00000F After ransac'ing the place, the
raiders tied the hands of 3ohn : <ardie and his foreman :onald $apuano and shot them to death,
together with Mrs <ardie 9ate the month, a combat patrol led by $apt $onrado M $abagui of the
1!th ?$+, with the assistance of one +omas +imbresa, as guide, located a <u' camp in the Sierra
Madre Mountains
A March "1, 19-1% Some 60 armed members of H$ 58" of the &<u'bong Mapagpalaya ,g ?ayan& led
by $omdr 4obert, fought the members of $o &:& of the 1!th ?$+, Armed Horces of the #hilippines
under $apt $onrado $abague
A April "1, 19-1% Accused Hermin +olentino, as the $ommanding =fficer of H$ "- of the K<u'bong
Mapagpalaya ,g ?ayanK, leading some 60 armed members of the said organi*ation, attac'ed, fired at
and engaged into a fight the officers and men of a detachment of the Armed Horces of the #hilippines
A ,ovember 1-, 19-"% Accused :omingo dela +orre and about 1" other armed men, all members of
<u', in support of andCor in furtherance of the movement of the said organi*ation to overthrow the
established government of the #hil, while soliciting food from civilians thereat, fought elements of the
6th ?$+, Armed Horces of the #hilippines and the $ivilian $ommando Unit of Montalban, 4i*al
A April -, 19-1% >lements of the AH# had an encounter with -0 <u's under commander Silang at Sitio
Malabayas, Sampaloc, +anay, 4i*al, resulting in the death of one E1F <u', two E"F >M and wounding of
another enlisted man
A :ecember 11, 19-1% >lements of the AH# had an encounter with about fourteen E1!F armed <u's
under $ommander Aladdin at Sitio Laulanog, +anay, 4i*al, resulting in the wounding of one E1F
enlisted man
A April "G, 19!9% An undetermined number of <u's .ointly led by $ommanders Iiernes, Mar*an, 9upo
and Mulong, treacherously ambushed, assaulted, attac'ed and fire upon the party of Mrs Aurora A
Oue*on and her #$ escort, whom they considered as their enemies, resulting in the death of Mrs
Aurora A Oue*on, ?aby Oue*on, Mayor ?ernardo of Oue*on $ity, Ma. # San Agustin, 9t 9asam,
#hilip ?uencamino ))) and several soldiers, and in.uries to (eneral 3alandoni and $apt Manalang
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ""
A August "-, 19-0% An undetermined number of armed <u's raided, assaulted and attac'ed $amp
Ma'abulos and set fire on the buildings and installations therein 'illing Ma. > : =rlino, $apt > :
$ru*, 9ts Manacias, , $ +an, >usebio $abute, and several enlisted men, including 4osario Sotto, a
4ed $ross ,urse
A August ";, 19-0% About 100 armed <u's, with intent of gain and for the purpose of procuring
supplies and other materials for the support and maintenance of the <M? organi*ation, forcibly
brought the cashier of the #rovincial +reasury, Iicente 4eventar, from his house to the #rovincial
$apitol and at the point of guns, forced him to open the treasury, and from which too' money
amounting to #hp G0,000
I!!#30
/hether or not the appellants committed the crime of rebellion
H3LD0
2es As stated in the brief for the (overnment, appellants herein are guilty of simple rebellion,
inasmuch as the information alleges, and the records show that the acts imputed to them were
performed as a means to commit the crime of rebellion and in furtherance thereof, although as <u'
$ommanders, appellants ?enito $ru* and Hermin +olentino fall under the first paragraph of Article
18- of the 4evised #enal $ode, which prescribes the penalty of prision mayor and a fine not
exceeding #"0,000, whereas appellant #aterno $ru* comes under the second paragraph of said
article, which prescribes the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period Accordingly, the penalty
meted out to appellants ?enito $ru* and Hermin +olentino should be reduced to ten E10F years of
prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law, and to pay each a fine of #10,000, and
appellant #aterno $ru* should be sentenced to six E;F years, eight EGF months and one E1F day of
prision mayor, with the accessory penalties prescribed by law
+he decision appealed from is hereby affirmed in all other respects, with the proportionate part of the
costs against said appellants
Carino $ People
2RA'CI!CO R. CARIKO
$s.
P3OPL3 O2 TH3 PHILIPPI'3! an TH3 HO'. CO#RT O2 APP3AL!
April ;/, .)+; 3n <anc La%raor, 1.
DOCTRI'30 )n rebellion or insurrection, the 4#$ expressly declares that there must be a public
uprising and the ta'ing up of arms +he act of giving aid and comfort is not criminal in rebellion unli'e
in treason
2ACT!0
A Accused was charged with rebellion for allegedly being in conspiracy with the other members of the
$ommunist #arty, between the period from May ;, 19!; to September 1", 19-0 for acts committed%
1F +he am%us6 on May ;, 19!; of the 10th M#$ $ompany in ?arrio Sta Monica, Aliaga, ,ueva >ci.aB
resulting in the death of 10 enlisted menB "F +he rai on August ;, 19!; of the Municipal ?uilding of
Ma.ay.ay, 9agunaB 8F +he am%us6 on April 10, 19!6 of 1! enlisted men in ?arrio San Miguel na Munti,
+alavera, ,ueva >ci.a, during which 9t #ablo $ru* and #vt Santiago Mercado were 'illedB !F +he rai
on the poblacion of 9aur, ,ueva >ci.a of May 9, 19!6B -F +he am%us6 on August 19, 19!6 of a
detachment of the 1--th $ompany, in San Miguel, ?ulacan, 'illing two officers thereofB ;F +he rai on
#antabangan, ,ueva >ci.a of 3une 19!;B 6F +he am%us6 on April "-, 19!6 of Mrs Aurora Aragon
Oue*on and party at ?arrio Salubsob, ?ongabon, ,ueva >ci.a, resulting in the death of said Mrs
Oue*on and other members of her partyB GF +he raid on $amp Macabulos, +arlac, +arlac, on August
"-, 19-0B 9F +he rai on Sta $ru*, 9aguna, of August ";, 19-0B 10F +he rai on Arayat, #ampanga,
of August "-, 19-0B 11F +he seizure of September 1", 19-0 of an army scout car in ?arrio Mapalad,
Arayat, #ampanga and the murder of two +#s on the said occasionB 1"F +he attacC on the
headDuarters of a #$ detachment of March "G, 19-0, at Montalban, 4i*alB and 18F +he rai on San
#ablo, 9aguna, of March "9, 19-0, resulting in the death of Ma.or Ali'busan of the government armed
forces
A <e admitted the truthfulness of the said events but denied any participation
A Accused is a good friend and a former high school classmate of :r 9ava, a wellA'nown $ommunist
leader +he latter has treated the family of the accused successfully and free of charge and is the
godfather of one of the children
A 19!;, nighttime% 9ava arrived at their home and as'ed for shelter as he was being pursued by
politicians upon suspicion of his involvement in the 'illing of Mayor 4oxas of ?ulacan <e left early the
morning after
A May 19!9% A note from the 9ava arrived as'ing for some cigarettes, powdered mil' and canned
goods +he note was brought by a boy of 1" or 1- years, named +otoy, and through him the accused
sent the needed supplies <e was instructed to sign &+ur'o& all notes to be sent by him to 9ava and to
address them to &#inang& in order to conceal their respective identities
A 19!9 A April 19-"% +his exchange of notes between them and the furnishing of supplies and
foodstuffs by appellant to :r 9ava lasted until the accused was arrested and detained
A <e also allegedly provided assistance to the $ommunist party as a ran'ing employee of the ,ational
$ity ?an' of ,ew 2or' when he was approached by a prominent member of a special unit of the
$ommunist #arty, and delivered the amount of \;,000 to the treasurer of the communists <e also
assisted two topAlevel communists in opening current accounts in the ,ational $ity ?an' of ,ew 2or'
although their initial deposit was below #",000, the minimum reDuired by the ban' E<owever it was
not shown that the persons helped were 'nown by appellant to be communist and the funds intended
to carry out the rebellionF
A 19!9% A spy, Hlorentino :iolata, heard him state that he was at the command of his comrades for
any assistance for the advancement and promotion of their common purpose at a banDuet given by
the $ommunists in honor of Amado I <ernande*
I'2OR4ATIO'0 $rime of re%ellion wit6 murers, arson, ro%%eries an Cinappings, for
having, as a high ran'ing officer andCor member of the $ommunist #arty of the #hilippines and of the
<u'bong Mapagpalaya ,g ?ayan otherwise 'nown as the <u'balahaps E<u'sF, agreed in conspiracy
with ;. other who were charged with the same crime in other criminal cases then pending in the
$ourt of Hirst )nstance of Manila, for the purpose of overthrowing the (overnment and disrupting its
activities
C2I 4anila0 (uilty as accomplice in t6e crime of re%ellion, and sentencing him to suffer two E"F
years, four E!F months and one E1F day of prision correccional and to pay a fine in the sum of #",000
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
CA0 Affirmed $H) decision and convicted the accused of the crime of rebellion as the acts done by him
constitute acts of cooperation with the communists in their primordial purpose of overthrowing the
government and such acts naturally have contributed to some extent in the advancement and
promotion of their purpose
I!!#30
/hether the acts committed by the petitioner were enough to render him guilty as an accomplice in
the crime of rebellion
H3LD0 ,o
+here are two elements reDuired in order that a person may be considered an accomplice to a
criminal act, namelyB 1F that he ta'e part in the execution of the crime by previous and
simultaneous acts andB "F that he intend by said acts to commit or ta'e part in the execution
of the crime +he acts of the appellant do not prove any criminal intent of helping the <u's in
committing the crime of insurrection or rebellion (ood faith is presumed, and there is no
presumption of criminal intent or aiding the communists in their unlawful designs to overthrow
the (overnment
>ven if he had intent, he is still not liable as his assistance was not efficacious enough to help
in the success of the crime so as to ma'e him an accomplice AppellantKs acts did not
constitute acts of cooperation in the execution of the act of overthrowing the government
Appellant was not a member of the <u'balahap organi*ation <e did not ta'e up arms against
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "!
the (overnment, nor did he openly ta'e part in the commission of the crime of rebellion or
insurrection as defined in article 18! of the 4evised #enal $ode, without which said crime
would not have been committed +he only acts he was shown to have performed were the
sending or furnishing of cigarettes and food supplies to a <u' leader, the changing of dollars
into pesos for a topAlevel communists and the helping of <u's in opening accounts with the
ban' of which he was an official
>ven if considered an indirect help or aid in the rebellion, they cannot constitute previous or
simultaneous acts or uprising or rebellion, for, unli'e in the crime of treason, the acts giving
comfort of moral did is not criminal in the case of rebellion or insurrection, where the 4evised
#enal $ode expressly declares that there must be a public uprising and the ta'ing up of arms
DI!PO!ITIO'0 +he .udgment appealed from is hereby 4>I>4S>: and the appellant A?S=9I>: from
the charge contained in the information
<usca:no $ 4ilitar: Commission
In t6e 4atter of t6e Application for a writ of 6a%eas corpus
<erna%e <usca:no, 1ose 4a. !ison, 1uliet !ison $. 4il. Comm. ., -, +, -8
109 S$4A "68
Original Decision0 Military $ommission A ?uscayno convicted of subversion, death by firing sDuad
!C Decision0 ,o illegal detention ,o bail ,o double .eopardy
?uscayno@s cases
A?uscayno and ?enigno S ADuino, 3r charged before Mil $omm " with subversion
Astaged ,#AAsponsored demonstration in Manila
AADuino gave ?uscayno several !- caliber pistols, two armored vests and wal'ieAtal'ies, and
ammunition
AADuino provided shelter and medical treatment for members of the <M? and ,#A
AADuino, ?uscayno, as conspirators, charged with murder before Mil $omm "
Atoo' $ecilio Sumat, barrio captain, and 'illed him
A?uscayno, with 91 others charged with rebellion before Mil $omm 1
AHeb !, 196" rose publicly and too' up arms against the government in ,avotas, 4i*al by
organi*ing the Laragatan Hishing $orporation to procure firearms
AAug, 1968 A Heb, 196! rebellion in Manila, ?aguio, 9a Union, #angasinan, ?ulacan by
acDuiring vessels, houses, lots to distribute firearms
A?uscayno arrested on Aug ";, 196; in #ampanga
AAt trial and arraignment, he waived his right to be present and to have counsel
A#leaded not guilty
A:id not want to present evidence
A3uly 1G, 1966 A 3uan + :avid entered his appearance as counsel for ?uscayno and filed a
petition for habeas corpus and prohibition
A$ommission found accused guilty and sentenced to death by firing sDuad
AMay !, 19G1 A $ommission reaffirmed original decision
Sison cases
Acharged with rebellion before Special Mil $omm 1
Acharged with subversion before Mil $omm ;
Aalleged that accused became and have remained officers of $## and ,#A
Aengaged in indoctrination, promotion of communist pattern of subversion
4ebellion case
ASison and ?uscayno assailed .urisdiction of the military tribunal to try civilians li'e them
Afiled petition for habeas corpus, prohibition, mandamus denied
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "-
)nstant case
Aprayed that the decision of Mil $omm " be declared void because he was denied his
constitutional right to present evidence and that he be released from detentionB charges for rebellion
and subversion be dismissed for being in contravention of the rule on double .eopardy
Issue0 /C, they are legally detained ,o, not illegally detained and no .ustification for their release
Hel0
#roclamation ,o "0!- sanctions continued confinement% persons under detention for rebellion and
subversion cannot en.oy the privilege of the write of habeas corpus
=n the issue of the AntiASubversion 9aw
$ontention of 3uliet de 9imaASison% criminal liability for subversion extinguished when #: GG-
repealed 4A 1600 S$% ,o
AAntiASubversion 9aw expressly provides% acts committed in violation of the former law shall be
prosecuted and punished in accordance with the provisions of the former act and nothing in the
decree shall prevent prosecution of cases pending for violation of 4A 1600
=n the issue of double .eopardy
Hor an accused to be in .eopardy, reDuired%
1 valid complaint or information filed against him
2 that the charge is filed in a court of competent .urisdiction
3 after pleading to the charge, accused is convicted, acDuitted, case dismissed or terminated
#etitioners were all charged with rebellion =nly ?uscayno@s subversion case was decided but the
decision is sub.ect to review ,o case against petitioners has been terminated thus, the rule on
double .eopardy cannot be invo'ed
=n the issue of rebellion being an element of subversion
Subversion does not necessarily include rebellion Subversion is a crime against national security
4ebellion is a crime against public order
#etitioners were accused of rebellion for having underta'en a public uprising to overthrow the
government As for having been accused of subversion, they were allegedly officers and ran'ing
members of the $ommunist party =vert acts of resisting armed forces were incidental to the main
charge of being leaders of subversive organi*ations
4ebellion may be committed by noncommunists without collaborating with the agents of an alien
power =n the other hand subversion came into existence when the communists sought to dominate
the world in order to establish a new political order
3nrile $ !alazar
In t6e 4atter of Petition for Ha%eas Corpus, 1uan Ponce 3nrile $. RTC =C 1uge 1aime
!alazar
&.R. 'o. )-.+;, 1une 8, .))/
1G; S$4A "1;
#onente% 3ustice ,arvasa

2acts0
)n the afternoon of "C"6C1990, Senate Minority Hloor 9eader 3#>, and spouses #anlilio, was arrested by
law enforcement officers led by :irector Alfredo 9im of the ,?) on the strength of a warrant issued by
respondent .udge earlier that day, for rebellion and multiple murder during the period of the failed
coup attempt from 11C"9 to 1"C10C1990 3#> was ta'en and held overnight at the ,?) headDuarters in
+aft Avenue, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the
warrant +he following morning, he was brought to $amp Laringal in O$ +hat day, 3#>, through
counsel, filed a petitione for habeas corpus, alleging he was deprived of his constitutional rights in
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ";
being held to answer for a criminal offense nonexistent in statute boo's and charged with a crime in
an information for which no complaint was initially filed or no preliminary investigation was conducted
Ethus no due processF, granted +he Solicitor (eneral argued that petitioners@ case does not fall within
the +ernande) ruling because the information in +ernande) charged murders and other common
crimes as a necessary means or the commission o rebellion, whereas the information against Sen
>nrile et al. charged murder and frustrated murder committed on the occasion, but not in
urtherance, o rebellion. +he court granted 3#> and the #anlilio spouses provisional liberty on bail
#etitioners pray for the abandonment of the +ernande) ruling, rule that rebellion cannot absorb more
serious crimes and that +ernande) applies only to offenses committed in furtherance, or as a
necessary means, to commit rebellion, but not to acts committed in the course of a rebellion which
also constitute &common& crimes of grave or less grave character

Issue0
/hether or not rebellion can be complexed with murder

Hel0
,o +ernande) stands Murder is absorbed in rebellion )f murder were punished separately from
rebellion, and the two crimes were separately punished, then " penalties would be imposed, and so
the extreme penalty could not be imposed, which would be unfavorable +he purpose of 4#$!G is to
favor the culprit, not of sentencing him to a penalty more severe than that which would be proper if
the several acts performed by him were punished separately )f one act constitutes two or more
offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of
said offenses put together )n directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case,
imposed in its maximum period, Article !G could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a
penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately /hen two
or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he
commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts )nstead of sentencing him for each crime
independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one,
on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties for each offense
+ernande) remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other
offense committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion Also, since the information does not charge
an offense, and disregarding phrasing that rebellion be complexed, indictment is to be read as
charging only simple rebellion <ence, entitled to bail, before final conviction, as a matter of right
People 5 La$a
"8 S$4A 6"
Saldivar 3B May 1;, 19;9

2ACT!0
P 3ose 9ava, Hederico ?autista, Hederico Maclang, 4amon >spiritu, Salome $ru* y Adriano, 4osario $
Iiuda de Santos, Angel ?a'ing, 9amberto Magboo, ,icanor 4a*on, Sr, >steban (on*ales y la +orre,
Marcos Medina, $esario +orres, 4osenda $anlas 4eyes, Arturo ?a'ing y $alma, Simeon (utierre* y
4odrigue*, 3ulita 4odrigue* y (utierre*, Iictorina 4odrigue* y (utierre*, Marciano de 9eon, <onofre :
Mangila, $enon ?ungay y ?agtas, Magno #ontillera ?ueno, ,icanor $apalad, 4osalina Oui*on, #edro
Iicencio, 3ulia Mesina, Helipe >ngreso, >lpidio AcuMo Adime, 3osefina Adelan y Abuse.o, $onrado
:omingo, Aurora (arcia, and ,aty $ru* were all arrested and charged with the complex crime of
rebellion with murders and arsons under an identical information that%
A =n May ;, 19!;, these people intended to overthrow the seat of the (ov@t of the #hilippine
4epublic in the $ity of Manila
A And the accused, being high officials of the $ommunist #arty of the #hilippines E$##F, of which the
<u'bong Mapagpalaya ng ?ayan E<M?F is its armed forces, decided to commit rebellion and did so by
ma'ing armed raids, sorties and ambushes, attac's against police, constabulary and army
detachments and committing wanton acts of murder, spoilage, looting, arson, planned destruction of
private and public buildings, to create and spread terrorism

P =f the 81, five were acDuitted, namely% 3ulia Mesina, 4osenda $anlas 4eyes, Iictorina 4odrigue* y
(utierre*, ,icanor $apalad and Aurora (arcia
P =f the "; who were convicted, all appealed to this $ourt except defendant >steban (on*ales la
+orre And later on, 4osalina Oui*on, >lpidio AcuMo Adime, 3osefina Adelan Abuse.o, $onrado :omingo
and ,aty $ru* withdrew their appeal
P :uring the pendency of the appeal, defendants 3ulita 4odrigue* y (utierre* and Magno #ontillera
?ueno died
P 1G defendants were left to the appeal, namely% 3ose 9ava, Hederico ?autista, Hederico Maclang,
4amon >spiritu, Salome $ru*, 4osario Ida de Santos, Angel ?a'ing, 9amberto Magboo, ,icanor
4a*on, Marcos Medina, $esareo +orres, Arturo ?a'ing, Simeon ( 4odrigue*, Marciano de 9eon,
<onofre Mangila, $enon ?ungay, #edro Iicencio, and Helipe >ngreso

Issues0
P /hether or not the accused are guilty of rebellion
P /hether or not a person may be prosecuted and held guilty of the crime of rebellion complexed
with murder, arson, robbery andCor other common crimes
Hel0
P ,icanor 4a*on, Sr and Helipe >ngreso were acDuitted
P 3ose 9ava, Hederico ?autista, Hederico Maclang, 4amon >spiritu, Salome $ru*, Angel ?a'ing,
$esario +orres, Simeon ( 4odrigue*, <onofre Mangila and Simeon ?ungay are found guilty as
principals in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion
P 4osario $ Ida de Santos, 9amberto Magboo and Arturo ?a'ing, Marciano de 9eon and #edro +
Iicencio is found guilty as a participant in the commission of the crime of simple rebellion
P Marcos Medina is found guilty of the crime of conspiracy to commit rebellion
P ,=ZZ
P &etition &!$T%!**" +$!NTED. Decision is 'D%1%ED.

Ratio0
P ,icanor 4a*on, Sr% ,o sufficient evidence to show that he had performed any act, which would
constitute a cooperation in promoting the rebellion .ointly underta'en by the $## and the <M? <e is
only a member of the $$#, as secretary and treasurer
P Helipe >ngreso% /as simply a houseboy of Hederico Maclang <e did not 'now that he was dealing
with communists and was only following orders of his master
P 3ose 9ava, Hederico ?autista, Hederico Maclang, 4amon >spiritu, Salome $ru*, Angel ?a'ing,
$esario +orres, Simeon ( 4odrigue*, <onofre Mangila and Simeon ?ungay are A99 high ran'ing
officers of either $## and <M? +hey all performed their duties and role in fulfilling the goals of the
organi*ation and sought for rebellion against the #hilippine gov@t +hey were all 9>A:>4S of the
rebellion
P 4osario $ Ida de Santos% only a staff member of the ,ational $ourier Eor $ommunicationF :ivision
of the $##, and that she chec'ed and made reports on the arrival and dispatch of couriers She was
merely executing the orders or commands of others who are superior to her in the organi*ational setA
up of the $## And since all this she did while $## went underground and <M? was already doing
armed operations, she is still liable as a participant
P 9amberto Magboo% <e is only a courier from the headDuarters of the ,ational $ourier :ivision of
the $## in Manila and was actually wor'ing and cooperating with the armed operations to overthrow
the government So still liable as a participant
P Arturo ?a'ing% <e is a confirmed communist, and was in full sympathy with the armed struggle
being promoted by the leaders of the $## and the <M? in order to overthrow the existing government
of the #hilippines ?U+ he was only the assistant of appellant $esario +orres, who was entrusted with
the publication and distribution of the official organs of the $## and the <M?, as well as of the
printing and distribution of the documents of these two organi*ations ?eing an assistant of appellant
$esario +ores who is a principal in the commission of the crime of rebellion, and not proven to have
committed acts of rebellion himself, he is only a participant
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "G
P Marciano de 9eon% <e also too' part in the conspiracy to overthrow the government by armed
struggle and did his bit by furnishing Hederico ?autista with information and records regarding the
<M? activities obtainable from the #$ <eadDuarters by virtue of his position in the #ersonnel Section
of the #hilippine $onstabulary ?U+ he is a mere participant in the commission of rebellion since he
only cooperated or helped in the prosecution of the armed rebellion
P #edro + Iicencio% )t was not proven that he actually too' part in the armed operations of the <M?
?U+, his having delivered foodstuffs, medicines and other supplies which were intended for the <M?,
and his having delivered pac'ages to 4osario Ida de Santos who was in charge of the outpost where
couriers go to deliver, or to get, letters or articles intended for 4>$=S in the field, clearly indicate that
this appellant was actively cooperating in the efforts of those promoting the rebellion ?eing "0 years
of age and a college student, it can be expected that he 'new that he was doing something for the
communists and the <u's
I4PORTA'T R3 Re%ellion
4ebellion cannot be complexed with other crimes
P +he crime of rebellion is integrated by the coexistence of both the armed uprising for the purposes
expressed in Article 18! of the 4evised #enal $ode, and the overt acts of violence described in the
first paragraph of Article 18- +hat both purpose and overt acts are essential components of one
crime, and that without either of them the crime of rebellion legally does not exist
#! $ Ra$ias
DOCTRI'30 ,o crime of misprision of rebellion1 EUS vs 4avidasF TMisprision is only to treason
RAP3 DI&3!T!
c/o Hipolito
.. P3OPL3 vs RICAF AL2R3DO : 'OR4A'
&.R. 'o. .778+/ Decem%er .8, -/./ 53LA!CO, 1R., J.2
2acts0
AccusedAappellant was charged in two E"F separate )nformations, the accusatory portions of which
read%
o Hrom April "GA"9, "001, at $adian, +opdac, Municipality of Ato', #rovince of ?enguet,
#hilippines, accused, by means of force, intimiation an t6reats, 6a$e carnal
Cnowlege with one WAAAX, a thirty six E8;F year old woman, against her will and consent
o Hrom April "GA"9, "001, at $adian, +opdac, Municipality of Ato', #rovince of ?enguet,
#hilippines, by means of force, intimiation an t6reats, did commit an act of seLual
assault by inserting a flas6lig6t into t6e $agina of one WAAAX, a thirty six E8;F year old
woman, against her will and consent, to her damage and pre.udice
#leaded not guilty to both charges
ProsecutionHs 5ersion0
=ral testimonies of the victim, AAAB her 10Ayear old son, ???B >rnesto dela $ru*B #olice =fficer 8
3ames 4uadapB and :r Alma (edAang
)n March "001, AAA, who was six months pregnant, went home to ?utiyao, ?enguet, along with
her family, to harvest the peppers planted in their garden
=n April "6, "001, AAA and her son, ???, returned to their sayote plantation in $adian, +opdac,
Ato', ?enguet to harvest sayote
April "G, "001, AAA had the harvested sayote transported to ?aguio $ity 9ater that night, she and
her son stayed at their rented shac' and retired early to bed
)n the middle of the night, AAA was awa'ened by a beam of light coming from the gaps in the
walls of the shac' directly illuminating her face
She then inDuired who the person was, but nobody answered )nstead, the light was switched off
After a few minutes, the light was switched on again
+hereafter, a male voice shouted, ,Rumwar kayo ditta no saan kayo n!a rumwar paletpeten kayo
iti bala-& E&2ou better come out if you will not come out ) will riddle you with bullets&F
AAA remained seated +hen, the male voice uttered, ,.ukatam daytoy no saan mo n!a lukatan
bilan!an ka, maysa, duwa/& E&2ou better get out or else ) will count, one, twoQ&F
AAA immediately wo'e ??? up 3ust then, the male voice said, ,Pabitaken kayo iti bala.&

E&) will
explode the bullet&F AAA cried out of fear
Anxious that the person outside would 'ill her and her son, AAA lit the gas lamp placed on top of
the table, and opened the door while her son stood beside it As the door opened, she saw
accusedAappellant directly in front of her holding a flashlight
AAA did not immediately recogni*e accusedAappellant, as his hair was long and was covering his
face
She invited him to come inside the shac', but the latter immediately held her hair and ordered
her to wal' uphill
<elpless and terrified, AAA obeyed him All the while, accusedAappellant was behind her
Upon reaching a sloping ground, accusedAappellant ordered AAA to stop
+hereafter, accusedAappellant placed the lit flashlight in his poc'et and ordered AAA to remove
her clothes
/hen she refused, accusedAappellant boxed her left eye and removed her clothes /hen she also
attempted to stop accusedAappellant, the latter angrily slapped her face $ompletely na'ed, AAA
was again ordered to wal' uphill
Upon reaching a grassy portion and a stump about one foot high, accusedAappellant ordered AAA
to stop and lie on top of the stump, after accusedAappellant boxed her thighs AccusedAappellant
then bent down and spread open AAA@s legs
After directing the beam of the flashlight on AAA@s na'ed body, accusedAappellant removed his
pants, lowered his brief to his 'nees, went on top of her, and inserted his penis into her vagina
AccusedAappellant threatened to box her if she moves

AccusedAappellant also held AAA@s breast,
as well as the other parts of her body <e shifted the flashlight from one hand to another while he
moved his buttoc's up and down
AAA cried as she felt severe pain in her lower abdomen AccusedAappellant stood up and directed
the beam of the flashlight on her after he was satisfied
+en minutes later, accusedAappellant went on top of AAA again and inserted his penis into her
vagina and moved his buttoc's up and down After being satisfied, accusedAappellant stood up
and lit a cigarette
Afterwards, accusedAappellant went on top of AAA again and tried to insert his penis in the latter@s
vagina <is penis, however, has already softened
Hrustrated, accusedAappellant 'nelt and inserted his fingers in her vagina After removing his
fingers, accusedAappellant held a twig about 10 inches long and the si*e of a small finger in
diameter which he used to pierce her vagina :issatisfied, accusedAappellant removed the twig
and inserted the flashlight in her vagina
After accusedAappellant removed the flashlight from AAA@s vagina, he went on top of her again,
pressing his elbows on her upper breasts and boxing her shoulders and thighs SubseDuently,
accusedAappellant stood up and warned her not to report the incident to the authorities
)mmediately after, he left her at the scene
Since she was too wea' to wal', AAA rested for about 1- minutes before she got up and went
bac' to the shac' where she immediately wo'e her son up +hereafter, they proceeded to the
highway and boarded a .eep to $amp 80, Ato', ?enguet She also went to Sayangan, Ato',
?enguet the following day to report the incident to the police authorities
M>:)$A9 >]AM),A+)=,% AAA had a subcon.unctival hemorrhage on the right eye and multiple
head in.uries, which may have been caused by force such as a blow, a punch, or a hard ob.ect
hitting the eye +here was also tenderness on the upper part of the bac' of AAA, as well as on her
left infraclavicular area below the left clavicle, left flan' area or at the left side of the waist, and
medial aspect on the inner part of the thigh Moreover, there were also multiple linear abrasions,
or minor straight open wounds on the s'in of her forearms and legs caused by sharp ob.ects with
rough surface
),+>4,A9 >]AM),A+)=,% $onfluent abrasion on the left and medial aspects of her labia minora
about five centimeters long and a confluent circular abrasion caused by a blunt, rough ob.ect that
has been forcibly introduced into the genitalia
DefenseH 5ersion
/itnesses accusedAappellant himselfB his mother, 4eminaB his sister, MargaretB <over $otdiB 3ona
$anutoB and #ina Mendo*a
)n the morning of April "G, "001, accusedAappellant was allegedly wor'ing in the sayote plantation
near his house At noontime, he went home to eat his lunch After having lunch, his mother told
him to bring the pile of sayote she harvested to the edge of the road
AccusedAappellant went to the place where the pile of harvested sayote was placed <owever,
when he reached that place, he claimed that he saw AAA gathering the sayote harvested by his
mother and placing them in a sac'
Upon seeing what AAA was doing, accusedAappellant shouted at her, prompting AAA to run away
with her son and leave the sac' of sayote /hen they left, accusedAappellant started placing the
harvested sayote in the sac' <e was able to fill eight sac's
4emembering that his mother told him that he would be able to fill 10 sac's all in all, accusedA
appellant went to the shac' of AAA after bringing the eight sac's near the road <e suspected that
she and her son were the ones who too' the two missing sac's of sayote
/hen he arrived at the place where AAA and her son were staying, accusedAappellant allegedly
saw them pac'ing sayote, and he also supposedly saw a sac' of sayote with the name of his
father printed on it
Hor this reason, accusedAappellant got mad and told AAA to go away and leave the place because
what they were doing was wrong AAA replied by saying that she would wait for <over $otdi, the
owner of the sayote plantation and the shac', to as' for permission to leave
All this time, accusedAappellant was allegedly spea'ing in an angry but nonAthreatening voice
,onetheless, while he was confronting AAA, her son ran into the shac' and stayed there
?efore leaving the place, accusedAappellant told AAA that the sac's of sayote belonged to his
family, although he decided not to ta'e them bac' anymore <e supposedly left after five o@cloc'
in the afternoon and arrived at their house at around seven o@cloc' in the evening
:uring this time, all his family members were watching television on $hannel 8 AccusedAappellant
.oined them in watching a +agalog movie <e then allegedly went to bed at 10 o@cloc' in the
evening, while his parents continued to watch television until 11 o@cloc' in the evening
+he following morning, on April "9, "001, accusedAappellant wo'e up between six to seven o@cloc'
in the morning After having brea'fast, he helped his mother clean the sayote farm At around
eight o@cloc' in the morning, he saw AAA by the road waiting for a ride with a baggage placed in a
carton box <is mother then went down the road and tal'ed to AAA, leaving accusedAappellant
behind <e claimed to pity AAA upon seeing her but could not do anything
RTC0 (ave credence to the version of the prosecution and found appellant (U)9+2 =H +/= $=U,+S
=H 4A#>B suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua including all the accessory penalties imposed by
law for 1
st
countB suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of three E8F years, two E"F months
and one E1F day of prision correccional, as minimum, and eight EGF years, two E"F months and one E1F
day of prision mayor, as maximum for "
nd
count
Hor each count of rape, he shall pay WAAAX the sum of Hifty +housand #esos E#hp-0,00000F by
way of civil indemnity and the sum of Hifty +housand #esos E#-0,00000F by way of moral
damages
#ursuant to Administrative $ircular ,o !A9"AA of the $ourt Administrator, accused transferred
to ?ureau of $orrections, Muntinlupa $ity, Metro Manila after the expiration of fifteen E1-F days
from date of promulgation
People v. 0ateo& Hor cases in which the penalty imposed by the trial court is death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, the case was transferred, for appropriate action and disposition, to
the $A
CA0 Affirmed 4+$B (U)9+2 of two counts of rape
Issues0
E1F /hether material inconsistencies in claims of witnesses vs his alibi warrant his acDuittal E,=F
E"F /hether the court committed error in relying on the demeanor of prosecution witnesses when
it did not have opportunity to hear witnesses
E8F /hether conduct of accuse is unli'ely to yield guilty verdict E,=F
E!F /hether award of damages is correct E,=F
H3LD0 AccusedAappellant@s conviction SUS+A),>:
.. a. Ali%i is an in6erentl: weaC efense
<e contends that although denial and alibi are the wea'est defenses in criminal cases,
consideration should also be given to the fact that denial becomes the most plausible line of
defense considering the nature of the crime of rape where normally only two persons are
involved
)t should be noted that for alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in
another place when the crime was committed <e must li'ewise prove that it was physically
impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission A review of the records in the instant case would reveal that accusedAappellant failed
to present convincing evidence that he did not leave his house, which is only about 1-0 meters
away from the shac' of AAA, in the evening of April "G, "001 Significantly, it was also not
physically impossible for accusedAappellant to be present on the mountain where he allegedly
raped AAA at the time it was said to have been committed
Alibi, as a defense, is inherently wea' and crumbles in light of positive identification by truthful
witnesses )t is evidence negative in nature and selfAserving and cannot attain more credibility
than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who testify on clear and positive evidence )n
addition, alibi becomes more unworthy of merit where it is established mainly by the accused
himself and his or her relatives, friends, and comradesAinAarms, and not by credible persons
..%. As %etween t6e statement mae in an affia$it an t6at gi$en in open court, t6e
latter is superior
Material inconsistencies in the testimonies and affidavits% E1F whether accusedAappellant@s penis
was erect or notB and E"F whether AAA indeed recogni*ed accusedAappellant when they were
already on the mountain or while they were still in the shac'
AAA testified in open court that accusedAappellant tried to insert his penis into her vagina several
times but was unable to do so since his penis has already softened =n the other hand, AAA stated
in her affidavit that &the suspect ordered me to lay WsicX flatly on the ground and there he started
to light and view my whole na'ed body while removing his pant WsicX and tried to insert his pennis
WsicX on WsicX my vagina but ) wonder it does not erect WsicX&
T6ere is no inconsistenc: %etween AAAHs testimon: an 6er affia$it. T6e onl:
ifference is t6at s6e faile to state in 6er affia$it t6at %efore accuse(appellant
unsuccessfull: trie to insert 6is penis into AAAHs $agina, 6e 6a alrea: succeee
twice in penetrating 6er pri$ate organ.
+here is li'ewise no incompati%ilit: between AAA@s affidavit stating that she came to 'now of
accusedAappellant as the culprit when they were on the mountain and his flashlight illuminated his
face as he lay on top of her, and her testimony that while they were still in the shac', AAA was
&not then sure& but already suspected that her rapist was accusedAappellant &because of his hair&
)n other words, AAA was not yet sure whether accusedAappellant was the culprit while they were
still in the shac', as she only became positively certain that it was him when the flashlight
illuminated his face while they were on the mountain
,evertheless, discrepancies do not necessarily impair the credibility of a witness, for affidavits,
being ta'en e1 parte, are almost always incomplete and often inaccurate for lac' of searching
inDuiries by the investigating officer or due to partial suggestions, and are, thus, generally
considered to be inferior to the testimony given in open court
-. T6e $aliit: of con$iction is not a$ersel: affecte %: t6e fact t6at t6e Duge w6o
renere Dugment was not t6e one w6o 6ear t6e witnesses
+he fact that the trial .udge who rendered .udgment was not the one who had the occasion to
observe the demeanor of the witnesses during trial, but merely relied on the records of the case,
does not render the .udgment erroneous, especially where the evidence on record is sufficient to
support its conclusion As this $ourt held in People v. $ompetente% T6e circumstance t6at t6e
1uge w6o renere t6e Dugment was not t6e one w6o 6ear t6e witnesses, oes not
etract from t6e $aliit: of t6e $erict of con$iction. >ven a cursory perusal of the :ecision
would show that it was based on the evidence presented during trial and that it was carefully
studied, with testimonies on direct and cross examination as well as Duestions from the $ourt
carefully passed upon Hurther, the transcripts of stenographic notes ta'en during the trial were
extant and complete <ence, there was no impediment for the .udge to decide the case
;. T6e guilt of accuse(appellant 6as %een esta%lis6e %e:on reasona%le ou%t
)n reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following considerations should be made% E1F an
accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the
person, though innocent, to disproveB E"F in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutini*ed with
extreme cautionB and E8F the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and
cannot be allowed to draw strength from the wea'ness of the evidence for the defense
,onetheless, it is also worth noting that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or
secrecyB thus, it is most often only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of forced
coitus
)n the instant case, accusedAappellant is charged with two counts of rape^one under paragraph
1EaF of Article ";;AA of the 4evised #enal $ode and the other under par " of Art ";;AA
>lements of rape under par. .(a" of Art. -++(A of the $ode are the following% E1F that the
offender is a manB E"F that the offender had carnal 'nowledge of a womanB and E8F that such act is
accomplished by using force or intimidation
=n the other hand, the elements of rape under par. - of Art. -++(A of the $ode are as follows%
E1F that the offender commits an act of sexual assaultB E"F that the act of sexual assault is
committed by inserting his penis into another person@s mouth or anal orifice or by inserting any
instrument or ob.ect into the genital or anal orifice of another personB and that the act of sexual
assault is accomplished by using force or intimidation, among others
/hen AAA was called to the witness stand, she gave a detailed narration of the incident that
transpired in the evening of April "G, "001 and early morning of April "9, "001 AAA categorically
asserted that accusedAappellant had carnal 'nowledge of her and even sexually assaulted her
against her will with the use of force, threat, or intimidation
#articularly, AAA testified that accusedAappellant threatened to riddle her and her son with bullets
if they do not open the door of their shac' AccusedAappellant thereafter forcibly pulled her hair
and dragged her to the mountains AAA pleaded for her life ,onetheless, accusedAappellant
boxed her every time she did not yield to his demands <e boxed her thighs forcing AAA to sit,
and he threatened to box her if she moves while he carried out his bestial desires
AAA testified further that after accusedAappellant satisfied his lust, he sexually assaulted her <e
inserted his fingers into her vagina and then he tried to pierce the same with a twig
SubseDuently, he inserted his flashlight into her vagina AAA was too wea' to stop him She had
struggled to free herself from accusedAappellant from the moment she was dragged from the
shac' until they reached the mountains <owever, accusedAappellant still prevailed over her
,otably, AAA was six months pregnant at that time She was frightened and hopeless
Also, it should be noted that the findings in the medical examination of :r (edAang corroborated
the testimony of AAA /hile a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in the
prosecution of a rape case, and no law reDuires a medical examination for the successful
prosecution of the case, the medical examination conducted and the medical certificate issued are
veritable corroborative pieces of evidence, which strongly bolster AAA@s testimony
Moreover, the police found the red tAshirt and blue shorts of AAA in the place where accusedA
appellant was said to have removed her clothes )n addition, AAA@s son, ???, testified as to how
accusedAappellant threatened them in the evening of April "G, "001, how he was able to identify
accusedAappellant as the perpetrator, and what his mother loo'ed li'e when she returned home in
the early morning of April "9, "001 According to ???, his mother was na'ed except for a dirty
white .ac'et she was wearing <e also noticed that his mother had wounds and blood all over her
body All these are consistent with the testimony of AAA
9. Award of :amages must be modified Hor rape under Art. -++(A, par. .(" of the 4evised #enal
$ode, the $A was correct in awarding P6P 8/,/// as ci$il inemnit: an P6P 8/,/// as moral
amages <owever, for rape through sexual assault under Art. -++(A, par. - of the $ode, the
award of damages should be P6P ;/,/// as ci$il inemnit: an P6P ;/,/// as moral
amages.
#eople v $ristobal that &for sexually assaulting a pregnant married woman, the accused has
shown moral corruption, perversity, and wic'edness <e has grievously wronged the institution of
marriage +he imposition then of exemplary damages by way of example to deter others from
committing similar acts or for correction for the public good is warranted&
,otably, there were instances wherein exemplary damages were awarded despite the absence of
an aggravating circumstance
#rior to the effectivity of the 4evised 4ules of $riminal #rocedure, courts award eLemplar:
amages in criminal cases when an aggra$ating circumstance, w6et6er orinar: or
Mualif:ing, 6a %een pro$en to have attended the commission of the crime, even if the same
was not alleged in the information in accordance with Article --;/ <owever, with the
promulgation of the 4evised 4ules, courts no longer consider the aggravating circumstances not
alleged and proven in the determination of the penalty and in the award of damages +hus, e$en
if an aggra$ating circumstance 6as %een pro$en, %ut was not allege, courts will not
awar eLemplar: amages x x x
<owever, Article ""80 must not only be ground for granting exemplary damages because it simply
ta'es into account the attendance of aggravating circumstance and not the very reason why
exemplary damages are awarded
Also 'nown as &punitive& or &vindictive& damages, exemplary or corrective damages are intended
to serve as a deterrent to serious wrong doings, and as a vindication of undue sufferings and
wanton invasion of the rights of an in.ured or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous conduct
+hese terms are generally, but not always, used interchangeably )n common law, there is
preference in the use of exemplary damages when the award is to account for in.ury to feelings
and for the sense of indignity and humiliation suffered by a person as a result of an in.ury that has
been maliciously and wantonly inflicted, the theory being that there should be compensation for
the hurt caused by the highly reprehensible conduct of the defendant [ associated with such
circumstances as willfulness, wantonness, malice, gross negligence or rec'lessness, oppression,
insult or fraud or gross fraud [ that intensifies the in.ury
+he terms punitive or vindictive damages are often used to refer to those species of damages that
may be awarded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct )n either case, these
damages are intended in good measure to deter the wrongdoer and others li'e him from similar
conduct in the future
?eing corrective in nature, exemplary damages, therefore, can be awarded, not only in the
presence of an aggravating circumstance, but also where the circumstances of the case show the
highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender.
)n much the same way as Article ""80 prescribes an instance when exemplary damages may be
awarded, Article """9, the main provision, lays down the very basis of the award $ourt used as
basis Article """9, rather than Article ""80, to .ustify the award of exemplary damages +6e
application of Article --;/ of t6e Ci$il Coe strictissimi Duris in suc6 cases, as in t6e
present one, efeats t6e unerl:ing pu%lic polic: %e6in t6e awar of eLemplar:
amages N to set a pu%lic eLample or correction for t6e pu%lic goo&

DI!PO!ITI530 EH3R32OR3, the appeal is D3'I3D +he $A :ecision dated September 80, "00G in
$AA(4 $4A<$ ,o 0"18- finding accusedAappellant 4ic'y Alfredo guilty of rape is A22IR43D with
4ODI2ICATIO'! As thus modified, accusedAappellant in $riminal $ase ,o 01A$4A!"18 is ordered to
pay #h# -0,000 as civil indemnity, #h# -0,000 as moral damages, and #h# 80,000 as exemplary
damages )n $riminal $ase ,o 01A$4A!"1!, accusedAappellant is li'ewise ordered to pay #h# 80,000
as civil indemnity, #h# 80,000 as moral damages, and #h# 80,000 as exemplary damages
" People $ AleDanro Rellota (O Rape $is a $is Acts of Lasci$iousness
2ACT!0
AAA the complainant, native of >astern Samar, was 1" years old when the incidents allegedly
happened +ogether with her siblings, AAA lived with her aunt, ::: and the latter@s second
husband, appellant in Antipolo $ity, 4i*al from September 199" to 3anuary 199! " cousins also
live with them ::: was wor'ing overseas then
According to AAA, appellant had been 'issing her and touching her private parts since September
1998 and raped her several times between Sept 1998 and 3an 199!
She narrated that appellant would usually rape her at night when the other members of the family
were either out of the house or asleep AAA stated that she resisted the advances of appellant,
but was not successful Appellant, according to her would usually place a bolo beside him
whenever she would rape her She added that appellant would threaten AAA by telling her that he
would 'ill her brother and sister and that he would stop sending her to school
:ecember "0, 1998% after AAA too' a bath at an artesian well near their house, she wrapped her
body wC towel before going inside the house when she was followed by appellant and raped AAA
twice in the latter@s bedroom <e tied her hands with a rope before forcibly inserting his penis
inside her vagina while AAA was 'ic'ing and scratching +hen, he left so AAA slipped on her +Ashirt
and shorts but then accused returned and raped her again
+he same incident happened on 3anuary 81, 199! when AAA was inside their room Appellant laid
her down on the sofa, 'issed her and touched her private part, while AAA 'ic'ed him and
scratched his arms She was able to push him and after which appellant ran out the door
AAA, told her older sister after in which the latter accompanied AAA to police station +hree
separate complaints for rape were filed against appellant
ProsecutionHs Arguments
+estimony and medical exam that there is a healed laceration in the hymen of more than a
month 9aceration in the hymen could have been caused by forcible entry of a hard ob.ect #enis
may be blunt hard ob.ect
DefenseH 5ersion
)mpossible for him to have raped AAA in September 1998 because his wife only left for 3eddah on
=ctober "1, 1998
<e points out that AAA herself testified that he only 'issed her, touched her breast and private
parts, but failed to mention that he inserted his penis to her vagina
<e also denied raping AAA on 3anuary 81, 199! and :ecember "0, 1998 <e further claims that
the filing of the criminal charges were instigated by AAAKs aunt for his refusal to lend her money
O!& Comment
appellant used his moral ascendancy over the victim in having carnal 'nowledge of her against
her will
medical report bolsters the victimKs claim that she was repeatedly raped by appellant and that the
latterKs defense of denial is wea' and deserves scant consideration
<=/>I>4, agrees with $A that 3an 81 rape was not sufficiently proven to have actually
consummated and is merely attempted rape
RTC0 (U)9+2 of 8 counts of 4ape as alleged and suffer 4eclusion #erpetua for each count )ndemnity
of #-0, 000 for each
o ,ot death penalty because AAA was above 1" and although below 1G, relationship with
appellant not established as marriage between AAA@s aunt and appellant not supported with
evidence
)n accordance with #eople v Mateo% $ase imposing reclusion perpetua so transferred to $A upon
appeal
CA0 ruled that appellant is guilty of " counts of consummated rape and 1 count of attempted rape
o 3une 81 incident when he was able to push him is A++>M#+>:
o 4eclusion perpetua for first two counts and prision correccional for 8rd
I!!#30
1 /hether accused should be acDuitted as AAA@s testimony is inconsistent and full of falsehoodsJ
" /hether or not the actions of appellant on 3anuary 81, 199! constitute acts of lasciviousness and
not attempted rapeJ
H3LD0
1 ,o +he claim of appellant that he could not have raped AAA because his wife was still in the
country during the alleged period when the rape was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve
even the slightest consideration from this $ourt.
o It 6as %een oft sai t6at lust is no respecter of time or place. ,either the crampness of the
room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high ris' of being caught, has been held
sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape +here have been too many
instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room
full of family members sleeping side by side +here is no rule that a woman can only be raped in
seclusion
o As to the contention of appellant that the testimony of AAA was barren of any statement that the
formerKs penis was inserted in the latterKs vagina is not Duite accurate AAA categoricall:
state uring 6er testimon: t6at s6e was rape. )n her testimony, she stated that 0<e
forced me and inserted his penis inside my vagina1 and 0he repeated his acts1
o As to inconsistency that she was merely wearing a towel and then she stated that she wore a +A
shirt and shorts, these were not inconsistent as there was a lapse of time between the first and
the second rape 9i'ewise, when AAA testified that she put on her tAshirt and panty, she was
referring to the first time of the rape where, after ravishing her, appellant untied her hands and
left only to return to rape her once more +here was enough time for AAA to dress up
o )nconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which do not affect the credibility of AAA
nor erase the fact that the latter was raped +he inconsistencies are trivial and forgivable, since a
victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for each of the previous incidents, since
these may .ust be but mere fragments of a prolonged and continuing nightmare, a calvary she
might even be struggling to forget Moreover, a rape victim testifying in the presence of strangers,
face to face with her tormentor and being crossAexamined by his hostile and intimidating lawyer
would be benumbed with tension and nervousness and this can affect the accuracy of her
testimony <owever, considering her youth and her traumatic experience, ample margin of error
and understanding should be accorded to a young victim of a vicious crime li'e rape
o )n the disposition and review of rape cases, the $ourt is guided by these principles%
o first, the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable
doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unpre.udiced mind, produces convictionB
o second, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot
draw strength from the wea'ness of the evidence of the defenseB
o third, unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the
credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appealB
o fourth, an accusation of rape can be made with facilityB it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disproveB and,
o fifth, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutini*ed with extreme caution
" 2es, crime is not attempted rape but acts of lasciviousness as defined in 4#$ as elements are
absent
Attempted rape reDuires that%
o +he offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt actsB
o <e does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felonyB
o +he offender@s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistanceB
o +he nonAperformance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance
Appellant@s act of removing the towel wrapped in the body of AAA, laying her on the sofa and
'issing and touching her private parts does not exactly demonstrate the intent of appellant to
have carnal 'nowledge on AAA on that particular date
>ven so, the said acts should not be left unpunished as the elements of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness as defined in 4#$ in relation to 4A 6;10, AAA being a minor when the incident
happened, are present%
o +hat the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness
o +hat is done EaF ?y using force and intimidationB EbF /hen the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconsciousB EcF /hen the offended party is under 1" years of age
o +hat the offended party is another person of either sex
o As defined in )44 of 4A 6;10% W+Xhe intentional touching, either directly or through clothing,
of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttoc's, or the introduction of any
ob.ect into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite
sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic
area of a person
+he actions of appellant on 3anuary 81, 199!, by definition, lascivious or lewd, and based on AAA@s
testimony, the intimidation from appellant was in existence and apparent
Sec - of 4A ,o6;10 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit, but also
one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation As case
law has it, intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible )t is sufficient that some compulsion
eDuivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party
Accused can still be guilty of acts of lasciviousness even if not charged because it is necessarily
included in rape Under Section !, 4ule 1"0 of the 4evised 4ules of $riminal #rocedure, when
there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and the offense
as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense
charged which is included in the offense proved
DI!PO!ITI530 $A :ecision finding accused (U)9+2 of the crime of two E"F counts rape is AHH)4M>:
with the M=:)H)$A+)=, that the same appellant is also &#ILTF %e:on reasona%le ou%t of t6e
crime of acts of lasci$iousness as defined in the 4evised #enal $ode, in relation to Section -,
Article ))) of 4epublic Act ,o 6;10, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from eight EGF years and one E1F day of prision mayor, as minimum to seventeen E16F
years, four E!F months and E1F day of reclusion temporal, as maximumB E_reclusion perpetua for first
" countsF and per previous ruling of this $ourt, must also indemnify the victim in the amount of
#1-,00000 as moral damages and pay a fine in the same amount
8 People $ 1uanito Apatta &.R. 'o. .);.77 August 10, "011
2ACT!0
Accused was charged in four E!F separate informations, the accusatory portions of which read%
o "001 and "00", in the evening, in the Municipality of #eMablanca, #rovince of $agayan,
1#A'ITO APATTAD, father of the offended party, PAAAX a minor %elow .- :ears of
age, thus have moral ascendancy over the complainant, with lewd design and by the use
of force, have sexual intercourse with his own daughter, against her will
o +hat on or about 3une 10 and 11 "008, in the Municipality of #eMablanca, #rovince of
$agayan, and within the .urisdiction of this <onorable $ourt, the said accused, 1#A'ITO
APATTAD, father of the offended party, PAAAQ, a minor %elow .- :ears of age, thus
have moral ascendancy over the complainant, with lewd design and by the use of force,
did, have sexual intercourse with his own daughter, the herein offended party, against her
will
3une 1, "00!, the accused, with the assistance of his counsel , pleaded not guilty to all the charges
against him
SubseDuently, on 3une G, "00!, preAtrial conference was held and was terminated on the same
day, with the parties stipulating on the following%
EaF +he identities of the accused and AAAB
EbF AAA is the daughter of the accusedB
EcF AAA was a minor, being born on =ctober 1!, 199!, and was only ten E10F years old
during the commission of the crimeB
EdF +he existence of the $ertificate of 9ive ?irth of AAAB and
EeF +he existence of the Medico 9egal 4eport of AAA issued by :r Mila 9inganA
Simangan, <ealth =fficer of #eMablanca, $agayan

5ersion of t6e Prosecution
=ffered the oral testimonies of AAA and :r Mila 9inganASimangan
"001, while she was sleeping with her sisters, the accused pulled and positioned her .ust below
the feet of her siblings, and right then and there, succeeded in molesting her AAA was .ust seven
E6F years old then
3une 10, "008, the accused sexually abused AAA again /hile she was sleeping beside her
younger sister in their room, accused carried her from the bed through the window and placed her
on the floor Afterwards, accused removed his own shirt and used it to cover the mouth of AAA
Accused then removed his underwear and AAA@s underwear, and inserted his penis inside AAA@s
vagina, while telling her not to report the incident to her mother /hen the accused was finished
in satisfying his lust, he put AAA@s clothes bac' on, carried her bac' to bed, and untied the shirt
covering AAA@s mouth
+he same incident happened on 3une 11, "008, when accused carried AAA once again through the
window, placed her on the floor, covered her mouth, undressed her, and inserted his penis into
her vagina +he accused also threatened to 'ill her if she reports the incident to her mother
/hen AAA finally told her mother on 3une 18, "008 that she was being abused by her own father,
her mother whipped her for not telling her about it immediately <er reason for not telling
immediately was because she was afraid that her father would 'ill them AAA also confirmed that
her parents often Duarrel and shout at each other She even admitted that she had seen her
father slap her mother and that because of this, she sympathi*ed and too' pity on her /hen
as'ed whether she would do anything that her mother would tell her to do, AAA answered in the
affirmative <owever, on reAdirect examination, AAA clarified that her mother did not teach her to
claim that she was raped and that she was only telling the truth
+hereafter, they went to the :epartment of Social /elfare and :evelopment E:S/:F office in
#eMablanca, $agayan, where AAA was interviewed by a certain Ms Abrena, a :S/: personnel
Afterwards, they proceeded to the police station where AAA executed a sworn statement narrating
what happened
:r Mila 9inganASimangan E:r SimanganF also subseDuently conducted a physical examination on
AAA on 3une 1;, "008, she conducted a physical examination on AAA and discovered that the
latter had a healed hymen laceration at ! and 6 o@cloc' positions, and that her vagina admitted
the tip of the fifth finger easily She stated that the laceration could have been caused by a blunt
ob.ect She also testified that after conducting the physical examination, she interviewed AAA and
the latter gave her the name of the person who raped her <owever, :r Simangan admitted that
she can no longer remember the name that was mentioned by AAA

5ersion of t6e Defense
#resented as its witnesses the accused himself and 9ouie $alimag
+he accused denied the accusation of rape hurled against him and claimed that his wife
was the one who initiated the criminal complaint against him because she thin's that he
has a mistress
9ouie $alimag E$alimagF, testified that from 3une 8, "008 until 3uly G, "008, he employed
the services of the accused to help him in the operation of the chainsaw As part of their
routine, he and the accused would saw logs in the forest from 6%00 am to -%00 pm, go
bac' to his house, and sleep there at night $alimag further testified that when the accused
was arrested by the police in the forest on 3uly G, "008, he was also with him +hus, when
he found out that the accused was arrested for rape allegedly committed on 3une 10 and
11, "008, $alimag claimed that he did not believe this because the accused stayed in his
house on those days
$alimag li'ewise added that after the accused was arrested, he saw AAA, who admitted to
him that she was not raped by the accused and that it was her mother who instructed her
to give false information AAA allegedly told him that her parents had a fight due to her
father@s illicit relationship with another woman
=n crossAexamination, $alimag admitted that the house of the accused was only three E8F
'ilometers away from his house and that the accused@s house may be reached by .eepney
in an hour and by foot in four E!F hours
RTC0 (ave credence to the version of the prosecution and found accused (U)9+2 of three E8F counts
of rape #>,A9+2% 4>$9US)=, #>4#>+UA for each case and pay #1-0,00000 #esos as civil indemnity
Accused is A$OU)++>: in $riminal $ase ,o 10168 E"00" 4apeF for lac' of sufficient evidence
CA0 Affirmed 4+$ with M=:)H)$A+)=, that the civil indemnity awarded should be #6-,00000
for each count of rape )n addition, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amounts of
#6-,00000 and #hp"-,00000 respectively, for each count of rape are hereby awarded

I!!#3!0 /hether accused should be convicted of statutory rape E2>SF

H3LD0 Fes. CO'5ICT3D.

Denial an ali%i are in6erentl: weaC efenses
3urisprudential rules and precepts guide this $ourt in assessing the proffered defense
o 'ne, alibis and denials are generally disfavored by the courts for being wea'
o 2wo, they cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the
perpetrators of the crime
o 2hree, for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were
somewhere else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically
impossible for them to be at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission
o Fourth, alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by
credible and disinterested witnesses
o Fith, alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of witnesses, and the
assessment made by the trial court [ unless patently and clearly inconsistent [
must be accepted
)n the present case, AAA positively identified accusedAappellant in her testimony as the
very perpetrator of the crime of rape committed against her when she identified her
0father1 as the one who carried her
Hor alibi to prosper, it is not enough for the accused to prove that he was in another place
when the crime was committed as he must li'ewise prove that it was physically impossible
for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission A distance of three E8F 'ilometers does not ma'e it physically impossible for
accusedAappellant to be at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed $alimag
himself admitted during crossAexamination that the house of accusedAappellant may be
reached by .eepney in an hour Significantly, even if accusedAappellant indeed stayed in
$alimag@s house on the dates that he committed rape, it was still not physically impossible
for accusedAappellant to go home and commit the said crime at the time it was said to have
been committed
Also, alibi assumes significance or strength only when it is amply corroborated by credible
and disinterested witnesses )n this regard, it should be noted that alibi becomes unworthy
of merit not only because accusedAappellant was positively identified by AAA but also in
cases where it is established mainly by the accused himself, his relatives, friends and
comradesAinAarms and not by credible persons
Hinally, as mentioned in 3stoya, alibi is an issue of fact that hinges on the credibility of
witnesses, and that the assessment made by the trial court must be accepted unless it is
patently and clearly inconsistent
E6en it comes to crei%ilit:, t6e trial courtRs assessment eser$es great weig6t,
an is e$en conclusi$e an %ining, if not tainte wit6 ar%itrariness or o$ersig6t
of some fact or circumstance of weig6t an influence. +he reason is obvious Ha$ing
t6e full opportunit: to o%ser$e irectl: t6e witnessesH eportment an manner of
testif:ing, t6e trial court is in a %etter position t6an t6e appellate court to
e$aluate testimonial e$ience properl:

T6e guilt of accuse(appellant 6as %een esta%lis6e %e:on reasona%le ou%t

)n reviewing the evidence in rape cases, the following considerations should be made%
o an accusation for rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for
the person, though innocent, to disproveB
o n view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutini*ed with extreme cautionB
o evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the wea'ness of the evidence for the defense
o ,onetheless, it also bears stressing that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation
or secrecyB thus, it is most often only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of
forced coitus
Under Article ";;AA of the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended, the crime of rape is committed by a
man having carnal 'nowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances%
o through force, threat or intimidationB
o when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconsciousB
o by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authorityB and
o when the offended party is under twelve E1"F years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present
People v. 'rillosa% )ncestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not be employed
where the overpowering moral influence of the father would suffice +hus, in order for the accused
to be found guilty of the crime of statutor: rape in this .urisdiction, only two E"F elements must
concur% (." that the offender had carnal 'nowledge of the victimB and (-" that the victim is below
twelve E1"F years old
A(> >S+A?9)S<>:% AAA, was below twelve E1"F years old when the crime was committed A cop:
of AAAHs %irt6 certificate to prove her age was duly presented in evidence by the prosecution,
indicating that she was indeed born on =ctober 1!, 199! $oncomitantly, AAA was only seven E6F
years old when the crime of rape was first committed against her in "001, and was only nine E9F
years old when the accused once again succeeded in committing the same crime in "008
4>9A+)=,S<)# >S+A?9)S<>:% Also, it is undisputed that accusedAappellant is the father of AAA, as
stipulated by the parties during the preAtrial conference and as also indicated in AAA@s birth
certificate
$A4,A9 L,=/9>:(> >S+A?9)S<>:% /hen AAA was called to the witness stand, she gave a
detailed narration of how she was sexually molested by her father, which narration is difficult, if
not improbable, for a 10AyearAold girl to concoct As aptly observed by the $A, 0WAAAX was able to
describe in detail how her father carried her through the window, laid her down the floor, tied her
mouth, removed her clothes and inserted his penis inside her vagina She even described that she
felt pain while her father was performing the carnal act against her
#ertinently, 0it is settled .urisprudence that the testimony of a childAvictim is given full weight and
credence, considering that when a woman, specially a minor, says that she has been raped, she
says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed 2outh and immaturity are
generally badges of truth and sincerity1
Moreover, the fact that AAA@s testimony was able to withstand scrutiny during crossAexamination
bolsters her credibility and ma'es her statements more credible Hurther, it should be noted that
the findings in the medical examination of :r Simangan corroborate the testimony of AAA )n this
regard, w6ile a meical eLamination of t6e $ictim is not inispensa%le in t6e
prosecution of a rape case, and no law reDuires a medical examination for its successful
prosecution, the meical eLamination conucte an t6e meical certificate issue are
$erita%le corro%orati$e e$ience, which strongly bolster AAA@s testimony
)n addition, this $ourt is not convinced that a child of a tender age would concoct a story as sordid
as in the instant case due to her mother@s alleged ill motive )n People v. Padilla, /e held that
accusedAappellant@s imputation of ill motive on the victim@s mother for being .ealous of another
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests !0
woman is clearly unmeritorious, for no mother in her right mind would possibly wish to stamp her
child with the stigma that follows the crime of rape only because she is consumed with hatred and
revenge

Awar of Damages. +he $A decision as to the damages awarded must be modified )n rape cases,
when the victim is under 1G years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepAparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the commonAlawAspouse
of the parent of the victim, t6e imposa%le penalt: is eat6 <owever, with the enactment of
4epublic Act ,o E4AF 98!; or An Act Prohibitin! the %mposition o Death Penalty in the Philippines,
the imposition of death penalty is now prohibited )n lieu of the penalty of death, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed when the law violated ma'es use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the 4#$
,onetheless, the principal consideration for the award of damages is 0the penalty provided by law
or imposable for the off se because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on
the offender1
/hen the circumstances surrounding the crime would .ustify the imposition of the penalty of
death were it not for 4A 98!;, the award of civil indemnity for the crime of rape should be #h#
6-,000, racionating that 0WtXhis is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the
penal law and the financial fluctuations over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the
$ourt over the incidence of heinous crimes against chastity1
9i'ewise, the award of moral damages in the amount of #h# 6-,000 is warranted without need of
pleading or proving them )n rape cases, it is recogni*ed that the victim@s in.ury is concomitant
with and necessarily results from the odious crime of rape to warrant per se the award of moral
damages
Hurther, the $ourt also awards exemplary damages in the amount of #h# 80,000, despite the lac'
of any aggravating circumstances, to deter others from committing similar acts or for correction
for the public good

DI!PO!ITI530 EH3R32OR3, the appeal is D3'I3D +he $A :ecision dated August "G, "009 in $AA
(4 $4A<$ ,o 08168 finding accusedAappellant 3uanito Apattad guilty of rape is A22IR43D with
4ODI2ICATIO'! As thus modified, accusedAappellant is ordered to pay AAA for each count of rape,
#h# 6-,000 as civil indemnity, #h# 6-,000 as moral damages, and #h# 80,000 as exemplary
damages
! People $ !iLto Paua &.R. 'o. .)-7-. 4arc6 -., -/..
2ACT!0
3une "0, "001% the appellant was charged with rape before the O$ 4+$ committed against his ;A
year old niece AAA sometime in April 1991 +he appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment )n
the trial that followed, AAA testified on the details of the crime
Sometime in April 1991, between 1%00 and "%00 pm, AAA, then six years old, was playing at the
balcony of their house in (aran!ay #ayatas, Oue*on $ity ??? EAAA@s motherF was downstairs
cleaning the house, while AAA@s sisters were outside the house
+he appellant E(((4s brotherF or the victims@ uncle was watching +I +he appellant called AAA and
told her to lie beside him <e then as'ed her to remove her shorts and underwear <e also
removed his shorts, laid her down, and inserted his penis inside her vagina AAA felt pain but she
did not cry out +hereafter, the appellant told her not to report the incident to her mother or to
anyone else
AAA did not tell anyone about the incident since she did not 'now that what had been done to her
was wrong AAA only reali*ed that her sexual experience with her uncle was wrong when she was
already 1" or 18 years old, or at about the time she was in (rade I) She did not disclose the
incident to anyone then as she was afraid
)t was not until after her graduation from elementary school that she finally disclosed the incident
to $$$ EAAA4s older sisterF $$$, in turn, also revealed that a similar incident had happened to her
when she was at about the same age as AAA when the latter@s experience happened
AAA and $$$ never before told their father about their experience because they feared for his
health, but subseDuently, the incident came to their father@s 'nowledge after $$$ had a bitter
confrontation with him +hereafter, AAA and her father went to the police station where she
executed her sworn statement and underwent a medical examination that confirmed that she was
no longer a virgin
:>H>,S>% +he appellant, interposing denial and alibi, claimed that he was in San Iicente, ?icol,
sometime in April 1991
RTC0 (uilty of rape EstatutoryF Oualified by minority Evictim ; years old when it happenedF so
penalty must be :>A+< but with the abolition of the death penalty under 4epublic Act ,o 98!;, the
4+$ sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua )t also ordered the appellant to pay AAA
#6-,00000 as civil indemnity, #-0,00000 as moral damages, and #-0,00000 as exemplary damages
)t relied on AAA@s clear, direct and positive testimony, and re.ected the appellant@s alibi for his
failure to show that it was physically impossible for him to have committed the rape
)t noted that AAA@s delay in reporting the rape was not indicative of a fabricated charge,
considering her young age and her family ties with the appellantB AAA only came to 'now that
the sexual incident was wrong when she was in (rade I), and she feared for her father@s
health should the latter learn of the incident
CA0 $onvicted the appellant of simple rape under Article -++(A(." of the 4evised #enal $ode and
sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, but reduced to #-0,00000 the civil indemnity to AAA
AAA@s minority cannot be appreciated as the prosecution failed to present the certificate of live
birth or any other authentic document to prove the age of AAA at the time of the commission of
the offense
)t noted further that the appellant did not expressly admit AAA@s age )nstead, the appellate court
appreciated force and intimidation, noting that the appellant@s relationship to AAA had been
proven by his own admission )t stressed that in incestuous rape, the moral ascendancy of the
accused over the victim ta'es the place of force and intimidation
I!!#30
1 /hether statutory rape or simple rape because of lac' of document to prove age Esimple rapeF
" /hat is the applicable lawJ E4#$ Art 88- and not 4#$ ";;AAF
H3LD0 $=,I)$+)=, AHH)4M>:
1 $A properly convicted the appellant for simple rape whose penalty is reclusion perpetua
An appellant can .ustifiably be convicted of rape based solely on the credible testimony of the
victim ,othing in the records indicates to us that the 4+$ and the $A overloo'ed or failed to
appreciate facts that, if considered, would change the outcome of the case
Agree with the $A that the appellant cannot be held liable for Dualified, much less statutory, rapeB
the prosecution failed to prove by independent evidence the age of AAA, much less the allegation
that she was under the age of 1" when she was raped
+he appellate court properly appreciated force an intimiation )n rape committed by a close
'in, such as the victimKs father, stepfather, uncle, or the commonAlaw spouse of her mother, it is
not necessary that actual force or intimidation be employedB moral influence or ascendancy ta'es
the place of violence or intimidation
" Art 88- of 4#$ on simple rape must be applied +he $A held that the appellant was guilty of
simple rape under Article ";;AAE1F of the 4evised #enal $ode <owever, the crime was committed
in .))., i.e., prior to t6e passage of t6e law imposing t6e eat6 penalt: for rape cases
E4epublic Act ,o 6;-9% 1998F and prior to the new rape law E4epublic Act ,o G8-8 or the AntiA
4ape 9aw of 1996% 1996F +he law then in place 7 Article 88- of the 4evised #enal $ode 7 should
apply Under this law, simple rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua +o conform with existing
.urisprudence, we reduce the amount of exemplary damages from #-0,00000 to #80,00000
DI!PO!ITI530 EH3R32OR3, the September 10, "009 decision of the $ourt of Appeals in $AA(4 $4
<$ ,o 080"8 is hereby A22IR43D with 4ODI2ICATIO' Appellant Sixto #adua y Helomina is found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of !imple Rape uner Article ;;8 of t6e Re$ise
Penal Coe, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. <e is also ordered to pay
AAA #-0,00000 as civil indemnity, #-0,00000 as moral damages, and #80,00000 as exemplary
damages
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests !"
- People $ 4anuel Pruna or 3rman Pruna &.R. 'o. .;79*. Octo%er ./, -//-
2ACT!0
,ature% Automatic review of 4+$ ?ataan decision
3an 8, 199-% while 8Ayr old 9i*ette Arabelle (on*ales was defecating at their neighbor@s bac'yard,
a certain Manuel 0?oy1 #runa called him V placed her on his lap ?oy was then under the bridge,
sniffing rugby V drin'ing alcohol wCsome friends ?oy later on brought her to a grassy area V
raped her ?oy was later on arrested
?oy@s counsel filed a motion to put him under psychiatricCmental exam claiming that he couldn@t
get a coherent answer from the accused ?ut the ,at@l $enter for Mental <ealth issued a
certification that he was in fair condition
Prosecution witnesses0
3acDueline (on*ales 7 9i*ette@s mom who claims that she was fetching water from the artesian
well when incident happened She claims she saw 9i*ette crying V the girl then narrated to her
what happened V pulled her to ?oy@s house however accused was not home
9i*ette testified that she 'new the accused V that he inserted his penis into her vagina as she was
laid down in a grassy area She li'ewise testified that she 'new that it was sin to tell a lie
:r >melita Ouiro* 7 =(A(yne who examined 9i*ette testified that girl@s vagina was positive for
sperm cells wCc signified that sexual intercourse too' place
+eresita Magtanob, med tech, corroborated Ouiro*@ findings re sperm cells
S#=" 4omeo ?unsoy, #,# member on duty when 9i*ette reported incident <e conducted an
ocular inspection of the alleged place of incident V discovered that grasses were flattened #eople
in nearby areas li'ewise testified that they saw ?oy bring 9i*ette in that area
Defense witnesses0
$arlito ?ondoc 7 testified that ?oy was at home during the time the incident occurred because he
V $arlito were having coffee
?oy 7 denied having raped the girl Alibi% he was in his house preparing coffee for $arlito
RTC0 convicted of Dualified rape sentenced to death, thus automatic review
Issues B Ratio0
1 /=, 9i*ette is a competent V credible witness considering that she was only 8 when raped V -
during trial E2>SF
&en rule0 when a witness ta'es a stand is to presume that he@s competent
<uren0 upon party ob.ecting to competency to establish ground of incompetency
Sec "1, 4ule 180, 4ules on >vidence E4=>F% 'ids whose mental maturity renders them incapable
of perceiving the facts respecting wCc they@re examined V relating them truthfully are disDualified
to be witnesses ,o precise minimum age is fixed
+est of competency% )ntelligence not age As long as child can perceive V ma'e 'nown his
perception to other V that he@s capable of relating truthfully facts for wCc he@s examined $onsider
child@s capacity % to receive correct impressions during incidentB to comprehend obligation of an
oathB relate to those facts truthfully to the court at the time he@s offered as a witness Lid should
understand the punishment wCc may result fr false swearing
:etermined by sound discretion of the court V such is respected unless found erroneous )n this
case, ?oy failed to discharge burden of proving 9i*ette@s mental immaturity 4+$ held that 'id had
capacity of observation, recollection V communication V that she could discern the conseDuence
of telling a lie +wo years lapse since time of incident is immaterial considering that it@s a most
nat reaction for victims of crim@l violence to have a lasting impression of how crime was
committed V identity of aggressor
" /=, 3acDueline@s testimony is hearsayJ E,=F
,ot covered by hearsay rule, Sec 8;, 4ule 180, 4=> wCc provides that a witness can testify only
to those facts wCc he 'nows of his personal 'nowledge except as otherwise provided by the 4=$
<earsay% evidence not founded upon personal 'nowledge of witness but rather on facts learned
from a 8rd person not sworn as a witness to those facts, wCc testimony is inadmissible >xcluded
because there@s no chance for $ourt to crossAexamine alleged source of info V to test his
credibility
,ot applicable in this case considering that source of info E9i*etteF was actually sworn in V crossA
examined $ourt had the chance to observe her manner of testifying ?esides, 3acDueline@s
testimony merely corroborated 9i*ette@s testimony Lid@s testimony is sufficient to convict ?oy
8 /=, (loria +olentino should still be presented as a witnessJ E,=F
+olentino listed as witness who saw accused carrying V bringing 'id to grassy area at the bac' of
her house
,o need because she already moved out, besides, her testimony would only be corroborative of
'id@s testimony
! /=, prosecution@s evidence was sufficient to convict accusedJ E2>SF
Iictim spontaneously identified accused as rapist
Lid@s immediate revelation to her mom of the crime
Lid led her mom to accused@s house right after the incident
#rompt filing of complaint before the authorities
Iictim@s submission to medical examination
<yperemia in 'id@s private part
#resence of sperm cells in 'id@s vaginal canal V urine
Alibi not accepted considering that his alleged location did not ma'e it physically impossible for
him to be at the crime scene during the time crime was committed Alibi cannot prevail over the
positive identification of victim >sp since alibi was only corroborated by accused@s friend
- /=, 9i*ette@s minority was properly established V imposition of death penalty is proper J E2>SF
4#$ Art 88-, par 6, no !, amended by 4A ,o 6;-9% death penalty shall be imposed if crime of
rape@s committed to a 'id below 6 yrs old Minority must be proved wCeDual certainty V clearance
as crime itself Hailure to prove such would bar conviction for Dualified rape
?est proof of age would be the birth certificate ?ut $ourt has conflicting pronouncements as to
/=, such is a condition sine Dua non to prove one@s age to appreciate minority as an element of
the crime or as a Dualifying circumstance Some cases wherein no birth certificate was presented
ruled that the victim@s age was not proven Esee pp -99A;08 for list of cases citedF )n some
instances, mere pronouncement of age was considered as hearsay =n the other hand S$ held in
some cases that age was sufficiently established despite failure of prosecution to present the birth
certificate
Court now sets guielines in appreciating age eit6er as an element of crime or a
Mualif:ing circumstance0
1 ?est evidence% originalCcertified true copy of the certificate of live birth of part
" Absence of such% similar authentic records such as baptismal cert V school records showing date
of birth would be sufficient
8 )f documents were lost, destroyed or unavailable, clear V credible testimony of victim@s mom or
other family members either by affinityCconsanguinity Dualified to testify re pedigree such as exact
ageCdate of birth of victim pursuant to Sec !0, 4ule 180, 4=> shall be sufficient under ff conditions%
a victim@s alleged to be below 8 V see' to prove that she@s below 6
b victim@s alleged to be below 6 V see' to prove that she@s below1G
c victim@s alleged to be below 1" V see' to prove that she@s below 1G
! Absence of aforementioned, victim@s testimony will suffice as long as such is clearly V expressly
admitted
- #rosecution has burden of proof of proving victim@s age Accused@s failure to ob.ect to the
testimonial evidence shall not be ta'en against him
; +rial court should always ma'e a categorical finding as to the victim@s age
)n this case, 4+$ based its decision on medicoAlegal findings V fact that defense did not contest
'id@s age V even Duestioned her tender age Hormer does not establish child@s age )t doesn@t even
mention child@s age =nly testimonial evidence presented to establish child@s age was Mom@s
testimony Iictim@s testimony was conflicting for although she claimed to be - yrs old at the time,
she also testified that she was already - during the time she was raped ,ote that " years have
lapsed between the time of the incident V the hearing
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests !!
)n convicting accused of Dualified rape V sentencing him to death, impt to establish that 9i*ette
was indeed below 6 yrs old at the time of the commission of crime <owever, due to uncertainty
of her age, corroborative evidence Epertinent documentsF should be presented to appreciate the
Dualifying circumstance of rape 9ac' of ob.ection from defense as to victim@s age does not
discharge prosecution of its burden
+estimony of 9i*ette@s mom% sufficient to hold accused liable for statutory rapeCrape of girl below
1" 4#$ Art 88- amended by 4A 6;-9 provides that such is punishable wC4#, thus sentence is
lowered from death to 4# #-0' indemnity _ #-0' moral damages
Hel0 (uilty beyond reasonable doubt 4+$ modified
; People $ Heracleo A%ello (O eit pa
2ACT!0
+he victim in these cases is twentyAone E"1F year old AAA She contracted polio when she was
seven E6F months old She was not able to study on account of her difficulty in wal'ing <ence, she
could only read and write her name including that of her friends
=n 3une 80, 199G at around !%00 o@cloc' EsicF in the early morning, AAA was sleeping in their
house in Lalyeng )mpiyerno, ,avotas, Metro Manila along with her sisterAinAlaw and nephew She
was suddenly awa'ened when Abello Q mashed her breast
$ome 3uly ", 1999 at around 8%00 am Abello again mashed the breast of AAA practically under
the same previous situation while the latter was sleeping )n these two occasions AAA was able to
recogni*e Abello because of the light coming from outside which illuminated the house
+hen on 3uly G, 199G, at around "%00 am, Abello this time placed his soft penis inside the mouth
of AAA +he latter got awa'en when Abello accidentally 'neeled on her right hand AAA exclaimed
0Aray1 forcing the accused to hurriedly enter his room <e was nevertheless seen by AAA +he
victim on the same date reported the incident to her sisterAinAlaw and mother
Amidst the accusation of raping and twice sexually abusing AAA, Abello interposed the defense of
denial )n all of the instances, Abello claimed that he merely stepped on the victim at the sala on
his way to his room after retiring home
; I'2OR4ATIO'!0
on or about the Gth day of 3uly 199G, in ,avotas, Metro Manila, and within the .urisdiction of this
<onorable $ourt, the aboveAnamed accused, being a stepAfather EsicF of victim AAA with lewd
design and by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously putting his penis inside the mouth of said AAA, against her will and without her
consent
+hat on or about the 80th day of 3une 199G, in ,avotas, Metro Manila, and within the .urisdiction
of this <onorable $ourt, the aboveAnamed accused, being a stepAfather EsicF of victim AAA, a EsicF
years old, and #olio Stri'en EsicF, with lewd design by means of violence and intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously mashing her breast, against her will and without her
consent
+hat on or about the "nd day of 3uly 199G, in ,avotas, Metro Manila, and within the .urisdiction of
this <onorable $ourt, the aboveAnamed accused, being a stepAfather EsicF of victim AAA, a EsicF "1
years old, and #olio Stri'en EsicF, with lewd design by means of violence and intimidation, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously mashing her breast, against her will and without her
consent
RTC0 .. &uilt: %e:on reasona%le ou%t of t6e crime of 5iolation of Paragrap6 -, Article
--+(A, Repu%lic Act P'o.Q 7;8; (Anti Rape Law" and hereby sentences him to suffer an
indeterminate penalty of Seven E6F 2ears of prision mayor, as minimum, to +hirteen E18F 2ears of
reclusion temporal, as maximum
-. &uilt: %e:on reasona%le ou%t of two (-" counts of 5iolation of !ection 8, Article III of
Repu%lic Act P'o.Q *+./ (C6il A%use Act" and hereby sentences him in each of the two cases to
suffer an indeterminate penalty of Hour E!F 2ears of prision correctional EsicF, as minimum, to +welve
E1"F 2ears and =ne E1F :ay of prision mayor, as maximum
CA0 affirmed Abello@s conviction on appeal but modified the penalties imposed
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests !-
..)n $riminal $ase ,o 19;"8AM,, appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer an ineterminate
penalt: of twel$e (.-" :ears of prision ma:or, as minimum, to twent: (-/" :ears of
reclusion temporal, as maLimumS Appellant is further ordered to pay complainant, AAA, moral
damages in the amount of #-0,00000
-. )n $riminal $ase ,os 19;"!AM, and 19;"-AM,, appellant is hereby sentenced to suffer the
penalty of reclusion perpetua in eac6 of t6e two cases
Issue0 /hether or not, the court a Duo erred in not absolving the accusedAappellant of the crime
Hel0 /e note that both the 4+$ and $A found AAAs testimony to be positive, direct, and categorical,
while the 4+$ found the defenses version too strained to be believed for being contrary to human
experience A material point we noted is that Abello could not say why AAA would falsely accuse him
+he substance and tenor of the testimony and the element of motivation are critical points for us
since a straightforward, categorical and candid narration by the victim deserves credence if no ill
motive can be shown driving her to falsely testify against the accused =ur consideration of Abello@s
defense of denial and his other arguments lead us to re.ect them for the following reasons%
Hirst, the issue of his credibility is reduced to a choice between the offended party@s positive
testimony and the denial of the accused Settled .urisprudence tells us that the mere denial of one@s
involvement in a crime cannot ta'e precedence over the positive testimony of the offended party
Second, we flatly re.ect Abello@s argument that his relationship with AAA insulates him from the
crimes charged =ur .udicial experience tells us that in handling these types of cases, the relationship
between the offender and the offended party has never been an obstacle to the commission of the
crime against chastity
+hird, we find the claim that AAA could have .ust dreamed of the incidents complained of, to be
preposterous )n the normal course, a woman will not expose herself to these ris's unless she is
certain of what happened and she see's to obtain .ustice against the perpetrator ?ased on these
considerations and in the absence of clear indications of errors in giving credence to AAAs testimony,
we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the 4+$ and the $A
$ape 3/ se4ual assault

?oth the 4+$ and the $A failed to notice the variance between the allegations in the )nformation
for rape and that proven at the trial on the mode of committing the offense +he )nformation
alleges >force an intimiation? as the mode of commission, while AAA testified during the trial
that she was asleep at the time it happened and only awo'e to find Abello@s male organ inside
her mouth
+his variance is not fatal to Abello@s conviction for rape by sexual assault )n People v. $orpu), we
ruled that a variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the accused if he
fails to ob.ect to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a different manner than what
was alleged )n the present case, Abello did not ob.ect to the presentation of evidence showing
that the crime charged was committed in a different manner than what was stated in the
)nformation +hus, the variance is not a bar to Abello@s conviction of the crime charged in the
)nformation
4A ,o G8-8 which too' effect on =ctober "", 1996 introduced into the #hilippine legal system
the concept of rape by sexual assault +his amendment not only reclassified rape as a crime
against persons, but also expanded the definition of rape from the traditional concept of a sexual
intercourse committed by a man against an unwilling woman
+he second paragraph of Article ";;AA of the 4#$, as amended defines rape by sexual assault as
committed by any person who, under any o the circumstance mentioned in para!raph 5 / shall
commit an act o se1ual assault by insertin! his penis into another person4s mouth or anal oriice,
or any instrument or object, into the !enital or anal oriice o another person
+he elements of rape by sexual assault are%
E1F+hat the offender commits an act of sexual assaultB
E"F+hat the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means%
EaF ?y inserting his penis into another person@s mouth or anal orificeB or
E8F +hat the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances%
EaF ?y using force or intimidationB
EbF /hen a woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconsciousB

$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests !;
Acts o lasciviousness

Abello was convicted of two E"F counts of sexual abuse under Section - EbF, Article ))) of 4A ,o
6;10, which defines and penali*es acts of lasciviousness committed against a child%
+he essential elements of this provision are%
1 +he accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
" +he said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or sub.ected to other sexual
abuse
8 +he child whether male or female, is below 1G years of age
#aragraph EhF, Section " of the )mplementing 4ules and 4egulations of 4A 6;10 Eimplementin!
rulesF defines lascivious conduct as a crime committed through the intentional touching, either
directly or through the clothing of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttoc's with
the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any
person, among others
2IR!T 3L343'T0 4ecords show that AAA duly established this element when she positively
testified that Abello fondled her breasts on two separate occasions while she slept
!3CO'D 3L343'T A<!3'T0 ,ot a child +he second element reDuires that the lascivious
conduct be committed on a child who is either exploited in prostitution or sub.ected to other
sexual abuse +his second element reDuires evidence proving that% EaF AAA was either exploited in
prostitution or sub.ected to sexual abuse and EbF she is a child as defined under 4A ,o 6;10
)n 'livare) v. $ourt o Appeals, we explained that the phrase, 0other sexual abuse1 in the above
provision covers not only a child who is abused for profit, but also one who engages in lascivious
conduct t6roug6 t6e coercion or intimiation by an adult )n the latter case, there must be
some form of compulsion eDuivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the
offended party@s will
)n the present case, the prosecution failed to present any evidence showing that force or coercion
attended Abello@s sexual abuse on AAAB the evidence reveals that she was asleep at the time
these crimes happened and only awo'e when she felt her breasts being fondled
<ence, she could have not resisted Abello@s advances as she was unconscious at the time it
happened )n the same manner, there was also no evidence showing that Abello compelled her, or
cowed her into silence to bear his sexual assault, after being roused from sleep ,either is there
evidence that she had the time to manifest conscious lac' of consent or resistance to Abello@s
assault
More importantly, AAA cannot be considered a child under Section 8EaF of 4A ,o 6;10 +he
implementing rules elaborated on this definition when it defined a 0child1 as one who is below 1G
years of age or o$er sai age w6o, upon e$aluation of a Mualifie p6:sician, ps:c6ologist
or ps:c6iatrist, is foun to %e incapa%le of taCing care of 6erself full: %ecause of a
p6:sical or mental isa%ilit: or conition or of protecting 6erself from a%use.
/hile the records show that the 4+$, the $A and the investigating prosecutor who filed the
corresponding )nformations, considered AAAHs polio as a p6:sical isa%ilit: t6at renere
6er incapa%le of normal function, no e$ience was in fact presente s6owing t6e
prosecutionHs compliance wit6 t6e implementing rules. Specifically, the prosecution did not
present any evidence, testimonial or documentary, of any medical evaluation or medical finding
from a Dualified physician, psychologist or psychiatrist attesting that AAA@s physical condition
rendered her incapable of fully ta'ing care of herself or of protecting herself against sexual abuse
Under the circumstances, we cannot consier AAA a c6il uner !ection ;(a" of R.A. 'o.
*+./.
Ee cannot 6ol A%ello lia%le uner R.A. 'o. *+./. Howe$er, we still fin 6im lia%le for
acts of lasci$iousness uner Article ;;+ of t6e RPC, as amended
)n the present case, although the two )nformations wrongly designated 4A ,o 6;10 as the law
violatedB the allegations therein sufficiently constitute acts punishable under Article 88; of the
4#$ whose elements are%
1 +hat the offender commits any act of lasciviousnessB
" +hat the offended party is another person of either sexB and
8 +hat it is done under any of the following circumstances%
a ?y using force or intimidationB or
b /hen the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconsciousB or
c /hen the offended party is under 1" years of age or is demented
+he presence of the first and second elements of the offense has been earlier discussed, albeit in
the consideration of a charge under 4A ,o 6;10 +he prosecution established these elements
through AAA@s testimony that her breasts were fondled while she was asleep
/hile she did not actually see Abello fondling her Eas the fondling was done while she was asleep
and stopped when she awa'enedF, she related that she identified Abello because she saw him
enter her mother@s room immediately after she felt her breasts fondled and after he stepped with
his 'nees on her hand
AAA also testified that Abello was illuminated by a light coming from outside their house Hurther,
the perpetrator could only be Abello as the only other occupants of the house at the time were her
mother, her sisterAinAlaw and her young nephew who were all asleep +he third element was
proven by her testimony that, on two occasions, Abello mashed her breasts while she was
sleeping
As we discussed above, the )nformations alleged the element of violence and intimidation as the
mode of committing the sexual abuses, contrary to what the prosecution established during the
trial that AAA was asleep on the two occasions when the offenses were committed
+he #enalty
+he three )nformations all alleged the stepfat6er(stepaug6ter relations6ip between AAA and
Abello Relations6ip as an alternative circumstance under Article 1- of the 4#$, as amended,
and is an aggra$ating circumstance in crimes against chastity and in rape
+his modifying circumstance, however, was not ul: pro$en in t6e present case due to the
prosecution@s failure to present the marriage contract between Abello and AAA@s mother )f the
fact of marriage came out in the evidence at all, it was via an admission by Abello of his marriage
to AAA@s mother
+his admission, however, is inconclusive evidence to prove the marriage to AAA@s mother as the
marriage contract still remains the best evidence to prove the fact of marriage stricter
reDuirement is only proper as relationship is an aggravating circumstance that increases the
imposable penalty, and hence must be proven by competent evidence
Rape %: seLual assault is penali*ed by prision mayor which has a range of six E;F years and one
E1F day to twelve E1"F years Applying the )ndeterminate Sentence 9aw, the minimum of the
indeterminate penalty shall be within the full range of the penalty that is one degree lower than
prision mayor, in this case, prision correccional which has a range of penalty from six E;F months
and one E1F day to six E;F years )n the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance,
the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be ta'en within the medium period of prision
mayor, or eight EGF years and one E1F day to ten E10F years
<ence, Abello may be sentenced to suffer an ineterminate penalt: ranging from siL (+"
mont6s an one (." a: to siL (+" :ears of prision correccional, as minimum, to eig6t
(7" :ears an one (." a: to ten (./" :ears, as maximum, for the crime of rape
+he imposable penalty for acts of lasci$iousness uner Article ;;+ of t6e RPC, as amended,
is prision correccional. Under Scale ,o 1 of Article 61 of this law, one degree lower from prision
correccional is arresto mayor which has a range of penalty from one E1F month and one E1F day to
six E;F months Applying the )ndeterminate Sentence 9aw, the minimum of the indeterminate
penalty shall be ta'en from the full range of arresto mayor Absent any mitigating or aggravating
circumstance in the case, the maximum of the indeterminate penalty shall be ta'en from the
medium period of prision correccional or two E"F years, four E!F months and one E1F day to four E!F
years and two E"F months
Accordingly, Abello may be meted an ineterminate penalt: ranging from one (." mont6
an one (." a: to siL (+" mont6s of arresto ma/or, as minimum, to two (-" :ears, four
(9" mont6s an one (." a: to four (9" :ears an two (-" mont6s of prision
correccional, as maLimum, for eac6 count of acts of lasci$iousness.
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests !G
DI!PO!ITI530 /<>4>H=4>, premises considered, the decision dated 3anuary 8, "00" of the $ourt of
Appeals in $AA(4 $4 ,o "86!; is AHH)4M>: with the following M=:)H)$A+)=,S in that%
E1F )n $riminal $ase ,o 19;"8, we find appellant <eracleo Abello y Hortada &#ILTF of rape %:
seLual assault efine an penalize uner Articles -++(A an -++(< of t6e Re$ise Penal
Coe, as amended /e sentence him to suffer an indeterminate prison term of six E;F years of
prision correccional, as minimum, to ten E10F years of prision mayor, as maximum <e is =4:>4>: to
pay AAA #80,00000 as civil liabilityB #80,00000 as moral damages and #"-,00000 as exemplary
damagesB
E"F )n $riminal $ase ,os 19;"!AM, and 19;"-AM,, we find appellant <eracleo Abello y Hortada
&#ILTF of - counts of acts of lasci$iousness, efine an penalize uner Article ;;+ of
t6e Re$ise Penal Coe, as amended Hor each count, he is sentenced to an indeterminate prison
term of six E;F months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to four E!F years and two E"F months of prision
correccional, as maximum <e is further =4:>4>: to pay AAA the amounts of #"0,00000 as civil
indemnityB #80,00000 as moral damages and #",00000 as exemplary damages, in each case
6 People $ Romulo &arcia
DOCTRI'30 Accused contend that AAA was never sexually abused because the medicoAlegal findings
showed that there were no signs of swelling on her vagina when she was examined <owever, the
$ourt stated that the lac' of lacerated wounds does not negate sexual intercourse A freshly bro'en
hymen is not an essential element of rape >ven the fact that the hymen of the victim is still intact
does not rule out rape since research show that the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus
)n any case, for rape to be consummated, full penetration is not necessary )t suffices that there is
proof of the entrance of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female organ
2ACT!0
=n March "6, "000, an )nformation for rape was filed against appellant which reads as follows% ;
th
day of 3anuary "000, in the $ity of Mandaluyong, #hilippines, have carnal 'nowledge of one WAAAX,
five E-F years of age and his grandniece by affinity thus sexual abuse pre.udicial to the child@s
development
=n 3une "0, "000, both parties stipulated during preAtrial that the victim AAA was a minor, being
born on 3une "", 199!
)n the afternoon of 3anuary ;, "000, AAA, then five E-F years old, was playing with her friends on
the street outside their house in Sto 4osario Street, Mandaluyong $ity
Appellant called AAA and brought her to his house, which was right next to AAA@s house At the
time, the house was unoccupied +hey went up to the second floor where appellant@s room is
located )nside his room, appellant began removing AAA@s dress, shorts and panty Appellant
then removed his own clothes <e told AAA to lie on the bed, and wasting no time, inserted his
penis into her vagina AAA felt pain, but she was unable to cry for help because appellant warned
her not to tell anyone +hereafter, appellant told AAA to dress up and go home
Around ;%00 pm of the same day, ???, the grandmother of AAA, was preparing to ta'e a bath
when the latter arrived AAA as'ed her grandmother to give her a bath, but when ??? was about
to wash AAA@s genital area, she refused ??? noticed that her granddaughter was trembling and
covering her private part with her hands ??? became suspicious and as'ed her to explain what
happened AAA replied that it was painful because it was pierced by a stic' +hey went upstairs
and ??? told her granddaughter to lie down ??? loo'ed at AAA@s vagina and saw that it was
swollen and reddish <ence, she suspected that AAA had been abuse
+he following day, 3anuary 6, "000, ??? brought AAA to the house of her sisterAinAlaw, $$$, in
Ma'ati $ity, to inform her of AAA@s condition AAA reDuested ??? to go out of the room because
she was embarrassed )t was on this occasion that AAA revealed to $$$ that it was appellant,
whom she calls 09olo ?oyet,1 who abused her in the afternoon of 3anuary ;, "000 ??? explained
that AAA is appellant@s grandniece because his wife, :::, is her sister
$onseDuently, ??? reported the incident to the #,# Mandaluyong $ity #olice Station +he case
was referred to #=1 3osefina 9 Abeno.ar of the /omen and $hildren@s :es' for investigation #=1
Abeno.ar prepared the sworn statements executed by ??? and AAA relative to the incident
S#=! 3ulieta S) >spiritu, $hief of the /omen and $hildren@s :es', corroborated the testimony of
#=1 Abeno.ar S#=! >spiritu testified that she tried to familiari*e AAA with the surroundings in
the police station because she was hesitant to tal' at first She also noticed that AAA loo'ed
serious about what she was saying and observed AAA to be a bit afraid and ashamed She
attested that she issued a referral letter to the $ity #rosecutor@s =ffice
:r :aniel testified that she conducted physical and medicoAgenital examination on AAA
o ,o evident signs of extragenital physical in.ury was noted on the body of the sub.ect at the
time of examination
o <ymen, intact and its orifice small E08 cm in diameterF as to preclude complete
penetration by an averageAsi*ed adult Hilipino male organ in full erection without producing
genital in.ury
o According to :r :aniel, the phrase 0to preclude complete penetration by an averageAsi*ed
adult Hilipino male organ1 means that the hymen was not penetrated by an erect penis, but
explained that in rape cases, a normal finding will not disprove that there was no sexual
intercourse or abuse
:>H>,S>% Alibi
+estifying for appellant, :::, appellant@s commonAlawAwife, testified that on 3anuary ;, "000, she
wo'e up at 6%00 am and coo'ed brea'fast for her children and husband Appellant was allegedly
already downstairs, outside their house, fixing the motor pump when she coo'ed brea'fast She
testified that appellant fixed the water pump the whole day, but admitted that she did not actually
see her husband the whole time because every now and then her husband would go outside to
test the pump She was not able to monitor the movements of appellant as he was sometimes
out of her sight
::: admitted that the victim is her niece while the latter@s guardian, ???, is her sister She
further said that she had disagreements with ??? regarding the house where she resides, and
that the house was given to her by ??? and their other sister
appellant, for his part, testified that on 3anuary ;, "000, he was at the house of Marvin +ara in St
)gnacio Street, Mandaluyong $ity, installing a water pump <e started at G%00 am and came
bac' around 1"%00 noon Hrom 1%00 pm to ;%00 pm, he was at the said house with Mario
=dtuhan, his helperB $ora 4eyesB a nephew of Marvin, whose name he does not 'nowB and a
certain $arding <e further testified that ::: is his liveAin partner, and admitted that he did not
have a harmonious relationship with :::@s father and sister, ???
RTC0 Morally convinced that the accused (U)9+2 of the crime of 4A#>, as defined and
penali*ed under the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended by 4A 6;-9, in relation to 4A 61;0
Hinding the victim, WAAAX, to have been under eighteen E1GF years of age at the time of
rape on 3anuary ;, "000 and finding the offender to be a relative by affinity within the third
civil degree, in addition to the fact that said victim is below seven E6F years old, this $ourt
imposes the supreme penalty of Deat6 t6roug6 Let6al InDection, as provided for in
4epublic Act, G166, amending section "! of 4A 6;-9, in the manner and procedure
therein provided
)ndemnify the offended party the amount of Seventy Hive +housand E#hp 6-,00000F #esos,
the crime of 4ape being effectively Dualified by the circumstances under which the :eath
#enalty is authori*ed by the applicable amendatory laws)ndemnify the victim in the amount
of Hifty +housand E#hp -0,00000F #esos, by way of moral damages
Automatic review to S$ but referred to $A
CA0 4educed the penalty of death imposed by the trial court to reclusion perpetua in view of the
abolition of the :eath #enalty by 4epublic Act ,o
I!!#30 /hether the crime of rape has been sufficiently proven
H3LD0 2>S
<e contends that the trial court hastily disregarded his defense of denial, which was sufficient to
absolve him in light of the evidence on record <e emphasi*es that the medicoAlegal officer
testified that there were no signs of swelling on the victim@s vagina when she was examined
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests -0
Appellant further claims that the victim was coached to ma'e false accusations against him,
considering that he was not in good terms with the victim@s grandmother
+o determine the innocence or guilt of the accused in rape cases, the courts are guided by three
wellAentrenched principles% E1F an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the
accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to
disproveB E"F considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the
crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutini*ed with great cautionB and E8F
the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to
draw strength from the wea'ness of the evidence for the defense
)n the present case, AAA categorically testified that appellant directly inserted his penis into her
vagina, causing her to feel pain AAA@s testimony specified the acts committed by appellant when
he violated her on 3anuary ;, "000,
?oth the 4+$ and the $ourt of Appeals are in agreement that AAA was categorical,
straig6tforwar, spontaneous, con$incing, clear an cani in 6er testimon:. A rape
victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and fran' manner, and remains
consistent, is a credible witness
)n resolving rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility of the victim@s
testimony +he settled rule is that the trial court@s conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in
rape cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and at times even finality, unless
there appear in the record certain facts or circumstances of weight and value which the lower
court overloo'ed or misappreciated and which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the
case
<aving seen and heard the witnesses themselves and observed their behavior and manner of
testifying, the trial court stood in a much better position to decide the Duestion of credibility
<ere, we note that no such facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overloo'ed,
misapprehended or misinterpreted by the trial and appellate courts
Appellant@s claim that the criminal complaint was filed against him because he was not in good
terms with AAA@s grandmother deserves scant consideration +he $ourt finds it incredible for AAA
and her grandmother to trump up charges of rape against appellant for the simple reason that
they did not have a harmonious relationship /ellAsettled is the rule that testimonies of :oung
$ictims of rape eser$e full creence an s6oul not %e so easil: ismisse as a mere
fa%rication.
Moreover, it is highly improbable that ??? would allow her granddaughter to be exposed to the
ridicule of a public trial, if the charges were not true /e note that AAA has been in the custody of
??? since she was an infant, and who treated her as if she were her own daughter )t was thus
$er: unliCel: t6at s6e woul sacrifice 6er own granaug6ter, a c6il of tener :ears,
an su%Dect 6er to t6e rigors an 6umiliation of a pu%lic trial for rape, if she were not
motivated by an honest desire to have her daughter@s transgressor punished accordingly
AAA was never sexually abused because the medicoAlegal findings showed that there were no
signs of swelling on the victim@s vagina when she was examined 9ac' of lacerated wounds does
not negate sexual intercourse A fres6l: %roCen 6:men is not an essential element of rape.
>ven the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule out the possibility of rape
4esearch in medicine even points out that negative findings are of no significance, since the hymen
may not be torn despite repeated coitus
an: case, for rape to %e consummate, full penetration is not necessar:. #enile invasion
necessarily entails contact with the labia )t suffices that there is proof of t6e entrance of t6e
male organ into t6e la%ia of the pudendum of the female organ #enetration of the penis by entry
into the lips of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to .ustify a
conviction for rape
As to the penalty, Article ";;A? of the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended, provides%
o T6e eat6 penalt: s6all also %e impose if t6e crime of rape is committe wit6
an: of t6e following aggra$ating/Mualif:ing circumstances0
o l" E6en t6e $ictim is uner eig6teen (.7" :ears of age an t6e offener is a
parent, ascenant, step(parent, guarian, relati$e %: consanguinit: or affinit:
wit6in t6e t6ir ci$il egree, or t6e common(law spouse of t6e parent of t6e
$ictimS
xxx
8" E6en t6e $ictim is a c6il %elow se$en (*" :ears olS
]xx
Under Article ";;A?, paragraph ;, subsection 1, the death penalty shall be imposed if the
crime of rape is committed when the victim is under 1G years old an the offender is a
0parent, ascendant, stepAparent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim1
+he circumstances that Dualify a crime should be alleged and proved beyond reasonable
doubt as the crime itself, as these attendant circumstances alter the nature of the crime of
rape and increase the penalty +hey are in the nature of Dualifying circumstances T6e age
of t6e $ictim an 6er relations6ip wit6 t6e offener must, t6erefore, %e %ot6
allege in t6e information an pro$en uring t6e trialS ot6erwise, t6e eat6
penalt: cannot %e impose
<ere, the )nformation alleged that AAA is appellant@s grandniece by affinity )t should be
pointed out, however, that t6is relations6ip oes not maCe t6e appellant a relati$e
of t6e $ictim %: consanguinit: or affinit: wit6in t6e t6ir ci$il egree. <ence, the
pro$ision in Article -++(<, paragrap6 +, su%section ., is not applica%le in this case
,evertheless, it is provided under Article ";;A?, paragraph ;, subsection -, that the eat6
penalt: shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when t6e $ictim is a
c6il %elow se$en (*" :ears ol
o +estimonies, birth certificate establish that the victim was only fi$e (8" :ears ol
when the rape was committed
+hus, appellant was, at that time, correctly sentenced to death by the trial court )n view
of the enactment of 4ep Act ,o 98!; on 3une "!, "00;, repealing the :eath #enalty 9aw,
the $ourt of Appeals also correctly modified the death penalty imposed upon appellant to
reclusion perpetua, without eligibility for parole
DI!PO!ITI530 EH3R32OR3, the :ecision dated 3uly ";, "00; of the $ourt of Appeals in $AA(4
$4A<$ ,o 0"160 is hereby A22IR43D with 4ODI2ICATIO' in that appellant is further ordered to
indemnify the victim #6-,00000 as moral damages and #80,00000 as exemplary damages
G People $ 3rnesto #:%oco
DOCTRI'30
)f the victim is 'idnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration
of his detention is immaterial
)n lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within
the latter@s reach =therwise stated, a valid arrest allows the sei*ure of evidence or dangerous
weapons either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control +he
phrase 0within the area of his immediate control1 means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence +herefore, it is only but expected and legally so
for the police to search his car as he was driving it when he was arrested
#ersonal 'nowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion +he grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense is based on actual facts, ie, supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested
A reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable cause, coupled with good faith on
the part of the peace officers ma'ing the arrest Section -, 4ule 118 of the 19G- 4ules on $riminal
#rocedure does not reDuire the arresting officers to personally witness the commission of the
offense with their own eyes
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests -"
4eDuisites before a warrantless arrest can be effected under the second instance of lawful
warrantless arrest E1F an offense has .ust been committedB and E"F the person ma'ing the arrest
has personal 'nowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it
As a rule, the assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best
underta'en by the trial court, which had a uniDue opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand
and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude
$ourt has invariably viewed the defense of frameAup with disfavor 9i'e the defense of alibi, it can
be .ust as easily concocted
2ACT!0
=n "0 :ecember 1998, ,imfa and her wards, siblings 3eson Levin and 3eson Lirby :ichaves were
abducted and brought to a house in Merville Subdivision, #araMaDue ,imfa was able to
recogni*ed one of the 'idnappers as appellant, because she had seen the latter in her employer@s
office
+he 'idnappers called 3epson and demanded for ransom of #"; Million )n one of the calls of the
'idnappers, 3epson was able to recogni*e the voice of appellant because he had several business
transactions
After numerous times of negotiation, the parties finally agreed to a ransom of #1- Million, some in
cash and the balance to be paid in 'ind, such as .ewelry and a pistol Appellant as'ed 3epson to
bring the ransom alone at #anca'e <ouse in Magallanes $ommercial $enter and ordered him to
put the bag in the trun', leave the trun' unloc'ed, and wal' away for ten E10F minutes without
turning bac'
#C)nsp >scandor and #CSupt $han were assigned to proceed to Magallanes $ommercial $enter
and brought a camera to ta'e photo and video coverage of the supposed payAoff <e identified
Macias together with appellant and the latter as the one who too' the ransom
9ater, appellant chec'ed on his trun' and the bag was already gone Appellant then apprised him
that his sons and helper were already at the Shell (asoline Station along South 9u*on >xpressway
<e immediately went to the place and found his sons and helper seated at the corner of the gas
station #CSupt $ru* and his group was assigned at Hort ?onifacio then heard on their radio that
the suspect@s vehicle, a red ,issan Sentra was heading in their direction
A few minutes later, they saw the red car and tailed it until it reached :asmariMas Iillage in
Ma'ati /hen said car slowed down, they bloc'ed it and immediately approached the vehicle
+hey introduced themselves as police officers and accosted the suspect, who turned out to be
appellant Appellant suddenly pulled a 8Gcaliber revolver and a scuffle too' place +hey managed
to subdue appellant and handcuffed him Appellant was reDuested to open the compartment and
a gray bag was found inside #CSupt $ru* saw money, .ewelry and a gun inside the bag
I!!#3!0 /hether or not there was a valid arrest and search without warrantJ
H3LD0
+he arrest was validly executed pursuant to Section -, paragraph EbF of 4ule 118 of the 4ules of
$ourt, which provides% 0A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person% x x xB EbF /hen an offense has in fact been committed and he has personal 'nowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed itB and, EcF x x x1
A search incident to a lawful arrest is also valid under Section 18, 4ule 1"; of the 4ules of $ourt
which states% 0 A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
warrant1
+he instance of lawful warrantless arrest covered by paragraph EbF cited above necessitates two
stringent reDuirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected% E1F an offense has .ust been
committedB and E"F the person ma'ing the arrest has personal 'nowledge of facts indicating that
the person to be arrested has committed it
4ecords show that both reDuirements are present in the instant case +he police officers present
in Magallanes $ommercial $enter were able to witness the payAoff which effectively consummates
the crime of 'idnapping Such 'nowledge was then relayed to the other police officers stationed in
Hort ?onifacio where appellant was expected to pass by
#ersonal 'nowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which means an actual belief or
reasonable grounds of suspicion Section -, 4ule 118 does not reDuire the arresting officers to
personally witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes )t is sufficient for the
arresting team that they were monitoring the payAoff for a number of hours long enough for them
to be informed that it was indeed appellant, who was the 'idnapper +his is eDuivalent to personal
'nowledge based on probable cause
9i'ewise, the search conducted inside the car of appellant was legal because the latter consented
to such >ven assuming that appellant did not give his consent for the police to search the car,
they can still validly do so by virtue of a search incident to a lawful arrest under Section 18, 4ule
1";
)n lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within
the latterKs reach +herefore, it is only but expected and legally so for the police to search his car
as he was driving it when he was arrested
DI!PO!ITI530 /<>4>H=4>, the decision appealed from are AHH)4M>:
9 People $ Dima 4ontanir
2ACT!0
3osie <errera, 4obert Uy, Alicia 0a'a Alice1 ?uenaflor, together with appellants 4onald ,orva and
>duardo $hua, on :ecember 16, 1996, concocted a plan to 'idnap 4afael Mendo*a, and after
several days of conducting surveillance on their intended victim, on 3anuary -, 199G, they decided
to 'idnap 4afael in Ali Mall, $ubao, Oue*on $ity <owever, the intended 'idnapping failed,
because 4afael did not show up at the said place
=n Hebruary -, 199G, a second attempt was made, but they encountered an accident before they
could even execute their original plan
Around -%80 am of Hebruary 16, 199G, Alicia called up 4osalina 4eyes, a partner of 4afael, to tell
her that she wanted to meet her and 4afael at 3ollibee, ???, Ialen*uela $ity to settle the formerKs
loan of #8-0,00000 She reDuested 4osalina to bring the land title which she was given as
collateral for the said loan
4osalina and 4afael arrived at 3ollibee ahead of Alicia >ventually, around 9%1- am of the same
date, Alicia showed up outside the store aboard a car She was with appellant 4onald ,orva
Alicia motioned 4osalina and 4afael to approach the car, which the two did as reDuested /hile
inside the vehicle, Alicia introduced appellant 4onald as her cousin 9ater on, Alicia informed
4osalina and 4afael that she would pay them at her place
/hen the car passed by the street where AliciaKs house was located, 4osalina as'ed the former
where they were going Alicia answered that they had to drop by the house of her financier who
agreed to redeem her title and substitute as her creditor +rusting Alicia, 4osalina and 4afael did
not protest +hey finally reached a house in $iudad (rande, Ialen*uela $ity
+hereafter, appellant 4onald alighted from the vehicle and tal'ed to a man inside a store, later
identified as 3onard Mangelin +he gate of the house was then opened by appellant :ima +he car
proceeded to the garage and 4osalina and 4afael were as'ed to go inside the house 4osalina
followed Alicia, while 4afael trailed 4osalina as they entered through a 'itchen door +hey passed
by a man E3essie :oeF who was washing his hands in the sin'
/hile 4osalina was wal'ing behind Alicia, she suddenly heard a dull moan coupled with the sound
of stomping feet She loo'ed bac' at the direction where the sounds came from and saw 4afael
being forcibly dragged inside a room She decided to loo' for 4afael and on her way, she saw
03essie :oe1 place his hand on 4afaelKs mouth and po'e a gun at him 4afael struggled to get
free 4osalina pleaded with 03essie :oe1 to have pity on 4afael because of his existing heart
ailment
Appellant 4onald rushed towards her, po'ed a gun at her mouth, tied her to a bed and warned her
not to ma'e any noise <e told her that all they want is her money, upon which, 4osalina said that
if they really wanted money, they should untie 4afael, who then appeared to be on the verge of
having a heart attac' 4osalina was untied and she immediately rushed to 4afael and began
pumping his chest She as'ed 3onard, who had .ust entered the room, to help her pump 4afaelKs
chest while she applied $#4 on the latter 3onard did as told /hile $#4 was being administered,
appellant :ima started removing all of 4afaelKs personal belongings, which include his ring, wallet,
watch and other items inside his poc'et, and passed them on to appellant 4onald
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests -!
Afterwards, appellant 4onald instructed 3onard to ta'e 4osalina to another room /hile inside the
room where she was brought, 4osalina begged 3onard to help her escape 3onard was moved by
4osalinaKs plea and agreed to help her :uring their conversation, 3onard told 4osalina that two
women had tipped them off as the 'idnap victims /hen as'ed who they were, 3onard refused to
reveal their identities
4osalina was transferred to the masterKs bedroom around 1"%00 noon because certain female
visitors arrived After the visitors left, 4osalina was returned to the room where she was
previously ta'en 4osalina as'ed 3onard about 4afaelKs condition, to which he replied that 4afael
would be brought to the hospital A little later, at around 1 pm, 3onard went to chec' on 4afael
and confirmed that he was still alive
Around "%00 pm, 4osalina heard the sound of someone being pummelled Heeling nervous, she
as'ed 3onard the whereabouts of 4afael and was told that he was brought to the hospital ?ut
un'nown to 4osalina, 4afael had .ust died and his body was placed inside the trun' of a car
Around ;%80 pm, 4osalina was informed that she will be brought to another safe house She was
ta'en to a car and placed at the bac' seat, together with 3onard and three other men, later
identified as 9arry, 3ac' and ?oy +he driver of the car was appellant 4onald Appellant 4onald
instructed 3onard to cover 4osalinaKs head with a .ac'et which 3onard did As they were about to
leave, the man seated beside 4onald started to tal' 4osalina recogni*ed the voice of 4obert
She then lifted the .ac'et covering her head and was able to confirm that the one tal'ing was
4obert 4osalina cried, 04obert, 4obert, why did you do this, we did not do anything to you1 and
4obert responded, 0Pasensiyahan na lan! tayo1
?y 10%00 pm, they arrived at a certain house in #andi, ?ulacan where there was no electricity
+hus, they lit candles for illumination 4osalina found the house familiar and concluded that it was
AliciaKs 4osalina was brought to a room on the second floor and while inside the room, she was
told by one of the men guarding her that one of the leaders wanted to tal' to her #er the leaderKs
instruction, the guard put out the candle light +he man then seated himself beside 4osalina and
warned her against escaping as they were a large and armed group 4osalina recogni*ed the
voice as that of 4obertKs ?efore he left the room, 4obert gave instructions to 3onard and the
other men inside Meanwhile, the group started digging a pit at the bac' of the same house near
the swimming pool
Around 8%00 am of the following day EHebruary 1GF, the group buried 4afaelKs body in the pit
+hereafter, 4obert instructed appellant 4onald to tell 3onard that the latter should 'ill 4osalina,
which 3onard refused to do ,onetheless, 4obert instructed 3onard and the others to guard
4osalina well, as he himself would deal with her upon his return
4osalina heard the car leave around -%00 am of the same day Sensing that 3onard was
sympathetic to her, 4osalina begged him again to help her escape for the sa'e of her children
/hen electricity was restored around G pm, one of the men guarding 4osalina turned off the
light inside the room +he room was only illuminated by a light coming from the hallway
4osalina saw a person wearing a wig and sunglasses enter the room 4osalina recogni*ed him as
4obert
+rying to mimic a woman by modulating his voice, 4obert told her that 4afael was in the hospital
and that he could still sign a chec' <e as'ed 4osalina the whereabouts of the other land titles
and the identities of the other financiers whom she 'new 4osalina replied in the negative
4obert angrily po'ed a gun at her and shouted, 0+hatKs impossible,1 and then left the room <e
gave instructions to his members and left
At 9%00 pm, 3onard went to 4osalina and told her about 4obertKs order to 'ill her, which caused
the latter to panic and cry She then implored the help of 3onard for her escape Afterwards,
3onard went to his companions 9arry, 3ac' and ?oy and told them that he would help 4osalina
escape <is companions immediately coc'ed their guns and an argument ensued 4osalina tal'ed
to them and begged them all to spare her life =ne of 3onardKs companions told 4osalina that if
they would allow her to escape, they too would get into trouble +a'ing advantage of the
situation, 4osalina suggested that all of them should escape +hey all agreed to escape in the
early morning
Around -%00 am, 4osalina, 3onard, 9arry, 3ac' and ?oy left the safe house +hey wal'ed through
a rice field for about 80 minutes and then boarded a .eepney bound for ?alagtas, ?ulacan Hrom
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests --
?alagtas, they too' a bus going to $ubao and arrived at 6%80 am 4osalina pawned her pieces of
.ewelry for #1,-0000 and gave the #1,00000 to 9arry, 3ac' and ?oy +he three told 3onard to stay
with 4osalina so that she would have a witness and, in case 4osalina would further need their
help, left their address with 3onard
/hen the three left, 4osalina immediately called 4afaelKs brother +ito, and related what happened
to her and his brother /hen +ito as'ed 3onard which hospital 4afael was brought to, 3onard
revealed to 4osalina that 4afael died at the safe house in $iudad (rande, Ialen*uela $ity
4osalina called her lawyer, Atty +eresita Agbi and as'ed her to meet them at HarmerKs, $ubao
/hen Atty Agbi arrived, she accompanied them to the :epartment of )nterior and 9ocal
(overnment E:)9(F where an investigation was conducted
+he following day, at !%00 am, two groups from the :)9( were formed to arrest Alicia, 3osie, the
appellants, and 4obert Alicia and 3osie were not at their homes, while appellants 4onald and
:ima were arrested at the residence of 4obert /hile at the :)9( office, 4osalina positively
identified appellants 4onald and :ima as her 'idnappers Meanwhile, 3onard accompanied the
police authorities to the safe house in #andi, ?ulacan and showed them where the body of 4afael
was buried +he remains of 4afael was later on exhumed
Two Informations were filed with the 4+$ of Ialen*uela $ity E?ranch 161%
o 16
th
day of Hebruary 199G in Ialen*uela, Metro Manila, conspiring together and mutually
helping one another, being then private person, did then and 'idnap one 4=SA9),A 4>2>S
against her will and detained her, thereby depriving her of her liberty for a period of two
days
o 16
th
day of Hebruary 199G in Ialen*uela, Metro Manila, accused, conspiring together and
mutually helping one another, being then a private person, did then and 'idnap one
4AHA>9 M>,:=SA against his will and detained him, thereby depriving him of his liberty
and on the occasion thereof, the death of the victim resulted ELidnapping resulting to
homicideJF
Upon arraignment, with the assistance of counsel, 3onard and appellants 4onald, :ima and
>duardo, pleaded 0not guilty1 to the crime charged 4obert Uy, Alice ?uenaflor and 3essie :oe
remained atAlarge during the trial of the case 3onard was later on discharged as a state witness
Afterwards, the trial on the merits ensued
RTC0 :)MA M=,+A,)4, 4=,A9: ,=4IA, and >:UA4:= $<UA are hereby found (U)9+2, crime of
'idnapping ES#>$)A9 $=M#9>] $4)M> =H L):,A##),( /)+< <=M)$):>F and in accordance with
Article ";6 of the 4evised #enal $ode
- #enalty of :>A+< on accused ,=4IA and M=,+A,)4 As regards accused $<UA, this $ourt
hereby imposes the penalty of reclusion perpetua
- Hurther, accused Montanir, ,orva and $hua are hereby held .ointly and severally liable to pay
the heirs of Mendo*a the amount of #hp 61,00000 in actual damages and #hp -0,00000 as
moral damages
- As for accused 3=S)> <>44>4A, the $ourt hereby A$OU)+S her on reasonable doubt of the
charge of 'idnapping
- M)SS),(% /ith regard to accused A9)$> ?U>,AH9=4, 4=?>4+ U2 and one 3>SS)> :=>, let the
cases against them be A4$<)I>: pending their apprehension Meantime, let an alias warrant
issue for their apprehension

