VALENZUELA V.

People of the Philippines In a Decision promulgated on 1 February 2000, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Quezon City, Branch 90, convicted both petitioner and Calderon of the crime of
Facts: (Tinga, J.) consummated theft. They were sentenced to an indeterminate prison term of two (2)
years of prision correccional as minimum to seven (7) years of prision mayor as
maximum. The RTC found credible the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
The case stems from an Information charging petitioner Aristotel Valenzuela
and established the convictions on the positive identification of the accused as
(petitioner) and Jovy Calderon (Calderon) with the crime of theft. On 19 May 1994,
perpetrators of the crime.
at around 4:30 p.m., petitioner and Calderon were sighted outside the Super Sale
Club, a supermarket within the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by
Lorenzo Lago (Lago), a security guard who was then manning his post at the open Issue:
parking area of the supermarket. Lago saw petitioner, who was wearing an
identification card with the mark “Receiving Dispatching Unit (RDU),” hauling a push WON petitioner Valenzuela is guilty only of frustrated theft.
cart with cases of detergent of the well-known “Tide” brand. Petitioner unloaded
Held:
these cases in an open parking space, where Calderon was waiting. Petitioner then
returned inside the supermarket, and after five (5) minutes, emerged with more
cartons of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded these boxes to the same area in the Petition dismissed. We thus conclude that under the Revised Penal Code, there is
open parking space. no crime of frustrated theft. As petitioner has latched the success of his appeal on
our acceptance of the Diño and Flores rulings, his petition must be denied, for we
decline to adopt said rulings in our jurisdiction. That it has taken all these years for
Thereafter, petitioner left the parking area and haled a taxi. He boarded the cab and
us to recognize that there can be no frustrated theft under the Revised Penal Code
directed it towards the parking space where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded
does not detract from the correctness of this conclusion. It will take considerable
the cartons of Tide Ultramatic inside the taxi, then boarded the vehicle. All these
amendments to our Revised Penal Code in order that frustrated theft may be
acts were eyed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it was leaving the open
recognized. Our deference to Viada yields to the higher reverence for legislative
parking area. When Lago asked petitioner for a receipt of the merchandise,
intent.
petitioner and Calderon reacted by fleeing on foot, but Lago fired a warning shot to
alert his fellow security guards of the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were
apprehended at the scene, and the stolen merchandise recovered. The filched items Ruling:
seized from the duo were four (4) cases of Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25
grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the goods with an aggregate WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Costs against petitioner.
value of P12,090.00.
Rodolfo Velasco vs. People of the Philippines
Petitioner and Calderon were first brought to the SM security office before they were G.R. No. 166479 February 28, 2006
transferred on the same day to the Baler Station II of the Philippine National Police,
Quezon City, for investigation. It appears from the police investigation records that Facts:
apart from petitioner and Calderon, four (4) other persons were apprehended by the
security guards at the scene and delivered to police custody at the Baler PNP (Chico-Nazario) on April 19, 1998, at 7:30 am, complainant Frederick Maramba was
Station in connection with the incident. However, after the matter was referred to the cleaning his owner-type jeep when a tricycle stopped near him. Rodolfo Velasco got
Office of the Quezon City Prosecutor, only petitioner and Calderon were charged out, approached Maramba, and then shot at him, wounding him on his upper left
with theft by the Assistant City Prosecutor, in Informations prepared on 20 May arm. He continued shooting even though Maramba was running away from him, but
1994, the day after the incident.   he missed. He went back to the tricycle and told the driver to go to Brgy. Banaoang
in Calasiao. The incident was reported to the police, who pursued the accused and
caught up with him. Frederick Maramba, complainant, and Armando Maramba (AM
for brevity), the tricycle driver, both identified him as the one responsible. According fired at him for no reason at all. Having commenced the criminal act by overt acts
to AM, he was picked up by the accused, ordered him to go to the place where the but failing to perform all acts of execution as to produce the felony by reason of
complainant was, then got out and fired at complainant, went back to the tricycle, some cause other that his own desistance, the accused committed an attempted
ordered him to go to Calasiao, then alighted and took another tricycle. This felony. With a sudden attack of seven shots, it was held that he had the intent to kill,
testimony reinforced the earlier statement given by complainant. but failed to perform all acts of execution because of reasons independent of his will
(i.e. poor aim and swiftness of the complainant while running). Although attaining a
The defense of the accused was that on April 18, 1998, stayed at the house of a wound on his left arm, it was not sufficient to cause death, thereby making it only
friend in Lingayen, Pangasinan. He left tomorrow morning, April 19, at between 6:00 attempted.
