1 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3

MUPAS & MUAPAS VS. PEOPLE G.R. No. 172834, February 6, 2008

Frustrated Homicide to Slight Physical Injuries

 
FACTS: Rogelio testified that at around 7:30 in the morning of 18 February 1993, he was walking to
school with his companion Eduardo Murao, Jr. when Jun suddenly stopped and stabbed him using a 29-
inch Batangas knife. Meantime, Banjo bodily restrained him but luckily Rogelio was able to avoid the
blow. Next, Banjo and Jun hurled stones at him and hit him on the leg while Rogelio was running
eastward. Rogelio then flagged down a motorized tricycle but the two assailants continued to pursue him.
While inside the tricycle, Banjo held Rogelio by his neck and punched him while Jun stabbed him several
times. Then, Rogelio alighted from the tricycle and ran home. Afterwards, his father and mother
accompanied him to the hospital. There, Dr. Martinez attended to Rogelio, and found that the wounds
may take TWO WEEKS to HEAL.

Prior to the incident, Rogelio recalled that in January of the same year, he had a misunderstanding with
Jun where he and the latter hurled invectives at each other. Rogelio suspected that this event gave rise to
the subject incident. Jun and Gil were found guilty as charged and the judgment of conviction was
elevated to the Court of Appeals.

ISSUES:

Is the affirmation of the conviction for frustrated homicide proper?

 
HELD: No. The trial court solely hinged its judgment of conviction on the victim Rogelio’s lone
and uncorroborated testimony. While it is true that the testimony of one witness is sufficient to sustain a
conviction if such testimony establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court rules
in this case that the testimony of one witness in this case is not sufficient for this purpose. It appears then
that Rogelio had at his disposal many witnesses who could have supported his allegations but curiously
and without any explanation, none of these so-called witnesses were presented. It is thus Rogelio’s word
against the attestations of others. Such omission already raises a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the
petitioners. Assuming that Gil alias Banjo had any participation, there is likewise no evidence that he or
Jun had intent to kill Rogelio. Intent to kill is the principal element of homicide or murder, in whatever
stage of commission. Such intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every possible
doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor.

Although it can be fairly assumed that the injuries suffered by Rogelio were sustained during the
fistfight, it is not conclusive that the same were inflicted purposely to kill him. For one, if Jun in fact had
been carrying a bolo with intent of killing Rogelio, and if indeed Banjo had conspired with Jun, it is no
small wonder why the wounds inflicted were more superficial than mortal, more mild than grave. Taken
in its entirety, there is a dearth of medical evidence on record to sustain the claim that petitioners had any
intention to kill Rogelio. When such intent is lacking but wounds were inflicted, the crime is not
frustrated homicide but physical injuries only and in this case, less serious physical injuries considering
the attending physician’s opinion that the wounds sustained by Rogelio would take two (2) weeks to heal.
2 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3

Giovanni Serrano v. People of the Philippines

GR No. 175023 – July 5, 2010

Facts:

A brawl involving 15 to 18 members of two rival groups resulted to the stabbing of Anthony Galang, the
victim, by the herein petitioner, Giovannie Serrano. During the rumble, the victim was stabbed at the left
side of his stomach and was beaten until he fell into a nearby creek. In his fallen position, Galang claimed
that when he inspected his stabbed wound, he saw a portion of his intestines showed. The victim received
medical attention, stayed in the hospital for one week and thereafter stayed home for one month to
recuperate.

The RTC held that the crime committed reached the frustrated stage since the victim was stabbed on the
left side of his stomach and that the victim had to be referred from an infirmary to hospital for medical
treatment. On the other hand, the CA ruled that the crime committed only reached the attempted stage as
there was lack of evidence that the stab wound inflicted was fatal to cause the victim’s death. It was
observed that the attending physician did not testify in court and that the Medical Certificate and the
Discharge Summary issued by the hospital fell short of “specifying the nature or gravity of the wound”.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of attempted homicide instead of frustrated homicide.

Held:

Yes. The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound inflicted which must be supported by
independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause the victim’s death without
timely medical intervention. When nothing in the evidence shows that the wound would be fatal without
medical intervention, the character of the wound enters the realm of doubt; under this situation, the doubt
created by the lack of evidence should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. Thus, the crime committed
should be attempted, not frustrated homicide.
3 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. T/SGT. PORFERIO R. ANGUS, JR.

G.R. No. 178778 - August 3, 2010

FACTS:

Appellant T/Sgt. Porferio R. Angus, Jr. was charged in an Information dated June 7, 2002, as follows:

That on or about the 10th day of January, 2002, at about 10:00 o’clock in the morning, more or less, at
Lanis[i] Patrol Base, Lanis[i], Municipality of Claveria, Province of Misamis Oriental, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to kill, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault, choked and strangled the neck of his legitimate wife
Betty Angus, thereby causing her instantaneous death.