CA0 =n automatic review, Affirmed the conviction with modification on the penalty imposed, thus%
#enalty of death imposed on accused Montanir and ,orva is hereby modified to reclusion perpetua
to conform to and in accordance with 4epublic Act ,o 98!; Appellants Montanir, ,orva and $hua
are ordered to pay .ointly and severally the amount of #-0,00000 as civil indemnity to the heirs of
the victims
I!!#3!0

:)MA M=,+A,)4% ,ot beyond reasonable doubt
>:UA4:= $<UA% ,ot a conspirator

$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests -;
4=,A9: ,=4IA% ?eyond reasonable doubt
H3LD0
After the amendment of the 4evised #enal $ode on :ecember 81, 1998 by Repu%lic Act
'o. *+8), Article ";6 of the 4evised #enal $ode, now provides%
6idnappin! and serious ille!al detention A Any private individual who shall 'idnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death%
o 1 )f the 'idnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days
o " )f it shall have been committed simulating public authority
o 8 )f any serious physical in.uries shall have been inflicted upon the person
'idnapped or detainedB or if threats to 'ill him shall have been made
o ! )f the person 'idnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is
any of the parents, female or a public officerB
T6e penalt: s6all %e eat6 where the 'idnapping or detention was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the
circumstances aboveAmentioned were present in the commission of the offense
E6en t6e $ictim is Cille or ies as a conseMuence of t6e etention or is raped,
or is sub.ected to torture or dehumani*ing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed
+his amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of Kspecial complex crimeK
of 'idnapping with murder or homicide )t effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by
the courts between those cases where the 'illing of the 'idnapped victim was purposely
sought by the accused, and those where the 'illing of the victim was not deliberately
resorted to but was merely an afterthought
$onseDuently, the rule now is% E6ere t6e person Cinappe is Cille in t6e course of
t6e etention, regarless of w6et6er t6e Cilling was purposel: soug6t or was
merel: an aftert6oug6t, t6e Cinapping an murer or 6omicie can no longer %e
compleLe uner Art. 97, nor %e treate as separate crimes, %ut s6all %e
punis6e as a special compleL crime uner t6e last paragrap6 of Art. -+*, as
amene %: RA 'o. *+8).
A discussion on the nature of special complex crime is imperative E6ere t6e law
pro$ies a single penalt: for two or more component offenses, t6e resulting
crime is calle a special compleL crime.
As earlier mentioned, 4A ,o 6;-9 amended Article ";6 of the 4evised #enal $ode by
adding thereto this provision% &/hen the victim is 'illed or dies as a conseDuence of the
detention, or is raped, or is sub.ected to torture or dehumani*ing acts, the maximum
penalty shall be imposedB and that this provision gives rise to a special complex crime
)t appearing from the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution that there is a &direct
relation, and intimate connection1 between the 'idnapping, 'illing and raping of Mari.oy,
rape cannot be considered merely as an aggravating circumstance but as a component
offense forming part of the herein special complex crime
&/here the person 'illed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the 'illing
was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the 'idnapping and murder or
homicide can no longer be complexed under Article !G, nor be treated as separate crimes,
but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Article ";6&
+he same principle applies here +he 'idnapping and serious illegal detention can no longer
be complexed under Article !G, nor be treated as separate crime but shall be punished as a
special complex crime
At an: rate, t6e tec6nical esignation of t6e crime is of no conseMuence in t6e
imposition of t6e penalt: consiering t6at Cinapping an serious illegal
etention if compleLe wit6 eit6er 6omicie or rape, still, t6e maLimum penalt:
of eat6 s6all %e impose
)n this particular case, the )nformation specifically alleges that the appellants wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously Cinappe 4afael Mendo*a against his will and detained him,
thereby depriving him of his liberty and on t6e occasion t6ereof, t6e eat6 of t6e
$ictim resulte +he trial court, in its decision, particularly in the dispositive portion,
merely stated that the appellants were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of 'idnapping, however, its mention of the phrase, in accordance with Article 789 o the
Revised Penal $ode, as amended, this $ourt hereby imposes the penalty o D3A2+ on
accused :orva and 0ontanir, clearly refers to the crime committed as that of the special
compleL crime of Ainapping wit6 Homicie.
+he appellants, therefore, were correctly punished under the last paragraph of Article ";6
as the evidence presented during the trial, in its entirety, undoubtedly proves that the
death of 4afael Mendo*a, although of natural causes, occurred on the occasion of the
'idnapping
?>2=,: 4>AS=,A?9> :=U?+% +he trial courtKs assessment of the credibility of a witness is
entitled to great weight )t is conclusive and binding unless shown to be tainted with
arbitrariness or unless, through oversight, some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence has not been considered
Absent any showing that the trial .udge overloo'ed, misunderstood, or misapplied some
facts or circumstances of weight which would affect the result of the case, or that the .udge
acted arbitrarily, his assessment of the credibility of witnesses deserves high respect by
appellate courts
Inconsistencies
Appellants claim that 3onard, a witness for the prosecution, stated in his #inumpaan! #alaysay
that he was the one who whispered to appellant 4onald to transfer 4osalina to another room so
that the latter would have no idea that 4afael was in a critical condition, but during trial, 3onard
testified that it was 4onald who instructed him to transfer 4osalina to a different room
Appellants also point out that in the same sworn statement, 3onard averred that he resided in
+aguig since =ctober, 19G6, which is contrary to what he testified in court that he resided in that
same place since 1996 )n addition, appellants further argue that in her testimony, 4osalina
declared that she was with four men seated at the bac' of the car when she was brought to
#andi, ?ulacan, however, 3onard, in his own testimony, stated that there were four of them
including 4osalina seated at the bac' of the car
A close reading of the above inconsistencies asserted by the appellants show that the same refer
onl: to minor etails an collateral matters an o not affect t6e $eracit: an weig6t
of t6e testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution /hat really prevails is the consistency
of the testimonies of the witnesses in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification
of the appellants Slight contradictions in fact even serve to strengthen the credibility of the
witnesses and prove that their testimonies are not rehearsed +hey are thus safeguards against
memori*ed per.ury
+estimonies in court are given more weight than affidavits, thus% Affidavits are not entirely
reliable evidence in court due to their incompleteness and the inaccuracies that may have
attended their formulation)n general, such affidavits are not prepared by the affiants themselves
but by another person Ei.e, investigatorF who may have used his own language in writing the
statement or misunderstood the affiant or omitted material facts in the hurry and impatience that
usually attend the preparation of such affidavits
An affia$it, >%eing taCen eL(parte, is almost alwa:s incomplete an often inaccurate,
sometimes from partial suggestion, an sometimes from want of suggestion an
inMuiries, wit6out t6e ai of w6ic6 t6e witness ma: %e una%le to recall t6e connecte
collateral circumstances necessar: for t6e correction of t6e first suggestion of 6is
memor: an for 6is accurate recollection of all t6at %elongs to t6e su%Dect
affia$its 6a$e generall: %een consiere inferior to testimon: gi$en in open
court
)ncidentally, the $A was correct in stating that 3onard was able to explain and reconcile the
minor discrepancies in his testimony by saying that he whispered to appellant 4onald that
4afael was in a bad condition and afterwards, it was appellant 4onald who instructed him
to transfer 4osalina to another room, thus% 0A% T6e two are true, maRam, %ecause
w6en I w6ispere to 6im t6at t6e ol man was in a %a conition 6e ga$e me
instruction to transfer 4rs. Re:es to anot6er room.1
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests -G
+he same is true with his inconsistent statements regarding his time of residence in +aguig,
thus% 0T6e trut6 is .))*1
#rosecution was not able to establish his participation in the commission of the crime
because he was merely the house helper of the safe house in $iudad (rande, Ialen*uela,
w6en t6e Cinappers an t6e $ictims arri$e. )n the same vein, appellant 4onald
asserts that there was no convincing evidence presented by the prosecution that will point
to his clear participation in t6e crime %ecause 6e was Dust t6e ri$er of t6e car
that brought the victims to the place where the latter were 'ept Appellant >duardo also
insists that he was not a participant in t6e offense c6arge in t6e Information
?asically, the appellants deny any participation in the 'idnapping

Conspirac: eLists
$onspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it
Ierily, when conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, not
individual, that render all of them eDually liable regardless of the extent of their respective
participations, the act of one being deemed to be the act of the other or the others, in the
commission of the felony
>ach conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which follows incidentally
in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and natural conseDuences even
though it was not intended as part of the original design 4esponsibility of a conspirator is not
confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral
acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended
$onspirators are held to have intended the conseDuences of their acts and by purposely engaging
in conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result, they are, in
contemplation of law, chargeable with intending that result
$onspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless such act differs
radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit
As 3udge 9earned <and put it in United #tates v. Andolscheck 0when a conspirator embar's upon a
criminal venture of indefinite outline, he ta'es his chances as to its content and membership, so
be it that they fall within the common purposes as he understands them1
>I):>,$>% +he trial court correctly found the denial of appellant :ima that he had 'nowledge of
the 'idnapping, unbelievable +he appellant@s bare denial is a wea' defense that becomes even
wea'er in the face of the prosecution witnesses@ positive identification of him
As for accused Montanir, again, this $ourt finds the testimonies of prosecution witnesses more
credible than his testimony applying the same principle that evidence to be believed must not
only proceed from a mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself, such that the
common experience and observation of man'ind can show it as probable under the
circumstances
$ertainly, this $ourt is not convinced by accused MontanirKs claim that he was at $iudad (rande
because he was a house boy of accused $hua after he admitted the circumstances under which
he has to live there a few days before the victims were brought there
+o begin with, this $ourt does not buy accused MontanirKs explanation that he transferred to $hua
because he was loo'ing for a permanent .ob is hardly credible because he himself admitted that
when he was brought by accused Uy to the residence of accused $hua at $iudad (rande, it was
the understanding that it would be accused Uy who would be paying his salary /hy would
accused Uy pay the salary of accused Montanir if he was to wor' as a house boy of accused $huaJ
>vidently, the only plausible reason why accused Uy would pay the salary of accused Montanir is
because he was actually wor'ing for the former and only posted in the house of accused $hua at
$iudad (rande to play his part in the execution of the planned 'idnapping +his conclusion is
bolstered by accused MontanirKs admission that he never even spo'e with accused $hua during all
those times that he stayed at accused $huaKs residence as in fact, he too' orders from accused
Uy
Moreover, this $ourt finds it rather perplexing that accused Montanir would suddenly go bac' to
the house of accused Uy on 19 Hebruary 199G on the shallow reason that he had no companion at
$iudad (rande when precisely he said he was hired as a careta'er thereat while the regular boy
was on vacation
+he above conclusion was bolstered by the positive identification of the same appellant and his
exact participation in the execution of the crime, by the witnesses for the prosecution, thus%
/)+,>SS 3=,A4:% ) saw 1ess an Dems poCing a gun to (sic" 4r. 4enoza /)+,>SS
4=SA9),A% E6ile we were pumping 4r. 4enozaRs c6est, Dima 4ontanir was %us:
remo$ing t6e t6ings of 4r. 4enoza. /ho was thereJ Dima 4ontanir
)n li'e manner, appellant >duardoKs denial that he participated in the offense charged does not
outweigh the testimonies of the witnesses positively identifying him as one of the culprits, thus%
/)+,>SS 3=,A4: = E6en :ou sai t6e: are m: <oss, to w6om, 4r. Eitness, are :ou
referring toT A Ronal 'or$a, Ro%ert #:, 3uaro C6ua, Alice <uenaflor an 1osie
Herrera.
= Fou also mentione t6e name of 3uaro C6ua as one of :our %osses, w6: o :ou
sa: so t6at 6e was one of :our %ossesT A <ecause t6e: were t6e ones planning 6ow
t6e: coul get 4r. 4enoza.
= E6o were t6ese people in t6e group, 4r. EitnessT A Alice <uenaflor, Ro%ert #:,
Ronal 'or$a, 3uaro C6ua an 1osie Herrera.
= An w6o participate in t6e plan, 4r. EitnessT A 3uaro C6ua, Ro%ert #:,
Ronal, Alice <uenaflor an 1osie Herrera.
)t must always be remembered that between positive and categorical testimony which has a ring
of truth to it on the one hand, and a bare denial on the other, the former generally prevails
)t is also not disputed that the safe house in $iudad (rande, Ialen*uela, where the victims were
brought was owned by appellant >duardo
+he trial court was also correct in dismissing the claim of appellant >duardo that he merely lent
his car to 4obert and allowed the latter to occupy his house because 4obert had been so
accommodating to him and had facilitated his loan, thus% 4egarding the criminal liability of
accused $hua, while it is conceded that the said accused was now6ere in t6e actual scene of
t6e incient, this $ourt nonetheless finds the said accused guilt: of Cinapping as one of t6e
conspirators to the commission of the felony who participated by furnishing the vehicle used in
abducting the victims and the house where they were held captive and where Mendo*a died
)t is also bewildering to this $ourt why immediately after receiving the money he borrowed, he
would spend it in going to :avao with his daughter on 1G Hebruary 19GG, without any previous
plan whatsoever and suspiciously, upon invitation of accused Uy who had 'nown by then that one
of the victims, Mendo*a, had died in the course of the 'idnapping

DI!PO!ITI530 EH3R32OR3, the :ecision dated April "", "00G of the $ourt Appeals, affirming
with modification the :ecision dated =ctober "G, "00! of the 4egional +rial $ourt E4+$F of Ialen*uela
$ity, ?ranch 161 is hereby A22IR43D, with further 4ODI2ICATIO' that all the appellants herein
are eDually found &#ILTF of t6e special compleL crime of Ainapping wit6 Homicie.

10 People $ 1oel <alu:a
2ACT!0
o )n an )nformation dated September !, "008, appellant was indicted before 4+$ of Manila for the
crime of Cinapping an serious illegal etention, allegedly committed as follows%
o +hat on or about August 81, "008, in the $ity of Manila, #hilippines, the said accused, being
then a private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously 'idnap, ta'e,
detain and carry away one &LODIL CA!TILLO' F 4AA4<O'&, a minor, nine ()" :ears
ol, son of (loria $astillon y Maambong, while the latter was playing outside of their residence
along 9aon 9aan St, Sampaloc, this $ity, by po'ing a 'nife on his bac', twisting his hands and
forcibly bringing him to ,ovaliches, Oue*on $ity, thus detaining and depriving him of his
liberty under restraint and against his will and consent
o Around 10%80 am of August 81, "008, the victim, (lodil $astillon E(lodilF, who at that time was
nine E9F years old, was playing in front of their house located along 9aon 9aan St, Sampaloc,
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ;0
Manila /hile in the midst of play, he saw herein appellant Appellant then called (lodilKs attention
and summoned him to come forth
o )mmediately thereafter, appellant sei*ed him by twisting his right arm, pointed a 'nife at him and
told him that if appellantKs wife, Marissa, would not show up (lodilKs mother would not see him
anymore Appellant and (lodil then boarded a .eepney and went to ?lumentritt /hen they were
in ?lumentritt, appellant called up (lodilKs mother, (loria, telling her to show him his wife so that
she will also be able to see (lodil
o (loria then as'ed appellant to allow her to tal' to her son as proof that (lodil was indeed with
him Appellant then passed the telephone to (lodil, but the latter was only able to momentarily
tal' with his mother because appellant immediately grabbed the telephone from him
o +hereafter, (lodilKs mother reported the incident to the police Meanwhile, appellant and (lodil
again boarded a .eepney and went to ,ovaliches )t was (lodilKs first time to reach ,ovaliches
Upon reaching ,ovaliches 0?ayan,1 they headed straight to a barbershop where they fetched
appellantKs three minor children
o +hey then proceeded to a church where appellant left his children and (lodil in the playground
within the church premises (lodil played, ate and slept with appellantKs children until the
afternoon of the same day :uring that period, appellant returned from time to time to chec' on
them and bring them food
o At 8%80 pm of the same day, appellant again called up (loria and, while shouting, as'ed if his
wife was already there <e then threatened (loria by saying that ;kapa! hindi mo ipakita sa akin
si 0arissa, hindi mo na makikita an! anak mo.< SubseDuently, (loria was able to tal' to Marissa
and convince her to meet with appellant at the ,ovaliches public mar'et
o Un'nown to appellant, the police already had a plan to arrest him, which they did when he
showed up to meet with his wife )n the meantime, around !%00 pm of August 81, "008, (lodil
was able to sei*e an opportunity to escape while appellant was away <e wal'ed from the place
where appellant left him in ,ovaliches until he reached their house and it too' him around four
hours to do so <e was able to trace bac' their house by reading the signboard of the .eepneys
and following the route of those that pass by his place of residence
D323'!30
o =n the other hand, the defense interposed the defense of denial alleging that on August 81, "008,
appellant went to the house of his commonAlawAwifeKs aunt, (loria, at 9aon 9aan St in Sampaloc,
Manila for the purpose of as'ing the latter if his wife, with whom he has been separated, has been
there
o (loria told him that his wife went to their house once but has not seen her since then After an
hour of tal'ing with (loria, appellant bid her goodbye )t was then that (lodil approached him and
as'ed if he could go with him to ,ovaliches Since (lodil already went with him to ,ovaliches
several times in the past, appellant acceded to the childKs reDuest on the condition that he as' his
mother for permission, which the latter readily gave
o Appellant and (lodil then proceeded to the formerKs house in ,ovaliches After ta'ing lunch,
appellant too' his children and (lodil to the playground and left them there /hen he returned
around !%80 pm, (lodil was no longer there <is children told him that (lodilKs aunt, by the name
of 4osaly, fetched him
o Appellant then brought home his children Around ;%00 pm of the same day, the police, together
with (loria and his wife, arrived at his house wherein he was apprehended and brought to a police
station in ,ovaliches After having been sub.ected to a medical examination, he was turned over
to #olice Station ! in ?alicA?alic, Manila, where he was subseDuently charged with 'idnapping
o Appellant alleges that his wife and her aunt came up with the scheme of accusing him with
'idnapping so that his wife would be able to ta'e their children from him

Appellant also claims
that (loria is angry with 0warays1 and because he is a 0waray1 she is also angry with him

RTC0 (U)9+2 of the crime of Lidnapping with Serious )llegal :etention and sentences him to suffer
the penalty of reclusion perpetua with all the accessory penalties provided by law and to pay the
costs
CA0 AHH)4M>:, sub.ect to the modification that accused 3=>9 ?A9U2A y ,=+A4+> is ordered to pay to
victim (lodil M $astillon the amounts of #80,00000 as moral damages and of #1-,00000 as nominal
damages
I!!#3!0
1 /hether t<> $=U4+ A OU= (4AI>92 >44>: ), H),:),( +<> A$$US>: (U)9+2 ?>2=,:
4>AS=,A?9> :=U?+ =H +<> $4)M> $<A4(>:
" +<> $=U4+ A OU= (4AI>92 >44>: ), ()I),( $4>:>,$> += +<> +>S+)M=,2 =H +<>
#4=S>$U+)=, /)+,>SS>S +<A+ +<> I)$+)M /AS H=4$)?92 +AL>, A,: :>#4)I>: =H <)S
9)?>4+2 U,:>4 4>S+4A),+ A,: A(A),S+ <)S /)99 A,: $=,S>,+
8 /hether $=U4+ A OU= (4AI>92 >44>: ), HA)9),( += :>+>4M),> +<> A99>(A+)=, =H
M),=4)+2 =H +<> I)$+)M

o Appellant argues that the prosecution failed to prove the presence of all the elements of the crime
charged )n particular, the defense contends that there is no evidence to show that the victim was
deprived of his liberty

H3LD0 A22IR4 CO'5ICTIO'

o +he elements of 'idnapping and serious illegal detention under Article ";6of the 4evised
#enal $ode E4#$F are%

1 the offender is a private individualB
" he 'idnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his libertyB
8 the act of detention or 'idnapping is illegalB and
! in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present% EaF the
'idnapping or detention lasts for more than 8 daysB or EbF it is committed by simulating
public authorityB or EcF any serious physical in.uries are inflicted upon the person 'idnapped
or detained or threats to 'ill him are madeB or EdF the person 'idnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer

2IR!T0 +he presence of the first element is not in issue as there is no dispute that appellant is a
private individual
!3CO'D0 As to the second element of the crime, the deprivation reDuired by Article ";6 of the 4#$
means not onl: t6e imprisonment of a person, %ut also t6e epri$ation of 6is li%ert: in
w6ate$er form an for w6ate$er lengt6 of time.
o )t involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or
is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move )f the victim is a child, it also includes the intention
of the accused to deprive the parents of the custody of the child )n other words, the essence of
'idnapping is the actual deprivation of the victimKs liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the
intent of the accused to effect such deprivation
o )n the present case, (lodil was in the control of appellant as he was 'ept in a place strange and
unfamiliar to him ?ecause of his tender age and the fact that he did not 'now the way bac'
home, he was then and there deprived of his liberty +he intention to deprive (lodilKs parents of
his custody is also indicated by appellantKs actual ta'ing of the child without the permission or
'nowledge of his parents, of subseDuently calling up the victim@s mother to inform her that the
child is in his custody and of threatening her that she will no longer see her son if she failed to
show his wife to him
o AppellantKs arguments that the victim is free to go home if he wanted to because he was not
confined, detained or deprived of his liberty and that there is no evidence to show that (lodil
sustained any in.ury, cannot hold water
o +he $A is correct in holding that for 'idnapping to exist, it is not necessar: t6at t6e offener
Cept t6e $ictim in an enclosure or treate 6im 6ars6l:. /here the victim in a 'idnapping
case is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the
victim
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ;"
o As discussed above, leaving a child in a place from which he did not 'now the way home, even if
he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still amount to deprivation of
liberty Hor under such a situation, the child@s freedom remains at the mercy and control of the
abductor

)t remains undisputed that it was his first time to reach ,ovaliches and that he did not
'now his way home from the place where he was left )t .ust so happened that the victim had the
presence of mind that, when he saw an opportunity to escape, he ran away from the place where
appellant left him Moreover, he is intelligent enough to read the signboards of the passenger
.eepneys he saw and follow the route of the ones going to his place of residence
o Appellant alleges that (lodil was not forcibly ta'en, but instead voluntarily went with appellant to
,ovaliches T6e general rule is t6at t6e prosecution is %urene to pro$e lacC of consent
on t6e part of t6e $ictim. Howe$er, w6ere t6e $ictim is a minor, lacC of consent is
presume.

Aside from his selfAserving testimony, appellant failed to present competent evidence
to overcome such presumption +hus, the presumption stands that (lodil, being only nine E9F
years old on August 81, "008, is incapable of giving consent and is incompetent to assent to his
sei*ure and illegal detention
o +he defense further argues that appellant had no intention to detain (lodil and that his purpose is
to merely use him as 0a leverage against (lodilKs mother, who refused to produce Marissa, his
liveAin partner1 +he $ourt, however, cannot fathom how appellant could have used (lodil as
leverage or bargaining tool to force Marissa to meet with him without depriving him of his liberty
)n any case, appellantKs motive is not relevant, because it is not an element of the crime
o THIRD 3L343'T0 Act of detaining the victim was without lawful cause
o 2O#RTH 3L343'T0 IictimKs minority was alleged by the prosecution in the information and was
not disputed :uring his direct examination, the victim testified as to his minority claiming that, at
the time that he was presented at the witness stand, he was only 10 years old +his fact was
affirmed by his mother who also testified as to his minority at the time that he was abducted As
correctly contended by the =S(, appellant did not raise any issue as to the victimKs minority when
the victimKs and his motherKs testimonies were offered
o <owever, the trial court gave credence to the testimonies of (lodil and his mother finding them to
be trustworthy and believable +he ageAold rule is that the tas' of assigning values to the
testimonies of witnesses and weighing their credibility is best left to the trial court which forms its
firstAhand impressions as witnesses testify before it
o )t is thus no surprise that findings and conclusions of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses
en.oy, as a rule, a badge of respect, for trial courts have the advantage of observing the
demeanor of witnesses as they testify
o Hurther, factual findings of the trial court as regards its assessment of the witnessesK credibility
are entitled to great weight and respect by this $ourt, particularly when the $A affirms the said
findings, and will not be disturbed absent any showing that the trial court overloo'ed certain facts
and circumstances which could substantially affect the outcome of the case
o Also, against the categorical testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant can only offer the
defense of denial <owever, denial is a selfAserving negative evidence, which cannot be given
greater weight than that of the declaration of a credible witness who testifies on affirmative
matters
o 9i'e alibi, denial is an inherently wea' defense, which cannot prevail over the positive and
credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses :enial cannot prevail over the positive
testimonies of prosecution witnesses who, as in this case, were not shown to have any ill motive
to testify against petitioner

DI!PO!IT530 $A :ecision AHH)4M>: finding ?aluya guilty beyond reasonable doubt of 'idnapping
and serious illegal detention
11 People $ Al%erto Anticamara
2ACT!0
9ando, Al, :ic' +aMedo E:ic'F, 4oberto +aMedo E?etF, Marvin 9im EMarvinF, ,ecitas =rdeMi*aA
+aMedo E$itaF, and Hred :oe are charged with the crimes of Murder and of LidnappingCSerious
)llegal :etention in two separate )nformations, which read%
Hor Murder% +hat on or about the early morning of May 6, "00", in Sitio 4osalia, ?rgy San
?artolome, Municipality of 4osales, #rovince of #angasinan, accused, being then armed with a
hand gun, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, with intent to 'ill, with
treachery, evident premeditation and superior strength, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously ta'e Sulpacio Abad, driver of the >strellas, hog tied EsicF him, brought EsicF to a
secluded place, s6oot an %ur: in a s6allow gra$e, to the damage and pre.udice of the heirs
of the victim
Hor LidnappingCSerious )llegal :etention% +hat on or about the 6
th
day of May "00", more or less
8%00 oKcloc' in the early morning, at the >strella $ompound, ?rgy $armen >ast, Municipality of
4osales, #rovince of #angasinan, and within the .urisdiction of this <onorable $ourt, the aboveA
named accused, who are private persons, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one
another, armed with firearms, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously 'idnap
Sulpacio Abad and AAA both employees of the >strellas, thereby depriving them of their liberty, all
against their will for a period of twentyAseven E"6F days T6at in t6e course of t6e
Cinapping, !ulpacio A%a was Cille and buried in ?rgy $armen, 4osales, #angasinan and
AAA was rape for se$eral times by her abductors
/hen arraigned of the aforementioned crimes, 9ando, Al and $ita all pleaded not guilty, while
:ic', ?et, Marvin and Hred :oe remained atAlarge +hereafter, a .oint trial ensued
About 8 oKcloc' in the early morning of May 6, "00", househelper AAA and driver Abad Sulpacio
were sleeping in their employersK house located in ?arangay $armen >ast, 4osales, #angasinan
+heir employers, $onrado >strella and his wife, were out of the house at that time
Momentarily, AAA was .olted from sleep when she heard voices saying, 0/e will 'ill her, 'ill her
now1 and another voice saying, 0,ot yetZ1 <iding under her blan'et, AAA later heard someone
saying, 0/e only need money, we only need money1 +hereafter, she heard someone tal'ing in
)locano which she could not understand
+hen she heard somebody say, 0$ebuana yan, $ebuana yan, 'ararating lang galing $ebu1 AAA
heard the persons conversing which she estimated about four to five meters away
+hereafter, AAA observed about six E;F persons enter the house, who she later identified as
accused :ic' +aMedo, Marvin 9im, ?ert +aMedo, a certain Hred and appellants Alberto Anticamara
alias 0Al $amara,1 and Hernando Hernande* alias 09ando $alaguas1 =ne of the intruders
approached her and told her not to move
9ater, when AAA thought that the intruders were already gone, she attempted to run but to her
surprise, someone wearing a bonnet was watching her Someone, whom she later recogni*ed as
:ic' +aMedo, tapped her shoulder AAA as'ed +aMedo, 0/hy LuyaJ1 +aMedo replied, 0Somebody
will die1 After a brief commotion, appellant alias 09ando $alaguas1 as'ed the group saying,
0/hat shall we do nowJ1 +hey then decided to tie AAA 9ater, AAA was untied and led her outside
the house =utside, AAA saw Abad, who was also tied and blindfolded, seated inside a vehicle
+he group later brought AAA and Abad to the fishpond owned by their employers AAA saw $ita
+aMedo there +he group brought Abad outside the vehicle and led him away
9ater, alias 0Hred1 returned telling the group, 0Ma'e the decision now, Abad has already four
bullets in his body, and the one left is for this girl1 /hen $ita +aMedo made a motion of cutting
her nec', appellant alias 09ando $alaguas1 and 0Hred1 boarded the vehicle ta'ing along with them
AAA +hey later proceeded towards San Miguel +arlac, where 9ando $alaguas resided +hey
stayed in 9andoKs house where they 'ept AAA from May 6 to May 9, "00"
=n May 9, "00", appellant 9ando $alaguas told AAA that Hred and ?ert +aMedo would 'ill her
9ando then brought AAA to a hotel in +arlac, telling AAA that he would leave her there as soon as
Hred and ?ert +aMedo leave the place <owever, once inside the hotel room, appellant 9ando
$alaguas sexually molested AAA 9ando told AAA to follow what he wanted, threatening her that
he would turn her over to Hred and ?ert +aMedo After 9ando raped AAA, he brought her bac' to
his house 9ater, Hred, ?ert +aMedo and 9ando $alaguas transferred AAA to 4iles, +arlac E
AAA was brought to the residence of HredKs niece, a certain Minda, where Hred 'ept AAA as his
wife At nighttime, Hred would repeatedly ravish AAA, threatening her that he would give her bac'
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ;!
to appellant 9ando $alaguas who, AAA 'new, 'illed Abad Sulpacio She was afraid 9ando might
also 'ill her
=n May "", "00", Hred brought AAA to $arnaga Eshould be LanangaF, 9eyte, together with his wife
Marsha and their children AAA stayed in the house of MarshaKs brother Sito, where she was made
as a house helper
=n 3une !, "00", AAA escaped from the house of Sito She proceeded to )sabel, 9eyte and sought
the help of her friend Susana )lagan After hearing AAAKs plight, Susana called AAAKs brother in
$ebu, who later fetched AAA in )sabel, 9eyte and brought her to Mandaue $ity /hen they arrived
in Mandaue $ity, they immediately reported the incident to the police authorities
:r ?andonil prepared Autopsy 4eport
o x 4emains placed in a sealed metal coffin, wrapped in two E"F layers of blac', plastic
garbage bags, and covered in EsicF a redAstripped cotton blan'er A thic' layer of lime
embeds the whole torso
o 4emains in a far advanced state of decomposition, with the head completely devoid of soft
tissue A cloth is wrapped around the eyesoc'ets and tied to the bac' of the s'ull +he s'ull
does not show any signs of dents, chips nor fractures +he other recogni*able body part is
the chest area which retained a few soft tissues and s'in, but generally far advanced in
decomposition +he whole gamut of internal organs have undergone liDuefaction necrosis
and have been turned into grayishAblac' pultaceous masses /orn on top of the remaining
chest is a sando shirt with observable holes at the left side, both front and bac' A large
hole is seen at the area of the left nipple, with traces of burning at its edges and inward in
direction A tied cloth is also observable at the remnants of the left wrist
o At the upper chest, which is the most recogni*able, remaining and intact part of the torso,
a hole, 10 cm x "0 cms, with signs of burning, edges inverted, is seen at the left anterior
axillary line .ust below the left nipple Another hole is seen 1- cms x "- cms in diameter,
edged averted EsicF at the right chest, along the right anterior axillary line, -0 cms below
the right nipple A 8
rd
hole, almost unrecogni*able is seen at the left groin area
o +he other parts of the cadaver are too far advanced in decomposition to have remar'able
findings
o $AUS> =H :>A+<% (U,S<=+ /=U,:S, +4U,L
:>H>,S>% Alibi as a defense <e claims that at the time of the incident on May 6, "00", he was in
?arangay Maligaya, San Miguel, +arlac, with his family <e denied ever going to the >strella farm
in Sitio 4osalia, ?arangay San ?artolome, 4osales, #angasinan
Al claimed that he acted as a loo'out and was tas'ed to report to his companions if any person or
vehicle would approach the house of the >strellas <e said that he was forced to follow what was
ordered of him and did not report the matter to the police because he was threatened to be 'illed,
including the members of his family who were in $ebu
RTC0
o 2or 4urer0 Accused 'icetas >Cita? TaUeo is 6ere%: acMuitte of the crime charged for
insufficiency of evidenceBB Accused Hernando $alaguas Hernande* Ealyas 9ando $alaguasF and
Alberto Anticamara Ealyas Al $amaraF are hereby found guilt: %e:on reasona%le ou%t, as
principal, of t6e crime of 4urer Mualifie %: treac6er:, efine an penalize uner
Article -97 of t6e Re$ise Penal Coe. $onsidering the presence of aggra$ating
circumstance of pre(meitation, wit6 no mitigating circumstance to offset the same, the
penalt: of D3ATH is hereby imposed upon the two E"F accused Hernando $alaguas Hernande*
E9ando $alaguasF and Alberto Anticamara EAl $amaraF +hey are also ordered .ointly and severally
WtoX pay the heirs of the victim Abad Sulpacio the following%
1F Hifty +housand #esos E#-0,00000F as moral damagesB "F SeventyAHive +housand #esos
E#6-,00000F as indemnity for the death of the victimB 8F HiftyASeven +housand =ne <undred +wentyA
+wo #esos and +hirty $entavos E#-6,1""80F as actual damagesB and !F +he cost of suit
o 2or Ainapping/!erious Illegal Detention0 Accused 'icetas >Cita? TaUeo is 6ere%:
acMuitte of the crime charged for insufficiency of evidenceB Accused Hernando $alaguas
Hernande* Ealyas 9ando $alaguasF and Alberto Anticamara Ealyas Al $amaraF are hereby found
guilt: %e:on reasona%le ou%t, as principal, of t6e crime of Ainapping/!erious Illegal
Detention of the victim AAA as charged, defined and penali*ed under Article ";6 of the 4evised
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ;-
#enal $ode, as amended by 4A 6;-9 Consiering t6at t6e $ictim AAA was rape during her
detention, the maLimum penalt: of D3ATH is hereby imposed upon the two accused, Hernando
$alaguas Hernande* E9ando $alaguasF and Alberto Anticamara EAl $amaraF +he two accused are
also ordered to pay, .ointly and severally, the victim AAA the amount of%
1F =ne <undred +housand #esos E#100,00000F as moral damagesB "F Hifty +housand #esos
E#-0,00000F as exemplary damagesB and 8F $ost of suit
CA0 Affirmed 4+$B however, in view of the abolition of the death penalty pursuant to 4epublic
Act E4AF ,o 98!;, which was approved on 3une "!, "00;, the appellants were sentenced to
reclusion perpetua
I!!#3!0
Hor 9ando
1 /hether $=,S#)4A$2 >])S+>: ?>+/>>, A,: AM=,( +<> A99>(>: #>4#>+4A+=4S =H +<>
$4)M>
" /hether accused should be convicted of homicide instead of murder
8 /hether the penalty of death should be imposed for +<> $4)M> =H L):,A##),(CS>4)=US )99>(A9
:>+>,+)=,, A((4AIA+>: ?2 4A#>, ), S#)+> =H +<> HA$+ +<A+ +<> $4)M> =H 4A#> /AS ,=+ :U92
#4=I>, ?>2=,: 4>AS=,A?9> :=U?+
Hor A)
1 /hether there was conspiracy
" /hether death should be applied as he did not participate in aggravating 4A#>

In Criminal Case 'o. 99)7(R for 4urer0

Circumstantial 3$ience

o +he trial court found that although there was no direct eyewitness in the 'illing of Sulpacio in the
early morning of May 6, "00" at Sitio 4osalia, ?arangay San ?artolome, 4osales, #angasinan, the
prosecution adduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish with moral certainty the
identities and guilt of the perpetrators of the crime
o $ircumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the
existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience
$ircumstantial evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction if% EaF there is more than one
circumstanceB EbF the facts from which the inferences are derived are provenB EcF the combination
of all circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt
o A .udgment of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the
circumstances proved form an unbro'en chain that results in a fair and reasonable conclusion
pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetratorX
o +estimony of witnesses )n addition to these circumstances, the trial court further found that AAA
heard Hred utter ;Usapan natin pare, kun! sino an! masa!asaan, sa!asaan.1 E'ur a!reement is
that whoever comes our way should be eliminatedF Moreover, ,?) Agent (erald I (eralde
testified that on 3une "8, "00", appellant Al admitted his participation as loo'out and naming his
companions :ic', 9ando, Hred, Marvin and ?et as the ones who too' AAA and Sulpacio from the
house of the >strellas and brought them to the fishpond
o Al also pointed and led the authorities to a shallow grave in Sitio 4osalia, ?arangay San
?artolome, 4osales, #angasinan, where the remains of Sulpacio were buried +he autopsy
conducted on the body, prepared by the Medico 9egal =fficer :r ?andonil, shows that several
holes were found on various parts of the body of the victim and :r ?andonil concluded that the
cause of the victimKs death was the gunshot wounds +he report also indicates that a piece of
cloth was found wrapped around the eye soc'ets and tied at the bac' of the s'ull, and another
cloth was also found tied at the remnants of the left wrist
o )n the case at bar, although no one directly saw the actual 'illing of Sulpacio, the prosecution was
able to paint a clear picture that the appellants too' Sulpacio away from the house of the
>strellas, tied and blindfolded him, and brought him to another place where he was repeatedly
shot and buried
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ;;

Conspirac: 3VI!T!

o #rior to the commission of the crime, the group met at the landing field in $armen, #angasinan
and discussed their plan to rob the house of the >strellas with the agreement that whoever comes
their way will be eliminated
o Appellant Al served as a loo'out by posting himself across the house of the >strellas with the tas'
of reporting any movements outside Hred then climbed the old unserviceable gate of the >strella
compound and then opened the small door and the rest of the group entered the house of the
>strellas through that opening
o After almost an hour inside the house, they left on board a vehicle with AAA and Sulpacio AAA
and Sulpacio were brought to Sitio 4osalia, ?rgy San ?artolome, 4osales, #angasinan )n that
place, Sulpacio was 'illed and AAA was brought to another place and deprived of her liberty
o T6ese circumstances esta%lis6 a communit: of criminal esign %etween t6e
malefactors in committing t6e crime. $learly, the group conspired to rob the house of the
>strellas and 'ill any person who comes their way +he 'illing of Sulpacio was part of their
conspiracy Hurther, :ic'Ks act of arming himself with a gun constitutes direct evidence of a
deliberate plan to 'ill should the need arise
o Appellant Al attempts to e$ae criminal lia%ilit: %: alleging t6at 6e was onl: force to
participate in t6e commission of t6e crime %ecause 6e an 6is famil: were t6reatene
to %e Cille. ,= )44>S)S+)?9> H=4$> ,=4 U,$=,+4=99A?9> H>A4 =H >OUA9 =4 (4>A+>4
),3U42 +o avail of this exempting circumstance, the evidence must establish% E1F the existence of
an uncontrollable fearB E"F that the fear must be real and imminentB and E8F the fear of an in.ury is
greater than, or at least eDual to, that committed Hor such defense to prosper, the duress, force,
fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a
wellAgrounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done A t6reat of
future inDur: is not enoug6.
o +here is nothing in the records to substantiate appellant AlKs insistence that he was under duress
from his coAaccused while participating in the crime that would suffice to exempt him from
incurring criminal liability +he evidence shows that Al was tas'ed to act as a loo'out and directed
to station himself across the house of the >strellas Al was there from 6%80 pm to 1%00 am of
the following day, while the rest of the group was waiting in the landing field
o +hus, w6ile all alone, Al 6a e$er: opportunit: to escape since 6e was no longer
su%Decte to a real, imminent or reasona%le fear. <owever, he opted to stay across the
house of the >strellas for almost six E;F hours and thereafter returned to the landing field where
the group was waiting for his report SubseDuently, the group proceeded to the >strellas@ house
o /hen the group entered the house, Al stayed for almost one E1F hour outside to wait for his
companions 9ater, when the group left the house aboard a vehicle, Al rode with them in going to
Sitio 4osalia, ?rgy San ?artolome, 4osales, #angasinan, bringing with them Sulpacio and AAA
o $learly, appellant Al had ample opportunity to escape if he wished to, but he never did ,either
did he reDuest for assistance from the authorities or any person passing by the house of the
>strellas during the period he was stationed there
o $learly, Al did not ma'e any effort to perform an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the
conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof that would exempt himself
from criminal

Ali%i an Denial E3AA D323'!3!
9A,:=
o <e claims that at the time of the incident he was in his house at +arlac, together with his family
=n the other hand, the appellants were positively identified by AAA, as two E"F of the six E;F
malefactors who forcibly too' her and Sulpacio from the >strella house in the early morning of
May 6, "00" ?oth the trial court and the $A found the testimony of AAA credible
o As to the defense of alibi Aside from the testimony of appellant 9ando that he was in +arlac at
the time of the incident, the defense was una%le to s6ow t6at it was p6:sicall: impossi%le
for Lano to %e at t6e scene of t6e crime. ?asic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the
accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed and that it was
physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime
o P6:sical impossi%ilit: refers to t6e istance %etween t6e place w6ere t6e appellant
was w6en t6e crime transpire an t6e place w6ere it was committe, as well as t6e
facilit: of access %etween t6e two places. /here there is the least chance for the accused to
be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail :uring the trial of the case, 9ando
testified that the distance between his house in ?rgy Maligaya, San Miguel, +arlac to the town of
4osales, #angasinan is only around forty E!0F 'ilometers Such distance can be traversed in less
than 80 minutes using a private car and when the travel is continuous
o +hus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant 9ando to be at the locus criminis at the
time of the incident )n addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders it
impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical

=ualif:ing an Aggra$ating Circumstances0 +reachery, premeditationCCC superior strength
absorbed

TR3ACH3RF 3VI!T!0
o +here 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 ensure its
execution without ris' to himself arising from the defense that the offended party might
ma'e+wo conditions must concur for treachery to exist, namely, EaF the employment of means of
execution gave the person attac'ed no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliateB and EbF the
means or method of execution was deliberately and consciously adopted
o )n the case at bar, it was proven that when AAA boarded the vehicle, she saw Sulpacio tied and
blindfolded 9ater, when they reached the fishpond, Sulpacio, still tied and blindfolded, was led out
of the vehicle by the group /hen the remains of Sulpacio was thereafter found by the authorities,
the autopsy report indicated that a piece of cloth was found wrapped around the eye soc'ets and
tied at the bac' of the s'ull and another cloth was also found tied at the left wrist of the victim
+here is no Duestion therefore, that the victimKs body, when found, still had his hands tied and
blindfolded +his situation of the victim when found shows without doubt that he was 'illed while
tied and blindfoldedB hence, the Dualifying aggravating circumstance of treachery was present in
the commission of the crime
o Means used by the accusedAappellants to insure the execution of the 'illing of the victims, so as to
afford the victims no opportunity to defend themselves, was the act of tying the hands of the
victims
o T6e aggra$ating circumstance of superior strengt6 cannot %e separatel: appreciate
%ecause it is a%sor%e %: treac6er:.
o 35ID3'T PR343DITATIO' 3VI!T!0 +he circumstance of evident premeditation reDuires proof
showing% E1F the time when the accused determined to commit the crimeB E"F an act manifestly
indicating that the accused has clung to his determinationB and E8F sufficient lapse of time
between such determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the conseDuences of his
act
o +he essence of premeditation is that the execution of the act was preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to
arrive at a calm .udgment
o Hrom the time the group met at the landing field at around ;%80 pm of May ;, "00", and
discussed the possibility of 'illing anyone who stands on their way, up to the time they too'
Sulpacio away from the >strellas@ house and eventually 'illed him thereafter at around past 8%00
am, more than eight hours had elapsed 7 sufficient for the appellants to reflect on the
conseDuences of their actions and desist from carrying out their evil scheme, if they wished to
)nstead, appellants evidently clung to their determination and went ahead with their nefarious
plan

In Criminal Case 'o. 997.(R for Ainapping an !erious Illegal Detention.
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ;G
o +he $ourt finds appellant Lano guilt: of t6e special compleL crime of Cinapping an
serious illegal etention wit6 rape, defined in and penali*ed under Article ";6 of the 4evised
#enal $ode
o +he elements of 'idnapping and serious illegal detention under Article ";6 of the 4evised #enal
$ode are% E1F the offender is a private individualB E"F he 'idnaps or detains another or in any other
manner deprives the latter of his libertyB E8F the act of detention or 'idnapping must be illegalB
and E!F in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present% EaF the
'idnapping or detention lasts for more than 8 daysB or EbF it is committed by simulating public
authorityB or EcF any serious physical in.uries are inflicted upon the person 'idnapped or detained
or threats to 'ill him are madeB or EdF the person 'idnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a
public officer
o +he crime of 'idnapping was proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution Appellants
9ando and Al, both private individuals, forcibly too' AAA, a female, away from the house of the
>strellas and held her captive against her will
o +hereafter, appellant 9ando brought AAA to his house in San Miguel +arlac, whereby she was
deprived of her liberty for almost one month )t is settled that t6e crime of serious illegal
etention consists not onl: of placing a person in an enclosure, %ut also in etaining
6im or epri$ing 6im in an: manner of 6is li%ert:
o 2or t6ere to %e Cinapping, it is enoug6 t6at t6e $ictim is restraine from going 6ome
o )ts essence is the actual deprivation of the victimKs liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the
intent of the accused to effect such deprivation
o Although AAA was not confined in an enclosure, she was restrained and deprived of her liberty,
because every time appellant 9ando and his wife went out of the house, they brought AAA with
them +he foregoing only shows that AAA was constantly guarded by appellant 9ando and his
family
o T6e crime of rape was also esta%lis6e %: t6e prosecution Appellant 9ando succeeded in
having carnal 'nowledge of AAA through the use of threat and intimidation AAA testified that on
May 9, "00", appellant 9ando brought her to a hotel to hide her from Hred and ?ert, who intended
to 'ill her Appellant 9ando told her to follow his orders, otherwise, he will give her to Hred and
?ert /hile in the hotel, appellant 9ando raped her
o $learly, for fear of being delivered to Hred and ?ert and of losing her life, AAA had no choice but
to give in to appellant 9andoKs lustful assault )n rape cases, the credibility of the victimKs
testimony is almost always the single most important factor /hen the victimKs testimony is
credible, it may be the sole basis for the accusedKs conviction+his is so because owing to the
nature of the offense, in many cases, the only evidence that can be given regarding the matter is
the testimony of the offended party
o +he last paragraph of Article ";6 of the 4evised #enal $ode provides that if t6e $ictim is Cille
or ies as a conseMuence of t6e etention, or is rape or su%Decte to torture or
e6umanizing acts, t6e maLimum penalt: s6all %e impose +his provision gives rise to a
special compleL crime +hus, /e hold that appellant 9ando is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the special compleL crime of Cinapping an serious illegal etention wit6 rape
o AI 'OT LIA<L3 2OR RAP3. Although, $ourt ruled that once conspiracy is established between
several accused in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would all be eDually culpable for
the rape committed by anyone of them on the occasion of the robbery, unless an:one of t6em
pro$es t6at 6e enea$ore to pre$ent t6e ot6ers from committing rape
o Also, even if with conspiracy, it also as convincingly suggests that the agreement was to commit
'idnapping onlyB and there is no evidence that the other members were aware of $anturiaKs lustful
intent and his consummation thereof so that they could have attempted to prevent the same
o +here is no evidence to prove that appellant Al was aware of the subseDuent events that
transpired after the 'illing of Sulpacio and the 'idnapping of AAA Appellant Al could not have
prevented appellant 9ando from raping AAA, because at the time of rape, he was no longer
associated with appellant 9ando
o AAA even testified that only Hred and appellant 9ando brought her to +arlac and she never saw
appellant Al again after May 6, "00", the day she was held captive She only saw appellant Al
once more during the trial of the case +hus, appellant Al cannot be held liable for the subseDuent
rape of AAA

T6e Penalties
o Murder case, the attendant circumstance of treachery Dualified the 'illing to murder +he penalty
for murder under Article "!G of the 4evised #enal $ode is reclusion perpetua to eat6. Since
the aggra$ating circumstance of evident premeditation was alleged and proven, the imposable
penalty upon the appellants is eat6, pursuant to Article ;8, paragraph 1, of the 4evised #enal
$ode )n view, however, of the passage of R.A. 'o. );9+ prohibiting the imposition of the death
penalty, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua, wit6out eligi%ilit: for parole
o Lidnapping case, the penalty for the special complex crime of 'idnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape is eat6 )n view of 4A ,o 98!;, the penalty of death is reduced to
reclusion perpetua wit6out eligi%ilit: for parole. Accordingly, the imposable penalty for
appellant Lano is reclusion perpetua.
o As to appellant Al, the prescribed penalty for serious illegal detention under Article ";6 of the
4evised #enal $ode is reclusion perpetua to eat6. +here being no aggra$ating or
mitigating circumstance in the commission of the offense, the proper penalty to be imposed is
reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article ;8 of the 4evised #enal $ode

T6e Damages

MU4:>4%
Ci$il inemnit:0 Award of civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without
need of proof other than the commission of the crime>ven if the penalty of death is not to be
imposed because of the prohibition in 4A 98!;, the civil indemnity of #6-,00000 is proper, because
it is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that Dualifying
circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the
offense
4oral amages, the same are mandatory in cases of murder, without need of allegation and proof
other than the death of the victim <owever, consistent with recent .urisprudence on heinous crimes
where the imposable penalty is death but reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to 4A ,o 98!;,
the award of moral damages should be increased from #-0,00000 to #6-,00000
3Lemplar: amages is in order, because of the presence of t6e aggra$ating circumstances of
treac6er: an e$ient premeitation in t6e commission of t6e crime. +he $ourt awards the
amount of #80,00000, as exemplary damages, in line with current .urisprudence on the matter
Actual amages is also warranted Modesta Abad, the spouse of victim Sulpacio, incurred expenses
in the amount of #-6,1""80, which was duly supported by receipts

L):,A##),(%
Ci$il inemnit: in line with prevailing .urisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory upon the
finding of rape Applying prevailing .urisprudence, AAA is entitled to #6-,00000 as civil indemnity
4oral amages pursuant to Article ""19 of the $ivil $ode without the necessity of additional
pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape Moral damages is granted in recognition of the victimKs
in.ury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape Such award is separate and distinct from
the civil indemnity <owever, the amount of #100,00000 awarded as moral damages is reduced to
#6-,00000, in line with current .urisprudence
3Lemplar: amages to AAA in the amount of #-0,000 is hereby reduced to #80,00000 in
accordance with recent .urisprudence
As to appellant Al. In t6e a%sence of conspirac:, t6e lia%ilit: of t6e accuse is ini$iual
an not collecti$e Since appellant Al is liable only for the crime of serious illegal etention, he
is .ointly and severally liable only to pay the amount of P8/,///.// as ci$il inemnit: Hor serious
illegal detention, the award of civil indemnity is in the amount of #-0,00000, in line with prevailing
.urisprudence Along that line, appellant AlKs liability for moral amages is limite onl: to t6e
amount of P8/,///.//. #ursuant to Article ""19 of the $ivil $ode, moral damages may be
recovered in cases of illegal detention +his is predicated on AAAKs having suffered serious anxiety
and fright when she was detained for almost one E1F month

DI!PO!ITI530 EH3R32OR3, the :ecision of the $ourt of Appeals in $AA(4 $4A<$ ,o 00--; is
A22IR43D with 4ODI2ICATIO'! as follows%

EaF MU4:>4%, appellants Hernando $alaguas Hernande* alias 09ando1 and Alberto $abillo Anticamara
alias 0Al1 are found &#ILTF beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Murder and are sentenced to
suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole, and to pay, .ointly and severally,
the heirs of Sulpacio Abad the amounts of #6-,00000 as civil indemnity, #6-,00000 as moral
damages, #80,00000 as exemplary damages, and #-6,1""80 as actual damages
EbF 9A,:=% Special complex crime of 'idnapping and serious illegal detention with rape and is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, without eligibility of parole, and to pay the
offended party AAA, the amounts of #6-,00000 as civil indemnity, #6-,00000 as moral damages and
#80,00000 as exemplary damages
Al% $rime of 'idnapping and serious illegal detention and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
Reclusion Perpetua. <e is also directed to pay, .ointly and severally, with appellant Hernando
$alaguas Hernande* alias 09ando,1 the victim AAA the amounts of #-0,00000 as civil indemnity and
#-0,00000 as moral damages

1" People $ 2elipe 4iranilla
2ACT!0
o AAA narrate 6er ;)(a: oreal in t6e 6ans of 4iranilla.
o )t was " :ecember "000, eve of the iesta in (aran!ay San Hrancisco, 9ega*pi $ity At the pla*a,
AAA was dancing with her elder sister, ???
o AAA went out of the dancing hall to buy candies in a nearby store /hile ma'ing her way bac'
through the crowd, a man grabbed her hand, his arm wrapped her shoulders, with a 'nife@s point
thrust at her right side She will come to 'now the man@s name at the police station, after her
escape, to be Helipe Mirandilla, 3r
o <e told her not to move or as' for help Another man .oined and went beside her, while two others
stayed at her bac', one of whom had a gun +hey slipped through the unsuspecting crowd, wal'ed
farther as the deafening music faded into soft sounds After a fourAhour wal' through the grassy
fields, they reached the Mayon )nternational <otel, where they boarded a waiting tricycle
o Upon passing the Albay $athedral, the others alighted, leaving AAA alone with Mirandilla who after
receiving a gun from a companion, drove the tricycle farther away and into the dar'ness Minutes
later, they reached the *allera de .e!a)pi in 4awis
o Mirandilla dragged AAA out of the tricycle and pushed her inside a concrete house At gunpoint he
ordered her to remove her pants /hen she defied him, he slapped her and hit her arms with a
gun, forced his hands inside her pants, into her panty, and reaching her vagina, slipped his three
fingers and rotated them inside +he pain wea'ened her <e forcibly pulled her pants down and
lifting her legs, pushed and pulled his penis inside 0#ayan! ka,1 she heard him whisper at her as
she succumbed to pain and exhaustion
o /hen AAA wo'e up the following morning, she found herself alone She cried for help, shouting
until her throat dried ?ut no one heard her ,o rescue came
o At around midnight, Mirandilla arrived together with his gang #ointing a gun at AAA, he ordered
her to open her mouthB she sheepishly obeyed <e forced his penis inside her mouth, pulling
through her hair with his left hand and slapping her with his right After satisfying his lust, he
dragged her into the tricycle and drove to ?ogtong, 9ega*pi At the road@s side, Mirandilla pushed
her against a reclining tree, gagged her mouth with cloth, punched her arm, thigh, and lap, and
pulled up her overAsi*ed shirt <er underwear was gone +hen she felt Mirandilla@s penis inside her
vagina A little while, a companion warned Mirandilla to move out And they drove away
o +hey reached a nipa hut and AAA was thrown inside <er mouth was again covered with cloth
Mirandilla, with a gun aimed at her point blan', grabbed her shirt, forced her legs open, and again
inserted his penis into her vagina
o +he following evening, Mirandilla and his gang brought AAA to (uinobatan, where she suffered the
same fate +hey repeatedly detained her at daytime, moved her bac' and forth from one place to
another on the following nights, first to ?onga, then bac' to (uinobatan, where she was loc'ed up
in a cellAtype house and was raped repeatedly on the grassy field right outside her cell, then to
$amalig, where they caged her in a small house in the middle of a rice field She was allegedly
raped "6 timesX
o =ne afternoon, in (uinobatan, AAA succeeded in opening the door of her cell Seeing that
Mirandilla and his companions were busy playing cards, she rushed outside and ran, crossed a
river, got drenched, and continued running She rested for awhile, hiding behind a roc'B she
wal'ed through the fields and stayed out of people@s sight for two nights
o Hinally, she found a road and followed its path, leading her to the house of >velyn (uevarra who
brought her to the police station )t was 11 3anuary "001 AAA was in foul smell, starving and
sleepless >velyn (uevarra gave her a bath and the police gave her food /hen the police
presented to her pictures of suspected criminals, she recogni*ed the man@s face 7 she was certain
it was him <e was Helipe Mirandilla, 3r, the police told her
o +he following morning, accompanied by the police, AAA submitted herself to :r Sarah IasDue*,
9ega*pi $ity@s <ealth =fficer for medical examination +he doctor discovered hymenal lacerations
in different positions of her hymen, indicative of sexual intercourse Houl smelling pus also oo*ed
from her vagina A AAA had contracted gonorrhoeaX
o 4iranilla enie t6e c6arges against 6im. T6is is 6is $ersion.
o Mirandilla first met AAA on 8 =ctober "000 ?y stro'e of fate, they bumped into each other at the
Albay #ar' where AAA, wearing a school uniform, approached him +hey had a short chat +hey
were neighbors in (aran!ay San Hrancisco until Mirandilla left his wife and daughter there for
good
o +wo days later, Mirandilla and AAA met again at the par' <e started courting her and, after five
days, as AAA celebrated her 1G
th
birthday, they became lovers Mirandilla was then 88 years old
o )mmediately, Mirandilla and AAA had sex nightly in their friends@ houses and in cheap motels =n
"! =ctober "000, after Mirandilla went to his mother@s house in Lili'ao, they met again at the
par', at their usual meeting place, in front of the par'@s comfort room, near Arlene Moret, a
cigarette vendor who also served as the $4@s guard
o +hey decided to elope and live as a couple +hey found an abandoned house in 4awis, at the bac'
of *allera de .e!a)pi. >milio Mendo*a who owned the house, rented it to them for #1,-0000
+hey lived there from "G =ctober until 11 :ecember "000 Hrom 1" :ecember "000 until 11
3anuary "001, Mirandilla and AAA stayed in 4ogelio Marcellana@s house, at the resettlement Site in
?anDuerohan, 9ega*pi $ity
o Mirandilla and AAA@s nightly sexual intimacy continued, with abstentions only during AAA@s
menstrual periods, the last of which she had on 6 :ecember "000 )n late :ecember, however,
Mirandilla, who .ust arrived home after visiting his mother in Lili'ao, saw AAA soa'ed in blood,
moaning in excruciating stomach pain AAA had abortion 7 an inference he drew upon seeing the
cover of pills lying beside AAA Mirandilla claimed that AAA bled for days until she left him in
3anuary "001 after Duarrelling for days
o Mirandilla, however, had a second version of this crucial event <e claimed that AAA missed her
menstruation in :ecember "001 and that he would not have 'nown she had an abortion had she
not confessed it to him
Information0 Mirandilla was charged before the 4egional +rial $ourt E4+$F of 9ega*pi $ity, ?ranch -,
with Cinapping wit6 rape, four counts of rape, and rape t6roug6 seLual assault.
RTC0 $onvicted Mirandilla of 'idnapping, four counts of rape, and one count of rape through sexual
assault with this finding%
o +his $ourt has arrived at the factual conclusion that Helipe Mirandilla, 3r, in the company of three
others WconferrersX, 'idnapped AAA in (aran!ay xxx, $ity of xxx, on or on about midnight of
:ecember ", "000 or early morning of :ecember 8, "000, held her in detention for thirtyAnine
days in separate cells situated in the $ity of xxxB xxxB and xxx
o Helipe Mirandilla, 3r, carnally abused her while holding a gun andCor a 'nife for twenty seven
times, employing force and intimidation
o +he twenty seven sexual intercourses were eventually perpetrated between the $ity of xxx and
the towns of xxx and xxx At least once, Helipe Mirandilla, 3r, put his penis inside the mouth of
AAA against her will while employing intimidation, threats, and force
CA0 Affirmed with modification the 4+$ ruling, convicting Mirandilla (U)9+2 of the special compleL
crime of Cinapping wit6 rape (instea of Cinapping as t6e RTC rule", four counts of
rape, an one count of rape %: seLual assault
o )t re.ected Mirandilla@s defense that he and AAA were liveAin partners and that their sexual
encounters were consensual
o )t noted that Mirandilla failed to adduce any evidence or any credible witness to sustain his
defense

H3LD0 irandilla guilt/ of the special comple4 crime of 5idnapping and illegal detention
with rape.
o Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had sexual intercourse with AAA, which happened
almost nightly during their cohabitation <e contended that they were liveAin partners, entangled
in a whirlwind romance, which intimacy they expressed in countless passionate sex, which headed
ironically to separation mainly because of AAA@s intentional abortion of their first child to be 7 a
betrayal in its gravest form which he found hard to forgive
o )n star' contrast to Mirandilla@s tale of a love affair, is AAA@s claim of her horrific ordeal and her
flight to freedom after 89 days in captivity during which Mirandilla raped her "6 times

$redibility o Prosecution =itness% 3urisprudence is consistent that for testimonial evidence to be
believed, it must not only come from a credible witness but must be credible in itself 7 tested by
human experience, observation, common 'nowledge and accepted conduct that has evolved through
the years >vidence to be believed, must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but
it must be credible in itself 7 such as the common experience and observation of man'ind can
approve as probable under the circumstances /e have no test of the truth of human testimony,
except its conformity to our 'nowledge, observation, and experience
1 Hirst, the trial .udge, who had the opportunity of observing AAA@s manner and demeanour on the
witness stand, was convinced of 6er crei%ilit:% 0AAA appeared to be a simple and truthful woman,
whose testimony was consistent, steady and firm, free from any material and serious contradictions
,o ill motive /hen AAA testified in court, she was sobbing /hile she was facing Helipe Mirandilla, 3r,
to positively identify him in open court, she was crying Helipe Mirandilla 3r@s response was to smile
AAA was a picture of a woman who was gravely harmed, craving for .ustice
" AAA@s testimon: to %e crei%le in itself AAA@s ordeal was entered into the police blotter
immediately after her escape negating opportunity for concoction /hile in Mirandilla@s company,
none of her parents, brothers, sisters, relatives, classmates, or anyone who 'new her, visited, saw, or
tal'ed to her ,one of them 'new her whereabouts AAA@s testimony was corroborated by :r Sarah
IasDue*, 9ega*pi $ity@s <ealth =fficer, who discovered the presence not only of hymenal lacerations
but also gonorrhoea, a sexually transmitted disease
8 $A Affirmed /e emphasi*e that a trial court@s assessment of a witness@ credibility, when affirmed
by the $A, is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or
circumstance of weight or influence +his is so because of the .udicial experience that trial courts are
in a better position to decide the Duestion of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and
having observed firsthand their deportment and manner of testifying under gruelling examination
o )n resolving issues pertaining to the credibility of the witnesses, this $ourt is guided by the
following principles% E1F the reviewing court will not disturb the findings of the lower courts, unless
there is a showing that it overloo'ed or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and
substance that may affect the result of the caseB E"F the findings of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality, as it had the opportunity to examine
their demeanour when they testified on the witness standB and E8F a witness who testifies in a
clear, positive and convincing manner is a credible witness

#econd %ssue% ;#weetheart 2heory< not Proven

o Accused@s bare invocation of sweetheart theory cannot alone, stand +o be credible, it must be
corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence Usually, these are letters, notes,
photos, mementos, or credible testimonies of those who 'now the lovers
o +he sweetheart theory as a defense, however, necessarily admits carnal 'nowledge, the first
element of rape >ffectively, it lea$es t6e prosecution t6e %uren to pro$e onl: force or
intimiation, t6e coupling element of rape. 9ove, is not a license for lust
o +his admission ma'es the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend, for it is not only an
affirmative defense that needs convincing proof after the prosecution has successfully established
a prima acie case, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce evidence
that the intercourse was consensual
o A prima acie case arises when the party having the burden of proof has produced evidence
sufficient to support a finding and ad.udication for him of the issue in litigation
o ?urden of evidence is 0that logical necessity which rests on a party at any particular time during
the trial to create a prima acie case in his favour or to o$ert6row one w6en create against
6im.?
o Mirandilla with his version of facts as narrated above attempted to meet the prosecution@s prima
acie case +o corroborate it, he presented his mother, Alicia MirandillaB his relatives, 4ogelio
Marcellana and >milio Mendo*aB and, his friend Arlene Moret
o Arlene Moret, the cigarette vendor who also served as the $4@s guard, testified that on 80 =ctober
"000, AAA and Mirandilla arrived together at the par' +hey approached her and chatted with her
=n cross examination, she claimed otherwise% Mirandilla arrived alone two hours earlier, chatting
with her first, before AAA finally came She also claimed meeting the couple for the first time on
80 =ctober "000, only to contradict herself on cross examination with the version that she met
them previously, three times at least, in the previous month =n the other hand, Mirandilla
claimed first meeting AAA on 8 =ctober "000 at the par'
o +he accused@s mother, Alicia Mirandilla, testified meeting her son only once, and living in Lili'ao
only after his imprisonment +his contradicted Mirandilla@s claim that he visited his mother several
times in Lili'ao, from =ctober "000 until 3anuary "001
o >ven Mirandilla contradicted himself <is claim that he saw AAA soa'ed in blood, agoni*ing in
pain, with the abortifacient pills@ cover lying nearby, cannot be reconciled with his other claim that
he came to 'now AAA@s abortion only through the latter@s admission
o +a'en individually and as a whole, the defense witnesses@ testimonies contradicted each other
and flipAflopped on materials facts, constraining this $ourt to infer that they concocted stories in a
desperate attempt to exonerate the accused
o As a rule, selfAcontradictions and contradictory statement of witnesses should be reconciled, it
being true that such is possible since a witness is not expected to give errorAfree testimony
considering the lapse of time and the treachery of human memory
o ?ut, this principle, learned from lessons of human experience, applies only to minor or trivial
matters 7 innocent lapses that do not affect witness@ credibility +hey do not apply to selfA
contradictions on material facts
o /here these contradictions cannot be reconciled, the $ourt has to re.ect the testimonies and
apply the maxim, alsus in uno, alsus in omnibus. +hus, to completely disregard all the testimony
of a witness based on the maxim alsus in uno, alsus in omnibus, testimony must have been false
as to a material point, and the witness must have a conscious and deliberate intention to falsify a
material point )n other words, its reDuirements, which must concur, are the following% E1F that the
false testimony is as to one or more material pointsB and E"F that there should be a conscious and
deliberate intention to falsity

$rimes and Punishment

o An appeal in criminal case opens the entire case for review on any Duestion, including one not
raised by the parties as embodied in Section 11, 4ule 1"! of the 4ules of $ourt%
o S>$ 11 #cope o Jud!ment. 7 +he $ourt of Appeals may reverse, affirm, or modify the
.udgment an increase or reuce t6e penalt: impose %: t6e trial court, remand the
case to the 4egional +rial $ourt for new trial or retrial, or dismiss the case
o +he reason behind this rule is that when an accused appeals from the sentence of the trial court,
he waives the constitutional safeguard against double .eopardy and throws the whole case open
to the review of the appellate court, which is then called upon to render such .udgment as law and
.ustice dictate, whether favorable or unfavorable to the appellant
o +o reiterate, the six informations charged Mirandilla with 'idnapping and serious illegal detention
with rape E$rim $ase ,o 9"6GF, four counts of rape E$rim $ase ,os 9"6!A6-A6;A66F, and one
count of rape through sexual assault E$rim $ase ,o 9"69F
o +he accusatory portion of the information in $riminal $ase ,o 9"6G alleged that Mirandilla
'idnapped AAA and seriously and illegally detained her for more than three days during which
time he had carnal 'nowledge of her, against her will
o +he $ourt agrees wit6 t6e CA in fining 4iranilla guilt: of t6e special compleL crime of
Cinapping wit6 rape, instea of simple Cinapping as t6e RTC rule. )t was the 4+$, no
less, which found that Mirandilla 'idnapped AAA, held her in detention for 89 days and carnally
abused her while holding a gun andCor a 'nife
o 4ape under Article ";;AA of the 4evised #enal $ode states that%
o Art ";;AA 4ape, =hen and +ow $ommitted. 7 4ape is committed 7
1 ?y a man who shall have carnal 'nowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances%
a +hrough force, threat or intimidationB xxx
" ?y any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person@s mouth or anal
orifice, or any instrument or ob.ect, into the genital or anal orifice of another person
o AAA was able to prove each element of rape committed under Article -++(A, par. .(a" of t6e
Re$ise Penal Coe, that E1F Mirandilla had carnal 'nowledge of herB E"F through force, threat,
or intimidation
o She was also able to prove each element of rape by sexual assault under Article -++(A, par. -
of t6e Re$ise Penal Coe% E1F Mirandilla inserted his penis into her mouthB E"F through force,
threat, or intimidation
o 9i'ewise, Cinapping an serious illegal etention is pro$ie for uner Article -+* of
t6e Re$ise Penal Coe0
o Article -+*. 6idnappin! and serious ille!al detention. 7 Any private individual who shall
'idnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to deathB
)f the 'idnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days ]xx
o An imminent Spanish commentator explained% deprivation of liberty of a person, in any form or by
any means or for any time under which proves interrupted the free exercise of their activity
o >mphatically, the last paragraph of Article ";6 of the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended by 4A ,o
6;-9 states that when the victim is 'illed or dies as a conseDuence of the detention or is rape,
or is sub.ected to torture or dehumani*ing acts, t6e maLimum penalt: s6all %e impose. +his
provision gives rise to a special compleL crime
o ,otably, however, no matter 6ow man: rapes 6a %een committe in t6e special compleL
crime of Cinapping wit6 rape, t6e resultant crime is onl: one Cinapping wit6 rape
o +his is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact 4A
,o 6;-9 punishes these acts with only one single penalty )n a way, R.A. *+8) epreciate t6e
seriousness of rape %ecause no matter 6ow man: times t6e $ictim was rape, liCe in
t6e present case, t6ere is onl: one crime committe I t6e special compleL crime of
Cinapping wit6 rape.
o <owever, for t6e crime of Cinapping wit6 rape, as in this case, the offender s6oul not
6a$e taCen t6e $ictim wit6 lew esigns, otherwise, it would be compleL crime of forci%le
a%uction wit6 rape
o +he ta'ing was by forcible abduction and the woman was raped several times, the crimes
committed is one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, in as much as the forcible
abduction was only necessary for the first rapeB and each of the other counts of rape constitutes
distinct and separate count of rape
o Mirandilla@s act was 'idnapping and serious illegal detention Enot forcible abductionF and on the
occasion thereof, he raped AAA several times, /e hold that Mirandilla is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the special compleL crime of Cinapping an serious illegal etention wit6 rape,
warranting the penalty of death <owever, in view of 4A ,o 98!; entitled, An Act Prohibitin! the
%mposition o Death Penalty in the Philippines, t6e penalt: of eat6 is 6ere%: reuce to
reclusion perpetua, wit6out eligi%ilit: for parole
o /e, therefore, modify the $A :ecision /e hold that the separate informations of rape cannot
%e consiere as separate an istinct crimes in $iew of t6e a%o$e iscussion.
o As to the award of damages, upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil damages e1
delicto is mandatory +hus, we held that the civil liability e1 delicto provided by the 4evised #enal
$ode, that is, restitution, reparation, and indemnification, all correspond to actual or
compensatory damages in the $ivil $ode
o $ourt enunciated that if, in the crime of rape, t6e eat6 penalt: is impose, the indemnity e1
delicto for the victim s6all %e in t6e increase amount of 'OT less t6an P*8,///.//. +o
reiterate the words of the $ourt% 0this is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of
the penal law and the financial fluctuation over time, %ut also an eLpression of t6e
ispleasure of t6e Court o$er t6e incience of 6einous crimes
o >ven if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of 4A ,o 98!;, the civil indemnity e1
delicto of #6-,00000 still applies because this indemnity is not epenent on t6e actual
imposition of eat6, %ut on t6e fact t6at Mualif:ing circumstances warranting t6e
penalt: of eat6 attene t6e commission of t6e offense
o the fact remains that the penalty provided for by the law for a 6einous offense is still eat6,
an t6e offense is still 6einous
o AAA is entitled to moral damages pursuant to Art ""19 of the $ivil $ode wit6out the necessity of
additional pleadings or proof other than the fact of rape )ndeed, the conventional reDuirement of
alle!ata et probata in civil procedure and for essentially civil cases should be dispensed with in
criminal prosecutions for rape with the civil aspect included therein, since no appropriate
pleadings are filed wherein such allegations can be made
o AAA is also entitled to exemplary damages of #80,00000, pursuant to the present .urisprudence