to 7:00, riding a Volkswagen car of one Berting Soriano, dropping him off at
Banaoang diversion road. He took a tricycle to the foot of the bridge in Bayambang. Baleros v. People of the Philippines
While on the way to Calasiao, he was stopped by three men, with guns pointed at
him, who introduced themselves as police. They brought him back to the police Facts:
station, interrogated him (accused denied having fired at complainant), and put him
in the Dagupan City Jail. In this petition for review on certiorari, petitioner Renato Baleros, Jr. assails and
seeks the reversal of the January 13, 1999 decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
Issue: CA-G.R. CR No. 17271 as reiterated in its March 31, 1999 resolution2 denying
petitioner’s motion for reconsideration.
WON the defenses of denial and alibi are enough to warrant acquittal of the
accused The assailed decision affirmed an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 91-101642 finding petitioner Renato
WON the conviction of the accused should be for ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE only, Baleros, Jr. y David (CHITO) guilty of attempted rape.3
not ATTEMPTED MURDER
Martina Lourdes T. Albano and the accuse RENATO BALEROS, JR ar both student
Held: of Medicine in UST. The crime was happen in Celestial Marie Building at sampaloc
manila early in the morning were in Malou was awakened by the smell of chemical
Petition denied. Decision of trial court and CA is herby affirmed. on a piece of cloth pressed on her face. She struggled but could not move.
Somebody was pinning her down on the bed, holding her tightly. She wanted to
Ruling: scream for help but the hands covering her mouth with cloth wet with chemicals
were very tight Still, MALOU continued fighting off her attacker by kicking him until
No. The testimonies given by the complainant and Armando Maramba are enough at last her right hand got free. With this …the opportunity presented itself when she
to warrant conviction of the accused. His alibi was not at all strong, as his said was able to grab hold of his sex organ which she then squeezed. Malou tell the
whereabouts during the time of the crime was merely 10 minutes away; therefore it incedent immediately to the security guard. Malou wasn’t able to see the face of the
is not impossible for him to go to the place where the shooting commenced. No attacker but she feel the attackers clothes and weight. The upper garment was of
matter how he denies having taken part in the shooting, no matter what alibi he cotton material while that at the lower portion felt smooth and satin-like. He was
thinks of, the statements of eyewitnesses will always be held credible. It was wearing was wearing a t-shirt and shorts.
positive identification coming from two eyewitnesses; therefore his denial and alibi
cannot stand. As the investigations prosper all the evidence that will lead Chito to the crime
become stronger.
No. One of the pre-requisites of murder is treachery, wherein there is a swift and
unexpected attack on an unarmed victim without the slightest provocation on the
part of the victim. The complainant was washing his jeep until suddenly the accused
Therefore decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
in Criminal Case No. 91-101642 finding petitioner Renato Baleros, Jr. y David
(CHITO) guilty of attempted rape. c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
Renato Baleros, appealed for the said decision of the RTC in CA-G.R. CR No.
17271 as reiterated in its March 31, 1999 resolution2 denying petitioner’s motion for In the present case, the positive identification of the petitioner forms part of
reconsideration. circumstantial evidence, which, when taken together with the other pieces of
evidence constituting an unbroken chain, leads to only fair and reasonable
Issue: conclusion, which is that petitioner was the intruder in question.

Renato is now with the Supreme Court to content that CA erred : However the court also said that the explanation of the Solicitor General is merely
anticipation of the next move of the petitioner which is against the rule on evidence
1. In not finding that it is improbable for petitioner to have committed the attempted in criminal cases. For, mere speculations and probabilities cannot substitute for
rape imputed to him, absent sufficient, competent and convincing evidence to prove proof required to establish the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.
the offense charged.