ISSUE: Is the accused guilty of the crime Parricide?

RULING:

No. The Medico-Legal Officer, Dr. Uy explained that if a person hangs herself, most of the time there
will be a fracture on the bone of the neck because of the pressure caused by gravity that pulls the rope.
However, he also testified that if the person hangs herself slowly, there will be no fracture on her neck or
hyoid bone. Thus, the fact that Betty did not sustain a fractured bone on her neck or hyoid bone, as the
doctor observed, does not automatically lead to the conclusion that appellant strangled the victim. Given
the evidence that the victim had intimated her wish to commit suicide a day before the incident, it is not
farfetched to conclude that she indeed chose to take her life.

An acquittal based on reasonable doubt will prosper even though the accused’s innocence may be
doubted, for a criminal conviction rests on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution and not on the
weakness of the defense.

That which is favorable to the accused should be considered.38 After all, mas vale que queden sin castigar
diez reos presuntos, que se castigue uno inocente.39 Courts should be guided by the principle that it would
be better to set free ten (10) men who might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one
(1) innocent man for a crime he did not commit.
4 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3

G.R. No. 175605. August 28, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ARNORLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.K.A “JUNIOR”,

JOEY PAMPLONA A.K.A “NATO” and JESSIE GARCIA Y ADORINO

Facts:
 September 22, 1995, at around 9:00 in the evening, Dulce Borero along with his brother Mauro
Biay y Almarinez was selling “balut” at Sta. Inez Almeda Subdivision, Brgy. Dela Paz, Biñan,
Laguna.
 Dulce Borero was about seven (7) arms length away from her brother Mauro Biay.
 Accused Jessie Garcia called Mauro Biay and as Mauro Biay approached Jessie, the latter twisted
the hand of Mauro and Jessie’s companions (co-accused) Arnold Garchitorena and Joey
Pamplona began stabbing Mauro repeatedly with a shiny bladed instrument. Witness saw her
brother Mauro struggling to free himself while being stabbed by the (3) accused, until her brother
slumped face down on the ground.
 Arnold instructed his two co-accused to run away.
 Borero claims she wanted to shout but nothing came out from her mouth.
 Witness went home to call for her elder brother Teodoro Biay, but when they return to the scene
the victim was no longer there as he had been brought to the Perpetual Help Hospital.
 Trial Court: Guilty, Court of appeals: Affirmed, Supreme Court: Affirmed and Modifications
Defense:
Joey Pamplona – denied that he participated in the stabbing
Jessie Garcia – defense of alibi
Arnold Garchitorena – defense of insanity
Issue/s:
 Is there conspiracy shown in the case? (Art. 8 RPC)

Held:
 Yes, accuse appellants were together in performing the concerted acts in pursuit of their common
objective. Jessie Garcia grabbed the victim’s hands and twisted his arms; in turn, Joey Pamplona,
together with Arnold Garchitorena, strangled Mauro Biay and straddled the Mauro Biay on the
ground, then stabbed him.
5 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3

PEOPLE VS MARAMARA
317 SCRA 223 October 22, 1999

Facts:

A benefit dance was being held in accused-appellants yard. Ricardo Donato, the victim’s brother
was dancing with one Rowena del Rosario when Dante Arce, a friend of accused-appellant approached
them and boxed Ricardo. The latter scampered to a fence where the victim, Miguelito, was about 2 meters
away. Thereafter, accused Maramara was seen drawing his gun tucked in his waist and thereafter shooting
Miguelito, hitting him fatally on the chest. Before the victim died in the hospital, he told his father that it
was the accused who shot him.

The defense however maintained that the accused rushed to the scene when he saw Miguelito and
Ricardo ganging up on Arce. He was allegedly held down by Ricardo while Miguelito repeatedly stabbed
him. Accusedmaintains that he should only be held liable for death caused in a tumultuous affray under
Art 251 of the RPC since he joined the commotionto pacify the group when he was injured by the victim.

Issue: Whether the death of the victim was under the circumstance of a tumultuous affray.

Held:

Assuming that a rumble or a free-for-all fight did occur at the benefit dance, Art 251 cannot
be applied because the accused was positively identified as Miguelito’s killer. The victim’s dying
declaration is a more credible version of the circumstances surrounding the victim’s death.
6 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3

Romeo Sison et al, vs. People of the Philippines and Court of Appeals
GR no. 10820-83 November 16, 1995

FACTS:
On June 27, 1986, Marcos loyalists scheduled a rally at the Luneta but their application for a permit to
hold the rally was denied. They continued with the demonstration anyway. The police arrived and they
could not produce a permit so they were asked to disperse in 10 minutes but instead of leaving, they
became violent (shouting “gulpihin niyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators”). The police pushed them
and used tear gas to disperse them. The group fled to Maria Orosa street and the situation stabilized

A small group of loyalists converged at the Chinese Garden, Phase III of the Luneta. They then saw
Annie Ferrer a starlet and supporter of Marcos. Annie Ferrer learned of their dispersal, she continued
jogging while shouting “Marcos pa rin, Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si Marcos, bugbugin ang mga
nakadilaw” (hindi rhyming). The group answered “Bugbugin!”. Annie was arrested later, which prompted
someone to shout “kailangang gumanti tayo ngayon!” the group then started attacking persons in yellow.
Renato Banculo saw this and removed his yellow shirt.