DI!PO!ITI530 EH3R32OR3, the appeal is D3'I3D. +he :ecision of the $ourt of Appeals in $AA
(4 $4A<$ ,o 00"61 is hereby A22IR43D wit6 4ODI2ICATIO' Accused Helipe Mirandilla, 3r, is
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special compleL crime of Cinapping an serious
illegal etention wit6 rape uner t6e last paragrap6 of Article -+* of t6e Re$ise Penal
$ode, as amended, by 4A ,o 6;-9, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
wit6out eligi%ilit: for parole, and to pay the offended party AAA, the amounts of #6-,00000 as
civil indemnity e1 delicto, #6-,00000 as moral damages, and #80,00000 as exemplary damages
18 P3OPL3 vs C3ILITO ORITA alias WLito
2ACT!0
+he accused, $eilito =rita alias 9ito, was charged with the crime of rape ?orongan, >astern Samar
o March "0, 19G8, at about 1%80 oKcloc' in the morning inside a boarding house at Iictoria
St, #oblacion, ?orongan, >astern Samar, #hilippines, above named accused with lewd
designs and by the use of a ?atangas 'nife he conveniently provided himself for the
purpose and with threats and intimidation, did, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously lay with and succeeded in having sexual intercourse wit6 Cristina !. A%a:an
against her will and without her consent
$omplainant $ristina S Abayan was a 19Ayear old freshman student at the St 3osephKs $ollege at
?orongan, >astern Samar Appellant was a #hilippine $onstabulary E#$F soldier
)n the early morning of March "0, 19G8, complainant arrived at her boarding house <er
classmates had .ust brought her home from a party Ep !!, tsn, May "8, 19G!F Shortly after her
classmates had left, she 'noc'ed at the door of her boarding house Ep -, ibidF All of a sudden,
somebody held her and po'ed a 'nife to her nec' She then recogni*ed appellant who was a
freDuent visitor of another boarder Epp GA9, ibidF
She pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered her to go upstairs with him Since the door
which led to the first floor was loc'ed from the inside, appellant forced complainant to use the
bac' door leading to the second floor Ep 66, ibidF /ith his left arm wrapped around her nec' and
his right hand po'ing a &balisong& to her nec', appellant dragged complainant up the stairs Ep 1!,
ibidF /hen they reached the second floor, he commanded her to loo' for a room /ith the
?atangas 'nife still po'ed to her nec', they entered complainantKs room
Upon entering the room, appellant pushed complainant who hit her head on the wall /ith one
hand holding the 'nife, appellant undressed himself <e then ordered complainant to ta'e off her
clothes Scared, she too' off her +Ashirt +hen he pulled off her bra, pants and panty Ep "0, ibidF
<e ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her <e made her hold his penis and
insert it in her vagina She followed his order as he continued to po'e the 'nife to her At said
position, however, appellant could not fully penetrate her =nly a portion of his penis entered her
as she 'ept on moving Ep "8, ibidF
Appellant then lay down on his bac' and commanded her to mount him )n this position, only a
small part again of his penis was inserted into her vagina At this stage, appellant had both his
hands flat on the floor $omplainant thought of escaping Ep "0, ibidF
She dashed out to the next room and loc'ed herself in Appellant pursued her and climbed the
partition /hen she saw him inside the room, she ran to another room Appellant again chased
her She fled to another room and .umped out through a window Ep "6, ibidF
Still na'ed, she darted to the municipal building, which was about eighteen meters in front of the
boarding house, and 'noc'ed on the door /hen there was no answer, she ran around the
building and 'noc'ed on the bac' door
/hen the policemen who were inside the building opened the door, they found complainant na'ed
sitting on the stairs crying #at :onceras, the first policeman to see her, too' off his .ac'et and
wrapped it around her /hen they discovered what happened, #at :onceras and two other
policemen rushed to the boarding house +hey heard a sound at the second floor and saw
somebody running away :ue to dar'ness, they failed to apprehend appellant
Meanwhile, the policemen brought complainant to the >astern Samar #rovincial <ospital where
she was physically examined
o Medical $ertificate E>xhibit &A&F which states%
came in with loose clothing with no underAclothesB appears in state of shoc', per
unambulatory
,ec'A [ $ircumscribed hematoma at Ant nec'B ?reast [linear abrasions below E9F
breast
?ac' [ Multiple pinpoint mar'sB >xtremities [ Abrasions at E4F and E9F 'nees
Iulva [ ,o visible abrasions or mar's at the perineal area or over the vulva,
errythematous EsicF areas noted surroundin! va!inal oriice, tender, hymen intactB
no laceration fresh and old notedB examining finger can barely enter and with
difficultyB vaginal canal tightB no discharges noted
Upon being arraigned, the accused entered the plea of not guilty to the offense charged
After the witnesses for the #eople testified and the exhibits were formally offered and admitted,
the prosecution rested its case
+hereafter, the defense opted not to present any exculpatory evidence and instead filed a Motion
to :ismiss
RTC0 $rime of Hrustrated 4ape EArt 88-, 4#$F, beyond reasonable doubt, with the aggravating
circumstances of dwelling and nightime EsicF with no mitigating circumstance to offset the same,
o #>,A9+2% )S9 imprisonment of +>, E10F 2>A4S and =,> E1F :A2, PR%#%': 0A>'R, as
minimum to +/>9I> E1"F 2>A4S PR%#%': 0A>'R, maximumB to indemnify $4)S+),A S
A?A2A,, the amount of Hour +housand E#!,00000F #esos, without subsidiary imprisonment
in case of insolvency, and to pay costs
o no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the victim and thus convicted
the accused of frustrated rape only
CA0 (U)9+2 of rape, and conseDuently, sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua
and to indemnify the victim in the amount of #80,00000
$ourt of Appeals issued a resolution setting aside its :ecember "9, 19GG decision and forwarded
the case to this $ourt, considering the provision of Section 9, paragraph 8 of ?atas #ambansa ?lg
1"9 in con.unction with Section 16, paragraph 8, subparagraph 1 of the 3udiciary Act of 19!G
Accused assails the testimonies of the victim and #at :onceras because they &show remar'able
and vital inconsistencies and its incredibility amounting to fabrication and therefore casted doubt
to its candor, truth and validity
I!!#3!0
/hether or not the crime of frustrated rape was committed E,=, consummatedF
H3LD0
A close scrutiny of the alleged inconsistencies revealed that they refer to trivial inconsistencies
which are not sufficient to blur or cast doubt on the witnessesK straightforward attestations
Har from being badges of fabrication, the inconsistencies in their testimonies may in fact be
.ustifiably considered as manifestations of truthfulness on material points
+hese little deviations also confirm that the witnesses had not been rehearsed +he most
candid witnesses may ma'e mista'es sometimes but such honest lapses do not necessarily
impair their intrinsic credibility E#eople v $abatoF
4ather than discredit the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, discrepancies on minor
details must be viewed as adding credence and veracity to such spontaneous testimonies
EAportadera et al v $ourt of AppealsF
As a matter of fact, complete uniformity in details would be a strong indication of
untruthfulness and lac' of spontaneity E#eople v ?a*ar, F
<owever, one of the alleged inconsistencies deserves a little discussion which is, the testimony
of the victim that the accused as'ed her to hold and guide his penis in order to have carnal
'nowledge of her According to the accused, this is strange because &this is the only case
where an aggressorKs advances is being helpedAout by the victim in order that there will be a
consummation of the act& Ep 8!, RolloF
+he allegation would have been meritorious had the testimony of the victim ended there +he
victim testified further that the accused was holding a ?atangas 'nife during the aggression
+his is a material part of the victimKs testimony which the accused conveniently deleted
/e find no cogent reason to depart from the wellAsettled rule that the findings of fact of the
trial court on the credibility of witnesses should be accorded the highest respect because it has
the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses and can discern if a witness is telling
the truth E#eople v SamsonF
+o the $ourt she was a picture of supplication hungry and thirsty for the immediate vindication
of the affront to her honor )t is inculcated into the mind of the $ourt that the accused had
wronged herB had traversed illegally her honor
/hen a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to
show that rape was committed provided her testimony is clear and free from contradiction and
her sincerity and candor, free from suspicion E#eople v AlfonsoF
+he victim in this case did not only state that she was raped but she testified convincingly on
how the rape was committed +he victimKs testimony from the time she 'noc'ed on the door of
the municipal building up to the time she was brought to the hospital was corroborated by #at
:onceras
)nterpreting the findings as indicated in the medical certificate, :r 4einerio Samora Ewho was
presented in view of the unavailability of :r AbudeF declared that the abrasions in the left and
right 'nees, linear abrasions below the left breast, multiple pinpoint mar's, circumscribed
hematoma at the anterior nec', erythematous area surrounding the vaginal orifice and tender
vulva, are conclusi$e proof of struggle against force and violence exerted on the victim
+he trial court even inspected the boarding house and was fully satisfied that the narration of
the scene of the incident and the conditions therein is true Ep -!, RolloF%
+he staircase leading to the first floor is in such a condition safe enough to carry the weight of
both accused and offended party without the slightest difficulty, even in the manner as
narrated +he partitions of every room were of strong materials, securedly nailed, and would
not give way even by hastily scaling the same
A little insight into human nature is of utmost value in .udging rape complaints E#eople v
+orio, F And the .ump executed by the offended party from that balcony EopeningF to the
ground which was correctly estimated to be less than eight EGF meters, will perhaps occasion
no in.ury to a frightened individual being pursued
$ommon experience will tell us that in occasion of conflagration especially occuring EsicF in
high buildings, many have been saved by .umping from some considerable heights without
being in.ured <ow much more for a frightened barrio girl, li'e the offended party to whom
honor appears to be more valuable than her life or limbsJ
?esides, the exposure of her private parts when she sought assistance from authorities, as
corroborated, is enough indication that something not ordinary happened to her unless she is
mentally deranged Sadly, nothing was adduced to show that she was out of her mind
/hat particularly imprints the badge of truth on her story is her having been rendered entirely
na'ed by appellant and that even in her nudity, she had to run away from the latter and
managed to gain sanctuary in a house owned by spouses hardly 'nown to her All these acts
she would not have done nor would these facts have occurred unless she was sexually
assaulted in the manner she narrated
As for the nonApresentation of the medicoAlegal officer who actually examined the victim, the
trial court stated that it was by agreement of the parties that another physician testified
inasmuch as the medicoAlegal officer was no longer available +he accused did not bother to
contradict this statement
/hether or not the accusedKs conviction for rustrated rape is proper
+he accused contends that there is no crime of frustrated rape
Article 88- of the 4evised #enal $ode defines and enumerates the elements of the crime of rape%
o Art 88- =hen and how rape is committed [ 4ape is committed by having carnal
'nowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances%
1 ?y using force or intimidationB
" /hen the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious and
8 /hen the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances
mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present
$arnal 'nowledge is defined as the act of a man in having sexual bodily connections with a
woman E?lac'Ks 9aw :ictionary Hifth >dition, p 198F
=n the other hand, Article ; of the same $ode provides%
Art ; $onsummated, rustrated, and attempted elonies [ $onsummated felonies as
well as those which are frustrated and attempted, are punishable
A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are presentB and it is frustrate w6en t6e offener performs all
t6e acts of eLecution w6ic6 woul prouce t6e felon: as a conseMuence %ut
w6ic6, ne$ert6eless, o not prouce it %: reason of causes inepenent of t6e
will of t6e perpetrator.
+here is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly
by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
$orrelating these two provisions, there is no debate that the attempted and consummated stages
apply to the crime of rape
+he reDuisites of a frustrated felony are% E1F that the offender has performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony and E"F that the felony is not produced due to causes
independent of the perpetratorKs will
)n the leading case of United #tates v 3duave, 8; #hil "09, "1", 3ustice Moreland set a distinction
between attempted and frustrated felonies which is readily understood even by law students%
o +he essential element which distinguishes attempted from frustrated felony is that, in the
latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the
beginning of the commission of the crime and the moment when all of the acts have been
performed which should result in the consummated crimeB while in the former there is such
intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts
which should produce the crime <e is stopped short of that point by some cause apart
from his voluntary desistance
$learly, in the crime o rape, from the moment the offender has carnal 5nowledge of his
victim he actuall/ attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential
elements of the offense have 3een accomplished :othin! more is let to be done by the
oender, because he has perormed the last act necessary to produce the crime 2hus, the elony
is consummated
Hor the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential Any penetration of the female
organ by the male organ is sufficient >ntry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without
rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction
:ecessarily, rape is attempted i there is no penetration o the emale or!an because not all acts
o e1ecution was perormed 2he oender merely commenced the commission o a elony directly
by overt acts
+a'ing into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and
.urisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be
committed
#eople v >riMa W19"6X is S+4A2 :>$)S)=, where offender guilty of frustrated rape there being no
conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the offended party )t has not been
reiterated in subseDuent decisions
9i'ewise, /e are aware of Article 88- of the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended by 4epublic Act ,o
";8" Edated September 1", 19;0F and 4epublic Act ,o !111 Edated March "9, 19;-F which
provides, in its penultimate paragraph, for the penalty of death when the rape is attempted or
rustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof /e are of the
opinion that this particular provision on frustrated rape is a ea pro$ision +he >riMa case,
supra, might have prompted the lawAma'ing body to include the crime of frustrated rape in the
amendments introduced by said laws
)n concluding that there is no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the
victim, the trial court relied on the testimony of :r Samora when he &categorically declared that
the findings in the vulva does not give a concrete disclosure of penetration As a matter of fact, he
tossed bac' to the offended party the answer as to whether or not there actually was
penetration&
+he alleged variance between the testimony of the victim and the medical certificate does not
exist =n the contrary, it is stated in the medical certificate that the vulva was erythematous
Ewhich means mar'ed by abnormal redness of the s'in due to capillary congestion, as in
inflammationF and tender
)t bears emphasis that :r Samora did not rule out penetration of the genital organ of the victim
<e merely testified that there was uncertainty whether or not there was penetration Anent this
testimony, the victim positively testified that there was penetration, even if only partially
+he fact is that in a prosecution for rape, the accused may be convicted even on the sole basis of
the victimKs testimony if credible E
Moreover, :r SamoraKs testimony is merely corroborative and is not an indispensable element in
the prosecution of this case E#eople v Alfonso, supraF
Article 88-, paragraph 8, of the 4evised #enal $ode provides that whenever the crime of rape is
committed with the use of a eal: weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
eat6.
+he trial court appreciated the aggra$ating circumstances of welling an nig6ttime. +hus,
the proper imposable penalty is eat6
)n view, however, of Article 111, Section 19E1F of the 19G6 $onstitution and =ur ruling in People v
0illora, et al, (4 ,os 9A8G9;GA60, Hebruary 9, 19G9, that the cited $onstitutional provision did
not declare the abolition of the death penalty but merely pro6i%its t6e imposition of t6e
eat6 penalt:, the $ourt has since Hebruary ", 19G6 not imposed the death penalty whenever it
was called for under the 4evised #enal $ode but instead reduced the same to reclusion perpetua
Reclusion perpetua, being a single indivisible penalty under Article 88-, paragraph 8, is imposed
regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances E
DI!PO!ITI530 (uilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of $=,SUMMA+>: rape and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the amount of #80,00000
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests G0
&RA53 CO3RCIO'
c/o HIPOLITO
AleDanro $ <ernas
3=S>#< A,+<=,2 M A9>3A,:4=, H)4:AUS) )2 A??AS, $A4M),A A A??AS and MA >9>,A (=
H4A,$)S$=
vs
A++2 3=S> A ?>4,AS, A++2 MA4)> 9=U4:>S S)AA?>4,AS, H>4,A,:= AM=4, >:UA4:= A(U)9A4,
3=<, :=> and #>+>4 :=>
W(4 ,o 169"!8 September 6, "011X
#>4A9+A, 3 p%
2ACT!0
Ale.andro is the lesseeApurchaser of condominium unit ,o "!0" Ethe UnitF, !th Hloor, :iscovery
$enter $ondominium in #asig $ity under the $ontract of 9ease with Option to Purc6ase with the
lessorAseller =a'ridge #roperties, )nc E=#)F
=n =ctober 1-, "000, Ale.andro su%(lease the Unit to the other petitioners Hirdausi )2 Abbas
EHirdausiF, $armina M Ale.androAAbbas E$arminaF and Ma >lena (o Hrancisco EMa >lenaF to be
use as a law office
<owever, a efect in t6e air(conitioning unit prompted petitioners to suspen pa:ments
until t6e pro%lem is fiLe by the management
)nstead of addressing the defect, OPI institute an action for eDectment before the
Metropolitan +rial $ourt EMe+$F of #asig $ity, against Ale.andro for the latterKs failure to pay
rentals
Ale.andro, for his part, interposed the defense of Dustifie suspension of pa:ments
)n the meantime, the :iscovery $enter $ondominium $orporation E:$$$F was organi*ed to
administer the :iscovery $enter $ondominium independent of =#) 4espondent Hernando Amor
EAmorF was appointed as the #roperty Manager of :$$$
:uring the pendency of the e.ectment case, or on 3une 10, "00!, OPI, allegedly through
respondent Atty Marie 9ourdes SiaA?ernas ESiaA?ernasF, orere t6at t6e #nit %e palocCe.
)n an =rder G dated 3une 11, "00!, the 4eTC irecte OPI to remo$e t6e palocC of t6e #nit
an iscontinue t6e in$entor: of t6e properties. +he order was reiterated when the Me+$
issued a +emporary 4estraining =rder in favor of Ale.andro
<owever, on August 11, "00!, at G%00 in the evening, OPI, allegedly through respondent Atty 3ose
?ernas, again palocCe t6e #nit. +he padloc'ing was allegedly executed by Amor, as property
manager, and respondent >duardo Aguilar EAguilarF as head of the security unit, together with
security officers 3ohn :oe and #eter :oe
4espondents, li'ewise, cut off t6e electricit:, water an telep6one facilities on August 1;,
"00!
=n August 16, "00!, the Me+$ rendered a :ecision in the eDectment case in fa$or of AleDanro
an against OPI +he court found AleDanroRs suspension of pa:ment Dustifie
+he decision was, however, re$erse an set asie %: t6e Regional Trial Court, whose
decision was in turn affirme %: t6e CA.
=n =ctober "6, "00!, petitioners file a criminal complaint for gra$e coercion against
respondents ?ernas, SiaA?ernas, Amor, Aguilar, #eter :oe and 3ohn :oe with the =ffice of the $ity
#rosecutor E=$#F of #asig
o #etitioners claimed that the palocCing of t6e #nit was illegal, felonious an
unlawful which prevented them from entering the premises
o #etitioners also alleged that said palocCing an t6e cutting off of facilities 6a
unul: preDuice t6em and thus constituted grave coercion
)n their $ounterAAffidavit, ?ernas and SiaA?ernas averred that the elements of grave coercion were
not alleged and proven by petitioners +hey also claimed that nowhere in petitionersK complaint
was it alleged that responents emplo:e $iolence which is an essential element of grave
coercion
o )n addition to the above defenses, Amor and Aguilar maintained that petitioners did not
allege that the former actuall: pre$ente t6e latter to enter t6e #nit +hey added
that petitioners in fact gaine access to t6e #nit %: forci%l: estro:ing t6e
palocC.
=n March "", "00-, the =$# issued a 4esolution, respondents Hernando Amor and >duardo Aguilar
are c6arge wit6 unDust $eLation and the attached information be filed with the Metropolitan
+rial $ourt of #asig $ity ?ail is not necessary unless reDuired by the $ourt
+he charges against respondents 3ose ?ernas and Marie 9ourdes SiaA?ernas is dismissed for
insufficiency of evidence
o +he =$# held that respondents could not be charged with grave coercion as no $iolence
was emplo:e %: t6e latter. )n padloc'ing the leased premises and cutting off of
facilities, respondents Amor and Aguilar were found to be probably guilty of the crime of
un.ust vexation
Appealed to the Secretary of the :epartment of 3ustice E:=3F, but the appeal was ismisse for
their failure to comply with Section 1", paragraph EbF of :epartment $ircular ,o 60
o +he :=3 Secretary, acting through Undersecretary >rnesto 9 #ineda, explained that
petitioners faile to su%mit a legi%le true cop: of t6e Doint counter(affia$it of
some of t6e responents
o #etitionersK motion for reconsideration was li'ewise denied in a 4esolution "! dated April 8,
"00;
,otwithstanding the :=3Ks conclusion that respondents cannot be charged with grave coercion, it
orere t6e filing of information for unDust $eLation against Amor, the #roperty Manager of
:$$$ and Aguilar as head of the security division
>levated the matter to the $A that rendered the assailed :ecision "- on May "8, "006
o =n whether or not there was probable cause for the crime of grave coercion, the $A
answered in the negative
o )t held that the mere presence of t6e securit: guars was insufficient to cause
intimiation.
#etitioners claim that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the fact of padloc'ing and
cutting off of facilities thereat
o +hey insist that the allegations and evidence presented in the 3oint AffidavitA$omplaint are
sufficient to sustain a fining of pro%a%le cause for gra$e coercion irrespective of
any defense that may be put up by respondents
o Although violence was not present during the commission of the acts complained of, there
was sufficient intimiation %: t6e mere presence of the security guards
4espondents do not agree with petitioners that the mere presence of security guards constituted
intimidation amounting to grave coercion and insist that there is no legal impediment to cause the
padloc'ing and repossession of the Unit as a $ali eLercise of proprietar: rig6t under the
contract of lease
I!!#3!0
/<>+<>4 =4 ,=+ (4AI> $=>4$)=, $A, ?> $=MM)++>: +<4=U(< ),+)M):A+)=, A9=,> ?2 M>4>
#4>S>,$> /)+<=U+ I)=9>,$>J 'O. <#T #'1#!T 53VATIO'
H3LD0
Hor grave coercion to lie, the following elements must be present%
1 that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or
compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrongB
" that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidationB and
8 that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other
words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right
Admittedly, respondents padloc'ed the Unit and cut off the electricity, water and telephone
facilities #etitioners were thus prevented from occupying the Unit and using it for the purpose for
which it was intended, that is, to be used as a law office
At the time of the padloc'ing and cutting off of facilities, there was already a case for the
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests G"
determination of the rights and obligations of both Ale.andro, as lessee and =#) as lessor, pending
before the Me+$ T6ere was in fact an orer for t6e responents to remo$e t6e palocC.
T6us, in performing t6e acts complaine of, Amor an Aguilar 6a no rig6t to o so.
,= I)=9>,$> +he problem, however, lies on the second element A perusal of petitionersK 3oint
AffidavitA$omplaint shows that petitioners merely alleged the fact of padloc'ing and cutting off of
facilities to prevent the petitioners from entering the Unit Hor petitioners, the commission of these
acts is sufficient to indict respondents of grave coercion )t was never alleged that the acts were
effected by violence, threat or intimidation #etitioners belatedly alleged that they were
intimidated by the presence of security guards during the Duestioned incident
Ee fin t6at t6e mere presence of t6e securit: guars is insufficient to cause
intimiation to t6e petitioners.
+here is intimiation when one of the parties is compelle %: a reasona%le an well(
groune fear of an imminent an gra$e e$il upon 6is person or propert:, or upon t6e
person or propert: of 6is spouse, escenants or ascenants, to gi$e 6is consent.
Material violence is not indispensable for there to be intimidation Intense fear produced in the
mind of the victim which restricts or hinders the exercise of the will is sufficient
)n this case, petitioners claim that respondents padloc'ed the Unit and cut off the facilities in the
presence of security guards)t was not alleged that the security guards committed anything to
intimidate petitioners, nor was it alleged that the guards were not customarily stationed there and
that they produced fear on the part of petitioners
To etermine t6e egree of t6e intimiation, t6e age, seL an conition of t6e person
s6all %e %orne in min.
<ere, the petitioners, w6o were allegel: intimiate %: t6e guars, are all law:ers w6o
presuma%l: Cnow t6eir rig6ts. +he presence of the guards in fact was not found by petitioners
to be significant because they failed to mention it in their 3oint AffidavitA$omplaint /hat they
insist is that, the mere padloc'ing of the Unit prevented them from using it for the purpose for
which it was intended +his, according to the petitioners, is grave coercion on the part of
respondents
)n Sy, the respondents therein, together with several men, armed with hammers, ropes, axes,
crowbars and other tools, arrived at the complainantsK residence and ordered them to vacate the
building because they were going to demolish it )ntimidated by respondents and their demolition
team, complainants were pre$ente from peacefull: occup:ing t6eir resience an were
compelle to lea$e against t6eir will. +hus, respondents succeeded in implementing the
demolition, while complainants watched helplessly as their building was torn down +he $ourt thus
found that there was prima facie showing that complainants were intimidated and that there was
probable cause for the crime of grave coercion
?arbasa v +uDuero applies )n ?arbasa, the lessor, together with the head of security and several
armed guards, disconnected the electricity in the stalls occupied by the complainantsAlessees
because of the latterKs failure to pay the bac' rentals +he $ourt held that there was no $iolence,
force or t6e ispla: of it as woul prouce intimiation upon t6e lesseesR emplo:ees
w6en t6e cutting off of electricit: was effecte =n the contrary, the $ourt found that it was
done peacefully and that the guards were there not to intimidate them but to prevent any
untoward or violent event from occurring in the exercise of the lessorKs right under the contract
)n the crime of grave coercion, $iolence t6roug6 material force or suc6 a ispla: of it as
woul prouce intimiation an, conseMuentl:, control o$er t6e will of t6e offene
part: is an essential ingreient.
Pro%a%le cause emans more t6an suspicionS it reMuires less t6an e$ience t6at
woul Dustif: con$iction
#'1#!T 53VATIO'
o +he second paragraph of Article "G6 of the 4evised #enal $ode which defines and provides
for the penalty of un.ust vexation is %roa enoug6 to inclue an: 6uman conuct
w6ic6, alt6oug6 not proucti$e of some p6:sical or material 6arm, coul
unDustifia%l: anno: or $eL an innocent person
o ,evertheless, Amor and Aguilar may disprove petitionersK charges but such matters may
only be determined in a fullAblown trial on the merits where the presence or absence of the
elements of the crime may be thoroughly passed upon
+he courtKs duty in an appropriate case is confined to the determination of whether the assailed
executive or .udicial determination of probable cause was done without or in excess of .urisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to want of .urisdiction
#robable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information is defined as such facts as are
sufficient to engender a well(foune %elief t6at a crime 6as %een committe an t6e
responent is pro%a%l: guilt: t6ereof, and should be held for trial
W#robable causeX is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of
ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is
so +he term oes not mean Wactual or positi$e cause&B nor does it import absolute certainty
)t is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief
+hus, a finding of probable cause does not reDuire an inDuiry into whether there is sufficient
evidence to procure a conviction )t is enough that it is believed that the act or omission
complained of constitutes the offense charged #recisely, there is a trial for the reception of
evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge
H3LD0 #etition is :>,)>: for lac' of merit
<ar%asa $ TuMuero
4=?>4+= ?A4?ASA
vs
<=, A4+>M)= ( +UOU>4=, :=3 Sec, (4A$> (UA4),, ,>S+=4 SA,(A9A,(
W(4 ,o 1;8G9G :ecember "8, "00GX
2ACT!0
#etitioner avers that he is the president of #ushA+hru Mar'eting, )nc, which leases commercial
stalls $SA#9 0-, 19 and 80 in Tutu%an Center, owned by +utuban #roperties,
=n 3une 80, 1999, Angelina <ipolito, merchandising officer of #ushA+hru Mar'eting, received a
notice of isconnection of utilities from private respondent (race (uarin, the $redit and
$ollection Manager of +#), for failure of Pus6(T6ru 4arCeting to settle its outstaning
o%ligations for $ommon Usage and Service Area E$USAF charges, utilities, electricity and rentals
#etitioner settle t6e c6arges for $USA, utilities and electricity, which payment was accepted
by private respondent (uarin, but petitioner faile to pa: t6e %acC rentals.
3uly 1, 1999, private respondents (uarin, ,estor Sangalang, engineering manager of +#), and
Iictor $allueng, +#) head of security, together with several armed guards, isconnecte t6e
electricit: in the stalls occupied by #ushA+hru Mar'eting
Aggrieved, petitioner filed a criminal complaint for &ra$e Coercion against TPI and its
officers, :avid (o, 4obert $astanares, ?uddy Mariano, Art ?rondial, and herein private
respondents before the =ffice of the $ity #rosecutor of Manila
+he complaint dated 3uly 18, 1999 alleged that +#) and its officers cut off t6e electricit: in
petitionerRs stalls Win a $iolent an intimiating mannerW and by unnecessarily emplo:ing
Wse$eral arme guars to intimiate an frig6ten& petitioner and his employees and
agents
:efense% that the 3uly 1, 1999 cutting off of electrical supply was one peacefull:B
o that it was an act performe in t6e lawful performance of t6eir assigne uties,
and in accordance with the covenants set forth in the written agreements previously
executed between petitioner and +#)B
o that petitioner was not present when the alleged acts were committedB
o petitioner had outstaning accumulate unpai rentals, $USA billings, electrical and
water bills, unpaid interest and penalty charges Efrom 3une 199G to May 1999F in the
amount of #";6,-1889 for all his rented stalls, as reflected in three )nterestA#enalty
4eports G duly sent to him
o #etitioner was li'ewise given eman letter(notices in writing at least t6ree times
wherein it was stated that if he did not settle his arrears in full, electricity would be cut 9
=f the total amount due from him, petitioner paid only #1"6,"6"1G after receipt of the
third notice
o Accordingly, private respondents proceeded with the power cutAoff, but only after sening
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests G!
a W'otice of Disconnection of #tilities& to petitionerKs stalls informing him of the
impending act
o #rivate respondents also pointed out that aside from the above arrears, petitioner has
outstaning accounta%ilities wit6 respect to WPriorit: Premium 2ees& in the amount
of #-,906,01810
o +hey li'ewise stressed that their Agreement with petitioner contains the following
stipulations%
#4)=4)+2 #4>M)UM % # ",8;6,6-000
4>,+ #>4 M=,+< % # 86G00 per sD m
#lus # 86G0 10` IA+F
=+<>4 H>>S A,: >]#>,S>S $<A4(>A?9> += +<> 9>SS>>%
E$USAF $<A4(>S% Minimum rate of #19000CsD mCmo
>9>$+4)$ $=,SUM#+)=, % metered _ reasonable service
)n cases where payments made by the 9>SS>> for any given month is not
sufficient to cover all outstanding obligations for said period, the order of priorit:
in the application of the payments made is as follows%
#enalties, )nterests, )nsurance, $USA $harges, 4ent, #riority #remium
#>,A9+2 $9AUS>% )t is also expressly agreed that in case the 9>SS>> fails to
pay at any time the 9>SS=4 is hereby granted the option to cut off power an
ot6er utilit: ser$ices to the 9>SS>> until full payment of said charges, expenses,
penalty and interest is made,
#etitioner filed his 4eply Affidavit%
o (o, $astanares, Mariano, ?rondial, (uarin and Sangalang, while not personally present at
the scene at the time, were to be held lia%le as t6e aut6ors of t6e criminal esign
since they were the ones who ordered the cutting off of petitionerKs electricity
o #etitioner admitted that none of t6e arme personnel rew 6is gun, much more aimed
or fired it, but insisted that he was unduly prevented from using electricity to the detriment
of his business and his person
o <e claimed that the officers of +#) were una%le to s6ow t6e amount an eLtent of 6is
unpai %illsS that as to the electric bills, the same were paidB
o =ngoing negotiation with respect to the matter of rentals and for reformation of the lease
agreements
#rosecutor% :ismissed the complaint against :avid (o, 4oberto $astanares, ?uddy Mariano and
Art ?rondial but foun pro%a%le cause against pri$ate responents &race &uarin, 'estor
!angalang an 5ictor Callueng
=n 3anuary 18, "000, an Information for gra$e coercion was file in court, but proceedings
therein were deferred when the private respondents filed an appeal to the Secretary of 3ustice
=n August "8, "000, the Secretary of 3ustice re$erse t6e Cit: ProsecutorRs Resolution, as
follows% Move for the dismissal
#etitioner assailed the 4esolution of the Secretary of 3ustice before the $ourt of Appeals through a
petition for certiorari, which was, however, ismisse by the appellate court for lac' of merit +he
appellate court li'ewise denied his motion for reconsideration
I!!#3!0 /hether private respondentsK act of disconnecting the supply of electricity to petitionerKs
stalls and the manner by which it was carried out constitute grave coercionJ E,=F
H3LD0 ,=
o +he crime of grave coercion has three elements% EaF that a person is prevented by another from
doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his or her will, be it
right or wrongB EbF that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, either by material
force or such a display of it as would produce intimidation and, conseDuently, control over the will
of the offended partyB and EcF that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no
right to do soB in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the
exercise of any lawful right
o +he records show that there was no $iolence, force or t6e ispla: of it as would produce
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests G-
intimidation upon petitionerKs employees when the cutting off of petitionerKs electricity was
effected
o =n the contrary, it was one peacefull: and after written notice to petitioner was sent
o +he guards were there to prevent any untoward or violent event from occurring in the
exercise of +#)Ks rights under the lease agreements )f the respondents desired a violent
result, they would have gone there unannounced or cut petitionerKs electricity through less
desirable and conspicuous means
o +here could be no gra$e coercion in t6e pri$ate responentsR act of eLercising in %e6alf
of TPI a rig6t affore to TPI under the solemn and uneDuivocal covenants of a contract to
which petitioner had agreed and which he did execute and sign
o #enalty clause in the $ontracts of 9ease entered into by the parties that +#) is given the
option to cut off power and other utility services in petitionerKs stalls in case petitioner fails
to pay at any time
o Contracts constitute t6e law %etween t6e parties +hey must be read together and
interpreted in a manner that reconciles and gives life to all of them T6e intent of t6e
parties, as shown by the clear language used, prevails over post facto explanations that
find no support from the words employed by the parties or from their contemporary and
subseDuent acts showing their understanding of such contracts
o /e could not see how the =ffice of the $ity #rosecutor of Manila, through #rosecutor Ienus :
Mar*an, could have made a fining of pro%a%le cause to file a criminal case for grave coercion
against private respondents, in light of the evidence then and now prevailing, which will show that
there was a mutual agreement, in a contract of lease, that provided for the cutting off of
electricity as an acceptable penalty for failure to abide faithfully with what has been covenanted
o Although the propriety of its exercise may be the sub.ect of controversy, mere resort to it may not
so readily expose the lessor +#) to a charge of grave coercion $onsidering that petitioner owed
+#) the total amount of more than #- million, which was undisputed, we find that the resort to the
penalty clause under the lease agreements was .ustified
o A penal clause is &an accessor: o%ligation which the parties attach to a principal obligation for
the purpose of insuring the performance thereof by imposing on the debtor a special prestation
Egenerally consisting in the payment of a sum of moneyF in case the obligation is not fulfilled or is
irregularly or inadeDuately fulfilled&
o Ouite common in lease contracts, this clause functions to strengt6en t6e coerci$e force of t6e
o%ligation and to provide, in effect, for what could be the liDuidated damages resulting from a
breach +here is nothing immoral or illegal in such indemnityCpenalty clause, absent any showing
that it was forced upon or fraudulently foisted on the obligor
:)S#=S)+)I>% :>,)>:
!: $ !ecretar: of 1ustice
A9H4>:= S2 for himself and as AttorneyAinAHact of (=,SA9= S2, I>4=,)$A S2, 4=SA4)= S2, MA,U>9
S2 and 3=S> S>>
vs
<=, S>$4>+A42 =H 3US+)$>, 9>=, MA4)A MA(SA2SA2 and >,(K4 >MMA,U>9 9A9),
W(4 ,o 1;;81- :ecember 1!, "00;X
2ACT!0
19G-, :olores H #osadas, through respondent, 9eon Maria H Magsaysay, as her attorneyAinAfact,
filed an e.ectment case against them to recover a parcel of land in #aco, Manila consisting of
approximately G,"9- sDm
Several structures stand on the land including their postAwar built building which has served as
their family residence with a small sariAsari store +he trial court thereafter ruled in favor of
:olores H #osadas
=n appeal, the 4egional +rial $ourt affirmed the trial courtKs decision =n appeal to the $ourt of
Appeals, the latter court set aside the decision of the 4egional +rial $ourt and dismissed the
complaint
<owever, during the pendency of the appeal in the $ourt of Appeals, respondent 9eon Maria H
Magsaysay obtained from the office of the ?uilding =fficial of Manila a 'otice of Conemnation
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests G;
ate 2e%ruar: 7, .))+.
)n response, the WpetitionersX caused the assessment of the structural soundness of their
residence $onseDuently, on Hebruary "0, 199;, a $ertificate of Structural )nspection was issued
by a licensed engineer, certifying to the general integrity of the structure which merely needed
minor repairs
)n =ctober, 1996, the WpetitionersX received a letter from the =ffice of the ?uilding =fficial
informing them that respondent 9eon Maria H Magsaysay had reDuested for the condemnation of
certain structures, including the structure owned by WpetitionersX +he WpetitionersX were directed
to submit their AnswerC$omment and supporting papers
A scheduled ocular inspection of the property was deferred at the instance of WpetitionersKX
counsel SubseDuently, an orer of emolition dated Hebruary 8, 199G was issued by Manila
?uilding =fficial <ermogenes ? (arcia, on the basis of a 4esolution dated Hebruary 8, 199G issued
by a committee created to act on the letter dated =ctober 18, 1996 of respondent 9eon Maria
(uerrero
+he WpetitionersX filed a Motion for 4econsideration of the order with the Secretary of the
:epartment of #ublic /or's and <ighways E:#/<F +he complainants also obtained a +4=
en.oining the enforcement of the order of demolition
In t6e morning of August -7, .))7, responent 3mmanuel T. Lalin, toget6er wit6
se$eral men wit6 6ammers, ropes, aLes an crow%ars, arri$e at t6e complainantsR
resience an o$er t6eir protests, emolis6e t6e %uiling w6ic6 ser$e as t6eir famil:
resience an sari(sari store.
+he WpetitionersX contend that the respondentsK act of demolishing their building without any legal
authority to do so is an act of gra$e coercion, punishable under Article "G; of the 4evised #enal
$ode
=n the other hand, respondent 9eon Ma Magsaysay, in his counter affidavit, avers that he is one
of the coAowners of the land located at the corner of #edro (il and A )sip Sts, #aco, Manila as
evidenced by +$+ ,os "1;8"8 and "1;8"6 <e further avers that the demolition of the
WpetitionersKX structure was %ase on t6e lawful orer of the $ity ?uilding =fficial of Manila and
affirmed by the :#/<
4espondent $ivil >ngineer >mmanuel + 9aWlXin, for his part, also avers that the demolition was
underta'en pursuant to a ul:(issue emolition orer and that he was only hired by
respondent 9eon Maria Magsaysay to implement the same
+he $ity #rosecutor of Manila ismisse t6e complaint for gra$e coercion for lac' of merit
<ence, petitioners appealed to the Secretary of 3ustice but same was enie, finding that the
demolition was carried out pursuant to a duly issued demolition order
#etitioners filed a petition for certiorari before the $ourt of Appeals which enie t6e petition
for lacC of merit.
#etitioners alleged that there is sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause for the
filing of an information for grave coercion against respondents and that the Secretary of 3ustice
gravely abused his discretion in holding otherwise
4espondents argued that the determination of probable cause during preliminary investigation is
an executive function, the correctness of which is a matter that the courts may not be compelled
to pass upon At any rate, they claim that the Secretary of 3ustice did not abuse his discretion in
finding that the complaint for grave coercion is without merit
I!!#3!0 /hether there is probable cause for the filing of an information against respondents
Magsaysay and 9alin for the offense of grave coercionJ 2>S
H3LD0
+he elements of grave coercion under Article "G; of the 4evised #enal $ode are as follows% 1F that
a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do
something against his will, be it right or wrongB "F that the prevention or compulsion is effected by
violence, threats or intimidationB and 8F that the person who restrains the will and liberty of
another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of
law or in the exercise of any lawful right
)t is undisputed that on August "G, 199G, respondents, together with several men armed with
hammers, ropes, axes, crowbars and other tools arrived at the petitionersK residence and ordered
them to vacate the building because they were going to demolish it
#etitioners trie to stop responents from proceeing wit6 t6e emolition %ut t6eir
pleas went un6eee )ntimidated by respondents and their demolition team, petitioners were
prevented from peacefully occupying their residence and were compelled to leave against their
will
+hus, responents succeee in implementing t6e emolition w6ile petitioners watc6e
6elplessl: as t6eir %uiling was torn own
Hrom the facts alleged in the complaint, as well as the evidence presented in support thereof,
there is prima facie s6owing t6at responents i not act uner aut6orit: of law or in
t6e eLercise of an: lawful rig6t.
4espondent Magsaysay claimed that the demolition was carried out by the =ffice of the ?uilding
=fficial, which is tas'ed to implement the ,ational ?uilding $ode
/e note, however, that respondent 9alin admitted in his $ounterAAffidavit that he was 6ire %:
4agsa:sa: to implement t6e Demolition Orer. +he %uiling officials mae
manifestations %efore t6e trial court in Ci$il Case 'o. )7(7*8.; t6at t6e: were not
aware of t6e emolition an t6at responent Lalin is not connecte wit6 t6eir office.
+hey also denied conspiring with respondent Magsaysay in effecting the demolition
9i'ewise, the =ffice of the ?uilding =fficial issued an =rder 18 dated August "G, 199G directing
respondent Magsaysay to esist from proceeing wit6 t6e emolition =n the same date, it
also issued a 'otice a$ising responent Lalin to stop t6e emolition for failing to
compl: wit6 t6e 8(a: prior notice reMuirement and considering that the demolition was
being effected within the 1-Aday reglementary period for appeal
)n another =rder dated September 10, 199G, the =ffice of the ?uilding =fficial declared that the
demolition was hastily done and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the :emolition
=rder
)ndeed, while responents claim to 6a$e acte uner aut6orit: of law in compelling
petitioners to vacate the sub.ect property and effecting the demolition, the ocumentar:
e$ience s6ow ot6erwise
Hrom the records, it is clear that a prima facie case for grave coercion exists and that there is
sufficient ground to sustain a finding of probable cause which needs only to rest on evidence
showing that, more li'ely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the
accused
,evertheless, respondents may disprove petitionersK charges but such matters may only be
determined in a fullAblown trial on the merits where the presence or absence of the elements of
the crime may be thoroughly passed upon
#robable cause, for purposes of filing a criminal information, has been defined as such facts as are
sufficient to engender a wellAfounded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondent
is probably guilty thereof )t is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a
person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that
a thing is so +he term does not mean &actual or positive causeB& nor does it import absolute
certainty )t is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief +hus, a finding of probable cause
does not reDuire an inDuiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction )t is
enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged
#recisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge
/hile it is this $ourtKs general policy not to interfere in the conduct of preliminary investigations,
leaving the investigating officers sufficient discretion to determine probable cause, courts are
nevertheless empowered to substitute their .udgment for that of the Secretary of 3ustice when the
same was rendered without or in excess of authority
DI!PO!ITI530 #etition is (4A,+>:
ESTAFA DIGESTS
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests GG
c/o HIPOLITO
1. PEOPLE vs. TOMAS MANANSALA ET AL., defendants.
GALICANO ALON and RICARDO CABRALES, appellants.
VICKERS, J p: G.R. N!. "#$%#. N!&e'(e) 1#, 1$"".*
FACTS:
T+e appellants Gal,-an! Al!n .al,as G)e/!0, and R,-a)d! Ca()ales .al,as 1an,n/0, t!/et+e) 2,t+ T!'as 1anansala,
Gene)!s! Ja-,nt!, and Is,d)! 1end!3a, 2e)e p)!se-4ted ,n t+e C!4)t !f 5,)st Instan-e !f 1an,la f!) t+e crime of estafa.
A 2ee6 p),!) t! 5e()4a)7 1$, 1$"8, 9G)e/!9 .Al!n0 and 91an,n/9 .Ca()ales0 ,n -!'pan7 2,t+ an!t+e) pe)s!n 2+!' t+e7
-alled 9:epe9 !ffe)ed t! sell Att!)ne7 :e)fe-t! A(!)d! 1!""" ti#s of o$i%m at P1.&" ea-+ tell,n/ +,' t+at +e -!4ld sell
t+e' f!) P1" a t,n.
5!) p)!f,t, A(!)d! a/)eed t! (47 t+e 'e)-+and,se, and t+e a--4sed a/)eed t! sell ,t t! +,' ,n l!ts !f 1!""" ti#s at P'""
l!t. Del,&e)7 !f 1,;;; t,ns 2!4ld ta6e pla-e at <."; p. '., at t+e -!)ne) !f Taft A&en4e E=tens,!n and V,t! C)43.
5e()4a)7 1$, 1$"8: A(!)d! 2ent t! t+e pla-e ,nd,-ated 2,t+ t+e '!ne7, and t+e)e 2a,ted f!) t+e'. Al!n a)),&ed al!ne ,n
an a4t!'!(,le and ,n&,ted A(!)d! t! /! 2,t+ +,' t! t+e pla-e 2+e)e t+e 1,;;; t,ns !f !p,4' 2e)e 6ept.
T)4st,n/ Al!n, 2+! al2a7s -alled A(!)d! 9()!t+e)9 (e-a4se +e -la,'ed t! (e a 1as!n l,6e 1). A(!)d!, t+e latte) 2ent
2,t+ +,' ,n +,s a4t!'!(,le t! t+e )!t4nda !f R,3al A&en4e E=tens,!n. C+a4ffe4) J!se J!nsa7 2as at t+e 2+eel.
It 2as al)ead7 t2,l,/+t 2+en t+e7 a)),&ed at t+e )!t4nda, and t+e)e t+e7 'et 1an,n/ .Ca()ales0, 2+!, ,n -!'pan7 2,t+
!t+e)s, 2as 2a,t,n/ f!) A(!)d! ,n an!t+e) a4t!'!(,le. T+e a--4sed Ca()ales al,/+ted and s+!)tl7 t+e)eafte) appea)ed
:epe 2+! 2as !)de)ed (7 Ca()ales t! /et t+e t,ns !f !p,4'.
:epe /!t f)!' a l!t nea)(7, t+e -an, t+e t!p !f 2+,-+ 2as !pened (7 Ca()ales ,n !)de) t! s+!2 A(!)d! t+e > t,ns !f
!p,4' -!nta,ned ,n a 2!!den (!= 2+,-+ A(!)d! sa2 2+en t+e t!p !f sa,d -an 2as !pened.
5,nd,n/ t+at sa,d t,ns )eall7 -!nta,ned !p,4', A(!)d! (el,e&ed t+at t+e )est !f t+e -!ntents !f t+e -an als! -!ns,sted !f
t,ns !f !p,4'. ?e +anded t+e :>;; t! 1an,n/, 2+!, afte) )e-e,&,n/ t+e '!ne7, ,''ed,atel7 2ent t! t+e a4t!'!(,le
2+e)e +,s -!'pan,!ns 2e)e 2a,t,n/.
At t+e sa'e t,'e A(!)d! )et4)ned t! +,s -a) 2,t+ t+e a--4sed Al!n and t+e pe)s!n na'ed :epe, -a))7,n/ t+e -an.
@+,le p)!-eed,n/ t!2a)ds Taft A&en4e E=tens,!n, A(!)d! n!t,-ed t+at t+e a--4sed Ca()ales 2as f!ll!2,n/ ,n +,s
a4t!'!(,le, and t+at 2+en t+e7 2e)e nea),n/ t+e -!)ne) !f Taft A&en4e E=tens,!n and V,t! C)43 t+e -a) ,n 2+,-+
Ca()ales 2as ),d,n/ atte'pted t! (l!-6 A(!)d!9s 2a7, 2+,le Al!n t!ld A(!)d! t+at t+!se ,n t+e !t+e) a4t!'!(,le 2e)e
-!nsta(4la)7 'en and ,t 2!4ld (e (ette) t! /et ),d !f t+e -an.
Ca()ales, 2+!' A(!)d! 2as a(le t! )e-!/n,3e &e)7 2ell, and t+e -!'pan,!ns !f t+e f!)'e) 2+!' A(!)d! 2as n!t a(le
t! ,dent,f7 (e-a4se ,t 2as al)ead7 da)6, app)!a-+ed +,s -a) sa7,n/ t+at t+e7 2e)e -!nsta(4la)7 a/ents and t!ld A(!)d!
t+at +e 2as 4nde) a))est.
Kn!2,n/ t+at t+e7 2e)e n!t -!nsta(4la)7 a/ents and t+at t+e,) p4)p!se 2as t! /et p!ssess,!n !f t+e -an, A(!)d! d)e2
+,s )e&!l&e) and !)de)ed +,s -+a4ffe4) t! p)!-eed.
Ca()ales and +,s -!'pan,!ns a/a,n f!ll!2ed +,' ,n t+e,) -a) and f!) t+e se-!nd t,'e t),ed t! +ead !ff A(!)d!
s!'e2+e)e (ef!)e t+e ,nte)se-t,!n !f 5. B. ?a)),s!n and V,t! C)43 st)eets, (4t A(!)d! p)!-eeded 4nt,l +e a)),&ed at +,s
+!4se. T+e)e +e !pened t+e -an and ,ns,de +e f!4nd t+e 2!!den (!=, (4t t+e )est !f t+e -!ntents !f t+e -an 2as sand.
?e (!)e a +!le ,n !ne !f t+e t,ns and f!4nd t+at ,t !nl7 -!nta,ned '!lasses.
Defense .Test,'!n7 !f a--4sed and 1,/4el R!sales-A -!n&,-ted 18= f!) estafa0:
o A(!)d! en/a/ed Ca()ales, t+)!4/+ t+e ,nte)&ent,!n !f R!sales, t! p)epa)e 1,;;; t,ns !f '!lasses )ese'(l,n/
t,ns !f !p,4', and t+at !n t+e afte)n!!n a/)eed 4p!n f!) t+e pa7'ent, A(!)d! )ef4sed t! del,&e) t+e '!ne7
(e-a4se p4)-+ase) !f sa,d t,ns +ad n!t a)),&ed, and ,n&,ted t+e a--4sed t! +,s +!4se ,n :asa7 ,n !)de) t! 'a6e
t+e pa7'ent
o Bef!)e a)),&,n/ ,n :asa7, Ca()ales st!pped A(!)d!9s a4t!'!(,le and )eB4,)ed t+e latte) t! +and !&e) t+e
'!ne7, at t+e sa'e t,'e pla-,n/ at t+e s,de !f A(!)d!9s a4t!'!(,le a sa-6 2+,-+ +e sa,d -!nta,ned t+e 1,;;;
t,ns !f '!lasses as6ed f!) (7 A(!)d!.
Inf!)'at,!n: In t+e '4n,-,pal,t,es !f :asa7 and Cal!!-an, :)!&,n-e !f R,3al, 2,t+,n t2! and a +alf ',les f)!' t+e -,t7
l,',ts, t+e sa,d a--4sed -!nsp,),n/ t!/et+e) (efra%( Perfecto A)or(o:
o (7 'eans !f false and f)a4d4lent )ep)esentat,!ns t! A(!)d! t+at t+e7 +ad f!) sale si* +%#(re( ,'""- ti#s of
o$i%m, a p)!+,(,ted d)4/, and t+at t+e7 2!4ld del,&e) t+e sa'e t! +,' 4p!n pa7,n/ t+e' P'"" i# a(va#ce
o and (7 'eans !f !t+e) s,',la) de-e,t, ,nd4-ed t+e sa,d :e)fe-t! A(!)d! t! /,&e and del,&e) t! t+e', as ,n fa-t +e
/a&e and del,&e)ed t! t+e', t+e sa,d s4' !f :>;;,
o ,n -!ns,de)at,!n !f 2+,-+ t+e a--4sed /a&e +,' a .aso/i#e ca# 2+,-+ t+e7 )ep)esented t! -!nta,n t+e >;; t,ns
!f !p,4', 2+en ,n t)4t+, as t+e sa,d a--4sed 2ell 6ne2, t+e sa,d -an -!nta,ned !nl7 si* sma// ti# ca#s
co#tai#i#. a )/ac0 s%)sta#ce 1+ic+ 1as #ot o$i%m,
o T!'as 1anansala and Gal,-an! Al!n +a&e ea-+ o#ce )ee# co#victe( of t+e crime of estafa
o ?a(,t4al Del,nB4ents: R,-a)d! Ca()ales .1= -!n&,-ted f!) )!((e)7, t+eft 1=, "= f!) estafa, last senten-e: 5e(. %,
1$8C0 and Is,d)! 1end!3a .1= estafa and 1= )!((e)7, last senten-e: O-t!(e) ";, 1$880
Inf!)'at,!n 2as d,s',ssed as t! T!'as 1anansala, Gene)!s! Ja-,nt!, and Is,d)! 1end!3a f!) la-6 !f e&,den-e
RTC: Gal,-an! Al!n and R,-a)d! Ca()ales .%i/t2 of estafa, ,n a--!)dan-e 2,t+ t+e p)!&,s,!ns !f a)t,-le "<%. N!. 8, !f
t+e :enal C!de, as a'ended (7 A-t N!. "8%%
o :ENALTD: f!4) '!nt+s and !ne da7 !f a))est! 'a7!), 2,t+ t+e a--ess!)7 penalt,es E ,nde'n,f7 :>;;
ISS3ES: @+et+e) !) n!t estafa 2as -!'',tted e&en t+!4/+ t+e)e 2as ,lle/al -!ns,de)at,!nF Des.
HELD:
Estafa as def,ned ,n a)t,-le "1<, pa)a/)ap+ 1 .a0 !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de, 2+,-+ p)!&,des t+at an7 pe)s!n 2+! s+all
def)a4d an!t+e) t+)!4/+ %#fait+f%/#ess !) a)%se of co#fi(e#ce (7 alte),n/ t+e s4(stan-e, B4ant,t7, !) B4al,t7 !f
an7t+,n/ !f &al4e 2+,-+ t+e !ffende) s+all del,&e) (7 &,)t4e !f an !(l,/at,!n t! d! s!, e&en t+!4/+ s4-+ !(l,/at,!n (e
(ased !n a# immora/ !) i//e.a/ co#si(eratio#.
:ENALTD: T+e a'!4nt !f t+e f)a4d (e,n/ :>;;, t+e penalt7 appl,-a(le ,s arresto ma2or i# its ma*im%m $erio( to
$risio# correccio#a/ i# its mi#im%m $erio(.
ALON: Re-,d,&,st as +e +ad al)ead7 (een -!n&,-ted !f estafa -A :ENALTD: 'a=,'4' pe),!d .!ne 7ea), e,/+t '!nt+s,
and !ne da7 !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal0
CABRALES: ?a(,t4al del,nB4ent, (4t +,s p),!) -!n&,-t,!ns -ann!t (e ta6en ,nt! -!ns,de)at,!n als! as an a//)a&at,n/
-,)-4'stan-e f!) t+e p4)p!se !f ,n-)eas,n/ t+e p),n-,pal penalt7. :ENALTD: 'ed,4' .!ne 7ea) and !ne da7 !f p),s,!n
-!))e--,!nal E add,t,!nal penalt7 !f ele&en 7ea)s, s,= '!nt+s, and t2ent7-!ne da7s !f p),s,!n 'a7!) (e-. ?a(,t4al
del,nB4ent0
S!lGen ',sta6en t+at 'ed,4' de/)ee !f p),s,!n 'a7!) ,n ,ts ',n,'4' and 'ed,4' pe),!ds (ased 4p!n t+e ,dea t+at
!nl7 t+e p),!) -!n&,-t,!ns !f t+,s appellant f!) estafa a)e t! (e ta6en ,nt! a--!4nt.
All p),!) -!n&,-t,!ns !f an7 !f t+e -),'es !f t+eft, )!((e)7, estafa, !) fals,f,-at,!n s+!4ld (e ta6en ,nt! a--!4nt 2+en a
pe)s!n ,s -!n&,-ted !f an7 !ne !f t+ese -),'es and !f (e,n/ a +a(,t4al del,nB4ent. T! +!ld !t+e)2,se, a pe)s!n ',/+t (e
t2,-e -!n&,-ted !f ea-+ !f t+ese f!4) -),'es, and st,ll n!t (e a +a(,t4al del,nB4ent.
8. 8. 3NITED STATES vs. 4OSE A5AD
CARSON, J p: G.R. N!. C<8;. N!&e'(e) 8", 1$18.*
FACTS:
Inf!)'at,!n: C+a)/ed 2,t+ t+e crime of estafa:
o De-e'(e) 1;, 1$1;, ,n Ca&,te
o A--4sed ente)ed t+e (,-7-le )ent,n/ esta(l,s+'ent, na'ed 9L,/a7a,G l!-ated ,n :la3a S!ledad ,n Ca&,te,
$rete#(e( t+at +,s na'e 2as 4ose (e /os Sa#tos and t+at +e l,&ed at N!. 111 Calle :ase!, and )ented f)!'
t+e p)!p),et!) !f sa,d esta(l,s+'ent, na'ed Leo#cio Pa#.i/i#a#, a# Iver 4o+#so# )ic2c/e, N!. 1>$C#C, 2,t+
t+e $rivate mar0s No. 1" and t+e ,n,t,als L. P.!
o A/)ee,n/ t! t+e s4' !f &" ce#tavos a# +o%r, and t! ret%r# it after o#e +o%rH (4t +a&,n/ ta6en a2a7 sa,d
(,-7-le +e d,d n!t )et4)n ,t at t+e t,'e a/)eed !) pa7 t+e )ental t+e)e!f,
o A/a,nst t+e 2,ll !f ,ts !2ne) ta6e p!ssess,!n !f ,t f!) +,'self and f!) t+e sa6e !f /a,n, 6eep,n/ ,t ,n +,s
$ossessio# %#ti/ 4a#%ar2 67! 1711, 2+en t+e sa,d (,-7-le 2as f!4nd ,n t+e p!ssess,!n !f t+e sa,d a--4sed ,n
t+e t!2n !f Im%s! :)!&,n-e !f Ca&,te, :. I.G
D4),n/ t),al, e&,den-e p4t f!)t+ t+at t),-7-le 2as &al4ed at :C< !) "C< pesetas
TC: G4,lt7 !f Estafa as -+a)/ed and def,ned and penal,3ed ,n se-t,!n < !f a)t,-le <"< !f t+e :enal C!de, )ead t!/et+e)
1it+ sectio# 1 of artic/e &89. C!n&,-ted t+e defendant !f t+e ',sapp)!p),at,!n !) -!n&e)s,!n !f p)!pe)t7 !f t+e &al4e !f
'!)e t+an 8<; and less t+an >,;;; pesetas.
Defense:
o S,n-e t+e ,nf!)'at,!n fai/s e*$ress/2 to a//e.e t+at t+e )ic2c/e i# :%estio# +a( a s$ecific (efi#ite va/%e,
and t! set f!)t+ I4st 2+at t+at &al4e 2as, a I4d/'ent !f -!n&,-t,!n 4p!n t+,s ,nf!)'at,!n s+!4ld n!t (e
s4sta,ned.
o E))ed ,n -!n&,-t,n/ t+e defendant !f t+e ',sapp)!p),at,!n !) -!n&e)s,!n !f p)!pe)t7 !f t+e &al4e !f '!)e t+an
8<; and less t+an >,;;; pesetas. .N! &al4e alle/ed0
ISS3ES:
1. @+et+e) A(ad s+!4ld (e -!n&,-ted !f estafa e&en t+!4/+ t+e spe-,f,- &al4e !f t+e !(Ie-t 2as n!t alle/ed ,n t+e
,nf!)'at,!nF .DES0
8. @+et+e) t+e TC e))ed ,n -!n&,-t,n/ t+e defendant !f t+e ',sapp)!p),at,!n !) -!n&e)s,!n !f p)!pe)t7 !f t+e &al4e !f '!)e
t+an 8<; and less t+an >,;;; pesetasF .DES0
HELD:
1. Des. 1e)e !',ss,!n !f an alle/at,!n !f t+e spe-,f,- &al4e !f t+e (,-7-le 'ent,!ned ,n t+e ,nf!)'at,!n d,d n!t )ende) ,t
fatall7 defe-t,&e, (e-a4se t+e fa-ts alle/ed ,n t+e -!'pla,nt, 2+en p)!&en, esta(l,s+ (e7!nd an7 )eas!na(le d!4(t t+at t+e
(,-7-le +ad s!'e &al4e.
o It ,s t)4e t+at a -!n&,-t,!n !f t+e -),'e !f estafa -ann!t (e s4sta,ned ,n t+e a(sen-e !f p)!!f t+at t+e s4(Ie-t 'atte) !f
t+e f)a4d pe)pet)ated (7 t+e a--4sed +ad s!'e &al4e, and 2+,le ,n /!!d p)a-t,-e a -!'pla,nt !) ,nf!)'at,!n -+a)/,n/
t+e -!'',ss,!n !f t+e -),'e !f estafa s+!4ld spe-,f,-all7 alle/e t+e '!neta)7 &al4e !f t+e s4(Ie-t 'atte) !f t+e f)a4d
2+e)e t+at ,s p!ss,(le. Ho1ever! s$ecific va/%e is #ot #ecessar2! it is #ecessar2 t+at t+e facts a//e.e t+at it +as
some va/%e.
o Estafa: B,-7-le 2as pe)s!nal p)!pe)t7 !f s!'e &al4e ,s s4ff,-,ent t! s4sta,n a -!n&,-t,!n 4nde) t+e p)!&,s,!ns !f
s%)sectio# 1 of artic/e &89, 2+,-+ p)es-),(es t+e $e#a/t2 to )e im$ose( 1+ere t+e va/%e of t+e s%);ect matter of
t+e fra%( is #ot s+o1# to )e i# e*cess of 6&" $esetas
o B,-7-le ,n B4est,!n +ad s!'e &al4e .a/)eed t! )ent ,t f!) <; -entsJ+)0
o It 2as t+e pe)s!nal p)!pe)t7 !f t+e -!'pla,n,n/ 2,tness .,n 4se ,n :an/,l,nanKs (,-7-le )ent,n/ esta(l,s+'ent0
o B,-7-le +ad (een -!n&e)ted !) ',sapp)!p),ated (7 t+e defendant
o L.S. &s. De la C)43: Defendant 2as -!n&,-ted !f t+e -),'e !f )!((e)7 !f a 2at-+, t+e spe-,f,- &al4e !f 2+,-+ 2as n!t set
!4t e=p)essl7 ,n t+e -!'pla,nt.
o GS,n-e t+e -),'e !f )!((e)7 ,s -!'plete 2+en all t+e !t+e) )eB4,s,tes set !4t ,n t+e def,n,t,!n !f t+e -!de -!n-4),
,f t+e p)!pe)t7 ta6en +as e&en t+e s'allest &al4e, 2e t+,n6 2e 2!4ld (e I4st,f,ed ,n +!ld,n/ t+at t+e 2at-+ ta6en
+ad s4ff,-,ent &al4e t! s4sta,n a -!n&,-t,!n !f )!((e)7, %#/ess it affirmative/2 a$$eare( t+at it 1as a)so/%te/2
1ort+/ess, f!) 2,t+!4t test,'!n7 t! t+e -!nt)a)7 a 2at-+, 2+,-+ t+e !2ne) &al4ed en!4/+ t! -a))7, ma2 fair/2
)e $res%me( to +ave some va/%e! +o1ever i#si.#ifica#t t+at va/%e ma2 )e.G
8. Des. T),al -!4)t e))ed ,n -!n&,-t,n/ t+e defendant !f t+e ',sapp)!p),at,!n !) -!n&e)s,!n !f p)!pe)t7 !f t+e &al4e !f '!)e
t+an 8<; and less t+an >,;;; pesetas.
o Inf!)'at,!n d!es n!t -+a)/e t+at t+e &al4e !f t+e p)!pe)t7 ta6en 2as '!)e t+an 8<; and less t+an >,;;; pesetas
alt+!4/+ ,ts alle/at,!ns a'!4nt t! a -+a)/e t+at a (,-7-le !f s!'e &al4e 2as ta6en. N! -ase -an a -!n&,-t,!n (e
s4sta,ned f!) a +,/+e) !ffense t+an t+at -+a)/ed ,n t+e ,nf!)'at,!n, n!) f!) a d,ffe)ent !ffense, %#/ess it is #ecessari/2
i#c/%(e( i# t+e offe#se c+ar.e(. It ,s 'an,fest t+e)ef!)e t+at t+e -!n&,-t,!n ,n t+,s -ase f!) t+e +,/+e) !ffense '4st (e
)e&e)sed.
o It ,s t)4e t+at t+e 2,tnesses test,f,ed t+at t+e (,-7-le ,n B4est,!n 2as 2!)t+ s!'e :C< .!) "C< pesetas0, and t+at, ,f t+,s
test,'!n7 -!4ld (e ta6en ,nt! -!ns,de)at,!n f!) t+e p4)p!se !f -lass,f7,n/ t+e estafa -!'',tted (7 t+e defendant 2,t+
t+!se penal,3ed 4nde) t+e p)!&,s,!ns !f s4(se-t,!n 8 !f a)t,-le <"%, t+e I4d/'ent !f -!n&,-t,!n s+!4ld n!t (e d,st4)(ed.
o ?!2e&e), t+e test,'!n7 -ann!t -4)e ,ts n!t (e,n/ alle/ed ,n t+e ,nf!)'at,!n (e-a4se:
o It ,s ,n d,)e-t -!nfl,-t 2,t+ t+e /ene)al )4le -!n&,-t,!ns 2e)e n!t s4sta,ned f!) +,/+e) !ffenses t+an t+!se -+a)/ed
,n t+e ,nf!)'at,!n, 2+,-+ +as ,ts f!4ndat,!n ,n t+e -!nst,t4t,!nal ),/+t !f t+e a--4sed t! (e ad&,sed at t+e !4tset
!f t+e p)!-eed,n/s as t! t+e p)e-,se nat4)e !f t+e -+a)/e a/a,nst +,'H
o T,'el7 !(Ie-t,!n 2as 'ade t! t+e ,nt)!d4-t,!n !f t+e e&,den-e as t! t+e spe-,f,- &al4e !f t+e (,-7-le, and 4nde)
ele'enta)7 )4les !f e&,den-e, t+e test,'!n7 ,n t+,s -!nne-t,!n s+!4ld +a&e (een e=-l4ded, at least ,n s! fa) as
,t 2as !ffe)ed f!) t+e p4)p!se !f esta(l,s+,n/ a +,/+e) !) a d,ffe)ent !ffense f)!' t+at -+a)/ed ,n t+e -!'pla,nt.
Dis$ositive: TC Re&e)sed. St,ll GLILTD O5 ESTA5A (4t t+at def,ned and penal,3ed ,n se-t,!n < !f a)t,-le <"< !f t+e :enal
C!de, )ead t!/et+e) 2,t+ se-t,!n 1 !f a)t,-le <"%, and t+e)e (e,n/ n! e&,den-e as t! t+e e=,sten-e !f a//)a&at,n/ !)
e=ten4at,n/ -,)-4'stan-es, 2e senten-e +,' t! t+e p)es-),(ed penalt7 ,n ,ts 'ed,4' de/)ee, t+at ,s t! sa7, t! t2! '!nt+s
and !ne da7 !f a))est! 'a7!)
". 3NITED STATES! &s. NIE<ES DE <E=A > GA>TE
<ILLAMO=! J.: G.=. No. L?1'7'1 Se$tem)er 17! 1761
Facts:
5e()4a)7 8;, 1$8;: t+)ee I/!)!ts na'ed J!se II, Balatan, and :epe 2e)e !n t+e Es-!lta, !f t+,s -,t7, t)7,n/ t! d,sp!se !f
a (a) !f /!ld 2+en an Il!-an! ,n&,ted t+e' t! /! t! +,s +!4se, stat,n/ t+at t+e)e 2as a 2!'an t+e)e 2+! 2!4ld (47 t+e
p)e-,!4s 'etal.
T+e7 a--!'pan,ed t+e Il!-an! t! t+e +!4se ,nd,-ated (7 +,' 2+e)e t+e7 'et a 2!'an, t+e a--4sed +e)e,n, 2+!
appa)entl7, 2as des,)!4s !f (47,n/ t+e /!ld and )eB4ested t+e' t! +and ,t t! +e) s! t+at s+e ',/+t ta6e ,t t! a
s,l&e)s',t+ and +a&e ,t e=a',ned, stat,n/ t+at s+e 2!4ld )et4)n 2,t+,n a s+!)t t,'e t! )ep!)t t+e )es4lt.
T+e I/!)!t :epe, 2+! 2as t+e !2ne) !f t+e (a) !f /!ld, +anded ,t t! +e), t!/et+e) 2,t+ P6"" i# )a#0 #otes 2+,-+ +e
)eB4ested t! +e) t! +a&e -+an/ed ,nt! s,l&e) -!,ns as t+e7 2e)e '!)e des,)a(le ,n t+e 1!4nta,n :)!&,n-e.
T+e 2!'an t+en left t+e +!4se at a(!4t 18 !9-l!-6 !n t+at da7, as6,n/ t+e I/!)!ts t! 2a,t t+e)e. B4t t+e 2!'an d,d n!t
)et4)n. T+e7 2a,ted ,n &a,n f!) +!4)s f!) +e) and at n,/+tfall t+e7 a/)eed t+at !ne !f t+e' s+!4ld )e'a,n !n 2at-+ 2+,le
t+e !t+e) t2! 2ent t! t+e 1e,s,- p!l,-e stat,!n t! )ep!)t t+e 'atte).
T+e p!l,-e a-ted p)!'ptl7 and effe-t,&el7. T+e p!l,-e'an J!se G!n3ales, ass,/ned t! ta6e -+a)/e !f t+e -ase, s!!n
,dent,f,ed t+e 2!'an 2+! +ad ta6en a2a7 t+e (a) !f /!ld, (7 t+e des-),pt,!n 2+,-+ t+e I/!)!ts +ad /,&en +,', and at a
fe2 ',n4tes afte) 11 !9-l!-6 +e al)ead7 2as ,n a +!4se !n Calle Ba)-el!na, e=a',n,n/ t+e a--4sed as t! t+e
2+e)ea(!4ts !f t+e (a) !f /!ld and t+e (an6 n!tes !f t+e I/!)!ts.
As t+e 2!'an /a&e e&as,&e ans2e)s, ,t (e-a'e ne-essa)7 t! as6 f!) ass,stan-e f)!' t+e !ff,-e !f t+e p!l,-e, and
s+!)tl7 t+e)eafte), t2! !t+e) p!l,-e'en, 1). A((!t and !ne R!nas, a)),&ed, 2+! too0 t+e 1oma# to t+e +o%se at No.
&91 Ca//e =e.i(or! f!ll!2ed (7 G!n3ales and t+e t+)ee I/!)!ts. T+e)e t+e (a) !f /!ld (ivi(e( i#to t+ree $ieces 2as
f!4nd 2)apped ,n a +and6e)-+,ef and pla-ed ,ns,de t+e 2ate) tan6 !f a 2ate)--l!set. T+e a--4sed )eB4ested !ne
1a'e)ta de la R!sa t! /et +er +ave P1&" 2+,-+ s+e ,n t4)n +anded t! t+e p!l,-e'an.
A -e)t,f,-ate ,ss4ed (7 t+e B4)ea4 !f S-,en-e s+!2 t+at t+e (a) !f /!ld del,&e)ed t! t+e a--4sed 2e,/+ed &&7.
.rammes and 2as 2!)t+ P&@.'@ at t+e )ate !f P1."& $er .rammeA 2+e)eas, t+e t+)ee (a)s f!4nd (7 t+e p!l,-e
2e,/+ed !nl7 91' .rammes, and 2e)e t+e)ef!)e, 198. .rammes s+ort. Of t+e P6"" )a#0 #otes del,&e)ed t! t+e
a--4sed, s+e ret%r#e( o#/2 P1&".
Inf!)'at,!n:
o N,e&es de Ve)a and J!+n D!e .t+e latte) na'e ,s f,-t,t,!4s, +,s t)4e na'e (e,n/ 4n6n!2n0 !f t+e crime of t+eft
-!'',tted as f!ll!2s:
o 5e()4a)7 8;, 1$8;, ,n t+e -,t7 !f 1an,la, t+e sa,d a--4sed -!nsp,),n/ and t+)!4/+ -)aft, ta6e and -a))7 a2a7,
2,t+ ,ntent !f /a,n and 2,t+!4t t+e -!nsent !f t+e !2ne), a .o/( )ar 1ei.+i#. &&7. .rams a#( 1ort+
P&@.'@! a#( P6"" i# )a#0 #otes !f d,ffe)ent den!',nat,!ns, t! t+e da'a/e and p)eI4d,-e !f Pe$e ,I.orot-!
!2ne) !f t+e (a) and '!ne7 af!)e'ent,!ned, ,n t+e t!tal s4' !f P@.'@, :+,l,pp,ne -4))en-7, eB4,&alent t!
8!78@.9 pesetas.
TC: G4,lt7 !f t+e crime of t+eft p4n,s+ed ,n a)t,-le <1#, pa)a/)ap+ 8, !f t+e :enal C!de, 2,t+!4t an7 -,)-4'stan-e
'!d,f7,n/ t+e l,a(,l,t7, and senten-ed +e) t! e,/+t '!nt+s and t2ent7-!ne da7s !f prison correccional, t! ,nde'n,f7 t+e
!ffended pa)t7 ,n t+e s4' !f :8;1,8;, t! s4ffe) s4(s,d,a)7 ,'p),s!n'ent ,n -ase !f ,ns!l&en-7, and t! pa7 -!sts.
Defe#se:
o E&,den-e d!es #ot esta)/is+ t+e esse#tia/ e/eme#ts of t+eft, t+e -),'e -+a)/ed ,n t+e ,nf!)'at,!n, (4t t+!se
!f t+e crime of estafa.
o S+e -ann!t (e -!n&,-ted f!) t+,s -),'e f!) t+e )eas!n t+at t+e ,nf!)'at,!n 4p!n 2+,-+ s+e 2as a))a,/ned 2as
f!) t+e -),'e !f t+eft, t+e esse#tia/ e/eme#ts of 1+ic+ are (iffere#t from t+ose of estafa, +e )e-!''ends
t+e )e'and,n/ !f t+e -ase t! t+e -!4)t !f !),/,n f!) p)!pe) p)!-eed,n/ ,n a--!)dan-e 2,t+ la2.
o G!!ds app)!p),ated 2e)e #ot ta0e# )2 t+e acc%se( 1it+o%t t+e co#se#t !f t+e !2ne) 2+! +ad (e/ivere(
t+em to +er vo/%#tari/2, and t+,s ele'ent (e,n/ la-6,n/, ,t -ann!t (e t+e -),'e !f t+eft.
o @+en t+e t+,n/s 2e)e )e-e,&ed and t+en app)!p),ated !) -!n&e)ted t! !ne9s !2n 4se 2,t+!4t t+e -!nsent !f t+e
!2ne), t+e -),'e -!'',tted ,s n!t t+at !f t+eft
ISS3E: @+et+e) t+e -),'e -!'',tted (7 t+e a--4sed falls 4nde) t+eft !) estafaF .T+eft0
HELD:
o Essent,al ele'ents !f t+e -),'e !f t+eft:
o Ta6,n/ !f pe)s!nal p)!pe)t7
o :)!pe)t7 (el!n/s t! an!t+e)
o Ta6,n/ a2a7 (e d!ne 2,t+ ,ntent !f /a,n
o Ta6,n/ a2a7 (e d!ne 2,t+!4t -!nsent !f t+e !2ne)
o Ta6,n/ a2a7 (e a--!'pl,s+ed 2,t+!4t &,!len-e !) ,nt,',dat,!n a/a,nst pe)s!ns !) f!)-e 4p!n t+,n/s.
o V,ada: Gett,n/ p!ssess,!n, la7,n/ +!ld !f t+e t+,n/, s! t+at ,f t+e t+,n/s 2e)e n!t ta6en a2a7, (4t receive( a#( t+e#
a$$ro$riate( or co#verte( 1it+o%t t+e co#se#t !f t+e !2ne), ,t 'a7 (e an7 !t+e) -),'e, t+at of estafa f!) ,nstan-e,
(4t ,n n! 2a7 t+at !f t+eft, 2+,-+ -!ns,sts ,n t+e taking away of the thing, t+at ,s, ,n removi#. it from t+e $/ace 1+ere
it is 0e$t )2 t+e /e.a/ o1#er! 1it+o%t t+e /atterBs co#se#t! of t+e /e.itimate o1#er.
o GEN RLLE: :4)-+ase and sale pe)fe-t 4p!n a/)ee'ent !n /!!ds t! (e s!ld and p),-e and t,tle t)ansfe)s t!
p4)-+ase)
o EMCE:TION: If /!!ds s!ld a)e t+e 6,nd 2+,-+ a)e 4s4all7 t),ed, 'eas4)ed, !) 2e,/+ed.
As t+e /!!ds a)e n!t s!ld ,n (4l6, (4t (7 t+e 2e,/+t !) 'eas4)e'ent, t+e sale ,s #ot $erfecte(! s,n-e
t+e ris0 or (eterioratio# of t+e /!!ds ,s n!t s+,fted t! t+e (47e) 4nt,l ,t ,s 'eas4)ed !) 2e,/+edH
o In lea&,n/ t+e ),s6 !f t+e /!!ds s!ld t! t+e &end!) 4nt,l sa,d !pe)at,!n ,s -!'pleted, appl7,n/ t+e 'a=,' res
perit domino, ,t 2as e&,dentl7 t+e ,ntent,!n !f t+e le/,slat!) t+at 4nt,l t+en t+e t)ansfe) !f t+e !2ne)s+,p 2as n!t
effe-ted: ,t ,s t)4e t+at t+e)e e=,sts a p)!',se 2+,-+ (,nds t+e &end!), and 2+,-+, ,f ()!6en, 2!4ld /,&e t+e
p4)-+ase) t+e ),/+t t! de'and del,&e)7 !f t+e /!!ds 4p!n pa7'ent !f ,ts p),-e, afte) t+e sa'e +ad (een
'eas4)ed !) 2e,/+ed, !) t! -la,' ,nde'n,t7 f!) da'a/esH
o B4t ,t als! t)4e t+at %#ti/ t+e .oo(s so/( are (e/ivere(! #o (efi#ite c+a#.e of o1#ers+i$ ta0es $/ace! a#(
t+e sa/e is #ot so to s$ea0 fi#a//2 $erfecte(A
o @+e)e after t+e sa/e! )%t $rior to t+e meas%ri#. or 1ei.+i#., t+e p4)-+ase) ta6es a1a2 f)a4d4lentl7, t+at ,s,
2,t+ ,ntent !f /a,n, a pa)t !f t+e /!!ds -!&e)ed (7 t+e -!nt)a-t, t+,s, ,s e&,dentl7 , t+eft! 1it+ a// its esse#tia/
e/eme#ts, as ,t -ann!t (e )eas!na(l7 a)/4ed t+at t+e p4)-+ase) +as ta6en 2+at ,s +,s !2n.
o G)!,3a)d: B47e) /4,lt7 !f t+eft ,f -!n&e)ts t+e 2+!le !) pa)t !f t+e t+,n/ s!ld (ef!)e !2ne)s+,p passes t! +e) !) (ef!)e
del,&e)7
o T+e)e ,s ne-ess,t7 !f ,n&est,/at,n/ i# 1+om t+e o1#ers+i$ is veste( t! dete)',ne 2+et+e) !) n!t t+e -),'e !f
t+eft +as (een -!'',tted.
o T+e -!nt)a-t !f p4)-+ase and sale ,s pe)fe-ted as (et2een t+e &end!) and t+e &endee and ,s (,nd,n/ !n (!t+ !f
t+e', 2+en t+e7 -!'e t! an a.reeme#t as to t+e t+i#. a#( t+e $rice. B4t t+e !2ne)s+,p passes f)!' t+e
&end!) t! t+e &endee !nl7 2+en t+e t+,n/ ,s (e/ivere(.
o If (ef!)e t+,s ta6es pla-e t+e p4)-+ase) -!n&e)ts t+e 2+!le !) a pa)t !f t+e t+,n/ s!ld, +e '4st (e dealt 2,t+ as
.%i/t2 of t+eft, n!t2,t+stand,n/ +,s 4nden,a(le ),/+t t! de'and and !(ta,n t+e -a))7,n/ !4t !f t+e -!nt)a-t.
o On t+e !t+e) +and, ,f t+e !2ne) !f a t+,n/ ,n t+e la2f4l p!ssess,!n !f an!t+e), ta6e ,t a2a7 2,t+ !) 2,t+!4t
e'pl!7,n/ &,!len-e, ,nt,',dat,!n !) f!)-e, 2,ll -!'',t ne,t+e) )!((e)7 n!) t+eft, alt+!4/+ +e 'a7, and '4st (e
-),',nall7 )esp!ns,(le f!) an!t+e) 6,nd !f !ffense GRei nostrae furtum facere non possumus.G
o V,ada N4est,!n ans2e)ed (7 SC:
o Is t+e s+ep+e)d, 2+! ta6es a2a7 and -!n&e)ts t! +,s !2n 4se se&e)al +ead !f t+e -attle 4nde) +,s -a)e, /4,lt7 !f
t+e -),'e !f estafa, !) !f t+eftF T?E5T
o Ta6es a2a7 pe)s!nal p)!pe)t7 !f an!t+e) 2,t+!4t t+e !2ne)9s -!nsent as a--4sed, 2,t+ ,ntent !f /a,n, t!!6
a2a7 t2! (4-6s and a fe'ale /!at, a/a,nst t+e 2,ll !f +,s 'aste), t+e !2ne) !f t+e sa,d -attle, 2+,-+ 2e)e 4nde)
+,s -a)e as s+ep+e)d
o SC ANS@ER: T+e)e 2as &!l4nta),l7 del,&e)7 !f t+e s+eep (4t t+e)e 2as n! -!nsent f)!' t+e !2ne) 2+en +e
t!!6 a2a7 s!'e !f t+e -attle and -!n&e)ted t+e' t! +,s !2n 4seF C),'e -!'',tted T?E5T n!t2,t+stand,n/ t+e
fa-t t+at t+e t+,n/ 2as ',sapp)!p),ated +ad (een del,&e)ed &!l4nta),l7 (7 t+e !2ne) t! t+e s4pp!sed +e, 2+!
d,sp!ses !f ,t 2,t+!4t t+e !2ne)9s -!nsent.
o Del,&e)7 !f t+e -attle t! t+e s+ep+e)d d!es #ot +ave t+e effect of tra#sferri#. t+e ;%(icia/ $ossessio# of! or
tit/e to! t+e catt/e t+%s (e/ivere(, I4st as t+e del,&e)7 !f t+e ),-e d!es n!t +a&e s4-+ effe-t, t+e $ossessio#
of! a#( tit/e to! t+e t+i#. to )e $res%me( to remai# i# t+e ve#(or! %#ti/ t+e sa/e is com$/ete/2
co#s%mmate(.
o LARCENCD: A'e),-an -),'e 2+,-+ +as t+e sa'e -+a)a-te),st,-s as t+!se !f t+eft
o T+e i#te#tio# of t+e o1#er to $art 1it+ +is $ro$ert2 ,s t+e /,st and essen-e !f t+e !ffense !f t+eft .la)-en70,
and t+e &,tal p!,nt !n 2+,-+ t+e -),'e +,n/es and ,s t! (e dete)',ned. Gene)all7 a fel!n,!4s ta6,n/ ,s ne-essa)7
and a ta6,n/ 2+,-+ ,s d!ne 2,t+ t+e -!nsent !) a-B4,es-en-e !f t+e !2ne) !f t+e p)!pe)t7 ,s n!t fel!n,!4s.
o B4t ,f t+e !2ne) pa)ts 2,t+ t+e p!ssess,!n f!) a pa)t,-4la) p4)p!se, and t+e pe)s!n 2+! )e-e,&es t+e p!ssess,!n
a&!2edl7 f!) t+at p4)p!se +as t+e fra%(%/e#t i#te#tio# to ma0e %se of it as t+e 'eans !f -!n&e)t,n/ ,t t! +,s
!2n 4se, and d!es s! -!n&e)t ,t, t+,s ,s la)-en7.
Fra%( s%$$/ies t+e $/ace of t+e tres$ass i# t+e ta0i#., !), as !t+e)2,se stated, t+e s4(seB4ent
fel!n,!4s -!n&e)s,!n !f t+e p)!pe)t7 (7 t+e alle/ed t+,ef 2,ll )elate (a-6 and 'a6e t+e ta6,n/ and
-!n&e)s,!n la)-en7.
A-t /!es fa)t+e) t+an t+e -!nsent, and 'a7 (e fa,)l7 sa,d t! (e a/a,nst ,t. If '!ne7 ,s /,&en t! a pe)s!n
t! (e appl,ed t! a pa)t,-4la) p4)p!se, ,t ,s la)-en7 f!) t+e )e-e,&e) t! app)!p),ate ,t t! +,s !2n 4se 2+,-+
2as n!t t+e p4)p!se -!nte'plated (7 t+e !2ne). T+,s ,s s! f!) t+e )eas!n t+at t+e del,&e)7 !f '!ne7 t!
an!t+e) f!) t+e s!le p4)p!se !f /ett,n/ ,t -+an/ed ,s a $arti#. 1it+ t+e c%sto(2 o#/2 a#( #ot t+e
amo%#t d!es n!t )el,e&e +,' f)!' l,a(,l,t7 f!) t+e la)-en7 !f t+e ent,)e a'!4nt /,&en +,'.
o @+e)e t+e pa)t,es a)e en/a/ed ,n a -as+ sale t+e 2+!le t)ansa-t,!n ,s ,n-!'plete 4nt,l t+e pa7'ent ,s
-!'pletedH and t+e p!ssess,!n !f t+e /!!ds )e'a,ns ,n t+e selle) and t+at !f t+e '!ne7 ,n t+e (47e), 4nt,l t+e7
a)e s,'4ltane!4sl7 e=-+an/ed.
o If, ,n s4-+ -ase, t+e )%2er .ets co#tro/ of t+e .oo(s a#( ma0es off 1it+ t+em 1it+o%t $a2i#. for t+em! +e
is .%i/t2 of /arce#2. And -!n&e)sel7 ,f t+e selle) /ets t+e '!ne7 and )ef4ses t! /,&e 4p t+e /!!ds, ,t ,s la)-en7.
o T+eft p)!&en ,n t+e -a4se t! +a&e (een -!'',tted (7 t+e appellant (7 app)!p),at,n/ t+e /!ld (a) del,&e)ed t! +e) f!)
e=a',nat,!n, and (7 -!n&e)t,n/ t! +e) !2n 4se, 2,t+!4t t+e -!nsent !f t+e !2ne), t+e (an6 n!tes 2+,-+ +ad (een
+anded +e) t! (e e=-+an/ed f!) s,l&e) -!,ns
Dis$ositive: TC De-,s,!n A55IR1ED. T?E5T n!t Estafa
%. PEOPLE &s. MIG3EL G. CONCEPCION
I# ot+er case: Peo$/e v TEODO=O ANGELES! A5ELA=DO C=ISOLOGO! =ICA=DO PA=EDES
ST=EET! J.: G.=. No. L?17176 Fe)r%ar2 6@! 1768
Facts:
Estafa )2 mea#s of fa/sificatio# of merca#ti/e (oc%me#ts ?C Inf!)'at,!n ,n-l4ded " !t+e) pe)s!ns, Te!d!),-!
An/eles, A(ela)d! C),s!l!/!, and R,-a)d! :a)edes, 2+! 2e)e na'ed as -!defendants 2,t+ t+,s a--4sedH (4t a
se&e)an-e 2as +ad, and t+e t),al !f t+e p)esent appellant !--4))ed at a d,ffe)ent t,'e t+an t+at !f +,s -!-a--4sed, s!
-!ns,de)ed +e)e ,s 1,/4el C!n-ep-,!nKs al!ne
Te!d!),-! An/eles 2as 'ana/e) !f a Apa)), ()an-+ !f :NB, ,n Ca/a7an. At t+e sa'e t,'e 1,/4el C!n-ep-,!n ,s a
)es,dent and )ep)esentat,&e !f Ca/a7an ,n t+e :+,l,pp,ne Asse'(l7 and 2as 'ana/e) !f a l,',ted pa)tne)s+,p en/a/ed
,n t+e (4s,ness !f (47,n/ and sell,n/ to)acco ,n t+e Ca/a7an Valle7, 6n!2n as GP%#o 2 Co#ce$cio#.G
o T+e 'e)-ant,le !pe)at,!ns !f t+,s f,)' 2e)e f!) a t,'e -a)),ed !n 4p!n an e=tens,&e s-ale, and 1,/4el
C!n-ep-,!n 2as nat4)all7 t+e)ef!)e f)eB4entl7 ()!4/+t ,nt! -!nta-t 2,t+ Te!d!),-! An/eles as 'ana/e) !f
Apa)), ()an-+ !f t+e :NB.
o 1!)e!&e), ,t appea)s t+at 1,/4el C!n-ep-,!n ,s a so# of <e#a#cio Co#ce$cio# at t+at t,'e $resi(e#t of PN5
Ma#i/aH and (7 )eas!n !f (!t+ +,s s!-,al and (4s,ness )elat,!ns 1,/4el C!n-ep-,!n e&,dentl7 a-B4,)ed an
%#(%e i#f/%e#ce over Teo(orico A#.e/es! 2,t+ t+e )es4lt t+at t+e latte) ,n a /)eat 'eas4)e s4))ende)ed +,s
d,s-)et,!n as 'ana/e) !f t+e (an6 t! t+e 2,ll !f t+e f!)'e).
O-t!(e), 1$1$: 1,/4el C!n-ep-,!n +ad need !f f4nds, 2+,-+ -!4ld !nl7 (e +ad f)!' :NB and as +e appa)entl7 +ad n!
(an6a(le se-4),t7 a&a,la(le, )e-!4)se 2as +ad t! t+e e=ped,ent !f /ett,n/ t+e mo#e2 %$o# /oa#s from t+e )a#0 %$o#
fictitio%s 1are+o%se recei$ts .quedans0, 2,t+ t+e 6n!2led/e and -!nn,&an-e !f Te!d!),-! An/eles.
Test,'!n7 (7 A(ela)d! C),s!l!/! and R,-a)d! :a)edes !f +!2 l!ans 2e)e !(ta,ned .:a)edes ,s C),s!l!/!Ks fat+e)-,n-
la20
o C+a)/ed ,n t+e ,nf!)'at,!n as ;oi#t $ri#ci$a/s i# t+e offe#se of estafa )2 mea#s of fa/sificatio# of
merca#ti/e (oc%me#ts (4t 2+!, as 2e (el,e&e, 2e)e )at+e) &,-t,'s !f t+e a)t,f,-es !f t+e,) -!a--4sed t+an
des,/n,n/ pa)t,-,pants ,n -),'e.
o A(ela)d! C),s!l!/! +ad l!n/ (een an ,nt,'ate f),end !f 1,/4el G. C!n-ep-,!nH and, as C),s!l!/! l,&ed ,n
T4/4e/a)a!, ,t +ad (een t+e -4st!' !f C!n-ep-,!n !n &,s,ts t! t+at pla-e ,n t+e past t! sta7 ,n C),s!l!/!9s
+!sp,ta(le +!'e. :a)edes 2as t+e fat+e)-,n-la2 !f C),s!l!/! and at t+e sa'e t,'e an e'pl!7ee !f t+e f,)' !f
G:4n! 7 C!n-ep-,!n,G t+!4/+ p),!) t! Septe'(e), 1$1$, +e +ad (een e'pl!7ed (7 t+e ()an-+ !f t+e :+,l,pp,ne
Nat,!nal Ban6 ,n Apa)), as an ,nspe-t!).
O-t!(e) 1$1$: Te!d!),-! An/eles and 1,/4el G. C!n-ep-,!n 2e)e ,n T4/4e/a)a!, and t+e7 2e)e ,n&,ted t! d,ne at t+e
+!4se !f C),s!l!/!, :a)edes (e,n/ als! p)esent.
Afte) t+e 'eals 2as !&e), and t+e app)!p),ate t,'e +ad a)),&ed f!) t+e e=-+an/e !f -!nf,den-es, t+e s4(Ie-t !f t+e
t!(a--! t)ade 2as ()!a-+ed, and 1,/4el G. C!n-ep-,!n, d,)e-t,n/ +,'self t! An/eles, sa,d: G1ana/e), I +a&e t+ree
t+o%sa#( :%i#ta/s of to)acco ,n t+e pueblos !f En),le, :eOa(lan-a, and Ba//a!, and I s+!4ld l,6e t! pled/e t+e' t!
t+e (an6 (4t I s+!4ld n!t l,6e f!) '7 na'e t! appea) !n t+e d!-4'ents. I 'ean t+at I s+!4ld n!t l,6e t! 'a6e t+e pled/e
'7self.G
T! t+,s Te!d!),-! An/eles )epl,ed: G@+!se na'e t+en 2!4ld 7!4 l,6e t! +a&e appea)FG
T+e)e4p!n C!n-ep-,!n ,nd,-ated Criso/o.o as a pe)s!n 2+! 2!4ld pe)+aps (e !(l,/,n/ en!4/+ t! f,/4)e as )orro1er
i# t+e /oa#. T! t+,s C),s!l!/! at f,)st +es,tated t! /,&e +,s assent, (4t t+e 'atte) 2as 'ana/ed 2,t+ s4-+ d,pl!'at,- s6,ll
(7 t+e t2! p),n-,pal ,nte)l!-4t!)s t+at C),s!l!/! 7,elded, n!t (ef!)e C!n-ep-,!n, +!2e&e), +ad p!,nted !4t t+at ,n
'a6,n/ t+e pled/e Criso/o.o 1o%/( #ot +ave to a$$ear as o1#er of t+e to)acco )%t mere/2 as (e$ositar2.
E=planat,!n /,&en t! C),s!l!/! (7 C!n-ep-,!n f!) t+e ne-ess,t7 !f t+e ,nte)&ent,!n !f s!'e!ne else t+an +,'self 2as, ,n
effe-t, t+at Co#ce$cio# 1a#te( to %se t+e mo#e2 for t+e $%rc+ase of to)acco i# com$etitio# 1it+ t+e firm of
DP%#o 2 Co#ce$cio#!D !f 2+,-+ C!n-ep-,!n 2as 'ana/e), and +e t+!4/+t ,t 2!4ld /oo0 %./2 for +is #ame to a$$ear
i# co##ectio# 1it+ t+e /oa#.
Ban6 lends s4' !f :<<,;;; se-4)ed (7 2a)e+!4se )e-e,pts f!) ",;;; B4,ntals !f t!(a--!
T+)ee p),n-,pals 'et a/a,n t+e ne=t da7 ,n t+e +!4se 2+e)e C!n-ep-,!n 2as t+en sta7,n/ ,n T4/4e/a)a!H and ,t 2as
dete)',ned t+at a /oa# of P8&!""" s+o%/( fort+1it+ )e ma(e o# t+e $%r$orte( sec%rit2 of a :%e(a# to )e si.#e(
)2 Criso/o.o for 6!""" :%i#ta/s of to)acco, lea&,n/ a l!an !f :8;,;;; t! (e effe-ted late) 4p!n t+e se-4),t7 !f an!t+e)
B4edan f!) t+e )e'a,n,n/ t+!4sand B4,ntals !f t!(a--!.
An/eles ass4)ed C),s!l!/! t+at +e +ad $erso#a//2 i#s$ecte( t+e 1are+o%se 2+e)e t+at pa)t !f t+e t!(a--! s4pp!sed
t! (e t+en ,n T4/4e/a)a! 2as dep!s,ted and f!4nd ,t t! (e t+e)e as C!n-ep-,!n +ad -la,'ed.
Lp!n t+,s C),s!l!/! ,nd,-ated +,s )ead,ness t! p)!-eed, and t+e ne-essa)7 d!-4'ents 2e)e a--!)d,n/l7 p)epa)ed.
o 5!4) p)!',ss!)7 n!tes, a'!4nt,n/ alt!/et+e) t! t+e s4' !f :"<,;;;, s,/ned (7 A(ela)d! C),s!l!/!, pa7a(le t!
t+e :+,l,pp,ne Nat,!nal Ban6 and p4)p!)t,n/ t! (e se-4)ed (7 t+e dep!s,t !f a B4edan f!) 8,;;; B4,ntals !f
t!(a--!.
o @a)e+!4se )e-e,pt f!) sa,d t!(a--!, ,n t+e 4s4al -!''e)-,al f!)', s,/ned (7 C),s!l!/! and p4)p!)t,n/ t! s+!2
t+at 8,;;; B4,ntals !f t!(a--! +ad (een dep!s,ted ,n +,s bodegas. T+,s B4edan 2as )ed4-ed t! t7pe2),tten f)!'
(7 C!n-ep-,!n +,'self I4st (ef!)e t+e d!-4'ents 2as s,/ned (7 C),s!l!/!, ,ts -!ntents (e,n/ d,-tated (7
Te!d!),-! An/eles.
O-t!(e) 8%, 1$1$: In Apa)),, An/eles d,s-!4nted t+e f!4) n!tes and pla-e t+e p)!-eeds n!',nall7 t! t+e cre(it of a#
i#(ivi(%a/ acco%#t t+e# o$e#e( i# t+e #ame of A)e/ar(o Criso/o.o. Of t+e a--!4nt t+4s pla-ed t! t+e -)ed,t !f
C),s!l!/!, t+e s4' !f :";,;;; 2as f!)t+2,t+ )e',tted t! C!n-ep-,!n ,n T4/4e/a)a! (7 tele/)ap+ t+)!4/+ t+e p)!&,n-,al
t)eas4)e) and 2as (7 t+e latte) pa,d t! C!n-ep-,!n ,n d4e -!4)se. T+e a'!4nt !f :<,;;; )e'a,n,n/ t! C),s!l!/!9s -)ed,t
2as 4sed e,t+e) t! pa7 t+e -+a)/es ,n-,dental t! t+e 'a6,n/ !f t+e l!an !) t! def)a7 ,nte)est 4p!n t+e l!an.
T+)ee !) f!4) 2ee6s late) t+e remai#i#. $ortio# of t+e s%m of P&&!""", !),/,nall7 a/)eed 4p!n as t+e t!tal a'!4nt !f
t+e l!an, 2as a(va#ce( )2 t+e )a#0 %$o# t1o $romissor2 #otes of P1"!""" eac+! si.#e( )2 Criso/o.o! and
p4)p!)t,n/ t! (e se-4)ed (7 a B4edan f!) t+e !t+e) t+!4sand B4,ntals !f t!(a--!, s4pp!sedl7 ,n Ba//a!, l,6e2,se s,/ned
(7 C),s!l!/!.
A(!4t t+,s t,'e t+e f,)' !f G:4n! 7 C!n-ep-,!n,G f!) 2+,-+ :a)edes 2as a-t,n/ as (47e), +ad need !f '!ne7, and !f t+,s
fa-t :a)edes +ad d4l7 ,nf!)'ed C!n-ep-,!n. T+e latte) t+e)ef!)e ,nst)4-ted An/eles t! pa7 :a)edes t+e p)!-eeds !f t+e
se-!nd l!anH and a--!)d,n/l7 2+en An/eles d,s-!4nted t+e t2! n!tes !f A(ela)d! C),s!l!/! f!) :8;,;;;, !n N!&e'(e)
1$, 1$1$, +e del,&e)ed t! :a)edes t+e s4' !f :<;; ,n -4))en-7 and a d)aft f!) :1#,;;;, 'a6,n/ :1#,<;; ,n all, 2+,-+
2as -+a)/ed t! C),s!l!/!9s a--!4nt.
Afte) t+e f,)st n!tes e=e-4ted (7 C),s!l!/! +ad (een ,n t+e (an6 f!) s!'e t,'e, :a)edes, a-t,n/ f!) C),s!l!/! and !t+e)s
-!n-e)ned, 'ade a pa7'ent !f ,nte)est d4e !) t! (e-!'e d4e 4p!n sa,d n!tes, 4s,n/ 4p!n t+,s !--as,!n a(!4t :1,>;;,
(el,e&ed t! +a&e (een de),&ed f)!' t+e )es!4)-es !f C!n-ep-,!n
:a)edes a-t,n/ as att!)ne7 ,n fa-t t! +,s s!n-,n-la2, A(ela)d! C),s!l!/!, 2ent t+)!4/+ t+e f!)' !f e=e-4t,n/ ,n fa&!) !f
t+e (an6 a pled/e !f t+e sa'e n!n-e=,st,n/ t!(a--! t+at +ad (een ,n-l4ded ,n !),/,nal B4edans s,/ned (7 C),s!l!/!
T+e )e'a,nde) !f t+e p)!-eeds !f t+e n!tes 2as -!ns4'ed ,n t+e pa7'ent !f -+a)/es ,n-,dental t! t+e l!an and ,n t+e
pa7'ent !f ,nte)est. 5)!' t+,s ,t 2,ll (e seen, and ,t ,s an 4nden,a(le fa-t, t+at alt+!4/+ Criso/o.o s,/ned t+e n!tes and
B4edans, as a(!&e stated, +e i# #o 1ise $rofite( )2 t+e tra#sactio# a#( #ever so m%c+ as sa1 t+e ./eam of a
si#./e co$$er $rocee(i#. from t+e /oa#.
At t+e t,'e t+e B4edans )efe))ed t! 2e)e s,/ned and del,&e)ed t! t+e (an6 ne,t+e) C),s!l!/! n!) C!n-ep-,!n p!ssessed
t+e t!(a--! 2+,-+ 2as p4)p!)ted t! (e !n dep!s,ts 2,t+ A(ela)d! C),s!l!/!H and, alt+!4/+ t+e e&,den-e !n t+,s p!,nt ,s
p4)el7 -,)-4'stant,al, ,t ,s -e)ta,n t+at An/eles 6ne2 t+at t+e t!(a--! 2as n!n-e=,stent as +e ass4)ed C),s!l!/! t+at
C!n-ep-,!n +ad t+e t!(a--! and t+at t+e s,/n,n/ !f t+e d!-4'ents (7 C),s!l!/! 2as a 'atte) !f p4)e f!)'.
T+e n!tes +a&e n!t (een pa,d (7 A(ela)d! C),s!l!/!H t+e t!(a--! +as (een f!4nd t! (e n!n-e=,stent, as An/eles and
C!n-ep-,!n all al!n/ 6ne2H C!n-ep-,!n den,es all )esp!ns,(,l,t7 f!) t+e t)ansa-t,!n, as ,f +e 2e)e a t!tal st)an/e)
t+e)et!H and s,n-e De-e'(e) 8", 1$81, An/eles !--4p,es t+e /)a&e !f a s4,-,de.
Afte) all t+e n!tes +ad l!n/ (een !&e)d4e, and t+e (an6 des,)ed t! /et ,ts -)ed,ts -!ns!l,dated. :a)edes, als! a-t,n/
4nde) a p!2e) !f att!)ne7 f)!' C),s!l!/!, 2ent t+)!4/+ t+e f!)' !f -!ns!l,dat,n/ t+e !),/,nal n!tes and B4edans ,nt!
!ne n!te and !ne B4edan.
CFI: 1,/4el G. C!n-ep-,!n, GLILTD !f t+e !ffense !f estafa )2 mea#s of fa/sificatio# of merca#ti/e (oc%me#ts
o :ENALTD: 5,&e 7ea)s, f!4) '!nt+s and t2ent7 da7s, prision correccional, 2,t+ t+e a--ess!),es p)es-),(ed (7
la2H t! pa7 a f,ne !f :1,<;;H t! ,nde'n,f7 t+e ()an-+ !f t+e :+,l,pp,ne Nat,!nal Ban6 ,n Apa)), ,n t+e s4' !f
:<<,;;;, 2,t+ s4(s,d,a)7 ,'p),s!n'ent .n!t t! e=-eed !ne 7ea)0 ,n -ase !f ,ns!l&en-7H and t! pa7 t+e !ne-
f!4)t+ pa)t !f t+e -!sts !f p)!se-4t,!n.
CFI: R,-a)d! :a)edes and Al(e)t! C),s!l!/!, /4,lt7 !f t+e !ffense !f fa/sificatio# of a commercia/ (oc%me#t
o :ENALTD: s,= 7ea)s and !ne da7, p)es,d,! 'a7!), 2,t+ t+e a--ess!),es p)!&,ded (7 la2, t! pa7 a f,ne !f :8<;,
and I!,ntl7 and se&e)all7 t! ,nde'n,f7 t+e Apa)), ()an-+ !f t+e :+,l,pp,ne Nat,!nal Ban6 ,n t+e a'!4nt !f
:<<,;;;, and ea-+ t! pa7 !ne-f!4)t+ pa)t !f t+e -!sts
ISS3ES:
1. @+et+e) C!n-ep-,!n ,s /4,lt7 !f estafaF .DES0
8. @+et+e) R,-a)d! :a)edes and Al(e)t! C),s!l!/! a)e /4,lt7 !f fals,f,-at,!n !f -!''e)-,al d!-4'entF .NO0
HELD:
1. C!n-ep-,!n, /4,lt7 !f t+e -!'ple= !ffense !f estafa (7 'eans !f t+e fals,f,-at,!n !f 'e)-ant,le d!-4'ents.
o T+e estafa +e)e ,n&!l&ed -!ns,sts ,n t+e fa-t t+at Te!d!),-! An/eles, as 'ana/e) !f t+e Apa)), ()an-+ !f t+e :+,l,pp,ne
Nat,!nal Ban6, and as s4-+ +a&,n/ -+a)/e !f t+e f4nds !f sa,d ,nst,t4t,!n, -!n&e)ted, ',sapp)!p),ated, and ',sappl,ed
t+e s4' !f a(!4t :<<,;;; !f t+e (an69s '!ne7, 4p!n se-4),t7 t+at 2as 6n!2n t! +,' t! (e 2+!ll7 f,-t,t,!4s, f!) t+e
(enef,ts !f t+e appellant C!n-ep-,!n and t! t+e p)eI4d,-e !f t+e (an6
o Ind4-ed t+e fals,f,-at,!n !f t2! 2a)e+!4se )e-e,pts as a ne-essa)7 )eB4,s,te t! a--!'pl,s+ estafa t+e 2as a ne-essa)7
p)e)eB4,s,teH and ,s als! t+e 'e-+an,-al a4t+!) !f at least t+e f,)st )e-e,pt, +a&,n/ +,'self )ed4-ed t+e d!-4'ent t!
p)!pe) f)!' 4p!n +,s !2n t7pe2),t,n/ 'a-+,ne at t+e d,-tat,!n !f Te!d!),-! An/eles.
o T+,s appellant ,s t+e)ef!)e s4(Ie-t t! p4n,s+'ent 4nde) a)t,-le ";1 !f t+e :enal C!de, as a'ended, ,n )elat,!n 2,t+
a)t,-le #$ !f t+e sa'e C!de. T+e t),al I4d/e 2as t+e)ef!)e n!t ,n e))!) ,n senten-,n/ +,' t! ,'p),s!n'ent f!) a pe),!d
2,t+,n t+e l,',ts !f 'a=,'4' de/)ee !f prision correccionalH (4t a p)e-,se est,'ate !f t+e penalt7 t! (e ,'p!sed s+!2s
t+at t+e pe),!d f,=ed (7 +,s ?!n!) falls s+!)t !f t+e t)4e le/al )eB4,)e'ent (7 !ne da7.
o Inf!)'at,!n -+a)/es an estafa f!4nded 4p!n de-e,t (7 'eans !f false )ep)esentat,!n .estafa s4(se-t,!n 10 (4t ,t ,s
a-t4all7, estafa 4nde) s4(se-t,!n < !) f)a4d4lent ',sappl,-at,!n !f t+e f4nds !f t+e (an6 (7 ,ts 'ana/e) as An/eles, t+e
'ana/e) !f t+e (an6, 2+! let t+e '!ne7 !4t, 6ne2 t+at t+e t!(a--! 2as n!n-e=,stent, t+e estafa -!'',tted -ann!t (e
-!ns,de)ed t! +a&e (een !f t+e p)e-,se f!)' alle/ed.
8. 1,/4el G. C!n-ep-,!n and Te!d!),-! An/eles a)e p),n-,pals !f t+,s -),'e, 2+,le R,-a)d! :a)edes and A(ela)d! C),s!l!/!
2e)e )at+e) &,-t,'s !f t+e a)t,-les !f t+e t2! t+an des,/n,n/ pa)t,-,pants ,n -),'e
o :AREDES:
o N! -!'pl,-,t7 !n pa)t !f R,-a)d! :a)edes ,n t+e !),/,nal estafa and fals,f,-at,!n. ?,s ,nte)&ent,!n ,n (e+alf !f
C),s!l!/!, ,n d!,n/ -e)ta,n a-ts as att!)ne7 ,n fa-t !f t+e latte), ,s e=pla,na(le (7 t+e fa-t t+at C),s!l!/! 2as +,s
s!n-,n-la2 and l,&ed ,n T4/4e/a)a!, 2+,le t+e a-ts 2+,-+ :a)edes d,d ,n (e+alf !f C),s!l!/! 2e)e d!ne at t+e
(an6 ,n Apa)), 4p!n !--as,!ns 2+en C),s!l!/! 2as at +!'e ,n T4/4e/a)a! and 2as n!t !) -!4ld n!t
-!n&en,entl7 (e p)esent.
o @+at +e d,d late) (7 e=e-4t,n/ a pled/e d!ne at t+e ,nstan-e !f t+e (an6 -an ass4'e t+e fa-t t+at +e 6ne2 t+at
t+e t!(a--! )efe))ed t! ,n t+e pled/e and B4edans 2as n!n-e=,st,n/, (4t #o estafa 1as t+e# committe( and
t+e !nl7 !ffense -+a)/ed ,n t+e p)esent ,nf!)'at,!n +as refere#ce to t+e ori.i#a/ estafa a#( fa/sificatio#
committe( 1+e# t+e mo#e2 1as o)tai#e(.
o CRISOLOGO: N! -),',nal ,ntent and n! ',s)ep)esentat,!n t! an7!ne
o ?e s,/ned t+e p)!',ss!)7 n!tes and t+e B4edans f!) t+e t!(a--! 2+,-+ s4pp!sedl7 I4st,f,ed t+e l!an. In s,/n,n/
t+ese n!tes C),s!l!/! 2as, -,&,ll7 spea6,n/, s4(stant,all7 ,n t+e p!s,t,!n !f an accommo(atio# ma0erH and +e
!f -!4)se 'ade +,'self pe)s!nall7 l,a(le t! t+e (an6 4p!n t+!se n!tes f!) t+e (enef,t !f C!n-ept,!n.
o T+e a-t !f aff,=,n/ +,s s,/nat4)e t! t+e B4edans 2as d!ne i# a s$irit of )/i#( com$/aisa#ce e=pla,na(le !nl7 ,n
t+e l,/+t !f +,s f),endl7 pe)s!nal )elat,!ns 2,t+ C!n-ept,!n and +,s defe)en-e t! t+e I!,nt 2,s+es !f C!n-ept,!n
and t+e (an6Ks 'ana/e).
o It '4st (e )e'e'(e)ed als! t+at t+,s a-t 2as d!ne ,n )esp!nse t! t+e )ep)esentat,!n !f Te!d!),-! An/eles t+at
C!n-ept,!n +ad t+e t!(a--! and t+at t+e s,/n,n/ !f t+e B4edans (7 C),s!l!/! 2as all a 'atte) !f 'e)e
f!)'al,t7. Criso/o.o t+erefore misre$rese#te( #ot+i#. to a#2o#eA a#( 1e are of t+e o$i#io# t+at crimi#a/
res$o#si)i/it2 ca##ot )e $re(icate( of +is acts! for 1a#t of t+e esse#tia/ e/eme#t of crimi#a/ i#te#t. ?e
2as a 'e)e t!!l ,n t+e +ands !f !t+e)s and ,s s4ff,-,entl7 p4n,s+ed (7 t+e )4,n t+at '4st f!ll!2 f)!' 'a6,n/
+,'self -,&,ll7 l,a(le f!) s! la)/e a s4' !f '!ne7.
Dis$ositive as to Mi.%e/ Co#ce$cio#: A55IR1ED 2,t+ 1ODI5ICATION (7 add,n/ !ne da7 t! t+e penalt7 2,t+,n t+e
'a=,'4' !f t+e 'a=,'4' de/)ee !f p),s,!n -!))e-,!nal
Dis$ositive as to Pare(es a#( Criso/o.o: ACNLITTED.
&. EL<I=A LATEO! F=ANCISCO ELCA! a#( 5A=TOLOME 5ALDEMO= vs. PEOPLE
NAC?LRA, J p: G.R. N!. 1>1><1. J4ne #, 8;11.*
Facts:
Prosecution's version
1$$%: Late! and El-a p)!p!sed t+at L4-e)! f,nan-e t+e t,tl,n/ !f t+e 188 +e-ta)es !f land l!-ated ,n M%#ti#/%$a
alle/edl7 !2ned (7 El-a as t+e s!le +e,) !f G)e/!),! El-a. T,tle t! t+e p)!pe)t7 +ad n!t (een t)ansfe))ed t! El-a9s na'e
(e-a4se !f a -e)ta,n (iscre$a#c2 (et2een t+e Deed !f Sale and TCT N!. CCC";. El-a !ffe)ed t! ass,/n t! L4-e)! C;
+e-ta)es !f sa,d land. S+e 2as t+en ,nt)!d4-ed t! Balde'!), O)land! Lal!ta and N!las-! de G43'an.
L4-e)! )eleased t! pet,t,!ne)s a(!4t P9. mi//io# i# sta..ere( amo%#ts.
El-a t!ld L4-e)! t+at -e)ta,n p!)t,!ns !f t+e p)!pe)t7 2,ll f,)st (e p4t ,n t+e na'e !f Late! and 2!4ld late) (e ass,/ned t!
+e). L4-e)! 2as /,&en a Deed !f Sale dated 1a)-+ 8C, 1$#C. El-a l,6e2,se e=e-4ted an ,))e&!-a(le Spe-,al :!2e) !f
Att!)ne7 ,n fa&!) !f L4-e)!.
Late), s+e 2as p)esented -e)t,f,ed t)4e -!p,es !f t+)ee ."0 t,tles, ,ss4ed (7 t+e Re/,ste) !f Deeds !f 1a6at, C,t7 ,n t+e
na'e !f Late! -!&e),n/ app)!=,'atel7 t2ent7-se&en .8C0 +e-ta)es !f :lan A-C !f t+e 14nt,nl4pa Estate, s,t4ated ,n
Ba)),! 1a/da!n/, :!(la-,!n, 14nt,nl4pa.
De-e'(e) 1$$%: L4-e)! &e),f,ed 2,t+ t+e Re/,st)7 !f Deeds !f 1a6at,, s+e d,s-!&e)ed t+at t+e af!)esa,d t,tles !f t+e
p)!pe)t7 2e)e a-t4all7 )e/,ste)ed ,n t+e na'es !f 1a)- Ol,&e) R. S,n/s!n, 1a)7 Jeanne S. G! and 5el,3a C. T!)),/!3a.
L4-e)! -!nf)!nted pet,t,!ne)s and de'anded f)!' t+e' )et4)n !f t+e '!ne7. S+e 2as t!ld t+at t+e7 d,d n!t +a&e an7
'!ne7 t! )et4)n. T+e7 ,nstead !ffe)ed a f,&e .<0 +e-ta)e p)!pe)t7 ,dent,f,ed as L!t 1;1%; !f :lan S/s ;%81"-;;;%%1
l!-ated at 5acoor! Cavite alle/edl7 !2ned (7 El-a. El-a, +!2e&e), de'anded an add,t,!nal :8 ',ll,!n f!) t+e t)ansfe)
!f t,tle. T+)!4/+ a lette), +e sa,d t+at t+e -4))ent &al4at,!n !f t+e p)!pe)t7 ,s :%<;.;; pe) sB4a)e 'ete) and +en-e, t+e
p)!pe)t7 2,ll (e '!)e t+an s4ff,-,ent t! -!&e) !(l,/ates
As ,t t4)ned !4t, El-a d,d n!t !2n 1% +e-ta)es ,n Ba-!!), Ca&,te. ?e 'e)el7 +ad an ,n-+!ate ),/+t !&e) t+e Ba-!!)
p)!pe)t7, de),&ed f)!' +,s Appl,-at,!n t! :4)-+ase 5),a) Lands, 2+,-+ -!&e)ed !nl7 C +e-ta)es. El-a9s appl,-at,!n 2as
late) a'ended t! -!&e) !nl7 % +e-ta)es, ,n &,e2 !f t+e p)!test (7 Alf)ed! Salen/a .Salen/a0.
L4-e)! &e),f,ed t+,s 2,t+ t+e Land 1ana/e'ent B4)ea4 .L1B0, s+e d,s-!&e)ed t+at El-a !nl7 +ad a pend,n/ appl,-at,!n
f!) t+e sales patent !&e) a f!4) %-+e-ta)e a)ea !f t+e s4(Ie-t land. T+ese ',s)ep)esentat,!ns p)!'pted +e) t! f,le a
-!'pla,nt 2,t+ t+e Tas6 5!)-e Ka'a/!n/, :ACC, 1an,la.
Ap),l 8>, 1$$<: t+e tas6 f!)-e -!nd4-ted an e#tra$me#t at 54)!sat! Resta4)ant. :et,t,!ne)s 2e)e app)e+ended ,n
p!ssess,!n !f 'a)6ed 1;;-pes! (,lls a'!4nt,n/ t! :1;;,;;;.;;, s4pp!sedl7 ,n e=-+an/e f!) t+e Deed !f Ass,/n'ent
p)epa)ed (7 L4-e)! f!) t+e,) t)ansa-t,!n.
Petitioners' version
1$$%: L4-e)!, Late!, Os-a) Lal!ta 'et 2,t+ El-a ,n 14nt,nl4pa t! d,s-4ss t+e p)!p!sal !f L4-e)! t! f,nan-e t+e t,tl,n/ !f
El-a9s land.
J4ne 8#, 1$$%: ,n a 'eet,n/ -alled (7 L4-e)!, s+e la,d d!2n t+e te)'s and -!nd,t,!ns )e/a)d,n/ +e) plans t! f,nan-e t+e
t,tl,n/ !f El-a9s land.
o 88 !4t !f t+e 188 +e-ta)es !f t+e land 2!4ld (e /,&en t! t+e !ld tenants !f t+e p)!pe)t7, t+e "; +e-ta)es 2!4ld
(e t,tled ,n t+e na'e !f El-a as +,s )eta,ned s+a)e and t+e !t+e) C; +e-ta)es 2!4ld (e +e) p)!f,t as f,nan-,e) !f
t+e t)ansa-t,!n.
o L4-e)! 2!4ld als! pa7 :1;.;; f!) e&e)7 sB4a)e 'ete) !f t+e C; +e-ta)es !) a t!tal a'!4nt !f :C ',ll,!n. All t+e
e=penses f!) t+e t,tl,n/ and 'ana/e'ent !f t+e land 2!4ld (e ded4-ted f)!' :C ',ll,!n. T+e )e'a,n,n/ (alan-e
2!4ld t+en (e /,&en t! pet,t,!ne)s
L4-e)! ass,/ned Os-a) Lal!ta t! 2!)6 f!) t+e t,tl,n/ !f t+e land and t! p)epa)e all d!-4'ents ne-essa)7 t+e)et!.
Balde'!) 2!4ld a-t as !&e)see) !f t+e t)ansa-t,!n as L4-e)!9s att!)ne7-,n-fa-t. Late! 2!4ld se)&e as se-)eta)7 and
ass,stant !f L4-e)!. El-a 2!4ld /4a)d t+e p)!pe)t7 t! 6eep !ff sB4atte)s. ?e and +,s 2,fe 2e)e ,nst)4-ted t! s,/n all
d!-4'ents p)epa)ed (7 Os-a) Lal!ta.
De-e'(e) 1$$%: L4-e)! t!ld El-a t+at 4p!n &e),f,-at,!n f)!' t+e Re/,st)7 !f Deeds !f 1a6at, C,t7, s+e f!4nd !4t t+at all
t+e d!-4'ents s4(',tted (7 Os-a) Lal!ta pe)ta,n,n/ t! t+e,) t)ansa-t,!n 2e)e fals,f,ed. Os-a) Lal!ta d,sappea)ed afte)
/ett,n/ t+e '!ne7.
In !)de) t! )e-!&e) +e) l!sses f)!' t+e an!'al!4s t)ansa-t,!n, L4-e)! !ffe)ed t! p4)-+ase El-a9s p)!pe)t7 ,n Ca&,te.
El-a a/)eed t! sell 8 +e-ta)es !f +,s p)!pe)t7 at a p),-e !f :1;;.;; pe) sB4a)e 'ete). El-a ,nf!)'ed L4-e)! t+at t+e land
2as n!t 7et t,tled alt+!4/+ t+e d!-4'ents +ad al)ead7 (een -!'pleted. L4-e)! a/)eed t! pa7 ,n ad&an-e t+e a'!4nt !f
:8;;,;;;.;; f!) t+e ,''ed,ate t,tl,n/ !f t+e land.
De-e'(e) 81, 1$$%: L4-e)! /a&e n! ad&an-e pa7'ent. El-a 2as 'ade t! )et4)n ,n Jan4a)7 1$$<. On t+at date st,ll
L4-e)! 'ade n! pa7'ent.
Ap),l 8<, 1$$<: L4-e)! p)!',sed t! /,&e t+e :8;;,;;;.;; ad&an-e pa7'ent at 54)!sat! Resta4)ant !n R!=as
B!4le&a)d, :asa7 C,t7. ?a&,n/ fa,led t! -!nta-t +,s la27e), !n Ap),l 8>, 1$$<, El-a 2ent al!ne t! 54)!sat! Resta4)ant.
Be-a4se !f t+e a(sen-e !f Late!, L4-e)! p!stp!ned t+e,) 'eet,n/ t! Ap),l 8C, 1$$<.
El-a a)),&ed at 54)!sat! Resta4)ant !n Ap),l 8C, 1$$<, L4-e)! and +e) la27e) Att7. VelasB4e3, Late! and Balde'!) and
Att7. A'()!s,! 2e)e al)ead7 t+e)e.
Att7. VelasB4e3, 4p!n t+e !)de) !f L4-e)!, p)!d4-ed a d!-4'ent ent,tled GC!nt)a-t t! SellG !4tl,n,n/ t+e,) a/)ee'ent
!&e) t+e 8 +e-ta)es !f land ,n Ba-!!), Ca&,te. Att7. A'()!s,! e=a',ned t+e -!nt)a-t t! f,nd !4t ,f ,t -!nta,ns t+e te)'s
and -!nd,t,!ns a/)eed 4p!n. Att7s. VelasB4e3 and A'()!s,! 'ade t+e,) !2n +and2),tten -!))e-t,!ns ,n t+e -!nt)a-t
,n-l4d,n/ t+e -+an/e !f t+e t,tle f)!' GC!nt)a-t t! SellG t! GDeed !f Ass,/n'ent,G afte) 2+,-+, (!t+ !f t+e' s,/ned t+e
d!-4'ent. El-a and L4-e)! s,/ned t+e d!-4'ent as pa)t,es 2+,le Late! and Balde'!) s,/ned as 2,tnesses.
Afte) t+e s,/n,n/ !f t+e Deed !f Ass,/n'ent, L4-e)! ()!4/+t !4t t+e :8;;,;;;.;; as t+e p)!',sed pa7'ent f!) t+e land.
@+,le Balde'!) 2as -!4nt,n/ t+e '!ne7, Att7. VelasB4e3 and L4-e)! 2ent t! t+e -!'f!)t )!!'. T+e)eafte), se&e)al
a/ents !f t+e :ACC app)!a-+ed t+e'. T+e7 2e)e a))ested and ()!4/+t t! t+e NBI ?eadB4a)te)s
I#formatio#: On Ap),l 8#, 1$$<, Late!, El-a, and Balde'!), al!n/ 2,t+ O)land! Lal!ta and N!las-! de G43'an, 2e)e
c+ar.e( 1it+ estafa:
o Ap),l 8C, 1$$<: :asa7 C,t7 ,a--4sed ELVIRA LATEO 7 ELEAPAR, -!nsp,),n/ and -!nfede)at,n/ 2,t+
5RANCISCO ELCA 7 ARCAS, BARTOLO1E BALDE1OR 7 1ADRIGAL, ORLANDO LALOTA and NOLASCO
DE GLP1AN, and '4t4all7 +elp,n/ !ne an!t+e), (7 'eans !f de-e,t, t+at ,s, (7 fa/se/2 re$rese#ti#.
t+emse/ves to )e t+e tr%e a#( E/a1f%/F o1#er of a $iece of /a#( l!-ated ,n t+e p)!&,n-e !f Ca&,te, and
p!ssess,n/ p!2e), ,nfl4en-e, B4al,f,-at,!n, p)!pe)t7, -)ed,t, a/en-7, (4s,ness, !) ,'a/,na)7 t)ansa-t,!ns and (7
'eans !f !t+e) s,',la) de-e,ts, d,d t+en and t+e)e, ,nd4-e ELEONO= L3CE=O t! pa)t 2,t+ +e) '!ne7 ,n t+e
a'!4nt !f TGO MILLION ,P6!"""!""".""- PESOS,, as ,ndeed s+e $arte( o#/2 1it+ t+e amo%#t of T1o
H%#(re( T+o%sa#( ,P6""!""".""- PESO, 2+,-+ sa,d a--4sed a-t4all7 )e-e,&ed ,n mar0e( P+i/i$$i#e
C%rre#c2, t! t+e (ama.e a#( $re;%(ice of sai( ELEONO= L3CE=O
1a7 "1, 1$$<: :et,t,!ne)s pleaded n!t /4,lt7. A--4sed Lal!ta and De G43'an )e'a,ned at la)/e.
=TC: 5)an-,s-! El-a, El&,)a Late! and Ba)t!l!'e Balde'!) /4,lt7 ATTE1:TED ESTA5A and ,s +e)e(7 senten-ed t!
,'p),s!n'ent !f Ten .1;0 7ea)s and One .10 Da7 t! T2el&e .180 Dea)s.
T)ansa-t,!n !&e) t+e Ca&,te p)!pe)t7 2as a -!nt,n4at,!n !f and ,s s!'e+!2 )elated t! t+e,) f,)st t)ansa-t,!n. T+e
sa'e 2as !ffe)ed t! L4-e)! ,n l,e4 !f t+e 14nt,nl4pa p)!pe)t7. T+e se-!nd t)ansa-t,!n 2+,-+ -!&e)s t+e Ba-!!)
p)!pe)t7 2as a/a,n a# attem$t to (efra%( L%cero 2+en 5)an-,s-! El-a a/a,n )ep)esented +,'self as t+e !2ne) !f
t+e sa,d p)!pe)t7 2+en +e 'e)el7 +as an appl,-at,!n t! p4)-+ase 5),a) Lands +en-e a--4sed +as n! ),/+t andJ!)
a4t+!),t7 t! del,&e) !) t)ansfe) t+e !2ne)s+,p !&e) sa,d pa)-el !f land t! L4-e)!*.
Cel,n! &s. CA: GEstafa 4nde) A)t. "1< .80 .a0 !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de ,s -!'',tted (7 'eans !f 4s,n/ f,-t,t,!4s
na'e !) falsel7 p)etend,n/ t! p!ssess p!2e), ,nfl4en-e, B4al,f,-at,!ns, p)!pe)t7, -)ed,t, a/en-7, (4s,ness !)
,'a/,na)7 t)ansa-t,!n !) (7 'eans !f !t+e) s,',la) de-e,ts.
V,llafl!) &s. CA: SC +eld t+at 2+at ,s 'ate),al ,s t+e fa-t t+at appellant 2as /4,lt7 !f fra%(%/e#t misre$rese#tatio#
2+en 6n!2,n/ t+at t+e -a) 2as t+en !2ned (7 t+e N!)t+e)n 1!t!)s, In-., st,ll +e t!ld t+e p),&ate -!'pla,nant t+at
t+e -a) 2as a-t4all7 !2ned (7 +,' f!) p4)p!ses !f and at t+e t,'e +e !(ta,ned t+e l!an f)!' t+e latte).
ATTE1:TED NOT CONSL11ATED: T+e atte'pt t! def)a4d t+e -!'pla,nant d,d n!t 'ate),al,3e d4e t! t+e t,'el7
,nte)&ent,!n !f t+e Tas6 5!)-e Ka'a/!n/ !pe)at,&es.
o A)t. >, pa). " !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de p)!&,des t+at Gt+e)e ,s an atte'pt 2+en t+e !ffende) -!n&,n-es t+e
-!'',ss,!n !f a fel!n7 d,)e-tl7 (7 !&e)t a-ts and d!es n!t pe)f!)' all t+e a-ts !f e=e-4t,!n 2+,-+ s+!4ld
p)!d4-e t+e fel!n7 (7 )eas!n !f s!'e -a4se !) a--,dent !t+e) t+an +,s !2n sp!ntane!4s des,stan-e.G
o T+e ent)ap'ent t+4s p)e&ented t+e -!ns4''at,!n !f t+e t)ansa-t,!n !&e) t+e Ca&,te p)!pe)t7
o K!+ T,e-6 ?en/ &s. :e!ple: GAlt+!4/+ !ne !f t+e essent,al ele'ents !f Estafa ,s (ama.e or $re;%(ice to
t+e offe#(e( $art2, ,n t+e a)se#ce of $roof t+e)e!f, t+e !ffende) 2!4ld (e /4,lt7 !f attem$te( estafa.G
o S,n-e !nl7 t+e i#te#t to ca%se (ama.e a#( #ot t+e (ama.e itse/f +as (een s+!2n )esp!ndent -!4)t
-!))e-tl7 -!n&,-ted appellant !f attem$te( estafa.
INTENTION TO DE5RALD S?O@N. T+e -4lpa(,l,t7 !f t+e a--4sed ,s st)en/t+ened (7 t+e t)ansfe) !f +,s ),/+ts
!&e) t+e sa'e s4(Ie-t land ,n Ca&,te ,n fa&!) !f Let,-,a Ra',)e3 t+4s -lea)l7 ,nfl4en-,n/ +,s ,ntent,!n t! def)a4d
+e)e,n -!'pla,nant as t+e sa'e s+!2s +,s la-6 !f ,ntent t! t)ansfe) +,s ),/+ts andJ!) !2ne)s+,p t! -!'pla,nant.
T+e )ep)esentat,!ns 'ade (7 5)an-,s-! El-a t+at +e !2ns t+e p)!pe)t7 ,n Ba-!!), Ca&,te, +,s +a&,n/ !ffe)ed t+e
sa'e a/a,n t! t+e -!'pla,nant ,n l,e4 !f t+e a(!)ted deal ,n t+e 14nt,nl4pa p)!pe)t7 t+e,) -!nstant f!ll!2-4p !f
-!'pla,nant9s de-,s,!n !&e) t+e 'atte) -!n&,n-,n/ t+e -!'pla,nant t! a--ept t+e !ffe) and t+e,) pe)s!nal* p)esen-e
at t+e pla-e !f ent)ap'ent and t+e,) )e-e,pt !f t+e :1;;,;;;.;; 'a)6ed '!ne7 2+,-+ t+e7 e&en -!4nted !ne afte)
t+e !t+e), t+4s 'a6,n/ all !f t+e' $ositive of t+e $rese#ce of f/%oresce#t $o1(er.
CA: A55IR1ED 2,t+ 1ODI5ICATION as t! t+e penalt7 ,'p!sed. El&,)a E. Late!, 5)an-,s-! A. El-a and Ba)t!l!'e 1.
Balde'!) a)e +e)e(7 senten-ed t! s4ffe) an ,ndete)',nate penalt7 !f s,= .>0 '!nt+s !f a))est! 'a7!) as ',n,'4', t! f!4)
.%0 7ea)s and t2! .80 '!nt+s !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as 'a=,'4'.
Petitio#ersH Ar.%me#ts:
T)ansa-t,!n ,n&!l&,n/ t+e Ba-!!) p)!pe)t7 d! n!t s+!2 t+at ,t 2as an atte'pt t! def)a4d Ele!n!) L4-e)!
:et,t,!ne)s den7 t+at t+e7 de-e,&ed L4-e)!. T+e7 -la,' t+at L4-e)! 2as a2a)e t+at t+e Ba-!!) p)!pe)t7 ,s n!t 7et t,tled
,n t+e na'e !f El-aH and t+at t+e7 2ent t! 54)!sat! )esta4)ant 4p!n L4-e)!9s ,n&,tat,!n and !n L4-e)!9s )ep)esentat,!n
t+at s+e 2!4ld +and t! t+e' t+e :8;;,;;;.;; needed t! fa-,l,tate t+e ,ss4an-e !f t,tle ,n El-a9s na'e.
Assa,l t+e penalt7 ,'p!sed (7 t+e CA f!) (e,n/ e))!ne!4s. OSG as6s f!) '!d,f,-at,!n !f penalt7 t! s,= .>0 '!nt+s !f
a))est! 'a7!).
ISS3E:
1. @+et+e) t+e)e 2as atte'pted estafa n!t -!ns4''atedF DES. ATTE1:TED ESTA5A .n!t -!ns4''ated (e-a4se as
7et n! da'a/e t! L4-e)!0
8. @+at penalt7 t! ,'p!seF
HELD:
Ele'ents !f estafa A)t. "1< .80 .a0: 8.B7 'eans !f an7 !f t+e f!ll!2,n/ false p)etenses !) f)a4d4lent a-ts e=e-4ted p),!)
t! !) s,'4ltane!4sl7 2,t+ t+e -!'',ss,!n !f t+e f)a4d: .a0 B7 4s,n/ f,-t,t,!4s na'e, !) falsel7 p)etend,n/ t! p!ssess
p!2e), ,nfl4en-e, B4al,f,-at,!ns, p)!pe)t7, -)ed,t, a/en-7, (4s,ness !) ,'a/,na)7 t)ansa-t,!nsH !) (7 'eans !f !t+e)
s,',la) de-e,ts.
o T+at t+e)e '4st (e a false p)etense, f)a4d4lent a-t !) f)a4d4lent 'eans.
o T+at s4-+ false p)etense, f)a4d4lent a-t !) f)a4d4lent 'eans '4st (e 'ade !) e=e-4ted p),!) t! !)
s,'4ltane!4sl7 2,t+ t+e -!'',ss,!n !f t+e f)a4d.
o T+at t+e !ffended pa)t7 '4st +a&e )el,ed !n t+e false p)etense, f)a4d4lent a-t, !) f)a4d4lent 'eans, t+at ,s, +e
2as ,nd4-ed t! pa)t 2,t+ +,s '!ne7 !) p)!pe)t7 (e-a4se !f t+e false p)etense, f)a4d4lent a-t, !) f)a4d4lent
'eans.
o T+at as a )es4lt t+e)e!f, t+e !ffended pa)t7 s4ffe)ed da'a/e
T)ansa-t,!n ,n&!l&,n/ t+e Ba-!!) p)!pe)t7 2as a -!nt,n4at,!n !f t+e t)ansa-t,!n ,n&!l&,n/ pa)-els !f land ,n 14nt,nl4pa,
1et)! 1an,la. @+en L4-e)! d,s-!&e)ed t+at El-a9s -e)t,f,-ates !f t,tle !&e) t+e 14nt,nl4pa p)!pe)t7 2e)e fa6e, El-a
!ffe)ed, as s4(st,t4te, t+e <-+e-ta)e p!)t,!n !f +,s p4)p!)ted 1%-+e-ta)e l!t ,n Ba-!!), Ca&,te, (4t as6ed f!) an add,t,!nal
:8,;;;,;;;.;;, t+)!4/+ a lette).
El-a 2as ,n n! p!s,t,!n t! t)ansfe) !2ne)s+,p !f t+e <-+e-ta)e Ba-!!) p)!pe)t7 at t+e t,'e pet,t,!ne)s !ffe)ed ,t t! L4-e)!
(e-a4se +,s ),/+t 2as 'e)el7 ,n-+!ate and 2as st,ll 4nde) p)!test.
Al-anta)a &. CA: 5RALD AND DECEIT
o Fra%( ,n ,ts /ene)al sense ,s dee'ed t! -!'p),se a#2t+i#. ca/c%/ate( to (eceive, ,n-l4d,n/ all a-ts,
!',ss,!ns, and -!n-eal'ent ,n&!l&,n/ a ()ea-+ !f le/al !) eB4,ta(le d4t7, t)4st, !) -!nf,den-e I4stl7 )ep!sed,
)es4lt,n/ ,n da'a/e t! an!t+e), !) (7 2+,-+ an 4nd4e and 4n-!ns-,ent,!4s ad&anta/e ,s ta6en !f an!t+e). It ,s a
/ene),- te)' e'()a-,n/ all '4lt,fa),!4s 'eans 2+,-+ +4'an ,n/en4,t7 -an de&,-e, and 2+,-+ a)e )es!)ted t! (7
!ne ,nd,&,d4al t! se-4)e an ad&anta/e !&e) an!t+e) (7 false s4//est,!ns !) (7 s4pp)ess,!n !f t)4t+ and
,n-l4des all s4)p),se, t),-6, -4nn,n/, d,sse'(l,n/ and an7 4nfa,) 2a7 (7 2+,-+ an!t+e) ,s -+eated.
o Deceit ,s t+e fa/se re$rese#tatio# of a matter of fact 2+et+e) (7 2!)ds !) -!nd4-t, (7 false !) ',slead,n/
alle/at,!ns, !) (7 -!n-eal'ent !f t+at 2+,-+ s+!4ld +a&e (een d,s-l!sed 2+,-+ de-e,&es !) ,s ,ntended t!
de-e,&e an!t+e) s! t+at +e s+all a-t 4p!n ,t t! +,s le/al ,nI4)7.
ATTE1:TED NOT CONSL11ATED: S,n-e o#/2 t+e i#te#t to ca%se (ama.e a#( #ot t+e (ama.e itse/f +a( )ee#
s+o1#! t+e RTC and t+e CA -!))e-tl7 -!n&,-ted pet,t,!ne)s !f atte'pted estafa
PENALT>
o T+e penalt7 f!) estafa (e$e#(s o# t+e amo%#t (efra%(e(.
o I5 CONSL11ATED: L4-e)! 2!4ld +a&e (een def)a4ded ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :1;;,;;;.;;. ?en-e, t+e appl,-a(le penalt7
4nde) A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de .R:C0 2!4ld +a&e (een $risio# correccio#a/ i# its ma*im%m $erio( to
$risio# ma2or i# its mi#im%m $erio(! 2,t+ a# a((itio#a/ o#e ,1- 2ear for ever2 P1"!"""."" ,n e=-ess !f t+e f,)st
P66!""".""H p)!&,ded, t+at t+e t!tal penalt7 s+!4ld #ot e*cee( t1e#t2 2ears.
o BEC. ATTE1:TED: T2! de/)ees l!2e) t+an t+at !f -!ns4''ated p4)s4ant t! A)t,-le <1. A--!)d,n/l7, t+e ,'p!sa(le
penalt7 2!4ld (e arresto ma2or i# its me(i%m $erio( to arresto ma2or i# its ma*im%m $erio(! !) an ,'p),s!n'ent
te)' )an/,n/ f)!' t2! .80 '!nt+s and !ne .10 da7 t! s,= .>0 '!nt+s. And (e-a4se t+e a'!4nt ,n&!l&ed e=-eeded
:88,;;;.;;, !ne .10 7ea) ,'p),s!n'ent f!) e&e)7 :1;,;;;.;; s+!4ld (e added, (),n/,n/ t+e t!tal t! se&en .C0 7ea)s.
IDEST?
o ?!2e&e), 2e a/)ee 2,t+ t+e OSG t+at ,t 2!4ld (e ,neB4,ta(le t! ,'p!se t+e add,t,!nal ,n-)e'ental penalt7 !f C 7ea)s t!
t+e 'a=,'4' pe),!d !f penalt7, -!ns,de),n/ t+at pet,t,!ne)s 2e)e -+a)/ed and -!n&,-ted 'e)el7 !f atte'pted and n!t
-!ns4''ated estafa.
DISPOSITI<E: :et,t,!n ,s DENIED. CA De-,s,!n A55IR1ED. :et,t,!ne)s El&,)a Late!, 5)an-,s-! El-a, and Ba)t!l!'e
Balde'!) a)e f!4nd /4,lt7 (e7!nd )eas!na(le d!4(t !f atte'pted estafa, and a)e +e)e(7 senten-ed t! s4ffe) t+e penalt7 !f
f!4) .%0 '!nt+s !f a))est! 'a7!).
'. PEOPLE vs. LO3=DES LO! G=ACE CALIMON AND AIDA COMILA
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J p: G.R. N!. 1C<88$. Jan4a)7 8$, 8;;$.*
Facts:
Prosecution: ." p),&ate -!'pla,nants E C!)a3!n C),st!(al an e'pl!7ee !f :OEA and :O8 Ed2a)d Catalan0
o 1$$#: L! pe)s4aded p),&ate -!'pla,nants t! appl7 f!) a ;o) i# Ita/2 t+)!4/+ t+e se)&,-es !f a--4sed-appellants.
o L! ,nt)!d4-ed t+e' t! Cal,'!n 2+! )ep)esented +e)self as a s%)?a.e#t of A*i/ I#ter#atio#a/ Services a#(
Co#s%/ta#c2 ,AISC-, a le/,t,'ate )e-)4,t'ent a/en-7. Cal,'!n s+!2ed a I!( !)de) !f fa-t!)7 2!)6e)s p4)p!)tedl7
,ss4ed (7 an Ital,an f,)'. De&anade)a -alled 4p AISC t! &e),f7 Cal,'!n9s )ep)esentat,!n. T+e pe)s!n 2+! ans2e)ed t+e
p+!ne )ead,l7 -!nf,)'ed a--4sed-appellant Cal,'!n9s -la,'.
o @+en a--4sed Cal,'!n as6ed P1"!"""."" from eac+ of t+e $rivate com$/ai#a#ts t! -!&e) e=penses f!) 'ed,-al
e=a',nat,!n and p)!-ess,n/ fees f!) t)a&el d!-4'ents, (!t+ De&anade)a and A/)a'!n )ead,l7 pa)ted 2,t+ t+e,) '!ne7,
as e&,den-ed (7 )e-e,pts d4l7 s,/ned (7 Cal,'!n.
o T+e7 l,6e2,se /a&e t+e,) )espe-t,&e passp!)ts, (,)t+ -e)t,f,-ates, NBI -lea)an-es, )es4'es and !t+e) d!-4'ents. 1$
T+e)eafte), Cal,'!n ()!4/+t t+e' t! St. 1a)t,n9s Cl,n,- f!) 'ed,-al e=a',nat,!n.
o O-t!(e) 8%, 1$$#: Lp!n t+e 4)/,n/ !f L!, p),&ate -!'pla,nant Ma.#a2e $ai( P6"!"""."" t! Cal,'!n f!) t+e latte)9s
recr%itme#t services.
o Jan4a)7 1<, 1$$$: p),&ate -!'pla,nants 2e)e s4(Ie-ted t! a#ot+er me(ica/ e*ami#atio# at St. Cami//%s C/i#ic,
:as,/ C,t7, (e-a4se a--!)d,n/ t! Cal,'!n t+e 'ed,-al e=a',nat,!ns at St. 1a)t,n9s Cl,n,- 2e)e n!t +!n!)ed (7 t+e
Ital,an E'(ass7. On t+e sa'e date, Ma.#a2e .ave a# a((itio#a/ amo%#t of P1&!"""."" to Ca/imo#. @+,le
De&anade)a and A/)a'!n /a&e +e) an a((itio#a/ amo%#t of P!&""."" eac+.
o At !ne t,'e, ,n t+e -!4)se !f f!ll!2,n/ 4p t+e stat4s !f +e) !&e)seas e'pl!7'ent appl,-at,!n, Cal,'!n ,nt)!d4-ed
-!'pla,nant De&anade)a t! a--4sed-appellant C!',la 2+! s+!2ed +e) f,le and ,nf!)'ed +e) !f t+e need t! se-4)e a
&,sa 2,t+ t+e Ital,an E'(ass7. Cal,'!n t+en as0e( for more mo#e2 to sec%re t+e visa! (4t De&anade)a )ef4sed t!
pa7.
o :),&ate -!'pla,nant A/)a'!n9s f!ll!2 4ps 2,t+ Cal,'!n 2e)e I4st 'et (7 )epeated ass4)an-e t+at s+e 2,ll (e depl!7ed
,''ed,atel7 !n-e +e) pape)s a)e -!'pletel7 p)!-essed. T+e !t+e) -!'pla,nants )e-e,&ed s,',la) t)eat'ent.
o Jan4a)7 1$$$: Cal,'!n /a&e p),&ate -!'pla,nants t+e,) s%$$ose( i#(ivi(%a/ em$/o2me#t co#tracts as fa-t!)7
2!)6e)s ,n Ital7. ?!2e&e), t+e -!nt)a-ts d,d n!t ,nd,-ate an e'pl!7e).
o T+e t+)ee p)!-eeded t! t+e POEA to verif2 t+e stat%s !f t+e,) -!nt)a-t 2+e)e t+e7 d,s-!&e)ed t+at 2+,le AISC 2as a
l,-ensed )e-)4,t'ent a/en-7, L! and a--4sed-appellants Cal,'!n and C!',la 2e)e #ot amo#. its re.istere(
em$/o2ees.
o Ap),l 8C, 1$$$: t+)ee sepa)ate -!'pla,nt-aff,da&,ts 2e)e f,led 2,t+ t+e :+,l,pp,ne O&e)seas E'pl!7'ent Ad',n,st)at,!n
.:OEA0 -+a)/,n/ L!4)des L!, G)a-e Cal,'!n and A,da C!',la 2,t+ i//e.a/ recr%itme#t a#( estafa. T+e -!'pla,nts
2e)e ,n,t,ated (7 5e 1a/na7e, L4-,la A/)a'!n, and Da,s7 De&anade)a.
o 1a7 >, 1$$$: :OEA, )efe))ed t+e 'atte) t! t+e DOJ and s4(',tted e&,den-e (ef!)e ,t.
o Afte) se&e)al '!nt+s, a--4sed-appellants 2e)e app)e+ended f!) t+e,) ,n&!l&e'ent ,n !t+e) -ases !f ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent
and estafa. :),&ate -!'pla,nants 1a/na7e, A/)a'!n and De&anade)a 2e)e s4''!ned t! a p)el,',na)7 ,n&est,/at,!n at
t+e DOJ.
o O-t!(e) #, 1$$$: t+e DOJ ,ss4ed a Res!l4t,!n )e-!''end,n/ t+e f,l,n/ !f t+e -!))esp!nd,n/ Inf!)'at,!n a/a,nst L! and
t+e a--4sed-appellants.
o De-e'(e) 8#, 1$$$: an Inf!)'at,!n 2as f,led 2,t+ t+e RTC, -+a)/,n/ L! and a--4sed-appellants 1it+ i//e.a/
recr%itme#t i# /ar.e sca/e (efi#e( a#( $e#a/iIe( %#(er Sectio#s ' a#( ! res$ective/2! of =e$%)/ic Act No. @"96.
o C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1C$C%<: Septe'(e) 1$$# ,n 1an,la, fel!n,!4sl7 )e-)4,t t+e +e)e,n -!'pla,nants, 5E
1AGNADE, LLCILA AGRA1ON and DAISD DEVANADERA t! Ital7 as fa-t!)7 2!)6e)s f!) t+e -!ns,de)at,!n
t+e)e!f, t+e7 2e)e )eB4,)ed t! pa7 $/aceme#t fees !f t+e t!tal a'!4nt !f .:11;,;;;.;;0 f!) t+e -!ns,de)at,!n
t+e)e!f, 2,t+!4t a--4sed +a&,n/ se-4)ed t+e ne-essa)7 l,-ense and a4t+!),t7 f)!' t+e Depa)t'ent !f La(!) and
E'pl!7'ent t! )e-)4,t and depl!7 2!)6e)s t! Ital7.
o T+)ee sepa)ate Inf!)'at,!ns f!) estafa arisi#. from t+e same acts $e#a/iIe( %#(er $ara.ra$+ 6 ,a-! Artic/e 81& of
t+e =evise( Pe#a/ Co(e 2e)e als! f,led a/a,nst t+e t+)ee:
o C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1#;<1$: O-t!(e) 1$$#, ,n 1an,la, -!nsp,),n/ and -!nfede)at,n/ 2,t+ ea-+ !t+e)
fel!n,!4sl7 )e-)4,t and p)!',se e'pl!7'ent t! FE MAGNA>E ,n Ital7 as fa-t!)7 2!)6e) f!) a t!tal -!ns,de)at,!n
of P&&!"""."" as $/aceme#t a#( $rocessi#. fees, 6n!2,n/ t+at t+e7 +a&e n! -apa-,t7 2+ats!e&e) and 2,t+
n! ,ntent,!n t! f4lf,ll t+e,) p)!',se, (4t 'e)el7 as a p)ete=t, s-+e'e !) e=-4se t! /et !) e=a-t '!ne7 f)!' t+e
sa,d -!'pla,nant as t+e7 ,n fa-t -!lle-ted and )e-e,&ed t+e a'!4nt !f :<<,;;;.;; f)!' sa,d 5E 1AGNADE t!
+e) da'a/e, l!ss and p)eI4d,-e f!) t+e af!)esa,d a'!4nt.
o C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1#;<8;: Septe'(e) 1$$#, ,n 1an,la, a--4sed, -!nsp,),n/ and -!nfede)at,n/ 2,t+ ea-+
!t+e), d,d t+en fel!n,!4sl7 )e-)4,t and p)!',se e'pl!7'ent t! L3CILA C. AG=AMON ,n Ital7 as fa-t!)7 2!)6e)
f!) a t!tal -!ns,de)at,!n !f P6!&""."" ,or i# (ecisio# P1! &""- as $/aceme#t a#( $rocessi#. fees!
6n!2,n/ t+at t+e7 +a&e n! -apa-,t7 2+ats!e&e) and 2,t+ n! ,ntent,!n t! f4lf,ll t+e,) p)!',se, (4t 'e)el7 as a
p)ete=t, s-+e'e !) e=-4se t! /et !) e=a-t '!ne7 f)!' t+e sa,d -!'pla,nant as t+e7 ,n fa-t -!lle-ted and
)e-e,&ed t+e a'!4nt !f :8C,<;;.;; f)!' sa,d LLCILA C. AGRA1ON t! +e) da'a/e, l!ss and p)eI4d,-e f!) t+e
af!)esa,d a'!4nt
o C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1#;<81: Septe'(e) 1$$#, ,n 1an,la, a--4sed, -!nsp,),n/ and -!nfede)at,n/ 2,t+ ea-+
!t+e), d,d t+en fel!n,!4sl7 )e-)4,t and p)!',se e'pl!7'ent t! DAIS> DE<ANADE=A a/ias B=e#ata P.
L%cia#oB ,n Ital7 as fa-t!)7 2!)6e) f!) a t!tal -!ns,de)at,!n !f P6!&""."" ,or i# (ecisio# P1! &""- as
$/aceme#t a#( $rocessi#. fees! 6n!2,n/ t+at t+e7 +a&e n! -apa-,t7 2+ats!e&e) and 2,t+ n! ,ntent,!n t! f4lf,ll
t+e,) p)!',se, (4t 'e)el7 as a p)ete=t, s-+e'e !) e=-4se t! /et !) e=a-t '!ne7 f)!' t+e sa,d -!'pla,nant as
t+e7 ,n fa-t -!lle-ted and )e-e,&ed t+e a'!4nt !f :8C,<;;.;; f)!' sa,d DAISD DEVANADERA al,as 9Renata :.
L4-,an!9 t! +e) da'a/e, l!ss and p)eI4d,-e f!) t+e af!)esa,d a'!4nt.
o Lp!n a))a,/n'ent, +e)e,n a--4sed-appellants pleaded Gn!t /4,lt7G t! t+e -),'es -+a)/ed. L!, +as )e'a,ned at la)/e.
Defe#se: .p)esented a--4sed-appellants as 2,tnesses0
o Cal,'!n den,ed t+e a--4sat,!ns a/a,nst +e). S+e -la,'ed t+at s+e 1as a/so a# a$$/ica#t for overseas ;o)
$/aceme#t and t+at s+e ne&e) p)!',sed an7 2!)6 a()!ad t! p),&ate -!'pla,nants. S+e a&e))ed t+at ,t 2as L! 2+!
)e-)4,ted +e) and p),&ate -!'pla,nants. S+e l,6e2,se den,ed +a&,n/ )e-e,&ed an7 '!ne7 f)!' p),&ate -!'pla,nants. S+e
'a,nta,ned t+at ,t 2as Comi/a 1+o receive( t+e mo#e2 f)!' +e) a'!4nt,n/ t! :1>,;;;.;; as pa7'ent f!) +e)
pla-e'ent fee.
o C!',la den,ed +a&,n/ 6n!2n !) seen L!. ?!2e&e), s+e 'a,nta,ned t+at ,t 2as a--4sed L! 2+! )e-)4,ted and )e-e,&ed
'!ne7 f)!' p),&ate -!'pla,nants. S+e a&e))ed s+e -!4ld n!t +a&e )e-)4,ted p),&ate -!'pla,nants (e-a4se s+e .ave
)irt+ i# 5a.%io i# Octo)er 177@.
=TC: C!n&,-ted Cal,'!n !f Ille/al )e-)4,t'ent ,n la)/e s-ale E " -!4nts !f estafaH C!n&,-ted C!',la !f S,'ple ,lle/al
)e-)4,t'ent E 1 -!4nt !f estafa
o C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1C$C%< .Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent0:
o GRACE CALI1ON /4,lt7 !f i//e.a/ recr%itme#t i# /ar.e sca/e and senten-,n/ sa,d a--4sed t! /ife
im$riso#me#t and t! pa7 a f,ne !f P@""!""".""H
o AIDA CO1ILA /4,lt7 !f sim$/e i//e.a/ recr%itme#t and senten-,n/ sa,d a--4sed t! ,'p),s!n'ent f)!' ei.+t
,@- to te# ,1"- 2ears! a#( to $a2 a fi#e of P8""!"""."". @,t+ -!sts a/a,nst t+e t2! a--4sed ,n p)!p!)t,!nate
s+a)es
o C),',nal Cases N!s. ;;-1#;<1$ and ;;-1#;<81 .estafa: &,-t,' 1a/na7e Q De&anade)a0:
o GRACE CALI1ON /4,lt7 !f t1o co%#ts of estafa def,ned 4nde) pa)a/)ap+ 8 .a0 !f A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed
:enal C!de
o :ENALTD f!) estafa -!'',tted !n 1a/na7e: Indete)',nate penalt7 !f f!4) .%0 7ea)s and t2! .80 '!nt+s !f
p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as ',n,'4', t! n,ne .$0 7ea)s !f p),s,!n 'a7!) as 'a=,'4'H
o :ENALTD f!) estafa -!'',tted !n L4-,an!: Indete)',nate penalt7 !f f!4) .%0 7ea)s and t2! .80 '!nt+s !f
p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as ',n,'4', t! s,= .>0 7ea)s, e,/+t .#0 '!nt+s and t2ent7 .8;0 da7s !f p),s,!n 'a7!), as
'a=,'4'H and t! pa7 t+e -!sts f!) ea-+ -ase
o C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1#;<8; .estafa: &,-t,' A/)a'!n0
o GRACE CALI1ON and AIDA CO1ILA /4,lt7 !f estafa def,ned 4nde) pa)a/)ap+ 8 .a0 A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed
:enal C!de
o :ENALTD: Indete)',nate penalt7 !f > '!nt+s !f a))est! 'a7!), as ',n,'4', t! 8 7ea)s, 11 '!nt+s and 1;
da7s !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as 'a=,'4', and t! pa7 t+e -!sts ,n eB4al s+a)es.
o Se)&,-e !f t+e a--4sed E Detent,!n ,'p),s!n'ent -)ed,ted
o :AD1ENT:
o C),',nal Cases N!s. ;;-1C$C%<, ;;-1#;<1$ and ;;-1#;<81, a--4sed G)a-e Cal,'!n ,s !)de)ed t! pa7 t!
-!'pla,nants 5e 1a/na7e and Da,s7 De&anade)a t+e s4's !f :"<,;;;.;; and :1C,<;;.;;, )espe-t,&el7, as
)epa)at,!ns f!) t+e da'a/es s+e -a4sed t+e'.
o C),',nal Cases N!s. ;;-1C$C%< and ;;-1#;<8;, a--4sed G)a-e Cal,'!n and a--4sed A,da C!',la a)e
!)de)ed, I!,ntl7 and se&e)all7, t! pa7 !ffended pa)t7 L4-,la C. A/)a'!n t+e s4' !f :1;,;;;.;;, as )epa)at,!n f!)
t+e da'a/es s+e -a4sed +e).
CA: Aff,)'ed t+e De-,s,!n !f t+e RTC (4t 2,t+ '!d,f,-at,!ns.
o ILLEGAL RECRLIT1ENT:
o 1!d,f7 penalt7 f!) la)/e s-ale )e-)4,t'ent f)!' :#;;,;;; t! f,ne !f :11 2+en t+e !ffende) ,s a n!n-l,-ensee !)
n!n-+!lde) !f a4t+!),t7 t! )e-)4,t and depl!7 2!)6e)s a()!ad, as ,n t+e ,nstant -ase .Se-. C, Rep4(l,- A-t N!.
#;%80.
o C!',la 2as l,6e2,se -!))e-tl7 -!n&,-ted (7 t+e RTC !f t+e -),'e !f s,'ple Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent. T+e senten-e
p)!n!4n-ed (7 t+e RTC 2as p)!pe).
o ESTA5A: C!',la 2as p)!&en t! (e -!nsp,)at!) ,n estafa a/a,nst De&anade)a (4t a-B4,tted s! l,a(le -,&,ll7
o C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1#;<1$, G)a-e Cal,'!n 2as p)!pe)l7 f!4nd .%i/t2 of Estafa t+ro%.+ fa/se $rete#ses.
S,n-e t+e a'!4nt def)a4ded f)!' 5e 1a/na7e 2as :"<,;;;.;;, t+e penalt7 ,'p!sed (7 t+e RTC 2as p)!pe).
o In C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1#;<8;, s,n-e t+e a'!4nt def)a4ded f)!' L4-,la A/)a'!n ,s :1C,<;;.;;*, t+e -!))e-t
penalt7 t+at s+!4ld (e ,'p!sed 4p!n Cal,'!n and C!',la, ,n t+e a(sen-e !f an7 '!d,f7,n/ -,)-4'stan-es,
s+!4ld (e t+e ,ndete)',nate % 7ea)s and 8 '!nt+s !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as ',n,'4', t! > 7ea)s, # '!nt+s
and 8; da7s !f p),s,!n 'a7!), as 'a=,'4' ,nstead !f > 7ea)s t! 11 7ea)s EEE.
o In C),',nal Case N!. ;;-1#;<81, t+e a'!4nt ,n&!l&ed ,s :1C,<;;.;;. T+e)e (e,n/ n! '!d,f7,n/ -,)-4'stan-es,
t+e penalt7 ,'p!sed (7 t+e t),al -!4)t !n Cal,'!n ,s -!))e-t.
?!2e&e), ,t +as (een d4l7 p)!&en t+at Comi/a 1as a co#s$irator to t+e crime s%);ect of t+is case.
In &,e2 !f +e) a-B4,ttal (7 t+e RTC, t+,s 'atte) -an n! l!n/e) (e B4est,!ned ,n t+,s appeal !n t+e
/)!4nd !f d!4(le Ie!pa)d7. ?!2e&e), C!',la s+!4ld (e 'ade s!l,da),l7 l,a(le 2,t+ Cal,'!n t! ,nde'n,f7
:1C,<;;.;; t! Da,s7 De&anade)a, s,n-e C!',la9s a-B4,ttal !n t+e /)!4nd !f )eas!na(le d!4(t d,d n!t
de-la)e 2+et+e) t+e fa-ts f)!' 2+,-+ t+e -,&,l l,a(,l,t7 ',/+t a),se d,d n!t e=,st .Last pa)a/)ap+, Se-t,!n
8, R4le 18;, R4les !f C!4)t0.
Petitioners Arguments:
o Onl7 L! )e-)4,ted p),&ate -!'pla,nants and p)!',sed t! depl!7 t+e' a()!ad.
o T+e7 den7 +a&,n/ -!lle-ted pla-e'ent fees, (4t ,)!n,-all7 ad',tted t+at t+e a'!4nt -!lle-ted 2as f!) 'ed,-al
e=a',nat,!n, &,sa and passp!)t fees.
o Not .%i/t2 of estafa t+ro%.+ fa/se $rete#ses (e-a4se t+e7 d,d n!t -!'',t an7 a-t !f de-e,t as ,t 2as !nl7 a--4sed L!
2+! p)!',sed t! depl!7 p),&ate -!'pla,nants t! Ital7 f!) a fee.
ISS3E: @+et+e) t+e7 a)e /4,lt7 !f estafa and ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent desp,te L! (e,n/ t+e !nl7 !ne 2+! p)!',sed t+e' f!) a
feeF .DES0
HELD:
ESTA5A: T+e ele'ents !f de-e,t and da'a/e f!) t+,s f!)' !f estafa a)e ,nd,sp4ta(l7 p)esent, +en-e t+e,) -!n&,-t,!n f!)
estafa 2as p)!pe).
o A--4sed-appellants9 a-ts !f del,(e)atel7 ',s)ep)esent,n/ t+e'sel&es t! p),&ate -!'pla,nants as +a&,n/ t+e ne-essa)7
a4t+!),t7 !) l,-ense t! )e-)4,t appl,-ants f!) !&e)seas e'pl!7'ent, and -!lle-t,n/ '!ne7 f)!' t+e' alle/edl7 f!)
p)!-ess,n/ fees and t)a&el d!-4'ents, (4t fa,l,n/ t! depl!7 t+e' and t! )et4)n t+e '!ne7 t+e7 +ad -!lle-ted desp,te
se&e)al de'ands -lea)l7 a'!4nt t! estafa.
o G4,lt7 !f estafa 4nde) A)t,-le "1< .80 .a0 !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de: 8. B7 'eans !f an7 !f t+e f!ll!2,n/ false
p)etenses !) f)a4d4lent a-ts e=e-4ted p),!) t! !) s,'4ltane!4sl7 2,t+ t+e -!'',ss,!n !f t+e f)a4d: .a0 B7 4s,n/
f,-t,t,!4s na'e, !) falsel7 p)etend,n/ t! p!ssess p!2e), ,nfl4en-e, B4al,f,-at,!ns, p)!pe)t7, -)ed,t, a/en-7, (4s,ness !)
,'a/,na)7 t)ansa-t,!nsH !) (7 'eans !f !t+e) s,',la) de-e,ts.
o T+e)e a)e t+ree 1a2s of committi#. estafa:
o .10 (7 4s,n/ a f,-t,t,!4s na'eH .80 (7 falsel7 p)etend,n/ t! p!ssess p!2e), ,nfl4en-e, B4al,f,-at,!ns, p)!pe)t7,
-)ed,t, a/en-7, (4s,ness !) ,'a/,na)7 t)ansa-t,!nsH and ."0 (7 'eans !f !t+e) s,',la) de-e,ts.
o Lnde) t+,s -lass !f estafa, t+e e/eme#t of (eceit is i#(is$e#sa)/e. In t+e p)esent -ase, t+e de-e,t -!ns,sts !f a--4sed-
a$$e//a#tsB fa/se stateme#t or fra%(%/e#t re$rese#tatio# 1+ic+ 1as ma(e $rior to! or at /east sim%/ta#eo%s/2
1it+! t+e (e/iver2 of t+e mo#e2 )2 t+e com$/ai#a#ts. T! -!n&,-t f!) t+,s t7pe !f -),'e, ,t ,s essent,al t+at t+e false
state'ent !) f)a4d4lent )ep)esentat,!n -!nst,t4tes t+e ver2 ca%se or t+e o#/2 motive 1+ic+ i#(%ces t+e
com$/ai#a#t to $art 1it+ t+e t+i#. of va/%e.
o A--4sed-appellants led p),&ate -!'pla,nants t! (el,e&e t+at t+e7 p!ssessed t+e p!2e), 'eans and le/al B4al,f,-at,!ns
t! p)!&,de t+e latte) 2,t+ 2!)6 ,n Ital7, 2+en ,n fa-t t+e7 d,d n!t. :),&ate -!'pla,nants pa)ted 2,t+ t+e,) +a)d-ea)ned
'!ne7 and s4ffe)ed da'a/e (7 )eas!n !f a--4sed-appellants9 de-e,tf4l and ,lle/al a-ts.
ILLEGAL RECRLIT1ENT
o Cal,'!n -!'',tted t+e -),'e !f ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent ,n la)/e s-ale (e-a4se (7 +e) -!nd4-t, Cal,'!n s4--essf4ll7 /a&e
p),&ate -!'pla,nants t+e ,'p)ess,!n t+at s+e +ad t+e a(,l,t7 t! send 2!)6e)s a()!ad alt+!4/+ s+e d,d n!t ,n fa-t +a&e
t+e a4t+!),t7 t! d! s!. S+e 2as als! a(le t! ,nd4-e p),&ate -!'pla,nants t! tende) pa7'ent f!) fees. S,n-e t+e)e 2e)e
t+)ee ."0 2!)6e)s ,n&!l&ed ,n t+e t)ansa-t,!n, s+e -!'',tted t+e -),'e !f ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent ,n la)/e s-ale.
o C!',la -!'',tted t+e -),'e !f s,'ple ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent (e-a4se t+e)e ,s -lea) and -!n&,n-,n/ e&,den-e t+at s+e
-!nsp,)ed 2,t+ Cal,'!n. ?!2e&e), co#s$irac2 1as #ot a//e.e( i# t+e I#formatio#. ?en-e, C!',la -an !nl7 (e
-!n&,-ted f!) s,'ple ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent, n!t f!) ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent ,n la)/e s-ale ,n -!nsp,)a-7 2,t+ Cal,'!n.
o T+e pe)t,nent p)!&,s,!ns !f Rep4(l,- A-t N!. #;%8 state:
o SEC. >. Def,n,t,!n. R 5!) p4)p!ses !f t+,s A-t, ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent s+all 'ean an7 a-t !f -an&ass,n/,
enl,st,n/, -!nt)a-t,n/, t)ansp!)t,n/, 4t,l,3,n/, +,),n/, !) p)!-4),n/ 2!)6e)s and ,n-l4des )efe)),n/, -!nt)a-t
se)&,-es, p)!',s,n/ !) ad&e)t,s,n/ f!) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, 2+et+e) f!) p)!f,t !) n!t, 2+en 4nde)ta6en (7 a n!n-
l,-ensee !) n!n-+!lde) !f a4t+!),t7 -!nte'plated 4nde) A)t,-le 1".f0 !f :)es,dent,al De-)ee N!. %%8, as
a'ended, !t+e)2,se 6n!2n as t+e La(!) C!de !f t+e :+,l,pp,nes: :)!&,ded, t+at an7 s4-+ n!n-l,-ensee !) n!n-
+!lde) 2+!, ,n an7 'anne), !ffe)s !) p)!',ses f!) a fee e'pl!7'ent a()!ad t! t2! !) '!)e pe)s!ns s+all (e
dee'ed s! en/a/ed.
o Ille/al )e-)4,t'ent ,s dee'ed -!'',tted (7 a s2#(icate if carrie( o%t )2 a .ro%$ of t+ree ,8- or more $erso#s
-!nsp,),n/ !) -!nfede)at,n/ 2,t+ !ne an!t+e). It ,s dee'ed -!'',tted ,n /ar.e sca/e if committe( a.ai#st t+ree ,8- or
more $erso#s ,nd,&,d4all7 !) as a /)!4p.
o Se-. C. :enalt,es. R
o .a0 An7 pe)s!n f!4nd /4,lt7 !f ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent s+all s4ffe) t+e penalt7 !f ,'p),s!n'ent !f n!t less t+an si*
,'- 2ears a#( o#e ,1- (a2 )%t #ot more t+a# t1e/ve ,16- 2ears and a f,ne !f n!t less t+an T2! +4nd)ed
t+!4sand pes!s .:8;;,;;;.;;0 n!) '!)e t+an 5,&e +4nd)ed t+!4sand pes!s .:<;;,;;;.;;0.
o .(0 T+e penalt7 !f l,fe ,'p),s!n'ent and a f,ne !f n!t less t+an 5,&e +4nd)ed t+!4sand pes!s .:<;;,;;;.;;0
n!) '!)e t+an One ',ll,!n pes!s .:1,;;;,;;;.;;0 s+all (e ,'p!sed ,f i//e.a/ recr%itme#t co#stit%tes
eco#omic sa)ota.e as def,ned +e)e,n. :)!&,ded, +!2e&e), T+at t+e ma*im%m $e#a/t2 s+all (e ,'p!sed ,f t+e
pe)s!n ,lle/all7 )e-)4,ted ,s less t+an e,/+teen .1#0 7ea)s !f a/e !) -!'',tted (7 a #o#?/ice#see or #o#?
+o/(er of a%t+orit2.
o In a l,tan7 !f -ases, 2e +eld t+at t! -!nst,t4te i//e.a/ recr%itme#t i# /ar.e sca/e t+ree ,8- e/eme#ts m%st co#c%r:
o .a0 t+e !ffende) +as n! &al,d l,-ense !) a4t+!),t7 )eB4,)ed (7 la2 t! ena(le +,' t! la2f4ll7 en/a/e ,n )e-)4,t'ent
and pla-e'ent !f 2!)6e)sH
o .(0 t+e !ffende) 4nde)ta6es an7 !f t+e a-t,&,t,es 2,t+,n t+e 'ean,n/ !f G)e-)4,t'ent and pla-e'entG 4nde) A)t.
1", pa). .(0, !f t+e La(!) C!de, !) an7 !f t+e p)!+,(,ted p)a-t,-es en4'e)ated 4nde) A)t. "% !f t+e sa'e C!de
.n!2 Se-. >, RA #;%80H and,
o .-0 t+e !ffende) -!'',tted t+e sa'e a/a,nst t+)ee ."0 !) '!)e pe)s!ns, ,nd,&,d4all7 !) as a /)!4p.
o C!)!lla),l7, A)t,-le 1", pa)a/)ap+ .(0 !f t+e La(!) C!de en4'e)ates t+e a-ts 2+,-+ -!nst,t4te )e-)4,t'ent and
pla-e'ent: .(0 9Re-)4,t'ent and pla-e'ent9 )efe) t! an7 a-t !f -an&ass,n/, enl,st,n/, -!nt)a-t,n/, t)ansp!)t,n/,
4t,l,3,n/, +,),n/, !) p)!-4),n/ 2!)6e)s, and ,n-l4des )efe))als, -!nt)a-t se)&,-es, p)!',s,n/ !) ad&e)t,s,n/ f!) e'pl!7'ent,
l!-all7 !) a()!ad, 2+et+e) f!) p)!f,t !) n!t: :)!&,ded, T+at an7 pe)s!n !) ent,t7 2+,-+, ,n an7 'anne), !ffe)s !) p)!',ses
f!) a fee e'pl!7'ent t! t2! !) '!)e pe)s!ns s+all (e dee'ed en/a/ed ,n )e-)4,t'ent and pla-e'ent.
o ELE1ENTS :ROVEN: ?e)e, 2e a)e -!n&,n-ed t+at t+e t+)ee ele'ents !f Re-)4,t'ent ,n La)/e S-ale 2e)e s4ff,-,entl7
p)!&ed (e7!nd )eas!na(le d!4(t f!) Cal,'!n 2+,le "
)d
ele'ent n!t p)!&en f!) C!',la s! S,'ple Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent
!nl7.
o 5,)st, a--4sed-appellants, 4nd!4(tedl7, d,d n!t +a&e an7 l,-ense t! )e-)4,t pe)s!ns f!) !&e)seas 2!)6. T+,s ,s
s4(stant,ated (7 t+e :OEA, L,-ens,n/ B)an-+ 2+,-+ ,ss4ed a Ce)t,f,-at,!n t! t+,s effe-t and t+e test,'!n7 !f an
e'pl!7ee !f t+e :OEA, C!)a3!n C),st!(al.
o Se-!nd, a--4sed-appellants en/a/ed ,n ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent a-t,&,t,es, !ffe),n/ !&e)seas e'pl!7'ent f!) a fee.
1a/na7e and A/)a'!n als! -!))!(!)ated t+e test,'!n7 !f De&anade)a. T+e,) na))at,!n 4nd!4(tedl7
esta(l,s+ed t+at a--4sed-appellants p)!',sed t+e' e'pl!7'ent ,n Ital7 as fa-t!)7 2!)6e)s and t+e7 .a--4sed-
appellants0 as6ed '!ne7 f)!' t+e' .p),&ate -!'pla,nants0 t! alle/edl7 p)!-ess t+e,) pape)s and &,sas. :),&ate
-!'pla,nants 2e)e de-e,&ed as t+e7 )el,ed !n a--4sed-appellants9 ',s)ep)esentat,!n and s-+e'e t+at -a4sed
t+e' t! ent)4st t+e,) '!ne7 t! t+e' ,n e=-+an/e !f 2+at t+e7 late) d,s-!&e)ed 2as a &a,n +!pe !f !(ta,n,n/
e'pl!7'ent a()!ad
o T+,)d, a--4sed-appellant Cal,'!n -!'',tted ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent a-t,&,t,es ,n&!l&,n/ at least t+)ee pe)s!ns, ,.e.,
t+e t+)ee p),&ate -!'pla,nants +e)e,n. On t+e pa)t !f C!',la, t+,s t+,)d ele'ent 2as n!t p)!&ed and t+4s, s+e
2as p)!pe)l7 -!n&,-ted !f s,'ple ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent !nl7.
DISPOSITI<E: :et,t,!n ,s DENIED. CA De-,s,!n A55IR1ED.
. PEOPLE vs. <I=GINIA 5A5> P. MONTANE=
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J p: G.R. N!. 1#%;<". A4/4st "1, 8;11.*
Facts:
o Ma2 1! 177'! 1:"" PM: 1!ntane)! i# e*c+a#.e for cas+, ,ss4ed t! p),&ate -!'pla,nant Re7nald! S!l,s ,n +,s +!4se
at Cal,)a7a St)eet, ?!l,da7 ?!'es, San :ed)!, La/4na, ten .1;0 :)4dent,al Ban6 -+e-6s, spe-,f,-all7, -+e-6 n!s.
;;;88#%, ;;;88#<, ;;;88#>, ;;;88#C, ;;;88##, ;;;88#$, ;;;88$;, ;;;88$1, ;;;88$8, and ;;;88$" all p!stdated
4%#e 1! 177'! ea-+ ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :<,;;;.;; all ,n t+e t!tal a'!4nt !f P&"!"""."". T+e7 2e)e all s,/ned (7 +e).
o A--4sed )ep)esented t! -!'pla,nant S!l,s t+at t+e -+e-6s 2e)e f%//2 f%#(e(.
o O-t!(e) %, 1$$>: @+en p),&ate -!'pla,nant dep!s,ted t+e -+e-6s f!) en-as+'ent at :)e',e) Ban6, San :ed)!, La/4na.
?!2e&e), t+e7 2e)e (is+o#ore( for t+e reaso# Dacco%#t c/ose(G.
o R4el Allan :aIa),t!, B)an-+ Cas+,e) O-I-C !f :)4dent,al Ban6 test,f,ed t+at t+e7 pla-ed t+e 'a)6 Ga--!4nt
-l!sedG !n t+e ten .1;0 -+e-6s ,ss4ed ,n t+e a--!4nt !f a--4sed 1!ntane) -!ns,de),n/ t+at at t+e t,'e t+e
sa'e 2e)e p)esented t! t+e', t+e a--!4nt !f a--4sed 1!ntane) 2as al)ead7 -l!sed.
o @,tness :aIa),t! f4)t+e) test,f,ed t+at as pe) t+e,) )e-!)ds, t+e a--!4nt !f a--4sed 1!ntane), a--!4nt n!.
;;;$$-;;;;<;-% 2as c/ose( o# 4%/2 11! 177'. T+e -+e-6s 2e)e )et4)ned !n f!) t+e )eas!n a--!4nt -l!sed.
o O-t!(e) 1", 1$$>: :),&ate -!'pla,nant &e)(all7 and t+e)eafte), t+)4 de'and lette) f!)'all7 de'anded t+at a--4sed
settle +e) a--!4nts. It 2as )e-e,&ed (7 +e) +4s(and.
o Desp,te )e-e,pt !f t+e de'and lette), a--4sed 1!ntane) fa,led t! pa7 t+e &al4e !f t+e ten .1;0 -+e-6s, t+4s p),&ate
-!'pla,nant Re7nald! S!l,s f,led t+e ,nstant -!'pla,nt f!) estafa.
o Inf!)'at,!n " dated Ap),l 81, 1$$#:
o 1a7 1C, 1$$>: ,n Sa# Pe(ro, La.%#a! 1!ntane) d,d t+en and t+e)e fel!n,!4sl7 def)a4d !ne Re7nald! S!l,s ,n
t+e f!ll!2,n/ 'anne): sa,d a--4sed (7 'eans !f fa/se $rete#ses a#( fra%(%/e#t acts t+at +e) -+e-6s a)e f4ll7
f4nded d)a2, 'a6e and ,ss4e ,n fa&!) !f !ne Re7nald! S!l,s t+e f!ll!2,n/ TEN Pr%(e#tia/ 5a#0 C+ec0s N!s.:
;;;88#%, ;;;88#<, ;;;88#>, ;;;88#C, ;;;88##, ;;;88#$, ;;;88$;, ;;;88$1, ;;;88$8, and ;;;88$" eac+
for P&!"""."" 2,t+ t!tal &al4e !f P&"!""" and all af!)esa,d -+e-6s a)e p!stdated J4ne 1C, 1$$> ,n e=-+an/e f!)
-as+ 6n!2,n/ f4ll7 2ell t+at s+e +as n! f4nds ,n t+e d)a2ee (an6 and 2+en t+e sa,d -+e-6s 2e)e p)esented f!)
pa7'ent t+e sa'e 2e)e d,s+!n!)ed (7 t+e d)a2ee (an6 !n )eas!n !f GACCOLNT CLOSEDG and desp,te
de'and a--4sed fa,led and )ef4sed t! pa7 t+e &al4e t+e)e!f t! t+e da'a/e and p)eI4d,-e !f Re7nald! S!l,s ,n
t+e af!)e'ent,!ned t!tal a'!4nt !f :<;,;;;.;;.
o Appellant pleaded Gn!t /4,lt7G t! t+e -+a)/e le&eled a/a,nst +e) d4),n/ +e) a))a,/n'ent !n J4ne 1;, 1$$#.
o A--4sed, t+)4 -!4nsel ,n,t,all7 'an,fested t+at s+e ,s ,ntend,n/ t! f,le a de'4))e) t! e&,den-e. ?!2e&e), +e) ),/+t t! f,le
t+e sa'e 2as -!ns,de)ed 2a,&ed ,n &,e2 !f +e) fa,l4)e t! f,le t+e de'4))e) desp,te d4e n!t,-e.
=TC: C!n&,-ted f!) Estafa as def,ned and penal,3ed 4nde) pa)a/)ap+ 8 .d0, A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de.
o :ENALTD: Indete)',nate penalt7 !f ,'p),s!n'ent f)!' t2el&e .180 7ea)s !f p),s,!n 'a7!) as ',n,'4' t! t2ent7-
t2! .880 7ea)s !f )e-l4s,!n pe)pet4a as 'a=,'4' and t! ,nde'n,f7 -!'pla,nant Re7nald! S!l,s ,n t+e a'!4nt !f
:<;,;;;.;;.
CA: A55IR1ED TCKs De-,s,!n ,n t!t!.
Petitioners Defense:
o T! e=-4lpate +e)self f)!' -),',nal l,a(,l,t7, a--4sed V,)/,n,a Ba(7 :. 1!ntane) den,ed t+e alle/at,!ns t+at s+e ,ss4ed
ten .1;0 -+e-6s ,n p),&ate -!'pla,nant9s fa&!) -la,',n/ t+at t+e ten .1;0 -+e-6s 2e)e (!))!2ed f)!' +e) (7 !ne 1a)l7n
Gal!pe (e-a4se t+e latte) needed '!ne7.
o S+e /a&e t+e ten -+e-6s t! Gal!pe, s,/ned t+e sa'e al(e,t t+e spa-e f!) t+e date, a'!4nt and pa7ee 2e)e left (lan6 s!
t+at t+e -+e-6s -ann!t (e 4sed f!) an7 ne/!t,at,!n. S+e f4)t+e) t!ld Gal!pe t+at t+e -+e-6s 2e)e n!t f4nded.
o @+en s+e lea)ned t+at a -ase 2as f,led a/a,nst +e) f!) estafa, s+e -!nf)!nted 1a)l7n Gal!pe and t+e latte) t!ld +e) t+at
'!ne7 2,ll n!t (e /,&en t! +e) ,f s+e 2,ll n!t ,ss4e t+e sa,d -+e-6s. S+e +as n! 6n!2led/e !f t+e n!t,-e !f d,s+!n!) sent
t! +e) (7 p),&ate -!'pla,nant and -la,'ed t+at +e) +4s(and, 2+! s4pp!sedl7 )e-e,&ed t+e n!t,-e !f d,s+!n!) left f!)
a()!ad ,n J4l7 1$$> and )et4)ned !nl7 afte) a 7ea), t+at ,s, ,n 1$$C.
o T+4s, t+e)e ,s p4)p!)tedl7 n! -e)ta,nt7 (e7!nd )eas!na(le d!4(t t+at s+e ,ss4ed t+e -+e-6s p4)p!sel7 t! def)a4d
Re7nald! S!l,s ,nt! lend,n/ +e) '!ne7. S+e f4)t+e) -la,'s t+at n! t)ansa-t,!n +ad e&e) t)ansp,)ed (et2een +e) and
S!l,s. Ad',tt,n/ t+at s+e 'a7 +a&e (een ,'p)4dent, s+e n!net+eless ,ns,sts t+at +e) s,'ple ,'p)4den-e d!es n!t
t)anslate t! -),',nal l,a(,l,t7.
ISS3E: @+et+e) 1!ntane) ,s /4,lt7 !f estafa
HELD:
o :a)a/)ap+ 8 .d0, A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de p)!&,des: 8. B7 'eans !f an7 !f t+e f!ll!2,n/ false p)etenses
!) f)a4d4lent a-ts e=e-4ted p),!) t! !) s,'4ltane!4sl7 2,t+ t+e -!'',ss,!n !f t+e f)a4d: .d0 B7 p!stdat,n/ a -+e-6,
!) ,ss4,n/ a -+e-6 ,n pa7'ent !f an !(l,/at,!n 2+en t+e !ffende) +ad n! f4nds ,n t+e (an6, !) +,s f4nds dep!s,ted
t+e)e,n 2e)e n!t s4ff,-,ent t! -!&e) t+e a'!4nt !f t+e -+e-6. T+e fa,l4)e !f t+e d)a2e) !f t+e -+e-6 t! dep!s,t t+e
a'!4nt ne-essa)7 t! -!&e) +,s -+e-6 1it+i# t+ree ,8- (a2s from recei$t of #otice f)!' t+e (an6 andJ!) t+e pa7ee !)
+!lde) t+at sa,d -+e-6 +as (een d,s+!n!)ed f!) la-6 !) ,ns4ff,-,en-7 !f f4nds s+all (e $rima facie evi(e#ce of (eceit
co#stit%ti#. fa/se $rete#se or fra%(%/e#t act.
o T+e ele'ents !f estafa 4nde) pa)a/)ap+ 8 .d0, A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de a)e:
o .10 t+e p!stdat,n/ !) ,ss4an-e !f a -+e-6 ,n pa7'ent !f an !(l,/at,!n -!nt)a-ted at t+e t,'e t+e -+e-6 2as
,ss4edH
o .80 la-6 !f s4ff,-,en-7 !f f4nds t! -!&e) t+e -+e-6H and
o ."0 da'a/e t! t+e pa7ee.
o In t+e -ase at (a), t+e p)!se-4t,!n s4ff,-,entl7 esta(l,s+ed appellant9s /4,lt (e7!nd )eas!na(le d!4(t f!) estafa 4nde)
pa)a/)ap+ 8 .d0, A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de. A--!)d,n/ t! S!l,s9s -lea) and -ate/!),-al test,'!n7, appellant
,ss4ed t! +,' t+e 1; p!stdated :)4dent,al Ban6 -+e-6s, ea-+ ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :<,;;;.;; !) a t!tal !f :<;,;;;.;;, ,n +,s
+!4se ,n e=-+an/e f!) t+e,) -as+ eB4,&alent.
o D,)e-t E=a',nat,!n: Rep)esentat,!n a(!4t t+e'F T! dep!s,t t+!se -+e-6s !n t+e,) d4e date, 'a9a'.
o It 2as e&,dent t+at S!l,s 2!4ld n!t +a&e /,&en :<;,;;;.;; -as+ t! appellant +ad ,t n!t (een f!) +e) ,ss4an-e !f t+e 1;
:)4dent,al Ban6 -+e-6s. T+ese p!stdated -+e-6s 2e)e 4nd!4(tedl7 ,ss4ed (7 appellant t! ,nd4-e S!l,s t! pa)t 2,t+ +,s
-as+. ?!2e&e), 2+en S!l,s atte'pted t! en-as+ t+e', t+e7 2e)e all d,s+!n!)ed (7 t+e (an6 (e-a4se t+e a--!4nt 2as
al)ead7 -l!sed.
o S!l,s 2)!te appellant a de'and lette) (4t s+e d,d n!t -!'pl7 2,t+ t+e de'and n!) d,d s+e dep!s,t t+e a'!4nt
ne-essa)7 t! -!&e) t+e -+e-6s 1it+i# t+ree (a2s from recei$t of #otice. T+,s /a&e ),se t! a $rima facie evi(e#ce of
(eceit! 1+ic+ is a# e/eme#t of t+e crime of estafa! -!nst,t4t,n/ false p)etense !) f)a4d4lent a-t as stated ,n t+e
se-!nd senten-e !f pa)a/)ap+ 8 .d0, A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de.
o Cla,'s t! +a&e ent)4sted Ga)!pe ,s ,n-)ed4l!4s and def,es !)d,na)7 -!''!n sense and +4'an e=pe),en-e. 1!)e!&e),
,t ,s ele'enta)7 t+at den,al, ,f 4ns4(stant,ated (7 -lea) and -!n&,n-,n/ e&,den-e, ,s ne/at,&e and self-se)&,n/ e&,den-e
2+,-+ +as fa) less e&,dent,a)7 &al4e t+an t+e test,'!n7 !f -)ed,(le 2,tnesses 2+! test,f7 !n aff,)'at,&e 'atte)s. As aptl7
n!ted (7 t+e t),al -!4)t, appellant9s fa,l4)e t! p)!d4-e Gal!pe as a 2,tness t! -!))!(!)ate +e) st!)7 ,s fatal t! +e) -a4se.
DISPOSITI<E: CA De-,s,!n A55IR1ED.
#. PEOPLE &s. ELIJA5ETH CA=DENAS
CA=PIO MO=ALES! J.: G.=. No. 1@"'9 Fe)r%ar2 1"! 6""7
Facts:
Nen,t 14sn, 2+! d!es (4s,ness 4nde) t+e na'e 5om)om 4e1e/ries, (47s p,e-es !f Ie2el)7 f)!' pa2ns+!ps f!)
)esale.
In 1$$1, ,n t+e -!4)se !f +e) (4s,ness !pe)at,!n, s+e 2as ,nt)!d4-ed t! Ca)denas t! 2+!' s+e +ad s,n-e (een sell,n/
.o/(. T+e,) 4s4al p)a-t,-e 2as t! 2e,/+ t+e /!ld and a/)ee !n t+e p),-e, afte) 2+,-+ appellant 2!4ld ,ss4e -+e-6s
-!&e),n/ t+e &al4e t+e)e!f.
Nen,t and appellantKs t)ansa-t,!ns 2e)e )e/4la) 4nt,l...
O-t!(e) 1<, 1$$% 2+en appellant ,ss4ed 6 c+ec0s - C+e-6 N!. ;;18%CA f!) :%;1,;;; and C+e-6 N!. ;;18%#A f!) t+e
sa'e a'!4nt -!&e),n/ pa7'ent !f /!ld, 2+,-+ -+e-6s 2e)e (is+o#ore(. Nen,t ,nf!)'ed appellant !f t+e d,s+!n!), (4t
s+e den,ed !2,n/ an7t+,n/ t! +e).
o a--4sed )e-e,&ed Ie2el),es f)!' t+e -!'pla,n,n/ 2,tness at La!a/ C,t7H
o a--4sed +as a -+e-6,n/ a--!4nt 2,t+ t+e :CIB, V,/an
o d4e t! s4-+ )e-e,pt !f Ie2el),es, t+e a--4sed del,&e)ed t! t+e -!'pla,nant :CIB V,/an B)an-+ C+e-6 N!.
;;18%CA -!&e),n/ t+e a'!4nt !f :%;1,;;;.;; dated N!&e'(e) 1<, 1$$% and C+e-6 N!. ;;18%#A ,n t+e
a'!4nt !f :%;1,;;;.;; dated De-e'(e) 1<, 1$$%
o .80 -+e-6s af!)estated 2e)e p)esented f!) pa7'ent (4t d,s+!n!)ed.
N!&e'(e) 8, 1$$%: Ca)denas a/a,n ,ss4ed t+ree c+ec0s (ra1# a/a,nst :CIB V,/an B)an-+ )ep)esent,n/ pa7'ent !f
/!ld: C+e-6 N!. ;;18"1A f!) :"1#,;;;, C+e-6 N!. ;;18"8A f!) :CC$,;;;, and C+e-6 N!. ;;18""A f!) :1,;$",;;;.
A/a,n t+e -+e-6s 2e)e d,s+!n!)ed.
o d4e t! t+e )e-e,pt !f t+e Ie2el),es, t+e a--4sed del,&e)ed t+)ee ."0 p!stdated -+e-6s t! t+e -!'pla,nant :CIB
V,/an B)an-+ C+e-6 N!. ;;18"1A dated 5e()4a)7 8;, 1$$< ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :"1#,;;;.;;H C+e-6 N!. ;;18"8A
dated De-e'(e) 8<, 1$$% ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :CC$,;;;.;; and C+e-6 N!. ;;18""A ,n t+e a'!4nt !f
:1,;$",;;;.;; dated Jan4a)7 1<, 1$$<H
o " -+e-6s af!)e'ent,!ned 2e)e p)esented f!) pa7'ent (4t d,s+!n!)ed (e-a4se t+e si.#at%res (iffer from t+e
si.#at%re o# fi/e.
N!&e'(e) 1<, 1$$%: Ca)denas ,ss4ed t1o $ost(ate( c+ec0s d)a2n a/a,nst :CIB V,/an B)an-+ )ep)esent,n/ pa7'ent
!f /!ld p4)-+ased f)!' Nen,t: C+e-6 N!. ;;188>A f!) :8<;,;;; and C+e-6 N!. ;188CA f!) :>>#,;;;. St,ll a/a,n t+e
-+e-6s 2e)e d,s+!n!)ed.
o d4e t! s4-+ )e-e,pt !f Ie2el),es, t+e a--4sed del,&e)ed t2! .80 p!stdated -+e-6s, :CIB V,/an C+e-6 N!.
;;188>A dated De-e'(e) ";, 1$$% -!&e),n/ t+e a'!4nt !f :8<;,;;;.;; and C+e-6 N!. ;;188CA dated
De-e'(e) 1<, 1$$% ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :>>#,;;;.;;H
o -+e-6s 2e)e p)esented f!) pa7'ent 2,t+ t+e d)a2ee (an6 !n t+e,) )espe-t,&e d4e datesH
o -+e-6s 2e)e d,s+!n!)ed (7 t+e d)a2ee (an6 !n t+e /)!4nd t+at t+e s,/nat4)e !f t+e d)a2e) (iffers from t+e
si.#at%re o# fi/e ,a#( i#s%fficie#t f%#(s/c/ose( acco%#t-.
De-e'(e) 1<, 1$$%: appellant ,ss4ed t! Nen,t t1o $ost(ate( c+ec0s, (!t+ d)a2n a/a,nst :CIB V,/an B)an-+: C+e-6
N!. ;;1888A f!) :%;;,;;;, and C+ec0 No. ""16'"A for P9&@!""" re$rese#ti#. $a2me#t of .o/(. L,6e t+e p)e&,!4s
-+e-6s, t+ese t2! 2e)e d,s+!n!)ed.
o !4t !f t+e )e-e,pt !f t+e Ie2el),es (7 t+e a--4sed f)!' t+e -!'pla,n,n/ 2,tness, t+e a--4sed del,&e)ed t2! .80
p!stdated -+e-6s, :CIB V,/an B)an-+ C+e-6 N!. ;;1888A dated 1a)-+ "1, 1$$< ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :%;;,;;;.;
and C+e-6 N!. ;;18>;A dated 1a)-+ 1<, 1$$< ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :%<#,;;;.;;H
o C+e-6 N!. ;;1888A 2+en p)esented f!) pa7'ent 2as d,s+!n!)ed (e-a4se t+e s,/nat4)e !n f,le ,s (iffere#t
from t+e si.#at%re o# t+e c+ec0H ,a#( i#s%fficie#t f%#(s/c/ose( acco%#t-
o C+ec0 No. ""16'"A i# t+e amo%#t of P9&@!"""."" 1as (e/ivere( to t+e com$/ai#a#t 1it+ t+e si.#at%re of
t+e acc%se(! t+e same )ei#. si.#e( )2 +er o# t+e same (ate of t+e (e/iver2 of t+e ;e1e/ries.
Nen,t de'anded t+e settle'ent !f t+e d,s+!n!)ed -+e-6s, (4t appellant 'a,nta,ned n!t +a&,n/ an7 !(l,/at,!ns t! +e).
On -!'pla,nt !f Nen,t, fo%r I#formatio#s eac+ c+ar.i#. 1it+ estafa 2e)e f,led (ef!)e t+e RTC !f La!a/ C,t7:
o C),',nal Case N!. #C%;-1" alle/ed: O-t!(e) 1<, 1$$%, ,n La!a/, a--4sed 2,t+ de-e,t and ,ntent t! def)a4d,
fel!n,!4sl7 ,ss4e t+e f!ll!2,n/ -+e-6s ,n fa&!) !f Nenette 14sn,, a/a,nst t+e d)a2ee :CIB, V,/an t+e)e,n a
si.#at%re (iffere#t from +er s$ecime# si.#at%re o# fi/e 2,t+ t+e d)a2ee (an6 and re$rese#ti#. t+at t+e
-+e-6s 2,ll (e pa,d 2+en p)esented f!) pa7'ent, s,'4ltane!4s t! and as pa7'ent f!) Ie2el),es p4)-+ased (7
t+e a--4sed f)!' Nenette 14sn,, 2+,-+ -+e-6s 2e)e s%)se:%e#t/2 (is+o#ore( (7 t+e d)a2ee (an6 2+en
p)esented f!) pa7'ent d4e t! si.#at%re (iffere#t o# fi/e and f!) +a&,n/ )ee# (ra1# a.ai#st i#s%fficie#t
f%#(s, and (es$ite #otice t! t+e a--4sed !f t+e d,s+!n!) !f +e) -+e-6s and de'ands 'ade 4p!n +e) (7
Nenette 14sn, f!) t+e -as+ )epla-e'ent !f t+e -+e-6s, t+e a--4sed +ad )ef4sed and fa,led t! d! s!, t! t+e
(ama.e a#( $re;%(ice !f Nenete 14sn,:
C+e-6 N!. ;;18%CA S :%;1,;;;.;;, :!stdated: N!&e'(e) 1<, 1$$%
C+e-6 N!. ;;18%#A S :%;1,;;;.;;, :!stdated: De-e'(e) 1<, 1$$%
o C),',nal Case N!. #C%1-1" alle/ed: N!&e'(e) 1<, 1$$%, ,n La!a/, a--4sed 2,t+ de-e,t and ,ntent t! def)a4d,
p)esented f!) pa7'ent d4e t! si.#at%re (iffere#t o# fi/e and f!) +a&,n/ )ee# (ra1# a.ai#st i#s%fficie#t
f%#(s, and (es$ite #otice t! t+e a--4sed !f t+e d,s+!n!) !f +e) -+e-6s and de'ands 'ade 4p!n +e) (7
Nenette 14sn, f!) t+e -as+ )epla-e'ent !f t+e -+e-6s, t+e a--4sed +ad )ef4sed and fa,led t! d! s!, t! t+e
(ama.e a#( $re;%(ice !f Nenete 14sn,:
C+e-6 N!. ;;188>A S :8<;,;;;.;;, :!stdated: De-e'(e) ";, 1$$%
C+e-6 N!. ;;188CA S :>>#,;;;.;;, :!stdated: De-e'(e) 1<, 1$$%
o C),',nal Case N!. #C%8-1" alle/ed: N!&e'(e) 8, 1$$%, ,n La!a/, a--4sed 2,t+ de-e,t and ,ntent t! def)a4d,
p)esented f!) pa7'ent d4e t! si.#at%re (iffere#t o# fi/e and f!) +a&,n/ )ee# (ra1# a.ai#st a c/ose(
acco%#t f!) C+e-6 N!. ;;18"1A and a.ai#st i#s%fficie#t f%#(s f!) C+e-6 N!s. ;;18"8A and ;;18""A, and
(es$ite #otice t! t+e a--4sed !f t+e d,s+!n!) !f +e) -+e-6s and de'ands 'ade 4p!n +e) (7 Nenette 14sn,
f!) t+e -as+ )epla-e'ent !f t+e -+e-6s, t+e a--4sed +ad )ef4sed t! d! s!, t! t+e (ama.e a#( $re;%(ice of
Ne#ette M%s#i:
C+e-6 N!. ;;18"1A S : "1#,;;;.;;, :!stdated: 5e()4a)7 8;, 1$$<
C+e-6 N!. ;;18"8A S : CC$,;;;.;;, :!stdated: De-e'(e) 8<, 1$$%
C+e-6 N!. ;;18""A S :1,;$",;;;.;;, :!stdated: Jan4a)7 1<, 1$$<
o C),',nal Case N!. #C%"-1" alle/ed: De-e'(e) 1<, 1$$%, ,n La!a/, 2,t+ de-e,t and ,ntent t! def)a4d, d,d
fel!n,!4sl7 ,ss4e t+e f!ll!2,n/ -+e-6s ,n fa&!) !f Nenette 14sn,, a/a,nst t+e d)a2ee :CIB V,/an, aff,=,n/
t+e)e,n a s,/nat4)e (iffere#t from +er s$ecime# si.#at%re o# fi/e 1it+ t+e (ra1ee )a#0 f!) C+e-6 N!.
;;1888A and )ep)esent,n/ t+at t+e -+e-6s 2,ll (e pa,d 2+en p)esented f!) pa7'ent, s,'4ltane!4s t! and as
pa7'ent f!) Ie2el),es p4)-+ased (7 t+e a--4sed f)!' Nenette 14sn,, 2+,-+ -+e-6s 2e)e s%)se:%e#t/2
(is+o#ore( )2 t+e (ra1ee )a#0 2+en p)esented f!) pa7'ent d4e t! si.#at%re (iffere#t o# f,le f!) C+e-6
;;1888A and for +avi#. )ee# (ra1# a.ai#st a c/ose( acco%#t for )ot+ c+ec0s, and desp,te n!t,-e t! t+e
a--4sed !f t+e d,s+!n!) !f +e) -+e-6s and de'ands 'ade 4p!n +e) (7 Nenette 14sn, f!) t+e -as+
)epla-e'ent !f t+e -+e-6s, t+e a--4sed +ad )ef4sed t! d! s!, t! t+e da'a/e and p)eI4d,-e !f Nenette 14sn, :
C+e-6 N!. ;;1888A S :%;;,;;;.;;, :!stdated: 1a)-+ "1, 1$$<
C+e-6 N!. ;;18>;A S :%<#,;;;.;;, :!stdated: 1a)-+ 1<, 1$$< .n!t d,ffe)ent spe-,'en s,/nat4)e !)
d4e t! ,ns4ff,-,ent f4nds (4t !n -l!sed a--!4nt0
Defense of Cardenas:
Appellant -la,'ed t+at, e=-ept f!) C+e-6 N!. 18>;A, .!ne !f t+e t2! -+e-6s s4(Ie-t !f t+e f!4)t+ -ase0 all t+e c+ec0s
s%);ect of t+e cases 1ere %#si.#e( as t+e7 2e)e ,ss4ed as a Dseco#(ar2 co//atera/.D
@+ene&e) Nen,t ent)4sted t! +e) Ie2el)7 f!) )esale, s+e 2as )eB4,)ed t! and d,d s,/n )e-e,pts and d,d ,ss4e t+e
4ns,/ned -+e-6sH t+at fa,l,n/ t! )esell t+e Ie2el)7, s+e 2!4ld )et4)n t+e' and as6 Nen,t t! )et4)n t! +e) t+e )e-e,pts s+e
s,/ned and t+e 4ns,/ned -+e-6s, (4t Ne#it 1o%/( mere/2 c/aim t+at s+e 1o%/( tear t+emH
@,t+ )espe-t t! C+e-6 N!. 18>;A, f!) :%<#,;;;, s+e +a&,n/ s!ld t+e Ie2el)7 -!&e)ed t+e)e(7, s+e aff,=ed +e) s,/nat4)e
t+e)e!n, (4t s+e d,d n!t -a4se t+e -+e-6 t! (e +!n!)ed (e-a4se s+e and Ne#it a.ree( to offset t+e a/a,nst t+e
a'!4nt 2+,-+ Nen,t and +e) s!n !2ed +e) f!) Ie2el)7 t+e7 +ad (!))!2ed f)!' +e).
Appellant t+4s -la,'ed t+at t+e si.#at%res attri)%te( to +er o# a// t+e c+ec0s! e*ce$t C+ec0 No. 16'"A for
P9&@!"""! 1ere for.e(, ,n s4pp!)t !f 2+,-+ s+e p)esented Nat,!nal B4)ea4 !f In&est,/at,!n .NBI0 Sen,!) D!-4'ents
E=a',ne) Adela C)43-De'ant,ll! .Adela0 2+! e=a',ned t+e s,/nat4)es !n t+e B4est,!ned -+e-6s and -!n-l4ded t+at
t+e si.#at%re o# C+ec0 No. 16'"A a#( t+ose o# ot+er c+ec0s 1ere #ot ma(e )2 o#e a#( t+e same $erso#.
=TC: C!n&,-ted appellant !f t+e fo%r co%#ts of estafa, d,sp!s,n/ as f!ll!2s:
:ENALTD: Ea-+ !f t+e -+a)/es t+e ,ndete)',nate penalt7 !f ,'p),s!n'ent )an/,n/ f)!' TGEL<E >EA=S of
$risio# ma2or as ma*im%m to THI=T> >EA=S of rec/%sio# $er$et%a and t! pa7 t+e p),&ate -!'pla,nant t+e
s%m of P9!'@!"""."" )ep)esent,n/ +e) t!tal !(l,/at,!n and 2,t+ le/al ,nte)est t+e)e!n t! (e )e-6!ned f)!' t+e
f,nal,t7 !f t+,s I4d/'ent, 2,t+ -!sts a/a,nst +e).
CA: A-B4,tted appellant ,n t+e f,)st and se-!nd -ases (4t aff,)'ed "
)d
and %t+
5!) 1
st
and 8
nd
, t+e -+e-6s s4(Ie-t t+e)e!f +a&,n/ (een d,s+!n!)ed (e-a4se t+e si.#at%res t+ereo# (iffere( from
t+e s$ecime# si.#at%res of a$$e//a#t o# fi/e at t+e (ra1ee )a#0.
Ins4ff,-,en-7 !f e&,den-e. It 'a7 (e )e-alled t+at -),',nal and penal stat4tes a)e st),-tl7 -!nst)4ed a/a,nst t+e State,
t+at ,s, t+e7 -ann!t (e enla)/ed (7 ,ntend'ent, ,'pl,-at,!n, !) (7 an7 eB4,ta(le -!ns,de)at,!ns. In !t+e) 2!)ds, t+e
lan/4a/e -ann!t (e enla)/ed (e7!nd t+e !)d,na)7 'ean,n/ !f ,ts te)'s ,n !)de) t! -a))7 !4t ,nt! effe-t t+e /ene)al
p4)p!se f!) 2+,-+ t+e stat4te 2as ena-ted. T+e )eas!n f!) d,s+!n!) /!es ,nt! t+e ele'ent !f t+e fel!n7 and 'a7
n!t I4stl7 (e ,/n!)ed. @+en t+e la2 spea6s !f Di#s%fficie#c2 of f%#(sG as t+e )eas!n f!) d,s+!n!), ,t 'eans I4st
t+at and n!t+,n/ else.
5!) "
)d
and %
t+
, Aff,)'ed (e-a4se ,ns4ff,-,ent f4nds
ISS3ES:
1. @+et+e) Ca)denas ,s /4,lt7 !f t+e "
)d
and %
t+
-+a)/es (e-a4se !f ,ns4ff,-,en-7 !f f4nds !) (7 )eas!n t+at -+e-6s 2e)e
d,s+!n!)ed d4e t! Ta--!4nt -l!sedU desp,te e&,den-e !f f!)/ed s,/nat4)eF NO
8. @+et+e) Ca)denas ,s /4,lt7 !f estafa f!) C+e-6 ;;18>%A desp,te la-6 !f f)a4d as t+e ,ss4an-e !f t+e -+e-6 2as n!t t+e
'eans t! atta,n t+e Ie2el)7F NO.
HELD:
1. C+e-6s s4(Ie-t t+e)e!f 2e)e d,s+!n!)ed d4e t! Gpa7'ent st!ppedG !) Ga--!4nt -l!sed. ?!2e&e), !nl7 p+!t!-!p,es !f
t+e -+e-6s (ea),n/ Gpa7'ent st!ppedG !) Ga--!4nt -l!sedG sta'ped t+e)e!n f!)' pa)t !f t+e )e-!)ds and 2+,le t+e7
2e)e n!t !(Ie-ted t!, t+e p+!t!-!p,es !f t+e -+e-6s st,ll 'a7 n!t (e app)e-,ated as t+e7 2e)e n!t f!)'all7 !ffe)ed ,n
e&,den-e.
Rele&ant st,p4lat,!ns !f t+e p)!se-4t,!n and defense d4),n/ p)e-t),al 2e)e t+at t+e -+e-6s, e=-ept C+e-6 N!.
;;18>;A 2+,-+ ,s !ne !f t+e t2! -+e-6s s4(Ie-t !f t+e f!4)t+ -ase, 2e)e d,s+!n!)ed (e-a4se t+e s,/nat4)es t+e)e,n
2e)e d,ffe)ent f)!' appellantKs s,/nat4)e !n f,le.
5!)/ed +and2),t,n/. T+e p)!se-4t,!n -!ntends, +!2e&e), t+at appellant ,ntent,!nall7 alte)ed +e) !2n s,/nat4)e !n
t+e -+e-6s. In l,/+t, +!2e&e), !f t+e f,nd,n/s !f t+e +and2),t,n/ e=pe)t and, ,ndeed, f)!' t+e na6ed e7e, a
-!'pa),s!n !f t+e B4est,!ned s,/nat4)es 2,t+ t+e standa)d s,/nat4)e !f appellant t+e p!ss,(,l,t7 t+at appellantKs
s,/nat4)e !n t+e -+e-6s ,n B4est,!n 2as f!)/ed ,s n!t )4led !4t.
8. NO ESTA5A. 1,s)ep)esentat,!n !f -+e-6s n!t 4sed as 'eans t! !(ta,n t+e Ie2el)7
O55SET. C+e-6 N!. ;;18>;A 2as d,s+!n!)ed f!) ,ns4ff,-,en-7 !f f4nds and t+e defense !f !ffsett,n/ -ann!t (e
-)ed,ted. ?e) e&,den-e !f )e-e,pts d! n!t ,nd,-ate t+at t+e ,te's 'ent,!ned t+e)e 2e)e t! !ffset t+e Ie2el)7 !) f!) a
R!s,ta ea)),n/ &al4ed !f :1;;,;;;.;; 2+,-+ 2as pa)t !f t+e alle/ed !ffsett,n/. 1!)e!&e), ,f t+e)e 2as an !ffsett,n/, t+e
a--4sed +as n!t f4ll7 e=pla,ned 2+7 t+e &al4e !f t+e Ie2el)7 t+at -!'pla,nant and Ca)l,t! 14sn, )e-e,&ed f)!' +e) 2e)e
'!)e t+an t+e &al4e !f t+e -+e-6 2+,-+ ,s :%<#,;;;.
Lnde) A)t,-le "1<, pa). 8.d0 !f t+e R:C- An7 pe)s!n 2+! s+all def)a4d an!t+e) (7 an7 !f t+e 'eans +e)e,n (el!2 . 8.
B7 'eans !f an7 !f t+e f!ll!2,n/ false p)etenses !) f)a4d4lent a-ts e=e-4ted p),!) t! !) s,'4ltane!4sl7 2,t+ t+e
-!'',ss,!n !f t+e f)a4d: .d0 B7 p!stdat,n/ a -+e-6, !) ,ss4,n/ a -+e-6 ,n pa7'ent !f an !(l,/at,!n 2+en t+e !ffende)
+ad n! f4nds ,n t+e (an6, !) +,s f4nds dep!s,ted t+e)e,n 2e)e n!t s4ff,-,ent t! -!&e) t+e a'!4nt !f t+e -+e-6. T+e fa,l4)e
!f t+e d)a2e) !f t+e -+e-6 t! dep!s,t t+e a'!4nt ne-essa)7 t! -!&e) +,s -+e-6 2,t+,n t+)ee ."0 da7s f)!' )e-e,pt !f
n!t,-e f)!' t+e (an6 andJ!) t+e pa7ee !) +!lde) t+at sa,d -+e-6 +as (een d,s+!n!)ed f!) la-6 !) ,ns4ff,-,en-7 !f f4nds
s+all (e p),'a fa-,e e&,den-e !f de-e,t -!nst,t4t,n/ false p)etense !) f)a4d4lent a-t.
T+e iss%a#ce of a c+ec0 s+o%/( )e t+e mea#s to o)tai# mo#e2 or $ro$ert2 from t+e $a2ee. It 2!4ld +a&e (een
4nne-essa)7 f!) t+e a--4sed t! ass4)e t+e pa7ee t+at t+e -+e-6s 2!4ld (e s4ff,-,entl7 f4nded !n 'at4),t7 t! -!n&,n-e
+e) t! /,&e +e) t+e Ie2el)7.
D4),n/ +e) t)ansa-t,!ns s,n-e 1$$1 2,t+ Nen,t, appellant 4s4all7 ,ss4ed p!stdated -+e-6s afte) Ie2el)7 2as t4)ned !&e)
t! +e) and t+at ,n fa-t some of t+e $ost(ate( c+ec0s $revio%s/2 iss%e( 1ere (is+o#ore( )%t 1ere #ot ma(e
s%);ect of crimi#a/ com$/ai#ts.
Appellant d,d n!t t+4s +a&e t! ass4)e Nen,t 2+en s+e ,ss4ed !n N!&e'(e) 1<, 1$$% C+e-6 N!. ;;18>;A p!stdated
De-e'(e) ";, 1$$% t+at ,t 2!4ld (e f4nded !n 'at4),t7 t! -!n&,n-e +e) t! pa)t !ff 2,t+ t+e Ie2el)7. In !t+e) 2!)ds, t+e
,ss4an-e !f t+e -+e-6 2as n!t t+e 'eans t! !(ta,n t+e Ie2el)7. Appellant d,d n!t t+4s e'pl!7 f)a4d. E)/! s+e d,d n!t
-!'',t estafa.
?!2e&e), appellantKs -,&,l l,a(,l,t7 4nde) C+e-6 N!. ;;18>;A f!) :%<#,;;; stands ,n t+e a(sen-e !f e&,den-e t+at s+e
+ad, as s+e -la,'ed, al)ead7 settled t+e sa'e.
DISPOSITI<E: El,3a(et+ Ca)denas, ,s ACNLITTED ,n C),',nal Case N!. #C%8-1". Appellant ,s l,6e2,se ACNLITTED ,n
C),',nal Case N!. #C%"-1". S+e ,s, +!2e&e), de-la)ed civi//2 /ia)/e to t+e $rivate com$/ai#a#t! Ne#ette a.0.a. Ne#it
M%s#i! ,ns!fa) as t+e -ase ,n&!l&es C+ec0 No. ""16'"A, and ,s ORDERED t! pa7 +e) ,ts fa-e &al4e !f P9&@!"""."".
7. PEOPLE vs. E=LINDA A5O=DO a#( <INA CA5ANLONG
CAR:IO, J p: G.R. N!. 1C$$"%. 1a7 81, 8;;$.*
Facts:
o 5e()4a)7 ", 1$$% t! 1a)-+ ", 1$$%: A(!)d! )e-)4,ted 4es%s =a2ra2 f!) p!ss,(le e'pl!7'ent a()!ad and -!lle-ted a
t!tal !f P19!""" as pla-e'ent fee. A(!)d! ass4)ed Ra7)a7 t+at +e -!4ld s!!n lea&e f!) a()!ad. Ra7)a7 2as 4na(le t!
lea&e as p)!',sed and !nl7 sa2 A(!)d! a/a,n 2+en s+e 2as al)ead7 ,n Ia,l.
o Septe'(e) 1$$%: A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ 2ent t! t+e +!4se !f Esme#ia CariKo ,n L,pa7, V,llas,s, :an/as,nan, t!
pe)s4ade +e) t! 2!)6 as a d!'est,- +elpe) ,n ?!n/ K!n/. Ca),O! and Ca(anl!n/ 4sed t! (e ne,/+(!)s ,n San Blas,
V,llas,s, :an/as,nan. Lp!n (e,n/ -!n&,n-ed (7 t+e a--4sed, Ca),O! /a&e a t!tal !f :1<,;;; as pla-e'ent fee. Desp,te
t+,s pa7'ent, Ca),O! 2as 4na(le t! lea&e f!) a()!ad.
o De-e'(e) 1$$%: A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ 2ent t! t+e +!4se !f Se.%#(i#a Fer#a#(eI ,n Ca)a',tan, V,llas,s,
:an/as,nan. Ca(anl!n/ and Se/4nd,na a)e f,)st -!4s,ns. Ca(anl!n/ ,nt)!d4-ed A(!)d! as a )e-)4,te). T+e a--4sed
t!ld Se/4nd,na t+at t+e7 -!4ld se-4)e e'pl!7'ent f!) +e) s!n, 4aime! ,n ?!n/ K!n/ 4p!n pa7'ent !f t+e pla-e'ent
fee. Se/4nd,na and Ja,'e a/)eed t! t+e p)!p!s,t,!n. Se/4nd,na /a&e t+e a--4sed -as+ and !t+e) &al4a(les a'!4nt,n/
t! :%<,;;;. A(!)d! /a&e a plane t,-6et t! Ja,'e, 2+,-+ t4)ned !4t t! (e fa6eH +en-e, Ja,'e 2as 4na(le t! lea&e f!)
a()!ad.
o De-e'(e) 1$$%: t+e a--4sed 2ent t! t+e +!4se !f E*e:%ie/ Me#(oIa ,n San Blas, V,llas,s, :an/as,nan t! -!n&,n-e
+,' t! 2!)6 ,n ?!n/ K!n/ as a se-4),t7 /4a)d. 1end!3a a/)eed t! (e )e-)4,ted and t! pa7 :%<,;;; as pla-e'ent fee.
A(!)d! ass4)ed +,' t+at as s!!n as +e -!4ld pa7 t+e pla-e'ent fee, +e -!4ld 2!)6 a()!ad. 1end!3a /a&e A(!)d!
-as+ and p,e-es !f Ie2el)7 a'!4nt,n/ t! :"$,;;;. Desp,te se&e)al p)!',ses f)!' A(!)d!, 1end!3a 2as 4na(le t!
lea&e f!) ?!n/ K!n/. T+4s, +e de'anded f)!' t+e a--4sed t+e )et4)n !f +,s '!ne7 and p,e-es !f Ie2el)7, (4t t! n!
a&a,l.
o Ad!n,s :e)alta, Da/4pan D,st),-t Off,-e) !f DOLE, ,ss4ed -e)t,f,-at,!ns dated 8$ Septe'(e) 1$$" and " A4/4st 1$$"
stat,n/ t+at t+e a--4sed 2e)e #ot i#c/%(e( i# t+e POEA /ist of t+ose /ice#se( to recr%it ,n :an/as,nan.
o T+e I#formatio#s a/a,nst t+e a--4sed )ead as f!ll!2s: .A(!)d!: Estafa V%, Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent - % H Ca(anl!n/: Estafa
V ", Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent - "0
o C),',nal Case N!. V-;><% .Estafa0: 5e()4a)7 ", 1$$% t! 1a)-+ ", 1$$%, at V,llas,s, :an/as,nan, A(!)d! (7
'eans !f de-e,t, (e/i)erate/2 misre$rese#ti#. +erse/f to )e ca$a)/e of ca%si#. t+e em$/o2me#t of
/a)orers a()!ad, 6n!2,n/ f4ll7 2ell t+at s+e ,s n!t d4l7 !) le/all7 a4t+!),3ed t! )e-)4,t la(!)e)s f!) e'pl!7'ent
a()!ad, d,d t+en and t+e)e 2,llf4ll7, 4nla2f4ll7 and fel!n,!4sl7 de'and and )e-e,&e f)!' Jes4s Ra7)a7 7 Bas-!s
t+e s4' !f P19!"""."", 2,t+ t+e 4nde)ta6,n/ !f 2!)6,n/ f!) +,s e'pl!7'ent a()!ad and t+e)eafte), desp,te
)epeated de'ands, t+e sa,d a--4sed 2+! fa,led t! -a4se -!'pla,nant9s e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, fa,led and )ef4sed
t! )et4)n t+e sa,d a'!4nt !f :1%,;;;.;;, t+e)e(7 app)!p),at,n/ and -!n&e)t,n/ t+e sa'e f!) +e) !2n 4se and
(enef,t t! t+e da'a/e and p)eI4d,-e !f sa,d 4es%s =a2ra2 2 5ascos ,n t+e sa,d a'!4nt.
o C),',nal Case N!. V-;><< .Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent0: 5e()4a)7 ", 1$$% t! 1a)-+ ", 1$$% at V,llas,s, :an/as,nan,
A(!)d!, fel!n,!4sl7 )e-)4,t Jes4s Ra7)a7 7 Bas-!s f!) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, 1it+o%t first sec%ri#. t+e
re:%isite /ice#se or a%t+orit2 from t+e De$artme#t of La)or a#( Em$/o2me#t.
o C),',nal Case N!. V-;C>C .Estafa0: De-e'(e), 1$$% at San Blas, V,llas,s, a--4sed A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/,
-!nsp,),n/, (7 'eans !f de-e,t, del,(e)atel7 ',s)ep)esent,n/ t+e'sel&es t! (e -apa(le !f -a4s,n/ t+e
e'pl!7'ent !f la(!)e)s a()!ad, 6n!2,n/ f4ll7 2ell t+at t+e7 a)e n!t d4l7 !) le/all7 a4t+!),3ed t! )e-)4,t la(!)e)s
f!) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, d,d t+en and t+e)e fel!n,!4sl7 de'and and )e-e,&e f)!' 4aime Fer#a#(eI t+e s4' !f
P9&!"""."", :+,l,pp,ne -4))en-7 2,t+ t+e 4nde)ta6,n/ !f 2!)6,n/ f!) +,s e'pl!7'ent a()!ad and t+e)eafte),
desp,te )epeated de'ands, t+e sa,d a--4sed 2+! fa,led t! -a4se -!'pla,nant9s e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, fa,led and
)ef4sed t! )et4)n t+e sa,d a'!4nt
o C),',nal Case N!. V-;C># .Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent0: De-e'(e), 1$$% at San Blas, V,llas,s, a--4sed A(!)d! and
Ca(anl!n/ -!nsp,),n/, !ne an!t+e), d,d t+en fel!n,!4sl7 )e-)4,t Ja,'e 5e)nande3 7 S,'!n f!) e'pl!7'ent
a()!ad, 2,t+!4t f,)st se-4),n/ t+e )eB4,s,te l,-ense !) a4t+!),t7 f)!' t+e Depa)t'ent !f La(!) and E'pl!7'ent.
o C),',nal Case N!. V-;C>$ .Estafa0: De-e'(e), 1$$% at San Blas, V,llas,s, a--4sed A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/
f!) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, d,d t+en and fel!n,!4sl7 de'and and )e-e,&e f)!' E*e:%ie/ Me#(oIa t+e s4' !f
P9&!""".""! 2,t+ t+e 4nde)ta6,n/ !f 2!)6,n/ f!) +,s e'pl!7'ent a()!ad and, t+e)eafte), desp,te )epeated
de'ands, t+e sa,d a--4sed 2+! fa,led t! -a4se -!'pla,nant9s e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, fa,led and )ef4sed t! )et4)n
t+e sa,d a'!4nt !f :%<,;;;.;;, t+e)e(7 app)!p),at,n/ and -!n&e)t,n/ t+e sa'e f!) t+e,) !2n 4se and (enef,t t!
o C),',nal Case N!. V-;CC; .Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent0: De-e'(e), 1$$% at San Blas, V,llas,s a--4sed A(!)d! and
Ca(anl!n/ -!nsp,),n/, fel!n,!4sl7 )e-)4,t E=eB4,el 1end!3a 7 Ol,&a) f!) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, 2,t+!4t f,)st
se-4),n/ t+e )eB4,s,te l,-ense !) a4t+!),t7 f)!' t+e Depa)t'ent !f La(!) and E'pl!7'ent.
o C),',nal Case N!. V-;CC1 .Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent0: Septe'(e), 1$$% at San Blas, V,llas,s, a--4sed A(!)d! and
Ca(anl!n/ -!nsp,),n/ and fel!n,!4sl7 )e-)4,t Esme#ia CariKo f!) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, 2,t+!4t f,)st se-4),n/
t+e )eB4,s,te l,-ense !) a4t+!),t7 f)!' t+e Depa)t'ent !f La(!) and E'pl!7'ent.
o C),',nal Case N!. V-;CC8 .Estafa0: Septe'(e), 1$$% at San Blas, V,llas,s, a--4sed A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/
f!) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, d,d t+en and t+e)e fel!n,!4sl7 de'and and )e-e,&e f)!' Esme#ia CariKo t+e s4' !f
P1&!"""."", 2,t+ t+e 4nde)ta6,n/ !f 2!)6,n/ f!) +e) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad and, t+e)eafte), desp,te )epeated
de'ands, t+e sa,d a--4sed 2+! fa,led t! -a4se -!'pla,nant9s e'pl!7'ent a()!ad, fa,led and )ef4sed t! )et4)n
t+e sa,d a'!4nt !f :1<,;;;.;;,
=TC:
A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ GLILTD !f Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent ,n la)/e s-ale ,n C),'. Case N!s. V-;><<, V-;C>#, V-;CC; and V-
;CC1, def,ned and penal,3ed 4nde) A)t. "#, pa). .a0 ,n )elat,!n t! A)t. "$, pa). .a0 !f t+e La(!) C!de !f t+e :+,l,pp,nes, as
a'ended (7 :.D. 8;1#
o :enalt7 !f l,fe ,'p),s!n'ent and t! pa7, I!,ntl7 and se&e)all7, f,ne !f 1;;,;;;.;;
A(!)d! GLILTD !f Estafa ,n C),'. Case N!. V-;><%, as p)!&,ded 4nde) A)t. "1<, pa). 8.a0,
o :enalt7 ,ndete)',nate penalt7 !f SIM 1ONT?S and ONE DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts ',n,'4' and
'ed,4' pe),!ds, as t+e ',n,'4', t! 5OLR DEARS, T@O 1ONT?S and ONE DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n
,ts 'a=,'4' pe),!d t! p),s,!n 'a7!) ,n ,ts ',n,'4' pe),!d, as t+e 'a=,'4', and t! )e,'(4)se 4es%s =a2ra2
t+e a'!4nt !f :1%,;;;.;;
A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ a)e f!4nd /4,lt7 (e7!nd )eas!na(le d!4(t !f t+ree ,8- co%#ts of estafa
o C),'. Case N!. V-;C>C: > 1ONT?S and 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,t ',n,'4' and 'ed,4' pe),!ds, as
t+e ',n,'4' t! 1; DEARS !f p),s,!n 'a7!), 'ed,4', as t+e 'a=,'4' and t! )e,'(4)se 4aime Fer#a#(eI
t+e a'!4nt !f :%<,;;;.;;H
o C),'. Case N!. V-;C>$: > 1ONT?S and 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts ',n,'4' and 'ed,4' pe),!ds, as
t+e ',n,'4', t! $ DEARS !f p),s,!n 'a7!), 'ed,4', as t+e 'a=,'4' and t! )e,'(4)se E*e:%ie/ Me#(oIa
t+e a'!4nt !f :"$,;;;.;;
o C),'. Case N!. V-;CC8: > 1ONT?S and 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts ',n,'4' and 'ed,4' pe),!ds, as
t+e ',n,'4' t! % DEARS, 8 1ONT?S and 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts 'a=,'4' pe),!d t! p),s,!n
'a7!) ,n ,ts ',n,'4' pe),!d, as t+e 'a=,'4', and t! )e,'(4)se Esme#ia Cari#o t+e a'!4nt !f :1<,;;;.;;
CA: G%i/t2 1it+ mo(ificatio# for $e#a/ties a#( crime Sim$/e I//e.a/ =ecr%itme#t $er co%#t a#( #ot I//e.a/
=ecr%itme#t i# a Lar.e Sca/e
ILLEGAL RECRLIT1ENT: T+e a-t !f t+e a--4sed !f )e-)4,t,n/ -!'pla,nants f!) e'pl!7'ent a()!ad 2,t+!4t t+e
ne-essa)7 l,-ense f)!' t+e :OEA -!nst,t4tes t+e !ffense !f ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent.
ESTA5A: T+e C!4)t !f Appeals stated t+at t+e &e)7 sa'e e&,den-e p)!&,n/ t+e a--4sed9s -!'',ss,!n !f t+e !ffense !f
,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent als! esta(l,s+ed t+at t+e a--4sed -!nn,&ed ,n def)a4d,n/ -!'pla,nants (7 ',s)ep)esent,n/ t+at t+e7
+ad t+e p!2e), ,nfl4en-e, a/en-7 and (4s,ness t! !(ta,n !&e)seas e'pl!7'ent f!) -!'pla,nants 4p!n pa7'ent !f
pla-e'ent fees. C!'pla,nants s4ffe)ed da'a/es t! t+e e=tent !f t+e &a),!4s s4's !f '!ne7 t+e7 del,&e)ed t! a--4sed.
T+e C!4)t !f Appeals mo(ifie( t+e $e#a/ties im$ose( o# t+e acc%se( as eac+ i#formatio# i#vo/ve( o#/2 o#e
com$/ai#a#t. T+e a--4sed -ann!t (e -!n&,-ted f!) ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent ,n la)/e s-ale (ased !n se&e)al ,nf!)'at,!ns
ea-+ f,led (7 !nl7 !ne -!'pla,nant. T+e t),al -!4)t e))ed ,n -!ns,de),n/ t+e t+)ee -!'pla,nants ,n t+e t2! -),',nal -ases
2+en ,t -!n&,-ted t+e a--4sed !f ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent ,n la)/e s-ale. S,n-e t+e a--4sed 2e)e p)!se-4ted 4nde) se&e)al
,nf!)'at,!ns f!) d,ffe)ent -!'pla,nants, t+e penalt7 ,'p!sed s+!4ld (e f!) ea-+ ,nf!)'at,!n. T! -!n&,-t t+e a--4sed !f
,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent ,n la)/e s-ale, t+e)e '4st (e !ne ,nf!)'at,!n t+at '4st ,n-l4de all t+e -!'pla,nants. Ot+e)2,se, t+e
a--4sed s+!4ld (e +eld l,a(le !nl7 f!) s,'ple ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent.
As t! Ra7)a7:
o A(!)d! GLILTD (e7!nd )eas!na(le d!4(t !f t+e -),'e !f S,'ple Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent and ,s senten-ed t! s4ffe)
a p),s!n te)' !f > 7ea)s and 1 da7 as ',n,'4', t! 18 7ea)s as 'a=,'4', and t! pa7 a f,ne !f :8;;,;;;.
o A(!)d! /4,lt7 !f Estafa , as p)!&,ded f!) 4nde) A)t. "1<, pa). 8.a0, and ,s +e)e(7 senten-ed t! s4ffe) t+e
,ndete)',nate penalt7 !f > 1ONT?S and 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts ',n,'4' and 'ed,4' pe),!ds, as
',n,'4', t! % DEARS, 8 1ONT?S and 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts 'a=,'4' pe),!d t! p),s,!n 'a7!)
,n ,ts ',n,'4' pe),!d, as 'a=,'4', and t! )e,'(4)se Jes4s Ra7)a7 ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :1%,;;;
As t! Ot+e)s:
o A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ a)e f!4nd G4,lt7 !f t+)ee ."0 -!4nts !f S,'ple Ille/al Re-)4,t'ent, and a)e senten-ed t!
s4ffe) a p),s!n te)' !f > 7ea)s and 1 da7 as ',n,'4', t! 18 7ea)s as 'a=,'4', and t! pa7 a f,ne !f :8;;,;;;
!n ea-+ -!4nt.
o A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ a)e f!4nd /4,lt7 !f t+)ee ."0 -!4nts !f estafa and a)e +e)e(7 senten-ed t! s4ffe) t+e
,ndete)',nate penalt7 !f:
> 1ONT?S AND 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts ',n,'4' and 'ed,4' pe),!ds, as t+e ',n,'4',
t! 1; DEARS !f p),s,!n 'a7!), 'ed,4', as t+e 'a=,'4' and t! )e,'(4)se 4aime Fer#a#(eI ,n t+e
a'!4nt !f :%<,;;;
(0 > 1ONT?S AND 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts ',n,'4' and 'ed,4' pe),!ds, as t+e
',n,'4', t! $ DEARS !f p),s,!n 'a7!), 'ed,4', as t+e 'a=,'4' and t! )e,'(4)se E*e:%ie/
Me#(oIa ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :"$,;;;.
> 1ONT?S AND 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts ',n,'4' and 'ed,4' pe),!ds, as t+e ',n,'4'
t! % DEARS, 8 1ONT?S and 1 DAD !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts 'a=,'4' pe),!d t! p),s,!n 'a7!) ,n
,ts ',n,'4' pe),!d, as 'a=,'4', and t! )e,'(4)se Esme#ia CariKo ,n t+e a'!4nt !f :1<,;;;
Defe#se:
C!4ld n!t (e +eld l,a(le f!) estafa 4nde) A)t,-le "1<, 8 .a0 !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de s,n-e t+e e/eme#t of (eceit 1as
#ot esta)/is+e(. T+e7 alle/ed t+at t+e7 )e-e,&ed t+e pla-e'ent fees !n (e+alf !f t+e t)a&el a/en-7. T+e7 a)/4ed t+at ,t
2as %#c/ear 1+et+er t+e fa/se stateme#ts or fra%(%/e#t re$rese#tatio#s 1ere ma(e $rior to or sim%/ta#eo%s/2
1it+ t+e (e/iver2 of t+e mo#e2 )2 t+e com$/ai#a#ts.
Iss%e: @+et+e) t+e a--4sed a)e /4,lt7 !f s,'ple ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent and estafa 4nde) A)t,-le "1<, 8 .a0 !f t+e Re&,sed :enal
C!de.
HELD: >ES! mo(if2 $e#a/t2 o# estafa cases
ESTA5A
T+e C!4)t als! aff,)'s t+e -!n&,-t,!n !f A(!)d! f!) estafa -!'',tted a/a,nst Ra7)a7 and t+e -!n&,-t,!n !f A(!)d! and
Ca(anl!n/ f!) estafa -!'',tted a/a,nst Ja,'e, 1end!3a, and Ca),O!. Co#victio# %#(er t+e La)or Co(e for i//e.a/
recr%itme#t (oes #ot $rec/%(e $%#is+me#t %#(er t+e =evise( Pe#a/ Co(e for t+e fe/o#2 of estafa.
Estafa 4nde) A)t,-le "1<, 8 .a0 !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de, 2+,-+ states: 8. B7 'eans !f an7 !f t+e f!ll!2,n/ false
p)etenses !) f)a4d4lent a-ts e=e-4ted p),!) t! !) s,'4ltane!4sl7 2,t+ t+e -!'',ss,!n !f t+e f)a4d: .a0 B7 4s,n/
f,-t,t,!4s na'e !) falsel7 p)etend,n/ t! p!ssess p!2e), ,nfl4en-e, B4al,f,-at,!ns, p)!pe)t7, -)ed,t, a/en-7, (4s,ness !)
,'a/,na)7 t)ansa-t,!ns, !) (7 'eans !f !t+e) s,',la) de-e,ts.
T+e p)!se-4t,!n esta(l,s+ed t+at ,n falsel7 p)etend,n/ t! p!ssess p!2e) t! depl!7 pe)s!ns f!) !&e)seas e'pl!7'ent,
t+e a--4sed de-e,&ed t+e -!'pla,nants ,nt! (el,e&,n/ t+at t+e7 2!4ld p)!&,de t+e' !&e)seas 2!)6. T+e,) ass4)an-es
'ade -!'pla,nants pa7 t+e pla-e'ent fees )eB4,)ed ,n e=-+an/e f!) t+e p)!',sed I!(s. T+e e/eme#ts of (eceit a#(
(ama.e for t+is form of estafa are i#(is$%ta)/2 $rese#tA +en-e, t+e -!n&,-t,!n f!) estafa ,n C),',nal Case N!s. V-
;><% .a/a,nst A(!)d!0, V-;C>C, V-;C>$, and V-;CC8 .a/a,nst A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/0 s+!4ld (e aff,)'ed.
ILLEGAL RECRLIT1ENT
T+e ele'ents !f ,lle/al )e-)4,t'ent a)e:
o .10 t+e !ffende) +as n! &al,d l,-ense !) a4t+!),t7 )eB4,)ed (7 la2 t! la2f4ll7 en/a/e ,n t+e )e-)4,t'ent and
pla-e'ent !f 2!)6e)sH and
o .80 +e 4nde)ta6es an7 a-t,&,t7 2,t+,n t+e 'ean,n/ !f G)e-)4,t'ent and pla-e'entG def,ned 4nde) A)t,-le 1" .(0 !f
t+e La(!) C!de.
Re-)4,t'ent and pla-e'ent ,s Gan7 a-t !f -an&ass,n/, enl,st,n/, -!nt)a-t,n/, t)ansp!)t,n/, 4t,l,3,n/, +,),n/ !) p)!-4),n/
2!)6e)sH and ,n-l4des )efe))als, -!nta-t se)&,-es, p)!',s,n/ !) ad&e)t,s,n/ f!) e'pl!7'ent, l!-all7 !) a()!ad, 2+et+e)
f!) p)!f,t !) n!t: :)!&,ded, t+at an7 pe)s!n !) ent,t7 2+,-+, ,n an7 'anne), !ffe)s !) p)!',ses f!) a fee e'pl!7'ent t!
t2! !) '!)e pe)s!ns s+all (e dee'ed en/a/ed ,n )e-)4,t'ent and pla-e'entG.
T+e p)!se-4t,!n s4ff,-,entl7 esta(l,s+ed A(!)d!9s /4,lt (e7!nd )eas!na(le d!4(t f!) t+e !ffense !f s,'ple ,lle/al
)e-)4,t'ent ,n C),',nal Case N!. V-;><<. @,t+!4t t+e ne-essa)7 l,-ense, A(!)d! 4nla2f4ll7 )e-)4,ted Ra7)a7 f!)
depl!7'ent a()!ad. In e=-+an/e f!) t+,s p)!',sed !&e)seas I!(, Ra7)a7 pa,d A(!)d! :1%,;;;.
C!nn,&,n/ 2,t+ Ca(anl!n/, A(!)d! als! ,lle/all7 )e-)4,ted Ja,'e, 1end!3a, and Ca),O! 2+! pa,d t+e a--4sed :%<,;;;,
:"$,;;; and :1<,;;;, )espe-t,&el7, as pla-e'ent fees. Desp,te t+e,) pa7'ents !f t+e pla-e'ent fees, all t+e
-!'pla,nants 2e)e 4na(le t! depa)t t+e -!4nt)7 f!) 2!)6 a()!ad.
SI1:LE ILLEGAL RECRLIT1ENT NOT LARGE SCALE. S,n-e t+e a--4sed 2e)e p)!se-4ted 4nde) se&e)al
,nf!)'at,!ns f!) d,ffe)ent -!'pla,nants, t+e penalt7 ,'p!sed s+!4ld (e f!) ea-+ ,nf!)'at,!n -+a)/ed. To co#vict t+e
acc%se( for i//e.a/ recr%itme#t i# /ar.e sca/e! t+ere m%st )e o#e i#formatio# t+at m%st i#c/%(e a// t+e
com$/ai#a#ts.
PENALTIES
Lnde) A)t,-le "1< !f t+e Re&,sed :enal C!de, estafa ,s p4n,s+ed (7 Gt+e penalt7 !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal ,n ,ts 'a=,'4'
pe),!d .% 7ea)s, 8 '!nt+s and 1 da7 t! > 7ea)s0 t! p),s,!n 'a7!) ,n ,ts ',n,'4' pe),!d .> 7ea)s and 1 da7 t! # 7ea)s0, if
t+e amo%#t of t+e fra%( is over 16!""" )%t (oes #ot e*cee( 66!""" $esos, and ,f s4-+ a'!4nt e*cee(s t+e /atter
s4', t+e penalt7 . . . s+all (e ,'p!sed ,n ,ts ma*im%m $erio(, a((i#. o#e 2ear for eac+ a((itio#a/ 1"!""" $esosH
(4t t+e t!tal penalt7 2+,-+ 'a7 (e ,'p!sed s+all n!t e=-eed t2ent7 7ea)s. .
T+e penalt7 p)es-),(ed f!) estafa ,s -!'p!sed !f !nl7 t2!, n!t t+)ee, pe),!ds. In s4-+ a -ase, A)t,-le >< !f t+e Re&,sed
:enal C!de )eB4,)es t+e d,&,s,!n ,nt! t+)ee eB4al p!)t,!ns !f t,'e ,n-l4ded ,n t+e penalt7 p)es-),(ed, and f!)',n/ !ne
pe),!d !f ea-+ !f t+e t+)ee p!)t,!ns. T+e)ef!)e, t+e 'a=,'4', 'ed,4', and ',n,'4' pe),!ds !f t+e penalt7 p)es-),(ed
a)e:
o 1,n,'4' R % 7ea)s, 8 '!nt+s, 1 da7 t! < 7ea)s, < '!nt+s, 1; da7s
o 1ed,4' R < 7ea)s, < '!nt+s, 11 da7s t! > 7ea)s, # '!nt+s, 8; da7s
o 1a=,'4' R > 7ea)s, # '!nt+s, 81 da7s t! # 7ea)s 8<
If t+e a'!4nt def)a4ded (oes #ot e*cee( P66!""" and t+e)e ,s #o a..ravati#. or miti.ati#. circ%msta#ce, t+e
penalt7 p)es-),(ed s+all (e ,'p!sed ,n ,ts 'ed,4' pe),!d, !) < 7ea)s, < '!nt+s and 11 da7s !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal t! >
7ea)s, # '!nt+s and 8; da7s !f p),s,!n 'a7!).
Lnde) t+e Indete)',nate Senten-e La2, t+e 'a=,'4' te)' !f t+e p),s!n senten-e s+all (e t+at 2+,-+, ,n &,e2 !f t+e
attend,n/ -,)-4'stan-es, -!4ld (e p)!pe)l7 ,'p!sed. On t+e !t+e) +and, t+e ',n,'4' te)' s+all (e 2,t+,n t+e )an/e !f
t+e penalt7 ne=t l!2e) ,n de/)ee t! t+at p)es-),(ed (7 t+e R:C f!) t+e -),'e.
o T+e penalt7 ne=t l!2e) t! t+at p)es-),(ed (7 A)t,-le "1< ,s $risio# correccio#a/ i# its mi#im%m $erio( ,'
mo#t+s! 1 (a2 to 6 2ears a#( 9 mo#t+s- to $risio# correccio#a/ i# its me(i%m $erio( ,6 2ears! 9 mo#t+s
a#( 1 (a2 to 9 2ears a#( 6 mo#t+s-. 5)!' t+,s, t+e ',n,'4' te)' !f t+e ,ndete)',nate senten-e s+all (e
ta6en.
C),',nal Case N!. V-;><% .f!) estafa i#vo/vi#. P19!"""0, A(!)d! ,s senten-ed t! an ,ndete)',nate penalt7 !f > '!nt+s
and 1 da7 !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as ',n,'4', t! < 7ea)s, < '!nt+s and 11 da7s !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as 'a=,'4'.
A(!)d! s+!4ld als! )ef4nd t! Ra7)a7 t+e a'!4nt !f :1%,;;; 2,t+ le/al ,nte)est f)!' t+e f,l,n/ !f t+e ,nf!)'at,!n 4nt,l t+,s
a'!4nt ,s f4ll7 pa,d.
In C),',nal Case N!. V-;C>C .f!) estafa ,n&!l&,n/ P9&!"""0, A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ a)e senten-ed t! an ,ndete)',nate
penalt7 !f > '!nt+s and 1 da7 !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as ',n,'4', t! 1" 2ears !f p),s,!n 'a7!), as 'a=,'4'. T+e
a--4sed s+!4ld als! )ef4nd t! Ja,'e t+e a'!4nt !f :%<,;;; 2,t+ le/al ,nte)est f)!' t+e f,l,n/ !f t+e ,nf!)'at,!n 4nt,l t+,s
a'!4nt ,s f4ll7 pa,d
In C),',nal Case N!. V-;C>$ .f!) estafa ,n&!l&,n/ P87!"""0, A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ a)e senten-ed t! an ,ndete)',nate
penalt7 !f > '!nt+s and 1 da7 !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as ',n,'4', to 7 2ears !f p),s,!n 'a7!), as 'a=,'4'. T+e
a--4sed s+!4ld als! )ef4nd t! 1end!3a t+e a'!4nt !f :"$,;;; 2,t+ le/al ,nte)est f)!' t+e f,l,n/ !f t+e ,nf!)'at,!n 4nt,l
t+,s a'!4nt ,s f4ll7 pa,d.
In C),',nal Case N!. V-;CC8 .f!) estafa ,n&!l&,n/ P1&!"""0, A(!)d! and Ca(anl!n/ a)e senten-ed t! an ,ndete)',nate
penalt7 !f > '!nt+s and 1 da7 !f p),s,!n -!))e--,!nal, as ',n,'4', t! < 7ea)s, < '!nt+s and 11 da7s !f p),s,!n
-!))e--,!nal, as 'a=,'4'. T+e a--4sed s+!4ld als! )ef4nd t! Ca),O! t+e a'!4nt !f :1<,;;; 2,t+ le/al ,nte)est f)!' t+e
f,l,n/ !f t+e ,nf!)'at,!n 4nt,l t+,s a'!4nt ,s f4ll7 pa,d.
T+e penalt,es ,n t+,s -ase -!ns,st,n/ ,n dep),&at,!n !f l,(e)t7 -ann!t (e se)&ed s,'4ltane!4sl7 (7 )eas!n !f t+e nat4)e !f
s4-+ penalt,es. ?en-e, s,n-e t+e a--4sed a)e senten-ed t! t2! !) '!)e te)'s !f ,'p),s!n'ent, t+e te)'s s+!4ld (e
se)&ed s4--ess,&el7.
DISPOSITI<E: A55RI1ED 2,t+ 1ODI5ICATIONS:
1". PEOPLE v CHAG3E GANASI ?C 81@
FACTS:
Ganas, ,s !2ne) !f 8 pa)-els !f land ,n La T),n,dad Ben/4et
o :a)-el 1 .1,%># sB'0: NE, p)!&,n-,al )!ad, S@, p4(l,- land, N@, s4(d,&,s,!n plan -A /)eate) &al4e t+an t+e
!t+e) d4e t! ,ts e&en te))a,n and l!-at,!n
o :a)-el 8 .1,%C8 sB'0: B!4nded !n NE (7 p)!pe)t7, !n E, La t),n,dad )!ad, !n SE and S@, p4(l,- land -A +as
4ne&en and +,ll7 te))a,n
Septe'(e) 1$<>: Ganas, ,n-4))ed a :",<;; de(t f)!' -!'pla,nant Da-ana7 and s! +e p!,nted t! :a)-el 1 t! t+e
-!'pla,nant, !ffe),n/ ,t as se-4),t7 !) '!)t/a/e. ?e s+!2ed t+e' t+e land, t!/et+e) 2,t+ t+e la27e)s f!) an !-4la)
,nspe-t,!n.
5,nd,n/ t+e land s4,ta(le f!) +,s (4s,ness !f a -a)pent)7 s+!p, Da-ana7 del,&e)ed t+e '!ne7 as a l!an and t+e a--4sed
e=e-4ted a Deed !f 1!)t/a/e.
Lna(le t! pa7 !n d4e date, t+e a--4sed s!ld t+e sa'e p)!pe)t7 t! t+e -!'pla,nant t! settle +,s !(l,/at,!n.
@+en Da-ana7 2ent t! t+e Re/,ste) !f Deeds t! +a&e +,s !2ne)s+,p !&e) :a)-el 1 )e/,ste)ed, +e 2as ,nf!)'ed t+at
2+at +e 2as s!ld 2as n!t :a)-el 1 (4t :a)-el 8.
It t4)ned !4t t+at t+e a--4sed +ad s2,t-+ed l!ts ,n t+e e=e-4t,!n !f t+e Deeds !f 1!)t/a/e and saleH 2+at t+e a--4sed
+ad '!)t/a/ed and s!ld 2as n!t t+e land )ep)esented (7 +,' t! t+e -!'pla,nant as t+e se-4),t7 f!) t+e l!an (4t an!t+e)
l!t 2+,-+ 2as 2!)t+less f!) t+e 4se ,ntended (7 t+e Da-ana7.
?e ,''ed,atel7 2ent t! Ganas, t! -!nf)!nt +,' a(!4t ,t (4t Ganas, )ef4sed t! d! an7t+,n/ a(!4t ,t s! Da-ana7 de-,ded
t! (),n/ t+e -ase t! -!4)t.
Defe#se
B!))!2ed f!) ?a2a,, fa)e
N! ',s)ep)esentat,!n ,n t+e le/al sense (e-a4se t+e -!'pla,nant 2as ,n a p!s,t,!n t! dete-t t+e ',s)ep)esentat,!n,
ass4',n/ t+at t+e)e 2as ',s)ep)esentat,!n.
o 8 la27e)s
T+e a--4sed -!ntends t+at t+e)e ,s n! la2 t+at -!&e)s +,s -ase, 2+,le t+e S!l,-,t!) Gene)al 'a,nta,ns t+at t+e a--4sed
,s /4,lt7 !f estafa, 4nde) pa)a/)ap+ 1 .a0 , A)t,-le "1<, R:C.
ISS3E: @+et+e) t+e)e 2as estafaF
HELD: N!t 4nde) "1< (4t 4nde) "1#.
o T+e)e 2as n! alte)at,!n !f s4(stan-e, B4ant,t7 !) B4al,t7 ,n t+e sense ,ntended (7 pa)a/)ap+ 1 .a0, A)t,-le "1<, !f t+e
C!de, ,n t+e e=e-4t,!n !f t+e '!)t/a/e and late) !f t+e sale (7 t+e a--4sed. S,n-e t+e fa-ts a)e n!t -!&e)ed (7 an7 !f
t+e p)!&,s,!ns !f A)t,-le "1<, "1>, "1C and t+e !ffense -!'',tted '4st pe)f!)-e -!'e 2,t+,n t+e 'ean,n/ and
,ntend'ent !f t+e (lan6et p)!&,s,!ns !f pa)a/)ap+ 1 .a0, A)t,-le "1# !f t+e C!de.
o Lnde) "1<, t+e !(l,/at,!n t! del,&e) al)ead7 e=,sts and t+e !ffende) !n 'a6,n/ del,&e)7 +as alte)ed t+e s4(stan-e,
B4ant,t7 !) B4al,t7 !f t+e t+,n/ del,&e)ed. ?e)e Ganas, de-e,tf4ll7 p!,nted t! Da-ana7 !ne pa)-el !f land, !ffe),n/ ,t as
se-4),t7 !n t+e st)en/t+ !f 2+,-+ de-e,t Da-ana7 pa)ted 2,t+ +,s '!ne7. T+e de-e,t p)a-t,-ed (7 Ganas, p)e-eded t+e
al,enat,!n (7 Da-ana7 !f +,s '!ne7. It ,s t+e)ef!)e -lea) t+at t+e)e 2as n! alte)at,!n !f s4(stan-e, B4ant,t7 !) B4al,t7 ,n
t+e sense ,ntended (7 "1< ,n Ganas,Ks e=e-4t,!n !f t+e '!)t/a/e and late) !f t+e sale.
o Da-ana7 -ann!t (e te-+n,-all7 B4al,f,ed t! n!t,-e t+e d,s-)epan-,es ad&e)ted t! (7 t+e appellant as t+,s 2!4ld )eB4,)e
s!'e 6n!2led/e ,n s4)&e7,n/. 1!)e!&e), t+e d,s-)epan-,es a)e !f s4-+ a nat4)e t+at t+e a&e)a/e pe)s!n 2!4ld 4s4all7
fa,l t! n!t,-e t+e'. T2! la27e)s 2e)e 2,t+ +,' !nl7 2+en +e 2ent t! see t+e l!t !ffe)ed (7 t+e appellant and n!t 2+en
t+e deed !f '!)t/a/e and deed !f sale 2e)e e=e-4ted and 2+en Da-ana7 2ent t! t+e Re/,ste) !f Deeds t! )e/,ste) t+e
sale.
DISPOSITI<E: G4,lt7 4nde) "1#H penalt7 ,s " '!nt+s a))est! 'a7!) and pa7 f,ne !f :"<CC.C;
AR!O'
c/o HIPOLITO
1 P3OPL3 $s. 13!!I3 5ILL3&A! 4#RCIA
P3R3J, J.2 &.R. 'o. .7-9+/ March 9, "010
2ACT!0
>ulogio Ouilates is the owner of a twoAstorey house in #aringao, ?auang, 9a Union
Among the occupants of his house were his sister Helicidad OuilatesB another sister Alicia
ManlupigB and nephew <erminio Manlupig
Appellant, who is the adopted son of Helicidad, occupied one room in the house
At around 8%80 pm of "! March "00!, appellant was having a drin'ing spree with his cousin
<erminio and brothersAinAlaw 3oey Iiduya and 4ic'y Iiduya in front of their house
Appellant and <erminio were arguing over the matter of caring for Helicidad while the latter was
confined in the hospital 4ic'y tried to mediate between the two Appellant was then seen going
inside the house to get a bolo
/hen he emerged from the house ten E10F minutes later, he ran after <erminio but the latter
managed to escape unscathed Appellant again went bac' to the house
Meanwhile, after pacifying appellant and <erminio, 4ic'y resumed drin'ing A few minutes later,
he saw smo'e coming from the room of appellant
As 4ic'y was about to enter the house, he met appellant at the door Appellant apparently tried
to stab 4ic'y but was unsuccessful 4ic'y witnessed appellant stab Helicidad and Alicia
<erminio, who had since come bac' to the drin'ing table, also saw the smo'e <e peeped
through the small window of the house and witnessed appellant %urning some clot6es an
%oLes in t6e sala <erminio immediately went inside the house to save his personal
belongings Upon emerging from the house, <erminio saw his mother, Alicia, bloodied
Alicia testifies that she was sitting on a chair near the toilet when she saw smo'e coming out of
appellant@s room ?efore she could react, appellant came charging at her and stabbed her She
sustained wounds on her upper thigh, arms, below her breast and on her ear Alicia was still able
to as' for help, and her daughterAinAlaw brought her to the hospital
>ulogio heard a commotion while he was coo'ing in the second floor of the house /hen >ulogio
went down, he already saw smo'e coming from the room of appellant <e then saw Helicidad near
the comfort room located outside the house and was bleeding from her mouth As he was about
to help Helicidad, he met appellant who was then holding a 'nife >ulogio immediately ran away
Upon seeing <erminio, appellant immediately attac'ed him with a 'nife <owever, <erminio and
4ic'y were able to pin appellant down ?efore they could retaliate, the baran!ay captain arrived
at the scene As a result, eig6t (7" 6ouses were raze.
)nspector Herdinand Hormacion responded to the fire incident and saw four E!F houses were
already burned After putting out the fire, he and the arson investigator conducted an ocular
investigation and invited witnesses to the police station to submit their sworn statements
S#=" 4odolfo 9omboy, chief investigator of #hilippine ,ational #olice ?auang #olice Station, was
told by witnesses that appellant intentionally set the boxes on fire inside the house
)nformation dated ; April "00!% crime of arson
o "!
th
day of March, "00!, in ?auang, 9a Union, accused, motivated by some evil motive,
feloniously set fire and burn a residential house 'nowing the same to be inhabited by
one 23LICIDAD 4. =#ILAT3! burning and 'illing said H>9)$):A: M OU)9A+>S as well
as burning and damaging 9 other neighboring houses in the process, to the damage of
said houseAowners in the amount of #8M as well as to the damage of her heirs
o +he charge is Dualified by the resulting death of Helicidad M Ouilates
Also charged in another )nformation for frustrate 6omicie
o "!
th
day of March, "00!, in ?auang, 9a Union, #hilippines, accused, with intent to 'ill,
feloniously attac', assault and stab with a 'nife one, Alicia =. 4anlupig inflicting upon
the latter stab wounds, thus performing all the acts of execution which would produce
the crime of homicide as a conseDuence, but nevertheless did not produce it be reason
of causes independent of the willB that is, by the timel: meical attenance rendered
to said Alicia O Manlupig which prevented her death, all to the damage and pre.udice of
said offended party
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges +rial on the merits
ensued
>ulogio estimated the value of his house at #"-0,00000, while another sister of Helicidad, #acita
Ouilates, presented a receipt covering the burial expenses for Helicidad, amounting to #10,00000
An autopsy was performed on Helicidad, and it was disclosed that she died from 0cardioA
respiratory arrest secondary to third degree burns involving 90` of body surface to include
underlying tissues and organs1
D323'!30
<e stated that while he was having a drin'ing spree, he saw Helicidad go inside the house to get a
glass of water <e followed her and gave her water
<e noticed Helicidad light a gas lamp <e then went bac' to his friends and resumed drin'ing <e
got into a heated argument with <erminio +he latter struc' him in the head
<e immediately went inside the house to get a weapon <e was able to get a bolo, went bac'
outside and hit <erminio +he latter ran away and appellant chased him
Appellant met Alicia and confronted her about the actuations of <erminio ?ut Alicia cursed
him Appellant thereafter hit her with the 'nife Appellant then fell on the ground and lost
consciousness because, apparently, he was struc' by something in the bac'
Appellant denied setting the house on fire
Appellant maintains his innocence of the charge of arson <e Duestions the credibility of some
witnesses and specifically imputes illAmotive on the part of <erminio in testifying against him,
especially after their fight
Appellant submits that the testimonies of witnesses, which failed to turn into a coherent whole,
did not prove the identity of the perpetrator
RTC0 (uilty of arson E:estructive under 4#$F and frustrated homicide
Arson% as charged and defined under Art 8"0 of the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended by 4A
,o 6;-9, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of deathB to indemnify the
heirs of the victim Helicidad Ouilates, the amount of #hp-0,00000 as moral damagesB
#hp-0,00000 as death indemnityB #hp10,00000 as actual damages and another
#hp10,00000 as temperate damages Hurther, the accused is ordered to indemnify >ulogio
Ouilates the amount of #"-0,00000, representing the value of the burned house EAU+=MA+)$
4>I)>/F
Hrustrated homicide% #>,A9+2 ! 2>A4S of prision correccional as minimum, to 10 2>A4S
of prision mayor as maximumB to pay the victim Alicia O Manlupig the amount of
#hp10,00000 as temperate damages
$redited with his preventive imprisonment provided for by 4#$ "9
$orpus delicti in arson, as well as the identity of the perpetrator, were established
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution /hile no evidence to directly lin'
appellant to the crime, +$ relied on circumstantial evidence
CA0 Affirmed the trial court but reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua.
Appellant amitte to t6e crime of frustrate 6omicie, hence the review is limited to the
crime of arson

