People vs Campuhan

Facts:

As provided for under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659, an
automatic review of the case is brought before the Supreme Court. That on May 27, 1997, Primo
Campuhan was convicted guilty of statutory rape and sentenced by the court a quo to the extreme penalty
of death. The conviction was based on the statements of Ma. Corazon Pamintuan, the mother of the victim
Chrystel, saying that on April 25, 1996, she found the accused kneeling down on his 4-year old daughter
with his pants down and forcing his penis into Chrystels vagina. However, the accused kept his
innocence and contested that Pamintuans statements were not credible for the latter has ill will against
him.

Issue:

WON the accused committed a consummated statutory rape

Ruling:

The records reviewed failed to show the proof whether Primos penis was able to penetrate
Chrystels vagina. Failure to prove such penetration, even the slightest one, cannot be considered
consummated rape, however, only attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. Also, there were no
physical signs of injuries on the witness body to conclude a medical perspective that a penetration has
taken place. In rape cases, it is important that a valid testimony and medical certificate complements each
other, for relying alone on testimonial evidence may create unwarranted or mischievous results. It is
necessary to carefully establish a proof that the penis, in reality, entered the labial threshold of the demale
organ to accurately conclude that the rape was consummated. WHEREFORE, the decision of the court on
convicting Campuhan guilty of statutory rape is MODIFIED. Hence, convicted of ATTEMPTED RAPE
instead.
 US vs. Manghirang etal.

Facts:

One day, victim Cornelio Briones was struck in the left arm with a club and was also stuck by a
bolo twice, one on the shoulder and the other across the lips. The suspects were Roman Manghirang,
Francisco Guitierrez and Damaso Rivera. The victim was still alive after the incident but, unfortunately,
the damages on his shoulder and lips were permanent, causing his disability to articulate well. Bringing
the case in court with sufficient evidence, the accused were convicted of the crime of frustrated murder.
However, the private prosecutor questioned the decision of the trial court and contends that the facts were
not qualified as frustrated murder but only of lesions grave (serious injuries).

Issue:

WON the judgement of the trial court on convicting the accused of frustrated murder is correct.

Ruling:

Basing the examination of the doctrine of the court on Paragraph 2 of the Article 416 of the Penal
Code, the facts showed that the crime only constitutes lesiones graves and not of frustrated murder
because it has not been proven on the trial that the intention or the purpose was to kill the victim,
considering that the wounds inflicted on the latter were not mortal wounds nor located on fatal spots. It
shows that the wounds inflicted were not such as to produce death, thus, the accused were not able to
perform all acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence as provided for in the
Article 3 of the Penal Code. Without the intention to kill, the crime cannot be frustrated nor attempted
murder. WHEREFORE, the judgement of the trial court was MODIFIED, and each accused were
convicted of the crime of lesions graves and sentenced each of prision mayor.
 People vs. Arnulfo Chavez Orande

Facts:

Jessica Castro charged the plaintiff Arnulfo Orande for raping her four times between 1994 to
1996 while the former was still a minor (between 9-12 years old). The complainant contends that all were
executed by means of threat and intimidation, threatening her of feat if she resists. RTC convicted Orande
two counts of simple rape, one statutory and one frustrated. The accused appealed that the court had a
grave error on convicting him of frustrated rape despite the fact that there is no such crime.

Issue:

WON there is a crime of frustrated rape?

Ruling:

The court said no, there is no crime of frustrated rape. In People vs. Orita, it was reiterated that in
the crime of rape, the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his
purpose and from that moment, all the elements of the crime is consummated. Since the offender has
performed the last act necessary to the crime, there is nothing more left to be done by the offender. Thus,
it is consummated rape. Also, perfect penetration is not essential in consummating rape, mere or any
penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Necessarily, when there is no penetration
of the female organ, the rape is considered attempted because not all acts of execution was performed.
Considering all the elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and all jurisprudence on the
mater, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage can be committed. WHEREFORE, the court ruled
that the RTC commited an error on convicting Orande the crime of frustrated rape, for in fact, the rape
was consummated. Hence, Orande should be found guilty of consummated rape rather that frustrated.
 Ingal vs. People