Banculo later saw the group pursuing a man in yellow who was later found out to be Stephen Salcedo.
The group caught up with Salcedo and boxed, and kicked and mauled him. He tried to free himself but
they kept on hitting him. Ranulfo Sumilang came to Salcedo's help but the group kept on hitting Salcedo,
somebody handed Sumilang a loyalist tag and he then presented this to the group. The group backed off
for a while and Sumilang was able to get Salcedo away from them. But the accused in this case, namely,
Raul Billosos, Richard de los Santos, Joel Tan, Nilo Pacadar, Joselito Tamayo, Romeo Sison continued
with the hitting. Sumilang also saw Gerry Neri but did not see what he did to Salcedo. Salcedo was able
to get away from the group and sat on some cement steps, he tried to flee to Roxas boulevard but Tan and
Pacadar pursued him. Salcedo cried for help but no one answered. The mauling continued at the Rizal
monument until Salcedo eventually collapsed. Sumilang hailed a van and brought Salcedo to the Medical
Center Manila but was refused admission. He was then brought to PGH where he died upon arrival. The
mauling was witnessed by many and the press took pictures and a video of the event which became front-
page news the following day. Cory instructed the Western Police district to investigate on it and Brigadier
General Alfredo Lim offered a P10,000 reward for persons who could give information which could help
arrest the killers. Sumilang and Banculo cooperated with the Police and several persons including the
accused were investigated.

ISSUE: WON the CA erred in giving evidentiary weight to the photographs of the mauling incident.

RULING: No.

SC disagreed and said Art. 251 of the RPC (Death caused in a tumultuous affray) takes place when a
quarrel between several persons and they engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of
which some are killed or wounded and the author cannot be ascertained. But in this case, the “quarrel”
was between a group and an individual. The group took advantage of their superior strength and excessive
force and frustrated any attempt by salcedo to excape. This qualifies the killing to murder. Also the SC
held there was no treachery, though the essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack without
slightest provocation but in this case, the victim had the chance to sense the temper of the group and run
away from them but he was overtaken by them.
7 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3
8 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3

Lenido Lumanog v. People of the Philippines

G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010

 
FACTS:

Appellants were the accused perpetrators of the ambush-slay of former Chief of the Metropolitan
Command Intelligence and Security Group of the Philippine Constabulary (now the Philippine National
Police), Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla. The principal witness for the prosecution was Freddie Alejo, a
security guard employed assigned at 211 Katipunan Avenue, Blue Ridge, Quezon City, where the
ambush-slay happened. As a purported eyewitness, he testified on what he saw during the fateful day,
including the faces of the accused. 

All the accused raised the defense of alibi, highlighted the negative findings of ballistic and
fingerprint examinations, and further alleged torture in the hands of police officers and denial of
constitutional rights during custodial investigation.

The trial court however convicted the accused-appellants. The CA affirmed with modification the
decision of the trial court. The CA upheld the conviction of the accused-appellants based on the credible
eyewitness testimony of Alejo, who vividly recounted before the trial court their respective positions and
participation in the fatal shooting of Abadilla, having been able to witness closely how they committed
the crime.
ISSUE: Were the results of the ballistic and fingerprint tests conclusive of the innocence of the
accused-appellants?

RULING:

NO, the results of the ballistic and fingerprint tests were NOT conclusive of the innocence of the
accused-appellants.

The negative result of ballistic examination was inconclusive, for there is no showing that the
firearms supposedly found in appellants’ possession were the same ones used in the ambush-slay of
Abadilla. The fact that ballistic examination revealed that the empty shells and slug were fired from
another firearm does not disprove appellants’ guilt, as it was possible that different firearms were used by
them in shooting Abadilla.  Neither will the finding that the empty shells and slug matched those in
another criminal case allegedly involving ABB members, such that they could have been fired from the
same firearms belonging to said rebel group, exonerate the appellants who are on trial in this case and not
the suspects in another case.  To begin with, the prosecution never claimed that the firearms confiscated
from appellants, which were the subject of separate charges for illegal possession of firearms, were the
same firearms used in the ambush-slay of Abadilla.  A ballistic examination is not indispensable in this
case.  Even if another weapon was in fact actually used in killing the victim, still, appellants Fortuna and
Lumanog cannot escape criminal liability therefor, as they were positively identified by eyewitness
Freddie Alejo as the ones who shot Abadilla to death.