I!!#3!0
1 /hether the crime of arson can be proven beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial
evidenceJ E2>SF
" /hether he is guilty of :estructive Arson or Simple ArsonJ ESimple ArsonF
8 /hether penalty was properJ EModifiedF
H3LD0
1 2>S )n the prosecution for arson, proof of the crime charged is complete where the evidence
establishes%
o E1F the corpus delicti, that is, a fire %ecause of criminal agenc:B and
o E"F the ientit: of the defendant as the one responsible for the crime
o )n arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the %are fact of t6e fire
and of it having been intentionall: cause >ven the uncorroborated testimony of a
single eyewitness, if credible, is enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant
conviction
+he p6otograp6s, evidencing the charred remains of the houses, established the occurrence of
the fire
)n this case, however, there is no direct evidence to establish the culpability of appellant At any
rate, direct evidence is not the sole means of establishing guilt beyond reasonable
doubt >stablished facts that form a chain of circumstances can lead the mind intuitively or impel
a conscious process of reasoning towards a conviction )ndeed, rules on evidence and principles in
.urisprudence have long recogni*ed that the accused may be convicted through circumstantial
evidence
Section ! of 4ule 188 of the 4ules of $ourt provides% $ircumstantial evidence, when sufficienta
$ircumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if%
EaF +here is more than one circumstanceB
EbF +he facts from which the inferences are derived are provenB and
EcF +he combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt
)n order to .ustify a conviction upon circumstantial evidence, the combination of
circumstances must be such as to leave no reasonable doubt in the mind as to the criminal
responsibility of the accused /hile nobody directly saw appellant burn the house, these
circumstances would yield to a logical conclusion that the fire that gutted eight EGF houses
was authored by appellant
o Hirst, accusedAappellant Murcia returned inside > Ouilates@ house after chasing <
Manlupig with a bolo and after being pacified by 4 Iiduya and 3 IiduyaB
o Second, during the resumption of their drin'ing session, 4 Iiduya and < Manlupig
saw a thic' smo'e emanating from > Ouilates@ house particularly the window of
accusedAappellant Murcia@s room in the ground floorB
o +hird, < Manlupig peeped through the said window and saw accusedA
appellant Murcia throwing cartons of clothes into the fire Meanwhile, > Ouilates,
who was then coo'ing at the second floor, went downstairs and saw the fire coming
from the room occupied by accusedAappellant Murcia in the ground floorB
o Hourth, 4 Iiduya saw accusedAappellant Murcia stabbing H Ouilates and A
Manlupig, among other persons > Ouilates saw his sister H Ouilates with blood
oo*ing from her mouth AccusedAappellant Murcia met him at the ground
brandishing a 'nife at him which prevented him from helping the wounded H
Ouilates and forced him to run away for safety > Ouilates@ other sister, A
Manlupig, was also seen wounded and lying unconscious in the canalB and
o Hifth, the houses of > Ouilates and his neighbors were ra*ed by fire and the
commission of the crime of arson resulted in the demise of H Ouilates whose
remains were burned beyond recognition
)ndeed, appellant was last seen inside the house before the fire started >ulogio and 4ic'y
saw smo'e emanating from the room of appellant <erminio testified that he saw appellant
burning clothes in his room Appellant then went on a stabbing rampage while the house
was on fire
=n credibility of witnesses, +$ is in the best position to assess the credibility of witnesses
since it has observed firsthand their demeanor, conduct and attitude under grilling
examination Absent any showing of a fact or circumstance of weight and influence which
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1"0
would appear to have been overloo'ed and, if considered, could affect the outcome of the
case, the factual findings and assessment on the credibility of a witness made by the trial
court remain binding on an appellate tribunal
<erminio@s testimony, having withstood crossAexamination, there is no presumption of false
testimony despite imputation of ill motive and his testimony has passed the scrutiny of the
lower courts and was held to be credible
" S)M#9> A4S=, because according to a close examination of the records, as well as description of
the crime as stated in the information, the crime committed is in fact simple arson %ecause t6e
%urne properties are resiential 6ouses.
+here are actually two categories of arson, namely% Destructi$e Arson uner Article
;-/ of t6e Re$ise Penal Coe an !imple Arson uner Presiential Decree
'o. .;.+.
Said classification is based on the Cin, c6aracter an location of the property
burned, regardless of the value of the damage caused
Article 8"0 contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and private,
hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military,
government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons
#residential :ecree ,o 181; covers houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms,
mills, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other industrial
establishments