The Court also stressed out that under article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, rape
2. In convicting petitioner of attempted rape on the basis merely of circumstantial is committed by a man who has carnal knowledge or intercourse with a woman
evidence since the prosecution failed to satisfy all the requisites for conviction based under any of the following circumstances: (1) By using force or intimidation; (2)
thereon. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) When the
woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. Under Article 6, in relation to
3. In not finding that the circumstances it relied on to convict the petitioner are the aforementioned article of the same code, rape is attempted when the offender
unreliable, inconclusive and contradictory. commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does not perform all
the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape by reason of some
4. In not finding that proof of motive is miserably wanting in his case. cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. Straightly speaking,
there is attempted or frustrated rape if there is penetration to the sexual organ which
5. In awarding damages in favor of the complainant despite the fact that the award
is not present in the bar.
was improper and unjustified absent any evidence to prove the same.
The Court is not saying that petitioner is innocent, under the premises, of any
6. In failing to appreciate in his favor the constitutional presumption of innocence
wrongdoing whatsoever. The information filed against petitioner contained an
and that moral certainty has not been met, hence, he should be acquitted on the
allegation that he forcefully covered the face of Malou with a piece of cloth soaked in
ground that the offense charged against him has not been proved beyond
chemical. And during the trial, Malou testified about the pressing against her face of
reasonable doubt.
the chemical-soaked cloth and having struggled after petitioner held her tightly and
Held: pinned her down. Verily, while the series of acts committed by the petitioner do not
determine attempted rape, as earlier discussed, they constitute unjust vexation
Section 4 of Rule 133 of the Rules of Court provides the conditions when punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the
circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction. The provision reads: Revised Penal Code. In the context of the constitutional provision assuring an
accused of a crime the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient – Circumstantial evidence is accusation,
sufficient for conviction if –
Decision:
a) There is more than one circumstance;
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that of the The accused appealed to the CA and the CA modified the RTC’s decision that the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new accused was guilty of ATTEMPTED MURDER and sentenced to 2 years
one entered ACQUITTING petitioner Renato D. Baleros, Jr. of the charge for imprisonment to 6 years and 1 day and all other decisions of the RTC was affirmed.
attempted rape. Petitioner, however, is adjudged GUILTY of light coercion and is
accordingly sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of P200.00, The accused petitioned with the Supreme Court alleging that the prosecution failed
with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay the costs. to prove that they had the intention to kill Ruben when they mauled and hit him with
a hollow block. They also said that based on the testimony of the attending
RIVERA vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES physician of Ruben, he only sustained superficial wounds; hence, they should only
be held criminally liable for physical injuries. Furthermore they also contend that
G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006 even if they had the intent to kill Ruben, the prosecution failed to prove treachery;
hence, they should only be held guilty of attempted homicide.
Petitioners: Esmeraldo Rivera, Ismael Rivera, Edgardo Rivera
Issue:
Respondent: People of the Philippines (Ruben Rodil)
Whether or not the accused should held guilty of physical injuries or attempted
Facts: homicide only.
(CALLEJO, SR., J.:) One afternoon Ruben Rodil went to a store to buy food. Held:
Edgardo mocked him of being jobless and dependent to his wife, which resulted to
a heated exchange of words. The next day when Ruben, together with his 3 year The decision of the CA was affirmed with modification that petitioners should suffer
old daughter, went to the store again to buy food and look for his wife; suddenly, an indeterminate penalty of 2 years imprisonment as minimum to 9 years and 4
Esmeraldo and his two brothers emerged from their house and ganged up on months as maximum.