The negative result of the fingerprint tests conducted by fingerprint examiner Remedios is
likewise inconclusive and unreliable.  Said witness admitted that no prints had been lifted from inside the
KIA Pride and only two (2) fingerprints were taken from the car of Abadilla.
9 | Page Criminal Law II - Week 3

G.R. No. 170136             January 18, 2008

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROBERT BRODETT y PAJARO

Facts:
Herein appellant Robert Brodett was charged for the murder of Dr. April Duque, his live-in
partner, whose body was found burning on the spillway of Laoac Alacala. The sole witness to the
killing was Giobert, their five year old son, who testified in court that he saw his father hit his
mother with a hammer and thereafter stab her. Appellant was found guilty and the aggravating
circumstances of superior strength, dwelling, disrespect on account of sex, cruelty, and scoffing
at the corpse, were considered to have attended the killing of the victim, thus the court sentenced
him to death by lethal injection.

Issue:
Whether the aggravating circumstances of superior strength, dwelling, disrespect on account of
sex, cruelty, and scoffing at the corpse should be considered to have attended the killing of Dr.
April Duque

Ruling:
The court ruled that the killing of April was attended with treachery, because the injuries
suffered by April clearly show that she did not have any chance to defend herself. The
aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength was also appreciated but is already
absorbed in treachery. Furthermore the court appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
outraging or scoffing at the victim’s corpse because it was burned and left on the spillway in
order to conceal the crime. The Court however did not appreciate dwelling and disrespect on
account of sex because appellant and April resided in the same house and appellant did not
deliberately intend to insult or disrespect April’s womanhood.
10 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS JANJALANI - G.R. No. 188314 January 10, 2011

FACTS:

On February 14, 2005 night, the bus conductor of RRCG bus noticed two men running after the bus. The
two insisted on getting on the bus and so the conductor obliged and let them in. Elmer Andales, the bus
conductor, immediately became wary due to their unusual conduct. One of the two men sat two seats
behind the driver while the other sat at the back of the bus. Both of them paid for two passengers. At that
point, Andales became certain that the two were up to no good. As soon as the bus reached the stoplight
at the corner of Ayala avenue and EDSA, the two men insisted on getting off the bus. The bus driver
initially did not want to let them off the bus due to a Makati ordinance prohibiting the unloading except at
designated bus stop. Eventually, the bus driver gave in and allowed the two passengers to alight. The two
immediately got off the bus. Moments after, Andales felt an explosion and saw that the bus was on fire.
He ran out of the bus and when he went back he saw their passengers either lying on the ground or
looking traumatized. After the explosion, the spokesperson for Abu Sayyaff announced over radio that the
explosion was a valentine’s gift for the former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Accused Trinidad, in an exclusive interview, confessed his participation in the Valentine’s Day bombing.
Baharan, in another exclusive interview, likewise admitted his role in the bombing incident. Finally,
accused Asali gave a television interview, confessing that he had supplied the explosive devises for the
bombing. The accused were then charged with multiple murder and multiple frustrated murder. Only
Baharan, Trinidad, Asali, and Rohmat were arrested, while the other accused members of Abu Sayyaf
remain at-large.

ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in accepting accused-appellants plea of guilt despite
insufficiency of searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of
the said plea.

RULING: The Court ruled that it was unnecessary to rule on the sufficiency of the “searching inquiry.”
Accused-appellants Baharan and Trinidad argued that the trial court did not conduct a searching inquiry
after they had changed their plea from not guilty to guilty.

The stringent procedure governing the section of a plea of guilt, especially in a case involving the death
penalty, is imposed upon the trial judge in order to leave no room for doubt on the possibility that the
accused might have misunderstood the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. Likewise,
the requirement to conduct a searching inquiry should not be deemed satisfied in cases which it was the
defence counsel who explained the consequences of a “guilty” plea to the accused, as it appears in the
case.
11 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. SANDY DOMINGO

G.R. No. 225743, June 7, 2017 

BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts: An Information was filed charging appellant with the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape in
this wise: That accused, motivated by lust and with lewd designs, and by means of force, feloniously,
abduct and take away one AAA, against her will, and thereafter, by means of force, violence and
intimidation, with the use of a bladed weapon and actuated by lust and lewd designs, have carnal
knowledge of said victim.

Appellant claimed that he and AAA eloped and went to the house of his brother-in-law. They spent the
night there and agreed that they will go to her Aunt's house and get her things and will proceed to Bicol.
When they reached her aunt's house, AAA went inside while he waited. After a few minutes, a man came
out and chased him with a bolo which prompted him to run. At around 7:00 o'clock in the morning, he
was at his sister's house when the policemen arrived and informed him that there was a complaint filed
against him.

The RTC and CA convicted appellant for forcible abduction with rape.