Facts:

Prevalence of taking advantage of their superior strength with deliberate, unlawful, intent to kill
and use of personal violence upon the victim Rolando Domingo, accused Jose Ingal conspired together
with Ricardo Lidot in consummating the crime. The two stabbed the former on different parts of his body,
inflicting upon him mortal stab wound which became the immediate cause of his death. The testimonies
of the witnesses present during the incident incriminated the petitioner. They contended that the accused
approached violently the victim Domingo while eating, and repeatedly stabbed the latter. However, the
accused argued that he was in the place of work when the crime happened.

The trial court convicted Ingal of murder and the CA rendered a decision affirming in toto the
decision of the trial court.

Issue:

WON Ingal is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder.

Ruling:

According to the court, conspiracy cannot be considered an element of the crime of murder or
homicide. Conspiracy is only important in determining the liability of the perpetrator, thus, if the
prosecution fails to prove such, only those proven liable can be held guilty for the crime charged. In this
case, prosecution failed to prove conspiracy; however, the former has proven that the petitioner was the
one who consumed the crime, and since conspiracy is absent, the petitioner alone will be held liable for
the death of the victim.

Consequently, it was proven that there was a deliberate intent to kill because first, the petitioner
used treachery in the commission of the crime making the victim unable to defend himself; and second,
the weapon use is a tres cantos.

The court affirmed with modification the CA decision. WHEREFORE, the petitioner is found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of murder and hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua xxx.

Valenzuela vs. People

Plaintiff Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon were spotted by Lorenzo Lago on an afternoon
on May 19, 1994 outside a supermarket along North Edsa. Lago saw Valenzuela, wearing an I.D with
Receiving Dispatching Unit label, hauling push cart with cases of Tide detergent soap and unloaded
them in the parking space were Calderon was waiting. After five minutes, the petitioner emerged again
with more cartons of the said brand of detergent soap.

After that, the two hailed a taxi and loaded the cartons inside the taxi then boarded in the vehicle.
All acts were sighted by Lago, hence, stopped the taxi and asked the two for the receipt of the
merchandise, however, the two fled fast. Lago made a warning shot to alert his fellow guards, causing the
apprehension of the two and recovery of the stolen merchandise.

The petitioner insists that he should be guilty of only frustrated theft and not of consummated
theft.

Issue:

WON there is a crime of frustrated theft?

Ruling:

As provided for in the Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the crime of theft
are as follows: (1) that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3)
that the taking be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner;
and (5) that the taking be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation of persons or force
upon things. Hence, it is not necessary for the offender to freely dispose of the stolen property to be
considered consummated theft.

Secondly, the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the taking by the petitioner was
completed in this case. Intent to gain was present when he acquired physical possession of the stolen
cases of detergent for considerable period of time be able to drop these off at a parking lot and long
enough to load in the taxicab. The court held that unlawful taking is completed in this case, even if he has
no opportunity to dispose of such.

Unlawful taking is most material in this respect as unlawful taking means deprivation of
ones personal property which produces the felony in its consummated stage. Moreover, without unlawful
taking as the act of execution, the offense could only be attempted theft, at the very least.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED in consideration with the Article 308 of the RPC stating
that there can be no frustrated stage in the crime of theft.

People of the Philippines vs. Caballero

In an afternoon of August 03, 1994, Caballero brothers Armando, Marciano and Robito were in
the house of their other brother Ricardo having drinking sessions in the Mondragon compound. By 7pm
of that same day, Eugene Tayactac and Arnold Bacurna arrived in the sari-sari store of Wilma Broce
which was across the Mondragon compound.

Later on, Armando angrily approached Eugene, and the latter insisted that there is no quarrel
between them. Armando left and after minutes, his brothers joined him, armed with knives. Armando
grabbed Eugene and when the latter resisted, the other Caballeros ganged up on him. Armando hit him
with the wooden support of clothesline and Eugene was stabbed on the chest three times.