Ruben. Esmeraldo and Ismael mouled Ruben with fist blows and while he fell to
the ground and in helpless position Edgardo hit Ruben with cement hollow blocks Ruling:
in the head 3 times, while Esmeraldo and Ruben continued mauling Ruben. A
policeman on board a mobile car arrived Edgardo, Esmeraldo, and Ruben fled to On the first assigned error that the prosecution failed to proved the petitioners intent
their house. Ruben was brought to the hospital and his attending physician to kill Ruben: according to the attending physician, Ruben could have been killed if
declared that Ruben sustained lacerated wounds in the head, cerebral concussion the hollow block directly hit his head, and if the police did not arrived which caused
or contusion, hematoma on the left upper buttocks and other superficial injuries. the Rivera siblings to scampered away. When a wound is not sufficient to cause
The doctor declared that the lacerated wound in the head was slight and superficial death, but the intent to kill is evident, the crime is attempted. Intent to kill was shown
and would heal from one day to seven days. by the fact that the 3 brothers helped each other too maul the defenseless victim,
and even after he had fallen to the ground; that one of them picked up a cement
The Rivera brothers testified a different story, that Ruben arrived at Esmeraldo’s hollow block and hit Ruben on the head 3 times, and that it was only the arrival of
house and banged the gate. Ruben challenged him and his brothers came out and the policemen that made the 3 brothers to desist from their concerted act of trying to
fight. When Esmeraldo came out to talked to Ruben, he punched him. They kill Ruben. And also based on the testimonies of the witnesses, it was revealed the
wrestled and fell to the ground, and during the process Ruben’s head hit the lamp suddenness and unexpectedness of the attack of the petitioners.
post. And when his wife arrived they leave.
The petitioners also contends that the victim sustained only superficial injuries and,
The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of thus, not life threatening. The Supreme Court held that the nature of injury does not
frustrated murder sentencing them to an imprisonment of 6 years and 1 day to 8 negate the intention to kill. Even if Edgardo did not hit the victim squarely on the
years with civil indemnity of P30,000.00. head, petitioners are still criminally liable for attempted murder. The last paragraph
of Art. 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines an attempt to commit a felony, thus: Issue/s:
“There is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony Whether or not the crime committed by the petitioner was an attempted rape or an
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should act of lasciviousness; and
produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own
spontaneous deistance.” Whether or not the prosecution was able to present a quantum proof necessary to
establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt.
The Supreme Court also rejects the petitioners’ contention that the prosecution
failed to prove treachery in the commission of the felony. Petitioners attacked the Held:
victim in a sudden and unexpected manner as Ruben was walking with his 3 year The petitioners acts of lying on top of Julita, embracing and kissing her, mashing her
old daughter, without knowledge of the imminent peril to his life. He had no chance breasts, inserting his hand inside her panty and touching her sexual organ do not
to defend himself and retaliate. He was overwhelmed by the synchronized assault of constitute attempted rape since there was no forced entry of the penis to Julita’s sex
the 3 siblings. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on the organ. The medical examination conducted on Julita Tria presented no evidence of
victim. Even if the attack is frontal but is sudden and unexpected, giving no any insertion or penetration of her sexual organ, only bruises. The act merely
opportunity for the victim to repel it or defend himself, there would be treachery. constitutes an act of lasciviousness, the elements of which are:
Obviously, petitioners assaulted the victim because of the heated exchange of 1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness
words between him and petitioner Edgardo Rivera a day before. There being 2. (a)that it is done by forece and intimidation or (b)when the offended
conspiracy by and among petitioners, treachery is considered against all of them. party is deprived of reason otherwise unconscious, or (c)when the offended party is
under 12 years of age
Adelmo Perez y Agustin, petitioner 3. that the offended party is another person of either sex.
vs The act of Adelmo Perez satisfies all the elements for an act of
Court of Appeals and People of the Philippines, respondent lasciviousness. His contention that what he committed was not an attempted rape
G.R. No. 143838 but merely an act of lasciviousness is meritorious. Wherefore, the decisions of the
May 9, 2002 lower courts are modified. Adelmo Perez is held guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crime of acts of lasciviousness as defined and penalized under Art. 366 of the
Facts: RPC punishable by 6 months of arresto mayor.

Petitioner has been convicted by the trial court for attempted rape. On his appeal, PEOPLE V. ALMAZAN, G.R. Nos. 138943-44, September 17, 2001, 365 SCRA 373
the Court of appeals only affirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this petition.