Issue: Whether or not appellant is guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

Ruling: The appellant should be convicted only of rape. Under Article 342 of the RPC, the elements of
forcible abduction are: (1) the taking of a woman against her will; and (2) with lewd designs. The crime
of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when the abductor has carnal knowledge of
the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the
woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under 12 years of age
or is demented.

Although the elements of forcible abduction obtained, his forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by the
rape considering that his real objective in abducting her was to commit the rape.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the main objective of the culprit for the abduction of the victim of rape was to
have carnal knowledge of her, he could be convicted only of rape.
12 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

People of the Philippines vs. Reynaldo Barde

G.R. No. 183094, September 22, 2010
Facts:
That on or about the 15th day of April, 1999 at more or less 12:30 oclock in the morning, at Sitio
Santo Nio, Barangay Liguan, Municipality of Rapu-Rapu, Province of Albay, Philippines and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named [appellant and Jimmy],
conspiring and confederating and acting in concert to achieve a common purpose, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously, with intent to kill and committed with the qualifying
circumstances of treachery (alevosia), evident premeditation, and by means of explosion,
did then and there roll and explode a hand grenade (M26-A1 Fragmentation grenade) inside the
dance area which exploded and resulted to the instantaneous deaths of 15 persons.
This single act of exploding the hand grenade (M26-A1 Fragmentation grenade) by the above-
named [appellant and Jimmy] also caused and resulted in the injuries and wounding on the
different and various parts of the bodies of at least seventy six (76) persons.

Issue:
Whether the court is correct in convicting the appellant for complex crime of multiple murder
with double attempted murder.

Ruling:
Yes. Complex Crime; penalty. ART. 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides that when 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. Appellant’s single act of detonating an explosive device may
quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component
criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is
imposed because the offender was impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser
degree of perversity. Thus, applying the aforesaid provision of law, the maximum penalty for the
most serious crime, which is murder, is death. Pursuant, however, to Republic Act No. 9346
which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the appellate court properly reduced the
penalty of death which it previously imposed upon the appellant to reclusion perpetua. 
13 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

People vs Catbagan
GR No 149430-32 February 23, 2004
FACTS:
After receiving complaints about the gunshots coming from the residence of Danilo Lapidante, who was
then was celebrating his birthday, appellant Carmelo Catbagan, an investigator of the Criminal
Investigation Service, Philippine National Police, went to the latter’s house to verify who among their
group had been firing the Armalite rifle. Suddenly, a piece of stone was hurled from the direction of the
celebrant’s house, hitting Catbagan. Irritated, he ordered his companion, Zosimo Pavabier, to look for the
one who threw the stone. At that moment, Sgt. Celso Suico of the Philippine Air Force and of the
Presidential Security Group, the one responsible for firing the shots, approached and extended his hand
towards Catbagan as he introduced himself. Completely ignoring the gesture of the latter, Catbagan drew
out his .9mm automatic pistol and fired successively at Suico. Ernesto Lacaden, companion of Suico, who
was abruptly awakened as the shots were fired, disembarked from the parked owner-type jeep where he
was sleeping. Unexpectedly, two shots were also fired at him by Catbagan. Almost simultaneously,
Catbagan directed his attention to Lapidante who was then inside their compound and running towards
the main door of their house upon the prompting of his wife to evade the assailant. But before he could
reach the safety of their abode, two rapid shots were fired by Catbagan, one of which hit him in the upper
part of his body. As a consequence of the injuries they sustained, Suico and Lapidante died, whereas
Lacaden had to be treated and confined in the hospital.
In his defense, Catbagan argued that he was justified in shooting the victims, as he was merely defending
himself and fulfilling his sworn duties. He claimed that the victims were rushing and encircling him,
Lacaden toting an ice-pick while Suico drew a gun from his waist and aimed the pistol at him.
Simultaneously, he heard Lapidante shouting, which he believed was asking for a long gun. Threatened of
his safety, he drew his own gun fired at the aggressors. He then surrendered himself and his firearms to
his superior officer at the CIDG Office. The lower court, nonetheless, convicted him with the crime of
homicide, murder, and frustrated murder.

ISSUE: Whether or not the characterization of the crimes charged by the trial court was correct.