8 #>,A9+2%
#enalty for simple arson resulting to death, under Section - of #: 1;18, is reclusion perpetua to
death so correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua with repeal of death penalty
M=:)H2 award of damages%
o <eirs of Helicidad% +emperate damages from #10,00000 to # "-,00000, and delete the
amount of actual damages, in line with the ruling in People v. ?illanueva because when
actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less than #"-,00000, the
award of temperate damages for #"-,00000 is .ustified in lieu of actual damages of a
lesser amount
o >ulogio% Actual damages awarded to amounting to #"-0,00000, as indemnification for the
burned house, not awarded as amount representing the value of the burned house was
merely given by >ulogio as an estimate )t was not substantiated by any document or
receipt Hor one to be entitled to actual damages, it is necessary to prove the
actual amount of loss with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent
proof and the best evidence obtainable by the in.ured party
Award temperate damages in accordance with Art """! of the $ivil $ode, providing
that temperate damages may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniar: loss 6as %een suffere %ut its amount cannot, from t6e nature of
t6e case, %e pro$en wit6 certaint: )t is thus reasonable to expect that the value
of the house burned down amounted to at least #"00,00000

DI!PO!ITI530 A22IR43D with 4ODI2ICATIO'!%
#>,A9+2% crime of arson and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua
),:>M,)+2% <eirs of Helicidad Ouilates, #-0,00000 as moral damagesB #-0,00000 as death
indemnityB and #"-,00000 as temperate damages
+he award of #10,00000 as actual damages in favor of the heirs of Helicidad Ouilates is
deleted
#ay >ulogio Ouilates the amount of #"00,00000 as temperate damages
Award of #"-0,00000 as actual damages in favor of >ulogio Ouilates is deleted
-. P3OPL3 $s. 23RDI'A'D T. <AL#'TO'&
CARPIO 4ORAL3!, J.0 &.R. 'o. .7-/+. March 1-, "010
2ACT!0
At around 10%80 pm of 3uly 81, 199G, while then 1"Ayear old 3ovelyn Santos was sleeping in the
house of her grandmother $elerina Solangon at ?arangay :angay, 4oxas, =riental Mindoro, she
was awa'ened by heat emanating from the walls of the house She thus roused her cousin
:orecyll and together they went out of the house
3ovelyn saw appellant putting dry hay EdayamiF around the house near the terrace where the fire
started, but appellant ran away when he saw her and :orecyll
Appellant@s neighbor, Helicitas Sar*ona, also saw appellant near $elerina@s house after it caught
fire, following which, appellant fled on seeing 3ovelyn and :orecyll stepping out of the house, as
other neighbors repaired to the scene to help contain the flames
Helicitas also saw $elerina, who was at a neighbor@s house before the fire started, enter the
burning house and resurface with her grandsons Alvin and 3oshua
Celerina an Al$in sustaine t6ir egree %urns w6ic6 le to t6eir eat6. 1os6ua
sustaine secon egree %urns.
)nformation of :ouble Murder with Hrustrated Murder%
o 3uly 81, 199G, at about 10%80 #M at ?gy :anggay, 4oxas, =riental Mindoro, accused, with
malice aforethought and with deliberate intent to 'ill, set on fire, the house of Celerina
!olangon, causing the complete estruction of the said house and the eat6 of
$elerina Solangon and Al$in !a$arez , and inflicting serious p6:sical inDuries on 1osua
!a$arez, thereby performing all the acts of execution which would produce the crime of
murder as a conseDuence but which, nevertheless do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator
D323'!30
:enying the charge, invo'ed ali%i, claiming that he, on his mother 4osalinda@s reDuest, went
to $aloocan $ity on 3uly 1-, 199G E1; days before the incidentF and stayed there until Hebruary
1999 4osalinda corroborated appellant@s alibi

RTC0 &#ILTF of complex crime of :ouble Murder with Hrustrated Murder punishable under
Article "!G of the 4evised #enal $ode as amended by 4epublic Act 6;-9 in relation to Article
!G of the 4evised #enal $ode
o #>,A9+2% D3ATH
o #ay the heirs o $elerina Suba Solangon the sum of #-0,00000 as compensatory
damages
o #ay and the heirs of Alvin Savari*, -0,00000 as compensatory damages, #1;,-0000
as actual damagesB and #-0,00000 as moral damages
CA0 AHH)4M>: but M=:)H)>: penalty from death to reclusion perpetua bec of 4A 98!; and
aitionall: awaring exemplary damages to the heirs of the victims E$elerina and AlvinF,
and temperate damages to 3oshua representing his 0hospitali*ation and recuperation1
I!!#3!0
1 /hether the identity of the malefactor was sufficiently established to find him guiltyJ E2>SF
" /hether the crime is :ouble Murder with Hrustated MurderJ E,=, simple arsonF
8 /hether he can be convicted of Simple Arson despite different crime charged in )nformationJ E2>SF
8 /hether penalty is correctJ E2es with modification on damagesF
H3LD0
1 2>S #rosecution witnesses Helicitas@ and 3ovelyn@s positive identification of their neighborAherein
appellant as the person they saw during the burning of the house, given, among other things, the
illumination generate %: t6e fire.
Appellant@s contention that Helicitas@ claim was to be doubted that she saw appellant fleeing away
from the burning house, it being then 10%80 pm and, therefore, dar' is without merit Also, that
she failed to as' him to stop putting dried hay around the house if indeed her claim were true is
unmerited
H)4> was already up so cannot be dar'
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1""
+>S+)M=,2 =H H>9)$)+AS%
o #ortion of the house which was on fire when you saw ?alentong for the first time was at the
rear portion going up, sir
o ?alentong was .ust infront of the house, sir
o <e was about two E"F meters away from the burning portion of the house Enot front portionF
+>S+)M=,2 =H 3=I>92,%
o +he fire was already considerable si*e when she saw the bac' of this Herdinand ?alontong
o +he surrounding was illuminated by that fire, very visible
" S)M#9> A4S=,
People v. 0aln!an& )n cases where both burning and death occur, in order to determine what
crimeCcrimes wasCwere perpetrated 7 whether arson, murder or arson and homicideCmurder, it
is de ri!ueur to ascertain the main o%Decti$e of t6e malefactor
o EaF if the main o%Decti$e is t6e %urning of the building or edifice, but death results by
reason or on the occasion of arson, the crime is simply arson, and the resulting homicide is
absorbedB
o EbF if, on the other hand, the main o%Decti$e is to Cill a particular person who may be in a
building or edifice, when fire is resorted to as the means to accomplish such goal the crime
committed is murer only
o EcF if the o%Decti$e is, liCewise, to Cill a particular person, and in fact the offender has
already done so, but fire is resorted to as a means to cover up the 'illing, then there are
two separate and distinct crimes committed 7 6omicie/murer an arson
#residential :ecree E#:F ,o 1;18, ;Amendin! the .aw on Arson,1 reads% Section 8 =ther $ases
of Arson a +he penalty of Reclusion 2emporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the
property burned is any of the following% -. An: in6a%ite 6ouse or wellingS
,o showing that appellant@s main ob.ective was to 'ill $elerina and her housemates and that the
fire was resorted to as the means to accomplish the goal
Helicitas@ affidavit stated that what she 'new is that $elerina wanted appellant, who was renting a
house near $elerina@s, to move out <ow Helicitas acDuired such 0'nowledge1 was not probed into,
however, despite the fact that she was crossAexamined thereon
Absent any concrete basis then to hold that the house was set on fire to 'ill the occupants,
appellant cannot be held liable for double murder with frustrated murder +his is especially true
with respect to the death of $elerina, for even assuming ar!uendo that appellant wanted to 'ill
her to get even with her in light of her alleged desire to drive him out of the neighboring house,
$elerina was outside the house at the time it was set on fire She merely entered the burning
house to save her grandsons

8 2>S >ven if )nformation charged appellant with 0:ouble Murder with Hrustrated Murder,1 appellant
may be convicted of Arson Hor the only difference between a charge for Murder under Article "!G
E8F of the 4evised #enal $ode and one for Arson under the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended by
Section 8 E"F of #: ,o 1;18, lies in t6e intent in pursuing t6e act.
As reflected above, as it was not shown that the main motive was to 'ill the occupants of the
house, the crime would only be arson, the homicide being a mere conseDuence thereof, hence,
absorbed by arson
/hen there is variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that
proved, and the offense c6arge is inclue or necessaril: inclues t6e offense
pro$e, conviction shall be for the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or
the offense charged which is included in the offense proved
! P3'ALTF0 #enalty reclusion perpetua.
:AMA(>S% ,o compensatory damages to heirs of $elerina because entitlement thereto was
not proven
$ompensatory damages and actual damages for heirs of Alvin are the same Since the trial
court awarded the duly proven actual damages of #1;,-0000 representing burial expenses,
the award of compensatory damages of #-0,00000 does not lie
Alvin was hospitali*ed for five days, hence, an award of #G,-0000 as temperate damages for
the purpose would be reasonable As for the award to Alvin of moral damages, the records do
not yield any basis therefor
,o exemplary damages 0to the heirs of the victims,1 absent proof of the presence of any
aggravating circumstances
/hen death occurs due to a crime, the grant of civil indemnity reDuires no proof other than the
death of the victim +he heirs of $elerina are thus entitled to an award of #-0,00000 as civil
indemnity e1 delicto
W
And so are Alvin@s
+he appellate court@s award of temperate damages of #"-,00000 to 3oshua is in order

DI!PO!ITI530 $A :ecision R353R!3D and !3T A!ID3
$4)M>% Simple Arson under Sec 8E"F of #: ,o 1;18
#>,A9+2% Reclusion perpetua with no eligibility for parole
),:>M,)+2% #ay #-0,00000 to the heirs of $elerina Solangon, and the same amount to the
heirs of Alvin Savari*, representing civil indemnity
#ay #1;,-0000 to the heirs of Alvin as actual damages for burial expenses, and #G,-0000 as
temperate damages for hospitali*ation expenses
#ay #"-,00000 as temperate damages to the heirs of $elerina
#ay #"-,00000 as temperate damages to 3oshua Savari*
;. People $ &o 2oo !u:
9. P3OPL3 $s. CARLITO D3 L3O', <I3' D3 L3O', COR'3LIO >AAA? '3LIO CA<ILDO an
2ILOT3O D3 L3O'
F'AR3!(!A'TIA&O, J% (4 ,o 1G06;" March !, "009
2ACT!0
At around G%80 in the evening of April -, 19G;, ADuilina Mercado 4int and her sister 9eonisa
Mercado, together with their nephew ,arciso Mercado 3r, were inside a hut owned by their father
4afael Mercado located on a tumana in #olillo, San 3osef, #eMaranda, ,ueva >ci.a
+he loud and insistent bar'ing of their dog prompted ADuilina to peep through the window and
saw five men approaching the premises whom she recogni*ed as (audencio 9egaspi and herein
appellants ADuilina and 9eonisa hurriedly went out of the hut and hid behind a pile of wood
nearby while 3unior was dispatched to call for help
Hrom their hiding place, they saw appellants surround the hut and set to fire the cogon roofing
/hile the hut was burning, 9eonisa grabbed a flashlight from her sister and focused the same at
the group in order to see them more clearly Upon seeing a light focused on them, (audencio
ordered the others to leave and the men immediately fled the premises
?y the time 3unior arrived with his uncles, the hut was already ra*ed to the ground
=n April ;, 19G;, #olice =fficer 9ucio Mercado conducted an investigation at the scene of the
crime and saw a big wood still on fire A certain 3ulio too' pictures of the remains of the hut
ADuilina and 9eonisa valued the hut at #8,00000 and claimed that a pair of earrings, some
beddings, rice, #1,-0000 in cash and plenty of wood were also lost in the fire +hey also testified
that prior to the incident, appellants had been to the premises, destroyed the plants, the fence
and a hut which was first built therein
Appellants li'ewise p6:sicall: attacCe t6eir fat6er and issued threats that if he would not
give up his claim on the land, something untoward would happen to himB and that their father
4afael filed several cases for Malicious Mischief, Horcible >ntry and Serious #hysical )n.uries
against appellants
3une 1!, 19G9, an )nformation was filed charging (audencio 9egaspi, $arlito de 9eon, ?ien de
9eon, $ornelio $abildo and Hiloteo de 9eon with the crime of arson.
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1"!
o April -, 19G;, in #eMaranda, ,ueva >ci.a, aboveAnamed accused, conspiring and
confederating together and mutually aiding and helping one another, did then and there,
feloniously burn or set on fire the house of one RA2A3L 43RCADO, an inhabited house or
dwelling, to the damage and pre.udice of said 4afael Mercado in an amount that may be
awarded to him under the Ci$il Coe of t6e P6ilippines
(audencio 9egaspi died on Hebruary -, 19G6 prior to his arraignment
Appellants ?ien de 9eon, $arlito de 9eon, Hiloteo de 9eon and ,elio $abildo

were subseDuently
arraigned and they all pleaded not guilty to the charge
D323'!30
Appellants denied the charge against them
$arlito alleged that on the day of the alleged incident, he was wor'ing in $avite where he had
been staying for a year with his familyB that his uncle (audencio was originally in possession of
the tumana contrary to 4afael@s claimsB that his uncle used to plant vegetables and ma'e charcoal
therein until 196- when he too' over upon the latter@s reDuestB and that when (audencio passed
away in 19G6, he applied for a patent over the tumana with the ?ureau of 9ands
$arlito also alleged that there was actually no structure on t6e premises because 4afael@s
attempt to build a hut was foiled by his helper, herein appellant ,elio =n crossAexamination
however, he amitte t6at on 4arc6 .-, .)7+, 6e estro:e t6e first 6ut constructed by
4afael on the sub.ect tumana when the prosecution confronted him with evidence which showed
that he was found guilt: of 4alicious 4isc6ief in $riminal $ase ,o 19G- filed against him by
4afael before the Municipal +rial $ourt of #eMaranda
,elio testified that on the day of the incident, the appellants were in their respective homes and
could not have gone to the tumana to commit the crime as chargedB that the burnt parts depicted
in the pictures presented by the prosecution were actually parts of tree trunCs turne to
c6arcoalB and that the cogon and bamboo shown in the pictures were materials brought by
4afael into the landholding during the latter@s unsuccessful attempt to build a hut on the tumana
?ien also vehemently denied the charges against him and attributed the same to complainants@
desire to grab the tumana which rightfully belongs to his mother <e testified that since 19G", he
has been living in 4i*al, ,ueva >ci.a which is about 8- 'ilometers away from #eMaranda
Hor his part, Hiloteo corroborated the claims made by his coAappellants
RTC0 (U)9+2 for the crime of arson, and they are hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison
term of 10 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 1! years and one E1F day of
reclusion temporal, as maximum, and to pay .ointly and severally the heirs of 4afael Mercado
the sum of #8,00000 representing the value of the burned hut
CA0 Affirmed with modification the 4+$ :ecision as to penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay
the heirs of the private complainant #",00000 as temperate damages and #"0,00000 as
exemplary damages
Special aggravating circumstance of being committed by a syndicate
I!!#3!0 /hether the $A is correct in ruling that penalty is reclusion perpertua by virtue of
aggravating circumstance of crime being committed by a syndicate
H3LD0 E2>SF
Section 8 of #residential :ecree ,o 1;18 amending the law on arson provides% Sec 8 =ther
$ases of Arson 7 +he penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if the
property burned is any of the following% " Any inhabited house or dwellingB
Section ! of the same law provides that if the crime of arson was committed by a syndicate, i.e., if
it is planned or carried out by a group of t6ree or more persons, the penalty shall be imposed
in its maLimum perio.
Under the following provision, the elements of arson are%
o EaF there is intentional burningB and,
o EbF what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or dwelling
+he appellate court correctly found that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the presence of the two essential elements of the offense
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1"-
Although intent may be an ingredient of the crime of arson, it may be inferre from t6e acts of
t6e accuse. +here is a presumption that one intends the natural conseDuences of his actB and
when it is shown that one has deliberately set fire to a building, the prosecution is not bound to
produce further evidence of his wrongful intent )f there is an eyewitness to the crime of arson, he
can give in detail the acts of the accused /hen this is done the only substantial issue is the
credibility of the witness
+estimonies of witnesses ADuilina and 9eonisa worthy of credence% +he inconsistencies and
contradictions presented in the case at bench do not detract from the fact that 4afael@s house was
intentionall: %urne %: accuse(appellants w6o were positi$el: ientifie %: witnesses
AMuilina an Leonisa.
+>S+)M=,2 =H AOU)9),A
o ADuilina was in the tumana, outside the house when they burned the house
because when the accused were arriving or entering the premises of the house of
my father or the tumana, our dog bar'ed and we peeped thru the window +hey
saw that - men and she recogni*ed them After that, they went outside of the
house and hid behind the piles of wood which is more or less seven meters far
+hey hid because they were their adversary
o /hen she went out of the house, she was only with 9eonisa because she already
instructed nephew to go to our house when we noticed them coming and )
instructed him to fetch my brothers
o /hen she was already behind the piles of wood, the accused surrounded our
house and they lighted it up with match (audencio 9egaspi, first lighted a
match for purposes of burning the house And the others also lighted their
matches after (audencio 9egaspi lighted his match +he cogon roofing of the hut
was first lighted as it was the portion that could be easily burned
#ositive identification, where categorical and consistent, without any showing of illAmotive
on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial which,
if not substantiated by clear and convincing proof, are negative and selfAserving evidence
undeserving of weight in law +he appellants had not shown that it was physically
impossible for them to be present at the time and place of the crime
#roof of the corpus delicti is indispensable in the prosecution of arson, as in all 'inds of
criminal offenses $orpus delicti means the substance of the crimeB it is the fact that a
crime has actually been committed
)n arson, the corpus delicti is generally satisfied by proof of the %are occurrence of t6e
fire, e.!., the charred remains of a house burned down and of its having been intentionally
caused 3$en t6e uncorro%orate testimon: of a single e:ewitness, if crei%le,
ma: %e enoug6 to pro$e t6e corpus delicti an to warrant con$iction +he corpus
delicti has been satisfactorily proven in the instant case
+he appellate court correctly imposed the penalty in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion
perpetua considering the presence of the special aggravating circumstance +he crime was
committed by a syndicate since it was carried out by a group of three or more persons
=n the matter of damages, the appellate court li'ewise correctly awarded temperate
damages in the amount of #",00000 )n view of the presence of the special aggravating
circumstance, exemplary damages in the amount of #"0,00000 is li'ewise appropriate

DI!PO!ITI530 Appeal D3'I3D $A :>$)S)=, AHH)4M>:% crime of arson, #>,A9+2% reclusion
perpetua and pay the heirs of private complainant 4afael Mercado #",00000 as temperate damages
and #"0,00000 as exemplary damages

4ALICIO#! 4I!CHI32
c/o HIPOLITO
.. RO<3RT TA&#I'OD vs P3OPL3
P3RALTA, J.% &.R. 'o. .787;; =ctober 1", "011
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1";

2ACT!0
May ";, "00" at the par'ing area of the 4oc'well #owerplant Mall
#edro Ang Eprivate complainantF was driving his <onda $4I E$4IF from the 8
rd
basement par'ing,
while 4obert +aguinod was driving his Su*u'i Iitara from the "
nd
basement par'ing
/hen they were about to Dueue at the corner to pay the par'ing fees, the respective vehicles
were edging each other +he $4I was ahead of the Dueue, but the Iitara tried to overta'e, which
resulted the touching of their side view mirrors +he side view mirror of the Iitara was pushed
bac'ward and naturally, the side view mirror of the $4I was pushed forward
+his prompted the private complainantKs wife and daughter, namely, Susan and Mary Ann,
respectively, to alight from the $4I and confront the petitioner #etitioner appeared to be hostile,
hence, the private complainant instructed his wife and daughter to go bac' to the $4I
E6ile t6e: were returning to t6e car, petitioner accelerated the Iitara and moved bac'ward
as if to hit them +he $4I, having been overta'en by the Iitara, too' another lane
#rivate complainant was able to pay the par'ing fee at the booth ahead of petitioner /hen the
$4I was at the upward ramp leading to the exit, the Iitara bumped the $4IKs rear portion and
pushed the $4I until it hit the stainless steel railing located at the exit portion of the ramp
As a result of the collision, the $4I sustained damage at the %acC %umper spare tires an t6e
front %umper, the repair of which amounted to #-6,!;!;; +he insurance company shouldered
the said amount, but the private complainant paid #1G,191;; as his participation =n the other
hand, the Iitara sustained damage on the right side of its bumper
)nformation was filed in the Me+$ of Ma'ati $ity for the crime of 4alicious 4isc6ief as defined in
and penali*ed under 4#$ 8"6
o May ";, "00", in the $ity of Ma'ati, accused, with deliberate intent to cause damage, and
motivated by hate and revenge and other evil motives, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously %ump t6e rear portion of a Hona CR5 car %earing Plate
'o. AP!(--- ri$en %: Pero '. Ang, thus, causing damage thereon in the amount
of P-//.//
#etitioner pleaded :ot *uilty during the arraignment on March 10, "008
$onseDuently, the trial on the merits ensued +he prosecution presented the testimony of private
complainant +he defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of Mary Susan 9im
+aguinod, the wife of petitioner, 3o.et , San Miguel, 3ason < 9a*o and >ngr 3ules 4onDuillo
4eTC0 (uilty of Malicious Mischief penali*ed under 4#$ 8"9 and sentencing accused to H=U4 E!F
M=,+<S imprisonment
#ay #edro Ang the amount of #1G,191;;, representing complainantKs participation in the
insurance liability on the <onda $4I, the amount of #-0,00000 as moral damages, and the
amount of #"-,00000 as attorneyKs feesB and to pay the costs
RTC0 AHH)4M>: Me+$ in all respects
CA2 #artly granted the petition in its :ecision M=:)H)>:%
#enalty of 80 days imprisonmentB the award of moral damages is reduced to #"0,00000B and
the award of attorneyKs fee is reduced to #10,00000
D323'!30
)t was private complainantKs $4I which moved bac'ward and deliberately hit the Iitara
9one testimony of the witness for the prosecution was selfAserving
Me+$ was wrong in not finding the testimony of his own witness, Mary Susan 9im
+aguinod, to be credible enough
I!!#30 )s petitioner guilty of malicious mischiefJ 2>S
H3LD0 #artly granted Ab omitted attorney@s fees
/itnesses credible as established by trial court )t is apparent in this present case that both the
4+$ and the $A accorded respect to the findings of the Me+$B hence, this $ourt finds no reason to
oppose the other two courts in the absence of any clear and valid circumstance that would merit
a review of the Me+$Ks assessment as to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies
:efense witness Mary Susan 9im +aguinod is wanting in credibility <er recollection of the past
events is ha*y as shown by her testimony on crossAexamination /hile she stated in her affidavit
that the <onda $4IKs 0left side view mirror hit our right side view mirror, causing our side view
mirror to fold1 she testified on crossAexamination that the right side view mirror of the Iitara did
not fold and there was only a slight dent or scratch She initially testified that she does not recall
having submitted her written version of the incident but ultimately admitted having executed an
affidavit
Also, while the Affidavit stated that Mary Susan 9im +aguinod personally appeared before the
,otary #ublic, on crossAexamination, she admitted that she did not, and what she only did was to
sign the Affidavit in Oue*on $ity and give it to her husband +hus, her inaccurate recollection of
the past incident, as shown by her testimony on crossAexamination, is in direct contrast with her
Affidavit which appears to be precise in its narration of the incident and its details Such Affidavit,
therefore, deserves scant consideration as it was apparently prepared and narrated by another
+he elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 8"6 of the 4evised #enal $ode are%
E1F +hat the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of anotherB
E"F +hat such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destructionB
E8F +hat the act of damaging anotherKs property be committed merely for the sa'e of damaging it
T6e incient in$ol$ing t6e collision of t6e two sie $iew mirrors is proof enoug6 to
esta%lis6 t6e eListence of t6e element of >6ate, re$enge an ot6er e$il moti$e.? Here,
t6e accuse entertaine 6ate, re$enge an ot6er e$il moti$e %ecause to 6is min, 6e
was wronge %: t6e complainant w6en t6e CR5 o$ertooC 6is 5itara w6ile proceeing
towar t6e %oot6 to pa: t6eir parCing fee, as a conseMuence of w6ic6, t6eir sie
$iew mirrors collie
=n the same occasion, the hood of his Iitara was also pounded, and he was badmouthed by the
complainantKs wife and daughter when they alighted from the $4I to confront him for the collision
of the side view mirrors +hese circumstances motivated the accused to push upward the ramp
complainantKs $4I until it reached the steel railing of the exit ramp +he pushing of the $4I by
the Iitara is corroborated by the Incient Report dated May ";, "00" prepared by S= 4obert
$ambre, ShiftA)nA$harge of the #ower #lant Mall, as well as the #olice 4eport
2irst, t6e 6itting of t6e %acC portion of t6e CR5 %: t6e petitioner was clearl: eli%erate
as inicate %: t6e e$ience on recor +he version of the private complainant that the
petitioner chased him and that the Iitara pushed the $4I until it reached the stairway railing was
more believable than the petitionerKs version that it was private complainantKs $4I which moved
bac'ward and deliberately hit the Iitara considering the steepness or angle of the elevation of the
#" exit ramp )t would be too ris'y and dangerous for the private complainant and his family to
move the $4I bac'ward when it would be hard for him to see his direction as well as to control
his speed in view of the gravitational pull
!econ, t6e act of amaging t6e rear %umper of t6e CR5 oes not constitute arson or
ot6er crimes in$ol$ing estruction
Lastl:, w6en t6e 5itara %umpe t6e CR5, t6e petitioner was Dust gi$ing $ent to 6is
anger an 6ate as a result of a 6eate encounter %etween 6im an t6e pri$ate
complainant.
Moral damages to be awarded Moral damages include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shoc', social humiliation, and
similar in.ury +hough incapable of pecuniary computation, moral damages may be recovered if
they are the proLimate result of t6e efenantRs wrongful act or omission
o An award for moral damages reDuires the confluence of the following conditions%
first, there must be an inDur:, whether physical, mental or psychological, clearly
sustained by the claimantB
second, there must be culpa%le act or omission factually establishedB
third, the wrongful act or omission of the defendant is the proLimate cause of t6e
inDur: sustaine %: t6e claimantS and
fourth, the award of damages is predicated on any of the cases stated in Article
--.) or Article ---/ of t6e Ci$il Coe.
o )t is true that the private complainant is entitled to the award of moral damages under
Article """0 of the ,ew $ivil $ode because the in.ury contemplated by the law which
merits the said award was clearly established
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1"G
o #rivate complainant testified that he felt %a an lost sleep +he said testimony is
substantial to prove the moral in.ury suffered by the private complainant for it is only him
who can personally approximate the emotional suffering he experienced Hor the court to
arrive upon a .udicious approximation of emotional or moral in.ury, competent and
substantial proof of the suffering experienced must be laid before it
o +he same also applies with private complainantKs claim that his wife felt izz: after the
incident and had to be ta'en to the hospital
,o award of attorneyKs fees as the same was not established +here must always be a factual
basis for the award of attorney@s fees
DI!PO!ITI530 Petition D3'I3D $A :ecision A22IR43D with the 4ODI2ICATIO' that the
attorney@s fees are O4ITT3D
Crimes Against C6astit: Digests
RPC ;;;(;9+
c/o Aguinalo, Hipolito, 4agat, 4am%ua:, Paras, !mit6, #galino
/. People $ Collao
+<> #>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),> )S9A,:S, plaintiffAappellee,
vs
MA4$>9),= $=99A:= Ealias ,),=2F, defendantAappellant
#eptember 5@, 5AB@
Dia), J
2ACT!%
Accused Marcelino $ollado, between 8 and ! in the afternoon of 3uly 81, 1988 went to the house of
#aula ?autista, who only had 8Ayr old asleep child with her on the house Esituated in the eastern
part of the town of ?acnotan of the #rovince of 9a UnionF, on the pretext of as'ing for a glass of
water, stealthily approached her and, without giving her an opportunity to defend herself,
embraced and 'issed her and caught hold of her breasts
/hen she recovered from the shoc', in spite of the fact that the accused threatened to 'ill her
with a dagger, she defended herself and bit him on the right side of the chest thereby forcing him
to release her instantly
She cried for help and, pic'ing up a bolo nearby, tried to stri'e him ES= ?4AI>ZZF <owever, the
accused, who is stronger and more agile than she, succeeded in holding her by the arms and they
were found in this position by her cousin $rispulo Ariola who was the first to come to her aid
Surprised, he did not go down the stairs but .umped from the house to the ground, fleeing from
the scene of the crime with the utmost speed
witnesses for prosec% her cousin Ariola and 9uis $ariaso, who also came to her aid
witness for the defense% #aulino #alaroan and 9aureano ,ebri.a
RTC% acts of lasciviousness% two months and one day of arresto mayor to two years, four months
and one day of prision correccional
defense%
c he 'new her cousin Ariola and his witness #alaroan were .ust ; meters away and
conversingB and that his witness ,ebri.a was inside the house Ab would have been foolish of
him to commit such
c his version was that ?autista reproached him because she had heard, that he had been
spreading false reports that she was his mistress or that the two were maintaining illicit
relations
I!!#3% /o, accused is guilty of crime of acts of lasciviousness defined in article 88; E2>SZF
H3LD0 &#ILTF, 4+$ modified% six months of arresto mayor to four years, two months and one day of
prision correccional
RATIO0
on his deense& <is 'nowledge that Ariola V #alaroan were near does not ma'e it improbable for
him to have committed the crime cause she was alone in the house Eher husband has gone to
Manila about a month ago to wor' as an agentF V accused showed her a dagger and threatened to
'ill her if she did not accede to his desires <e must have believed that she would neither offer
any resistance nor give a cry of alarm Moreover he might have thought that said two witnesses
would not continue conversing at the same place after he had left them
S$ doesn@t believe ,ebri.a@s testimony that he was inside house because aside from his testimony
and that of the appellant, nothing in the record to prove the contrary
X Ariola and #alaroan did not testify that they had seen said witness come out of house even
if they were only ; meters away
$ariaso testified that when they went up into the house they found only ?autista and her small
child, not mentioning the appellant
#alaroan admitted that after he had arrived at his boarding house which is about "- meters from
?autistaKs house and also after Ariola had gone up into the latter house, he saw the appellant
wal'ing rapidly +his shows that the appellant actually came out of said house with the utmost
speed and that #alaroan left Ariola when the appellant went to the offended partyKs house to as'
for a glass of water
on the alle!ed reproachin!, his version o the story% what really happened, according to the
evidence, is that the appellant upon seeing that the offended party, whom he had courted before
her marriage, although in vain because she paid no attention to him, was alone, he was led into
temptation, thus again proving the old adage that &opportunity ma'es the thief&
no doubt but that the offended party cried for help notwithstanding the witness #alaroanKs
testimony that he heard no such cry Ab because #alaroan himself testified that he heard Agaton
Ariola Ewhose house was "- meters awayF tell his son $rispulo to go and find out what was
happening at the offended partyKs house
U# v $ampo& 0although a complaint or information contains no allegation that generic aggravating
circumstances of any 'ind were present in the commission of the crime, said circumstances may
be proven at the trial and, if proven, must be ta'en into consideration in imposing the
corresponding penalty1
X aggra$ating circ of welling had been proven at the trial, although it was not alleged in
the informationB should have been ta'en into consideration by the trial courtZ
/- People $s <uenafe
May 80, 19-;
+<> #>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, plaintiffAappellee,
vs
H4A,$)S$= ?U>,AH> 2 $A9U#AS, defendantAappellant
#aras, 3
2ACT!0
5ictimHs 5ersion0
/hile Dominga Re:es (t6e offene part:" was wal'ing near the corner of Algeciras and
>spana streets, she saw the accused alight from a taxicab
<e then approached, grabbed and lifted her into the vehicle
)nside, the accused embraced and 'issed her and touched her private parts
/hile she was struggling against the accused to free herself, she succeeded in opening the door
of the taxi and at the same time she leaped out and fell in a canal
+he accused went after her but she managed to escape until she reached the house of Sims at ,o
1108 /ashington Street
5ersion of t6e accuse0
Hrom the evidence presented by the accused, it appears that he and :ominga 4eyes were
sweethearts as shown by the letters sent by her to him mar'ed >xhibits " to 18
Said letters show that she often as'ed for, and received money from the accused for her needs at
school and for her personal useB that they used to go out together to dances and movie houses,
and that they used to meet in the Science ?uilding of the Har >astern University
)n a letter of the offended party to the accused dated Decem%er -, .)8; she as'ed him to be at
their usual meeting place in the Science ?uilding of the Har >astern University the following
Monday, or :ecember 6, 19-8
)n that letter, she stated that she needed some money for $hristmas and for her personal
expenses
+he accused met her at the Science ?uilding and in the course of their conversation, :ominga told
him that she needed #-0
+he accused stated that he did not have money at that time but he would try to secure the
needed amount and promised to give the money to her in the afternoon of that day, as such, they
agreed to meet on Algeciras Street after lunch time
Accordingly, he arrived there in a taxicab and soon thereafter, the offended party appeared and
boarded the vehicle
/hile they were passing along >spaMa Street, the offended party as'ed him for the money and he
answered that he had only #10 at that time
+he accused embraced and 'issed her and too' liberties with her person, and evidently because
of her disappointment in not getting the amount she needed, she struggled against him and
.umped from the vehicle She ran away followed by the accused until she reached said house of
Sims where she as'ed for help
2rancisco <uenafe : Calupas (efenant(appellant" was charged with forci%le a%uction in
the $H) of Manila
TC0 $onvicted him only of acts of lasci$iousness and sentenced him to + mont6s an . a: of
prision correccional
I!!#30 /hether or not the accused is guilty of committing acts of lasciviousness ('O"
H3LD0 +he appealed decision is reversed and the appellant is AC=#ITT3D.
RATIO0
Under Article ;;+ of t6e Re$ise Penal Coe any act of lasciviousness committed upon a
person of either sex, is punished by prision correccional if any of the circumstances mentioned in
Article 88- is present, among which is the use of force and intimidation
)n the case at bar, although the trial court concluded that the appellant embraced and 'issed, and
too' liberties with the person of, the offended party against her strong resistance, it did not
expressly find that said appellant was prompted by lust or lewd designs
$onsidering that the incident too' place in a taxicab while passing along a public thoroughfare
and at about noon time, it is difficult to believe that the appellant could have desired more than
the ordinary outbursts of one in love
>ven as regards the resistance put up by the offended party, the trial court observed that she
struggled against appellant because of her disappointment in not receiving the #-0 promised by
him[ implying that she resisted not because she did not welcome appellantKs caresses but
because she expected him first to comply with his commitment
+o sustain the charge of abusos deshonestos, something more must appear than that, with or
without her consent, an ardent lover 'issed and embraced for a moment a young woman of whom
he was enamored, (#. !. $s. &omez, ;/ P6il., --".
/; Ti%ong $s. People (!ept. .8, -/./"
3A4>, +)?=,( y $U99AAA(, petitioner,
vs
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, respondent
$arpioC0orales, J.
2ACT!%
1GAyear old AAA, a college student at the ?enguet State University, was at the house owned by
+ibong@s parents at ?etag, 9a +rinidad, ?enguet where she was boarding
She occupied a room at the 8Abedroom basement
=ne of the rooms was occupied by +ibong and his wifeB 8rd room was unoccupied
+ibong and AAA are first cousins EAAA@s father and +ibong@s mother are siblingsF
?efore the incident, +ibong@s wife left the house after a misunderstanding with him
?efore midnight of Apr 16, "00;, +ibong arrived and repaired to the sofa at the basement@s living
room
AAA thereafter fell asleep but was awa'ened at about midnight as she felt someone was
undressing her
She saw +ibong wearing only briefs and crouching over her, on top of her bed, and pulling down
her pa.amas and panties
She as'ed +ibong why he was doing that
<e replied that they will have sexual intercourse and 'eep it a secret
She as'ed if he was not sic'ened about itB he replied that she need not be bothered about their
being cousins
She resisted and pulled up her pa.amas and panties but +ibong pulled them down to her 'nees
and mashed her breasts
<e soon told her that they should watch a 0bold1 movie and apply what they watched
She struggled to free herself but he forced her to lie down
She tried to shout for helpB he covered her mouth
<e thereafter went towards the $: player which was in fron of the door of her room to insertCplay
a $:
Hinding the opportunity to escape, she grabbed her cell phone and bag and ran out of the house
after he failed to restrain her
She headed towards the highway, too' a taxi and proceeded to her elder brother@s house E???F in
?ahong, 9a +rinidad
+ibong claims that from the afternoon of Apr 16 up to 1 am of the next day, he was drin'ing
liDuor with his friend ?enny Malao in 8 placesAAAfirst at +ibong@s father@s house, then at Maryland,
and finally at Malao@s boarding house, all in 9a +rinidad
=n returning home drun', he immediately went to sleep in the living room
)nformation%
Attempted rape
/ith lewd designstry and attempt to rape AAA while sleeping and unconscious
:id not perform all the acts by reason that the offended party was awa'ened, defended herself
and escaped
,ot because of spontaneous desistance
4+$ of 9a +rinidad%
(uilty of attempted rape
)ndeterminate penalty of 8 years and ! months of prision correccional medium, as minimum, to G
years and ; months of prision mayor medium, as maximum
=rdered to pay AAA #"-L as moral damages _ costs
$A% affirmed his conviction
+ibong@s arguments%
A +ibong, citing #ere* vs $A, contends that there was no attempted rape as he did not commence
to insert his penis into her vagina
A <e says that he merely told AAA that they will have sexual intercourse
A +hat this is not eDuivalent to carnal 'nowledge or even an attempt
A <e contends that this could .ust be acts of lasciviousness

I!!#3% /hether the crime committed is attempted rape =4 only acts of lasciviousness EA++>M#+>:
4A#>F
RATIO%
Art ;, 4#$% attempt% when the offender commences commission of felony directly by overt acts
but does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some
cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance
/hile rape and acts of lasciviousness have the same nature, they are fundamentally different
Hor in rape, there is the intent to lie with a woman, whereas in acts of lasciviousness, this element
is absent
:efense@s cross examination of AAA%
o She said that he tried to force his penis into her vagina but she covered her vagina
o +hat his briefs were already lowered down to the middle of his upper leg
o #etitioner@s acts, as narrated by AAA, far from being mere obscene or lewd, indisputably
show that he intended to have, and was bent on consummating, carnal 'nowledge of AAA
DI!PO!ITI53 PORTIO'0 /<>4>H=4>, the petition is :>,)>: +he assailed $ourt of Appeals
:ecision of =ctober 1", "009 in $AA(4 $4 ,o 81;!! is AHH)4M>: $osts against petitioner
/9 People $ <on
3anuary "G, "008
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S
vs
,>M>S)= ?=,
2ACT!0
4aricris <onoe% + years of age and living with her family at 1"G ?earbrand Alley, #anga'o St,
?agong ?arrio, $aloocan $ity
<on EuncleF% Also staying in their house and is the eldest brother of 5ioleta <onoe, the victimKs
mother
Aug 19, 1996, 8#M% victim was playing on the upper level of their house while Iioleta was
downstairs washing their clothes After Iioleta finished her laundry, she went upstairs and saw
?on lying on top of the victim +hey were fully clothed when she saw them <e had his pants on
while Maricris was wearing &sando and shorts& Upon seeing Iioleta, accusedAappellant
immediately stood up and ran downstairs Maricris also ran downstairs crying Iioleta as'ed her
daughter about the incident but the latter refused to answer and .ust cried
Hollowing morning% Iioleta learned from her youngest daughter that ?on sexually abused Maricris
/hen confronted, the victim told her that ?on po'ed EsinundotF her private part
Iioleta feared ?on so she chose not to confront him about the incident )nstead, she transferred to
Atimonan, Oue*on with her family
3an 199G% Iioleta learned that he was in .ail for acts of lasciviousness committed on the daughter
of her sisterAinAlaw >mboldened by his arrest, Iioleta revealed to her husband that ?on molested
their daughter +hus, a complaint for rape was filed against him
3an "1, 199G, :r +omas : Suguitan, MedicoA9egal =fficer of the #,# $rime 9ab
c an elastic, fleshyAtype hymen with deep healed laceration at - oKcloc' position
c Sub.ect is in nonAvirgin state physically +here are no external signs of application of any
form of violence
Defense0 ?on denied the accusation against him and claimed that Iioleta filed the rape case
against him because she was influenced by her sisterAinAlaw who filed a case for acts of
lasciviousness against him <e narrated that he lived with the family of Maricris and that she and
her " other sisters were close to him At "pm on Aug 19, 1996, when he went upstairs to sleep,
the victim and her sisters followed and lay beside him 9ater, the 8 children went downstairs
Maricris came bac' and lay on top of him with her face pressed to his chest <e heard a noise
from the stairs, so he got up and lay Maricris on her bac' )t turned out that the noise came from
Iioleta, who loo'ed angrily at him Iioleta must have thought that he abused her daughter
because she saw him in the act of laying the victim on her bac'
TC0 guilty of rape on a child below 6 years of ageB penalty of death Eby lethal in.ectionF, pursuant
to Art 88- of the 4#$ as amended by 4A ,o 6;-9 #-0,00000 as moral damages and #6-,00000
as civil indemnity
)n view of the imposition of the death penalty, the case is now before us on automatic review,
pursuant to Art !6 of the 4#$, as amended
I!!#30 /C, he is guilty of rapeJ E,o, only acts of lasciviousnessF
H3LD0 4+$ M=:)H)>:B AccusedAappellant ,emesio ?on is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of acts of lasciviousness, as defined and penali*ed under Art 88; of the 4#$, in relation to
Article ))), Section - EbF, of 4A ,o 6;10, and is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of G
years and 1 day of prision mayor, as min to fifteen 1- years, ; months and "0 days of reclusion
temporal as maxB #80,00000 as moral damages
RATIO0
Under Article 88- of the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended by 4epublic Act ,o 6;-9, t6e law in
force at t6e time of t6e commission of t6e offense on August .), .))6, rape is committed
by having carnal 'nowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances% E1F ?y using
force or intimidationB E"F /hen the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconsciousB and E8F
/hen the woman is under twelve years of age or demented
$arnal 'nowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily
connections with a woman
#eople v $ampuhan% touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act should be understood as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labia of the
female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum
+he general rule is that factual findings by the trial court deserve a high degree of respect and will
not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any clear showing that it overloo'ed, misunderstood
or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which could alter the result of
the case
<owever, a careful review of the evidence on record of the case compels us to ta'e exception to
the aforesaid rule T6e prosecution 6as faile to isc6arge its onus of pro$ing, %e:on
reasona%le ou%t t6e guilt of accuse(appellant for t6e crime of rape Specifically, the
e$ience auce by the prosecution oes not conclusi$el: esta%lis6 t6e element of
carnal Cnowlege. As testified to by the victim, accusedAappellant removed her underwear,
inserted his finger into and lic'ed her vagina It is t6erefore clear from t6e foregoing
testimon: t6at accuse(appellant i not 6a$e seLual intercourse or seLual %oil:
connections wit6 t6e $ictim. A%sent irect proof of carnal Cnowlege, accuse(
appellant cannot %e con$icte of rape.
)t appears that in the &Sinumpaang Salaysay& of the victim, she never claimed that accusedA
appellantKs penis gra*ed or touched her private parts According to her, he committed the
following acts% ,#inundotCsundot an! pekpek ko, dinilaan an! pekpek ko.,
T6e presence of a eep 6eale laceration on t6e 6:men of t6e $ictim oes not
conclusi$el: pro$e carnal Cnowlege. As testified to by :r Suguitan, the laceration could
have been caused by introduction of any of the following ob.ects into the victimKs vagina% E1F
fingerB E"F erect penisB or E8F any other blunt instrument that can be inserted in the vagina
Standing alone, a physicianKs finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not
prove rape )t is only when this is corroborated by other evidence proving carnal 'nowledge that
rape may be deemed to have been established
9i'ewise, t6e testimon: of 5ioleta faile to esta%lis6 t6e element of carnal Cnowlege
Iioleta saw that accusedAappellant was lying on top of the victimB and that accusedAappellant and
the victim were fully clothed ,ote that she never witnessed any sexual act
Ierily, from the testimony of Iioleta, it is easy to speculate that the victim was raped ?ut in
criminal cases, speculation and probabilities cannot ta'e the place of proof reDuired to establish
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt Suspicion, no matter how strong, must not
sway .udgment
Under the present law on rape, Article ";;AA of the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended by 4A ,o
G8-8 Eor the &+he AntiA4ape 9aw of 1996& which too' effect on =ctober "", 1996F, and interpreted
in #eople v Soriano, "8 insertion of oneKs finger into the genital of another constitutes &rape
through sexual assault& T6is law, 6owe$er, fins no application in t6e case at %ar,
consiering t6at t6e go$erning law at t6e time of t6e commission of t6e crime on
August .), .))* was Article ;;8 of t6e Re$ise Penal Coe, as amene %: R.A. 'o.
*+8), w6ere insertion of oneRs finger into t6e genitals of anot6er oes not amount to
rape
'e$ert6eless, accuse(appellant is not completel: wit6out lia%ilit:.
:ulla v $ourt of Appeals, et al% although the information charged the crime of rape, accusedA
appellant can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because it is included in rape 4ule 1"0, Sec
! of the 4ules of $ourt states%
c 3udgment in case of variance between allegation and proof [ /hen there is variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and that proved, and the
offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused
shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the
offense charged which is included in that which is proved
+he elements of the crime of acts lasciviousness are% E1F that the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdnessB E"F that it is done% EaF by using force and intimidation or EbF when the
offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or EcF when the offended party is
under 1" years of ageB and E8F that the offended party is another person of either sex
Section 8", Article ]))), of the )mplementing 4ules and 4egulations of 4A 6;10 or the $hild Abuse
9aw defines lascivious conduct, as follows%
c &W+Xhe intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin,
breast, inner thigh, or buttoc's, or the introduction of any ob.ect into the genitalia, anus or
mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse,
humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person&
In t6e case at %ar, all t6e elements of t6e offense were esta%lis6e, maCing accuse(
appellant lia%le for t6e crime of acts of lasci$iousness, as efine an penalize uner
Article ;++ of t6e Re$ise Penal Coe in relation to R.A. 'o. *+./ or t6e C6il A%use
Law. As e$ience %: 6er %irt6 certificate, t6e $ictim was + :ears of age at t6e time of
t6e commission of t6e offense on August .), .))*, 6a$ing %een %orn on 'o$em%er ;,
.)).. Accuse(appellantRs acts of remo$ing t6e $ictimRs unerwear, inserting 6is finger
into an licCing 6er $agina, an l:ing on top of 6er, constitute lasci$ious conuct
intene to arouse or gratif: 6is seLual esire. Inee, t6e $ictimRs testimon: t6at
accuse(appellant performe t6e sai lec6erous acts s6oul %e gi$en full fait6 an
creence. In cases of acts of lasci$iousness, t6e lone testimon: of t6e offene part:,
if crei%le, is sufficient to esta%lis6 t6e guilt of t6e accuse. !uc6 is t6e testimon: of
$ictims w6o are :oung, immature, an 6a$e no moti$e to falsel: testif: against t6e
accuse, as in t6e instant case.
Article ))), Section -, of 4epublic Act ,o 6;10, provides%
c $hild #rostitution and other Sexual Abuse [ $hildren, whether male or female, who for
money or profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse
+he penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
upon the following%
c EbF +hose who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or sub.ected to other sexual abuseB #rovided, +hat when the victim
is under twelve E1"F years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 88-,
paragraphs 8, for rape and Article 88; of Act ,o 8G1-, as amended, the 4evised #enal
$ode, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be% #rovided, +hat the penalty for
lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve E1"F years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium periodB
$onsidering that the victim in the instant case was only ; years old at the time the crime was
committed, accusedAappellant should be meted the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
period
)n line with current .urisprudence, accusedAappellant is liable to pay the victim the amount of
#80,00000 as moral damages
/8 People $ AleDanro Rellota (O Rape $is a $is Acts of Lasci$iousness
2ACT!0
AAA the complainant, native of >astern Samar, was 1" years old when the incidents allegedly
happened +ogether with her siblings, AAA lived with her aunt, ::: and the latter@s second
husband, appellant in Antipolo $ity, 4i*al from September 199" to 3anuary 199! " cousins also
live with them ::: was wor'ing overseas then
According to AAA, appellant had been 'issing her and touching her private parts since September
1998 and raped her several times between Sept 1998 and 3an 199!
She narrated that appellant would usually rape her at night when the other members of the family
were either out of the house or asleep AAA stated that she resisted the advances of appellant,
but was not successful Appellant, according to her would usually place a bolo beside him
whenever she would rape her She added that appellant would threaten AAA by telling her that he
would 'ill her brother and sister and that he would stop sending her to school
:ecember "0, 1998% after AAA too' a bath at an artesian well near their house, she wrapped her
body wC towel before going inside the house when she was followed by appellant and raped AAA
twice in the latter@s bedroom <e tied her hands with a rope before forcibly inserting his penis
inside her vagina while AAA was 'ic'ing and scratching +hen, he left so AAA slipped on her +Ashirt
and shorts but then accused returned and raped her again E1 <=U4% 1"%00A1%00 Ab #>,)S inside
for 1 minuteF
+he same incident happened on 3anuary 81, 199! when AAA was inside their room Appellant laid
her down on the sofa, 'issed her and touched her private part, while AAA 'ic'ed him and
scratched his arms She was able to push him and after which appellant ran out the door
AAA, told her older sister after in which the latter accompanied AAA to police station +hree
separate complaints for rape were filed against appellant
ProsecutionHs Arguments
+estimony and medical exam that there is a healed laceration in the hymen of more than a
month 9aceration in the hymen could have been caused by forcible entry of a hard ob.ect #enis
may be blunt hard ob.ect
DefenseH 5ersion
)mpossible for him to have raped AAA in September 1998 because his wife only left for 3eddah on
=ctober "1, 1998
<e points out that AAA herself testified that he only 'issed her, touched her breast and private
parts, but failed to mention that he inserted his penis to her vagina
<e also denied raping AAA on 3anuary 81, 199! and :ecember "0, 1998 <e further claims that
the filing of the criminal charges were instigated by AAAKs aunt for his refusal to lend her money
O!& Comment
appellant used his moral ascendancy over the victim in having carnal 'nowledge of her against
her will
medical report bolsters the victimKs claim that she was repeatedly raped by appellant and that the
latterKs defense of denial is wea' and deserves scant consideration
<=/>I>4, agrees with $A that 3an 81 rape was not sufficiently proven to have actually
consummated and is merely attempted rape
RTC0 (U)9+2 of 8 counts of 4ape as alleged and suffer 4eclusion #erpetua for each count )ndemnity
of #-0, 000 for each
o ,ot death penalty because AAA was above 1" and although below 1G, relationship with
appellant not established as marriage between AAA@s aunt and appellant not supported with
evidence
)n accordance with #eople v Mateo% $ase imposing reclusion perpetua so transferred to $A upon
appeal
CA0 ruled that appellant is guilty of " counts of consummated rape and 1 count of attempted rape
o 3une 81 incident when he was able to push him is A++>M#+>:
o 4eclusion perpetua for first two counts and prision correccional for 8rd
I!!#30
1 /hether accused should be acDuitted as AAA@s testimony is inconsistent and full of falsehoodsJ
" /hether or not the actions of appellant on 3anuary 81, 199! constitute acts of lasciviousness and
not attempted rapeJ
H3LD0
1 ,o +he claim of appellant that he could not have raped AAA because his wife was still in the
country during the alleged period when the rape was committed is so flimsy that it does not deserve
even the slightest consideration from this $ourt.
o It 6as %een oft sai t6at lust is no respecter of time or place. ,either the crampness of the
room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high ris' of being caught, has been held
sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape +here have been too many
instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room
full of family members sleeping side by side +here is no rule that a woman can only be raped in
seclusion
o As to the contention of appellant that the testimony of AAA was barren of any statement that the
formerKs penis was inserted in the latterKs vagina is not Duite accurate AAA categoricall:
state uring 6er testimon: t6at s6e was rape. )n her testimony, she stated that 0<e
forced me and inserted his penis inside my vagina1 and 0he repeated his acts1
o As to inconsistency that she was merely wearing a towel and then she stated that she wore a +A
shirt and shorts, these were not inconsistent as there was a lapse of time between the first and
the second rape 9i'ewise, when AAA testified that she put on her tAshirt and panty, she was
referring to the first time of the rape where, after ravishing her, appellant untied her hands and
left only to return to rape her once more +here was enough time for AAA to dress up
o )nconsistencies pointed out by appellant are minor ones which do not affect the credibility of AAA
nor erase the fact that the latter was raped +he inconsistencies are trivial and forgivable, since a
victim of rape cannot possibly give an exacting detail for each of the previous incidents, since
these may .ust be but mere fragments of a prolonged and continuing nightmare, a calvary she
might even be struggling to forget Moreover, a rape victim testifying in the presence of strangers,
face to face with her tormentor and being crossAexamined by his hostile and intimidating lawyer
would be benumbed with tension and nervousness and this can affect the accuracy of her
testimony <owever, considering her youth and her traumatic experience, ample margin of error
and understanding should be accorded to a young victim of a vicious crime li'e rape
o )n the disposition and review of rape cases, the $ourt is guided by these principles%
o first, the prosecution has to show the guilt of the accused by proof beyond reasonable
doubt or that degree of proof that, to an unpre.udiced mind, produces convictionB
o second, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot
draw strength from the wea'ness of the evidence of the defenseB
o third, unless there are special reasons, the findings of trial courts, especially regarding the
credibility of witnesses, are entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appealB
o fourth, an accusation of rape can be made with facilityB it is difficult to prove but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disproveB and,
o fifth, in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutini*ed with extreme caution
" 2es, crime is not attempted rape but acts of lasci$iousness as defined in 4#$ as elements are
absent
Attempted rape reDuires that%
o +he offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt actsB
o <e does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felonyB
o +he offender@s act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistanceB
o +he nonAperformance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his
spontaneous desistance
Appellant@s act of removing the towel wrapped in the body of AAA, laying her on the sofa and
'issing and touching her private parts does not exactly demonstrate the intent of appellant to
have carnal 'nowledge on AAA on that particular date
>ven so, the said acts should not be left unpunished as the elements of the crime of acts of
lasciviousness as defined in 4#$ in relation to 4A 6;10, AAA being a minor when the incident
happened, are present%
o +hat the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness
o +hat is done EaF ?y using force and intimidationB EbF /hen the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconsciousB EcF /hen the offended party is under 1" years of age
o +hat the offended party is another person of either sex
o As defined in )44 of 4A 6;10% W+Xhe intentional touching, either directly or through clothing,
of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttoc's, or the introduction of any
ob.ect into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite
sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person, bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic
area of a person
+he actions of appellant on 3anuary 81, 199!, by definition, lascivious or lewd, and based on AAA@s
testimony, the intimidation from appellant was in existence and apparent
Sec - of 4A ,o6;10 does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit, but also
one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or intimidation As case
law has it, intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible )t is sufficient that some compulsion
eDuivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will of the offended party
Accused can still be guilty of acts of lasciviousness even if not charged because it is necessarily
included in rape Under Section !, 4ule 1"0 of the 4evised 4ules of $riminal #rocedure, when
there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information, and the offense
as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense charged, or of the offense
charged which is included in the offense proved
DI!PO!ITI530 $A :ecision finding accused (U)9+2 of the crime of two E"F counts rape is AHH)4M>:
with the M=:)H)$A+)=, that the same appellant is also &#ILTF %e:on reasona%le ou%t of t6e
crime of acts of lasci$iousness as defined in the 4evised #enal $ode, in relation to Section -,
Article ))) of 4epublic Act ,o 6;10, and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment from eight EGF years and one E1F day of prision mayor, as minimum to seventeen E16F
years, four E!F months and E1F day of reclusion temporal, as maximumB E_reclusion perpetua for first
" countsF and per previous ruling of this $ourt, must also indemnify the victim in the amount of
#1-,00000 as moral damages and pay a fine in the same amount
/+ #! $ De 5i$ar
+<> U,)+>: S+A+>S, plaintiffAappellee,
vs
?4AU9)= :> I)IA4, defendantAappellant
February 55, 5A5D
Araullo, J.
2ACT!0
+eodora ?ondoc, unmarried woman "" years G months and 16 days of age on date of the
commission of the crime, daughter of railroad station agent in Magalang, #rovince of #ampanga,
living at said station with her father and was being courted by ?enigno )ndiongco Eliving in
ManilaF, an employee of the same railroad company
defendant ?raulio de Iivar, companyKs train conductor on the line between Manila and Magalang,
served as an intermediary between the lovers
early morning of :ecember 80, 1911% ?ondoc left her house and accompanied by defendant who
was waiting for her outside went to a spot near a growt6 of sugar cane, short distance from the
station in the said pueblo, in the belief that her lover, )ndiongco, was awaiting her there for the
purpose of .oining her and eloping with her, an elopement which defendant made her believe
had been planned the night before
when defendant and young woman arrived, she inDuired about her lover since she didn@t see him,
defendant replied that before delivering her to him she should be for defendant
she attempted to return home, but defendant caught her by the hand, ga$e 6er a slap an
ragge 6er into t6e mist of t6e sugar cane, t6reatening 6er wit6 a agger he had in
his hand, he overcame her resistance and succeeded in lying with her E,=+> A 4A#>, shy pa ang
ponente 9=9F
defendant 'ept +eodora ?ondoc among the sugar cane until nighttime, when he too' her, also %:
force, in a cart t6roug6 t6e fiels to the house of a relative of his in the vicinity of a wood in
the municipality of Capas, Pro$ince of Tarlac +here he remained with her alone for t6ree a:s
and, ta'ing advantage of her helplessness and by intimidating her, la: wit6 6er se$eral times
during that period, until, as a result of the search and inDuiries made by her father and brother,
she was found in the said house and freed from defendantKs control
C2I Pampanga% guilty of abduction, fourteen years eight months and one day of reclusion
temporal, with the accessory penalties provided by law, indemnify +eodora ?ondoc in the sum of
#-00
I!!#3% /o, accused guilty of abduction given woman@s of legal age E2>SF
H3LD0 $H) affirmed but wont suffer subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency bec of indemnity of
#-00 he was sentenced
RATIO0
Article !!- of the #enal $ode punishes by reclusion temporal the abduction of a woman
against her will and with lewd designsB elements%
E1F +he person 'idnapped must be a woman It is immaterial w6et6er s6e %e a wiow, a
marrie woman, or a $irgin, for all t6ree classes are comprise wit6in t6e generic term of
WwomanW
E"F +he crime must be committed against her will
E8F )t must be committed with unchaste designs [ that is, with the intention of lying with the woman
)t is unDuestionable that +eodora ?ondoc, who had freely gone to the place where she believed
she would find her fiancee, lost 6er li%ert: from t6e moment efenant oppose 6er
returning 6ome, and that, conseDuently, it was against her will that she was ta'en by
defendant into the sugar cane Abthis was the commencement of t6e a%uction of the
young woman, committed by defendant with violence and against her will /hen he got her
into the cane field, he abused her by means of force and intimidation
)f defendant had then left her free, the crime committed by him might perhaps have been
classified as rape, because then the deprivation of her liberty would have been but brief and
only for the purpose of his lying with her ?ut, considering that defendant retained her among
the sugar cane until night, continued to retain her in $apas for three days longer in his
company and against her will, and that he also en.oyed her carnally thereB and considering the
deprivation of liberty of the aggrieved party during all of that time, in connection with the
unchaste designs which defendant entertained toward her and which were the motive of his
abducting her against her will, the acts committed by this defendant, and which were proved
at the trial, constitute the crime of a%uction
Abduction& 'idnapping of a woman by removing her from her home, or from whatever place
she may be, to ta'e her to some other, for the purpose of her abductorKs marrying her or
corrupting her
c :efendant deceived +eodora ?ondoc by telling her that her fiancee, )ndiongco, was
awaiting her outside of her house
c ?riefly, he stole +eodora ?ondoc in the one place and too' her to the other and 'ept her
in his power for three days for the purpose of corrupting her )t matters not whether the
'idnapping of the young woman was effected after she had voluntarily left her house,
deceived, as she was, by the defendant, or whether it too' place in the house itselfB nor
does it matter whether the offended party was or was not then of legal age, because
the acts performed by defendant with respect to her involved offenses against liberty,
honor and public order T6ese are offenses w6ic6 t6e law punis6es in t6e crime
of a%uction wit6 force, an t6ose same acts contain t6e elements t6at go to
maCe suc6 crime, an not t6at of a%uction wit6 consent to w6ic6 article 99+
of t6e Penal Coe refers.
coul 6a$e %een a3duction with consent if0
c Eprovided she was of the age specified by law for the existence of such a crimeF fiancee
had been in that place and, ta'ing advantage of the presence of his sweetheart,
+eodora ?ondoc, had ta'en her away with him for unchaste purposes, thus removing
her from her fatherKs control Ab in that case the defendant would have been a
coprincipal or accomplice in the said crime
c however, there is no evidence that )ndiongco intended thisB it was all defendant@s doing
/* #! $s Ramirez
March G, 1919
+<> U,)+>: S+A+>S, plaintiffAappellee,
vs
4UH),= 4AM)4>S, I)$+=4)A,= $=4#US and #9A$):= :> =$AM#=, defendantsAappellants
2ACT!0
Rufino Ramirez was, prior to Octo%er .;, .).+, an unsuccessful lover of a young lady
named Regina Tolentino
)n view of his disappointment, 4amire* sought the aid of 5ictoriano Corpus an Placio e
Ocampo for the purpose of abducting the girl
Octo%er .;, .).+0 +he three defendants hired an automobile, it then being nightfall, and
proceeded toward the district of Santa Mesa, Manila, stopping at the 4otonda
4egina +olentino, accompanied by a male companion, 2rancisco 4ala%unga, and a female
companion, 4arcelina Tolentino, while wal'ing in $alle Santa Mesa, was suddenly grasped
by #lacido de =campo Marcelina +olentino and 4egina +olentino, amidst screams, struggled
against #lacido de =campo but without success
4egina was forcibly ta'en to the automobile where 4ufino 4amire* waited for her
Iictoriano $orpus, during this occurrence held Hrancisco Malabunga
+o prevent 4egina +olentino from screaming any further, :e =campo and 4amire* placed a
hand'erchief over her mouth /hile in the automobile, 4egina fainted
+he senseless girl was then ta'en by the accused in the automobile to a place near the
cemeter: of <alic(%alic.
Upon reaching this place, the chauffeur because of his suspicions eli%eratel: ran t6e
automo%ile into t6e mu, telling the accused that the automobile could not go any further
+he two defendants thereupon, together with 4ufino 4amire*, left the car and too' 4egina to
the rice paies.
+he girl who had .ust come to her senses renewed her screaming +he neighboring people
responded promptly to the outcries for help, and the accused, upon seeing that many people
were coming to the aid of the girl, fled
Information0 4ufino 4amire*, Iictoriano $orpus, and #lacido de =campo were charged in the $ourt
of Hirst )nstance of the city of Manila with the crime of a%uction wit6 force
+he trial proceeded as to the defendants $orpus and :e =campo, the other accused 4amire*
not yet having been arrested
TC0 Hound the two defendants guilty as principals of t6e crime of frustrate a%uction, with the
aggravating circumstance of nocturnit:
AppellantKs assignments of error divide into three main issues% E1F +he refusal of the trial court
to continue the caseB E"F the presence of the essential elements that go to constitute the crime
of abduction with forceB and E8F the degree of the offense
I!!#3!0
1 /hether or not the trial court erred in not continuing the case ('O"
2 /hether or not the essential elements of the crime of abduction with force were present (F3!"
3 /hether or not the crime was consummated (F3!"
H3LD0 &#ILTF O2 A<D#CTIO' EITH 2ORC3. +here being present in the commission of the crime
one aggra$ating circumstance not compensated by any mitigating circumstance, the penalty
provided by article !!- must be imposed in t6e maLimum egree 3udgment is reversed and each
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1!0
defendant and appellant is sentenced to seventeen years, four months, and one day of reclusion
temporal, together with the corresponding accessory penalties, and to pay one third of the costs in
the first instance and one half of the costs in this instance
RATIO0
1 CO'TI'#A'C3!.
+he attorney for the appellants contends that the court erred in refusing to grant a further
continuance with a view to giving the defense an opportunity to loo' for their material witness,
who in the case at bar was also one of the accused
)t is claimed by counsel that &)t is the right of every accused to be able to present as a witness any
person whom he believes to be necessary for his defense,& and that to deprive him of said right
would be tantamount to denying him one of the means allowed by law for his defense
?etween the day when the information was presented and the day of the trial about siLteen
mont6s had elapsed, during which time the defendants had obtained se$en continuances
+his was the situation when the case was called, and counsel for the defense as'ed for further
time to find the coAaccused 4amire*
Applications for continuances are addressed to the soun iscretion of t6e court /here the
court conceives it to be necessary for the more perfect attainment of .ustice, it has the power
upon the motion of either party to continue the case ?ut a part: c6arge wit6 a crime 6as no
natural or inaliena%le rig6t to a continuance.
=ther .urisdictions have held that t6ree t6ings are necessar: to put off a trial on account of
t6e a%sence of a witness0
1 Hirst, that the witness is really material and appears to the court to be soB
2 Second, that the party who applies has been guilt: of no neglectB
3 And third, that the witness can %e 6a at the time to which the trial has been deferred, and
incidentally, that no similar e$ience coul %e o%taine
+here must be, in order to sustain the motion, facts from which the court can infer that there is
a reasona%le prospect t6at t6e attenance of t6e witness, or his testimony, can be
procured at a future day
4ufino 4amire*, the coaccused, is admitted to be a fugitive from .ustice $ounsel, after seven
continuances had been granted in the lower court, nowhere purposes to have said witness
before the court at a specified time At the trial the attorney upon being as'ed by the court to
state whether or not he could ma'e certain the attendance of the witness replied as follows% 6%
cannot 3ind m/self to find him for the reason that we do not 5now his
wherea3outs.6
)f continuances could be procured on the ground of the absence of one of the material
witnesses without stating that the witness can be brought before the court at a reasonable
time in the future, the delays in the administration of .ustice would soon become intolerable
/hilst great liberality should be extended to persons charged with crime in preparing their
defense and particularly in procuring the attendance of witnesses, the rule must not be relaxed
so as to defeat the ends of .ustice
" A<D#CTIO' O2 ARTICL3 998 O2 TH3 P3'AL COD3 A'ALFJ3D. d Article !!- of the #enal
$ode reads%
,2he abduction o a woman a!ainst her will and with lewd desi!ns shall be punished by reclusion
temporal.
,2he same penalty shall be imposed in every case i the emale abducted be under twelve years o
a!e.,
?oth the civil and the common law authorities agree in the conclusion that the crime of
abduction is one &sumamente grave y odioso& Ehighly serious and detestableF
+he penal law regarding abduction, says the supreme court of Spain, was intended to punish
the offense against public morality and the insult to the family of the abducted girl
+he three elements in the crime punished by article !!- of the #enal $ode are%
E1F +hat the person abducted be a womanB E"F that the abduction must have been against the
will of the womanB and E8F that the abduction must have been for lewd or unchaste designs
+hat the first two elements are here present is incontestable +he &ta'ing,& as contemplated by
the $ode, is demonstrated by the force used in snatching the offended girl from a street in the
city of Manila and carrying her to the rice paddies some distance away
Stress is laid by counsel for appellants on the absence of the third essential element, namely,
lewd or unchaste designs
)n a criminal action for abduction, in order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd designs,
actual illicit criminal relations with the person abducted need not be shown +he intent to
seduce the girl is sufficient
+he presence of the lewd designs is here revealed by the actions of the accused Among other
indications of this intent can be mentioned the ta'ing of the girl at night by the use of force
and threats to overcome her resistanceB the act of em%racing 6er w6ile in t6e
automo%ileB the proposition to go to a house in ?alicAbalicB the beating of the chauffeur who
did not want to start the engine of the automobile, and the fact that 4ufino 4amire* had been
ma'ing love to the girl prior to the abduction
8 D3&R33 O2 TH3 O223'!3.
Sexual intercourse not being necessary in order to commit abduction wherein lewd designs is
an essential element, the crime is a consummate one, for the reason that the evil which the
law contemplated in providing for the offense has been effected
Although 4ufino 4amire* appears as the moving spirit in the commission of the crime,
nevertheless the present appellants #lacido de =campo and Iictoriano $orpus are guilty as
principals in that they too' a direct part in the commission of the crime
)n the commission of the crime there was present t6e aggra$ating circumstance of
nocturnit:. )t is clear that the appellants selected the night time for their detestable act,
'nowing that they could not accomplish it as easily or at all in the day time
+he trial court gave the appellants the benefit of the provisions of article 11 of the #enal $ode
as amended by Act ,o "1!" +his court holds that the benefits of article 11 of the #enal $ode
as amended should not be extended to persons who commit crimes against chastity