Arnold tried to help but he was also stabbed on the left side of his body and twice on his forearm.
Leonilo Broce, nephew of Wilma, rushed to help but was also stabbed on the chest by Robito. Eugene and
Leonildo eventually died from the sustained wounds.

The Caballero borthers, except for Robito, were convicted of murder for the deaths of Eugene and
Leonildo, and frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold. The appellants insists that the decision is
incorrect.

Issue:

WON the appellants are guilty of frustrated murder for the injuries of Arnold?

Ruling:

Basing the judgement in consideration of the Article 248, Article 6, par. 1 of the Revised Penal
Code, the court, beyond reasonable doubt, found the appellants guilty of the crime frustrated murder.

With the fact that appellant Armando used wooden pole and appellants Ricardo and Robito used
knives, it cannot be denied that there was an intent to kill Arnold. Moreover, the doctor attended on
Arnold testified that the stab wound inflicted upon Arnold was mortal and may have caused the latters
death, if not for the timely and effective medical intervention. WHEREFORE, the acts committed by the
appellants is indeed FRUSTRATED MURDER.

Herrera vs. Sandiganbayan

Facts:
 On December 28, 1989, public officers Pat. Edgardo Herrera y Baltoribo and Pat. Redentor
Mariano y Antonio, being then members of the Paranaque police force, were armed with guns, conspiring
and confederating and mutually helping and aiding one another, with the intent to kill and with treachery
and by taking advantage of their public position, then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot
one Shi Shu Yang and George Go y Tan on different parts of their bodies, inflicting serious and mortal
wounds which became the immediate cause of their death.

Issue:

WON the petitioners committed grave felony and the crime of murder?

**(friend, di ko sure? Haha. Kasi di ko nabasa yung buo. Kasi petitioner na yung suspects. So
ibig sabihin kinontest nila yung decision ng Sandigan? E hindi na nakalagay dun sa nakadigest. Sorry. Or
sundin mo nalang ung sa binigay mo saking digested)

Ruling:

Clearly, the elements of murder have been proven, to wit: (1) the two victims were killed; (2) that
petitioners and the two other accused killed the victims; (3) that the killing was attended by the qualifying
circumstance of treachery; and (4) that the killing was not parricide or infanticide.

WHEREFORE, Sandiganbayan finds petitioners Herrera and Mariano guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for two counts of murder and sentencing each of them to suffer reclusion perpetua and perpetual
absolute disqualification for public office, plus additional payment for damages xxx. The decision is
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.

Rivera vs. People

Facts:
 That on May 2, 1998, Ruben Rodil, together with her three-year old daughter, went to a nearby
sari-sari store to buy food and look for his wife. Subsequently, one Edgardo Rivera mocked him for being
jobless and dependent on his wife, creating exchange of profane words between the two. The next day,
Rivera, together with his two brothers, emerged again in the sari-sari store where Rodil was also present
and gave the latter fist blows and hit the victim three times with hollow blocks through the head.

With the help of the witnesses around the incident, there was a prompt response from local police
that stopped the incident and let the victim escape. Considering the statement of the attending doctor of
Rodil, this confirmed that there was superficial lacerations on the parietal area, hence, the trial court
convicted River brothers with the crime of frustrated murder.

Upon the petition, CA affirmed the trial courts decision, however with modification, lowering the
crime to attempted murder. For the plaintiffs insists that intent to kill was not proven, thus, pleading for
the reduction of the crime to attempted homicide.

Issue:

WON the crime committed by the petitioners is attempted murder or attempted homicide?

Ruling:

The Court held that the petitioners are still liable of the crime of attempted murder, for even if the
head wounds inflicted upon the victim was merely superficial and not mortal as to produce death, it does
not negate the criminal liability of the petitioners for attempted murder.

Under Article 6 of the RPC, attempt to commit a felony means that there 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.

With the case at bar, the petitioners intended to produce the felony, but because of the police
intervention, it was prevented. However, it does not mean that they do not have intention to kill the
victim.