HELD:

No. The crimes were not properly characterized except with the case of Suico. Treachery was alleged in
the case, thus qualifying the shooting of Lapidante and Lacaden as murder and frustrated murder
respectively. In order to establish treachery, the following must be proven: 1) the employment of such
means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and
2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. With regard to the shooting of
Lapidante and Lacaden, the Court held that even if the positions of the victims were vulnerable, there was
still no treachery, as the appellant did not deliberately adopt such mode of attack. His decision to shoot
them was clearly sudden. Thus, in the case of Lapidante, the Court modified the crime from murder to
homicide; while in the case of Lacaden, the crime was modified from frustrated murder to less serious
physical injuries.
14 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

People of the Philippines vs Ronnie Caluag

GR No. 171511 – March 4, 2009

FACTS:

In the afternoon of March 19, 2000, around 4 o’clock in the afternoon, Nestor learned that two of his
guests from an earlier drinking spree were mauled. At that time, Caluag and Sentillas were drinking at the
store owned by the son of Sentillas. When Nestor inquired from several people including his own son
Raymond what happened, Caluag butted in and replied, "Bakit kasama ka ba roon?," and immediately
boxed him without warning. Nestor retaliated but he was overpowered by Caluag and Sentillas. Julia saw
Caluag and Sentillas box her husband. Although she tried to pacify them, they did not listen to her. To
avoid his assailants, Nestor ran to his house. Julia followed him. At around 6:00 p.m., Nestor told his wife
to report the boxing incident to the barangay authorities.

Later, at around 7:30 in the evening, when Julia and her son Rotsen were on their way to their barangay
hall, she encountered Caluag, who blocked her way at the alley near her house. Caluag confronted Julia
with a gun, poked it at her forehead, and said "Saan ka pupunta, gusto mo ito?" Despite this fearful
encounter, she was still able to proceed to the barangay hall where she reported the gun-poking incident
to the barangay authorities.

ISSUE: Was there sufficient evidence to sustain petitioner’s conviction of slight physical injuries and of
grave threats?

RULING:

NO. SC finds the petition with insufficient merit and accordingly sustain petitioner’s conviction.

Petitioner contends that he was able to present Barrameda, an independent and impartial witness, who
supported his version of events and debunked those of Nestor and Julia. Contrary to the findings of the
lower courts that petitioner offered mere denials, Barrameda’s testimony is actually a positive statement
that should have been given full credit. Petitioner also argues that although the lower courts
acknowledged that Nestor was drunk and troublesome at the time of the incident, they chose to believe
his testimony rather than petitioner’s. Petitioner adds that there is no basis for the lower courts to
conclude that he lost his temper because of Nestor’s unruly behavior. Petitioner maintains that just
because Julia immediately reported the gun-poking incident to the barangay, this did not necessarily mean
that it actually happened. Petitioner also argues that assuming that he did poke a gun at Julia, the crime
committed was other light threats as defined under Article 285, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code.
15 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3
16 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

People vs. Demetrio Salazar

GR No. 146803 October 20, 2010

Facts: 

Salazar was charged with two (2) counts of statutory rape committed on May 18 and June 25,
1999 against AAA, a 12-year-old daughter of BBB with whom Salazar was
cohabiting. Thereafter,  AAA purportedly  executed  an Affidavit of Desistance wherein she
stated that she was not raped by Salazar and that  she  no  longer  intends  to  pursue  the  cases
filed  against  Salazar.  During  the hearing, she explained that her own mother forced her to
execute the affidavit upon threat of harm. The RTC  convicted  the  accused with  two  counts  of
statutory  rape  but the CA  modified  it  by 2 simple  rapes because  AAA  has  failed  to  present
evidence  that  she  was  a  minor  when  the crime  was  committed. According to the CA, a
baptismal certificate is not sufficient proof of the age of a person. 

Salazar appealed, claiming that the instant case should have been dismissed by the trial court,
considering that AAA had executed an affidavit of desistance exonerating him from the crimes
charged. 

Issue: Whether or not is guilty of statutory rape

RULING:

No. In order for the accused to be found guilty of the crime of statutory rape in
this jurisdiction, the Court held in People v. Tampos, that two (2) elements must
concur: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim; and (2) that
the victim is below twelve (12) years old.

Without a doubt, the baptismal certificate of AAA that was presented during the
trial of the case coupled with the testimony of DDD, the aunt of AAA, sufficiently
established that the victim was twelve years old at the time the crimes were
committed. Having been born on April 10, 1987, when the first rape occurred on
May 18, 1999, AAA was exactly 12 years, one month, and 8 days old at the first
rape incident.
17 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

G.R. No. 146803             January 14, 2004

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 
vs.
CLEMENTINO LOU y GALINDO alias "Junior,"

FACTS:

At midnight of 22 April 1996, Elgie S. Bulaqueña was already asleep in their house in Purok 8, Balite,
Sinug-ang, Bayugan III, Rosario, Agusan del Sur, when she was awakened by appellant. He lifted her
skirt, removed her panty, and tried to insert his penis into her vagina but initially failed as she made
"some movements." Although he finally succeeded in inserting his penis into her vagina, the penetration,
however, was not completely achieved. Elgie cried, but, afraid of his threat to kill her, Elgie remained in
the room and did not tell her mother, Judith Bulaqueña, about what had transpired. Instead, she asked the
help of her uncle who, thereupon, accompanied her to the police station. The police had Elgie medically
examined at the rural health center.