0G People $s. Crisostomo (2e%. .*, .)-;" 'OT A<D#CTIO' <#T ILL3&AL D3T3'TIO'
+<> #>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),> )S9A,:S, a plaintiffAappellee,
vs
#>:4= $4)S=S+=M=, >+ A9, defendantsAappellants
4=MUA9:>S, J.
2ACT!0
After G or 9 am of :ec ";, 19"0, in ?acoor, $avite% /hile Macaria (abriel E80 years oldF, Macaria,
and her aunt $andida AcuMa were wal'ing in the direction of their houses from that of (regoria
AcuMa Eto whom Macaria had paid the sum of #80F the accused met them on the way
#edro $risostomo, 9oren*o Alcoba, and $asimiro (arde dragged Macaria along and too' her
against her will to a rice field
Macaria was not able to prevent it by her cries and strife and insults
+he other defendants, Segundo >spiritu, #rimitivo Alcoba, and ?artolome $aguiat, caught hold of
$andida Eher auntF thus preventing her from helping Macaria
(regoria, attracted by the cries of $andida, went to the place and attac'ed with a club those
holding Macaria until they released her
As soon as $andida was released by her aggressors, she went to Macaria@s house and reported
the incident to Macaria@s brother, $onstantino
$onstantino ran after the abductors of his sister overta'ing them when they had .ust released her,
which they did upon seeing him
#rosecution contends that Macaria was abducted by $risostomo against her will
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1!"
:efense asserts that there was an agreement between her and $risostomo and that both of them,
by mutual accord, had escaped from the parental house of said Macaria when her brother
$onstantino overtoo' them
)nformation%
&defendants conspiring and confederating together, did intentionally, unlawfully, and criminally
and with unchaste designs and through force 'idnap Macaria (abriel on a road leading to Salinas,
?acoor, $avite, ta'ing her therefrom to a rice field in said municipality against her will&
$H) of $avite%
#edro $risostomo, 9oren*o Alcoba, and $asimiro (arde guilt: as principals E1! years, G mos,
and 1 day of reclusion temporalF
Segundo >spiritu, #rimitivo Alcoba, and ?artolome $aguiat as accomplices EG years and 1 day of
prision mayor
All of the consummate crime of a%uction t6roug6 $iolence
>ach to pay 1C; of the costs
$risostomo is further sentenced to pay to Macaria the sum of #-00 as an endowment
I!!#3%
1F /C, the accused are guilty of A?:U$+)=, E,oF
"F /C, the accused are guilty of )99>(A9 :>+>,+)=, E2>SF
8F /C, the accused are guilty of A++>M#+>: $=>4$)=, E,oF
H3LD0
1F A?:U$+)=,
>armar's of veracity prevail in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses Eas found and given
credence by the trial .udgeF
)n addition, t6e manner of t6e eloping allege %: t6e efense is impro%a%le in the case of
a woman li'e Macaria who, by reason of her 80 yearsK age, must be presume more refleLi$e
an cautions in carr:ing out a preconcei$e plan t6an a :oung woman
)f it were true that it was MacariaKs ob.ect to escape, she would not have done so in the daytime,
nor would she have gone in company with $andida, nor would she have, so childishly and in the
presence of several persons, ta'en advantage of the circumstances of her companion entering the
house of (regoria to spea' with the latter for some minutes
)t does not appear that Macaria was under the vigilance of her relatives and, in view of her age,
she would have naturally en.oyed a certain degree of liberty such as to go, as she did, to the
barrio of Salinas, ?acoor, from her residence in #alicot, )musB with which liberty she could have
planned and carried into effect with full success her escape from the parental house
$risostomo also admitted to a $onstabulary officer that they deemed it better to abduct Macaria
as she firmly answered in the negative to his previous proposal
=n another occasion, he reDuested Macaria@s another brother >pifaniol to intervene in his favour
T6e recor as w6ole oes not lea$e room for ou%t t6at t6e efenants tooC awa:
4acaria &a%riel against 6er will
<ut in orer t6at t6is fact ma: constitute a%uction, it is necessar: t6at t6e ot6er
element t6ereof s6oul 6a$e %een pro$en, to wit, t6at if unc6aste esigns.
$risostomo testified that his intention in eloping with Macaria was to get married with her in
?acoor
/hile it was not proven that Macaria consented to such an elopement, the violent ta'ing away is
not incompatible with such intention to marry her
Does t6is intention to marr: constitute unc6aste esignsT I !C0 'O.
)n this case% %ot6 4acaria an Crisostomo 6a t6e reMuire age for consenting to
marriage, and it does not appear that either of them had any impediment to contracting it
As a general proposition the intention to marry may sometime constitute unchaste designs not by
itself but by the concurring circumstances which may vitiate such an intention Eeg in the case of
abduction of a minor where the male 'nows that she cannot legally consent to the marriage and
yet he elopes with herB in this case, seduction is presumed, which may very well be covered by
the intention to get marriedF
Iiada% ?y abduction is meant the takin! away o a woman rom her house or the place where she
may be or the purpose o carryin! her to another place with intent to marry or to corrupt her
Elibidinis causaF
o he specifies an essential element constituting abduction with violence%
P t6at it %e committe wit6 unc6aste esigns, t6at is to sa:, wit6 intent to a%use
6er
P /ithout this element% illegal detention only
T6erefore, e$en consiering t6at in Cinapping 4acaria, Crisostomo 6a t6e intention
to marr: 6er, suc6 esigns cannot %econsiere as unc6aste
=n Macaria@s testimony that the accused, while dragging her, 'issed her many times against her
will
o She says% 2hey dra!!ed me alon! and at a certain distance % !ot seasick became
unconscious etc.
P +hose acts that she thought were 'isses under those circumstances in which she was
seasic' and unconscious cannot be considered proven
P $ould be mere accidental collisions of heads or faces in those moments in which,
according to her, $risostomo had caught hold of her by the waist and the bac' and her head
was hanging
P much less can such 'issing be held proven over the categorial denial of #edro
$risostomo of having 'issed her
P it does not appear that outside the supposed 'issing, they accused had committed
any slight unchaste act with her, considering that she was with them for a while, even during
the time $andida went to her house to report the matter to Macaria@s brother
)t was not necessary to show that such unchaste designs were carried into effect, but it was
reDuired to establish the existence itself of the unc6aste intentionS %ut no act or
circumstance tening to s6ow suc6 a fact was pro$en in t6e recor
"F )99>(A9 :>+>,+)=,
+he accused deprived Macaria of her liberty even without placing her in an inclosure
llegal detentions consists not only in imprisoning a person but also in detaining her or depriving
her in any manner of her liberty
o A4+ !G1 Any private individual who shall loc' up or detain another, or in any manner
deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor
'eit6er is it an argument against t6is fining in t6e present case t6at t6e information
%: w6ic6 t6is prosecution was initiate is for anot6er crime, for it is allege therein that
the &defendants conspiring and confederating together, did intentionally, unlawfully, and
criminally and with unchaste designs& Ethe latter were not provenF and &t6roug6 force Cinap
Macaria (abriel
As may be seen, it is alleged in this information that the defendants, in the manner aforesaid
deprived Macaria of her liberty
8F A++>M#+>: $=>4$)=, Ein so far as the defendants attempted through force to compel Macaria
to marry $risostomoF
)t is not proven that they did in fact attempt to compel Macaria to contract marriage
)t can be supposed that they merely tried to ta'e Macaria away from the environment of the
family, in the hope that she might be persuaded without force or violence whatsoever to marry
$risostomo
+he mere fact of ta'ing away Macaria might as well have been for the purpose of in.uring or
affronting her, or of compelling her through force to marry $risostomo
=n the accused@s participation%
$risostomo% principal
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1!!
9oren*o Alcoba and $asimiro (arde, who held Macaria and dragged her along to a rice field,
assisted by #edro $risostomo, are li'ewise principals for having ta'en irect part in the
commission of the crime
Segundo >spiritu, #rimitivo Alcoba, and ?artolome $aguiat, who did not lay hands on Macaria, but
did hold her companion $andida, evidently for the purpose of preventing $andida from helping
Macaria% accomplices for having cooperated in the performance of the crime by simultaneous
acts
=n conspiracy%
)t is true that no witness testified to having seen or heard the accused conspire or confederate
?ut in view of their simultaneous acts [ three sei*ing Macaria (abriel and the other three getting
hold of her companion% .oint act and tends to the same end% that of illegally depriving Macaria of
her liberty
)t cannot be conceived that there was no agreement between the defendants
Said act constitutes in itself evident and sufficient proof of the conspiracy and confederacy
DI!PO!ITI530
+he .udgment appealed from is reversed
appellants found guilty of illegal etention
principals% eig6t :ears an one a: of prision mayor
accomplices% two :ears, four mont6s an one a: of prision correccional
each to pay proportionate part of the costs
the endowment that the lower court awarded to Macaria is deleted because they were found
guilty of illegal detention and not abduction

/) People $ &arcia
Hebruary "G, "00"
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S
vs
3>HH4>2 (A4$)A y $A4A(A2 and +<4>> 3=<, :=>S, accused
3>HH4>2 (A4$)A y $A4A(A2, accusedAappellant
2ACT!0
$leopatra $hanglapon% 19 yo, sophomore student of ?S #hysical +herapy at the ?aguio $entral
University
3uly 1!, 199G, she left school at ;%80 pm to go home to Lm 8, 9a +rinidad, ?enguet As she was
crossing ?onifacio St, ?aguio $ity, she saw a white van approaching so she stopped to let it pass
Suddenly, the van stopped in front of her +he rear door slid open and $leopatra was pulled by the
arms into the van She struggled as the door closed and the van sped away Something was
sprayed on her face which made her eyes sting and feel di**y She shouted, then felt a fist blow
on her stomach and fell unconscious
/hen $leopatra came to Eher sensesF, she was inside a room totally undressed lying flat on her
bac' on a bed with four men in the room =ne of them, who had ?ombay features, was also totally
na'ed while the other 8 were in briefs smo'ing cigarettes
E1st rapeF +he ?ombayAloo'ing man lay on top of her She tried to push him away but he held her
left arm Another man with long hair, whom she later identified as accusedAappellant 3effrey
(arcia, burned her right chin with a lighted cigarette $leopatra fought bac' but (arcia held her
right arm /hile (arcia was seated on her right side and holding her, the ?ombayAloo'ing man
proceeded to have sexual intercourse with her She tried to 'ic' him and close her legs, but " men
held her feet, boxed her thighs and burned her legs with cigarettes
E"nd rapeF After the ?ombayAloo'ing man finished, (arcia too' his turn and went on top of her
=ne of the men sat on her right leg and pinned it down, while another held her left leg $leopatra
tried to punch (arcia with her right hand, but the ?ombayAloo'ing man held her right arm (arcia
then had sexual intercourse with her while holding her left arm
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1!-
E8rd rapeF +he third man, whom $leopatra noted had pimples on his face, went on top of her +he
?ombayAloo'ing man was still holding her right arm, while the man on top of her held her left arm
She tried to close her legs but someone hit her right thigh, which forced her to 'eep her legs
apart +he third man with pimples succeeded in having carnal 'nowledge of her
E!th rapeF +he fourth man was next in raping $leopatra ?y that time, she was feeling helpless
and was too tired to struggle As the fourth man was having sexual intercourse with her, she saw
the ?ombayAloo'ing man burning her panties with a lighted cigarette She closed her eyes and
heard the men laughing After the fourth man finished raping her, he got up
She felt di**y and her private parts were aching She opened her eyes and tried to move, but
(arcia hit her on the abdomen=ne of the men again sprayed something on $leopatraKs face
which made her vision blurred She heard somebody say that it was 1%80 After that, she blac'ed
out
/hen she regained consciousness, she was lying by the roadside somewhere bet +amAawan and
9onglong )t was still dar' She already had her clothes on She felt pain all over her body and was
unable to move A taxi passed by and pic'ed her up Although she was afraid to ride the taxi, she
boarded it .ust to get home +he taxi brought her to her house
<er aunt, 4ufina Angog, saw $leopatra alight the taxi crying She also noticed that $leopatraKs
clothes were inverted and she smelled bad She wo'e up $leopatraKs brothers and cousins +hey
as'ed her what happened $leopatra .ust 'ept crying and was unable to tal' After some time,
when she was able to regain her composure, she told them that she had been raped by four men
+he following day, 3uly 1-, 199G, $leopatra was brought to the ?aguio $ity #olice Station After
giving her statement to the police, she was brought to the $rime 9aboratory of the ?aguio $ity
#olice, where she was examined by :r Iladimir IillaseMor
(arcia was arrested at !%80 pm of 3uly 16, 199G in connection with another rape charge against
him by a certain (ilda Mangyo
+he cartographic s'etches were published in the SunAStar newspaper #olice =fficers ?ulalit and
:ia* saw the s'etches and noticed that one of the suspects bore a stri'ing resemblance to
accusedAappellant, who was in their custody =n 3ul ";, 199G, $leopatra was summoned to the
police station to identify accusedAappellant $leopatra recogni*ed accusedAappellant among those
watching the bas'etball game from the upper floor of the police building /hen she saw accusedA
appellant face to face, she started to tremble and cry +hen she tried to attac' him but she was
restrained by the police officers =n the same day, $leopatra gave a supplemental statement to
the police, confirming her identification of accusedAappellant as one of her rapists
:efense% <e spent the whole day of 3uly 1!, 199G at the boarding house where his brotherAinAlaw
lived, located at ,o 8; +orres ?ugallon Street, Aurora <ills, ?aguio $ity <is brotherAinAlaw as'ed
him to go there to ta'e care of his nephew +hat evening, while he was in the said house watching
television, some of his friends came over to visit him +hey brought a bottle of gin and began to
have a drin'ing session (arcia did not .oin them because his stomach was upset (arciaKs
brotherAinAlaw arrived a little before midnight, after which his guests left /hen as'ed about the
charges of rape against him, he denied the same
=ther witnessesE$atherine Haith Madella and 3oy +abinasF testified visiting (arcia
+$% guilty beyond reasonable doubt of one count of forcible abduction with rape and three counts
of rapeB #1!;,1"-6- as actual damagesB #-0,000 moral damages
I!!#3/!0
/C, +$ (4AI>92 >44>: ), H),:),( (A4$)A (U)9+2 ?>2=,: 4>AS=,A?9> :=U?+ H=4 +<>
$=M#9>] $4)M> =H H=4$)?9> A?:U$+)=, /)+< 4A#> A,: H=4 +<4>> E8F $=U,+S =H 4A#>
A99>(>:92 $=MM)++>: ), CO'!PIRACF /)+< +<4>> E8F =+<>4SJ E,=F
/C, +$ (4AI>92 >44>: ), ,=+ ()I),( S$A,+ $=,S):>4A+)=, += +<> +<>=42 =H +<>
:>H>,S> +<A+ A$$US>:AA##>99A,+ 1322R3F &ARCIA F CARA&AF I! O'LF A LOOA(ALIA3
=H +<> 4>A9 $U9#4)+J E,=F
/C, +$ (4AI>92 >44>: ), H),:),( +<A+ $9>=#A+4A $<A,(9A#=, <A: #=S)+)I>92 ):>,+)H)>:
3>HH4>2 (A4$)A 2 $A4A(A2 AS =,> =H +<=S> /<= A?:U$+>: A,: 4A#>: <>4J E,=F
H3LD0 4+$ AHH)4M>: with M=:)H)$A+)=,S As modified, accusedAappellant is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of :eath for the complex crime of Horcible Abduction with 4ape and 4eclusion #erpetua for
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1!;
each of the three counts of rapeB #1!;,1"-6- as actual damages, #6-,00000 as civil indemnity and
#-0,00000 as moral damages
RATIO0
?ased on our own review of the records of this case, we find that complainant was neit6er
influence nor inuce %: t6e police to point to accuse(appellant as one of 6er
molesters =n the contrary, the transcripts convincingly show that complainant was left to freely
study the faces of the thirty or more inmates on the bas'etball court below to see whether she
recogni*ed any of them +here was no suggestion from the police to point to the new detainee,
who had .ust been arrested on another rape charge
=wing to the gravity of the crime and penalty involved, we have meticulously studied the
testimony of complainant $leopatra $hanglapon and find it to be clear, straig6tforwar an
categorical +he details of her narration are consistent on all material points <er actions
throughout her ordeal correspond to normal human behavior /e ta'e particular note of her
natural and spontaneous reaction of crying and attac'ing her molester when brought before her
face to face +he records also eloDuently exhibit that she repeatedly cried throughout her
testimony All of these actuations bear the ring of truth and deserve full faith and credit
More importantly, complainantRs narration of t6e e$ents is well su%stantiate %: t6e
p6:sical e$ience. +he second degree burns found on her face, chest and thighs prove that she
was indeed burned with lighted cigarettes whenever she attempted to fight her assailants +he
medicoAlegal officer confirmed that they were consistent with cigarette burns Hurthermore, the
contusions found on her body were said to be caused by a blunt instrument li'e a closed fist +his
confirms her testimony that she was repeatedly hit to stop her from struggling +he medicoAlegal
officer placed the time of infliction of the external physical in.uries on complainant within the last
twentyAfour hours +he findings on her genitals [ namely the gaping labia ma.ora, the congested
and abraded labia minora, and the lacerations [ all suggest the entry of a foreign ob.ect, such as
a fully erect male organ Hinally, the presence of spermato*oa further confirms that complainant
recently had sexual intercourse
)n the face of complainantKs positive and categorical declarations that accusedAappellant was one
of her rapists, accusedAappellantKs alibi must fail
)t is a wellAsettled rule that positive identification of the accused, where categorical and consistent
and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter,
prevails over alibi and denial which if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence are
negative and selfAserving evidence undeserving of weight in law
Hurthermore, in order that the defense of alibi may prosper, accusedAappellant must establish not
only that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but also that it was physically
impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed )n the
case at bar, the place of commission of the rapes [ somewhere between +amAawan and 9onglong
[ and the boarding house where accusedAappellant alleged he was in the evening of 3uly 1!,
199G, are both situated within ?aguio $ity +he distance between +amAawan and Aurora <ills,
especially at dawn, can be traversed in .ust a matter of minutes
)ndeed, as pointed out by the trial court, accusedAappellantKs witnesses failed to account for his
whereabouts after 1"%00 midnight At the time of the rape, complainant distinctly heard one of her
molesters state the time as 1%80 Since it was still dar' when complainant was dropped off on the
side of the road, it can safely be assumed that the crimes were committed at dawn
T6e trial court, t6erefore, i not err in con$icting accuse(appellant of t6e compleL
crime of forci%le a%uction wit6 rape. +he two elements of forcible abduction, as defined in
Article 8!" of the 4evised #enal $ode, are% E1F the ta'ing of a woman against her will and E"F with
lewd designs +he crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when there
is carnal 'nowledge with the abducted woman under the following circumstances% E1F by using
force or intimidationB E"F when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconsciousB and E8F
when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented
In t6e case at %ar, t6e information sufficientl: allege t6e elements of forci%le
a%uction, i.e., t6e taCing of complainant against 6er will an wit6 lew esign. It was
liCewise allege t6at accuse(appellant an 6is t6ree co(accuse conspire,
confeerate an mutuall: aie one anot6er in 6a$ing carnal Cnowlege of
complainant %: means of force an intimiation an against 6er will.
Asie from alleging t6e necessar: elements of t6e crimes, t6e prosecution con$incingl:
esta%lis6e t6at t6e carnal Cnowlege was committe t6roug6 force an intimiation.
4oreo$er, t6e prosecution sufficientl: pro$e %e:on reasona%le ou%t t6at accuse(
appellant succeee in forci%l: a%ucting t6e complainant wit6 lew esigns,
esta%lis6e %: t6e actual rape
Hence, accuse(appellant is guilt: of t6e compleL crime of forci%le a%uction wit6
rape. <e should also be held liable for the other three counts of rape committed by his three coA
accused, considering the clear conspiracy among them shown by their obvious concerted efforts
to perpetrate, one after the other, the crime As borne by the records, all the four accused helped
one another in consummating the rape of complainant /hile one of them mounted her, the other
three held her arms and legs +hey also burned her face and extremities with lighted cigarettes to
stop her from warding off her aggressor >ach of them, therefore, is responsible not only for the
rape committed personally by him but for the rape committed by the others as well
Howe$er, as correctl: 6el %: t6e trial court, t6ere can onl: %e one compleL crime of
forci%le a%uction wit6 rape. T6e crime of forci%le a%uction was onl: necessar: for
t6e first rape. T6us, t6e su%seMuent acts of rape can no longer %e consiere as
separate compleL crimes of forci%le a%uction wit6 rape. T6e: s6oul %e etac6e
from an consiere inepenentl: of t6e forci%le a%uction. T6erefore, accuse(
appellant s6oul %e con$icte of one compleL crime of forci%le a%uction wit6 rape an
t6ree separate acts of rape
+he penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be imposed
in its maximum period 4ape is the more serious of the two crimes and, when committed by more
than two persons, is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death under Article ";;A? of the
4evised #enal $ode, as amended by 4epublic Act ,o G8-8 +hus, accusedAappellant should be
sentenced to the maximum penalty of death for forcible abduction with rape
As regards the other three acts of rape, accusedAappellant can only be sentenced to reclusion
perpetua +he trial court appreciated the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, superior
strength and motor vehicle <owever, these were not alleged in the information Under the
amended provisions of 4ule 110, Sections G and 9 of the 4evised 4ules on $riminal #rocedure,
which too' effect on :ecember 1, "000, aggravating as well as Dualifying circumstances must be
alleged in the information, otherwise, they cannot be considered against the accused even if
proven at the trial ?eing favorable to accusedAappellant, this rule should be applied retroactively
in this case <ence, there being no aggravating circumstance that may be appreciated, and with
no mitigating circumstance, the lesser of the two indivisible penalties shall be applied, pursuant to
Article ;8, paragraph E"F of the 4#$
Anent the matter of damages, the trial correctly awarded the amount of #-0,00000 as moral
damages +his was .ustified by complainantKs emotional and physical suffering, as narrated in her
testimony ,otably, the prosecution successfully proved that complainant lost her virginity during
the rape As she narrated, virginity is a highly regarded virtue among the people of Lalinga
<owever, the trial court failed to award civil indemnity to the complainant /e have ruled that if
rape is committed or Dualified by any of the circumstances which authori*e the imposition of the
death penalty, the civil indemnity shall be not less than #6-,00000 Hor the other three counts of
simple rape, where the proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, accusedAappellant is liable for civil
indemnity in the amount of #-0,00000 for each count
/e also find that the actual damages awarded by the trial court was well substantiated
$omplainant presented the reDuired receipts for her medications, transportation and other
expenses -0 $omplainant testified that as a member of the Lalinga tribe, she had to undergo the
'orong and songa rituals, wherein they had to butcher several chic'ens, pigs, and carabaos,
thereby incurring total expenses of #90,00000 +hese rituals were intended for complainantKs
safety and to call on the tribeKs spirits so that no more violence or misfortune may befall her +he
grand total of all these actual expenses, including those for medicines and transportation, as duly
proved by the receipts and computations presented in evidence, is #1!;,1"-6-, the amount
awarded by the trial court

$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1!G

10 People $ Toleo E19!9F
Accuse% Santos +oledo, ?enito (uevara, Anacleto Iecido, #edro $ahinhin, Martin Montoya, Augusto
(arcia and #edro (arcia
2ACT!0
September "", 19!-
c Magdalena 4on*airo, "1 years old, and (loria 3imene*, too' a passenger bus in Manila in
the direction of $avite to sell canned food
c Magdalena and (loria alighted, +oledo Santos following them
c (loria wal'ed away to wash her feet
c Magdalena, while waiting, was dragged by ?enito (uevarra who suddenly grabbed her right
wrist and pushed towards Santos +oledo Ewho had aF revolver in hand
c Santos EJF too' her to a house but the owner opposed their evil designs
c <e dragged her to an unpopulated place where there were seven men
c ?enito (uevara too' her inside and got to lie with her, with the help of his fellow who held
her by the feet and forearms
c After ?enito, Anacleto Iecido, #edro $ahinhin, Santos +oledo, #edro (arcia and Augusto
(arcia had intercourse with her Enot MontoyaF
c +oledo Santos carried Magdalena, already wea'ened, to a house and gave her dinner After
recovering, Magdalena and Santos and +oledo wal'ed down the street to find the bus and
met (loria and two policemen who went in search of Magdalena
c police arrested Santos +oledo
>xternal >xamination%
&EaF $ontusions mar' of the upper external part of the left arm
&EbF ?ruises mar' on upper external part of the left leg
&EcF ?ruises mar' on frontal and middle part of the right leg
&)nternal >xamination%
&EaF Hresh blood oo*es out when vaginal opening was being examined
&EbF #resence of pain during exploratory tactation of the vagina
&EcF <ymen not intact
&EdF 4upture of the pudendum
&EeF +here was sexual penetration&
>vidence% a .ac'et, a s'irt, underpants, and a nightgown, torn and stained with blood
A$$US>:%
?enito (uevara died in prison
Anacleto $ahinhin Iecido and #edro have not been apprehended yet
Martin Montoya was acDuitted on reasonable doubt
!antos Toleo was convicted on charges of rape wit6 $iolence and rape to 80 years in
prison perpetual, and Augusto &arcia an Pero &arcia, per violation, to an
indeterminate term of 1" years imprisonment as a minimum sentence, and "0 years of
reclusion temporal, as maximum punishment, with the accessories and costs
+oledo and (arcia brothers appeal
I!!#30 /=, accused are guilty of rape EyesF
D323'!30
c +oledo% was at home and at night went to wait for a bus to go to +agaytay $ity military
police arrested him because he carried a revolver, then a member of the Second ?attalion
of guerrillas Moreno it is not true that he had raped Magdalena
c #edro (arcia% afternoon, in the mill grinding rice <e went to the den (uevara as'ed if he
wanted to have relationship with the woman and he said no because he had to pay five
dollars, and returned to the mill Magdalena 4on*airo #robably 0believed that ) was one of
those who had sexual intercourse with her because she saw me down &
c (arcia Augusto% after reaping rice in the afternoon of that day he retired to his home, went
to the den to as' for water, and saw Hour men and a woman lyingB saw a man and woman
in sexual intercourse, (uevara ?enito came and informed him that if he wanted to have
sexual intercourse with women could do so by paying five dollars,
<owever, )tKs hard to believe that Magdalena, a stranger in the place, dared to testify falsely
against the accused
the rape of a woman by an organi*ed group of men is a rare case Hor its rarity, raises public
outrage
/ith the combined force of ; men and one with a revolver against a wea' woman, resistance is
not possible
+here is no penalty prescribed specifically for multiple violations, but the sense of .ustice reDuires
that a sentence be imposed for each violation
)t is clear that ?enedict EbenitoJF is author of rape pro directJ, assisted by the other defendants,
and each of these, of those who 6elpe, of course, is as coaut6or of rape
>ach of them except Anacleto $ahinhin Iecido and #edro, who have not yet been arrested,
s6oul recei$e, for t6e siL pro $iolations eac6, siL con$ictions for rape.
/e therefore condemn each of the appellants to suffer siL con$ictions of rape, an a
sentence is ./ :ears an one a: of prision ma:or, as minimum, to .* :ears, four
mont6s an one a: of reclusion temporal, as maLimum, wit6 accessor:S ero in meeting
these six sentences, according to Article 61 of the 4evised #enal $ode, as amended by 9aw ,o
"16 $ommonwealth ccada one must not suffer more than !0 years )t confirms the .udgment, in
terms of compensation Appellants pay their fair share in the costs
Rape a%sor%s forci%le a%uction if t6e main o%Decti$e was to rape t6e $ictim.
P3R23CTO, 1. (%engzon, montema:or", issenting0
)t appears, however, that the alleged six rapes were committed on the same occasion, against the
same victim, Magdalena 4on*airo, in the same place, although perpetrated by the six appellants by
having, one after another, one successive sexual intercourse each with the victim /e vote to
sentence appellants for only one crime of rape, and the penalties should not be more than an
indeterminate one of ten E10F years and one E1F day of reclusion mayor to seventeen E16F years, four
E!F months and one E1F day of reclusion temporal
... TH3 #'IT3D !TAT3!, plaintiffAappellee
vs 2RA'CI!CO R3F3!, defendantAappellant E1911F

2ACT!0
At dus' on the evening of 3une ";, 1910%
c 9oren*a $orne.o, a girl of about 1- years of age, unmarried, left her house to return some
flags which she had borrowed
c while returning home she was approached by Hrancisco 4eyes, who for some time past had
been courting her, ma'ing her promises of marriage, and who had arranged with her to
accompany him to this city for the purpose of getting married
c 4eyes insisted on 9oren*aKs going away with him, and accordingly advised her to go alone
to the streetAcar station, saying that he would follow her, so that no one might see them
traveling togetherB
c +hey too' a car for this city and went to the house of 3ose +orno, situated on $alle
$ervantes, and there they remained and lived together con.ugally +hey had carnal
intercourse about ten times whenever the abducted girl demanded of her abductor that he
fulfill his promise of marriage, he would reply that his mother was loo'ing for some
influential person who might spea' to 9oren*aKs motherB and that the girl afterwards
learned from her own mother that the defendant was married
c After more than fifteen days, they were found by the girlKs mother, $irila >scobar, and a
policeman 4eyes was wearing a $hinese camisa, and the girl a chemisette tuc'ed under
her s'irt
charged Hrancisco 4eyes with the crime of consente a%uction
C2I% guiltyA two :ears ele$en mont6s an ten a:s of prision correccional, to pay an
indemnity of #8,000 to the offended party, 9oren*a $orne.o, and, in case of insolvency, to the
corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, in conformity with article -0, rule 1, of the #enal $ode, to
pay the costs, and to suffer the other penalties specified in the said .udgment
I!!#30 /=, guilty of consente a%uction( :es
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1-0
RATIO0
Art !!; EoldF penal code% abduction was committed against the person of a maiden of over 1" and
under "8 years of age, with her consent and with unchaste designs
S$ of Spain% purpose of t6e law is to prescri%e punis6ment for t6e isgrace to 6er famil:
an t6e alarm cause t6erein %: t6e isappearance of one w6o is %: 6er age an seL,
suscepti%le to caDoler: an eceit.
/itnesses% +elesforo PestaUas and Miguela e &uzman saw them going along the street
together toward the streetAcar station
=ther witnesses% +he policeman, >ugenio /enceslao,and the owners of the house, 3ose +orno and
Aurelia 9igdao
it is unDuestionable that the defendant, with unc6aste esigns, through caDoler: an false
promises of marriage mae eceitfull: an in %a fait6, succeeded in seucing the young
girl who left her motherKs house, by prearrangement wit6 t6e efenant an at 6is %iing,
inasmuch as he awaited her on the road and they came together to this city and 6i t6emsel$es
and loge at the house of 3ose +orno
+he crime of abduction, with unchaste designs and the consent of the abducted, was
consummated, because the girl left her motherKs house, gave herself up to her abductor, had
carnal intercourse no less than 10 times, and lived with him con.ugally
Although she was not forcibly ta'en, it is sufficient that the girl should have left, as she did,
removing herself from her motherKs custody and yielding to the ca.olery, inducement, and
promises of her abductor, who too' her away with unchaste designs
D323'!3% +he defendant denied the charge and pleaded not guilty,
+he averment by Marcelino de la Iirgen can not be held to have been proven, which was to the
effect that the mother of the abducted girl charged him to tell the defendant that he should give
her #",000, else he would be prosecuted +his statement is unsupported by proof and was denied
by the mother

Dispositi$e0
.udgment is hereby affirmedB provided, however, that the defendant, Hrancisco 4eyes shall be
sentenced to the penalty of one :ear eig6t mont6s an twent:(one a:s of prision correccional,
to the accessories of article ;1, to pay an indemnity of #1,000 to the offended party, 9oren*a $orne.o,
and, in case of insolvency, to the corresponding subsidiary imprisonment, which shall not exceed oneA
third of the principal penalty, to support the offspring, should there be any, and to pay the costs

.-. People $s. Amante
+<> #>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),> )S9A,:S, plaintiffAappellee,
vs
>9)()= AMA,+>, #>:4= AMA,+>, I)$>,+> SA,$<>S and H4A,$)S$= SA,$<>S, defendantsA
appellants
?%..ACR3A., J p&
December 8, 5A78

!#44ARF% Appellants induced and helped the offended party to leave her home to elope to 9igao,
Albay in order to marry #edro Amante, one of the accusedB however she was persuaded to go to San
3uan and they ended up at 3osefa Sto :omingo@s house She was persuaded to go to the coconut
grove and on the way, she was forcibly violated ErapedF ! times% E1F >ligio Amante away from the
house into the road to the coconut grove Ab alone E"F Hrancisco Sanche* raped her as he held her by
the hands and threatened her with a 'nife with >ligio pinning her to the coconut tree and held her by
the feet, E8F Iicente Sanche*, threw her to the ground covered her mouth with a hand'erchief and
violated her, while #edro Amante held her feet and loo'ed on, E!F #edro Amante, too' hold of her
hands, and succeeded in violating her

TOPIC% $=,S>,+>: A?:U$+)=, E/)+< 4A#>F

2ACT!%
e Accused >ligio Amante and #edro Amante were carpenters in the house of MariDuita Motos in ?aoa,
$amarines Sur, who is the mother of 3ose Sanche*, uncle of the accused Iicente Sanche* Accused
Hrancisco Sanche* is also Iicente Sanche*Ks uncle All of them were residents of the municipality of
9igao, but during the course of construction of the house they lived in MariDuita MotosK house
e Patrocinio <otaro, the offended party, is a young girl .8 :ears of age and a pupil in the fourth
grade of the public school of ?aao, lived alone with her mother, Martiana ?otardo, in said
municipality
e >arly 3uly E#MF%, /hile #atrocinio ?otardo was going to the mar'et with her mother, she met Iicente
Sanche* and #edro Amante, and Iicente Sanche* introduced #edro Amante to the girl
e #edro Amante began to visit #atrocinio ?otardo at her house After two or three visits, #edro
Amante, who had also attended the public school of this town, %egan to maCe lo$e (pro%a%l: onl:
woo(O must %e $irgin for crime to %e committe" to t6e girl an propose marriage to 6er.
e #atrocinio ?otardo told #edro Amante that she could not accept his proposal unless he first as'ed
her mother and because she was still going to school
e 3uly G, 19"- E#MF% #edro Amante and Iicente Sanche* called upon #atrocinio ?otardo at her home
Iicente Sanche* tried to persuade her to marry #edro Amante, saying that he was a good manB but
she insisted in her refusal, because #edro Amante had not as yet spo'en to her mother
e 3uly "", 19"-% Iicente Sanche* and #edro Amante called on her again and spo'e to her mother
+hey afterwards spo'e to the girl alone and tried to persuade her to accept the proposal of marriage
+hat night the mother and daughter did not sleep in their house but in the house of the formerKs
cousin in order to 'eep her company :uring their absence, Iicente Sanche* entere Patrocinio
<otaroRs 6ouse an tooC 6er clot6es from 6er trunC ESee intent to abduct with ta'ing of
clothesF
e +he following day, before sunrise, Martiniana ?otardo left for )riga to sell fish #atrocinio ?otardo
had as'ed her motherKs permission to go to her aunt SimeonaKs house to iron some clothes At 6 AM
E3uly "8F% #atrocinio ?otardo left her house and went to the mar'et, and from there she went to her
aunt SimeonaKs house ?efore arriving at her auntKs house she met the accused Iicente Sanche* and
>ligio Amante, who persuae 6er to follow t6em %: train from t6e station at <aao to Ligao,
Al%a:, in orer to marr: Pero Amante.
e As she was already predisposed to marry #edro Amante, s6e agree and they went to the railroad
station at ?aao Upon arriving there, Iicente Sanche* and >ligio Amante said to her% &/e should first
go to the chapel, lest your mother might find you here,& referring to the San 3uanKs $hapel #atriconio
at first hesitated, but Iicente Sanche* said to her% &9et us ta'e the train at San 3uan, because my
fiancee #ascuala is there&
e Upon arriving at San 3uan, where they said they would ta'e the truc', Iicente Sanche* and >ligio
Amante too' her to the 6ouse of one 1osefa !to.. Domingo and upon arriving there, Iicente
Sanche* said &/e had better go along the road for #ascuala and #edro Amante ought to be there&
e +hey immediately went downstairs and followed a long path, bordered by tall weeds, in the
direction of a coconut gro$e Upon arriving at a certain place, Iicente Sanche* said to them% &9et us
go bac' because #ascuala and #edro are not there&
e +hey did so, and upon arriving at 3osefaKs house, Iicente Sanche* had them saying% &) am going to
town for a moment, you wait here with >ligio Amante& 3ust as 5icente !anc6ez 6a left to %u:
somet6ing to eat, Hrancisco Sanche* arrived >ligio Amante then said% &9et us go to the coconut
grove because Iicente, #edro and #ascuala ought to be there now& Hrancisco Sanche* agreed but
#atrocinio ?otardo refused to go with them so >ligio Amante said to her% &As you will not come with
us, ) will tie you with KpanelaK EropeF&
e #atrocinio ?otardo then remar'ed% &Am ) a carabao that you need to tie meJB& and >ligio Amante
replied% &$ertainly, if you do not want to come with us ) will tie you with this rope /hen a young
woman elopes she has an earnest desire to carry it to a finish&
e Hrancisco Sanche* and >ligio Amante told her afterward that somebody had told them that Iicente
was waiting for them on the road /hereupon she consented to go, and they left the house
e Upon seeing that they were going to a forest where there was no road, 3osefa Sto :omingo said to
them% &+hat is not the way to the road& #atrocinio ?otardo repeated the same remar', but >ligio
Amante insisted, saying% &+his is the way to the road&
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1-"
e /hen they were a good distance from the house, Iicente Sanche* left them saying% &2ou go ahead,
) will meet you on the road& /hile >ligio Amante and #atrocinio ?otardo were alone, the former
insisted upon ta'ing the latter to an Inian almon tree (talisa:"
e #atrocinio ?otardo wanted to ta'e the way that led to the road, but >ligio Amante too' hold of her
hands and wante to taCe 6er to a %am%oo gro$e She refused to go with him and said% &/hat
shall we do thereJ& and >ligio Amante replied% &/hy wonKt you go with meJ, why wonKt you obey meJ
=bey me because it will only ta'e a few minutes&
e As she resisted, he too' hold of her hands and feet, threw her on the ground, and tried to violate
her She stood up, but he again too' hold of her hands and feet and threw her on the groundB and as
she was down, he held and mounted her +he girl succeeded in getting up again, but she could not
stand and dropped down >ligio Amante then lay down beside her, but she stood up for the third time
Hor the fourth time, he threw her on the ground and held her hands
e #atrocinio ?otardo tried to shout, but could not do so, because 3ligio Amante covered her mouth
with a hand'erchief <aving completely overpowered her, he raised her dress and succeee in
$iolating 6er. )t was then about G oKcloc' in the morning After having sexually abused her, >ligio
Amante invited her to stand up and leave the place with him
e +hey had not gone very far when Hrancisco Sanche* appeared, and addressing >ligio Amante, said
&>ligio, first go and buy tuba, for ) want a drin' of tuba very much& /hen >ligio Amante had left,
Patrocinio <otaro sai to 2rancisco !anc6ez0 WFour companion wante to $iolate meSW and
Hrancisco said% &/hy did you not shout,& and she replied that she could not because >ligio Amante
covered her mouth with a hand'erchief
e A little later, >ligio Amante returned and said &+here is no tuba, ) was unable to buy it& <e then
turned and wal'ed toward a coconut grove Hrancisco Sanche*, who remained alone with the girl,
wanted to ta'e his turn and violate her, but as she resisted, he said to >ligio Amante% &She refuses&
e /hereupon >ligio Amante pinne 6er to an incline coconut tree an 6el 6er %: t6e feet,
while 2rancisco !anc6ez 6el 6er %: t6e 6ans an t6reatene 6er wit6 a Cnife At the same
time, >ligio Amante raised her dress, and Hrancisco Sanche*, after slapping her face, caught her
around the nec' 2rancisco !anc6ez with the aid of >ligio Amante succeeded in violating the girl
e After the violation by Hrancisco Sanche*, #edro Amante and Iicente Sanche* appeared Upon
seeing them, the girl wanted to flee, but Iicente Sanche* said to her% &,ow that we are here, will you
goJ& and s6e replie0 'aturall:, %ecause 2rancisco !anc6ez an 6is companion wante to
$iolate me.W
e >xhausted and wea'ened she sat on the trun' of a gua$a tree, when #edro Amante and Iicente
Sanche* approached her, the latter saying% #lease me also, now that Hrancisco and >ligio have
already abused you& &) do not want to,& she replied Iicente Sanche* then Sanche* then said% &/hy
notJ, ) have helped you so that your mother might not overta'e youZ&
e As the girl used to consent to their lewd desires, Iicente Sanche* and #edro Amante too' hold of
her hands, and she said% &/hy do you hold me, you are li'e dogs& +he girl had not as yet recovered
her strength, and it was an easy matter for Iicente Sanche* and #edro Amante to throw her ground,
which they coveredAwith their shirts
e She wanted to shout, but 5icente !anc6ez co$ere 6er mout6 wit6 a 6anCerc6ief an
$iolate 6er, w6ile Pero Amante 6el 6er feet an looCe on. #edro Amante then too' his
turn, notwithstanding her protest and remar's, telling him that the actions of his companions were
more than those of animals Pero Amante tooC 6ol of 6er 6ans, an succeee in
$iolating 6er.
e After the consummation of the carnal act, #edro Amante helped the girl to stand up and to wal'
until they arrived near 3osefa Sto :omingoKs house, where he left her Iicente Sanche* then said%
&Fou wait 6ere, I will see if Pero is in 1osefa !to. DomingoRs 6ouse,& promising to return for
her
e As she thought that it was probably about 11 oKcloc' and Iicente Sanche* has not yet arrived, she
went alone to 3osefa Sto :omingoKs house and inDuired for Iicente Sanche* +he former replied that
he had already gone After a short while Iicente Sanche* and #edro Amante arrived She as'ed the
former% &/hy did you leave meJ, you promised to return for me& <e then replied% &) merely went to
get you dress and >ligio AmanteKs shirt& #edro Amante gave her shirts and told her that he would go
to the house where Iicente Sanche* stayed and get her clothes
e /hen Iicente Sanche* and #edro Amante had left, #atrocinio ?otardo as'ed 3osefa Sto :omingo to
let her lie down for a short time because she felt very wea' 3osefa Sto :omingo as'ed her% &/hy are
you so wea'J& and she replied% &?ecause those four men violated me&
e 3osefa Sto :omingo gave her a mat and a blan'et upon which she lay down, while the former
prepared the food #atrocinio ?otardo fell asleep and 3osefa Sto :omingo awa'ened her to eat /hile
she was eating, Pero Amante arri$e wit6 6er clot6es, an tol 6er t6at s6e s6oul go on
a6ea to t6e municipalit: of Oas, Al%a:, an wait for 6im t6ere.
e She as'ed #edro Amante% &/hy won@t you go with me, after ta'ing me away from home, you want
to leave aloneJ& After eating, #edro Amante said to her% &2ou dress because ) have to ta'e an auto,&
and he gave her #06- to pay her fare from ?aao to =as, telling her that he could not go with her
because he already found wor', but that he would go to 9igao the following Saturday to get her and
marry her
e After having waited together on the road for some time at about " oKcloc' in the afternoon a truc'
for =as came along and she too' it Upon arriving at =as, the girl went to her aunt Hlorencia AngeloKs
house where she stopped to wait for #edro Amante !6e remaine in Oas for a%out t6ree weeCs,
%ut Pero Amante i not appear, an s6e i not want to return to <aao %ecause s6e
was as6ame of w6at 6a 6appene to 6er.
e After three wee's her mother, Martiniana ?otardo, came to get her, but she did not want to go with
her mother saying that she was ashamed because #edro and >ligio Amante, and Iicente and
Hrancisco Sanche* had violated her Martiniana ?otardo then returned to ?aao to tell 3uan ?otardo,
her brother, what had happened, who went bac' to =as with her to get the girl
e /hen all of them had returned to ?aao, 3uan ?otardo filed a complaint against #edro Amante, >ligio
Amante, Iicente Sanche*, Hrancisco Sanche* and ,orberto )balla, husband of 3osefa Sto :omingo

35ID3'C3%
e 3osefa Sto :omingo saw that the blan'et which she had used was stained with blood, which could
not be removed by the first washing
e Medical examination on August 1", 19";% <ymen ruptured and a large amount of a mucous li'e
secretion in the vaginal canal due to a slight inflammation of the vagina, which might have been
caused by a sexual intercourse

D323'!3%
e Iicente Sanche* claims that on 3uly "1,19"- he went to ,aga, a distance of 80 'ilometers from
?aao, to order a sil' shirt from his old sewing woman >speran*a Margallo, living in his aunt #ilar
Sanche*K house until the following day, when he returned to ?aao, arriving there at 8 oKcloc' in the
afternoon
e +he accused Hrancisco Sanche* attempted to prove that on 3uly 1-, 19"-, at the reDuest of his
sister #ilar, he went to ,aga to supervise the repairs on her house and did not return to ?aao until the
!th of the following August
e +he accused #edro and >ligio Amante tried to prove that during the day in Duestion, they were
wor'ing on the construction of MariDuita MotosK house in ?aao, and that they had not left the place
e 3osefa Sto :omingo@s testimony that she did not see any of the accused in her house, and that
#atrocinio had been in her house accompanied by two un'nown men different from the accused She
testified in the preliminary investigation because of threat by 3uan ?otardo, who told her that if she
did not testify as he wanted her to, her husband would not be excluded from the complaint and would
not be released :>,)>: by 3uan ?otardo

C2I of Camarines !ur0 >ligio Amante, Hrancisco Sanche*, #edro Amante and Iicente Sanche*
(U)9+2 of the complex crime of abduction with consent, with rape Eor consented abduction with rapeF
e P3'ALTF% ?rothers Amante and H Sanche* sentenced to 16 years, ! months and 1 day
reclusion temporal, Iicente Sanche*, on account of being uner .7 :ears of age to 1" years
prision mayor, )ndemnify the offended party #atrocinio ?otardo in the sum of #-00, and each
to pay oneAfourth of the costs of the action

I!!#3!0
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1-!
1 /hether the accused are guilty of the crime of consented abduction with rape in view of
contradictory testimony of witnessesJ E2>SF

" /hether the relations, which, according to the prosecution existed between the offended party
#atrocinio ?otardo and #edro Amante, were against the will of the former and were brought by the
use of forceJ E,ot specifically answered but still 2>SF

H3LD0
1 2es +estimony $4>:)?9> Har from destroying the probative force of said testimony they
strengthen the same, as seen that neither could there have been a conspiracy nor a preconceived
plan as to what they were to testify to $onsidering the varied points of view of persons and their
perceptive ability, it is but natural that they should differ in the narration of their observations )t is
psychologically impossible that they should agree in all details Hence, w6en t6e testimon: of
two witnesses agrees e$en in its minute etails, it ceases to %e an accurate statement of
t6e su%Decti$e trut6.

MA):>, $4>:)?)9)+2% +he offended party is a young girl fifteen years of against whom there cannot
be the least doubt as to her chastity and honor
e 9i'e all maidens of her race, the loss of her virginity made her so ashamed that at first she did not
want to return to her town where two of those who had outraged her lived A girl who has hardly
begun to 'now the ways of the world, and who has such a 6ig6 an elicate regar for purit:, is
not capa%le of fa%ricating suc6 a %estial an s6ameful act of w6ic6 s6e was a $ictimB her
own sentiment of purity would rebel against such an idea, inasmuch as she would be exposed to the
scorn and disrespect of honest people
e +his is shown by the fact that she was as6ame to tell e$en t6ose w6o 6a $iolate 6er t6at
s6e 6a %een $iolate, and in accusing those who first had sexual intercourse with her, she only
said to those who succeeded them that they wanted to violate her

" 2>S +he contention of the defense that #atrocinio@s confidence in Amante@s promise after she was
violated disproves her testimony of the outrage she suffered is without merit )f the position in which
she found herself and the loss of what all reputable women consider as their most precious
possession are ta'en into consideration, it is not strange t6at in orer to sa$e 6erself from
is6onor s6e s6oul still continue %elie$ing 6im, as a drowning man who clings to the smallest
floating ob.ect to save himself from drowning

DI!PO!ITI53% Affirmed $H) 4uling
3lements of Consente A%uction0
e +hat offended party must be a virgin
e +hat she must be =I>4 1" and U,:>4 1G years of age
e +hat the +AL),( A/A2 of the offended party must be /)+< <>4 $=,S>,+, after solicitation or
ca.olery from the offender
e +hat the ta'ing away of the offended party must be with lewd designs

.;. !amilin $s. C2I
A#=9),A4)= SAM)9),, petitioner,
vs
+<> $=U4+ =H H)4S+ ),S+A,$> =H #A,(AS),A,, respondent
(U223, J p&
'ctober 5D, 5AB7

TOPIC% #4=S>$U+)=, =H $4)M>S =H A:U9+>42, $=,$U?),A(>, S>:U$+)=,, A?:U$+)=,, 4A#>
A,: A$+S =H 9AS$)I)=US,>SS

$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1--
'AT#R3% =riginal petition praying that a writ of prohibition issue to the respondent court
commanding it to desist and refrain from further proceedings in criminal case ,o 1"00! entitled the
#eople vs Apolinario Samilin, in which the defendant Epetitioner hereF is on trial for the crime of rape

2ACT!%
e April 1;, 1981% $riminal case E4ape committed to girl of 1" yrs oldF was commenced on, by a
complaint signed and filed by the chief of police of the municipality of San Manuel, #angasinan,
before the .ustice of the peace, in conformity with the provisions of Act ,o 1668
e After a finding of probable cause, the case was sent to the $H) #angasinan
e 3une 11, 1981% the provincial fiscal signed and filed an information against the accused for the said
crime of rape, again pursuant to Act ,o 1668
e 3une "9, 1981% the petitioner was duly arraigned, and he pleaded not guilty
e ,ovember 16, 1981% the trial began with the testimony of the alleged offended party +he trial was
continued and set for hearing on 3anuary 18, 198"
e 1anuar: ., .);-0 Re$ise Penal Coe (Act 'o. ;7.8" tooC effect.
e 3anuary 18, 198"% +rial resumedB the accused through his counsel moved that the court dismiss the
case for lac' of .urisdiction, invo'ing article "" in connection with articles 8!!, paragraph ", 88; and
8;6 of the 4evised #enal $ode
e Hebruary 9, 198"% $ourt denied said motion and the subseDuent motion for reconsideration
e LAE!%
o RPC --0 WRetroacti$e effect of penal laws [ #enal 9aws shall have a retroactive effect
insofar as they fa$or t6e persons guilt: of a felon:, who is not a habitual criminal, as this
term is defined in 4ule - of Article ;" of this $ode, although at the time of the publication of
such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same1
o RPC ;99, paragrap6 -% +he offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, shall not %e prosecute eLcept upon a complaint file %: t6e offene
part: or 6er parents, granparents, or guarian, nor, in any case, if the offender has
been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be
o !ection . of Act 'o. .**;, which too' effect =ctober 11, 1906, provides% &<ereafter the
crimes of adultery, estupro Erape o minorF, abduction, rape, calumny EslanderF, and libel, as
defined by the #enal $ode of the #hilippine )slands, shall be deemed to be pu%lic crimes and
shall be prosecuted in the same manner as are all other crimes defined by said #enal $ode or
by the Acts of the #hilippine $ommission
o Act ,o 1668 was expressly repealed by article 8;6 of the 4evised #enal $ode, saving,
however, the cases covered by article ;++ which reads as follows% &Application of laws
enacted prior to this $ode [ Eit6out preDuice to the provisions contained in Article -- of
t6is Coe, felonies and misdemeanors, committed prior to the date of effectiveness of this
$ode shall be punished in accordance with the $ode or Acts in force at t6e time of t6eir
commission

P3TITIO'3R0
o $omplaint was not signe or file %: t6e aggrie$e part: Ein this case a girl of 1" yearsF, or
her parents, grandAparents or guardian, the court is now wit6out Durisiction to proceed with
prosecution
o Since 3anuary 1, 198", the 4#$ 8!!, paragraph ", prosecution for rape reDuires that the complaint
shall be made by the offended party or her parents, grandA parents or guardian as the case may be
o +his is a .urisdictional reDuirement and the reDuirement favors the petitionerB and under 4#$ "",
said reDuirement must be given a retroacti$e effect and relate bac' to the complaint filed in this
case

I!!#3!%
1 /hether the reDuirement of article 8!!, paragraph ", that the complaint must be made by the
aggrieved party or her relatives favor persons charged with the crimes there mentionedJ )n other
words, should it be given retroactive effectJ E,=F
a /hether by virtue of the enactment of 4#$, the offense is now a private offense out of what
was under the previous code a public offenseJ E,=F
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1-;
" /hether the reDuirement is .urisdictional in the sense that prosecutions in such cases, begun
before 3anuary 1, 198", and pending thereafter, must be dismissed if the complaints were not signed
and filed by the offended party or her relatives as aforesaidJ E,=F

H3LD%
1 ,= Article 8!!, paragraph " cannot have retroactive effect as it was not made favorable to the
accused Article "" ma'es the penal laws retroactive &favor the persons guilty of felony& +heir
appellants@ ma.or premise, that article 8!!, paragraph ", is favorable to persons charged with the
crimes there indicated fails +here can be no reasonable doubt that $H) #angasinan in this case
should proceed to final .udgment in accordance with article 8;; of the 4evised #enal $ode U,9>SS
article "" stands in the way
e Article "" is not to be applied in this case Eas provision not enacted to favor the accusedFB
Article 8;; applies insofar as it applies the law at the time of the commission of the offense
e #U4#=S> =H A4+)$9> 8!!% Moreover, it is patent that the provision reDuiring that the
proceedings must be initiated upon complaint filed by the offended party or her relatives, was
enacted out of consieration for t6e offene part: an 6er famil: w6o mig6t prefer
to suffer t6e outrage in silence rat6er t6an go t6roug6 wit6 t6e scanal of a pu%lic
trial.
e )t would be an insult to the 9egislature to hold that article 8!!, paragraph " was enacted with
the intention of favoring seducers and rapists
e $iting People o the Philippine %slands vs. Dionisio $andido, Article 8!!, paragraph "%
o )n this case, it was argued that the court had no .urisdiction upon the a%sence of a
signature in t6e complaint of t6e offene part: as reDuired by Article 8!!,
paragraph " :efendant charged with the crime of abduction with consent upon an
information signed and filed by the provincial fiscal was convicted and sentenced, and
an appeal was filed in the S$ +he motion for reconsideration was denied and the
.udgment of conviction affirmed by the Hirst :ivision
e $=M#A4> /)+<% $lemente .aceste vs. the Director o Prisons, Article 8!!, paragraph 8%
o $riminal liability of the offender which is extinguished upon marriage with offended
party benefits coAprincipals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the
abovementioned crimes& )t is not to be overloo'ed that article 8!! provides that
marriage &shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed
upon him& )t is obvious that the provision for the remission of all penalty upon marriage
is fa$ora%le %ot6 to t6e principal an t6e accessor:.
1a ,o, this is a mere verbal distinction, for it is the government in both cases that conducts the
prosecution and punishes the offender ,or is it clear that a complaint is any less li'ely to be filed or
any less li'ely to be vigorously prosecuted in the one case than in the other )t is not apparent that it
can ma'e any real difference to the accused whether he is tried on a complaint filed by the offended
party or on one filed by the fiscal
)ndeed, it is conceivable that the offended party might insist upon the filing and trial of a
complaint which an experienced and impartial fiscal would be unwilling to file for technical
reasons or for lac' of sufficient evidence that would lead to conviction A private individual
might file a complaint out of malice or other improper motive, which would not ordinarily be
imputable to the government or its officials

" ,=+ :=$+4),A9 but #eople vs +olentino held that &it does not appear from the 4evised #enal
$ode that it was the intention of the law to divest $ourts of Hirst )nstance of .urisdiction over crimes
already acDuiredB the contrary is clearly implied&
e #enal laws that relate to mere matters of form or proceure are colorless when examined to
ascertain whether or not they favor the accused +hey are all designed to secure to the defendant a
speedy and impartial trial in accordance with law, without advantage either to the prosecution or to
the defense
e Iiewed in this light, c6anges in proceure introuce %: t6e Re$ise Penal Coe are not to
%e gi$en retroacti$e effect in the sense that all proceedings prior to 3anuary 1, 198", which
conform to the law in force at the time, must be overturned and new proceedings begun Article 8;;
was enacted to avoid the havoc which would have resulted if said changes had been made
retroactive

DI!PO!ITI53% +he petition for writ of prohibition is denied with costs against the petitioner
!I4#LATIO' O2 <IRTH!, !#<!TIT#TIO' O2 O'3 CHILD 2OR A'OTH3R A'D CO'C3AL43'T
OR A<A'DO'43'T O2 L3&ITI4AT3 CHILD
c/o Hipolito
Art 8!6 Simulation of births, substitution of one child for another and concealment or abandonment
of a legitimate child [ +he simulation of births and the substitution of one child for another shall be
punished by prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 1,000 pesos
+he same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall conceal or abandon any legitimate
child wit6 intent to cause suc6 c6il to lose its ci$il status.
Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in violation of the duties of his profession or office,
shall cooperate in the execution of any of the crimes mentioned in the two next preceding
paragraphs, shall suffer the penalties therein prescribed and also the penalty of temporary special
disDualification
$=M#A4> /)+<% Art "6; Abandoning a minor [ +he penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding -00 pesos shall be imposed upon any one who shall abandon a child under seven years of
age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him
/hen the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periodsB but if the life of the minor shall have been
in danger only, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
+he provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent the imposition of the
penalty provided for the act committed, when the same shall constitute a more serious offense
2. #'IT3D !TAT3! $s. !AT#R'I'O CAPILLO an P3TRO'A PAD#&A
CAR!O', J.0 March "-, 191- (4 ,o 9A9"69
2ACT!0
Information0 Saturnino $apillo and #etrona #aduga charged with Crime of eLposing a
legitimate c6il to lose 6is ci$il status
August 1", 1918% in Manila, Saturnino $apillo and #etrona #aduga, conspiring and
confederating together and helping one another, did feloniously expose a c6il, . mont6 ol,
the legitimate son of the accused !aturnino Capillo an 6is wife 5icenta #man%ang to
lose 6is ci$il status
Saturnino $apillo, wit6 intent to cause his legitimate child to lose his civil status and in
cooperation with the defendant #etrona #aduga, too' the said wit6out t6e permission of his
mother Iicenta Umanbang or the authority of the courts of this city and agreed with one $hua
#ue +ee to deliver to him the said child and never to claim it again
As'ing the said $hua #ue +ee at the same time to len t6em t6e sum of P.8/ to defray the
expenses incurred by the defendant Saturnino $apillo during the last sic'ness and eat6 of
6is wife 5icente #man%ang
4eceived from said $hua #ue +ee the sum of P./+ of w6ic6 P8/ corresponded to the
defendant !aturnino Capillo and P8+ to defendant Petrona Pauga
+hat the li$ing of sai c6il under such circumstances in the possession of said $hua #ue
+ee and <is wife Sio Suat Ling eLposes sai c6il to lose 6is ci$il status, to wit, that of the
legitimate son of the said defendant Saturnino $apillo and his wife Iicenta Umanbang to that
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1-G
of an unCnown an nameless c6il or at the most to that of the child of one $hua #ue +ee
and his wife
Aggravating circumstance of price should be ta'en into consideration
August "1, 1918% :efendants pleaded not guilty
September 1, 1918% the defendant@s counsel filed a motion, in the nature of a emurrer an
argument
+hat the case be :)SM)SS>:, basing his contention upon the fact that the information fails
to s6ow facts of sufficient weig6t to constitute a cause of action, that is, that the facts
state o not constitute a crime
o Article !;G of the #enal $ode in force, paragraph " of which is mentioned by the
prosecuting attorney, does not define as a crime the acts attributed to defendants ,or
is it inferred from the historical precedents that the facts which gave rise to this case
constitute a crime
o +he hypothesis of the legislator as to meaning of said paragraph " is the fact of
concealing or exposing a legitimate child with intent to cause such a child to lose his
civil status, w6en t6is act is one %: t6e person to w6om t6e c6il is entruste
for its nursing or for some ot6er lawful purpose.
o +his crime is rather applica%le to !pain onl:, where nursing children are usually
given to wet nurses, living out in the country, who are not able to move their residence
to the city where the child@s parents live
o )n the #hilippines the children are usually nursed by their own mother, and, if they are
given to a wet nurse, the latter goes to live at the house of the child@s parents
C2I 4anila0 $onsidered it a demurrer to the information and plea of not guilty considered withdrawnB
(ranted Motion and :ismissed the case
$omplaint did not state facts sufficient to constitute the crime charged
United States A##>A9>:
I!!#3!0
1 /hether Article !;G of #enal $ode penali*es abandonment of a child with the intent to lose its civil
status and not merely an exposure or danger to the loss of civil status or simple abandonmentJ E2>SF
" /hether the $H) properly dismissed the case for lac' of cause of actionJ E2>SF
H3LD0 E2>SF
" +he contentions of the parties on this appeal turn upon the meaning which should be given to
the word 0expusiere1 as found in the original Spanish version
o +he verb 0exponer1 is given various meaning in 0>l :iccionario de la 9engua$astellanapor
la 4eal Academia >spaMola,1 1"
th
edition Among others 0arriesgar, aventurar,
ponerunacosa en contingencia de perderse1 Eto ris', to adventure, to put a thing in danger
of being lostFB and also 0de.ar a un niMoreciennacido a la puerta de unaiglesia o casa o en
otropara.epublico, por no tener con Duecriarlosus padres o porDue no se sepaDuienes son1
Eto leave a recently born baby at the door of a church, or a house or other public place, the
parents not having means to support it, or the paents being un'nownF
o <aving in mind the Dualifying phrase which provides that the offense is committed when
the child is exposed 0con animo de hacerleperdersuestado civil1 Ewith intent to expose it to
lose its civil statusF, the word must be held to have been used by the authors of the code in
the sense of to 0abandon,1 in some such manner as is indicated in the last of the above
cited meaning given the word in the 0:iccionario1B that being the clear, definite and well
understood signification of the word when used by the Spanish authors of the code with
relation to infants or children, as it manifestly is in this article
o +he contention of the prosecution is that the true meaning of the language of the statute is
that the prescribed penalties are to be imposed upon 0one who conceals, or exposes or
sub.ects to danger of loss of civil status, a legitimate child, with intent to cause it to lose its
civil status1
o ?ut without the addition of the Dualifying phrase 0with intent to cause it Ethe infantF to lose
its civil status,1 the transitive verbs 0ocultare1 and 0expusiere1 convey no thought of loss of
civil status, and in construing the verb 0exponer1 to mean 0to expose or sub.ect to danger
of loss of civil status,1 the prosecution gives to it a meaning which is not found in any
dictionary
o )t is worthy of observation, furthermore, that the transitive verb 0expusiere1 Eshall exposeF
is .oined in grammatical construction with the verb 0ocultare1 Eshall concealF and, li'e it,
has for its sole ob.ect the word 0child1 Ehi.oF, and sound principles of grammatical
construction forbid the attempt to import into one of these verbs a meaning from the
common Dualifying phrase which it is manifestly impossible to give to the other
+he practice of abandoning newAborn infants and very young children at the door of hospitals,
churches and other religious institutions was formerly so well 'nown in Spain that, as will be seen
from the definition above cited from the dictionary of the 04eal Academia,1 it gave rise to the use
of the verb 0exponer1 Eto exposeF in a peculiar and special sense with reference to this practice,
when the grammatical ob.ect of the verb is an infant or small child /e are well satisfied that it is
in this sense that the word is used in the article of the code under consideration, and that in this
connection it may and should be construed in both Spanish and >nglish by its substantial
eDuivalent to 0abandon1
0 >xpusiere1 Eshall exposeF Y A?A,:=,M>,+
(roi*ard% 0the exposition which is caused by abandoning a newAborn child in place where it cannot
be easily assisted, intending that it should perish and save the honor of the mother, is a crime
against life. +he exposition of a child and the abandonment thereof in a place where it may not
be in danger may be a crime against t6e safet: of persons =nly that which has for its
purpose the deprivation of the newAborn child@s civil status is what constitutes the present
crime
o )t is necessary that the acts committed by the guilty party plainly s6ow 6is intent
o +he fact that one abandons, in the midst of a lonely forest, an unfortunate child that needs
all 'inds of assistance during the first moments of coming into the world cannot be
admitted as intent to destroy its civil status, but as an attempt against its life
o =n the contrary, he who places at the door of a charitable person, a newAborn child which is
in condition to stand the first in clemencies of the weather, is supposed to do it in order
that it may be ta'en up and protected, and therefore the legal presumption must be that
he does not act with any other purpose than to cause the loss of any trace as to the filiation
of the child1
Iiada% 0$hild must be understood a full: e$elope an li$ing %eing, as the child born not
capable of living has no status, nor can he transmit any rights whatever )t is, therefore, an
essential condition of this crime, that crime, that the child who has been exposed or concealed
shall have been %orn ali$e, and therefore, the clandestine burial of a child who was born dead is
not included within the provisions of the last paragraph of this article, although it may be included
within the provisions of article 8!9 of this $ode
o >xposition or concealment must be of a legitimate c6il and done with the intention of
ma'ing him lose his civil status, that is, his inherent rights as a legitimate child
o /ere he illegitimate, or, were the intentions of the one who concealed or exposed the
child different, the act may constitute a crime against li%ert: an securit:, but certainly
not an attempt against the civil status of the child1
" $ase properly dismissed )t is manifest from the information itself, and from the argument of
counsel on the demurrer, that the real ob.ect sought to be attained by the prosecution is to penali*e,
under the provisions of article !;G of the code, the conduct of the father in turning over his newAborn
child to the $hinaman and his wife, with a promise not to reclaim it, ta'ing from the $hinaman for so
doing money by way of loan or otherwise ?ut it is very clear that it was not the intention of the
authors of the coded to penali*e such conduct by the provisions of the article relied upon by the
prosecution
)t is urged that the transaction set forth in the information was in truth and effect a heartless sale
of his own flesh and blood by the accused for one hundred and odd pesos, and that he should not
be permitted to go unpunished
)t is not necessary for us to consider and decide, at this time, under what circumstances, if any, a
father, left with a motherless child, may turn it over to others with or without an agreement to
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1;0
reclaim it, or whether, in the event that he does turn the child over to others, be would ever be
permitted to receive money or other consideration from those who adopt the child
=ur ruling at this time is merely that the offense defined and penali*ed in article !;G of the #enal
$ode is not the unlawful sale of a child by its father, and that such conduct cannot properly be
penali*ed under its provisions
)f the accused has been guilty of conduct constituting an offense of this 'ind, in violation of the
laws of the #hilippine )slands, he should be charged with and tried for the offense actually
committed, so that the penalty to be imposed upon conviction may be ad.udged by the courts in
accord with the provisions of the statute defining and penali*ing the crime of which he is found
guilty
DI!PO!ITI530 $H) AHH)4M>:, $AS> :)SM)SS>:
<I&A4F
cCo <ipolito
4#$ 8!9% +he penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract a second
or subseDuent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent
spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a .udgment rendered in the proper
proceedings
" C3'O' R. T353! $s. P3OPL3 an DA'ILO R. <O'&ALO'
P3R3J, J.0 August "!, "011 &.R. 'o. .77**8

2ACT!0
,ovember ";, 199"% $enon +eves and +helma 3aimeA+eves married at the M+$ of Muntinlupa $ity,
Metro Manila
After the marriage, +helma left to wor' abroad She would only come home to the #hilippines for
vacations
/hile on a vacation in "00", she was informed that her husband had contracted marriage with a
certain >dita $alderon
+o verify the information, she went to the ,ational Statistics =ffice and secured a copy of the
$ertificate of Marriage indicating that her husband and 3ita contracte marriage on ./
Decem%er -//. at t6e Di$ine Trust Consulting !er$ices, 4al6acan, 4e:caua:an,
<ulacan.
Hebruary 18, "00;% :anilo ?ongalon, uncle of +helma, filed before the =ffice of the #rovincial
#rosecutor of Malolos $ity, ?ulacan a complaint accusing petitioner of committing bigamy
May !, "00;% ?efore the filing of information for the criminal case of bigamy, the 4+$ $aloocan
rendered a decision dated declaring the marriage of petitioner and +helma null an $oi on the
ground that T6elma is p6:sicall: incapacitate to compl: wit6 6er essential marital
o%ligations pursuant to Article 8; of the Hamily $ode E#S2$<=9=()$A9 ),$A#A$)+2F
3une G, "00;% +eves was charged with bigamy under 4#$ 8!9 in an )nformation%
o :ecember 10, "001 up to the present% Meycauayan, ?ulacan, $enon 4 +eves being
previously united in lawful marriage on ,ovember ";, 199" with +helma ? 3aime and
without the said marriage having legally dissolved, unlawfully contract a secon marriage
wit6 one 3ita T. Caleron, who Cnowing of t6e criminal esign of accuse Cenon
R. Te$es to marry her and in concurrence thereof, unlawfully cooperate in t6e
eLecution of t6e offense by marrying $enon 4 +eves, 'nowing fully well of the existence
of the marriage of the latter with +helma ? 3aime
3une "6, "00;% :ecision became final by virtue of a $ertification of Hinality
RTC0 +>I>S (U)9+2B #enalty% )S9 ! years, " months and 1 day of prision correccional, as
minimum, to ; years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum
+eves appealed the decision before the $ourt of Appeals contending that%
o <is criminal action or liability had already been extinguished Emarriage declared I=):F
o :efective )nformation filed by the prosecution
CA0 AHH)4M>: 4+$
M=4 filed but was :>,)>:
PetitionerHs Arguments0
o Since his previous marriage was declared null and void, 0there is in effect no marriage at all,
and thus, there is no bigamy to spea' of1
o :ifferentiates a previous valid or voidable marriage from a marriage null and void ab initio, and
posits that the former reDuires a .udicial dissolution before one can validly contract a second
marriage but a void marriage, for the same purpose, need not be .udicially determined
o 4uling of the $ourt in 0ercado v. 2an is inapplicable in his case because in the 0ercado case
the prosecution for bigamy was initiated before the declaration of nullity of marriage was
filed )n petitioner@s case, the first marriage had already been legally dissolved at the time the
bigamy case was filed in court
I!!#30
/hether husband cannot be guilty of the crime of bigamy if the marriage was declared null and void
before the filing of the bigamy case in courtJ E,=, still (U)9+2F
H3LD0 (U)9+2 of ?igamyB <is contention that he cannot be charged with bigamy in view of the
declaration of nullity of his first marriage is bereft of merit
>lements of ?)(AM2%
1 +hat the offender has been legally marriedB
" +hat the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the $ivil
$odeB
8 +hat he contracts a second or subseDuent marriageB and
! +hat the second or subseDuent marriage has all the essential reDuisites for
validity
"
nd
MA44)A(>%
o >lement 1% #etitioner was legally married to +helma on "; ,ovember 199" at
the Metropolitan +rial $ourt of Muntinlupa $ity <e contracted a second or
subseDuent marriage with >dita on 10 :ecember "001 in Meycauayan,
?ulacan
o >lement "V8% At the time of his second marriage with >dita, his marriage with
+helma was legally subsisting )t is noted that the finality of the decision
declaring the nullity of his first marriage with +helma was only on "6 3une "00;
or about five E-F years after his second marriage to >dita
o >lement !% Hinally, the second or subseDuent marriage of petitioner with >dita
has all the essential reDuisites for validity #etitioner has in fact not disputed the
validity of such subseDuent marriage
Hamily $ode% A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly
reDuired either as a cause of action or a ground for defense /here the absolute nullity
of a previous marriage is sought to be invo'ed for purposes of contracting a
secon marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said pro.ected marriage to be
free from legal infirmity is a final Dugment eclaring t6e pre$ious marriage $oi.
+he Hamily 9aw 4evision $ommittee and the $ivil $ode 4evision $ommittee too' the
position that parties to a marriage s6oul not %e allowe to assume t6at t6eir
marriage is $oi even if such be the fact but must first secure a .udicial declaration of
the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again
#U4#=S> =H 4>OU)4>M>,+ H=4 3U:)$)A9 :>$9A4A+)=,% )t is also for the protection of
the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries
again /ith the .udicial declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage, the person who
marries again cannot be charged with bigamy
A Duicial eclaration of nullit: is reMuire %efore a $ali su%seMuent
marriage can %e contracteS or else, w6at transpires is a %igamous marriage,
repre6ensi%le an immoral.
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1;"
)f petitioner@s contention would be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply
evade prosecution by immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of his
earlier marriage and hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone
institutes a complaint against him
/e note that in petitioner@s case the complaint was filed before the first marriage was
declared a nullity )t was only the filing of the )nformation that was overta'en by the
declaration of nullity of his first marriage Hollowing petitioner@s argument, even
assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such as in this case, the offender can
still escape liability provided that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage precees
t6e filing of t6e Information in court.
Such cannot be allowed +o do so would ma'e the crime of bigamy dependent upon
the ability or inability of the =ffice of the #ublic #rosecutor to immediately act on
complaints and eventually file )nformations in court #lainly, petitioner@s strained
reading of the law is against its simple letter
Settled is the rule that criminal culpa%ilit: attac6es to t6e offener upon t6e
commission of t6e offense, an from t6at instant, lia%ilit: appens to 6im
until eLtinguis6e as pro$ie %: law, an t6at t6e time of filing of t6e
criminal complaint (or Information, in proper cases" is material onl: for
etermining prescription.
+he crime of bigamy was committed by petitioner on 10 :ecember "001 when he
contracted a second marriage with >dita +he finality on "6 3une "00; of the .udicial
declaration of the nullity of his previous marriage to +helma cannot be made to retroact
to the date of the bigamous marriage