People vs. Guittap (Saan si Guittap sa kaso? Haha slow, sorry)

Facts:
 On February 15, 2000, appellants Cesar Osabel and Decena Masinag were convicted guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide. This is in connection with the crime
happened on July 17, 1992, when the accused steal and carry away personal items of the victims
Romualdo Jael and Lionela Caringal. Moreover, the accused stab both spouses, inflicting upon them fatal
wounds, which directly cuased the death of the two.

During the trial, state witness Ariel Dador stated that Osabel asked him and one Purcino to go to
Masinags house. Osabel also explained to Dador and Purcino that he and Masinag planned to rob the
spouses. The following day, they went to the victims house to execute the plan.

Masinag denied any participation in the crime; she contends that Dador had no personal
knowledge of the plan, how was it made and if the former has an actual participation.

Issue:

WON Masinag participated in the crime and be acquitted of the crime of robbery with Homicide?

Ruling:

Basing on the testimony of Dador, it shows that he has no real or personal knowledge of the plan
but his testimonies was only based on what Osabel told him. Hence, statements based on hearsay do not
prove appellants participation in the crime.

Moreover, no overt act was established to prove that the appellant really participated in the crime.
For conspiracy transcends mere companionship and it must be proved convincingly as the crime itself.
Nevertheless, it must also be shown that appellant performed an overt act. WHEREFORE, Masinag is
ACQUITTED of the crime of Robbery with Homicide.

People vs. Marquez

Appellant Marquez was convicted of frustrated robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide;
and illegal possession of firearms which stemmed up from a bus holdup that resulted in the killing of the
bus conductor and the wounding of a police officer on February 17, 1995. However, on May 12, 1998,
appellant petitions the Judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, Branch 53.

Version of the Prosecution: On February 17, 1995, appellant Marquez with 3 other men, holdup a
JAC Liner bus which resulted to the death of Halum, the conductor and wounding of SPO1 Merene
wounded as a gunfight happened between him and Marquez. The incident was reported to the police by
Manuel Fleta, another passenger. Mauricio and Zenaida Ilao, who were unaware of the aborted hold-up
that had happened, helped him by fetching Julie Ann, a distant relative, who brought him to the hospital in
Candelaria and was transferred to the Quezon Memorial Hospital in Lucena City. Mauricio Ilao then
found at the back of their house the next day a .38 caliber gun with three live bullets and immediately
went to Sariaya station to report this.

Version of the defense: Accused-appellant boarded the JAC liner bus alone heading to Julie Anns
work place on February 17, 1995 when a hold-up happened, there was exchange of fire and he was hit by
a bullet. They then jumped out of the bus and there he saw a house owned by Zenaida Ilao from whom he
requested that his cousin Julie Ann be fetched to take him to the hospital. He was then brought to Bolaos
Hospital, then to Quezon Memorial Hospital then later transferred to Philippine General Hospital. He was
taken to the Municipal Jail by the Sariaya police after he was released from the hospital then 2 months
after he was transferred to provincial jail. When arraigned, he pleaded NOT GUILTY.

Issues:

Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the appellant of the crimes charged despite
doubt as to his identity and culpability.

Ruling:

In robbery with homicide, it is important to consider the direct relation between robbery and the
killing. It must be shown that robbery was the original intent and that homicide was perpetrated with a
view to consummate the former, by reason or on occasion thereof. If death occurred by reason or as
incident of the robbery, even if his death was merely incidental, still, frustrated robbery with homicide
was committed. In the case at bar, the appellant intended to rob the passengers was evident. It was foiled
only with the intervention of SPO1 Merene, if not for his presence and bravery, appellant and his cohorts
would have successfully consummated their original plan. With regard to the charge of frustrated
homicide, appellant in shooting Merene, had performed all the necessary acts to kill the latter but
survived due to the timely medical intervention. Thus appellants conviction for frustrated robbery with
homicide and frustrated homicide must be sustained. But with regard to the illegal possession of firearms,
he must be acquitted.