Dr. Rebecca R. Aquino examined Elgie on 24 April 1996, and prepared a medico-legal report. She found
Elgie to have had "completely healed lacerations" at the 3 and 8 o’clock hymenal positions but that there
were no abrasions, hematoma and contusions. Dr. Aquino explained that the laceration could have been
caused by sexual intercourse, "medical instrumentation," the "passage of clotted blood thru
menstruation," or "severe physical exertion.

ISSUE: Whether or not the accused was guilty of the crime of Rape based on Carnal Knowledge.

RULING:

Yes. Clementino Lou y Galindo is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple
rape.

The medical report that there have been "healed lacerations" found in the 3 and 8 o’clock hymenal
positions would not refute the existence of rape. Proof of entry of the male organ within the labia of
the pudendum is sufficient. The full penetration of the victim’s sex organ is not required to consummate
the crime of rape. Neither is proof of hymenal laceration an element of rape. In People v. Madronio, the
Court has said that the "presence of an old healed laceration on [the victim’s] hymen does not negate the
commission of rape," and that a "freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of the crime."
Moreover, a medico-legal report is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape case, it being merely
corroborative in nature. In this case, the medical report also reflects the fact that the victim has had "[n]o
abrasions, hematoma and contusions" in "the vulva or in other parts of the body," that belie appellant’s
claim that he only "mauled" the victim with his bare hands, instead of sexually abusing her, that night of
22 April 1996. There is fact that different people react differently to given situations and that there is no
known standard form of human behavioral response when confronted particularly with a frightful
experience.
18 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

People vs Calongui G.R. No. 170566 March 3, 2006

FACTS: 2:00 AM of January 1, 1998, Marinel, who was 13 years old at that time, slept in the same room
as the appellant, Calongui and her three siblings. She was awaken and found that her shorts and panties
were already removed by Calongui. He threatened Marinel that he would kill her and her siblings if she
would resist his sexual advances. Marinel, however, tried to repel his sexual assault by moving her body
and kicking Calongui’s thighs but he still succeeded in having sexual congress with her. The next
morning, Marinel learned that her brother, Noel, who was 12 years old at that time, saw the incident but
pretended to be asleep out of fear that Calongui would harm him.  Marinel told her brother not to tell
anyone what he saw and she also did not say anything to her parents out of fear that Calongui would
make good his threats. On September 26, 1998 at 3:00AM, Calongui again raped Marinel which was
witnessed by Noel. She was undressed from waist down and threatened that she and her siblings be killed
if she resisted. Shortly after the second rape incident, Calongui worked as a laborer at B-Meg and stayed
at B-Meg barracks. Encouraged by his absence, Marinel told her mother what happened which led to the
filing of the instant criminal cases. Noel testified that he saw her sister being raped by Calongui and on
both occasions he pretended to be asleep out of fear and that he did not report the incident to his parents
upon Marinel’s instructions and also because of Calongui’s threats. Dr. Salvacion Pantorgo, Medical
Officer at the Bicol Medical Center in Naga City also testified that she physically examined Marinel on
November 18, 1998 and found some superficial laceration on Marinel’s organ. Dr. Pantorgo also found
Marinel to be in a non-virgin state.

Calongui denied that he had sexual intercourse with Marinel on January 1, 1998. He also claimed that the
September 26, 1998 incident was consensual since he and Marinel were sweethearts at that time. In its
December 23, 2002 decision, the RTC of Camarines Sur convicted Calongui for two counts of rape;
sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and was ordered to indemnify the victim P 50, 000.00 as civil
liability, P 50, 00.00 as moral damages and P 30, 000.00 as exemplary damages for each count of rape.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the RTC with modification as to the payment of exemplary
damages. Hence, this appeal.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sexual intercourse was consensual because they are sweethearts, if not, does
the victim’s failure to offer tenacious resistance makes the act consensual.

RULING: No. The SC stated that it is already a well-settled rule that the sweethearts defense must be
proven by compelling evidence, specifically, that the accused and the victim were lovers and that the
victim consented to the alleged sexual relations. The appellant’s claim that he and Marinel were lovers
remained uncorroborated and unsubstantiated for there are no momentos, notes, pictures, and love letters
presented. Marinel also denied the alleged love relationship on direct cross-examination. Besides, the
sweethearts defense cannot also rule out rape and even if it were true, the relationship does not, by itself,
establish consent for love is not a license for lust.