DI!PO!ITI530 EH3R32OR3, the instant petition for review is D3'I3D and the assailed :ecision
dated "1 3anuary "009 of the $ourt of Appeals is A22IR43D in toto
8 ATILA'O O. 'OLLORA, 1R. $s. P3OPL3
CARPIO, J.0 &.R. 'o. .).9-8 September 6, "011
2ACT!0
April ;, 1999% Hirst marriage between Atilano = ,ollora, 3r and 3esusa #inat ,ollora solemni*ed on
at W)>XM>9)H $hurch, Sapang #alay, San 3ose del Monte 4ev 3onathan :e Mesa, Minister of the
)>M>9)H $hurch officiated the ceremony
:ecember G, "001% Atilano = ,ollora, 3r contracted the second marriage with 4owena (erldino at
Max@s 4estaurant, Oue*on Avenue, Oue*on $ity, Metro Manila 4ev <onorato :
Santos officiated the ceremony
# (eraldino on in Oue*on $ity Eadmitted in a counterAaffidavit by both parties, $ertificate of
MarriageF
August "!, "00!% )nformation against Atilano = ,ollora, 3r and 4owena # (eraldino for the crime
of ?igamy%
o :ecember G, "001% A+)9A,= = ,=99=4A, 34, being then legally married to one 3>SUSA
#),A+ ,=99=4A, and as said marriage has not been legally dissolved and still subsisting,
did then and there unlawfully contract a subseDuent or second marriage with his coA
accused 4=/>,A # (>4A9:),=, who 'nowingly consented and agreed to be married to
her coAaccused A+)9A,= = ,=99=4A, 34 'nowing him to be a married man, to the damage
and pre.udice of the said offended party 3>SUSA #),A+ ,=99=4A1
,ollora assisted by counsel, refused to enter his plea <ence, a plea of not guilty was entered by
the $ourt for him Accused (eraldino, on the other hand, entered a plea of not guilty when
arraigned
Prosecution0
3esusa #inat ,ollora testified that she and accused Atilano = ,ollora, 3r met in Saudi Arabia while
she was wor'ing there as a Staff Midwife in Ling Abdulah ,aval ?ase <ospital
/hile wor'ing in said hospital, she heard rumors that her husband has another wife and because
of anxiety and emotional stress, she left Saudi Arabia and returned to the #hilippines E
Upon arrival in the #hilippines, the private complainant learned that indeed, Atilano = ,ollora, 3r
contracted a second marriage with coAaccused 4owena # (eraldino on :ecember G, "001 when
she secured a certification as to the civil status of Atilano = ,ollora, 3r from the ,ational
Statistics =ffice E,S=F sometime in ,ovember "008
Upon learning this information, the private complainant confronted 4owena # (eraldino on
,overmber "008 with a friend E4uth SantosF at 4owena@s wor'place in $?/, H+), +aguig and
as'ed her if she 'new of the first marriage between complainant and Atilano = ,ollora, 3r to
which 4owena # (eraldino allegedly affirmed and despite this 'nowledge, she allegedly still
married Atilano = ,ollora, 3r because she loves him so much and because they were neighbors
and childhood friends
#rivate complainant also 'new that 4owena # (eraldino 'new of her marriage
with Atilano = ,ollora, 3r, because when she Eprivate complainantF was brought
by Atilano = ,ollora, 3r at the latter@s residence in +aguig, Metro Manila and introduced her
to Atilano = ,ollora, 3r@s parents, 4owena # (eraldino was there in the house together with a
friend and she heard everything that they were tal'ing about
?ecause of this case, private complainant was not able to return to Saudi Arabia to wor' as a Staff
Midwife thereby losing income opportunity in the amount of #8!,00000 a month, more or less
/hen as'ed about the moral damages she suffered, she declared that what happened to her was
a tragedy and she had entertained WthoughtsX of committing suicide She added that because of
what happened to her, her mother died and she almost got raped when Atilano = ,ollora, 3r left
her alone in their residence in Saudi Arabia
<owever, she declared that money is not enough to assuage her sufferings )nstead, she .ust
as'ed for the return of her money in the amount of #-0,000
Defense0
!tilano7s testimon/
0Accused Atilano = ,ollora, 3r admitted having contracted two E"F marriages, the first with
private complainant 3esusa #inat and the second with 4owena # (eraldino <e, however, claimed
that he was a Muslim convert way bac' on 3anuary 10, 199", even before he contracted the first
marriage with the private complainant As a 4uslim con$ert, he is allegedly entitled to marry
four E!F wives as allowed under the Muslim or )slam belief
#4==H =H MUS9)M HA)+<%
o $ertificate of $onversion dated August ", "00! issued by one <ad.i
Abdul La.ar MadueMo and approved by one Lhad )brahim A Alyamin wherein it is stated
that Atilano = ,ollora, 3r allegedly converted as a Muslim since 3anuary 19, 199" E
o #ledge of $onversion dated 3anuary 10, 199" issued by the
same <ad.i Abdul La.ar MadueMo and approved by one Lhad )brahim A Alyamin
<e claimed that the private complaint 'new that he was a Muslim convert prior to their marriage
because he told this fact when he was courting her in Saudi Arabia and the reason why said
private complainant filed the instant case was due to hatred having learned of his second
marriage with 4owena # (eraldino
<e further testified that 4owena # (eraldino was not aware of his first marriage with the private
complainant and he did not tell her this fact because Rowena P. &eralino is a Cat6olic and he
does not want to lose her if she learns of his first marriage
<e explained that in his 4arriage Contract wit6 1esusa Pinat, it is inicate t6at 6e was a
YCat6olic PentecostalH but that he was not aware why it was placed as such on said contract )n
his 4arriage Contract wit6 Rowena P. &eralino, t6e religion YCat6olicH was also
inicate because he was 'eeping as a secret his being a Muslim since the society does not
approve of marrying a Muslim <e also indicated that he was Usingle@ despite his first marriage to
'eep said first marriage a secret
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1;!
adueno7s Testimon/
:efense witness <ad.i Abdul Oasar MadueMo testified that he is the founder and president
of ?ali' )slam +ableegh Houndation of the #hilippines and as such president, he has the power and
authority to convert any applicant to the Muslim religion
<e declared that a Muslim convert could marry more than one according to the <oly Loran
<owever, before marrying his second, third and fourth wives, it is reMuire t6at t6e consent of
t6e first 4uslim wife %e secure. T6us, if t6e first wife is not a 4uslim, t6ere is no
necessit: to secure 6er consent
)f a Muslim convert gets married not in accordance with the Muslim faith, the same is contrary to
the teachings of the Muslim faith A Muslim also can marry up to four times but 6e s6oul %e
a%le to treat t6em eMuall:. <e claimed that he was not aware of the first marriage but was
aware of the second Since the second marriage with 4owena #(eraldino was not in accordance
with the Muslim faith, he advised Atilano = ,ollora, 3r to reAmarry 4owena # (eraldino in
accordance with Muslim marriage celebration, otherwise, he will not be considered as a true
Muslim
+eraldino7s testimon/
Accused 4owena # (eraldino alleged that she was only a victim in this incident of bigamous
marriage She claimed that she does not 'now the private complainant 3esusa #inat ,ollora and
only came to 'now her when this case was filed
She insists that she is the one lawfully married to Atilano = ,ollora, 3r, having been married to
the latter since :ecember G, "001 Upon learning that Atilano =,ollora, 3r contracted a first
marriage with the private complainant, she confronted the former who admitted the said
marriage
#rior to their marriage, she as'ed Atilano = ,ollora, 3r if he was single and the latter responded
that he was single She also 'new that her husband was a $atholic prior to their marriage but after
she learned of the first marriage of her husband, she learned that he is a Muslim convert
She also claimed that after learning that her husband was a Muslim convert, she
and Atilano = ,ollora 3r, also got married in accordance with the Muslim rites
She also belied the allegations of the private complainant about their confrontation and alleged
that she came only to 'now private complainant at the filing of the case
RTC0 'ollora guilt: of %igam: under 4#$ 8!9 4owena (eraldino E(eraldinoF was acDuitted for the
prosecution@s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt #enalty% prison term of two E"F
years, four E!F months and one E1F day of prision correccional, as minimum of his indeterminate
sentence, to eight EGF years and one E1F day of prision mayor, as maximum, plus accessory penalties
provided by law
o Accused Atilano ,ollora, 3r, in marrying his second wife, coAaccused 4owena # (eraldino, and
did not comply with the aboveAmentioned provision of the law )n fact, he did not even declare
that he was a Muslim convert in both marriages, indicating his criminal intent )n his
converting to the Muslim faith, said accused entertained the mista'en belief that he can .ust
marry anybody again after marrying the private complainant
o /hat is clear, therefore, is that a Muslim is not given an unbridled right to .ust marry anybody
the second, third or fourth time +here are reDuirements that the Shari@a law imposes, that is,
he should have notified the Shari@a $ourt where his family resides so that copy of said notice
should be furnished to the first wife +he argument that notice to the first wife is not reDuired
since she is not a Muslim is of no moment +his obligation to notify the said court rests upon
accused Atilano
,ollora, 3r )t is not for him to interpret the Shari@a law )t is the Shari@a $ourt that has this
authority
o )n an apparent attempt to escape criminal liability, the accused recelebrated their marriage in
accordance with the Muslim rites <owever, this can no longer cure the criminal liability that
has already been violated
o ,= 9)A?)9)+2 H=4 (>4A9:),=% ,o sufficient evidence that would pin accused 4owena
# (eraldino down +he evidence presented by the prosecution against her is the allegation
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1;-
that she 'new of the first marriage between private complainant and Atilano ,ollora, 3r, is
insufficient, being open to several interpretations
o #rivate complainant alleged that when she was brought by Atilano ,ollora, 3r, to the latter@s
house in +aguig, Metro Manila, 4owena # (eraldino was there standing near the door and
heard their conversation Hrom this incident, private complainant concluded that said 4owena
# (eraldino was aware that she and Atilano ,ollora, 3r, were married
o +his conclusion is obviously misplaced since it could not be reasonably presumed that 4owena
# (eraldino understands what was going on between her and Atilano ,ollora, 3r )t is
axiomatic that 0E3Fvery circumstance avorin! accused4s innocence must be taken into
account, proo a!ainst him must survive the test o reason and the stron!est suspicion must
not be permitted to sway jud!ment<
CA0 :)SM)SS>: appeal and affirmed +$
o +he appellate court re.ected ,ollora@s defense that his second marriage to (eraldino was in
lawful exercise of his )slamic religion and was allowed by the Our@an
o +he appellate court denied ,ollora@s invocation of his religious beliefs and practices to the
pre.udice of the nonAMuslim women who married him pursuant to #hilippine civil
laws ,ollora@s two marriages were not conducted in accordance with the $ode of Muslim
#ersonal 9aws, hence the Hamily $ode of the #hilippines should apply
o ,ollora@s claim of religious freedom will not immobili*e the State and render it impotent in
protecting the general welfare
o :enied M=4
Issue0 /hether ,ollora is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of bigamy
Hel0 F3!.
=nly two exceptions to prosecution for bigamy% Article 9. of t6e 2amil: Coe, or >xecutive
=rder ,o "09, and Article .7/ of t6e Coe of 4uslim Personal Laws of t6e P6ilippines, or
#residential :ecree ,o 10G8
o Art !1 Absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a wellAfounded belief
that the absent spouse was already dead :isappearance where there is danger of death
for two years shall be sufficient
o Art. .7/. Law applica%le. N T6e pro$isions of t6e Re$ise Penal Coe relati$e to
t6e crime of %igam: s6all not appl: to a person marrie in accorance wit6 t6e
pro$isions of t6is Coe or, %efore its effecti$it:, uner 4uslim law.
#etitioner invo'es his faith as a defense for the crime Hor the defense of his Muslim faith to apply,
the marriage must be solemni*ed in accordance with Muslim law or $ode
,ollora cannot deny that both marriage ceremonies were not conducted in accordance with the
$ode of Muslim #ersonal 9aws, or #residential :ecree ,o 10G8 +he applicable Articles in the
$ode of Muslim #ersonal 9aws read%
o Art 1! :ature. C Marriage is not only a civil contract but a civil institution )ts nature,
conseDuences and incidents are governed by this $ode and the Shari@a and not sub.ect to
stipulation, except that the marriage settlements to a certain extent fix the property
relations of the spouses
o Art 1- 3ssential ReGuisites. C ,o marriage contract shall be perfected unless the following
essential reDuisites are complied with%
EaF 9egal capacity of the contracting partiesB
EbF Mutual consent of the parties freely givenB
EcF =ffer EijabF and acceptance EGabulF duly witnessed by at least two competent persons
after the proper guardian in marriage EwaliF has given his consentB and
EdF Stipulation of the customary dower EmahrF duly witnessed by two competent persons
o Art 1; $apacity to contract marria!e. C E1F Any Muslim male at least fifteen years of age
and any Muslim female of the age of puberty or upwards and not suffering from any
impediment under the provisions of this $ode may contract marriage A female is
presumed to have attained puberty upon reaching the age of fifteen
o Art 16 0arria!e $eremony. C ,o particular form of marriage ceremony is reDuired but
the ijab and the Gabul in marriage shall be declared publicly in the presence of the person
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1;;
solemni*ing the marriage and the two competent witnesses +he declaration shall be set
forth in an instrument in triplicate, signed or mar'ed by the contracting parties and said
witnesses, and attested by the person solemni*ing the marriage =ne copy shall be given
to the contracting parties and another sent to the $ircuit 4egistrar by the solemni*ing
officer who shall 'eep the third
o Art 1G Authority to solemni)e marria!e. C Marriage maybe solemni*ed%
EaF ?y the proper wali by the woman to be weddedB
EbF Upon the authority of the proper wali, by any person who is competent under Muslim
law to solemni*e marriageB or
EcF ?y the .udge of the #hari4a :istrict $ourt or #hari4a $ircuit $ourt or any person
designated by the .udge, should the proper wali refuse without .ustifiable reason, to
authori*e the solemni*ation
o Art 19 Place o solemni)ation. C Marriage shall be solemni*ed publicly in any mosDue,
office of the #hari4a .udge, office of the $ircuit 4egistrar, residence of the bride or her wali,
or at any other suitable place agreed upon by the parties
o Art "0 #peciication o dower. C +he amount or value of dower may be fixed by the
contracting parties EmahrCmusammaF before, during or after the celebration of marriage )f
the amount or the value thereof has not been so fixed, a proper dower EmahrCmithlF shall,
upon petition of the wife, be determined by the court according to the social standing of
the parties
o Article "6 of the $ode of Muslim #ersonal 9aws of the #hilippines, which provides the
Dualifications for allowing Muslim men to have more than one wife% 0W,Xo Muslim male can
have more than one wife unless he can deal with them in eDual companionship and .ust
treatment as en.oined by )slamic 9aw and only in exceptional cases1
o +he principle in )slam is that monogam: is t6e general rule an pol:gam: is allowe
onl: to meet urgent nees. =nly with the permission of the court can a Muslim be
permitted to have a second wife sub.ect to certain reDuirements +his is because having
plurality of wives is merely tolerated, not encouraged, under certain circumstances
o Arbitration is necessary Any Muslim husband desiring to contract subseDuent marriages,
before so doing, shall notif: t6e !6ariHa Circuit Court of t6e place w6ere 6is famil:
resies +he cler' of court shall serve a copy thereof to the wife or wives Should any of
them ob.ectB an Agama Ar%itration Council s6all %e constitute. )f said council fails to
secure the wife@s consent to the proposed marriage, the $ourt shall, sub.ect to Article "6,
decide whether on not to sustain her ob.ection EArt 1;", Muslim #ersonal 9aws of the
#hilippinesF
)n this case, since the marriage is between a Muslim and a nonAMuslim and it was not celebrated
in accordance with Muslim law and the following law applies%
o Article 18E"F of the $ode of Muslim #ersonal 9aws states that 0WiXn case of a marriage
%etween a 4uslim an a non(4uslim, solemnize not in accorance wit6 4uslim
law or t6is Coe, t6e W2amil: Coe of t6e P6ilippines, or 3Lecuti$e Orer 'o.
-/), in lieu of the $ivil $ode of the #hilippinesX s6all appl:.
+hus, the Hamily $ode applies to the Muslim spouse and the reDuirements for validity must be
followedB the exception to the application of the 4#$ stated in Art 1G0 of Muslim $ode does not
apply
>lements of ?igamy%
1 +hat the offender has been le!ally married
" +hat the marriage has not been le!ally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the $ivil $ode
8 +hat he contracts a second or subseGuent marriage
! +hat the second or subseDuent marriage has all the essential reGuisites or validity
+he circumstances in the present case satisfy all the elements of bigamy
E1F ,ollora is legally married to #inatB
o >I):>,$> =H H)4S+ MA44)A(>%
o Marriage certificate
E"F ,ollora and #inat@s marriage has not been legally dissolved prior to the date of the second
marriageB
E8F ,ollora admitted the existence of his second marriage to (eraldino and
o >I):>,$> =H "nd MA44)A(>%
o Marriage certificate
o A certification dated ! ,ovember "008 from the =ffice of the $ivil 4egistrar (eneral
reads% /e certify that A+)9A,= 34 = ,=99=4A who is alleged to have been born on
Hebruary "", 19;G from A+)9A,= M ,=99=4A S4 and H9AI)A,A =$9A4)+, appears in
our ,ational )ndices of Marriage for (room for the years 1968 to "00"
E!F ,ollora and (eraldino@s marriage has all the essential reDuisites for validity except for the lac'
of capacity of ,ollora due to his prior marriage
o ,ollora asserted in his marriage certificate with (eraldino that his civil status is 0single1
Moreover, both of ,ollora@s marriage contracts do not state that he is a Muslim Although the truth or
falsehood of the declaration of one@s religion in the marriage certificate is not an essential
reDuirement for marriage, such omissions are sufficient proofs of ,ollora@s liability for bigamy
o ,ollora@s false declaration about his civil status is thus further compounded by the omissions in
both marriage certificates% he being single and being $atholic #entecostal because he wanted to 'eep
it a secret since societ: oesnHt appro$e a Cat6olic to marr: anot6er religion an 6is %eing
single was %ecause 6e wante to Ceep 6is first marriage secret. <e was also not able to
secure permission from his first wife because she was very mad at him
o >ven though "
nd
bigamous marriage would be considered void, there is a recognition written into
the law itself that such a marriage, alt6oug6 $oi a% initio, ma: still prouce legal
conseMuences. Among t6ese legal conseMuences is incurring criminal lia%ilit: for %igam:
+o hold otherwise would render the State@s penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory, and allow
individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in some manner, and to thus
escape the conseDuences of contracting multiple marriages, while beguiling throngs of hapless
women with the promise of futurity and commitment
DI!PO!ITI530 #etition :>,)>:. the petition $A :ecision AHH)4M>:
(U)9+2 =H ?)(AM2B #enalty of imprisonment with a term of two years, four months and one
day of prision correccional as minimum to eight years and one day of prision mayor as
maximum of his indeterminate sentence, as well as the accessory penalties provided by law
9. 53RO'ICO T3'3<RO vs CO#RT O2 APP3AL!
F'AR3!(!A'TIA&O, J.2 &.R. 'o. .8/*87 2e%ruar: .7, -//9
DOCTRI'30 ?igamy is still committed though marriage is ab initio null and void Eif marriage is
contracted before the .udicial declaration of its nullityF SubseDuent .udicial declaration of nullity of
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity does not retroact to the date of the celebration of
the marriage insofar as the #hilippines@ penal laws are concerned As such, an individual who
contracts a second or subseDuent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is criminally
liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subseDuent declaration that the second marriage is void ab
initio on the ground of psychological incapacity
2ACT!0
April 10, 1990% Ieronico +enebro, contracted marriage with private complainant Leticia AncaDas
wed by 3udge Alfredo ? #ere*, 3r of the $ity +rial $ourt of 9apuAlapu $ity
+enebro and Anca.as lived together continuously and without interruption until the latter part of
1991, when +enebro informed Anca.as that he had been previously married to a certain Hila
5illare:es on ,ovember 10, 19G;, solemni*ed at Manila $ity <all before 4ev 3ulieto +orres, a
Minister of the (ospel
+enebro showed Anca.as a photocopy of a marriage contract between him and Iillareyes
)nvo'ing this previous marriage, +enebro thereafter left the con.ugal dwelling which he shared
with Anca.as, stating that he was going to cohabit with Iillareyes
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1;G
3anuary "-, 1998% +enebro contracted yet another marriage, this one with a certain 'ila
5illegas, before 3udge (erman 9ee, 3r of the 4+$ $ebu
/hen Anca.as learned of this third marriage, she verified from Iillareyes whether the latter was
indeed married to petitioner )n a handwritten letter, Iillareyes confirmed that petitioner, Ieronico
+enebro, was indeed her husband
Anca.as thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner
September 199-% Information
o April 10, 1990, in 9apuAlapu, #hilippines, accused, having been previously united in lawful
marriage with <ilda Iillareyes, and without the said marriage having been legally
dissolved, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously contract a second
marriage with 9>+)$)A A,$A3AS, which second or subseDuent marriage of the accused has
all the essential reDuisites for validity were it not for the subsisting first marriage
/hen arraigned, petitioner entered a plea of &not guilty&
'o$em%er -/, .))8% 3udicial declaration of nullity of "
nd
marriage by virtue of psychological
incapacity as penned by 3udge >pifanio $ 9lano of the 4egional +rial $ourt of Argao, $ebu, ?ranch
";
D323'!30
:uring the trial, petitioner admitted having cohabited with Iillareyes from 19G!A19GG, with whom
he sired two children <owever, he denied that he and Iillareyes were validly married to each
other, claiming that no marriage ceremon: tooC place to solemnize t6eir union.
<e alleged that he signe a marriage contract merel: to ena%le 6er to get t6e allotment
from 6is office in connection with his wor' as a seaman
<e further testified that he reDuested his brother to verify from the $ivil 4egister in Manila
whether there was any marriage at all between him and Iillareyes, but there was no recor of
sai marriage
'o$em%er ./, .))*% the 4egional +rial $ourt of 9apuAlapu $ity, ?ranch -!, (U)9+2 of bigamy
o #>,A9+2% ! years and " months of prision correccional, as minimum, to G years and 1 day
of prision mayor, as maximum
CA0 Affirmed the decision of the trial court #etitioner@s motion for reconsideration was denied for
lac' of merit
Defense0
<e E1F denies the existence of his first marriage to Iillareyes, and
<e E"F argues that the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity, which is an alleged indicator that his marriage to Anca.as lac's the
essential reDuisites for validity, retroacts to the date on which the second marriage was
celebrated
<ence, petitioner argues that all four of the elements of the crime of bigamy are absent, and
prays for his acDuittal
I!!#3!0
1 /hether the accused is guilty of bigamy despite the nonAexistence, as alleged, of the first
marriageJ E(uilty, inexistence not provenF
" /hether the accused is guilty of bigamy despite the declaration of nullity of "
nd
marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacityJ E2>SF
H3LD0 (U)9+2 of ?igamy
Under Article 8!9 of the 4evised #enal $ode, the elements of the crime of ?igamy are%
E1F that the offender has been legally marriedB
E"F that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the $ivil $odeB
E8F that he contracts a second or subseDuent marriageB and
E!F that the second or subseDuent marriage has all the essential reDuisites for validity
1 >I):>,$> =H H)4S+ MA44)A(>%
E1F a copy of a marriage contract between +enebro and Iillareyes, dated ,ovember 10, 19G;
E"F a handwritten letter from Iillareyes to Anca.as dated 3uly 1", 199!, informing Anca.as that
Iillareyes and +enebro were legally married
+o assail the veracity of the marriage contract, petitioner presented%
o E1F a certification issued by the ,ational Statistics =ffice dated =ctober 6, 199-
o E"F a certification issued by the $ity $ivil 4egistry of Manila, dated Hebruary 8, 1996
o ?oth these documents attest that the respective issuing offices have no record of a
marriage celebrated between Ieronico ? +enebro and <ilda ? Iillareyes on ,ovember 10,
19G;
,either document attests as a positive fact that there was no marriage celebrated between
Ieronico ? +enebro and <ilda ? Iillareyes on ,ovember 10, 19G; 4ather, the documents merely
attest that the respective issuing offices have no record of such a marriage +hey cannot
adeDuately assail the marriage contract, which in itself would already have been sufficient to
establish the existence of a marriage between +enebro and Iillareyes
All three Emarriage contract and certificationF of these documents fall in the category of pu%lic
ocuments, and the 4ules of $ourt provisions relevant to public documents are applicable to all
#ertinent to the marriage contract, Section 6 of 4ule 180 of the 4ules of $ourt reads as follows%
Sec 6 >vidence admissible when original document is a public record 7 /hen the original of a
document is in the custody of a public officer or is recorded in a public office, its contents may be
proved by a certified copy issued by the public officer in custody thereof
$ertified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody, was admissible as
the best evidence of its contents )t should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public
documents Also, both certification documents, therefore, are dated after the accused@s marriage
to his second wife, private respondent in this case
T6e mere fact t6at no recor of a marriage eLists oes not in$aliate t6e marriage,
pro$ie all reMuisites for its $aliit: are present.
o Iillareyes@ letter, Anca.as@ testimony that petitioner informed her of the existence of the
valid first marriage, and petitioner@s own conduct, which would all tend to indicate that the
first marriage had all the reDuisites for validity
" +here is no merit to petitioner@s argument that this subseDuent .udicial declaration retroacts to the
date of the celebration of the marriage to Anca.as As such, he argues that, since his marriage to
Anca.as was subseDuently declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity, invo'ing
Article 8; of the Hamily $ode, the crime of bigamy was not committed
/hat petitioner fails to reali*e is that a declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on t6e
groun of ps:c6ological incapacit: is of a%solutel: no moment insofar as t6e !tateHs
penal laws are concerne.
o As a second or subseDuent marriage contracted during the subsistence of petitioner@s valid
marriage to Iillareyes, petitioner@s marriage to Anca.as would be null an $oi a% initio
completel: regarless of petitionerHs ps:c6ological capacit: or incapacit:.
o Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void,
the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal
liability for bigamy
o A plain reading of the law, Art 8!9, would indicate that the provision penali*es the mere act
of contracting a secon or a su%seMuent marriage uring t6e su%sistence of a $ali
marriage.
+hus, as soon as the second marriage to Anca.as was celebrated on April 10, 1990,
during the subsistence of the valid first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been
consummated +o our mind, there is no cogent reason for distinguishing between a
subseDuent marriage that is null and void purely because it is a second or subseDuent
marriage, and a subseDuent marriage that is null and void on the ground of
psychological incapacity, at least insofar as criminal liability for bigamy is concerned
o #U4#=S>% T6e !tateHs penal laws protecting t6e institution of marriage are in
recognition of t6e sacrosanct c6aracter of t6is special contract %etween spouses,
an punis6 an ini$iualHs eli%erate isregar of t6e permanent c6aracter of t6e
special %on %etween spouses, w6ic6 petitioner 6as unou%tel: one.
o Moreover, the declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on t6e groun of
ps:c6ological incapacit: is not an inicator t6at petitionerHs marriage to AncaDas
lacCs t6e essential reMuisites for $aliit:
+he reDuisites for the validity of a marriage are classified by the Hamily $ode into
essential Elegal capacity of the contracting parties and their consent freely given in the
presence of the solemni*ing officerF and formal Eauthority of the solemni*ing officer,
marriage license, and marriage ceremony wherein the parties personally declare their
agreement to marry before the solemni*ing officer in the presence of at least two
witnessesF
Under Article - of the Hamily $ode, any male or female of the age of eighteen years or
upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 86
"-
and 8G
";
may
contract marriage
"6
)n this case, all the essential and formal reDuisites for the validity of marriage were
satisfied by petitioner and Anca.as ?oth were over eighteen years of age, and they
voluntarily contracted the second marriage with the reDuired license before 3udge
Alfredo ? #ere*, 3r of the $ity +rial $ourt of 9apuAlapu $ity, in the presence of at least
two witnesses
o Although the .udicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum
between the spouses is concerned, it is significant to note t6at sai marriage is not
wit6out legal effects
Among these effects is that children conceived or born before the .udgment of absolute
nullity of the marriage shall be considered legitimate
+here is therefore a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage,
although void ab initio, may still produce legal conseDuences Among these legal
conseDuences is incurring criminal liability for bigamy
+o hold otherwise would render the State@s penal laws on bigamy completely nugatory,
and allow individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed in
some manner, and to thus escape the conseDuences of contracting multiple marriages,
while beguiling throngs of hapless women with the promise of futurity and commitment
o +he act of the accused in contracting marriage a third time displays a deliberate disregard for
the sanctity of marriage, and the State does not loo' 'indly on such activities Marriage is a
special contract, the 'ey characteristic of which is its permanence /hen an individual
manifests a deliberate pattern of flouting the foundation of the State@s basic social institution,
the State@s criminal laws on bigamy step in
DI!PO!ITI530 #etition :>,)>: $A AHH)4M>: (U)9+2 of ?igamyB ! years and " months of prision
correccional, as minimum, to G years and 1 day of prision mayor, as maximum
5IT#&, 1., !3PARAT3 OPI'IO'
!ince ps:c6ological incapacit:, upon t6e ot6er 6an, oes not relate to an infirmit: in
t6e elements, eit6er essential or formal, in contacting a $ali marriage, t6e eclaration
of nullit: su%seMuent to t6e %igamous marriage ue to t6at groun, wit6out more,
woul %e inconseMuential in a criminal c6arge for %igam:
+he .udicial declaration of nullity of a bigamous marriage on the ground of psychological
incapacity merely nullifies the effects of the marriage but it does not negate the fact
of perfection of the bigamous marriage )ts subseDuent declaration of nullity dissolves the
relationship of the spouses but, being alien to the reDuisite conditions for the perfection of the
marriage, the .udgment of the court is no defense on the part of the offender who had entered
into it
T/ould the absolute nullity of either first or second marriage prior to its .udicial declaration as being
void, constitute a valid defense in a criminal action for bigamyJ
T 2es >xcept for a void marriage on account of psychological incapacity [void marriages are
inexistent from the very beginning, and no .udicial decree is reDuired to establish their nullity
T +he complete nullity of a previously contracted marriage being void ab initio and legally inexistent
can outrightly be a defense in an indictment for bigamy
T Strong reservation on the ruling that bigamy is still committed though marriage is ab initio null and
void Eif marriage is contracted before the .udicial declaration of its nullityF
T $anon lawAb reconcile grounds for nullity of marriage
T 4easons why except those due to psychological incapacity%
aF ?reaches neither the essential nor the formal reDuisites of marriage
bF =ther grounds are capable of relatively easy demonstration, psychological incapacity however,
being a mental state may not be so readily evident
cF )t remains valid and binding until declared .udicially as void
CARPIO, 1, DI!!3'TI'& OPI'IO'
aF Under Article 8!9 of the 4evised #enal $ode, the essential elements of the crime of bigamy are% 1
+he offender is legally marriedB " +he marriage is not legally dissolvedB 8 +he offender contracts a
second or subseDuent marriageB ! +he second or subseDuent marriage is valid except for the
existence of the first marriage
bF )f the second marriage is void ab initio on grounds other than the existence of the first marriage,
then legally there exists no second marriage
cF Second marriage must be valid were it not for the existence of the first marriage
dF +o hold that the validity of the second marriage is immaterial, as the ma.ority opinion so holds,
would interpret Article 8!9 too liberally in favor of the State and too strictly against the accused
Emust rule in favor of accusedF
CALL31O, !r. 1., DI!!3'TI'& OPI'IO'
Iote to grant pro hac vice the petition (4=)SA4:% Since second marriage is null and void ab initio,
such marriage in in contemplation of criminal law never existed and for that reason, one of the
essential elements of bigamy has disappeared
8. P3OPL3 O2 TH3 PHILIPPI'3! $s. RICARDO '3PO4#C3'O, 1R.
3!&#3RRA, J.2 &.R. 'o. L(9/+-9 1une -*, .)*8
2ACT!0
March "0, 19;9% ,epomuceno married :olores :esiderio on, in ?alagtas, ?ulacan,
August 1;, 19;9% Hive months later, he again married ,orma 3imene* in ,or*agaray, ?ulacan
)nformation dated :ecember G, 19;9 reads as follows%
o August 1;, 19;9, in ,or*agaray, ?ulacan, accused 4icardo ,epomuceno, 3r, being then
previously united in lawful marriage with one Dolores Desierio, and without the said
marriage having been legally dissolved, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously contract a second marriage with one 'orma 1imenez.
Upon arraignment on Hebruary !, 1960, accused pleaded not guilty and trial proceeded
accordingly After the prosecution had presented one witness, the accused, on August 11, 1960,
wit6rew 6is plea of not guilt: an c6ange it into one of guilt: +he case however
proceeded for the reception of evidence on the civil aspect
:ecember 9, 1960% Motion to Duash was filed on the ground that the information is defective as it
c6arge onl: t6e accuse for %igam: wit6out incluing t6e secon wife an suc6
failure, according to accused, conferre no Durisiction on the lower court to try and decide
the case
Said motion was denied on Hebruary "", 1961 =n April "G, 1961, private prosecutor orally
withdrew the claim for damages, which the lower court granted
RTC0 (U)9+2 of ?igamyB #>,A9+2% )S9 ; Months and l :ay of Prision $orreccional as minimum, to
; 2ears and ! Months of Prision 0ayor, as maximum, with costs
=n appeal to the $ourt of Appeals, accused cited as a single error the lower courtKs failure to
Muas6 t6e information for lacC of Durisiction. /hile awaiting completion of the records the
private prosecutor filed a motion to forwar t6e case to t6e !upreme Court on the ground
that the appeal involves a pure Duestion of law +wo other motions of the same nature were
subseDuently filed
CA0 )n its resolution of May 11, 1968, the Hifth :ivision of the $ourt of Appeals resolved to give
due course to the appeal, to consider it submitted for decision, the same to be raffled immediately
and to refer the motions to certify the case to the Supreme $ourt to the :ivision to which the case
may be raffled
+he case was eventually assigned to the $ourt of Appeals Special :ivision of Hive 3ustices which
promulgated the resolution of April 1!, 196-, by a four to one vote ruled t6at onl: a Muestion of
law is in$ol$e in t6e appeal, and decision on the case is not dependent on factual findings to
be made so as to bring the case within the competence of the appellate court S= submitted to S$
for :ecision
o +he dissenting opinion holds that there is no Duestion of law involved as what is to be
decided is the Duestion of whether or not the information filed was defective for not
including the second wife as an accused and, hence, the $ourt of Appeals could have
decided it on the merits by affirming the decision of the lower court
I!!#3!0
o /hether the lower court erred in not Duashing the information because it was defective for not
including the second wife Enot because of lac' of .urisdictionF E,=F
o /hether he is guilty of ?)(AM2J E2>SF
H3LD0
o 4#$ 8!9% +he penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon an/ person who shall contract a
second or su3sequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or
before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a .udgment
rendered in the proceedings
o +he crime of bigamy is committed when a person contracts a second or subseDuent marriage
before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been
.udicially declared as presumptively dead Accused undeniably contracted two marriages in the
short span of five months, which he categorically admitted when he pleaded guilty
o AppellantKs contention that the crime of bigamy entails the Doint lia%ilit: of two persons who
marry each other, while the previous marriage of one or the other is valid and subsisting is
completely devoid of merit
o >ven a cursory scrutiny of 4#$ 8!9 will disclose that the crime of %igam: can %e committe
%: one person w6o contracts a su%seMuent marriage w6ile, t6e former marriage is
$ali an su%sisting.
o ?igamy is not similar to the crimes of adultery and concubinage, wherein the law specifically
reDuires that the culprits, if both are alive, should be prosecuted or included in the information
o In t6e crime of %igam:, %ot6 t6e first an secon spouses ma: %e t6e offene parties
epening on t6e circumstances, as when the second spouse married the accused without
being aware of his previous marriage Onl: if t6e secon spouse 6a Cnowlege of t6e
pre$ious unissol$e marriage of t6e accuse coul s6e %e inclue in t6e information
as a co(accuse
o ?igamy is a pu%lic offense and a crime against status, while adultery and concubinage are
pri$ate offenses and are crimes against c6astit: )n adultery and concubinage, pardon by the
offended party will bar the prosecution of the case, which is not so in bigamy )t is, therefore, clear
that bigamy is not similar to adultery or concubinage
o ,o reason to include ,orma 3imene* in the information as there was no showing in the recitation
of facts in the information to the effect that ,orma 3imene*, the second wife, had 'nowledge of
the first marriage,and despite said 'nowledge she contracted the second marriage with the
accusedB nor is there any showing that ,orma 3imene* had had a previous marriage of her of her
own
o /hether or not the second spouse, ,orma 3imene*, should be included in the information is a
Duestion of fact that was determined by the fiscal who conducted the preliminary investigation in
this case +hat the fiscal did not include ,orma 3imene* in the information simply shows absence
of evidence that could ma'e her liable for the crime
o Her non(inclusion in t6e information as a co(accuse of appellant 'epomuceno in t6e
crime of %igam: is not a efect in t6e information file against 'epomuceno alone
since 6er inclusion or not in sai information epene upon a$aila%le e$ience
against 6er.
DI!PO!ITI530 +$ :ecision AHH)4M>:, $A 4>I>4S>: (U)9+2 =H ?)(AM2
#4>MA+U4> MA44)A(>S
c/o Hipolito
+. U,)+>: S+A+>S vs. #AS$UA9 :U9A2 (O !3D#CTIO'
TORR3!, J.0 &R. 'o. L(9/-+* 4arc6 *, .)/7
2ACT!0
May 190!% #ascual :ulay, of about "8 years of age, began courting (regoria #imentel a girl of 1;,
residing in the pueblo of Aringay, San Hernando, 9a Union
+heir relations became every day more intimate, on account of the promises of marriage made by
the accused :ulay, and the girl was seduced
+he defendant accomplished his desire for the first time on a certain night in the latter part of
Decem%er, .)/8. +he act was repeated on various occasions from that time until t6e -7
t6
of
April .)/+.
April "9, 190;% Accused, besides the promise previously given to the in.ured girl, informed her
parents of his intention to marry her, and following the advice of the parents the marriage was
postponed until the time when the accused was to complete his studies
<owever, in the month of 3une following, in view of the fact that his fiancee was pregnant, the
defendant disregarded his promise of marriage, and denied being the author of the girl@s
pregnancy
+he latter positively asserted that she never had sexual intercourse with any other man, and that
during his courtship he sent to her several letters, cards, photographs of himself, hand'erchiefs,
and a ring, all of which were exhibited at the trial and recogni*ed by him
<e confessed that he had maintained friendly relations with her, but denied that he had ever had
any sexual intercourse with her, or that he was the father of the child born on the -/
t6
of
Octo%er, .)/+, which was produced at the trial
Among the letters exhibited, written in the dialect of the province, one appears at folio !! of the
record, the >nglish translation of which ta'en from the Spanish translation is as follows%
o (=2A,(% ) can not stand my heart@s grief because if ) could help it ) would not part from
youB but, what can ) doJ ) must leave for important reasonsB however, although ) am going
away, some one will ma'e arrangements for my return in the month of 3uneB may <eaven
grant this =hZ my (regoria, ) feel uneasyB ) don@t 'now what to doB you do as ) have told
you to doB do it because ) thin' it is more advisable that you should tell the old man
EgrandfatherF the sin we have committed in the eyes of (od, for if somebody else does it,
or, if you wait until he notices the conseDuences thereof, it will be worse for you :o it, do
not fail to comply with what ) am as'ing of you so that the old man may not become too
angry
:o go and hear mass tomorrow, and ) will wait for you because ) have a very important
thing to as' you to doB hear mass without fail so that you may 'now what you ought to doB )
will do the same so that our intentions may not have bad results
2our brother Wamong )locanos, this word is used when the parties are very intimate, or
when they are loversX, #AS$UA9
Defense0
+he defendant alleges that from the latter part of :ecember, 190-, to the "-
th
of April, 190;, he
had not returned to his pueblo where the in.ured girl resided
As her confinement only too' place on the "0
th
of =ctober of 190; and the first carnal intercourse,
according to her own statement, too' place upon one of the last days of :ecember, 190-, it
thereby appears that the pregnancy of the in.ured party lasted about two 6unre an ninet:(
eig6t a:s at leastS t6at is, more t6an nine mont6s
I!!#3!0
1 /hether he is guilty of seductionJ E2>SF
" /hether the child is not his and is not responsible for his welfare as he was born more than 9
months old after alleged intercourseJ E,=, it@s his childF
H3LD0
1 +he above facts are duly proven in this case, and constitute the crime of estupro EseductionF,
defined and punished by article !!8 paragraph 8 of the #enal $ode
?y reason of the intimate relations between the accused and the in.ured party, the latter was
seduced by his repeated promises of marriage, and she permitted him to lie with her on various
occasions from the latter part of :ecember, 190-, to the last days of April, 190;B
/ithout any .ust reason the accused has refused to comply with the promise of marriage made to
(regoria #imentel after being pregnant and it is therefore clear that he acted deceitfully when
ma'ing the promise solely with the unlawful purpose of inducing her to yield to his desire, and
upon pretext of her pregnancy he wrote to her parents stating that he declined to carry out his
promise of marriage
A promise of marriage given to a woman over 1" and under "8 years of age, with the evil intent of
committing an unlawful act and voluntarily abandoned without .ust cause, constitutes t6e
eceit referre to in article 987 of t6e Coe of !pain, eMui$alent to article 99; of t6at
of t6e P6ilippines, according to the doctrine established by the supreme court of Spain, among
other decisions in that of =ctober 6, 1G;!
+he culpability of the accused as the only author of the crime cannot be denied, inasmuch as he
ac'nowledged that he had maintained intimate relations with the aforenamed (regoria #imentel
from 4a: .)/9 to t6e same mont6 in .)/+.
,o evidence is offered that would even indicate that the girl had maintained any such relations
with any man other than the accused, and in view of her affirmation that #ascual :ulay was the
only man who did lie with her on the several occasions
)t is unDuestionable that the accused is responsible for the crime and that he has incurred the
penalty that the law imposes, because he managed to have intercourse with the in.ured girl on
several occasions by means of eceit an committe t6e seuction uner promise of
marriage.
+he translation of the letter without date, hereinbefore inserted, shows that the accused
addressed it to the in.ured girl while he was still in the pueblo of Aringay, and before coming to
this cityB that he wrote the same after he had had sexual intercourse with the girl, and at a time
when he was aware that she had conceived and was pregnantB it was for this reason that he
compelled her to inform her father of the offense that they had committed
" :ata that child is more than 9 months old and therefore is not his child does not hold merit as it is
not shown that the accused is not the author of the pregnancy of the girl, who states positively that
from Decem%er, .)/8, to April, .)/+, t6e accuse repeatel: 6a seLual intercourse wit6
6er.
PR34AT#R3 4ARRIA&3!0
4>AS=, H=4 H)]),( 801 E10 monthsF :A2S% )f the ordinary average duration of the pregnancy of
women is nine months and some days, a tardy birth is not an impossibility or an unusual to have a
delayed or retarded conception, one of the inexplicable mysteries of nature, since the opinions of
physicians upon the matter are conflictingB for this reason the #enal $ode, by article !6;, imposes
punishment upon a widow who marries before three hundred and one days have elapsed from the
death of her husband, a prohibition which is in accordance with other legal provisions
#U4#=S>% )t is intended to prevent confusion in connection with filiation and paternity, inasmuch
as the widow might have conceived and become pregnant by her late husband So that the law
when fixing the said three hundred and one days, amits t6e possi%ilit: t6at a woman ma:
%e in pregnanc: for more t6an nine mont6s, an t6at t6e %irt6 of a c6il taCing place
nine mont6s after it was concei$e is not an impossi%ilit:.
DI!PO!ITI530 AHH)4M>: :ecision #enalty of four months of arresto mayor, to recogni*e and
maintain the offspring, to indemnify the in.ured party, (regoria #imentel, in the sum of #1,000 and, in
case of insolvency, to suffer subsidiary imprisonment which shall not exceed oneAthird of the principal
penalty, and to pay the costs, should be affirmed with the costs against the appellantB provided,
however, that the amount to be paid to the in.ured party for the subsistence of her child until the
same shall reach his ma.ority, shall be #1- monthly
P3R2OR4A'C3 O2 ILL3&AL C3R34O'F
c/o Hipolito
6 #'IT3D !TAT3! $s. DO4I'&O !A' 1#A'
4OR3LA'D, J.0 (4 ,o 9AG-0" =ctober 10, 1918
2ACT!0
)nformation was originally filed against the spouses, the two witnesses to the marriage, and the
minister performing the ceremony
At the reDuest of the prosecuting attorney the case was dismissed with respect to the defendant
Antonio de la 9lana, one of the witnesses to the marriage, in order that he might be used as a
witness for the (overnment, under the provisions of section 8! of the $ode of $riminal #rocedure
/ith respect to the defendants, Hlorencio San Miguel and >ulogia :i*on, the spouses, and +eofilo
San Miguel, the other witness to the marriage, the case was also dismissed, under paragraph " of
article !6- of the #enal $ode, for the reason that >steban :i*on, the father of >ulogia :i*on, the
bride, having, subseDuent to the ceremony, given his consent to the marriage
+he only defendant remaining, therefore, is :omingo San 3uan, the minister who performed the
ceremony
C2I0 (U)9+2 of performing a marriage ceremony where one of the contracting parties was under the
age of consentB #>,A9+2% Hour years of suspension for practicing his profession as a minister of the
,ational >vangelical $hurch of the #hilippines, to pay a fine of 1,-00 pesetas and oneAfifth of the
costs
I!!#3!0
/hether the defendant minister not guilty if there was no intent, in other words, whether the person
solemni*ing the marriage may plead similar good faith in defense to an action brought against him
under article !69J E2>SF
H3LD0
o )t is not necessary to hold in this action that no crime mentioned in the $ode can exist without
intent )t suffices for the present to decide, as we do decide, that one cannot %e con$icte
uner article 9*8 w6en %: reason of a mistaCe of fact t6ere oes not eList t6e
intention to commit t6e crime.
$iting United #tates vs. 0arcosa PeHalosa and 3nriGue Rodri!ue), decided 3anuary "6, 190" E1
#hil 4ep, 109F,
o ,either of the spouses can be convicted for a violation of article !6- if he acted in good
faith and without the 'nowledge that the other was under the age of consent
o 0A minor who marries without parental consent in the false %elief that she if of age is not
criminall: responsi%le,1 and that, 0it is not criminal negligence for a 6us%an to
rel: upon 6is wifeHs statement of 6er age nor for t6e wife to rel: upon t6at of 6er
fat6er.?
o )n that case, the facts relative to the guilt of the husband, who was charged with a violation
of article !6- of the #enal $ode in that he had married a woman who at the time of the
ceremony was under the age of consent, are stated by the court as follows%
o As for the husband, it has been proved that two days before the marriage was
celebrated 6e recei$e a letter from t6e woman in w6ic6 s6e sai t6at s6e was
-. :ears of age
o +his letter the defendant showed to the clergyman who married them +he woman
when the marriage ceremony was performed too' an oath before the clerygman, in the
presence of her husband, that she was "1 years of age
o +he defendant testifies that he had no suspicion that the woman was a minor +his
statement has not been contradicted and we consider that it suffices to demonstrate
that the efenant acte uner a mistaCe of fact, and in conformity with the
principle laid down in this opinion 6e 6as not %een guilt: of a violation of article !6-
in connection with article 18, ,o 8, nor in any other manner
o :efendant was therefore properly acDuitted of the crime charged in the complaint
o If in -S v &enalosa, spouses were acMuitte if in goo fait6, t6e person solemnizing
ma: also plea goo fait6 as a efense.
o +hese presents itself to us no reason why the rule applicable to the persons married
should not be ali'e applicable to the person performing the ceremony which ma'es
them man and wife
o )t is very easy to deceive an officiating clergyman as to the ages of the persons who
present themselves for marriage 7 much easier than it is to deceive either of the
spouses in relation to the same matter
o #ersons who are sufficiently acDuainted with each other to desire marriage are naturally
presumed to 'now the age of each other )f a man desiring to marry a woman may be
excused from criminal prosecution upon the ground that he has been deceived and
mista'en as to her age, it would seem that the clergyman, who 'nows neither of the
parties and who must of necessity depend upon an independent investigation in order
to determine the ages of the parties, would be in far better position to invo'e the
protection of the principle than would the husband
LAE!0
+here is no penalty in the (eneral =rders attached to the solemni*ation of a marriage between
person under age
o (eneral =rders, ,o ;G, section 6 Eas amended by Act ,o 1!-1F, reads as follows% #3$. ?%%.
2he person solemni)in! a marria!e must make and si!n a certiicate showin!&
B. 2he real and ull names o the parties and their places o residence.
@. 2heir a!es.
D. 2he consent o the ather, mother, or !uardian, or o one havin! the char!e o such person, i any
such be !iven, i the male be under the a!e o twenty years or the emale be under the a!e o
ei!hteen years.
For the purpose o ascertainin! these acts, the person solemni)in! the marria!e is
authori)ed to e1amine parties and witnesses on oath and receive aidavits, and he
must state such acts in his certiicate.
2he marria!e shall not be perormed in case o nona!e, unless the consent
hereinbeore reGuired shall be personality !iven by the parent or !uardian or person
havin! char!e o the inant, or certiied in writin! over his or her si!nature, attested by
two or more subscribin! witnesses and proved by the oath o one o them.
o )t was the intention of the ma'ers of that law to permit the officiating clergyman or other
person solemni*ing the marriage to determine the fact of age or nonage upon the
testimony of witnesses +o that end he is given the authority to examine on oath the
persons who present themselves for marriage and any witnesses which they may produce
or which he may desire to call relative to age
o <aving the right to determine a Duestion upon the testimony of witnesses, it would seem
strange indeed that he could be prosecuted criminally for a wrong determination of that
Duestion +he mere fact that two persons might differ as to the conclusion which ought to
be reached upon a given state of facts or upon the testimony of certain witnesses is not
sufficient to .ustify the conclusion that the one whose conclusion is wrong is guilty of a
crime, while he whose .udgment is right is innocent
o ?oth have exercised the same Dualities, the same functions, and the same good faith +hat
the one may be wrong and the other right furnishes no reason for classifying the one as a
criminal and the other as an innocent person
+he prosecution must be sustained, therefore, if at all, under the #enal $ode in connection with
said (eneral =rders
o AR2. @9A. Any ecclesiastical or civil authority who shall perorm or authori)e the ceremony
in any marria!e prohi3ited 3/ law, or 3arred 3/ an impediment not capa3le of
dispensation, shall suer the penalties o suspension in its medium and ma1imum
de!rees and a ine o not less than 87D and not more than 8,7DI, pesetas.
% the impediment shall be subject to dispensation, the penalty shall be destierro in its
ma1imum de!ree and a ine o not less than B7D and not more than B,7DI, pesetas.
o AR2. @9D. Any minor who shall marr/ without the consent of his or her parents, or
other person standin! in loco parenties, shall suer the penalty o prision correccional in its
minimum and medium de!rees.
o +he offender shall be pardoned as soon as the parents or the persons referred to in the
next preceding paragraph shall approve the marriage
o Article 1 of the $ode does not contain the words 0with malice1 that are to be found in the $ode of
1G""B nevertheless #acheco, the eminent commentator, has said that those words are included in
the word 0voluntary1 and he states positively that crime cannot eList wit6out intent.
o =ther commentators, without being in entire conformity with #acheco, nevertheless are agreed up
to a certain point
o (roi*ard says% 0Such is the general ruleB so it is ordinarily1
o Iiada says that 0in the ma.ority of cases, in the absence of intent there has been no
crimeB but that there can exist in some case the latter without the former1
o Silvela says% 0)n effect it suffices to remember the first article, which states that where
there is no intent t6ere is no crime, in order to asset without fear of mista'e that
in our $ode the substance of a crime does not exists if there is not a deed, an act which
falls within the sphere of ethics, if there is not a moral wrong
o +he theory that the absence of the word 0with malice1 in the prevailing $ode has this effect is
supported by the provisions of article -;G which says% 0<e who by rec'less negligence commits an
act which would constitute a grave crime if malice were present shall be punished,1 etc
o Registering as legitimate t6ose illegitimate
o +he supreme court in several successive sentences has the same doctrine% 0)t is
indispensable that this EactionF in order to constitute a crime should carry with it all the
malice which the violation and intention to cause the evil which may be the ob.ect of
the said crime suppose1
o )n a cause for falsity the facts involved were that the defendant had married 0before the
municipal .udge of the pueblo of 4ubete without other ceremony than the simple
manifestation and expression of his wishes and those of the woman 9eonor with whom
he married before said municipal .udge
o 4elying upon that, on account of his ignorance and lac' of instruction, on the "6
th
of
3une, 1GG", and the -
th
of April, 1GG!, in the municipal court of the pueblo of #olopos he
registered as legitimate children his sons, 3ose and >milio, the offspring of the illicit
union of the defendant and 9eonor (on*ales1
o Hor the crime of falsity committed by rec'less negligence the $riminal Audiencia of
AlbuMol condemned the said defendant to the penalty of four months and one day
of arresto mayor +he Supreme $ourt annulled said sentence 0considering that
w6ate$er mig6t %e t6e ci$il effects of t6e registration of 6is t6ree sons
entere %: t6e accuse in t6e Ci$il an Paroc6ial Registers, it cannot partaCe
of t6e nature of a crime for lacC of t6e necessar: element of $olition or intent
to offen, essential to every punishable act or omissionB neither did he act with
negligence1
o 2alsification of traemarCs
o )n a cause prosecuted against the $hinese SyA+ioco and against :on (uillermo #artier,
in the court of Ouiapo, for falsification of tradeAmar's, the $riminal $hamber of the
Audiencia of Manila condemned the $hinaman to two years and some months of
presidio correccional, and #artier to one year and some months of similar imprisonment
A writ of error was sued out in the name of #artier
o +he Supreme $ourt annulled this sentence, 0considering that the moral element of
t6e crime, or, in ot6er wors, eListence or noneListence of intent an malice
in t6e commission of an act esignated and punished by the law as criminal is
essentially a Duestion of fact for exclusive .udgment and determination of the trial
court1
o 0$onsidering that the act charged against the accused, (uillermo #artier, of having
printed in his lit6ograp6ic esta%lis6ment t6e trae(marC of t6e cigarette
pacCages of t6e Insular factor: by virtue of a supposed order of the owner of said
factory, to whose in.ury the $hinaman Abelardo Sacarias SyA+ioco ordered him to do the
said fraudulent printing, cannot be considered Efrom the facts declared proved in the
final sentence of acDuittal of the $ourt of Hirst )nstance, accepted in its entirety and
without any addition by the Appellate $ourtF as constituting intentional participation or
cooperation in deed of falsification and defraudation committed by the former, since it
does not appear in any part of the sentence that #artier was in connivance with SyA
+ioco nor that he had any reason to suspect the true character of him who, styling
himself the representative of SeMor Santa Marina, the owner of the 9a )nsular factory,
gave him the order to print the tradeAmar' of this factory on the pac'ages, which were
to be used to hold cigarettes1
o $itin! United #tates vs. De los Reyes it was held that 0a woman who marries a second time under
a bona ide belief that her former spouse is dead is not guilty of bigamy,1 the court saying%
o ,=+ SUHH)$)>,+92 #4=I>, +<A+ +<>4> )S ,= (==: HA)+<%
o =ne of the witnesses for the prosecution intimating that the accused was informed by
one of the contracting parties that the girl was under eighteen, and that he, instead of
refusing thereupon to go forward with the marriage, suggested to her that she declare
herself to be eighteen or over and that he would obtain witnesses to substantiate her
declaration
o >vidence or testimony are not sufficient +he documents were proof of the parties@
attestation +hey were duly signed and sworn to by those parties and witnesses
Although the oath is not in the form prescribed by (eneral =rders, ,o ;G, nevertheless
it contains all of the reDuisites essential to a valid declaration under that Act
o )t appearing clear to us that, even though it be admitted that the marriage complained of was
illegal and that the subseDuent consent of the parent did not relive the defendant of liability for
the part he had ta'en therein, the accused acted in good faith without criminal intent, and that he
made the investigation reDuired by law in a reasonably satisfactory manner, the conviction cannot
stand
DI!PO!ITI530 +he .udgment is re$erse and the accuse acMuitte of the crime charged
LI<3L
cCo <ipolito
G DIO'I!IO LOP3J : A<3RA!T#RI $s. P3OPL3 an !AL5ADOR &. 3!CALA'T3, 1R
D3L CA!TILLO, J.2 &.R. 'o. .*--/; 2e%ruar: .9, -/..
DOCTRI'30 A libel is defined as &a public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit or contempt of a natural or .uridicial person or to blac'en the memory of one who
is dead& &Hor an imputation to be libelous, the following reDuisites must concur% aF it must be
defamatoryB bF it must be maliciousB cF it must be given publicity and dF the victim must be
identifiable& Absent one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel
2ACT!0
&rosecution2
:uring the preAtrial, the parties stipulated, among others, on the identity of the accused, that the
private complainant is the incumbent $ity Mayor of $adi* $ity and is popularly 'nown by the
nic'name &?ading& and that the petitioner calls the private complainant &?ading&
>arly part of ,ovember "00", while exercising his official duties as Mayor of $adi* $ity, private
respondent saw billboards with the printed phrase &CADIJ 2OR353RW wit6 a %lanC space
%efore t6e wor W'353RW irectl: uner sai p6rase.
o +hose billboards were posted on the corner of (ustilo and Iillena streets, in front of $adi*
<otel and beside the old $ocaA$ola warehouse in $adi* $ity <e became intrigued and
wondered on what the message conveyed since it was incomplete
o Some days later, on ,ovember 1-, "00", private respondent received a phone call relating
that the blan' space preceding the word &,>I>4& was filled up with the added words
&?A:),( A,: SA(A2&
o +he next day, he saw the billboards with the phrase &$A:)S H=4>I>4 ?A:),( A,: SA(A2
,>I>4& printed in full 4eacting and feeling that he was being maligned and dishonored
with the printed phrase and of being a &tuta& of Sagay, private respondent, after
consultation with the $ity 9egal =fficer, caused the filing of a complaint for libel against
petitioner <e claimed that the incident resulted in mental anguish and sleepless nights for
him and his family <e thus prayed for damages
3ude Martin 3aropillo is a licensing officer of the #ermit and 9icense :ivision of $adi* $ity /hile on
a licensing campaign, he was able to read the message on the billboards <e wondered what fault
the person alluded therein has done as the message is so negative <e felt that the message is an
insult to the mayor since it creates a negative impression, as if he was being re.ected by the
people of $adi* $ity <e claimed that he was giving his testimony voluntarily and he was not being
rewarded, coerced or forced by anybody
,enita ?ermeo, a retired government employee of $adi* $ity, was at :elilah@s $offee Shop in the
morning of ,ovember 19, "00" when she heard the petitioner shouting &?ading, ?ading, ,ever,
,ever& She and the tricycle drivers drin'ing coffee were told by petitioner &2ou watch out ) will
add larger billboards&
o /hen she went around $adi* $ity, she saw larger billboards with the phrase &$A:)S
H=4>I>4 ?A:),( A,: SA(A2 ,>I>4,& thus confirming what petitioner had said /ith the
message, she felt as if the people were trying to disown the private respondent According
to her, petitioner has an ax to grind against the mayor 9i'e 3ude, she was not also forced
or rewarded in giving her testimony
?ernardita Iillaceran also found the message unpleasant because Mayor >scalante is an
honorable and dignified resident of $adi* $ity According to her, the message is an insult not only
to the person of the mayor but also to the people of $adi* $ity
Defense
#etitioner admitted having placed all the billboards because he is aware of all the things
happening around $adi* $ity <e mentioned &?A:),(& because he was not in conformity with the
many things the mayor had done in $adi* $ity <e insisted that he has no intention whatsoever of
referring to &?ading& as the &+uta& of Sagay
<e contended that it was private respondent who referred to ?ading as &+uta& of Sagay <e
further maintained that his personal belief and expression was that he will never love ?ading and
Sagay <e concluded that the message in the billboards is .ust a wa'eAup call for $adi* $ity
%nformation
=n April 8, "008, petitioner was indicted for libel in an )nformation dated March 81, "008%
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1G0
o ,ovember "00" in the $ity of $adi*, accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously
o /ith intent to impeach the integrity, reputation and putting to public ridicule and dishonor
the offended party MA2=4 SA9IA:=4 ( >S$A9A,+>, 34, $ity Mayor of $adi* $ity and with
malice and intent to in.ure and expose the said offended party to public hatred, contempt
and ridicule put up billboardsCsignboards at the fence of $adi* <otel, Iillena Street, $adi*
$ity and at (ustilo ?oulevard, $adi* $ity, which billboardsCsignboards read as follows
&$A:)S H=4>I>4& &ffffffffff ,>I>4&
o thereby deliberately titillating the curiosity of and drawing extraordinary attention from the
residents of $adi* $ity and passersAby over what would be placed before the word &,>I>4&
o 9ater on ,ovember 1-, "00", accused affixed the nic'name of the herein private
complainant &?A:),(& and the name of the $ity of &SA(A2& before the word &,>I>4& thus
ma'ing the billboard appear as follows &$A:)S H=4>I>4& &?A:),( A,: SA(A2 ,>I>4&
o Hor which the words in the signboardsCbillboards were obviously calculated to induce the
readersCpassersAby to suppose and understand that something fishy was going on,
therefore maliciously impeaching the honesty, virtue and reputation of Mayor Salvador (
>scalante, 3r,
o And hence were highly libelous, offensive and defamatory to the good name, character and
reputation of the offended party and his office and that the said billboardsCsignboards were
read by thousands if not hundreds of thousands of persons, which caused damage and
pre.udice to the offended party by way of moral damages in the amount of% #-,000,00000
7 as moral damages
Upon arraignment on May G, "008, petitioner, as accused, entered a plea of &not guilty&
RTC0 (uilty of 9)?>9 defined and penali*ed under Article 8-8 in relation to Article 8-- of the 4evised
#enal $ode and there being no mitigating or aggra$ating circumstances attendant
#enalty of imprisonment of H=U4 M=,+<S A,: +/>,+2 :A2S of Arresto Mayor maximum as
the minimum to +/= 2>A4S, >9>I>, M=,+<S A,: +>, :A2S of #rision $orreccional Medium
as the maximum and a H),> of #-,00000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency
+he accused is further ordered to pay the private complainant the sum of #-,000,00000 by
way of moral damages
+he cash bond posted by the accused is hereby ordered cancelled and returned to the
accused, however the penalty of Hine ad.udged against the accused is hereby ordered
deducted from the cash bond posted by the accused pursuant to Section "" of 4ule 11! of the
4ules of $ourt and the remaining balance ordered returned to the accused
+he accused is hereby ordered immediately committed to the ?3M#, $adi* $ity for the service
of his sentence
CA0 Affirming with modification the :ecision of the 4+$ (U)9+2 but reduced damagesB Amount of
moral damages to #-00,00000
#etitioner then filed his Motion for 4econsideration, which the appellate court denied in its
4esolution dated April 6, "00;
&etitioner7s Claims2
#etitioner ta'es exception to the $A@s ruling that the controversial phrase &$A:)S H=4>I>4,
?A:),( A,: SA(A2 ,>I>4& tends to induce suspicion on private respondent@s character, integrity
and reputation as mayor of $adi* $ity
<e avers that there is nothing in said printed matter tending to defame and induce suspicion on
the character, integrity and reputation of private respondent
I!!#3!0
1F /hether only Duestion of law can be reviewedJ E,=F
"F /hether the printed phrase &$A:)S H=4>I>4, ?A:),( A,: SA(A2 ,>I>4& is libelous as it shows
the in.urious nature of the imputations made against the private respondent and tends to induce
suspicion on his character, integrity and reputation as Mayor of $adi* $ityJ
8F /hether the controversial words used constituted privileged communicationJ E,=F
"a /hether they comprise fair commentary on matters of public matter which are therefore
privilegedJ
"b /hether the presumption of malice has not been overthrownJ
!F /hether he is liable for the moral damages of #-00,000J
H3LD0 4everse the $A ruling
1 2>S +he factual findings of the lower courts are final and conclusive and are not reviewable by this
$ourt, unless the case falls under any of the following recogni*ed exceptions% ! /hen the .udgment
is based on a misapprehension of factsB
Hollowing the general rule, we are precluded from ma'ing further evaluation of the factual
antecedents of the case <owever, we cannot lose sight of the fact that both lower courts have
greatly misapprehended the facts in arriving at their unanimous conclusion
" ,= #hrase does not tend to induce suspicion on private respondent@s character, integrity and
reputation as mayor of $adi* $ity +here are no derogatory imputations of a crime, vice or defect or
any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending, directly or indirectly, to cause his
dishonor ,either does the phrase in its entirety, employ any unpleasant language or somewhat harsh
and uncalled for that would reflect on private respondent@s integrity
=bviously, the controversial word &,>I>4& used by petitioner was plain and simple )n its ordinary
sense, the wor i not cast aspersion upon pri$ate responentHs integrit: an
reputation muc6 less con$e: t6e iea t6at 6e was guilt: of an: offense Simply worded
as it was with nary a notion of corruption and dishonesty in government service, it is our
considered view to appropriately consider it as mere epit6et or personal reaction on pri$ate
responentHs performance of official ut: an not purposel: esigne to malign an
%esmirc6 6is reputation an ignit: more so to epri$e 6im of pu%lic confience.
A libel is defined as &a public and malicious imputation of a crime or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit or contempt of a natural or .uridicial person or to blac'en the memory of one who is
dead&
&Hor an imputation to be libelous, the following reDuisites must concur%
aF it must be defamatoryB
bF it must be maliciousB
cF it must be given publicity and dF the victim must be identifiable&
T Absent one of these elements precludes the commission of the crime of libel
Although all the elements must concur, the efamator: nature of t6e su%Dect printe p6rase
must %e pro$e first %ecause t6is is so $ital in a prosecution for li%el Eere t6e wors
impute not efamator: in c6aracter, a li%el c6arge will not prosper. 4alice is
necessaril: renere immaterial.
An allegation is considered efamator: if it ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the
possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance which tens to is6onor or iscreit or put him in contempt or which tends to
blac'en the memory of one who is dead
+o determine &whether a statement is defamatory, the words used are to be construe in t6eir
entiret: an s6oul %e taCen in t6eir plain, natural an orinar: meaning as they would
naturally be understood by persons reading them, unless it appears that they were used and
understood in another sense&
Moreover, &WaX charge is sufficient if the words are calculate to inuce t6e 6earers to suppose
and understand that the person or persons against whom they were uttered were guilt: of
certain offenses or are sufficient to impeac6 t6e 6onest:, $irtue or reputation or to hold
the person or persons up to pu%lic riicule&
=S(% &there is nothing in the phrase &$A:)S H=4>I>4& and &?A:),( A,: SA(A2 ,>I>4& which
ascribe to private respondent any crime, vice or defect, or any act, omission, condition, status or
circumstance which will either dishonor, discredit, or put him into contempt&
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1G"
/)+,>SS ,=+ +4US+/=4+<2% +rustworthiness of these witnesses is doubtful considering the
moral ascendancy exercised over them by the private respondent such that it is Duite easy for
them to draw such negative impression
o As observed by the =S(, at the time the billboards were erected and during the
incumbency of private respondent as mayor of $adi* $ity, these witnesses were either
employed in the $adi* $ity <all or active in the pro.ect of the city government
o ?ernardita was a member of the $lean and (reen #rogram of $adi* $ityB 3ude was
employed as a licensing officer under the #ermit and 9icense :ivision of the $adi* $ity <all
and ,enita held the position of Utility /or'er )) of the (eneral Services =ffice of $adi* $ity
o +hese witnesses, according to the =S(, would naturally testify in his favor +hey could have
verbicide the meaning of the word &,>I>4&
According to the private respondent, the message in the billboards would li'e to convey to the
people of $adi* that he is a tuta of Sagay $ity
o :uring the proceedings in the trial court, private respondent testified that the sub.ect
billboards maligned his character and portrayed him as a puppet of Sagay $ity
o ) 'now the intention because to answer your Duestion, it will not only reDuire those
&?A:),( A,: SA(A2 ,>I>4& billboards, it was after which additional billboards were put
up +hat strengthen, that ) am being a &+uta of Sagay ) am being maligned because of
those billboards that states and ) repeat% &Ang +ubig san $adi*, gin'uha sang Sagay&,
&/elcome to ?rgy $adi*& and there is a small word under it, Sone ", very small, very very
small, you cannot see it at a glance
o +hat is the meaning of the signboardWsX +he message that the signboards would li'e to
convey to the people of $adi*, that the Mayor of $adi* $ity is a &+uta& or #uppet of Sagay
$ity
+here is nothing in the sub.ect billboards which state, either directly or indirectly, that he is, in his
words, a &tuta& or &puppet& of Sagay $ity >xcept for private respondent, not a single prosecution
witness testified that the billboards portray Mayor ?ading >scalante, 3r as a &tuta or &puppet& of
Sagay
<e refers to the circumstances mentioned in another billboard that is not the sub.ect matter in the
present charge +he aforesaid facts dismally failed to support the allegations in the instant
information ?e that as it may, private respondent nevertheless did not specify any actionable
wrong or particular act or omission on petitioner@s part that could have defamed him or caused his
alleged in.ury
#rivate respondent was not pleased with the controversial printed matterB however, that is grossly
insufficient to ma'e it actionable by itself &Personal 6urt or em%arrassment or offense,
e$en if real, is not automaticall: eMui$alent to efamation,W &words which are merely
insulting are not actionable as libel or slander per se, and mere words of general abuse however
opprobrious, illAnatured, or vexatious, whether written or spo'en, do not constitute bases for an
action for defamation in the absence of an allegation for special damages T6e fact t6at t6e
language is offensi$e to t6e plaintiff oes not maCe it actiona%le %: itself.
8 &ranting t6at t6e contro$ersial p6rase is consiere efamator:, still, no lia%ilit:
attac6es on petitioner. +he reasons elicited by the prosecution in erecting said billboards mainly
relate to the discharge of private respondent@s official duties as $ity Mayor of $adi* $ity
#ursuant to Article 8;1 of the 4evised #enal $ode, if the defamatory statement is made against a
public official wit6 respect to t6e isc6arge of 6is official uties an functions an t6e
trut6 of t6e allegations is s6own, t6e accuse will %e entitle to an acMuittal even
though he does not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for .ustifiable
ends
US v ?ustos% t6e polic: of a pu%lic official ma: %e attacCe, rig6tl: or wrongl: wit6 e$er:
argument w6ic6 a%ilit: can fin or ingenuit: in$ent. +he public officer &may suffer under a
hostile and an un.ust accusationB the wound can be assuaged by the balm of a clear conscience A
public official must not %e too t6in(sCinne with reference to comments upon his official acts&
&)n criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the reDuirement that the elemental acts constituting
t6e offense %e esta%lis6e wit6 moral certaint: as this is the critical and only reDuisite to a
finding of guilt&
)n this case, contrary to the conclusion of the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court, the
prosecution failed to prove that the controversial phrase &$A:)S H=4>I>4, ?A:),( A,: SA(A2
,>I>4& imputes derogatory remar's on private respondent@s character, reputation and integrity
)n this light, any discussion on the issue of malice is rendered moot
DI!PO!ITI530 #etition is (4A,+>: $A :ecision 4>I>4S>: and S>+ AS):> and the petitioner is
AC=#ITT3D of t6e crime c6arge.
!pecial Laws Digest
c/o 3mergenc: D-/.+ Digest
Art. ;+8 I Impruence an negligence
<uerano $. Court of Appeals, -// P6il. 97+ (.)7-"
>#)+A$)= ?U>4A,=, petitioner,
vs
$=U4+ =H A##>A9S and #>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, respondents
July 5A, 5AJ7
Relova, J
2ACT!%
Sept "0, 19-6% >pitacio ?uerano was the driver of 9+? bus which collided with the Mabuhay
?a'ery delivery panel driven by <ipolito Iismonte and owned by $hu 2u in +anay, 4i*al
:ec 8, 19-6% $hief of #olice of +anay, filed case with 4unicipal 1uge, !lig6t an !erious
P6:sical InDuries t6roug6 RecCless Impruence, alleging%
c 0causing by such negligence, carelessness and imprudence that the said bus, driven and
operated to collide with the delivery truc' of Mabuhay ?a'ery owned by Mr $hu 2u, result
of which the right front side of the said truc' was greatly damaged and the driver, <ipolito
Iismonte, including the two E"F helpers, namely, ?onifacio Iirtuda*o and Sy +ian alias
Martin, suffered physical in.uries on the different parts of the body which reDuired medical
attention as follows%
g <ipolito Iismonte[ - days
g ?onifacio Iirtuda*o[10 days
g Sy +ian alias Martin[1 month
Heb ;, 19-G% petitioner found guilt: of slig6t an less serious p6:sical inDuries t6roug6
recCless impruence and sentenced &to suffer imprisonment from 1 month and 1 day to "
months and to pay the cost of the suit
c petitioner appealed to $H) which later affirmed and sentenced petitioner to suffer four
months of Arresto Mayor and to pay the costs
)n the meantime, Assistant #rovincial Hiscal of 4i*al filed case in $H) charging herein petitioner
with Damage to propert: t6roug6 recCless impruence <e filed a Motion to Ouash on the
ground of double .eopardy in that because he has been previously convicted of the offense
charged
c =pposition was filed by the #rovincial Hiscal contending that the crime for which petitioner
was convicted was for less serious physical in.uries through rec'less imprudence, whereas
the second case was for damages to property through rec'less imprudence which are
distinct offenses
c $H) denied motion to Duash and, after trial, found petitioner guilt: of t6e crime of
amage to propert: t6roug6 recCless impruence
c petitioner appealed to $A which affirmed $H) and sentenced herein petitioner &to pay a fine
of #!,8G600 which is double the amount of damages suffered by the delivery truc' with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvencyB to indemnify the offended party, the owner
of the delivery truc' in the amount of #",198-0, representing the amount of damages
suffered by the said delivery truc', and to pay the costs&
$A held no double .eopardy because%
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1G!
1 ,either in the 3# $ourt nor in the $H) on appeal was the appellant convicted or acDuitted
of the offense of :amage to #roperty +hru 4ec'less )mprudence
2 3# $ourt which found him guilty of Slight and 9ess Serious #hysical in.uries was not a
court of competent .urisdiction to try the offense of :amage to #roperty +hru 4ec'less
)mprudence Ebec of imposable penaltyF
3 Appellant could not have validly pleaded before the 3# $ourt to the said offense of
:amage to #roperty +hru 4ec'less )mprudence
4 offense of :amage to #roperty +hru 4ec'less )mprudence was alleged in the
)nformation Ein the second caseF does not include and is not necessarily included in the
first charge of Slight and 9ess Serious #hysical )n.uries +hru 4ec'less )mprudence
5 Appellant was never tried at all in the 3# $ourt of +anay in forcrime of :amage to
#roperty +hru 4ec'less )mprudence
I!!#3% /o, $A erred in not sustaining petitioner@s plea of double .eopardy E2>SF
H3LD% petitioner AC=#ITT3DB $A .udgment set aside
RATIO%
$A based its decision on S$ ruling on preAwar case of People vs. 3stipona decided on
,ovember 1!, 19!0, which is no longer controlling
People v (uan EMarch "9, 19;GF, S$ thru 3ustice 3 ? 9 4eyes, held that [
c once con$icte or acMuitte of a specific act of recCless impruence, accuse
ma: not %e prosecute again for same act
c essence of Duasi offense of criminal negligence under 4#$ 8;- lies in the execution of
an imprudent or negligent act that, if intentionally done, would be punishable as a
felony T6e law penalizes t6us t6e negligent or careless act, not t6e result
t6ereof. +he gravity of the conseDuence is only ta'en into account to determine the
penalty, it does not Dualify the substance of the offense An, as t6e careless act is
single, w6et6er t6e inDurious result s6oul affect one person or se$eral
persons, t6e offense (criminal negligence" remains one an t6e same, an can
not %e split into ifferent crimes an prosecutions.
c +hen Sol(en, now 3ustice Helix I Ma'asiar, stressed that &if double .eopardy exists
where the rec'less act resulted into homicide and physical injuries, then the same
conseDuence must perforce follow where the same rec'less act caused merel:
damage to propert/Knot death[and physical injuries Ierily, the value of a human
life lost as a result of a vehicular collision cannot be eDuated with any amount of
damages caused to a motors vehicle arising from the same mishap&
People $. Cit: Court of 4anila, -/+ P6il. 888 (.)7;"
Apr "6, 19G8
+<> #>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, petitioner,
vs
+<> $)+2 $=U4+ =H MA,)9A, ?4A,$< ]) and H4A,$)S$= (A#A2 y MA99A4>S, respondents
4>9=IA, J&
2ACT!%
=ct 16, 1961% the incident leading to the charge happenedB the accusedCpriv resp (apay was the
truc' driverB the victim was :iolito de la $ru*
=ct 1G, 1961% an information for serious physical in.uries thru rec'less imprudence was filed
against the accused
<owever, on the same day E=ct 1GF, the victim died
=ct "0, 196"% accused was arraignedB pleaded guiltyB sentenced to 1 month and 1 day of arresto
mayor and commenced serving his sentence
=ct "!, 196"% another information for homicide thru rec'less imprudence was filed against
accused
:efense moved to dismiss
$ity $ourt of Manila E,ov 16, 196"F%
:ismissed the homicide thru rec'less imprudence case on the ground of double .eopardy
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1G-
/hile there is a ruling in 0elo vs. People which states% w6ere after t6e first prosecution, a
new fact super$enes for which the defendant is responsible, w6ic6 c6anges t6e c6aracter of
t6e offense and, together with the facts existing at a time, constitutes a new an istinct
offense, the accuse cannot %e sai to %e in secon Deopar: if indicted for the second
offense
$ity $ourt held that the doctrine of Melo vs #eople does not apply in the case at bar because of
S$@s ruling in People vs. (uan
c #eople vs ?uan % Article 8;- of the #enal $ode punis6es t6e negligent state of min
an not t6e resulting inDur:
)t concluded that once prosecuted for and convicted of negligence, the accused cannot again be
prosecuted for the same negligence although for a different resulting in.ury
I!!#3% /C, double .eopardy lies E2>SF
RATIO%
/ellAsettled is the rule that one who has been charged with an offense cannot be charged again
with the same or ientical offense t6oug6 t6e latter %e lesser or greater t6an t6e
former.
<owever, as held in the case of Melo vs #eople, the rule of )dentity oes not appl: w6en t6e
secon offense was not in eListence at t6e time of t6e first prosecution, for the reason
that in such case there is no possi%ilit: for t6e accuse, uring t6e first prosecution, to %e
con$icte for an offense t6at was t6en ineListent
Stated differently, w6ere after t6e first prosecution a new fact super$enes for w6ic6 t6e
efenant is responsi%le, w6ic6 c6anges t6e c6aracter of t6e offense and, together with
the facts existing at the time, constitutes a new an istinct offense, t6e accuse cannot
%e sai to %e in secon Deopar: if indicted for the new offense
)n this case % the $ictim ie on t6e a: t6e information was file
+he accused was arraigne - a:s after
T6us, w6en t6e information for 6omicie t6ru recCless impruence was file on
Octo%er -9, .)*-, t6e accuse was alrea: in Deopar:
+he =S( said on =ctober "1, 196", the $ity Hiscal filed an Urgent Motion as'ing that the &hearing
and arraignment of this case be held in abeyance for there is information that the victim, :iolito
dela $ru* died, and the information would have to be amended&
c !C % ?e that as it may, the act remains that the victim died 1 day after the accident and the
arrest of the accused And that on =ctober "0, 196", the accused was arraigned, pleaded
guilty and sentenced accordingly T6us, Deopar: 6a attac6e an no new fact
super$ene after t6e arraignment an con$iction of t6e accuse.
H3LD% $ity $ourt of Manila@s dismissal is affirme
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1G;
I$ler $. !an Pero, &.R. 'o. .*-*.+, 'o$. .*, -/./
3AS=, )I9>4 y A(U)9A4, petitioner,
vs <=, MA4)A 4=/>,A M=:>S+=ASA, #>:4=, 3udge of the M+$, ?ranch 61, #asig $ity, and
>IA,(>9),> #=,$>, respondents
2ACT!0
Hollowing a $e6icular collision in August "00!, petitioner 3ason )vler EpetitionerF was charged
before the Metropolitan +rial $ourt of #asig $ity, ?ranch 61 EMe+$F, with two separate offenses%
(." RecCless Impruence Resulting in !lig6t P6:sical InDuries E$riminal $ase ,o G"8;6F 7
case .Afor in.uries sustained by responent 3$angeline L. Ponce Erespondent #onceFB and E"F
RecCless Impruence Resulting in Homicie an Damage to Propert: E$riminal $ase ,o
G"8;;F 7case -A for the death of respondent PonceRs 6us%an 'estor C. Ponce and damage to
the spouses #onceKs vehicle #etitioner posted bail for his temporary release in both cases
petitioner pleaded guilt: to the charge in Case. and was meted out the penalty of public censure
petitioner moved to Duash the )nformation in $ase " for placing him in .eopardy of second
punishment for the same offense of rec'less imprudence 7M+$ denied, finding no identity of
offenses in the " cases
After unsuccessfully see'ing reconsideration, petitioner elevated the matter to the 4+$, in a
petition for certiorari E!.C.A. 'o. -7/;F Meanwhile, petitioner soug6t from t6e 4eTC t6e
suspension of proceeings in Case - including the arraignment on 16 May "00-, invo'ing
S$A ,o "G08 as a pre.udicial Duestion
/ithout acting on petitionerKs motion, the 4eTC proceee with the arraignment and, because
of petitionerRs a%sence, cancelle 6is %ail an orere 6is arrest Seven days later, the
Me+$ issued a resolution denying petitionerKs motion to suspend proceedings and postponing his
arraignment until after his arrest
4elying on the arrest order against petitioner, respondent #once sought in the 4+$ the dismissal
of S$A ,o "G08 for petitionerKs loss of standing to maintain the suit #etitioner contested the
motion
4+$% affirmed Me+$ ismisse !.C.A. 'o. -7/; ue to petitionerRs forfeiture of staning
to maintain !.C.A. 'o. -7/; arising from t6e 4eTCRs orer to arrest petitioner for 6is
non(appearance at the arraignment in $ase "
<ence this petition
#etitioner denies absconding and explains that his petition in S$A ,o "G08 constrained him to
forego participation in the proceedings in $ase "
I!!#3!0
1 /=, petitioner forfeited his standing to see' relief in S$A "G08 when the Me+$ ordered his
arrest following his nonAappearance at the arraignment in $ase " (no"
" if in the negative, /=, petitionerKs constitutional right under the :ouble 3eopardy $lause bars
further proceedings in $ase " (:es"
RATIO%
On non(appearance
#etitioners non appearance at t6e arraignment in case . i not i$est 6im of staning
to maintain petition in t6e !CA -7/;
:ismissals of appeals grounded on the appellantKs escape from custody or violation of the terms
of his bail bond are governed by the second paragraph of !ection 7, Rule .-9, G in relation to
Section 1, 4ule 1"-, of the 4evised 4ules on $riminal #rocedure authori*ing this $ourt or the $ourt
of Appeals to &also, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio, dismiss the appeal if t6e
appellant escapes from prison or confinement, Dumps %ail or flees to a foreign countr:
uring t6e penenc: of t6e appeal& +he &appeal& contemplate in !ection 7 of Rule .-9
is a suit to re$iew Dugments of con$ictions.
+he 4+$Ks ismissal of petitionerRs special ci$il action for certiorari to review a preA
arraignment ancillary Duestion on the applicability of the :ue #rocess $lause to bar proceedings in
$ase" fins no %asis under procedural rules and .urisprudence
+he mischief in the 4+$Ks treatment of petitionerKs nonAappearance at his arraignment in $riminal
$ase ,o G"8;; as proof of his loss of standing becomes more evident when one considers the
4ules of $ourtKs treatment of a defendant who absents himself from postAarraignment hearings
Under Section "1, 4ule 11! 11 of the 4evised 4ules of $riminal #rocedure, the defendantKs
absence merely renders his bondsman potentially liable on its bond
Hurther, the 4+$Ks observation that petitioner provided &no explanation why he failed to attend the
scheduled proceeding& at the Me+$ is belied by the records :ays before the arraignment,
petitioner sought the suspension of the Me+$Ks proceedings
On ou%le Deopar:
+he accusedKs negative constitutional right not to be &twice put in Deopar: of punis6ment for
t6e same offenseW protects 6im from, among ot6ers, post(con$iction prosecution for
t6e same offense, wit6 t6e prior $erict renere %: a court of competent Durisiction
upon a $ali information
)t is not disputed that petitionerKs conviction in $ase 1 was rendered by a court of competent
.urisdiction upon a valid charge +hus, the case turns on the Duestion whether $ases 1 and "
involve the &same offense&
#etitioner adopts the affirmative view, submitting that the two cases concern the same offense of
rec'less imprudence +he Me+$ ruled otherwise, finding that 4ec'less )mprudence 4esulting in
Slight #hysical )n.uries is an entirely separate offense from 4ec'less )mprudence 4esulting in
<omicide and :amage to #roperty &as the WlatterX reDuires proof of an additional fact which the
other does not&
/e find for petitioner RecCless Impruence is a single crime, its conseMuences on
persons an propert: are material onl: to etermine t6e penalt:
+he two charges against petitioner, arising from the same facts, were prosecuted under the same
provision of the 4#$, Art 8;-, defining and penali*ing DuasiAoffenses
4ec'less )mprudence is not a mere mode of committing a crime
+he proposition that &rec'less imprudence& is not a crime in itself but simply a way of committing
it and merely determines a lower degree of criminal lia%ilit: is too %roa to eser$e
unMualifie assent. T6ere are crimes t6at %: t6eir structure cannot %e committe
t6roug6 impruence0 murer, treason, ro%%er:, malicious misc6ief, etc )n truth, criminal
negligence in our 4evised #enal $ode is treated as a mere Duasi offense, and dealt with
separately from willful offenses )t is not a mere Duestion of classification or terminology In
intentional crimes, t6e act itself is punis6eS in negligence or impruence, w6at is
principall: penalize is t6e mental attitue or conition %e6in t6e act, t6e angerous
recClessness, lacC of care or foresig6t, t6e impruencia puni%le
/ere it a mode, it would be absorbed in the mitigating circumstance of lac' of intent to commit so
grave a wrong
)t can be seen that the actual penalty for criminal negligence bears no relation to the individual
willful crime, but is set in relation to a whole class, or series, of crimes
#rior convictionC acDuittal bars subseDuent prosecution for the same DuasiAoffense
+he doctrine that rec'less imprudence under Article 8;- is a single DuasiAoffense by itself and not
merely a means to commit other crimes such that conviction or acDuittal of such DuasiAoffense
%ars su%seMuent prosecution for t6e same Muasi(offense, regarless of its $arious
resulting acts
3?9 4eyes% in barring a subseDuent prosecution for &serious physical in.uries and damage to
property thru rec'less imprudence& because of the accusedKs prior acDuittal of &slight physical
in.uries thru rec'less imprudence,& with both charges grounded on the same act, the $ourt
explained%
c +he law penali*es thus the negligent or careless act, not the result thereof
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests 1GG
c as the careless act is single, whether the in.urious result should affect one person or
several persons, the offense Ecriminal negligenceF remains one and the same, and can not
be split into different crimes and prosecutions
=ne of the tests of ou%le Deopar: is whether or not the second offense charged necessaril:
inclues or is necessaril: inclue in t6e offense c6arge in t6e former complaint or
information E4ule 118, Sec 9F Another test is w6et6er t6e e$ience w6ic6 pro$es one
woul pro$e t6e ot6er t6at is to sa: w6et6er t6e facts allege in t6e first c6arge if
pro$en, woul 6a$e %een sufficient to support t6e secon c6arge an $ice $ersaB or
whether one crime is an ingreient of the other EPeople v Dia)F
Article !G :oes not Apply to Acts #enali*ed Under Article 8;- of the 4evised #enal $ode
Article !G wor's to combine in a single prosecution multiple intentional crimes falling under +itles
1A18, ?oo' )) of the 4evised #enal $ode, when properB Article ;+8 go$erns t6e prosecution of
impruent acts an t6eir conseMuences Article 8;- is a substantive rule penali*ing not an
act defined as a felony but &t6e mental attitue . . . %e6in t6e act, t6e angerous
recClessness, lacC of care or foresig6t , a single mental attitue regarless of t6e
resulting conseMuences
<ence, we hold that prosecutions under Article 8;- s6oul procee from a single c6arge
regarless of t6e num%er or se$erit: of t6e conseMuences )n imposing penalties, the .udge
will do no more than apply the penalties under Article 8;- for each conseDuence alleged and
proven )n short, there shall be no splitting of charges under Article 8;-, and onl: one
information shall be filed in the same first level court
DI!PO!ITI530 /<>4>H=4>, we (4A,+ the petition /e 4>I>4S> the =rders of the 4egional +rial
$ourt of #asig $ity /e :)SM)SS the )nformation in $ase " against petitioner 3ason )vler y Aguilar on
the ground of double .eopardy
P.D. 'o. .7++, as amene
<.P. <lg. -- (<ouncing C6ecCs Law"
Azarcon $. People, +-- !CRA ;9.
9=U4:>S ASA4$=,
vs
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S and MA4$=SA (=,SA9>S
$A4#)= M=4A9>S, 3% (4 ,o 1G-90; 3une "9, "010
2ACT!0
N Since 1990, 9ourdes A*arcon, a businesswoman, had been borrowing money from Marcosa
(on*ales, the latter being engaged in an informal moneyAlending business ?etween Aug to :ec
199", A*arcon issues several #remiere ?an' chec's payable to Marcosa, for amounts borrowed
<owever, chec's were, upon maturity, dishonored bec 0Account $losed1
N :ec 1 1998% Marcosa, through counsel, writes letter, demands the #6!9,000 due her bec
chec's were dishonored
N :ec 16 1998% A*arcon replies, as's for &reconciliation of her accountability since WsheX has also
some receipt payments covering the chec's she has issued& and says that she is willing to settle her
account
N Heb 1- 199!% Manuel A*arcon, 9ourdes@ husband, pays Marcosa #"00,000 representing 0initial
payment1 with underta'ing to settle balance within 1 year via monthly installments
N " h years pass without obligation being paid, prompting Marcosa to file complaint for violation
of ?# "" against A*arcon, involving 1"0 dishonored chec's amounting to #6!;,"-0
N A*arcon@s defense% obligation to pay was novated when husband assumed liability
N +$% A*arcon guilty of G"! violations of ?# "", subtracted amounts which prosecution either
failed to offer in evidence or Marcosa failed to dispute
N $A appeals% no prior demand from Marcosa to settle chec's after their being dishonored, +$ did
not appreciate novation
N $A affirms +$
N A*arcon files petition before S$
I!!#3/H3LD0
N /C, A*arcon is guilty of violation of ?# "" E2>SF
RATIO0
N >lements for ?# "" violation all present% (." T6e accuse maCes, raws or issues an:
c6ecC to appl: to account or for $alueS (-" T6e accuse Cnows at t6e time of t6e issuance
t6at 6e or s6e oes not 6a$e sufficient funs in, or creit wit6, t6e rawee %anC for t6e
pa:ment of t6e c6ecC in full upon its presentmentS an (;" T6e c6ecC is su%seMuentl:
is6onore %: t6e rawee %anC for insufficienc: of funs or creit or it woul 6a$e %een
is6onore for t6e same reason 6a not t6e rawer, wit6out an: $ali reason, orere t6e
%anC to stop pa:ment.
N re% prior demand% 4arcosaHs Dec . .)); letter satisfies >notice of is6onor?
reMuirement to %ring up t6e presumption t6at t6ere was Cnowlege of insufficient funs
N re% novation defense% no eLpress agreement to a no$ation, plus initial installment
pa:ments were eit6er pai %: Azarcon 6erself, or recei$e Wt6e account of 4rs. Loures
AzarconW
R#LI'&0 #etition denied
R.A. 'o. ;/.) (Anti(&raft an Corrupt Practices Act"
Caiao(Palacios $. People, 87- !CRA *.;
LI'DA CADIAO(PALACIO!, Petitioner,
5s.
P3OPL3 O2 TH3 PHILIPPI'3!, Responent
March 81, "009
,A$<U4A, J

2acts0

#etitioner $adiaoA#alacios was the mayor of the Municipality of $ulasi, #rovince of AntiDue from 3uly
199G to 3une "001 :uring her administration, there were infrastructure pro.ects that were initiated
during the incumbency of her predecessor, then Mayor Aida Alpas, which remained partially unpaid
+hese included the 3anlagasi :iversion :am, San 9uis :iversion :am, $aridadA?agacay 4oad, and San
3uanA+umao 4oad, which were contracted by 9S (amotin $onstruction with a total pro.ect cost of #"
million Hor the said pro.ects, the municipality owed the contractor #691,0!6

4elative to the aforesaid pro.ects, petitioner, together with Iictor S Ienturan*a, then the
Municipal Security =fficer, was indicted in an )nformation which accused them of demanding money
from (race Superficial of 9S (amotin $onstruction for in connection with the aforesaid contracts
concerning the infrastructure pro.ects, wherein, as public officers in their official capacities, they had
to intervene under the law +he )nformation accused them of receiving #1-,00000 in cash and
#1;",!00 in 9?# $hec' ,o 889-"6!

?oth accused voluntarily surrendered and, upon motion, posted a reduced bail bond of #1-,000 each
+hey pleaded 0,ot (uilty1 upon arraignment

:uring trial, the prosecution presented its sole witness[the private complainant herself, (race M
Superficial ESuperficialF <er testimony may be summari*ed as follows%

Hor and on behalf of 9S (amotin, she ESuperficialF too' charge of the collection of the unpaid billings
of the municipality #rior to the full payment of the municipality@s obligation, petitioner demanded
money from her, under threat that the final payment would not be released, unless she complied
Acceding to petitioner@s demand, she gave the former@s husband #1-,000 Sometime in 3anuary 1999,
petitioner demanded from Superficial the full payment of her total 0'ic'bac',1 which should be 10`
of the pro.ect cost +he two then agreed that Superficial would deliver a chec' in lieu of cash

=n 3anuary "-, 1999, petitioner gave to ,eil Superficial, then an incumbent councilor and the
husband of private complainant, 8 chec's representing the final payment for the construction
pro.ects

=n 3anuary ";, 1999, Ienturan*a pic'ed up the chec' promised by Superficial as payment for the
10` 0'ic'bac'1 )n accordance with petitioner@s instruction, the chec' was made payable to
Ienturan*a in the amount of #1;",!00 +he chec' was encashed by Ienturan*a at the 9and ?an' of
the #hilippines, San 3ose, AntiDue ?ranch, which is about 90'm A 100'm away from $ulasiB and the
amount was received by Ienturan*a )t was Ienturan*a also who deposited the 8 chec's,
representing the full payment of the pro.ect

+he prosecution offered the following documentary evidence%
1 Minutes of the Meeting of #reAOualification, W?idX and Award $ommittee E#?A$F held at the
Municipality of AntiDueB
" 9and ?an' $hec' ,o 889-"6!# dated 3anuary ";, 1999 in the amount of #1;",!00B
8 $omplainant@s $onsolidated SurA4eplyB and
! :eposit Slip of the 8 9?# $hec's representing full payment of the pro.ect

+he defense, on the other hand, presented the following witnesses% 1F petitioner herself, "F
Ienturan*a, 8F >ngr Armand $adigal, !F petitioner@s husband >mmanuel #alacios, -F petitioner@s
>xecutive Assistant >ugene de 9os 4eyes, and ;F Atty 4ex Sui*a $astillon +heir testimonies may be
summari*ed as follows%

#etitioner denied Superficial@s allegations She insisted that she only dealt with the owner of
9S (amotin, >ngr 9eobardo S (amotin, relative to the infrastructure pro.ectsB thus, she could have
made the demand directly from him and not from Superficial )t was >ngr (amotin himself who
claimed payment through a demand letter addressed to petitioner

She only met Superficial when the latter received the chec's representing the final payment She
further testified that she never entrusted any highly sensitive matter to Ienturan*a, since her trusted
employee was her chief of staff She also averred that she was not the only person responsible for the
release of the chec's, since the vouchers also reDuired the signatures of the municipal treasurer, the
municipal budget officer, and the municipal accountant As far as Ienturan*a was concerned, she
denied 'nowledge of such transaction 9astly, she claimed that the filing of the case against her was
politically motivated

>mmanuel #alacios li'ewise denied having received #1-,00000 from Superficial <e claimed that he
was financially stable <e also claimed that the institution of the criminal case was illAmotivated as
,eil Superficial, in fact, initiated a complaint against him for frustrated murder

Ienturan*a admitted that he indeed received the chec' from Superficial, but denied that it was
0grease money1 <e claimed that the #1;",!00 was received by him in the form of a loan <e
explained that he borrowed from Superficial #1-0,000 to finance his trip to Australia so that he could
attend the wedding of his nephewB and as'ed for an additional amount for his expenses in processing
his visa Ienturan*a, however, failed to leave for Australia =f the total amount of his loan, he
allegedly spent #1-,000 in processing his visa Ienturan*a stated that he was able to repay the
entire amount immediately because he obtained a loan from the 4ural ?an' of A'lan, #andan ?ranch,
to pay the amount he used in applying for his visa <e further testified that he was persuaded by the
Superficials to campaign against petitioner

+he Sandiganbayan convicted both accused of violating Section 8 EbF of 4epublic Act ,o 8019,
otherwise 'nown as 2he AntiC*rat and $orrupt Practices Act +he Sandiganbayan concluded that the
following circumstances established the guilt of both petitioner and Ienturan*a%
1F +hat the municipality had outstanding obligations with 9S (amotin for the
construction of several public wor's that were completed in 199GB
"F +hat petitioner was the person authori*ed to effect the payment of said
obligations which, in fact, she didB
8F +hat Ienturan*a was a trusted employee of petitioner as he was in charge
of the security of the municipal buildings and personnel as well as the ad.oining
officesB
!F +hat Ienturan*a received the 8 9?# chec's representing the full payment to
9S (amotin and the 9?# chec' bearing the amount of #1;",!00B
-F +hat Ienturan*a went to San 3ose, AntiDue on 3anuary ";, 1999 to deposit
the 8 chec's and encashed the #1;",!00 chec'B
;F +hat Ienturan*a did not receive the above amount by virtue of a loan
agreement with Superficial because there was no evidence to prove itB
6F +hat Ienturan*a used the vehicle of the municipality to encash the chec' in
San 3ose, AntiDueB and
GF +hat the amount of #1-,00000 initially given to >mmanuel #alacios and the
#1;",!00 appearing on the chec' corresponded to the 10` of the total pro.ect cost
after deducting the 10` IA+ and #10,00000 >ngineering Supervision Hee

Aggrieved, petitioner and Ienturan*a separately appealed their conviction +he latter petition was
denied by the S$ +he former, on the other hand, went before the S$ again in herein petition, mainly
challenging the legal and factual bases of the Sandiganbayan decision

Issue0 /o, 9inda $adiaoA#alacios was guilty of violating Section 8 EbF of 4epublic Act ,o 8019,
otherwise 'nown as 2he AntiC*rat and $orrupt Practices Act

Hel0 2es, she was guilty

/<>4>H=4>, premises considered, the petition is hereby :>,)>: for lac' of merit +he :ecision of
the Sandiganbayan dated 3anuary "G, "00- in $riminal $ase ,o "6!8! is AHH)4M>:

Ratio0

Section 8 EbF of the AntiA(raft and $orrupt #ractices Act provides%

S>$ 8 $orrupt practices o public oicers. L )n addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penali*ed by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer
and are hereby declared to be unlawful%

x x x x

EbF :irectly or indirectly reDuesting or receiving any gift, present, share, percentage, or
benefit, for himself or for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between
the (overnment and any other party, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law

+o be convicted of violation of Section 8EbF of 4A ,o 8019, the prosecution has the burden of
proving the following elements%
1F the offender is a public officerB
"F /ho reDuested or received a gift, a present, a share, a percentage, or
benefitB
8F =n behalf of the offender or any other personB
!F )n connection with a contract or transaction with the governmentB
-F )n which the public officer, in an official capacity under the law, has
the right to intervene

At the time material to the case, petitioner was the mayor of the Municipality of $ulasi, AntiDue As
mayor, her signature was necessary to effect payment to contractors Efor government pro.ectsF
Since the case involved the collection by 9S (amotin of the municipality@s outstanding obligation to
the former, the right of petitioner to intervene in her official capacity is undisputed +herefore,
elements 1, ! and - of the offense are present

#etitioner@s refutation of her conviction focuses on the evidence appreciated by the Sandiganbayan
establishing that she demanded and received 0grease money1 in connection with the
transactionCcontract

Section 8EbF penali*es three distinct acts 7 1F demanding or reDuestingB "F receivingB or 8F
demanding, reDuesting and receiving 7 any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit for oneself or
for any other person, in connection with any contract or transaction between the government and any
other party, wherein a public officer in an official capacity has to intervene under the law

+he Sandiganbayan found Superficial and her testimony worthy of credence, that petitioner
demanded 0grease money1 as a condition for the release of the final payment to 9S (amotin Aside
from the demand made by petitioner, the Sandiganbayan li'ewise concluded that, indeed, she
received the 0grease money1 through Ienturan*a +herefore, petitioner was convicted both for
demanding and receiving 0grease money1

/ellAsettled is the rule that factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are conclusive upon the S$ save in
the following cases% 1F the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmise and
con.ectureB "F the inference made is manifestly an error or founded on a mista'eB 8F there is grave
abuse of discretionB !F the .udgment is based on misapprehension of factsB -F the findings of fact are
premised on a want of evidence and are contradicted by evidence on recordB and ;F said findings of
fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based +he instant case
does not fall under any of the foregoing exceptions

#etitioner contends that it was improbable for her to have demanded the 0grease money1 from
Superficial, when she could have tal'ed directly to the contractor himself She insists that Superficial
was never a party to the transaction and that >ngr (amotin was the one who personally facilitated
the full payment of the municipality@s unpaid obligation

As held in Preclaro v. #andi!anbayan, it is irrelevant from whom petitioner demanded her percentage
share of the pro.ect cost +hat petitioner made such a demand is all that is reDuired by Section 8EbF of
4A ,o 8019, and this element has been sufficiently established by the testimony of Superficial

#etitioner admitted that it was Superficial Eor her husbandF who received the 8 chec's representing
full payment of the municipality@s obligation Moreover, although the chec's were issued to 9S
(amotin, the deposit slip showed that they were deposited by Ienturan*a to the account of
Superficial +hus, contrary to petitioner@s contention, the evidence clearly shows that Superficial was
not a stranger to the transaction between the municipality and 9S (amotin, for she, in fact, played
an important role in the receipt of the final payment of the government@s obligation

)t was not, therefore, impossible for petitioner to have demanded the 0grease money1 from
Superficial +his was bolstered by the fact that the #1;",!0000 chec' in the name of Ienturan*a was
encashed by him on the same day that he deposited the 8 chec's +he only plausible explanation is
that the amount given to Ienturan*a was 0grease money1 ta'en from the proceeds of the chec's
issued by the municipality

)n holding that petitioner and Ienturan*a conspired in committing the offense, the S$ agreed
with the Sandiganbayan that the circumstances enumerated above point to the culpability of the
accused +here was no direct evidence showing that petitioner demanded and received the money,
but the testimony of Superficial, corroborated by the documentary evidence and the admissions of
the witnesses for the defense, sufficiently establishes that Ienturan*a received the money upon
orders of petitioner
&o $s. 2ift6 Di$ision, !anigan%a:an, 878 !CRA 9/9
April 18, "006
<>,42 + (=,
vs
+<> H)H+< :)I)S)=,, SA,:)(A,?A2A, and +<> =HH)$> =H +<> S#>$)A9 #4=S>$U+=4, =HH)$> =H
+<> =M?U:SMA,,
$A99>3=, S4, J.&
2ACT!0
(overnment awarded in favor of #)A+$= the pro.ect for the development of the ,A)A )#+ ))) under
a buildAoperateAandAtransfer E?=+F scheme pursuant 4A ;9- as amended by 4A 661G E?=+ 9awF
May -, "008 S$ rendered the :ecision in Agan, 3r v #hil )nt@l Air +erminals $o, )nc E#)A+$=F,
declaring as null and void the 1996 $oncession Agreement EAgreementF, the Amended and
4estated $oncession Agreement EA4$AF, and the Supplemental $ontracts entered into bet the
(ov@t, through :=+$ and the Manila )nt@l Airport Authority EM)AAF, and #)A+$= Ecollectively 'nown
as the #)A+$= contractsF
+he $ourt ruled that #aircargo $onsortium, #)A+$=@s predecessorAinAinterest, was not a Dualified
bidder as it failed to meet the financial capability reDuirement under the ?=+ 9aw Moreover, the
#)A+$= contracts were declared null and void for being contrary to public policy considering that
the Agreement contains material and substantial amendments, which amendments had the effect
of converting it into an entirely different agreement from the contract bidded upon +he provisions
under Secti !0!EbF and EcF in relation to Sec 10; of the Agreement and Sec !0!EcF in relation to
Sec 10; of the A4$A, which constitute a direct gov@t guarantee expressly prohibited by, among
others, the ?=+ 9aw and its )mplementing 4ules and 4egulations are also null and void +he
Supplements, being accessory contracts to the A4$A, are li'ewise null and void
SubseDuently, an affidavitAcomplaint, later amended, was filed with the =ffice of the =mbudsman
by Ma $ecilia 9 #esayco, $orporate Secretary of Asia@s >merging :ragon $orporation EA>:$F,
charging several persons in connection with the ,A)A )#+ ))) pro.ect +he A>:$ was the original
proponent thereof which, however, lost to #)A+$= when it failed to match the latter@s bid price
After conducting a preliminary investigation, the =ffice of the =mbudsman filed with the
Sandiganbayan the )nfo dated 3an 18, "00- charging Iicente $ 4ivera, then :=+$ Sec, and petr
(o, $hairman and #res of #)A+$=, with violation of Section 8EgF of 4A 8019 EAntiA(raft and $orrupt
#ractices ActF
3une "0, "00-% (o filed his $omment with Motion to Ouash
(o% Adopting the view advanced by 4ivera, (o harped on the alleged &missing documents,&
including #esayco@s amended affidavitAcomplaint and those others that were mentioned in the
resolution of the =ffice of the :eputy =mbudsman finding probable cause against 4ivera and
petitioner (o, but which were not allegedly in the records (o maintained that, there was no
supporting evidence for the finding of the existence of probable cause (o further alleged that he
could not be charged under Sect 8EgF of 4A 8019 because he is not a public officer and neither is
he capacitated to enter into a contract or transaction on behalf of the government At least one of
the important elements of the crime under Section 8EgF of 4A 8019 is not allegedly present in his
case
Sandiganbayan% issued 4esolution denying 4ivera@s Motion for 3udicial :etermination E4eA
:eterminationF of #robable $ause and Motion to :ismiss and petitioner (o@s Motion to Ouash
I!!#3!0
1F /C, Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac' or excess of
.urisdiction in not ruling that Section 8EgF does not embrace a private person within its proviso E,oF
"F /C, Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac' or excess of
.urisdiction in not ruling that there is no probable cause to hold petitioner for trial E,oF
RATIO0
Section 8EgF of 4A 8019
S>$ 8 $orrupt practices of public officers 7 )n addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penali*ed by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are
hereby declared to be unlawful%
EgF >ntering, on behalf of the (overnment, into any contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby
elements of this offense
E1F that the accused is a public officerB
E"F that he entered into a contract or transaction on behalf of the governmentB and
E8F that such contract or transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government
(o@s simplistic syllogism, ie, he is not a public officer ergo he cannot be charged with
violation of Section 8EgF of 4A 8019, goes against the letter and spirit of the avowed policy of
4A 8019 as embodied in Sec 1 thereof%
S>$ 1 Statement of policy A )t is the policy of the #hilippine (overnment, in line with the principle
that a public office is a public trust, to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons ali'e
which constitute graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto
As early as in 1960, through the erudite 3ustice 3?9 4eyes in 9uciano v >strella, the $ourt
had ascertained the scope of Section 8EgF of 4A 8019 as applying to both public officers and
private persons%
x x x W+Xhe act treated thereunder Wreferring to Section 8EgF of 4A 8019X parta'es the nature of
malum prohibitumB it is the commission of that act as defined by law, not the character or effect
thereof, that determines whether or not the provision has been violated And this construction would
be in consonance with the announced purpose for which 4epublic Act 8019 was enacted, which is the
repression of certain acts of public officers and private persons constituting graft or corrupt practices
act or which may lead thereto
9i'e in the present case, the )nformation in the said case charged both public officers and
private persons with violation of Section 8EgF of 4A 8019
Section 9 of 4A 8019 buttresses the conclusion that the antiAgraft law@s application extends to
both public officers and private persons +he said provision, Duoted earlier, provides in part
that%
S>$ 9 EaF Any public officer or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or omissions
enumerated in Sections 8, !, - and ; of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than
six years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual disDualification from public office,
and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of the (overnment of any prohibited interest and unexplained
wealth manifestly out of proportion to his salary and other lawful income
+he fact that one of the elements of Section 8EgF of 4A 8019 is &that the accused is a public
officer& does not necessarily preclude its application to private persons who, li'e petitioner (o,
are being charged with conspiring with public officers in the commission of the offense
thereunder
T6e precept t6at coul %e rawn from Luciano, !ingian an Domingo, an w6ic6 is
applica%le to t6e present case, is t6at pri$ate persons, w6en acting in conspirac:
wit6 pu%lic officers, ma: %e inicte an, if foun guilt:, 6el lia%le for t6e
pertinent offenses uner !ec; of RA ;/.), incluing (g" an (6" t6ereof. T6is is in
consonance wit6 t6e a$owe polic: of t6e anti(graft law to repress certain acts of
pu%lic officers an pri$ate persons aliCe constituting graft or corrupt practices act
or w6ic6 ma: lea t6ereto E)to yung impt, 'ebs na yung iba %FFF
Anent the allegation of conspiracy, it is posited by the dissenting opinion that the )nformation
is infirm as far as petitioner (o is concerned because it failed to mention with specificity his
participation in the planning and preparation of the alleged conspiracy
)t is well established that the presence or absence of the elements of the crime Eas well as the
absence Eor presenceF of any conspiracy among the accusedF is evidentiary in nature and is a
matter of defense that may be passed upon after a fullAblown trial on the merits
Hollowing these truisms, the specific acts of (o in the alleged conspiracy with 4ivera in
violating Section 8EgF of 4A 8019 as well as the details on how petitioner (o had ta'en part in
the planning and preparation of the alleged conspiracy need not be set forth in the )nformation
as these are evidentiary matters and, as such, are to be shown and proved during the trial on
the merits )ndeed, it bears stressing that &WtXo establish conspiracy, direct proof of an
agreement concerning the commission of a felony and the decision to commit it is not
necessary )t may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during or after the
commission of the crime which, when ta'en together, would be enough to reveal a community
of criminal design, as the proof of conspiracy is freDuently made by evidence of a chain of
circumstances1
)n this connection, for purposes of the )nformation, it is sufficient that the reDuirements of
Section G, 4ule 110 of the 4ules of $ourt are complied with%
S>$ G :esignation of the offense 7 +he complaint or information shall state the designation of the
offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
Dualifying and aggravating circumstances )f there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be
made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it
An accused, li'e petitioner (o, may file a motion to Duash the )nformation under Section 8EaF
of 4ule 116 on the grounds that the facts charged do not constitute an offense )n such a case,
the fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the material averments of an
)nformation is whether or not the facts alleged therein, which are hypothetically admitted,
would establish the essential elements of the crime defined by law >vidence aliunde or
matters extrinsic of the )nformation are not to be considered
As correctly outlined by the =ffice of the =mbudsman, the facts alleged in the )nformation, if
admitted hypothetically, establish all the elements of Section 8EgF of 4A 8019 visAiAvis
petitioner (o%
1 in conspiracy with accused <>,42 + (=, $hairman and #resident of #hilippine )nternational Air
+erminals, $o,
" in conspiracy with accused <>,42 + (=
8 &xxx which A4$A substantially amended the draft $oncession Agreement covering the construction
of the ,A)A )#+ ))) under 4epublic Act ;9-6, as amended by 4epublic Act 661G E?=+ 9awF providing
that the government shall assume the liabilities of #)A+$= in the event of the latter@s default
specifically Article )I, Section !0! EcF in relation to Article ), Section 10; of the A4$A which terms are
more beneficial to #)A+$= and in violation of the ?=+ 9aw and manifestly grossly disadvantageous to
the government of the 4epublic of the #hilippines&
Hinally, in the assailed 4esolution dated March "!, "00G0;, the Sandiganbayan ratiocinated
thus% +he rule is that the determination of probable cause during the preliminary investigation
is a function that belongs to the public prosecutor, the =ffice of the =mbudsman in this case
Such official is vested with authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed
in court and the concomitant function of determining as well the persons to be prosecuted
Also, it must not be lost sight of that the correctness of the exercise of such function is a
matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon, consistent
with the policy of nonAinterference by the courts in the determination by the =mbudsman of
the existence of probable cause
Accordingly, upon the foregoing premises, we believe and so hold that any and all Duestions
relating to the finding of probable cause by the =ffice of the =mbudsman should be addressed
to the said office itself, then to the $ourt of Appeals and, ultimately, to the Supreme $ourt
=n the matter of the .udicial determination of probable cause, we stand by our finding that the
same exists in this case, the said finding we arrived at upon a personal determination thereof
which we did for the purpose of and before the issuance of the warrant of arrest /hile it may
indeed be true that the documents mentioned by accusedAmovant as being absent in the
records are missing, we nevertheless had for our perusal other documents assiduously listed
down by accused 4ivera in his motion, including the information, which we found to constitute
sufficient basis for our determination of the existence of probable cause )t must be
emphasi*ed that such determination is separate and distinct from that made by the =ffice of
the =mbudsman and which we did independently therefrom
+he determination of probable cause during a preliminary investigation is a function of the
government prosecutor, which in this case is the =mbudsman As a rule, courts do not
interfere in the =mbudsman@s exercise of discretion in determining probable cause, unless
there are compelling reasons Mindful of this salutary rule, the Sandiganbayan nonetheless
made its own determination on the basis of the records that were before it )t concluded that
there was sufficient evidence in the records for the finding of the existence of probable cause
against petitioner (o
(rave abuse of discretion implies a capricious and whimsical exercise of .udgment tantamount
to lac' or excess of .urisdiction $learly, in the light of the foregoing disDuisition, grave abuse
of discretion cannot be imputed on the Sandiganbayan when it held that there exists probable
cause against petitioner (o
H3LD0
petition :)SM)SS>: for lac' of merit Sandiganbayan AHH)4M>: in toto
&o $ 2ift6 Di$ision (Resolution"
<>,42 + (=,
vs
+<> H)H+< :)I)S)=,, SA,:)(A,?A2A, and +<> =HH)$> =H +<> S#>$)A9 #4=S>$U+=4, =HH)$> =H
+<> =M?U:SMA,,
2,A4>SASA,+)A(=, J.&
April 1;, "009
2ACT!0
)n its otion for $econsideration, respondent =ffice of the Special #rosecutor argues, citing
0eneses v. People, (almadrid v. #andi!anbayan Domin!o v. #andi!anbayan, and #in!ian v.
#andi!anbayan, that private persons when conspiring with public officers may be held liable
for violation of Section 8EgF of 4epublic Act E4AF ,o 8019
)n the instant case, the )nformation charges Iicente $ 4ivera, 3r, then Secretary of the
:epartment of +ransportation and $ommunications, with committing the offense under Section
8EgF of 4A ,o 8019 &in conspiracy with accused <>,42 + (=, $hairman and #resident of
#hilippine )nternational Air +erminals, $o, )nc E#)A+$=F x x x&
I!!#30 /C, the case against (o should be dismissedJ E2esF
RATIO
/e maintain that to be indicted of the offense under Section 8EgF of 4A ,o 8019, the
following elements must be present% E1F that the accused is a public officerB E"F that he entered
into a contract or transaction on behalf of the governmentB and E8F that such contract or
transaction is grossly and manifestly disadvantageous to the government +owever, if there is
an allegation of conspiracy, a private person may be held liable together with the public
officer, in consonance with the avowed policy of the AntiA(raft and $orrupt #ractices Act which
is &to repress certain acts of public officers and private persons ali'e which may constitute
graft or corrupt practices or which may lead thereto
&#ursuant to our ruling in 3strada v. #andi!anbayan, said allegation of conspiracy is sufficient,
thus% +he reDuirements on sufficiency of allegations are different when conspiracy is not
charged as a crime in itself but only as the mode of committing the crime as in the case at bar
+here is less necessity of reciting its particularities in the )nformation because conspiracy is
not the gravamen of the offense charged
W)Xt is enough to allege conspiracy as a mode in the commission of an offense in either of the
following manner% E1F by use of the word &conspire,& or its derivatives or synonyms, such as
confederate, connive, collude, etcB or E"F by allegation of basic facts constituting the
conspiracy in a manner that a person of common understanding would 'now what is intended,
and with such precision as would enable the accused to competently enter a plea to a
subseDuent indictment based on the same facts
+hus, the allegation in t6e Information t6at accuse Ri$era Win conspirac: wit6
accuse H3'RF T. &OW committe t6e allege acts in $iolation of !ection ;(g" of
R.A. 'o. ;/.), is sufficient in form an su%stance. $onseDuently, petitioner &o was
$alil: c6arge with violation of Section 8EgF when he allegedly conspired with accused
4ivera
in the :ecision of the !anigan%a:an dated March 1G, "00G, 5icente C. Ri$era, 1r. was
acMuitte an t6e case against 6im ismisse
cash bond returned B <old :eparture lifted and set aside ,o pronouncement as to civil liability
as the facts from which the same might arise were not proven in the case at bar
Hrom the said :ecision, the =ffice of the Special #rosecutor filed a #etition for $ertiorari before
this $ourt which was dismissed the petition on :ecember 8, "00G
+he $ourt resolves to :)SM)SS the petition for certiorari of the :ecision and 4esolution dated
1G March "00G and 1; September "00G, respectively, of the Sandiganbayan in $riminal $ase
,o "G09" for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that any grave abuse of discretion
was committed by the Sandiganbayan in rendering the challenged decision and resolution
which, on the contrary, appear to be in accord with the facts and the applicable law and
.urisprudence
:ecember 8, "00G 4esolution became final and executory and was recorded in the ?oo' of
>ntries of 3udgments on Hebruary 18, "009
<ase on t6e foregoing, it follows as a matter of course t6at t6e instant case
against 6erein petitioner Henr: T. &o s6oul liCewise %e ismisse. T6e acMuittal of
Ri$era means t6at t6ere was no pu%lic officer w6o allegel: $iolate !ection ;(g" of
R.A. 'o. ;/.). T6ere %eing no pu%lic officer, it follows t6at a pri$ate ini$iual suc6
as 6erein petitioner &o coul not %e sai to 6a$e conspire wit6 suc6 pu%lic officer.
T6e %asis for a fining of conspirac: against petitioner an Ri$era 6as %een
remo$eS conseMuentl:, t6e case against Henr: T. &o s6oul liCewise %e ismisse.
H3LD0
Motion for 4econsideration is :>,)>: sub.ect to the Dualification discussed in the body of the
decision #rayer to 4efer $ase to the Supreme $ourt >n ?anc is li'ewise :>,)>:
$ommentC=pposition filed by petitioner (o to the said Motion for 4econsideration Eof the 4esolution
dated September 8, "006F /ith #rayer to 4efer $ase to the Supreme $ourt >n ?anc as well as the
Manifestation and Motion are ,=+>: !anigan%a:an DIR3CT3D to DI!4I!! Criminal Case 'o.
against petitioner Henr: T. &o.
4.A. 1imenez 3nterprises, Inc. $s. Om%usman, +8/ !CRA ;7.
MA 3)M>,>S >,+>4#4)S>S, ),$, represented by $>SA4 $A9)M9)M and 9A)9A ?A9=)S,
vs
+<> <=,=4A?9> =M?U:SMA,, 3>SUS # $AMMA2=, A4+U4= SA,+=S, MA,U>9 HA$+=4A, +>=:=4=
?A44=S=, MA,U>9 4=2, 4=,A9: MA,A9)9) and 3=<, U9ASSUS
(4 ,o 1--806 3une ;, "011
I)99A4AMA
Iiolation of Section 8EeF of 4A 8019, the AntiA(raft and $orrupt #ractices Act
Sec 8 $orrupt practices of public officers A )n addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penali*ed by existing law, the ff shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful%
e $ausing any undue injury to any party, includin! the *overnment, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or
.udicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence +his
provision shall apply to all officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions
2acts0
3anuary "0, 1999 A :#/< enters into a contract for the proposed construction of the ?aguio
(eneral <ospital and Medical $enter E?(<M$F ?uilding E#hase )F with 4oyson and $o, )nc E4oysonF,
approved by :#/< Sec Iigilar $onstruction ensues
An excavation ;0 meters deep was made on the area under the area of #ro. :ir >ngr Arturo
Santos #etitioner, thin'ing that its property, which was ad.acent to the site, was under threat of
erosion, sent three letters to 4oyson as'ing that it hasten the construction of a retaining wall
$onstruction of a provisional slope protection measure was started ?ut due to heavy rains
Etyphoon HeriaF, a collapse of a portion of the slope protection resulted in a landslide )t was alleged
by petitioners that the landslide caused crac's in the house owned by it and pre.udiced the structural
integrity of the house +his led to petitioner@s complaining against the pro.ect before the =ffice of the
4egional :irector of the :#/< $ordillera Administrative 4egion E:#/<A$A4F and the =ffice of the
$ity Mayor Elol seriously, dami mong angalF which directed the =ffice of the $ity >ngineer of ?aguio
$ity to conduct an investigation
Hindings%
1 $onstruction being implemented by 4oyson is not covered by a building and excavation permit
2 +hat the personnel of 4oyson alleged that no death resulted in the accident
3 +hat portion of the 3imene*@ garage allegedly encroached inside the propert of ?(<
4 +hat the retaining wall is located approx 6-m to the nearest building line of complainant +his
building is a "Astorey structure
5 +hat crac's on their driveway approx -;-m away from the edge of the complainant@s building
measuring approx ;00m is observed +he garage floor level is approx !-m above the
partially completed "nd level retaining wall
4oyson subseDuently builds reinforced concrete slope protection, a grouted riprap, and a retaining
wall for the compound ?ut the retaining wall of the ?(<M$ #ro.ect collapse So close
#etitioner files an AffidavitA$omplaint against the respondents before the =ffice of the
=mbudsman, asserting that its property was damaged $laims that the damage to its property was
due to respondents@ gross negligence, incompetence andCor malicious conduct because they failed to
construct a perimeter fence in the excavations made for the expansion of the ?(<M$ despite the fact
that petitioner had written 4oyson about the possibility of an erosion Petitioner char!es the
respondents o causin! undue injury to it in the dischar!e o their oicial and administrative unctions
throu!h maniest partiality, evident bad aith and ine1cusable ne!li!ence in the construction o the
e1pansion project o the (*+0$ and its retainin! wall.
4espondents@ side of it%
?arro*o, former $ity >ngineer of ?aguio% claimed that the pro.ect in Duestion was not a publicAwor'
pro.ect of the $ity (overment of ?aguio but a pro.ect of the national govt over which the ?aguio $ity
>ngineer has no control and supervision /hen the $ity >ngineer@s =ffice found out that the pro. was
wCo the nec permits, it immediately reDuired the manager of 4oyson and ?(<M$ to obtain them
$ammayo, Asst Sec of :#/<% he did all he could do to prevent damage to petitioner@s property )n
the original plans for the pro.ect, there was no provision for the construction of any reinforced slope
protection or retaining wall, thus there was no obligation to construct such permanent protection
measures <e initiated the construction of such measures /hen the rains came, :#/< immediately
too' action to prevent further erosion +hey also discovered a previously undetected preAwar tunnel
which collapsed due to heavy rains Asserts force ma.eure
Om%usman ecision
:ismissed complaint after finding no probable cause to hold the respondents liable for violation of 4A
8019 ,o evidence of manifest partiality, evident bad faith and gross inexcusable negligence on the
part of the respondents in the construction of the ?(<M$ ?ldg )t noted that the damage was not wCin
petitioner@s property but on a portion ?(<M$ property which petitioner encroached
#etitioner contends that =mbudsman acted wCo .urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
issuing the assailed resolution and order
+hus, S$
Issue0 /C, =mbudsman acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lac' or excess of
.urisdiction in dismissing the complaint EnoF
#etitioner insists that the collapse of the retaining wall was due to the respondents@ gross inexcusable
negligence on their respective duties because they failed to ensure that the nec bldg and excavation
permits have been secured before the excavation commenced :apat walang force ma.eure ,o
evidence that collapse was due to rains Alleges that the effort to construct a retaining wall was done
only after two landslides
4espondents allege that petitioners failed to establish that any of its assertions
Hel% S$ dismisses petition
:etermination of probable cause against those in public office during a preliminary investigation is a
function that belongs to the =mbudsman
Hor there to be a finding of grave abuse of discretion, it must be shown that the discretionary power
was exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility, and the
abuse of discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a
virtual refusal to perform the duty en.oined or to act in contemplation of law
After examination of the records, the $ourt concludes that the =mbudsman did not act with grave
abuse of discretion
4espondents are charged with a violation of Sec 8EeF of 4A 8019
>lements%
1 accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, .udicial or official functions
2 the accused must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence
3 the action of the accused caused undue in.ury to any party, including the government, or gave
any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of the
functions of the accused
As noted by the =mbudsman, petitioner failed to point out specific evidence and concrete proof that
respondents demonstrated manifest partiality EmpF or evident bad faith EebfF in the construction of
the ?(<M$ and its retaining wall, nor gross inexcusable negligence EginF
M# A when there is a clear, notorious, or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side or
person rather than another
>?H A connotes a manifest deliberate intent on the part of the accused to do wrong or cause
damageB bad .udgment and palpably and fraudulent and dishonest purpose to do moral obliDuity or
conscious wrongdoing for some perverse motive or ill will
(), A essential to prove that the breach of duty borders on malice and is characteri*ed by
flagrant, palpable and willful indifference to conseDuences insofar as other person may be affected
Petitioner 6as not s6own t6at responents were impelle %: suc6 moti$es in t6e
performance of t6eir official uties an functions.
Hindings of the =mbudsman show that that the collapse was not mainly attributable to
respondent@s acts but due to a confluence of several factors, such as the rains, the discovery of the
tunnel, typhoon Heria, the site was on a slope +hus was beyond respondents@ control
As to negligence, $ammayo employed additional slope protection, :#/< installed
polyurethane sheets for slope protection, soils nails were installed, a structural design specialist was
immediately hired to prepare plans for a new reinforced concrete retaining wall +hese acts negate
the imputation of gross inexcusable negligence
#etitioner failed to substantiate its claim that it suffered damages when its property lost lateral
support by reason of the collapsed retaining wall )n Santos v #eople, the $ourt eDuated the concept
of 0undue in.ury,1 in the context of Sec 8EeF of 4A 8019, with the civil law concept of 0actual
damage,1 therefore must be specified, Duantified and proven to the point of moral certainty ?awal
speculative 0ust depend on proo and on the best evidence obtainable re!ardin! speciic acts which
could aord some basis or measurin! actual dama!e. <ere, Memorandum of the =ffice of the $ity
>ngineer of ?aguio $ity stated that main structure of complainant was outside the critical slip circle
,ot refuted Absent controverting evidence, =mbudsman will not be faulted for relying on the said
memo
DI!PO!ITI530 /<>4>H=4>, the present petition for certiorari and mandamus is :>,)>: for lac' of
merit +he 4esolution dated Hebruary -, "00" and =rder dated 3une "6, "00" of the =mbudsman in
=M? $ase ,o 0A01A0!00 are AHH)4M>:
!ison $. People, +.9 !CRA +*/ (-/./"
4=9A,:= > S)S=,
vs
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S
March 9, "010 $=4=,A
(4 ,os 160889, 16089GA!08

2acts0
#etitioner was municipal mayor of $alintaan, Mindoro=cc, from 199"A9-, with 4igoberto de 3esus was
municipal treasurer 199!, state auditor had a postAaudit investigation, revealing that during #@s
incumbency, no public bidding done for a +oyota 9and $ruiser, 119bags cement, an electric generator
set, constructions materials, "tires, and a computer with accessories +here were irregularities
supporting their acDuisitions 199G, # and 43 Eat largeF indicted in 6separate informations for violation
of 4A8019E8eF +rial ensued State auditor lone prosecution witness Hor defense, # called to stand,
admitted no public hearing conducted insofar as the purchases he was accused of were concerned
/hen as'ed how purchases were made, said through personal canvass /hen as'ed why that, said
no bidding could be done because all dealers were in Manila, so useless to invite them since nobody
would bid anyway "00-, guilty, each )nformation with ;A10years Appealed, saying not proven
beyond reasonable doubt

Issue0
/hether or not # was guilty

Hel0
2es Appeal dismissed 9ocal (overnment $ode explicitly provides rule that acDuisitions of supplies by
9(Us shall be through competitive bidding >xception, among others, is personal canvass of
responsible merchants Since such was used, 9($ provides limitations when it is used as acDuisition
method% supplies may be procured after personal canvass of at least 8responsible local suppliers by a
committee of 8, composed of local general services officer or municipal treasurer, local accountant,
and head of officeCdepartment for whose use the supplies are being procured +he award shall be
decided by $ommittee on Awards #urchases shall not exceed #"0L Efor fourth class municipalities,
which $alintaan is, and belowF in any 1month for each 9(U 9(U8;! also mandates that in every
municipality there be a $ommittee on Awards to decide the winnings bids and Duestions on
procurement, composed of local chief executive as chairman, local treasurer, local accountant, local
budget officer, local general services officer, and head of officeCdepartment for which supplies are
being procured )n case head would sit in dual capacity, a member of the cityCmunicipal council would
elect from its members a person to sit in

9aw uses 0shall1 4egarding car, personal canvass effected solely by #, without participation from
accountant or 43 ,o showing that award was decided by committee =nly an abstract of canvass
supported the award, signed by # and 43, without reDuired signatures by accountant and budget
officer # disregarded dual capacity protocol because in all purchases made, signed in a dual capacity
as chairman and member Ehead of officeCdepartmentF Strictly prohibited #rohibition meant to chec'
and prevent conflict of interest Same flaws for cement, generator, construction materials, "tires,
computer Also spent more than #"0L

4A8019E8eF enumerates corrupt practices% 0giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage, preference through manifest partiality1 +o be guilty, elements must concur%

E1F the offender is a public officerB

E"F the act was done in the discharge of the public officer@s official, administrative or .udicial
functionsB

E8F the act was done through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable
negligenceB and

E!F the public officer caused any undue in.ury to any party, including the (overnment, or gave
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference

8rd element may be committed in 8ways, and proof of any is enough to convict under 4A8019E8eF

>xplaining what 0partiality,1 0bad faith1 and 0gross negligence1 mean, we held%

0#artiality1 is synonymous with 0bias1 which 0excites a disposition to see and report matters as they
are wished for rather than as they are1 0?ad faith does not simply connote bad .udgment or
negligenceB it imputes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliDuity and conscious doing of a wrongB a
breach of sworn duty through some motive or intent or ill willB it parta'es of the nature of fraud1
0(ross negligence has been so defined as negligence characteri*ed by the want of even slight care,
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and
intentionally with a conscious indifference to conseDuences in so far as other persons may be
affected )t is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to ta'e
on their own property1

# grossly negligent in all purchases Admission that canvass sheets sent out by 43 to suppliers already
contained his signatures because he preAsigned the forms proves utter disregard for actions
Admitted 'nowing 9($ on personal canvass, but did not follow saying he merely followed practice of
his predecessors Mindless disregard for law in a tradition of illegality <e should have been first to
follow the law !th element present, for while no undue in.ury proved, # gave unwarranted benefit or
preference to private suppliers, no damage necessary 0Unwarranted1 means lac'ing adeDuate or
official supportB un.ustifiedB unauthori*ed or without .ustification or adeDuate reason 0Advantage1
means a more favorable or improved position or conditionB benefit, profit or gain of any 'indB benefit
from some course of action 0#reference1 signifies priority or higher evaluation or desirabilityB choice
or estimation above another

$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "0"
+o be convicted of "nd mode, sufficient that accused gave un.ustified favor or benefit to another, in
exercise of functions # did .ust that, repeatedly failing to follow reDuirements #rivate suppliers
personally chosen by # # sentenced to ;A10years for each count
Respicio $. People, +8/ !CRA 8*;
Safiro 4espicio
vs
#eople
(4 ,os 16G60, 16G6-!, 3une ;, "011
#onente% 3ustice $arpio Morales

2acts0
#etitioner appeals from "00; $A conviction for 4A8019E8eF and 4#$161 violations # was ?ureau of
)mmigration and :eportation $ommissioner, when 11)ndian nationals, 8 facing drug traffic'ing
charges, left country in 199! on the basis of a ?): SelfA:eportation =rder, saying that since ?): has
not received prior written reDuest to hold their departure from any government agency nor from
private person, and no indication that they were sub.ect of written complaints, )ndians cleared for
selfAdeportation )ssuance resulted in information against them E#, Associate $ommissioner ?ayani
Subido, 3r, Associate $ommissioner Manuel 4oxasF for 4#$161 violation Also charged under
4A8019E8eF )ndians were arrested and detained by ,?) for ma'ing methaDualone, sub.ected to
preliminary investigation ,?) wrote # reDuesting they be furnished )ndians@ files :eportation was
reDuested by )ndians@ counsel, saying prosecution would only be costly for government, indorsed and
recommended by ,?) <owever, public prosecutor filed charges against )ndians ?): received
reDuests for selfAdeportation days before the deportation indorsement was received by prosecutor

At trial before Sandiganbayan, Subido said that day when they signed the order, it was #@s birthday,
had lunch =rder was presented to him with #@s signature, and recalling :=3 Secretary assuring them
no pending charges against )ndians, he signed 4oxas said he went to #@s office and saw :=3
Secretary, then presented with =rder, saying no pending case nor <old :eparture =rders against
)ndians, so signed # said same thing, no pending cases, and prosecutor never communicated with
him, # allegedly unaware that )ndians were undergoing preliminary investigation #@s staff said when
instructed to conduct record chec', no criminal records found, but they 'new )ndians were being
apprehended for drugs "00;, 4oxas and Subido exonerated, but # found guilty, ;A1"years, that # had
ample information about the case, but granting however that no pending cases were against the
)ndians, the order should have mentioned that fact, instead of saying there were no written reDuests
for their departure to be held Also, the statement that )ndians were not sub.ect to any written
complaints was false because # 'new they were under preliminary investigation

Issue0
/hether or not # is guilty

Hel0
2es Section 8 EeF of 4A 8019, violation for which petitioner was charged, provides%

S>$ 8 $orrupt practices of public officers [ )n addition to acts or omissions of public officers
already penali*ed by existing law, the following shall constitute corrupt practices of any public officer
and are hereby declared to be unlawful%
xxx xxx xxx
EeF $ausing any undue in.ury to any party, including the (overnment, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or
.udicial functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence +his
provision shall apply to officers and employees of offices or government corporations charged with
the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions

>lements are%

aF the accused is a public officer discharging administrative, .udicial or official functionsB
bF one must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligenceB
cF the action caused undue in.ury to any party including the (overnment, or has given any party
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions

4#$161E!F elements are%

aF #ublic officerB
bF +a'es advantage of his official positionB
cF Lnows that what he imputes is falseB
dF Halsity involves a material factB
eF +here is a legal obligation for him to narrate the truthB
fF Such untruthful statements are not contained in an affidavit or a statement reDuired by law to
be sworn in

"offenses share "common elements% public officer, and act related to public position 4>S#>$+),(
+<> $<A4(> =H I)=9A+),( 8 E>F =H 4A 8019, the elements which must be indubitably proved are
whether petitioner acted with manifest partiality or evident bad faith, and whether such action
caused undue in.ury to any party including the (overnment, or gave any party unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions ?oth elements are present in this case
Manifest partiality and evident bad faith evident from #@s stance that he was never aware of a case
filed in court >ven if true, # was informed by the Undersecretary through the )ndorsement At witness
stand, # admitted 'nowing they were under preliminary investigation +he deporation benefitted
those who would have stood trial

4>S#>$+),( +<> $<A4(> H=4 HA9S)H)$A+)=,, # untruthfully stated that there is no indication from
the records that the )ndians are the sub.ect of any written complaints before any government agency
nor before any private person Hor that statement is belied by documentary evidence [ the 3uly -,
199! letter of ,?) to petitioner, the 3uly "G, 199! )ndorsement of Undersecretary to petitioner Eof ,?)
recommendation for the deportation of the )ndiansF and #Ks own August !, 199! !th )ndorsement to
prosecutor # cannot hide behind his subordinates, since he failed to disclose to staff doing chec' the
information that )ndians were undergoing preliminary investigation Since the ?): is an attached
agency of the :=3, # could have easily reDuested information on the outcome of the preliminary
investigation, of which he was informed about, or if a case had already been filed in court against the
)ndians

/hether the #rosecutor moved to obtain a hold departure order is beside the point, what is material
being that there was a pending preliminary investigation against the )ndians, contrary to the
statement in the =rder that &there is no indication from the records that the W)ndiansX are the sub.ect
of any written complaint ,& which pending preliminary investigation called for the provisional
dismissal of the deportation case

Al$arez $. People, +8; !CRA 8-
>H4>, 9 A9IA4>S, petitioner,
vs
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, respondent
I)99A4AMA, 34, 3 p%
(4 ,o 19"-91 3une "9, "011
'ature0 #etition for review on certiorari see'ing to reverse and set aside the :ecision 1 and
4esolution of the SandiganbayanKs Hourth :ivision finding the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of violation of !ection ; (e" of Repu%lic Act (R.A." 'o. ;/.), otherwise 'nown as the Anti(
&raft an Corrupt Practices Act.