The appellant’s claim that Marinel has bigger physique than him and could have resited and overcome his
advances or could have shouted for help since her siblings and parents were nearby is also untenable. The
time the rape incidents occurred, Marinel was still 13 years old thus she cannot be expected to put up a
resistance as would be expected from a mature woman. Marinel also testified that she was not of bigger
built than the appellant at the time of the incident although she looked bigger than the appellant at the
time she testified after the incidents two years ago. Moreover, Marinel’s failure to offer tenacious
resistance did not make voluntary her submission to the criminal acts. The presence of force, threats and
intimidation during the two rape incidents was also clearly established by the testimony of Marinel during
the cross-examination. The SC therefore denied the appeal and affirmed CA’s decision dated October 26,
2005 modifying the December 23, 2002 Judgment of the RTC of Camarines Sur.
19 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

People of the Philipines Vs. Elmer Baldo - G.R. No. 175238 February 24, 2009

FACTS: 29 year old AAA, appellant, and Norman Echani were housemates in a small one-room house
in Purok Maligaya II, Mambugan, Antipolo City. Appellant is her nephew while Echani is her cousin. As
AAA recently resigned from her job and appellant worked during the night shift in a factory, the two were
always left during daytime when Echani was at work. On February 10, 2000 at 1:00 p.m., appellant
professed his love for AAA in their living room. She, however, admonished him against his protestation
for they are relatives. He then told her that if she ignores him, he would rape her. She pleaded to him not
to do anything against her will if he really liked her. Appellant then held her left hand and poked
a balisong (fan knife) at her, and then removed her pants and panty while she was seated at a bench. Then
he dragged her and laid her on the floor, removed his shorts and brief, and placed himself on top of her.
AAA tried to resist by kicking him but he was stronger. Thereafter he placed the knife aside, then held
and pressed her thighs. He then fingered her vagina with his right hand and inserted his penis into it. After
two minutes, appellant stood up but threatened to kill her if she reported the incident to their relatives. As
she was in shock, AAA just stayed in her room. Appellant thereafter left for work at 5:30 p.m.

According to AAA, appellant repeated his beastly act the following day, February 11 and on the next day,
February 12, 2000. In the evening of February 12, 2000, AAA decided to tell Echani what appellant had
done to her. Echani and his brother, Abraham, then accompanied her to the barangay hall to file
complaints against appellant.cThe medico-legal police officer who examined AAA on February 13, 2000
found "deep healing laceration" in her hymen, "compatible with recent loss of virginity" but negative for
spermatozoa.6 Dr. James Belgira testified that the laceration could have been caused by a penetration of a
hard object like an erect penis. He also found contusions on AAA’s left arm and thighs.7

ISSUE: Is the accused guilty of rape?

RULING: SC Finds ELMER BALDO y SANTAIN guilty of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

The "sweetheart theory" or "sweetheart defense" is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the
intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to
such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial
evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens,
mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense.

Moreover, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, a love affair does not justify rape. As wisely
ruled in a previous case, a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal
desires.

AAA’s failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken against her since such
negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to appellant’s criminal act. In
rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the
time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the
same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while
others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too
intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has
no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her.
As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.
In this case, the presence of a fan knife on hand or by his side speaks loudly of appellant’s use of
violence, or force and intimidation.
20 | P a g e Criminal Law II - Week 3

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

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff,
vs.
PRIMO CAMPUHAN Y BELLO, accused.
Facts:
Campuhan was a helper in the business of the family of the victim, a 4-year-old girl. One time, the mother
of the victim heard the latter cry, “Ayoko!”, prompting her to rush upstairs. There, she saw Campuhan
kneeling before the victim, whose pajamas and pany were already removed, while his short pants were
down to his knees. Campuhan was apprehended. Physical examination of the victim yielded negative
results. No evident sign of extra-genital physical injury was noted. Her hymen was intact and its orifice
was only .5 cm in diameter.. Trial court found him guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death.

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

Held: NO.
The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape is carnal knowledge of woman below 12 as provided in
RPC 335(3). The victim was only 4 years old when the molestation took place, thus raising the penalty
from “reclusion perpetua to death” to the single indivisible penalty of death under RA 7659 Sec. 11, the
offended party being below 7 years old. In concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration
of the vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of hymen necessary; the mere
touching of external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act is sufficient to
constitute carnal knowledge. But the act of touching should be understood as inherently part of the entry
of penis into the labias of the female organ, and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the
pudendum (the part instantly visible within the surface). Absent any showing of the slightest penetration
of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most,
it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. Here, the prosecution failed to discharge its
onus of proving that Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate the victim’s vagina however slight. Also,
there were no external signs of physical injuries on the victim’s body to conclude that penetration had
taken place.

Issue #2:
What crime did Campuhan commit?

Held #2: ATTEMPTED RAPE.

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

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

Held #3: NO.
In People vs Orita, SC finally did away with frustrated rape. Rape was consummated from the moment
the offender had carnal knowledge of the victim. All elements of the offense were already present and
nothing more was left for the offender to do. Perfect penetration was not essential; any penetration of the
female organ by the male organ, however slight, was sufficient. For attempted rape, there was no
penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution were performed or the offender merely
commenced the commission of the felony directly by overt acts.