2ACT!0
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "0!
Petitioner 3fren L. Al$arez, at the time of the sub.ect transaction, was the 4a:or of t6e
4unicipalit: (now !cience Cit:" of 4uUoz, 'ue$a 3ciDa.
1ul: .))80 +he Sangguniang ?ayan ES?F of MuMo* under Resolution 'o. .;+, !()8 invited 4r.
1ess &arcia, #resident of the AustralianA#rofessional, )nc EA#)F in connection with the municipal
governmentKs plan to construct a fourAstorey shopping mall E&/agAwag Shopping Mall&F
SubseDuently, it approved the adoption of the pro.ect under the <uil(Operate(Transfer (<OT"
arrangement in the amount of #"!0 million, to be constructed on a !,000AsDuareAmeter property
of the municipal government which is located at the bac' of the Municipal <all
A#) submitted its proposal on ,ovember 6, 199-
2e%ruar: ), .))+0 An )nvitation for proposals to be submitted within thirty E80F days, was
published in #inoy tabloid
April .-, .))+0 +he #reADualification, ?ids and Awards $ommittee E#?A$F recommended the
approval of the proposal submitted by the lone bidder, A#)
April .8, .))+0 +he S? passed a resolution authori*ing petitioner to enter into a Memorandum of
Agreement EM=AF with A#) for the pro.ect
!eptem%er .-, .))+0 #etitioner signed the M=A with A#), represented by its #resident 3esus I
(arcia, for the construction of the /agA/ag Shopping Mall under the ?=+ scheme whereby A#)
undertoo' to finish the construction wit6in *;/ calenar a:s ! S<)c:+
2e%ruar: .9, .))*0 +he groundbrea'ing ceremony was held at the site once occupied by
government structures which included the old Motor #ool, the old <ealth $enter and a semiA
concrete oneAstorey building that housed the :epartment of Agriculture, ?)4 Assessor, old #ost
=ffice, $ommission on >lections and :epartment of Social /elfare and :evelopment +hese
structures were demolished at the instance of petitioner to give way to the construction pro.ect
+hereafter, A#) proceeded with excavation on the area E8Ameter deepF and a billboard was put up
informing the public about the pro.ect and its contractor Howe$er, no mall was constructe
as API stoppe worC wit6in Dust a few mont6s.
August ./, -//+% #etitioner was charged before the Sandiganbayan for violation of !ection ;
(e" of R.A. 'o. ;/.) (!<(/+(CR4(/;7)" for allegedly giving A#) unwarranted benefits,
advantage and preference by awarding the latter the contract for the construction of /agA/ag,
notwithstanding the fact that A#) was and is not a dulyAlicensed construction company
!eptem%er --, -//+% #etitioner was arraigned, pleading not guilty to the charge
At the trial, petitioner testified that during his term as Mayor of MuMo*, the municipal government
planned to borrow money from (S)S to finance the proposed /agA/ag Shopping Mall pro.ect
<e learned about A#) when then IiceAMayor 4omeo 4ui* and other S? members showed him a
copy of publicationCadvertisement in the Manila ?ulletin and ?usiness ?ulletin showing that A#)
was then building similar ?=+ pro.ects for construction of shopping malls in 9emery, ?atangas
E#1-0 millionF and in $alamba, 9aguna E#800 millionF
A resolution was subseDuently passed by the S? inviting A#) for detailed information on their mall
pro.ects
+he S? approved the construction of /agA/ag Shopping Mall under ?=+ scheme, which was
favorably endorsed by the Municipal :evelopment $ouncil
'o$em%er 7, .))80 +he municipal government received the &unsolicited proposal& of A#) for the
construction of /agA/ag Shopping Mall Hor three wee's, an )nvitation to ?id was published in the
#inoy tabloid ?ut it was the lone bidder, A#), whose proposal was eventually recommended by the
#?A$ and approved by the S?
According to petitioner, not a single centavo was spent by the municipal government for the /agA
/ag Shopping Mall pro.ect )t was an unsolicited proposal under the ?=+ law
A#) was reDuired to submit preADualification statements containing their accomplished pro.ects
>ventually the S? passed a resolution authori*ing him to enter into the M=A with A#)
+he municipal government issued the notice of award to A#) on !eptem%er .+, .))+ in which it
reDuired the contractor to post notices prior to the start of the pro.ect and to submit other
reDuirements such as performance bond
<owever, A#) did not comply as its counsel, Atty 9ydia 2 Marciano said these are not reDuired
under the ?=+ law E4A ,o 661GF since there will be no government underta'ing, eDuity or
subsidy in the pro.ect
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "0-
2e%ruar: ., .))*0 After securing an environmental clearance certificate from :>,4, the
groundbrea'ing ceremony was held on Hebruary 1, 1996 A#), as promised, paid #-00,00000 as
disturbance or relocation fee considering that the municipal government has caused the
demolition of old buildings at the site
A certification of such payment was issued by $ity +reasurer 9u*viminda # de 9eon and $ity
Accountant 3une Hran'lyn A Hernande* on Hebruary -, "006
+he materials were then utili*ed for the construction of the new motor pool and new $ity 9ibrary
+hereafter, A#) began excavating an area of 80 x 80 meters E1,000 sD msF, about 8 meters deep
<owever, only the sales office was constructed
+he pro.ect was not completed and A#) gave as excuse the 1996 financial crisis +hey wrote a
letter to Mr (arcia reminding him of the 680Adays completion period but then he was nowhere to
be found and did not answer the letter
<ence, the S? authori*ed him to file a case against A#), and later also granted him authority to
enter into a compromise agreement in $ivil $ase ,o 1;1AS: 9G
+heir compromise agreement was approved but they could not find a copy anymore because the
4egional +rial $ourt at ?alo', Sto :omingo, ,ueva >ci.a where the settlement was done, was
burned down
=n crossAexamination, petitioner claimed that had the municipal government then borrowed funds
from the (S)S, they envisioned annual return of #- million from a #!0 million loan for a modest
mall Ebut for an area of !,000 sDuare meters, the loan would have to be #G0 millionF Hor a period
of G years, the municipality would have an income of #!0 million and the (S)S can be paid
As to the contractorKs financial capability, it presented a credit line of #1-0 million to #"-0 million
for AustralianA#rofessionals 4ealty, )nc EA#4)F #etitioner clarified that A#) and A#4) were one and
the same entity having the same board of directors, but when as'ed if he verified this from the
Securities and >xchange $ommission ES>$F, he answered in the negative
#etitioner asserted that it was the IiceAMayor who is accountable for this pro.ect as he headed the
wor'ing panel
As to whether A#) was a licensed contractor, he admitted that he did not verify this before
awarding the ?=+ contract involving an infrastructure pro.ect
<e insisted that the /agA/ag Shopping Mall #ro.ect, being an unsolicited proposal under ?=+ law,
is exempt from the preADualification reDuirement although they still conducted it
<owever, petitioner admitted that he is not familiar with the ?=+ law <e also admitted that the
)nvitation published stated a shorter period of submission of proposal E80 days instead of ;0 days
provided under the ?=+ lawF and that he .ust signed the said notice without consulting their legal
counsel
!anigan%a:an0 CO'5ICT3D petitioner after finding that%
E1F petitioner railroaded the pro.ectB
E"F there was no competitive biddingB
E8F the contractor was totally unDualified to underta'e the pro.ectB and
E!F the provisions of the ?=+ law and relevant rules and regulations were disregarded and not
followed
+he municipal government suffered damage and pre.udice with the resulting loss of several of
its buildings and offices, and having deployed its resources including eDuipment, personnel
and financial outlay for fuel and repairs in the demolition of the said structures E#!G MF
As to the allegation of conspiracy, the Sandiganbayan held that such was adeDuately shown by
the evidence, noting that this is one case where the =mbudsman should have included the
entire Municipal $ouncil in the information for the latter had conspired if not abetted all the
actions of the petitioner in his dealings with A#) to the damage and pre.udice of the
municipality

I!!#3!0
1 /hether or not the <onorable Sandiganbayan failed to observe the reDuirement of proof
beyond reasonable doubt in convicting the AccusedA#etitioner
" /hether or not the <onorable Sandiganbayan failed to appreciate the legal intent of the ?=+
pro.ect
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "0;
8 /hether or not the <onorable Sandiganbayan utterly failed to appreciate that the ?=+ was a
lawful pro.ect of the Sangguniang ?ayan and not the pro.ect of the Mayor AccusedA#etitioner hereinB
and
! /hether or not the <onorable Sandiganbayan utterly failed to appreciate that there was no
damage on the then Municipality of MuMo* as contemplated by law, to warrant the conviction of the
AccusedA#etitioner

H3LD0 #etition is DI!4I!!3D.

RATIO0
#etitioner was charged with violation of Section 8 EeF of 4A ,o 8019 +o be convicted under the said
provision, the following elements must be established%
1 +he accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, .udicial or official functionsB
" <e must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or inexcusable negligenceB and
8 +hat his action caused any undue in.ury to any party, including the government, or giving any
private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions

Petitioner0 <e cannot be held liable under !ection ; (e" of R.A. 'o. ;/.) since the Municipality of
MuMo* did not disburse any money and the buildings demolished on the site of construction have
been found to be a nuisance and declared structurally unsafe, as per notice issued by the Municipal
?uilding =fficial <e points out that in fact, a demolition permit has been issued upon his application
in behalf of the municipal government A#) also paid #-00,00000 demolitionCrelocation fee

!C0 'O.
+he use of the dis.unctive word &or& connotes that either act of EaF &causing any undue in.ury to
any party, including the (overnment&B and EbF &giving any private party any unwarranted benefits,
advantage or preference,& Dualifies as a violation of Section 8 EeF of 4A ,o 8019
+he use of the dis.unctive &or& connotes that the two modes need not be present at the same
time )n other words, the presence of one would suffice for conviction
2onacier $. !anigan%a:an% #roof of the extent or Duantum of damage is not essential )t is
sufficient that the in.ury suffered or benefits received can be perceived to be substantial enough
and not merely negligible
Under the second mode of the crime defined in Section 8 EeF of 4A ,o 8019 therefore, damage
is not reDuired )n order to be found guilty under the second mode, it suffices that the accused has
given un.ustified favor or benefit to another, in the exercise of his official, administrative or .udicial
functions
+he third element of Section 8 EeF of 4A ,o 8019 may be committed in three ways, ie, through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
#roof of any of these three in connection with the prohibited acts mentioned in Section 8 EeF of
4A ,o 8019 is enough to convict
:amage or in.ury caused by petitionerKs acts though alleged in the information, thus need not be
proven for as long as the act of giving any private party unwarranted benefits, advantage or
preference either through manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
was satisfactorily established
4A ,o ;9-6 as amended by 4A ,o 661G, reDuires that a ?=+ pro.ect be awarded to the bidder
who has satisfied the minimum reDuirements, and met the technical, financial, organi*ational and
legal standards provided in the ?=+ 9aw
!3C. 8. Pu%lic <iing of ProDects. N . . .
)n the case of a buildAoperateAandAtransfer arrangement, the contract shall be awarded to the
bidder who, having satisfied the minimum financial, technical, organi*ational and legal standards
reDuired by this Act, has submitted the lowest bid and most favorable terms for the pro.ect, based
on the present value of its proposed tolls, fees, rentals and charges over a fixed term for the
facility to be constructed, rehabilitated, operated and maintained according to the prescribed
minimum design and performance standards, plans and specifications
Horemost of these minimum legal standards is t6e license accreitation of a contractor
reMuire uner R.A. 'o. 98++ ot6erwise Cnown as t6e ContractorsR License Law
)n fact, a contractor must show that he is licensed by the board before his bid will be considered
&eneral Rule0 +he prospective contractor for government infrastructure pro.ects must have been
duly licensed as such pursuant to 4A ,o !-;;
A#) not being a licensed contractor as per the $ertification issued by #hilippine $ontractors
Accreditation ?oard E#$A?F board secretary Aaron $ +abla*on, is thus not Dualified to participate
in the bidding and much less be awarded the ?=+ pro.ect for the construction of /agA/ag
Shopping Mall
#etitioner claimed that there was compliance with the law saying that A#) was not a contractor but
a mere pro.ect proponent, for which a license is not a reDuisite to underta'e ?=+ pro.ects ?ut the
Sandiganbayan correctly re.ected this theory as the clear terms of the M=A itself confirm that A#)
itself undertoo' to construct the /agA/ag Shopping Mall
Section " of 4A ,o ;9-6 as amended by 4A ,o 661G, defined the terms &$ontractor& and
&#ro.ect #roponent& as follows%
EC" ProDect Proponent N +he private sector entity which shall have contractual
responsibility for the pro.ect and which shall have an adeDuate financial base to implement said
pro.ect consisting of eDuity and firm commitments from reputable financial institutions to provide,
upon award, sufficient credit lines to cover the total estimated cost of the pro.ect
(l" Contractor N Any entity accredited under #hilippine laws which may or may not be the
pro.ect proponent and which shall underta'e the actual construction andCor supply of eDuipment
for the pro.ect
Aside from the clear language of the M=A, the attendant circumstances unmista'ably showed that
A#) is both the pro.ect proponent and contractor of the ?=+ pro.ect, as it was the one who
submitted the proposal and bid to the S?, through its #resident executed the M=A with petitioner,
deployed manpower and eDuipment for the clearing of the site, conducted groundbrea'ing,
performed excavation and initial construction wor's, and too' responsibility for the stoppage and
nonAcompletion of the pro.ect when it entered into a compromise with the Municipality of MuMo* )t
is to be noted that even as pro.ect proponent, A#) failed to meet the minimum financial standard
considering that it has no adeDuate financial base to implement the /agA/ag Shopping Mall
pro.ect A#)Ks paidAup capital was only #"- million, while its standAby credit line issued by ?rilliant
Star $apital 9ending $o, )nc was only for the amount of #1-0 million, way below the #"!0 million
total pro.ect cost
/hile A#)Ks proposal passed through the preADualification stage, it failed to submit, except for the
S>$ registration certificate, a complete set of documents reDuired for a ?=+ pro.ect, in
accordance with the ?=+ 9aw )mplementing 4ules and 4egulations E)44F

Petitioner% Assails the Sandiganbayan for allegedly failing to appreciate the legal intent of the ?=+
9aw which allows contracts on a negotiated basis for unsolicited proposals li'e the /agA/ag
Shopping Mall pro.ect )t asserts that the procedure and reDuirements for bidding have been complied
with when the Municipality of MuMo* caused the publication of the invitation to submit comparative
bids for the ?=+ pro.ect was published in #inoy, a newspaper of general circulation for three
consecutive wee's Since no comparative bidCproposal was received within sixty E;0F days, the ?=+
pro.ect was rightfully awarded to A#), the original proponent

!C0 'O.
Unsolicited proposals refer to pro.ect proposals submitted by the private sector to underta'e
infrastructure or development pro.ects which may be entered into by a government agency or
local government unit Section !Aa of 4A ,o ;9-6 as amended by 4A ,o 661G governs
unsolicited proposals
)t was the S? which invited the A#) to provide information on the construction of a shopping mall
pro.ect under the ?=+ scheme )t cannot be said thus that the development pro.ect originated
from the proponentCcontractor ,onetheless, even if the proposal is deemed unsolicited, still the
reDuirements of the law have not been complied with
As correctly pointed out by the Sandiganbayan, A#)Ks proposal showed that it lac'ed the
reDuirements as it did not include a company profile and the basic contractual terms and
conditions on the obligations of the proponentCcontractor and the government
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "0G
<ad such company profile been reDuired of A#), the municipal government could have been
apprised of the fact that said contractorCproponent had been in existence for only three months at
that time and had not yet completed a pro.ect, although A#4), which actually undertoo' the
$alamba and 9emery shopping centers also under ?=+ scheme, is allegedly the same entity as
A#) which have the same set of incorporators and directors
R.A. 'o. *+./ (T6e C6il A%use Law"
People $. A%ello, 87- !CRA ;*7
+<> #>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, #laintiffAAppellee,
vs
<>4A$9>= A?>99= > H=4+A:A, AccusedAAppellant
0arch 7D, 7IIA
(rion, J
2ACT!0
AAA is a "1 year old girl who contracted polio when she was 6 months old She could only read
and write her name including that of her friends because she was not able to study on account of
her difficulty in wal'ing
E1stF 3une 80, 199G, ! AM% AAA was sleeping in their house in Lalyeng )mpiyerno, ,avotas, Metro
Manila along with her sisterAinAlaw and nephew She was suddenly awaCene when Abello
mas6e 6er %reast
E"ndF 3uly ", 1999, 8 AM% Abello again mas6e t6e %reast of AAA practically under the same
previous situation while the latter was sleeping.
)n these two occasions AAA was able to recogni*e Abello because of the lig6t coming from
outside which illuminated the house
E8rdF 3uly G, 199G, " AM% Abello this time place 6is soft penis insie t6e mout6 of AAA. She
was asleep but she awa'ened when Abello accientall: Cneele on 6er rig6t 6an AAA
exclaimed &Aray& forcing the accused to hurriedly enter the room he shares with AAA@s mother <e
was nevertheless seen by AAA According to her testimony, when she awa'ened, his organ was in
her mouth <er mouth was open and the penis was inside for one second /hen as'ed if the penis
was soft or hard, she mentioned that she got hold of it to push it out of her mouth
+he victim on the same date reported the incident to her sisterAinAlaw and mother
3uly G, 199G% 8 )nformations
c $riminal $ase ,o 19;"8AM, % E4A#> ?2 S>]UA9 ASSAU9+7 4A G8-8F
g 3uly G, 199G, in ,avotas, Metro Manila, accused, being a stepAfather EsicF of victim
AAA, with lewd design and by means of force an intimiation, feloniously
putting 6is penis insie t6e mout6 of said AAA, against her will and without her
consent
c $riminal $ase ,o 19;"!AM, % ES>]UA9 A?US> 7 4A 6;10F
g 3une 80, 199G, in ,avotas, Metro Manila, accused, being a stepAfather EsicF of victim
AAA, "1 years old, and #olio Stri'en EsicF, with lewd design by means of violence and
intimidation, feloniously mas6ing 6er %reast, against her will and without her
consent
c $riminal $ase ,o 19;"-AM, ES>]UA9 A?US> 7 4A 6;10F
g 3uly ", 199G, in ,avotas, Metro Manila,accused, being a stepAfather EsicF of victim
AAA, "1 years old, and #olio Stri'en EsicF, with lewd design by means of violence and
intimidation, feloniously mas6ing 6er %reast, against her will and without her
consent
#leaded not guilty +he prosecution relied on testimony of the victim, AAA, who identified Abello
as the perpetrator of the rape and sexual abuses against her
D323'!30 Amidst the accusation of raping and twice sexually abusing AAA, his defense is
confined to his denial of the accusations )n all of the instances, Abello claimed that he merely
stepped on the victim at the sala on his way to his room after retiring home
RTC0 (U)9+2 under the three )nformations% 4ape, " counts of Sexual Abuse
$riminal $ase ,o 19;"8AM,% (U)9+2 of Paragrap6 -, Article --+(A, Repu%lic Act 7;8; E4A#>
?2 S>]UA9 ASSAU9+F
c )S9 #>,A9+2% 6 2ears of prision mayor, as minimum, to 18 2ears of reclusion temporal, as
maximum
$riminal $ase ,os 19;"!AM, and 19;"-AM,% (U)9+2 of two E"F counts of !ection 8, Article III
of Repu%lic Act *+./ ES>]UA9 A?US>CA$+S =H 9AS$)I)=US,>SS $=MM)++>: += A $<)9:F
c )S9 #>,A9+2% ! 2ears of prision correcional as minimum, to 1" 2ears and 1 :ay of prision
mayor, as maximum
CA0 AHH)4M>: $onviction but Modified #enalties
#>,A9+2 H=4 +<> 4A#> EincreasedF% 1" years of prision mayor, as minimum, to "0 years of
reclusion temporal, as maximumB ordered to pay moral amages in the amount of #-0,00000
#>,A9+2 H=4 " $=U,+S =H S>]UA9 A?US> Eincreased and heavier penalty than rapeF% reclusion
perpetua in each of the two cases

I!!#3!0
1 /hether the victim@s testimony should be given credence in light of the ff%
a AAA was not alone during these alleged incidents E2>SF
b defendant is AAA@s stepfather who has a healthy sexual relationship with her mother
E2>SF
c AAA admitted that she was asleep when these incidents happened ma'ing it li'ely that
she could have .ust dreamed of themJ E2>SF
" /hether he is guilty of rape by sexual assault under 4A G8-8 even if the mode of committing the
offense proven during trial was different from that alleged in the informationJ E2>SF
8 /hether he is guilty of sexual abuseCacts of lasciviousness committed to a child under Sec -,
Article ))) of 4A 6;10 when the victim is not a child and there was no force or compulsionJ E,=, but
still guilty under 4#$ 88; for acts of lasciviousnessF
! /hether he can be held guilty under 4#$ 88; even if the )nformations wrongly designated 4A ,o
6;10 as the law violatedJ E2>S, proven during trialF
- /hether the aggravating circumstance of relationship EstepfatherF should be appreciatedJ E,=F

H3LD% AHH)4M>: /)+< M=:)H)$A+)=,B 4ape by sexual assault and " counts of Acts of lasciviousness
under 4#$ 88; and not 4A 6;10
1 AAA@s testimony credible Surrounding circumstances as shown by the evidence, and common
human experience are relied upon when there is difficulty in ascertaining as to who between the "
parties present at the time of commission of the crime should be given credence
Abello could not say why AAA would falsely accuse him +he substance and tenor of the
testimony and the element of motivation are critical points for us since a straightforward,
categorical and candid narration by the victim deserves credence if no ill motive can be shown
driving her to falsely testify against the accused
a Mere denial of one@s involvement in a crime cannot ta'e precedence over the positive testimony of
the offended party AAA categorically and unmista'ably identified Abello as her rapist and sexual
abuserB the identification was positive because the scene was illuminated by a light coming from
outside the parties@ house at the time of the incidents so she also saw him retreating to her mother@s
room
<e had the opportunity and the means to commit these crimes in terms of his location and
close proximity to AAA who, together with her companions, were then sleeping Abello
admitted that in the wee hours of the mornings of 3une 80, 3uly ", and 3uly G, 199G, he passed
by the sala of their house where AAA and her companions were sleeping
b <is relationship with AAA does not insulate him from the crimes charged +he relationship between
the offender and the offended party has never been an obstacle to the commission of the crime
against chastity Studies show that 9GG` of the victims are womenB an estimated ";6` of these
cases involve sexual abuse, while 88` involve incest committed against children )n these cases, the
male spouse, the father of the victim, or close male relatives, have been identified as freDuent
abusers

c Allegation that AAA could have .ust dreamed of the incidents complained is preposterous )t is
highly unli'ely that a woman in her right mind would expose and declare herself a victim of rape and
sexual abuse, when she would thereby open herself to the humiliating experience of a public trial and
to the possible social stigma of being a victim of rape and sexual abuse
She filed the criminal charges because she did not 'now what to do and thus reported the
incidents to her mother and sisterAinAlaw who thereafter sought police assistance AAA lived a
sheltered life cared for by her relatives because of her polio )t is highly unusual for her to have
the worldly sophistication to invent or fabricate the charges she made, particularly one made
against her stepfather
A charge against one@s stepfather, too, is unusual in our socioAcultural context because of the
respect we give our elders, and is only understandable if there is a deeply felt cause for
complaint

" 2es, guilty of 4ape by sexual assault
A99 >9>M>,+S #4>S>,+ +he elements of rape by sexual assault are%
E1F+hat the offender commits an act of sexual assaultB
E"F+hat the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means%
(a" <: inserting 6is penis into anot6er personHs mout6 or anal orificeS or
EbF ?y inserting any instrument or ob.ect into the genital or anal orifice of another person
E8F +hat the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances%
EaF ?y using force or intimidationB
(%" E6en a woman is epri$e of reason or ot6erwise unconsciousS
EcF ?y means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
EdF /hen the woman is under 1" yCo or demented
1
st
element% +estimony identified Abello as perpetrator
"
nd
element% )nsertion of Abello@s male organ into her mouth
8
rd
element% 4oused from sleep with Abello@s male organ inserted in her mouth Eunconscious
probably not violenceF
c +he )nformation alleges &force and intimidation& as the mode of commission, while AAA
testified during the trial that she was asleep at the time it happened and only awo'e to find
Abello@s male organ inside her mouth
c #eople v $orpu*% A variance in the mode of commission of the offense is binding upon the
accused if he fails to ob.ect to evidence showing that the crime was committed in a
different manner than what was alleged
c Abello did not ob.ect to the presentation of evidence showing that the crime charged was
committed in a different manner than what was stated in the )nformation +he variance is
not a bar to Abello@s conviction of the crime charged in the )nformation
4A ,o G8-8 which too' effect on =ctober "", 1996 introduced into the #hilippine legal system
the concept of rape by sexual assault +his amendment not only reclassifie rape as a crime
against persons, %ut also eLpane t6e efinition of rape from t6e traitional concept
of a seLual intercourse committe %: a man against an unwilling woman.

8 ,=+ Acts of lasciviousness committed against a child or sexual abuse under 4A 6;10 but acts of
lasciviousness under 4#$ 88; E1F ,=+ A $<)9: E"1 years oldF A,: $A, +AL> $A4> =H S>9H, E"F ,=
H=4$> =4 $=M#U9S)=, Emerely awa'enedF
Section - EbF, Article ))) of 4A ,o 6;10, which defines and penali*es acts of lasci$iousness
committe against a c6il% Section - $hild Prostitution and 'ther #e1ual Abuse. A C6ilren,
w6et6er male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuseB EbF +hose
who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or su%Dect to ot6er seLual a%useB xxx
+he essential elements of this provision are%
1 +he accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
" +he said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or sub.ected to other sexual
abuse
8 +he child whether male or female, is %elow .7 :ears of age.
1
st
element, #4>S>,+% 4ecords show that AAA duly established this element when she positively
testified that Abello fondled her breasts on two separate occasions while she slept
c Hrom )44% 9ascivious conduct as a crime committed through the intentional touching,
either directly or through the clothing of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or
buttoc's with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the
sexual desire of any person, among others
"
nd
element, A?S>,+% +his second element reDuires evidence proving that% EaF AAA was either
exploited in prostitution or sub.ected to sexual abuse and EbF she is a child as defined under 4A
,o 6;10
c =livare* v $ourt of Appeals% &=ther sexual abuse& in the above provision covers not only a
child who is abused for profit, but also one w6o engages in lasci$ious conuct
t6roug6 t6e coercion or intimiation %: an ault. )n the latter case, there must be
some form of compulsion eDuivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of
the offended party@s will
c ,o evidence showing that%
P force or coercion attended Abello@s sexual abuse as she was asleep and could have not
resisted Abello@s advances as she was unconscious at the time it happened
P Abello compelled her, or cowed her into silence to bear his sexual assault, after being
roused from sleep
P she had the time to manifest conscious lac' of consent or resistance to Abello@s assault
8
rd
element, A?S>,+% EaF &$hildren& refers to person below eighteen E1GF years of age or t6ose
o$er %ut are una%le to full: taCe care of t6emsel$es or protect t6emsel$es from a%use,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or
condition Eupon evaluation of a Dualified physician, psychologist or psychiatristF
c Although it was considered that AAA@s polio as a physical disability rendered her incapable
of normal function, no evidence, testimonial or documentary, of any medical evaluation or
medical finding from a Dualified physician, psychologist or psychiatrist was presented
c ,o evidence showing that AAA@s physical disability prevented her from resisting Abello@s
attac'sB the evidence only reveals that Abello too' advantage of the opportunity presented
to him Eie, that AAA and her companions who were then asleepF to commit the sexual
abuses
c )t can also be reasonably deduced from these circumstances that Abello sought to commit
the sexual abuses with impunity A without AAA@s 'nowledge and without any interference
on her part

! 2>S (U)9+2 under 4#$ 88; for Acts of 9asciviousness
=livare* v $A% $haracter of the crime is not determined by the caption or preamble of the
information or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violatedB t6e
crime committe is etermine %: t6e recital of t6e ultimate facts an circumstances
in t6e complaint or information.
Although the two )nformations wrongly designated 4A ,o 6;10 as the law violatedB the
allegations therein sufficiently constitute acts punishable under Article 88; of the 4#$
>lements for acts of lasciviousness%
1 +hat the offender commits any act of lasciviousnessB
" +hat the offended party is another person of either sexB and
8 +hat it is done under any of the following circumstances%
a ?y using force or intimidationB or
b /hen the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconsciousB or
c /hen the offended party is under 1" years of age or is demented
1
st
element% AAA@s testimony that her breasts were fondled while she was asleep
"
nd
element% /hile she did not actually see Abello fondling her Eas the fondling was done while she
was asleep and stopped when she awa'enedF, she related that she identified Abello because she
saw him enter her mother@s room and he was illuminated by a light coming from outside their
house +he perpetrator could only be Abello as the only other occupants of the house at the time
were her mother, her sisterAinAlaw and her young nephew who were all asleep
8
rd
element% +estimony that, on two occasions, Abello mashed her breasts while she was sleeping

- ,= 4elationship was not duly proven for failure to present the marriage contract between Abello
and AAA@s mother Abello@s admission of his marriage is inconclusive evidence to prove the marriage
to AAA@s mother, as the marriage contract still remains t6e %est e$ience to pro$e t6e fact
of marriage.

DI!PO!ITI530 (U)9+2 =H 4A#> ?2 S>]UA9 ASSAU9+ A,: +/= $=U,+S =H A$+S =H
9AS$)I)=US,>SS U,:>4 4#$ 88;

#enalty _ $ivil 9iability
4A#> ?2 S>]UA9 ASSAU9+%
c )S9% ; years of prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor, as maximum
c $)I)9 ),:>M,)+2% #80,000 as civil indemnity $ivil indemnity is separate and distinct from
the award of moral damages which is automatically granted in rape cases
c M=4A9 :AMA(>S% #80,000 as moral damages Moral damages are additionally awarded
without need of further pleading or proofB it is presumed that the victim necessarily
suffered in.ury due to the odiousness of the crime
c >]>M#9A42 :AMA(>S% #"-,000
" $=U,+S =H A$+S =H 9AS$)I)=US,>SS%
c )S9% ; months of arresto mayor, as minimum, to ! years and " months of prision
correccional, as maximum for each count
c $)I)9 ),:>M,)+2% #"0,000 as civil indemnity
c M=4A9 :AMA(>S% #80,000 as moral damages for each count
c >]>M#9A42 :AMA(>S% #",000 for each count of acts of lasciviousness
g Article ""80 of the $ivil $ode allows an award of exemplary damages when the
crime is committed with one or more aggravating circumstances
g Although not alleged in the )nformations, the aggra$ating circumstance of dwelling
was nonetheless proven during the trial and Article ";;A? of the 4#$, as amended,
recogni*es Cnowlege %: t6e offener of t6e mental disability, emotional
disorder and/or p6:sical 6anicap of t6e offene part: at the time of the
commission of the crime, as a Mualif:ing circumstance.
g #eople v $atubig % #resence of an aggravating circumstance, whether ordinary or
Dualifying, entitles the offended party to an award of exemplary damages
!anc6ez $. People, 877 !CRA *9*
9>=,)9= SA,$<>S alias ,)9=, appellant,
vs
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S and $=U4+ =H A##>A9S, appellees
3une -, "009
,achura, 3
'AT#R30 +his is a #etition for 4eview on $ertiorari see'ing the reversal of the $ourt of Appeals E$AF
:ecision which affirmed the :ecision of the 4+$ convicting appellant 9eonilo Sanche* alias ,ilo of the
crime of Ot6er Acts of C6il A%use punishable under Repu%lic Act (R.A." 'o. *+./ in relation to
Presiential Decree (P.D." 'o. +/;
5ersion of t6e Prosecution
#rivate complainant 555 E1; years oldF was born on 4arc6 -9, .)79 in Mentalongon, :alaguete,
$ebu to 222 and 444.
!eptem%er -9, .))*% IIIKs father, 222, started leasing a portion of the fishpond owned by
3scolastico RonMuillo, located at LaDog, Clarin, <o6ol HHH and his family occupied the house
beside the fishpond which was left by the former tenant
!eptem%er -, -/// (*A4"% /hile 555 was cutting grass in their yard, appellant arrived loo'ing
for 222 who was then at another fishpond owned by 'ila Parilla located in ?oacao, $larin,
?ohol
III 'new appellant because he is the husband of <ien$enia RonMuillo, one of the heirs of
>scolastico
She noticed that appellant had a sanggot Esic'leF tuc'ed in his waist
Appellant then went to IIIKs house and inDuired from IIIKs younger brother, ???, the
whereabouts of HHH ??? did not answer but his mother, MMM, told appellant that HHH was not
around
4ight then and there, appellant told them to leave the place and started destroying the house with
the use of his sic'le Appellant destroyed the roof, the wall and the windows of the house
MMM got angry and told appellant that he could not .ust drive them away since the contract for
the use of the fishpond was not yet terminated
III was then sent by MMM to fetch a barangay tanod
<aranga: tano 'icolas Pata:on refused to oblige because he did not want to interfere in the
problem concerning the fishpond
=n her way bac' to their house, III saw appellant coming from his shop with a gallon of gasoline,
headed to their house
Upon reaching their house, III saw her brother, ???, get a piece of wood from the bac' of their
house to defend themselves and their house from appellant
<owever, appellant approached ???, grabbed the piece of wood from the latter and started
beating him with it
III approached appellant and pushed him )r'ed by what she did, appellant turned to her and
struc' her with the piece of wood 8 times, twice on the left thigh and once below her right
buttoc's As a result, the wood bro'e into several pieces
III pic'ed up some of the bro'en pieces and threw them bac' at appellant MMM restrained ???,
telling him not to fight bac' After which, appellant left, bringing with him the gallon of gasoline
./ A40 HHH arrived <e then brought his daughter to the Clarin Healt6 Center for treatment :r
Iicente Manalo E:r ManaloF attended to III and issued her a medical certificate
HHH and III the went to the $larin #olice Station where they had the incident blottered
+hereafter, HHH reDuested >lie*er )nferido to ta'e pictures of the in.uries sustained by III
5ersion of t6e Defense
Appellant and his wife, ?ienvenida, developed and operated the fishpond from .)7- to .)7*.
!ometime in .))*0 HHH occupied the fishpond and the nipa hut beside the same, by virtue of a
EM=AF entered into by HHH with the <eirs of >scolastico, as represented by Segundino 4onDuillo
After the M=A expired in 199G, appellant and his wife decided to discontinue the lease because
they did not understand the management and accounting of HHH
+hey made several demands on him to return possession of the fishpond but HHH refused, as'ing
for a written termination of the contract from all the heirs of >scolastico
+o solve the problem, appellant and ?ienvenida engaged the services of HHH as careta'er of the
fishpond, providing him with fingerlings, fertili*ers and all necessary expenses
HHH still failed to ma'e an accounting +hus, on !eptem%er -, -///, at around *A4 after
pasturing his cattle, appellant dropped by the house of HHH to as' him to ma'e a detailed
accounting because he and his wife were not satisfied with the harvest in August of "000
MMM, however, retorted, saying that they would no longer ma'e any accounting, as ?enny
4onDuillo, brother of appellantKs wife, would finance the next cropping
:ispleased with MMMKs statement, appellant got angry and demanded that they leave the
fishpond HHHKs family resented this demand and a commotion ensued
??? got a piece of wood and struc' appellant but the latter was able to parry the blow Appellant
got hold of the piece of wood which actually bro'e
)ntending not to hurt anybody, appellant threw the same behind him Suddenly from behind, III
appeared, got hold of the said piece of wood and hit appellant once at the bac' of his shoulder
Appellant claimed that he was surprised that a criminal case was filed by III against him for
allegedly beating her Appellant denied that he beat III, saying that the instant case was
fabricated and was being used as a means to extort money from him
Ronal Lauren (witness"0 +estified that he saw ??? stri'e appellant with a piece of wood but
appellant was able to parry the blowB that appellant threw away the piece of woodB that when
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "1!
appellant threw the piece of wood, there was no one there at the timeB and that appellant left the
place immediately
RTC0 Hound that at the arraignment, appellant, through former counsel Atty $abahug admitted
that he hit III, although unintentionally +hus, appellant had the burden of proving that, at the
time III was hit, appellant was performing a lawful act +he 4+$ ruled that the evidence did not
favor appellant because his demand for HHHKs family to vacate the fishpond, coupled with threats
and punctuated with actual use of force, exceeded the limits allowed by law +he 4+$ also held
that the in.uries sustained by III were distinguishable, indicating that the blow was forceful, and
that the force used was strong
c &#ILTF of violating paragrap6 (a", !ection ./ of Repu%lic Act 'o. *+./S I!L0 +
:ears prision correccional to * :rs an 9 mont6s of prision ma:or.,
CA0 +he record of the proceedings ta'en during appellantKs arraignment before the 4+$ belied
appellantKs contention that his defense was one of absolute denial +he $A pointed to a
manifestation of appellantKs counsel, Atty $abahug, in open court that appellant was putting up
an affirmative defense because the act of hitting III was unintentional
Hurthermore, the defense of absolute denial interposed by appellant cannot prevail over the
positive and categorical statements of III and her witnesses, giving full credence to the factual
findings of the 4+$
)nformation not defective since the allegations were explicit
c 4+$ decision #PH3LD wit6 moification as to t6e penalt:.
I!!#3!0
/C, the information filed was defective ('O"
/C, the $A erred in sustaining the conviction of the accused of the crime charged EIiolation of
Section 10a of 4A 6;10 notwithstanding that the act complained of is covered by the 4#$ as slight
physical in.ury ('O"
/C, the $A erred in sustaining the conviction of the accused despite the failure of the state to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt ('O"
H3LD0 +he #etition is D3'I3D +he $A :ecision dated Hebruary "0, "006 is A22IR43D wit6
4ODI2ICATIO' that appellant 9eonilo Sanche* issentenced to four E!F years, nine E9F months and
eleven E11F days of prision correccional, as minimum, to six E;F years, eight EGF months and one E1F
day of prision mayor, as maximum
RATIO0
AppellantHs Contentions0
conviction is not supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt
4+$ erred when it shifted the burden of proof to him
4+$ and $A erred in ruling that appellant interposed an affirmative defense when, all throughout
his testimony before the 4+$, he denied having inflicted any in.ury on III
III and her family had ill motive to implicate him because of the pressure he exerted against
them to give up the fishpon
III, in her testimony, made material inconsistencies as to who got the piece of wood at the bac'
of their house
he had no motive or intention of harming anyone, otherwise, he would have done so earlier that
day
if ??? was also beaten, he should have submitted himself for medical treatment and examination
the )nformation charging appellant was substantially and .urisdictionally defective as the acts
complained of were covered by the provisions of the 4evised #enal $ode
+he case is not one for child abuse, since III was neither punished in a cruel and unusual
manner nor deliberately sub.ected to excessive indignities or humiliation
the charge was obviously made as one for child abuse, instead of slight physical in.uries, in order
to sub.ect him to a much heavier penalty
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "1-
O!&0
the #etition is fatally defective because it raises purely factual issues
the +ranscript of Stenographic ,otes E+S,F ta'en during appellantKs arraignment on ,ovember ;,
"001 clearly shows that appellant, through Atty $abahug, raised an affirmative defense,
III@s testionies were direct, positive and categorical, corroborated by MMM and supported by the
med examination conducted by :r Manalo
appellant failed to present any reason or ground to set aside the decisions of the 4+$ and the $A
there is no ambiguity in the )nformation as the allegations are clear and explicit to constitute the
essential elements of the offense of child abuse%
c EaF minority of the victimB
c EbF acts complained of are pre.udicial to the development of the childAvictimB and
c EcF the said acts are covered by the pertinent provisions of 4A ,o 6;10 and #: ,o ;08
<owever, the $A erred in modifying the indeterminate sentence imposed by the 4+$ +he offense
of =ther Acts of $hild Abuse as defined and punished under Section 10 EaF of 4A ,o 6;10, a
special law, carries the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period which is a penalty defined
in the 4evised #enal $ode
4+$ correctly applied the first part of Section 1 of the )ndeterminate Sentence 9aw, sentencing
appellant to an indeterminate sentence of ; years of prision correccional to 6 years and ! months
of prision mayor
!C0
'n the crime charged
Under !u%section (%", !ection ; of R.A. 'o. *+./, child abuse refers to the maltreatment of a
child, whether habitual or not, which includes any of the following%
E1F #sychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatmentB
E"F Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human beingB
E8F Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelterB or
E!F Hailure to immediately give medical treatment to an in.ured child resulting in serious
impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death
)n this case, the applicable laws are Article 8) of P.D. 'o. +/; an !ection ./ (a" of R.A. 'o.
*+./.
!3C. ./. Ot6er Acts of 'eglect, A%use, Cruelt: or 3Lploitation an Ot6er Conitions
PreDuicial to t6e C6ilRs De$elopment. N
EaF Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be
responsible for other conditions pre.udicial to the childKs development including those covered by
Article -9 of #residential :ecree ,o ;08, as amended, but not covered by the 4evised #enal $ode, as
amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period
Araneta $. People0 +he provision punishes not only those enumerated under Article -9 of
#residential :ecree ,o ;08, but also four distinct acts, ie, (a" c6il a%use, (%" c6il cruelt:,
(c" c6il eLploitation an (" %eing responsi%le for conitions preDuicial to t6e c6ilRs
e$elopment. +he 4ules and 4egulations of the Duestioned statute distinctly and separately
defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation .ust to show that these three acts are different from
one another and from the act pre.udicial to the childKs development An accused can be
prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10EaF, Article I) of 4epublic Act ,o 6;10 if he
commits any of the four acts therein +he prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse,
child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the pre.udice of the child because an act
pre.udicial to the development of the child is different from the former acts
)t is a rule in statutory construction that the word &or& is a dis.unctive term signifying dissociation
and independence of one thing from other things enumerated
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "1;
<ence, the use of &or& in Section 10EaF of 4epublic Act ,o 6;10 before the phrase &be responsible
for other conditions pre.udicial to the childKs development& supposes that there are four
punishable acts therein H
+he fourth penali*ed act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a Dualifying condition
for the three other acts, because an analysis of the entire context of the Duestioned provision
does not warrant such construal
'n w)n slight ph/sical in8uries or child a3use
Appellant0 Slight physical in.uries and not child abuse
!C0 'OG /hen the incident happened, III was a child entitled to the protection extended by 4A
,o 6;10, as mandated by the $onstitution As defined in the law, child abuse includes physical
abuse of the child, whether the same is habitual or not
'n the %nformation filed
)nformation filed against appellant is ,=+ defective
Rest: 1umaMuio $. Hon. 1oselito C. 5illarosa0 /hat controls is not the title of the information
or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited therein
+he averments in the )nformation clearly ma'e out the offense of child abuse under Section 10 EaF
of 4A ,o 6;10 +he following were alleged% (." t6e minorit: of 555S (-" t6e acts
constituting p6:sical a%use, committe %: appellant against 555S an (;" sai acts are
clearl: punis6a%le uner R.A. 'o. *+./ in relation to P.D. 'o. +/;.
'n appellant7s guilt
Appellant could only proffer the defense of denial
+he 4+$ found III and MMM to be credible witnesses, whose testimonies deserve full credence
Hactual findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its
conclusions anchored on such findings, are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect, especially
when affirmed by the $A
R.A. 'o. ).+8 (T6e Dangerous Drugs Act of -//-"
C6ain of custo: rule
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule reDuires the presentation of the
sei*ed prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in Duestion is what the proponent claims it to be +his would ideally cover the testimony about
every lin' in the chain, from sei*ure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in
such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to
the next in the chain E$acao v #eopleF
People $. Lorena, +;) !CRA .;)
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, appellee,
vs
3A2 9=4>,A y 9A?A(, appellant
I)99A4AMA, 34, 3 p%
(4 ,o 1G!9-! 3anuary 10, "011
TOPIC0 Iiolation of Sec -, Art )) of 4A 91;-, $omprehensive :angerous :rugs Act of "00"
I'2OR4ATIO'0 )nformation alleges that accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally
and 'nowingly sell Methamphetamine <ydrochloride EshabuF, a dangerous drug, contained in a plastic
sachet, to a poseurAbuyer, without authority of law, and one #-00 peso bill was confiscated from the
accused to the damage and pre.udice of the #eople of the #hilippines
#rosecution presents seven witnesses
2acts0
$ivilian informant )ris Mae $leofe came to #asacao #olice Station to report appellant@s alleged
drug traffic'ing activities +as' Horce Ubash, a unit charged with monitoring drug traffic'ing in the
area, acted on this information and was directed to go with )ris and conduct surveillance upon
appellant
After their surveillance yielded positive results, +as' Horce Ubash coordinated with the
#hilippine :rug >nforcement Agency E#:>AF for the conduct of the buyAbust operation which will ta'e
place that same night at the ouse of one >dgar Saar Solero, $ommander of Ubash, briefed the team
on what do do +hey were instructed to synchroni*e their watches because at exactly 6%80pm they
will enter the place immediately after )ris says, 0Uya na and bayad 'o E<ere is my paymentF1 as a
signal that the transaction has been perfected
At around 6pm, the team arrives and hides behind plants Eyeah awesomeF, which offered a
good view of the wellAlit porch of Saar@s house )ris arrives She enters the house She proceeds with
the transaction and handed over a mar'ed #-00 bill to appellant She utters the signal, 0=, uya na an
bayad 'o 'aiyan ha, baad 'un waraAwaraon mo iyan, uya na an bayad 'o ha E+his is my payment,
you might misplace itF,1 her deliberately loud for the team to hear Appellant hands over a plastic
sachet containing a white crystalline substance At this point, he was arrested and handcuffed Ubash
brings him to the police station where he was detained 2he sachet was personally submitted by
(earis to the Provincial $rime .ab, where it was tested by :oble)a.
+est showed that the substance was Shabu )t was then submitted to the #,# 4egional $rime
9ab office for confirmatory testing by $lemen, a forensic chemist Again, positive for Shabu
:efense version%
Appellant was in #asacao for a .ob, and while there he stayed with his friend Saar Around 6pm
that day, he saw )ris enter the yard and go into Saar@s house +hen she comes out so appellant as's
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "1G
her who she was loo'ing for She was loo'ing for a ?ongbong :itsuso Appellant tells her to wait
inside then coo's rice, then returns to the living room to tal' to )ris Several men then barge in and
)ris gives him something which turns out to be crumpled money <e was then handcuffed after
getting punched and hit with a caliber !- in the nape <e was boarded on a .eep and brought to the
police station
RTC 1ugment0
Appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec -, Art )) of 4A 91;- and sentencing him to
life imprisonment
CA affirms wit6 4oification (ae a fine of P8//,///"
Issue0
/C, the procedure in the sei*ure and custody of illegal drugs was strictly complied with E,oF
Ratio0
>lements to be proven by the prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Sec - of
4A 91;-
1 identity of the buyer and the seller, the ob.ect, and the consideration
2 the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor
+hese reDuire evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti, ie, the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has
actually been committed +here is also a need to comply strictly with procedure in the illegal drug@s
procedure in its sei*ure and custody
Sec "1 par 1, Art )) of 4A 91;-%
+he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
sei*ure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the personCs from whom such items were confiscated andCor sei*ed, or hisCher
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the :=3, and any elected public
official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof
3vident rom the record however, is the act that the members o the buyCbust team did not
comply with the procedure laid down in #ec. 75. 9oo'ing at Solero@s testimony, there is no showing
that the procedure was complied with, as well as his admitting that he had not seen the inventory of
the confiscated drugs allegedly prepared by the police officers and that he only read a little of 4A
91;-
,onetheless, People v Prin!as teaches that nonAcompliance by the buyAbust team with Sec "1
is not necessarily fatal /hat is of utmost importance is t6e preser$ation of t6e integrit: an t6e
e$ientiar: $alue of t6e seize items, as the same would be utili)ed in the determination o the
!uilt or innocence o the accused. +he $ourt recogni*es that strict compliance may not always be
possible given the circumstances, that the police operate under varied conditions and cannot at all
times attend to the niceties of the procedure in the handling of confiscated evidence
Sec "1, Art )) of 4A91;- )44%
Saving clause% #rovided, further, that nonAcompliance with these reDuirements under
.ustifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the sei*ed items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officerCteam, shall not render void and invalid such sei*ures of and
custody over said items
Hor the clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind
the procedural lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence sei*ed had been
preserved %t must be shown that the ille!al dru! presented in court is the very same specimen
sei)ed rom the accused. +his function is performed by the c6ain of custo: reMuirement
Sec 1EbF of :angerous :rugs ?oard 4egulation ,o 1, Series of "00"
0$hain of $ustody1 means the duly recorded authori*ed movements and custody of sei*ed drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or lab eDuipment of each sta!e, from the
time of sei*ureCconfiscation to receipt in the forensic lab to safe'eeping to presentation in court for
destruction Such record of movements and custody of sei*ed item shall include the identity and
si!nature o the person who held temporary custody o the sei)ed item, the date and time when such
transer o custody were made in the course o saekeepin! and use in court as evidence, and the
inal disposition.
)n this case, there was no compliance with the inventory and photographing of the drug and
mar'ed money >very lin' must be accounted for
)to ung flow%
)ris AAAb >spiritu AAAb Solero AAAb 0=ps nawala1 there was vagueness and patent inconsistencies in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
Sabi ni Solero%
Solero AAAb some des' officer whose name he can@t remember, which he promised to find out
but never did Also, from the office AAAb provincial crime lab, but can@t remember who brought it there
Sabi ni ?earis%
Solero AAAb ?earis AAAb provincial crime lab
<e identified in court that it was the same specimen he brought since it had the mar'ing
0M>S,1 the initials of Solero ,o evidence however showing that Solero made said mar'ing in the
presence of ?earis )t is thus unclear whether after Solero, the next person who came into possession
of the specimen was the des' officer or ?earis
Sabi ni ,oble*a%
?earis AAAb ,oble*a Einitial testF AAAb S#=8 ?asagre
Sabi ni $lemen Ethe chemistF%
)nsp 9ope* AAAb $lemen
<ere we see that the prosecution failed to present evidence to show how the specimen was
transferred from ?asagre to 9ope*
+he obvious gaps in the chain of custody created a reasonable doubt as to whether the
specimen sei*ed from appellant was the same specimen brought to the crime labs and eventually
offered in court as evidence ,o proof of corpus delicti +herefore the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty cannot be used +he presumption obtains only where nothing in the
records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct
of official duty as provided for in the law
DI!PO!ITI530 /<>4>H=4>, we hereby 4>I>4S> and S>+ AS):> the ,ovember "", "006 :ecision of
the $ourt of Appeals in $AA(4 $4 <$ ,o 01;"0 Appellant 3A2 9=4>,A y 9A?A( is A$OU)++>: of
the crime charged and ordered immediately 4>9>AS>: from detention, unless he is confined for any
other lawful causeCs
+he :irector of the ?ureau of $orrections is :)4>$+>: to )M#9>M>,+ this :ecision with deliberate
dispatch and to report to this $ourt the action ta'en hereon within five E-F days from receipt hereof
People $. &atla%a:an, +8; !CRA 7/;
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, #9A),+)HHAA##>99>>,
IS
3A)M> (A+9A?A2A, 2 ?A+A4A, A$$US>:AA##>99A,+
3uly 18, "011C Mendo*a, J
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ""0
2ACT!0
Acting on a tip from a police asset, a police team from the 4odrigue*, 4i*al police station
conducted a buyAbust operation on the night of September 10, "00" +he target was accused
3aime (atlabayan Ealias #ungayF Arriving at the target area E$arlton Iillage, ?rgy Manggahan,
4odrigue*, 4i*alF, the civilian asset pointed appellant to the buyAbust team Appellant was then
standing under a sampaloc tree (atlabayan approached one of the policemen E#=1 AntonioF and
as'ed if he wanted 0to score1 EbuyF shabu #=1 Antonio said yes, and handed over a mar'ed 100A
peso bill to (atlabayan, who gave the policeman a sachet containing a white powder alleged to be
shabu #=1 Antonio then signalled to his colleagues by waving his handB and (atlabayan was
arrested on the spot
)n his defense, (atlabayan claimed that he was the victim of a frameAup <e was in a perya at
around "0%00 of September 10, "00" when policemen suddenly arrested him without explaining
his offense
RTC ecision (4a: ./, -//8" ( found (atlabayan guilty and sentenced him to 9)H>
)M#4)S=,M>,+ and to pay the fine of H)I> <U,:4>: +<=USA,:E#-00,00000F #>S=S
CA ecision (1ul: -), -//7" A affirmed 4+$ decision, found the testimonies of the policemen
#=1 Antonio and #=1 3iro, ))) to be credible )t further held that all elements of the crime of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs A as well as the identity of the accused A were provenB and that the
presumption of regularity of official duties was not overturned (atlabayan appeals this decision
to the S$
I!!#30 /C, (atlabayan is guilty 0despite the prosecution@s failure to prove the chain of custody of
the alleged sei*ed illegal drugs, in violation of Secs "1 and G; of 4A ,= 91;-F
H3LD0 'O
RATIO0
According to the $ourt, the core issue in this case was 0whether or not sufficient evidence exists
to support the conviction of the accused for violation of Section -, Article )) of 4A ,o 91;-1 )n
resolving this issue, the $ourt opted to review the factual findings of the lower court on the basis
of a misapprehension of facts
)n establishing guilt for the offense of sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must
concur% E1F the transaction or sale too' placeB E"F the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented as evidenceB and E8F the buyer and seller were identified All three elements must be
duly proven
C6ain of custo: A 0means the duly recorded authori*ed movements and custody of sei*ed
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory eDuipment of
each stage, from the time of sei*ureCconfiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safe'eeping to presentation in court for destruction Such record of movements and custody of
sei*ed item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of
the sei*ed item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of
safe'eeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition1 E4A 91;- )44, sec 1EbFF
On t6e corpus elicti A the very substance which was the sub.ect of the buyAbust transaction
must be the same substance which was offered as evidence to the court
alillin v. &eople A 0As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule reDuires
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in Duestion is what the proponent claims it to be )t would include testimony about every
lin' in the chain, from the moment the item was pic'ed up to the time it is offered into evidence,
in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it
was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witnessK possession, the condition
in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next lin' in the chain
+hese witnesses would then describe the precautions ta'en to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same1
E6at >linCs? in t6e c6ain of custo: nee to %e pro$en, &eople v. #amad A 02irst, the
sei*ure and mar'ing, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the
apprehending officerB secon, the turnover of the illegal drug sei*ed by the apprehending officer
to the investigating officerB t6ir, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to
the forensic chemist for laboratory examinationB and fourt6, the turnover and submission of the
mar'ed illegal drug sei*ed by the forensic chemist to the court1
0+he testimony of #=1 Antonio clearly lac'ed specifics on how the confiscated shabu was handled
immediately after the arrest of the accused1 <is testimony fails to show who exactly were the
persons who were able to handle the corpus delicti
0+he prosecution evidence also failed to identify the person who mar'ed the sachet, how the
same was done, and who witnessed the mar'ing )n People v. 0artine), the $ourt ruled that the
&mar'ing& of the sei*ed items A to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain
and are eventually the ones offered in evidence A should be done E1F in the presence of the
apprehended violator, and E"F immediately upon confiscation A in order to protect innocent
persons from dubious and concocted searches, and the apprehending officers as well from
harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on allegations of robbery or theft1 +he
affidavits of policemen 3iro ))) and Antonio fail to specify the person who mar'ed the corpus delicti,
and whether it was mar'ed in the presence of (atlabayan
+he prosecution also failed to establish the identity of the police investigator to whom the buyA
bust team turned over the sei*ed item Although the 4eDuest for 9aboratory >xamination was
signed by a certain Santiago for and in behalf of #olice Senior )nspector Anastacio ?en*on, it was
not shown that he was the same official who received the sub.ect shabu from the buyAbust team
or from the police investigator
0A perusal of the 4eDuest for 9aboratory >xamination and the $hemistry 4eport ,o :A16G!A0">
W";X reveals that the mar'ing on the plastic sachet containing the sub.ect shabu was changed to
&>]<)?)+ 1 3?(& 2he prosecution, however, ailed to disclose the name and identity o the police
oicer who chan!ed the markin! o the specimen Hurther, the prosecution evidence is wanting as
to the identity of the person who submitted the specimen to the #,# $rime 9aboratoryB as to
whether the forensic chemist whose name appeared in the chemistry report was the one who
received the sub.ect shabu when it was forwarded to the crime laboratoryB and as to who
exercised custody and possession of the specimen after the chemical examination and before it
was offered in court ,either was there any evidence adduced to show how the sei*ed shabu was
handled, stored and safeguarded pending its offer as evidence in court1
0)t bears stressing that although the parties stipulated on the results of the laboratory
examination Ethrough an 4+$ orderF, no stipulation was made with respect to the ultimate source
o the dru! submitted or e1amination1
3Lacting stanars for 6anling of corpus elicti in rug cases A 0/hile a perfect chain of
custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbro'en chain becomes indispensable and
essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to susceptibility of the sei*ed drug to alteration,
tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange <ence, each and every lin' in the
custody must be established beginning from the sei*ure of the shabu from the accused during the
entrapment operation until its submission by the forensic chemist to the 4+$1
Moreover, it must be pointed out that the sub.ect 008 gram of shabu was never presented as
evidence and mar'ed as an exhibit during the preAtrial or even in the course of the trial proper
Ebut the plastic sachet which contained the shabu was presentedF 0+he defense was clearly
sleeping on its feet when it did not pose any ob.ection to the prosecutionKs offer of Wthe sachetX
evidence1 +he corpus delicti in this case 0is not legally extant1
0W+Xhe flagrant procedural lapses the police officers committed in handling the allegedly
confiscated shabu in violation of the chain of custody reDuirement effectively negate the
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties Any taint of irregularity affects the whole
performance and should ma'e the presumption unavailable )t must be emphasi*ed that the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the
presumption of innocence nor constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt1
DI!PO!ITIO'0 :ecision reversed Appellant (atlabayan is A$OU)++>: and ordered immediately
released
People $. Alcuizar, +9* !CRA 9;.
People of t6e P6ilippines, Plaintiff(Appellee,
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests """
$.
Al%erto <acus Alcuizar, Defenant(Appellant
April ;, "011
#ere*, J

2acts0

Alcui*ar was charged with violating Sections - E)llegal SaleF, ; EMaintaining a drug denF, 11
E)llegal possessionF, and 1" E)llegal possession of dangerous drug paraphernaliaF of 4A ,o 91;- in
$riminal $ases ,os $?UA;;8!8 A $?UA;;8!; <e was tried on " separate criminal proceedings +he
instant appeal involved the .oint trial of $riminal $ases ,os $?UA;;8!- and $?UA;;8!; before 4+$
?ranch 16 of $ebu $ity +he )nformation relating to the criminal case appealed from pertains to illegal
possession of shabu in violation of Section 11 of 4A ,o 91;-

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty

:uring the preAtrial conference, the defense admitted the genuineness, authenticity, and truthfulness
of the Horensic $hemistry 4eport ?oth parties then agreed to dispense with the forensic chemist@s
testimony

+he lone prosecution witness, S#01 Meliton Agadier, testified%

S#01 Agadier, #08 4olando (antuangco, S#=1 4oland ,avales, who were all assigned at the
Municipality of $arcar #olice Station in $ebu $ity, secured a search warrant from the court to search
the house of appellant on the suspicion that the latter is selling and in possession of shabu =n 1-
3une "008, they conducted a buyAbust operation in Sitio Awayan, with the sub.ect being the appellant%

S#=1 Agadier was standing in a store across the house of appellant <e witnessed the poseur buyer
hand the mar'ed money to appellant in exchange for 1 dec' of shabu S#=1 Agadier then pursued
appellant, who ran to his parentsK house, where he was eventually caught After the arrest, S#=1
Agadier and his team went bac' to the house of appellant to conduct a search +he items recovered
inside appellantKs house were%
N 1 big heatAsealed transparent plastic pac' with white crystalline substance, believed to be
shabu
N " pac's containing 18 dec's each of suspected shabu
N 8 disposable lighters
N 1 tooter
N 1 tin foil with traces of shabu residue
N 1 improvised lamp

S#=1 Agadier related that appellant, appellantKs sisterAinAlaw, 1 barangay captain, 1 barangay tanod,
and several photographers were present during the implementation of the search warrant +he
barangay captain, barangay tanod, and " photographers were as'ed to sign the receipt of the sei*ed
items

+he sei*ed items were initially in the custody of S#=1 ,avales Upon reaching the police station, S#=1
,avales turned them over to S#=1 Agadier for mar'ing S#=1 Agadier prepared the reDuest for
laboratory examination before turning them over bac' to S#=1 ,avales, who then delivered the items
and the reDuest to the #,# $rime 9aboratory A Horensic $hemistry 4eport was issued, confirming
that the specimen submitted was positive for shabu

4+$ ?ranch 1- of $ebu $ity acDuitted appellant of the charge of illegal sale of shabu and
maintaining a drug den in violation of Sections - and ; of 4epublic Act ,o 91;- in $riminal $ases
,os $?UA;;8!8 and $?UA;;8!!

4+$ ?ranch 16 of $ebu $ity acDuitted appellant in $riminal $ase ,o $?UA;;8!; for illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia, but found him guilty in $riminal $ase ,o $?UA;;8!- for illegal
possession of shabu =n appeal, the $A affirmed appellantKs conviction

Issue0 /o, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of appellant for
illegal possession of shabu

Hel0 ,o, they were not

/<>4>H=4>, the ! :ecember "00G :ecision of the $ourt of Appeals in $AA(4 $4A<$ ,o 0061;
affirming the conviction of the 4egional +rial $ourt, ?ranch 16, $ebu $ity in $riminal $ase ,o $?UA
;;8!- for illegal possession of shabu under Section 11 of 4epublic Act ,o 91;-, is hereby 4>I>4S>:
and S>+ AS):> Appellant A9?>4+= ?A$US A9$U)SA4 is declared A$OU)++>: and ordered
immediately 4>9>AS>: from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause
+he :irector of the ?ureau of $orrections is :)4>$+>: to )M#9>M>,+ this :ecision and to report to
this $ourt the action ta'en hereon within five E-F days from receipt

Ratio0

+he dangerous drug itself Ethe shabuF constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and in
sustaining a conviction under 4A ,o 91;-, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must
definitely be shown to have been preserved >vidence must definitely show that the illegal drug
presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accusedAappellant =therwise,
the prosecution for possession under 4A ,o 91;- fails

+he chain of custody rule reDuires that the mar'ing of the sei*ed items should be done in the
presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the
same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence )n .ope) v. People,
citing $atuiran v. People, the $ourt held that%

0)t would include testimony about every lin' in the chain, from the moment the item was pic'ed up to
the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witnessK possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered
to the next lin' in the chain +hese witnesses would then describe the precautions ta'en to ensure
that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession of the sameQ1

Appellant cites the failure of the police officer to mar' the evidence immediately after purportedly
ta'ing it from him, thus rendering the chain of custody dubious

S#=1 Agadier admitted that he only mar'ed the sei*ed items at the police station /hile the rule
allows mar'ing of evidence to be done in the nearest police station, this applies to warrantless
searches and sei*ures )n this case, the police officers were able to secure a search warrant prior to
their operation S#=1 Agadier did not offer an explanation or a .ustification on why he did not
immediately mar' the plastic pac's of shabu sei*ed inside appellantKs house +hey were given
sufficient time and opportunity to prepare for its implementation +hus, failure to comply with the
mar'ing of evidence immediately after confiscation constitutes a 1
st
gap in the chain of custody
Appellant also points out the failure of the police officers to give or leave a copy of the inventory
receipt upon the accused or any of his family members pursuant to Section "1 of 4A ,o 91;-
Section "1 of 4A ,o 91;- provides%

0Section "1 $ustody and :isposition of $onfiscated, Sei*ed, andCor Surrendered
:angerous :rugs, #lant Sources of :angerous :rugs, $ontrolled #recursors and
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ""!
>ssential $hemicals, )nstrumentsC#araphernalia andCor 9aboratory >Duipment [ +he
#:>A shall ta'e charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instrumentsCparaphernalia andCor laboratory eDuipment so confiscated, sei*ed andCor
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner%
1 +he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after sei*ure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the personCs from whom
such items were confiscated andCor sei*ed, or hisCher representative or counsel,
a representative from the media and the :epartment of 3ustice E:=3F, and any
elected public official who shall be reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof1

Under Section "1 EaF, Article )) of the )44 of 4A ,o 91;-, nonAcompliance with the prescribed
procedures does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the sei*ed drugs has
been compromised so that an acDuittal should follow, as long as the prosecution can demonstrate
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence sei*ed have been preserved

S#=1 Agadier narrated that a certain photographer too' pictures of the items sei*ed from the house
of appellant <owever, the photographs do not appear on the records, nor were they offered by the
prosecution as evidence +hus, the reDuirement of ta'ing a photograph was not clearly proven /hile
the inventory receipt was prepared and appeared on records, the police officers failed to provide
appellant a copy Appellant construed this omission as fatal

+his omission alone is not necessarily fatal to the cause of the prosecution <owever, the $ourt stated
that the barangay tanodKs testimony pertaining to the inventory receipt created a doubt that affected
the integrity of the corpus delicti in general% <e and the barangay captain arrived later than the police
officers /hen they reached appellantKs house, the alleged confiscated shabu were already on top of
a table <e was merely as'ed to sign the inventory receipt, which he did without hesitation

+he barangay tanod did not witness how the police officers conducted their search and how they
were able to discover the pac'ets of shabu inside appellantKs house Aside from the barangay tanod,
no other signatories in the receipt were presented by the prosecution to authenticate the document

+he 1
st
gap in the chain of custody was compounded by the vague recollection of S#=1 Agadier
regarding the transfer of custody of the shabu +he "
nd
gap in the chain of custody was evident in
S#=1 AgadierKs statements% )t was not indicated who had initial control and custody of the plastic
pac's of shabu upon their confiscation S#=1 Agadier merely claimed that he turned them over to
S#=1 ,avales without specifying whether the latter received it while they were still inside the
appellantKs house or at the police station )t is also not clear who was in possession of the plastic
pac's of shabu while in transit S#=1 ,avales also did not testify to confirm the statement of S#=1
Agadier

+he failure of the police officers to mar' the dangerous drugs immediately after their sei*ure and the
vague recollection of S#=1 Agadier concerning the custody of the drugs from the residence of
appellant up to the time it was submitted to the crime laboratory constitute a huge and significant
gap in the chain of custody, which substantially affects the identity of the corpus delicti
+o successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements
must be established% E1F the accused is in possession of an item or ob.ect which is identified to be a
prohibited drugB E"F such possession is not authori*ed by lawB and E8F the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug

+he $ourt entertained serious doubts as to whether the prohibited drugs were indeed found in
appellantKs house, considering that there were no other witnesses presented to prove it ?y the same
doubt, the $ourt had to acDuit the appellant
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ""-
People $. #nisa, +87 !CRA ;/8
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, plaintiffAappellee,
vs
4)$L2 U,)SA y )S9A,, accusedAappellant
#>4>S, 3%
September "G, "011
2ACT!%
#rosecution%
=n the basis of a series of reports received by :A#$=A:>U, Muntinlupa $ity, from concerned
citi*ens concerning the illegal drug trade of alias 4ic'y in Oue*on Street, #uro' 6, #oblacion,
Muntinlupa $ity, the police operatives of the aforesaid office conducted a sur$eillance an
monitoring operation on "8 3une "008
+he surveillance and monitoring operation confirmed that alias 4ic'y was, indeed, engaged in the
sale of illegal drugs which usually too' place late at night until dawn
3une "!, "008% at around G%00 pm, #C)nsp Arsenio Silungan, $hief of :A#$=A:>U forme a %u:(
%ust team to conduct a %u:(%ust operation against alias 4ic'y
+he team was composed of various police operatives
c #=1 Horastero% poseurAbuyer
c #=1 Medina% arresting officer
c Senior #olice =fficer 1 ES#=1F Sosimo (oce% team leader
c S#=1 3oel Iega
c S#=8 <ector Macalla
c S#=8 Madriaga
c #=1 4onald ,atuel
c #=1 4eynold Aguirre
c #=1 (unayon
c #=1 4espicio
c #=1 +an
c #=1 3oseph +edd 9eonor
c two civilian agents, namely
c :alton )baMe*
c $harlie )sla
+he buyAbust team, thereafter, prepared the %u:(%ust mone: consisting of two #100 bills ESerial
,os 3] 89"19- and :2 611-1!F
#=1 Aguirre signed the buyAbust money at the bottom thereof
also photocopied and recorded in the police blotter Epolice recordF
A #reA=peration 4eportC$oordination Sheet was similarly prepared and transmitted to the
#hilippine :rug >nforcement Agency E#:>AF via facsimile
After all the necessary documentary reDuirements had been completed, the buyAbust team
proceeded to the target area EOue*on Street, #uro' 6, #oblacion, Muntinlupa $ityF on board two
vehiclesE+oyota 4evo and Anfra IanF
#=1 Horastero, #=1 Medina, S#=1 (oce, S#=8 Macalla, S#=8 Madriaga and the two civilian agents
boarded the +oyota 4evo while the rest of the buyAbust team boarded the Anfra Ian
Upon reaching the area of operation at around 9%80 pm, the team strategically par'ed the two
vehicles -0 meters away from each other
/hile inside the 4evo, #=1 Horastero and #=1 Medina saw their confiential informant some !0
meters away waiting for them +hey nevertheless stayed inside the 4evo as they were still waiting
for a teLt message coming from anot6er asset who would confirm alias 4ic'yKs presence at
the target area
After an hour, the aforesaid asset texted S#=8 Macalla saying that alias 4ic'y was already at the
target area
#=1 Horastero and #=1 Medina then alighted from the vehicle Upon seeing them, the confidential
informant promptly approached and accompanied them to alias 4ic'yKs place
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests "";
At this .uncture, the other members of the buyAbust team also alighted from their vehicles and
followed #=1 Horastero, #=1 Medina and the confidential informant at a distance to provide
perimeter security
After a 1-Aminute wal' traversing a place along the train railways, #=1 Horastero, #=1 Medina and
the confidential informant reached the exact place of alias 4ic'y in Oue*on Street, #uro' 6,
#oblacion, Muntinlupa $ity
+he rest of the buyAbust team then acted as perimeter guards
At a distance of about seven meters, the confidential informant saw a person wearing a white
sando and blac' pants sitting by a lighted house with an open door whom he recogni*ed and
identified as alias 4ic'y
T6e confiential informant t6en pinpointe alias RicC: to PO. 2orastero an PO.
4eina +he confidential informant immediately approached alias 4ic'y and introduced him to
#=1 Horastero and PO. 4eina as 6is relati$es.
After gaining t6e trust an confience of alias RicC:, PO. 2orastero tol t6e former
t6at 6e woul liCe to WscoreW P-//.// wort6 of s6a%u an 6e simultaneousl: 6ane to
6im t6e two P.//.//(peso %ills mar'ed money amounting to #"0000
Alias RicC: recei$e t6e marCe mone: and, in turn, got and opened a %lacC coin purse
wit6 w6ite stripes from his left hand and tooC out a small 6eat(seale transparent plastic
sac6et containing t6e suspecte s6a%u and 6ane it to PO. 2orastero, which the latter
accepte
At once, PO. 2orastero 6el alias RicC:Rs rig6t 6an an introuce 6imself as police
officer. PO. 4eina t6en assiste PO. 2orastero in arresting alias RicC: %: 6oling t6e
latterRs left 6an.
+he other members of the buyAbust team, who were within the vicinity, arrived
#=1 4eina recovered from the left hand of alias 4ic'y the coin purse containing -/ more small
6eat(seale transparent plastic sac6ets wit6 w6ite cr:stalline su%stance suspecte to
%e s6a%u an a small pair of foling scissors
+he two marCe P.//.//(peso %ills were reco$ere from alias RicC:Rs pocCet %: PO.
2orastero <e compared it with the photocopies with him and they matched
Alias 4ic'y was informed of his constitutional rights
<e was brought to the team@s officeB they came to 'now his full nameB
Items seize were immeiatel: marCe as follows%
c 04U1 E4ic'y@s initialsF% the sub.ect of the sale E1 small heatAsealed transparent plastic
sachet containing suspected shabuF
c 04UA11 to 04UA"01 EinclusiveF% the "0 more small heatAsealed transparent plastic sachets
with white crystalline substance
c 04UA"11% blac' coin purse with white stripes
c 04UA""1% small pair of folding scissors
An in$entor: thereof was also made
Afterwards, a 4eDuest for 9aboratory >xamination of the sei*ed items and a 4eDuest for :rug +est
of appellant both dated "! 3une "008 were made
#=1 Horastero, #=1 Medina and #=1 (unayon t6en forware t6e seize items to t6e
P6ilippine 'ational Police (P'P", Crime La%orator:, P'P !out6ern Police District, 2ort
<onifacio, Taguig Cit:, for laboratory examination
:rug test% positive
)tems% positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu
:efense%
#resented the testimony of appellant and his commonAlaw wife, 3anice :eles
<e denied the accusations and offered a different version as follows%
Appellant, a tricycle driver, claimed that on "! 3une "008, at around G%00 pm, while he was inside
their house fixing a bro'en flashlight, #=1 Horastero and #=1 Medina suddenly barged in and
arrested him for the alleged illegal sale of shabu
<e denied the same but the police officers insisted that their office received several calls
regarding his illegal drug activities
<e was then immediately handcuffed by )baMe*, one of the civilian agents and was brought out of
his house where they met S#=8 Macalla to whom )baMe* purportedly handed the #!,"0000 which
the latter recovered from appellant while they were still inside the house
<e vehemently denied that such money was earned by him from selling shabu <e explained that
the said money was a loan from a certain $ora*on Arciaga to be used by his commonAlaw wife as
capital for selling fruits
<e was then made to board the 4evo and brought to the office of :A#$=A:>U where 3anice
followed him
)n the office, S#=1 Iega allegedly forced him to ac'nowledge possession of the pieces of evidence
allegedly retrieved from him <e refused <e was then put in .ail
<e nonetheless admitted that it was only at the time of his arrest that he met the arresting police
officersB no bad blood between them
Also, despite his allegation that )baMe* too' his money and gave it to S#=8 Macalla, he did not file
robbery charges against them
3anice corroborated his testimony
She maintained that 4ic'y was not in possession and was not engaged in the illegal sale of shabu
3anice said that at the time and place in Duestion, while she was dressing up their child after
giving him medicine, )baMe*, together with #=1 Horastero and #=1 Medina, hastily barged into
their house
/ithout any arrest warrant or search warrant, )baMe* instantly handcuffed and fris'ed appellant
)baMe* similarly too' appellantKs money, which the latter borrowed from a certain $ora*on
Arciaga, and handed it to S#=8 Macalla
She forcefully resisted appellantKs arrest and li'ewise tried to retrieve the money but to no avail
+he police officers successfully brought 4ic'y out of their house and boarded him inside a vehicle
She continuously pleaded not to ta'e appellant but her pleas remained unheeded
She then followed appellant up to the office of :A#$=A:>U
" separate informations
1 Iiolation of Sec -, Art )) of 4A 91;- E#ale, 2radin!, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and 2ransportation o Dan!erous Dru!s and"or $ontrolled Precursors and 3ssential
$hemicalsF
2 Iiolation of Sec 11, Art )) of 4A 91;- EPossession o Dan!erous Dru!sF
#leaded not guilty to both charges
3oint trial
4+$ of Muntinlupa
(uilty of under both informations Efound that all elements were satisfactorily provenF
illegal sale of 00" gram of shabu Elife imprisonment _ fine of #-00LF
illegal possession of 0!8 gram of shabu Eindeterminate penalty of 1" y and 1 d to 1- y _ fine of
#800LF
_ costs
$A
Affirmed his conviction
All essential elements duly proven
:enial collapses in the face of positive identification
#resumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties
:efense failed to prove illAmotive on the part of prosecution witnesses
)nconsistencies andCor discrepancies pointed to by appellant were too trivial and inconseDuential
to warrant the reversalB did not negate the fact that a buyAbust operation was conducted and as a
result of which appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling and possessing shabu
Unisa@s arguments%
<e contends that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him of the offenses charged
<e posits that it was Duite unusual and improbable for a police officer, li'e #=1 Medina, to
correctly remember the sixAdigit serial numbers of the mar'ed money used in the buyAbust
operation, which was conducted about a year earlier than his testimony, but could not remember
if he placed any mar'ing thereon
$riminal 9aw )) :"01; :igests ""G
Also Duite odd for #=1 Medina not to recall the date of his last successful buyAbust operation
despite his vivid recollection of the serial numbers of the mar'ed money
/hile #=1 Horastero maintained that he and #=1 Medina were both introduced to appellant as
relatives of the confidential informant, #=1 Medina claimed otherwise
Appellant also a$ers t6at t6e stanar operating proceure t6at was suppose to %e
o%ser$e %: t6e %u:(%ust team was tainte wit6 irregularities, w6ic6 create ou%ts
on t6e aut6enticit: of t6e %u:(%ust operation +hough it was #C)nsp Silungan who conducted
the briefing on the manner of the buyAbust operation, it was #=1 ,atuel who signed the #reA
=peration 4eportC$oordination Sheet that was transmitted to #:>A for and on behalf of #C)nsp
Silungan Moreover, t6e police officers w6o prepare t6e marCe mone: merel:
p6otocopie an entere t6e same in t6eir %lotter, instea of lacing it wit6 ultra($iolet
power espite t6e fact t6at a prior sur$eillance an confirmation operations 6a$e
%een conucte %efore t6e actual %u:(%ust operation.
2inall:, 6e asserts t6at t6e police officers liCewise faile to o%ser$e t6e reMuirements
lai own in !ection -. ;) of Repu%lic Act 'o. ).+8, particularl: t6e p6otograp6ing of
t6e seize rugs in 6is presence or 6is representati$e or counsel, a representati$e
from t6e meia, a representati$e from t6e Department of 1ustice (DO1" an an: electe
pu%lic official.
I!!#3% /C, appellant is guilty of violation of Sections - and 11, Article )) of 4epublic Act ,o 91;-
E2>SF
/e rely on the trial courtKs assessment of the credibility of witnesses, absent any showing that
certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the elements of the crime have been overloo'ed,
misapprehended, or misapplied
Hor a successful prosecution of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, li'e shabu, the
following elements must first be established% E1F the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
ob.ect and consideration of the saleB and E"F the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor
c /hat is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually too' place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti
c Clearl:, t6e commission of t6e offense of illegal sale of angerous rugs, liCe
s6a%u, merel: reMuires t6e consummation of t6e selling transaction, w6ic6
6appens t6e moment t6e %u:er recei$es t6e rug from t6e seller. As long as the
police officer went through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by
appellant, followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is
already consummated
c #rosecution has amply proven all the elements of the drugs sale beyond moral certainty
c +he testimony of #=1 Horastero explicitly described how the sale transaction of shabu
between him and appellant occurred Eie the narration of facts by the prosecutionF +he
exchange of the buyAbust money and the small heatAsealed transparent plastic sachet with
white crystalline substance later confirmed as shabu already consummated the sale
c #=1 Horastero positively identified appellant to be the same person who sold to him one
small heatAsealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu for #"0000 /hen the small heatA
sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu was presented in court, he also identified it to be
the same ob.ect sold to him by appellant because of the mar'ings &4U& representing
appellantKs initials, which #=1 Horastero himself has written thereon <e also identified in
court the recovered buyAbust money with the signature of #=1 Aguirre at the bottomB their
serial numbers matched the photocopy thereof
As to illegal possession of shabu it must be shown that EelementsF% E1F the accused is in
possession of an item or ob.ect which is identified to be a prohibited drugB E"F such possession is
not authori*ed by lawB and E8F the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug +hese
are all present in this case
c )ncident to appellantKs lawful arrest resulting from the buyAbust operation, "0 more sachets
of shabu were recovered in his possession by #=1 Medina
c )n court, both #=1 Medina and #=1 Horastero identified them to be the same ob.ects
recovered from appellant while he was being fris'ed during his arrest for illegally selling
shabu #=1 Medina similarly affirmed that the mar'ings &4UA1& to &4UA"0& written thereon
was done by him
c 4ecord is bereft of any evidence to show that appellant has the legal authority to possess
the "0 more sachets
c Possession of angerous rugs constitutes prima facie e$ience of Cnowlege or
animus possieni, w6ic6 is sufficient to con$ict an accuse in t6e a%sence of a
satisfactor: eLplanation of suc6 possession.
c Appellant miserably failed to discharge his burden to overcome the prima facie evidence
$redibility of #rosecution /itnesses
PO. 4einaRs failure to recall if 6e place an: marCing on t6e %u:(%ust mone:, as well
as the date of his last successful buyAbust operation, was neither fatal nor material for the
prosecution of either illegal sale or possession of shabu as those facts had no %earing or 6a
not6ing to o wit6 t6e elements of t6e offenses c6arge #=1 Medina was not the one who
mar'ed the buyAbust money but #=1 Aguirre nor was he the poseurAbuyer who handled the buyA
bust money but #=1 Horastero +hus, #=1 MedinaKs failure to recall if he ever put any mar'ing on
the buyAbust money should not be ta'en against him
3$en granting argueno t6at t6e %u:(%ust mone: 6as not %een marCe, Durispruence
is clear t6at failure to marC t6e %oole mone: is not fatal to t6e cause of t6e
prosecution. 'eit6er law nor Durispruence reMuires t6e presentation of an: of t6e
mone: use in a %u:(%ust operation muc6 less is it reMuire t6at t6e %oole mone: %e
marCe Eonly the elements are important to prove the crimeCsF
Hurther, the discrepancy and contradiction in the testimonies are too trivial, inconseDuential and
irrelevant to the elements of the offenses chargedB strengthen rather than diminish the
prosecutionKs case
=n appellantKs assertions that the standard operating procedure supposed to be observed by the buyA
bust team was tainted with irregularities
+here are no provisions either in 4epublic Act ,o 91;- or its )mplementing 4ules and 4egulations
reDuiring that E1F the #reA=peration 4eportC$oordination Sheet that should be transmitted to #:>A
must only be signed by the person who conducted the briefingB and E"F the buyAbust money to be
used in the actual buyAbust operation must be dusted with ultraAviolet powder
+he #reA=peration 4eportC$oordination Sheet and the use of dusted money are not indispensable
to prove the illegal sale of shabu +hese two are not part of t6e elements of the aforesaid
offense
coordination with the #:>A is not an indispensable reDuirement before police authorities may
carry out a buyAbust operation /hile it is true that Section G; Wcitation omittedX of 4epublic Act
,o 91;- reDuires the ,ational ?ureau of )nvestigation, #,# and the ?ureau of $ustoms to
maintain &close coorination with the #:>A on all drug related matters,& the provision oes not
maCe PD3ARs participation a conition sine Mua non for e$er: %u:(%ust operation After
all, a buyAbust is .ust a form of an in flagrante arrest sanctioned by Section -, 4ule 118 of the
4ules of $ourtB not invalidated by mere nonAcoordination with the #:>A
alt6oug6 t6e %u:(%ust mone: were not lace wit6 ultra($iolet power, still, t6e
prosecution was a%le to positi$el: ientif: t6at t6e two P.//.//(peso %ills reco$ere
from appellant rig6t after 6is arrest were t6e %u:(%ust mone: as t6e same were
p6otocopie an entere in t6e police %lotter %efore t6e actual %u:(%ust operation
On t6e argument of appellant t6at t6e police officers faile to o%ser$e t6e reMuirements
of !ection -., Article II of Repu%lic Act 'o. ).+8 (%ecause t6e seize rugs were not
p6otograp6e in 6is presence or 6is representati$e or counsel, a representati$e from t6e
meia, a representati$e from t6e DO1 an an: electe pu%lic official"
Section "1
c E1F +he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after sei*ure and confiscation, p6:sicall: in$entor: an p6otograp6 the
same in the presence of the accused or the personCs from whom such items were
confiscated andCor sei*ed, or hisCher representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the :epartment of 3ustice E:=3F, and any elected public official who shall be
reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof
Section "1 EaF, Article )) of the )44
c EaF +he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after sei*ure and confiscation, p6:sicall: in$entor: an p6otograp6 the
same in the presence of the accused or the personCs from whom such items were
confiscated andCor sei*ed, or hisCher representative or counsel, a representative from the
media and the :epartment of 3ustice E:=3F, and any elected public official who shall be
reDuired to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof% #rovided, further,
that non(compliance wit6 t6ese reMuirements uner Dustifia%le grouns, as long
as t6e integrit: an t6e e$ientiar: $alue of t6e seize items are properl:
preser$e %: t6e appre6ening officer/team, s6all not rener $oi an in$ali
suc6 seizures of an custo: o$er sai items
'on(compliance t6ereto is not fatal an will not rener appellantRs arrest illegal or t6e
items seize/confiscate from 6im inamissi%le. As can be observed, the implementing rules
offer some flexibility when a proviso added that &non(compliance with these reDuirements under
.ustifiable grounds, as long as the integrit: and the e$ientiar: $alue of the sei*ed items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officerCteam, s6all not rener $oi an in$ali such
sei*ures of and custody over said items& +hus, w6at is of utmost importance is t6e
preser$ation of t6e integrit: an t6e e$ientiar: $alue of t6e seize items, as t6e same
woul %e utilize in t6e etermination of t6e guilt or innocence of t6e accuse.
T6e function of t6e c6ain of custo: reMuirement, t6erefore, is to ensure t6at t6e
integrit: an e$ientiar: $alue of t6e seize items are preser$e, so muc6 so t6at
unnecessar: ou%ts as to t6e ientit: of t6e e$ience are remo$e +o be admissible, the
prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous w6erea%outs of the exhibit at
least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the
laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence
In t6e present case, t6e c6ain of custo: of t6e seize rugs oes not appear to 6a$e
%een %roCen.
H3LD% $A affirmed
People $. Castro, +8- !CRA ;);
#>=#9> =H +<> #<)9)##),>S, plaintiffAappellee
vs
A4,=9: $AS+4= y 2A,(A, accusedAappellant
I>9AS$=, 34,
(4 ,o 19!G8; 3une 1-, "011
2ACT!0
N Heb "; "00!% " members of the (alas #olice Station, #C)nsp Armenta and #=" Samora receive a
report from an informant that a certain alias 0)dol1 was selling drugs in ?rgy San )sidro, O$ 4eport is
brought before $ol 4obert 4a*on
N 4a*on forms a buyAbust teamB Armenta designated as poseurAbuyer, given a #100 bill which he
mar'ed with his initials 3AB Armenta also prepares report to #hilippine :rug >nforcement Agency
E#:>AF
N Armenta and informant meet with 0)dol1 Ewho turns out to be Arnold $astroF in ?rgy San )sidro%
$astro as'ed #C)nsp Armenta how much, to which the latter responded &piso&, which meant
#hp10000 1G #C)nsp Armenta then handed the one hundred peso buyAbust money to $astro 19 +he
latter, in turn, gave him a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that he
pulled out from his poc'et Afterwards, #C)nsp Armenta scratched his head to signal to his team
members that the transaction was already consummated "1 Accordingly, the buyAbust team
immediately closed in and arrested $astro #=" Samora informed $astro of his violation, fris'ed him
and recovered from his poc'et " more transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance, as
well as the mar'ed money #C)nsp Armenta too' custody of the transparent plastic sachet that $astro
sold to him, while #=" Samora 'ept the mar'ed money and the two E"F other plastic sachets which he
recovered
N 8 sachets are confirmed positive for Methylamphetamine <ydrochloride EALA S<A?UF
N :efense% $astro was resting in front of his house, when a police car par'ed in front of him and
! police came out, forced him to board the car, brought him to the police station, and showed him the
sachet /hen he denied owning it, one of the officers told him that he would be released if he had
money
N 4+$% $astro guilty of drugApushing and possession of dangerous drugs E4A 91;- Art )) Sec -
and 11F, sentenced to life imprisonment _ fine Efor drugApushingF, and 1" years 1 day minimum to 18
years maximum _ fine Efor possessionF
N $A affirms 4+$

I!!#3/H3LD0
N /C, $astro is guilty of the offenses charged E2>SF

RATIO0
N 4e% chain of custody Epassing of the drugsF not proved conclusively% Admittedly, testimony
about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbro'en chain ,onetheless, w6at is of utmost importance is t6e preser$ation of t6e
integrit: an t6e e$ientiar: $alue of t6e seize itemsZ Concomitantl:, it is Castro w6o
%ears t6e %uren to maCe some s6owing t6at t6e e$ience was tampere or mele wit6
to o$ercome a presumption of regularit: in t6e 6anling of eL6i%its %: pu%lic officers, as
well as a presumption t6at sai pu%lic officers properl: isc6arge t6eir uties.
N )n the prosecution for the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs under Section -, Article )) of
4A 91;-, the following elements must concur% (." t6e ientities of t6e %u:er an seller, o%Dect,
an consierationS an (-" t6e eli$er: of t6e t6ing sol an t6e pa:ment t6ereof.
Significantly, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that
the transaction or sale actually occurred, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance
sei*ed as evidence
N As t6e poseur(%u:er, P/Insp. Armenta positi$el: ientifie Castro uring trial as t6e
seller of t6e illegal rugs. He also testifie t6at, using t6e marCe mone:, 6e pai for t6e
o%Dect of t6e crime, i.e., t6e s6a%u t6at was 6ane to 6im %: Castro. 'ota%l:, t6e
testimon: of P/Insp. Armenta was su%stantiall: corro%orate %: PO- Jamora.

R#LI'&0 Appeal denied
R.A. 'o. )-+- (T6e 5iolence Against Eomen an T6eir C6ilren Act"W

Criminal Law II Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law II Digests

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law II Digests

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law II Digests

Prof. Arreza Outline

You might also like