Facts: (Bellosillo,J)
On April 14, 1988 in Morong, Bataan, petitioner Adelmo Perez (uncle of Julita )
forcibly commenced the commission of the crime of rape upon Julia Tria y Balagao. On 28 September 1996, at about 4:00pm, Vicente Madriaga and a certain Allan
The petitioner entered the room of Julita Tria without permission and once inside, played chess. In that scenario Noli with her daughter, Noel and their neighbor Angel
embraced and kissed her on the neck, held and mashed her breast and compelled Soliva were also there. While the game was ongoing, Henry Almazan unexpectedly
her to lie down where he kissed her lips and neck. He positioned himself on top of arrived and brandished a .38 caliber revolver in front of the group. Almazan's
her and with the intent of having carnal knowledge with her, he touched her sex fighting cocks had just been stolen and he suspected Angel, one of the spectators,
organ and tried to remove her panties thereby commencing the commission of the to be the culprit. Thus he said, "manos-manos na lang tayo," aimed his gun at Angel
crime of rape directly by overt acts. Thereafter, Julita Tria shouted “inay”, trying to and pulled the trigger. It did not fire. He tried again, but again it failed.
implore the help of her mother. Julita’s mother came crashing to the room and found
Perez under the bamboo bed.
At that moment, Vicente Madriaga stood up and tried to calm down Henry, but he
refused to be pacified. Angel ran away and Henry aimed his gun instead at Noli. Noli
cried for mercy, for his life and that of his daughter, but to no avail. Henry shot Noli reason to doubt the meaning and implications of Dr. Ticman's statement. His
at the left side of his stomach sending him immediately to the ground. His daughter, statement that Noel could catch infection was based on pure speculation rather than
unscathed, held on to Noli, crying. Henry then turned on Noel and shot him on the on the actual nature of the wound which was a mere minor injury, hence, not fatal.
left thigh. Noel managed to walk lamely but only to eventually fall to the ground. According to jurisprudence, if the victim was wounded with an injury that was not
Thereafter, Vicente Madriaga called on his neighbors who brought Noli and Noel to fatal, and could not cause his death, the crime would only be attempted.
the hospital. Noli however died before reaching the hospital, while Noel survived his
injuries. PEOPLE V LISTERIO
335 SCRA 40
Witnesses for the defense narrated a different version which in favor in the side of
Almazan. Almazan also stated that he just did self-defense, but his testimony and Facts: (Ynares-Santiago, J)
his friend testimony (Johnald Molina) were not accepted. The accused blocked the two victim’s path when they were about to leave. He
attacked them with lead pipes and bladed weapon. The accused was convicted of
Issue: murder (jeonito’s death) and frustrated murder committed with conspiracy (marion’s
injury).  He assails the testimony of the witness as insufficient to convict him of his
crime charged.
*WON Almazan committed murder, frustrated murder or attempted murder?
Issue: WON Listerio would be guilty of frustrated homicide.
*WON Almazan testimony can be consider as a self-defense.
Held: It is not the gravity of the wounds inflicted which determines whether felony is
Held: attempted or frustrated but whether or not the subjective phase in the commission of
an offense has been passed.
*Almazan committed murder. Frustrated murder is modified by lowering the crime to
Attempted Murder. It is well settled that witnesses are to be weighed, not numbered, such that the
testimony of a single, trustworthy and credible witness could be sufficient to convict
*Almazan’s statement that what he did is just a self-defense shows no merit. an accused.  The trial court found the witness’ testimony as candid and
straightforward.  Court defer to the lower court’s findings consistent with the
principle that the trial judge is the best and the most competent person who can
Ruling:
weigh and evaluate the testimony of witnesses.

Accused should be held liable for attempted murder, not frustrated murder. For the Conspiracy was also proven.  A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come
charge of frustrated murder to flourish, the victim should sustain a fatal wound that to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it.  To
could have caused his death were it not for timely medical assistance. The court a establish the existence of a conspiracy, direct proof is not essential since it may be
quo anchored its ruling on the statement of Dr. Ticman on cross-examination that shown by facts and circumstances from which may be logically inferred the
the wound of Noel could catch infection or lead to his death if not timely and existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged,
properly treated. However, in his direct testimony, Dr. Ticman declared that the or it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
wound was a mere minor injury for which Noel, after undergoing treatment, was perpetrated.  If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect, conspiracy can be
immediately advised to go home. He even referred to the wound as a slight physical established.
injury that would heal within a week and for which the victim was in no danger of
dying. Clear as the statement is, coupled with the fact that Noel was indeed
immediately advised to go home as he was not in any danger of death, we have no
PEOPLE VS CAMPUHAN required for rape to be consummated. Where entry into the labia or the lips of the
En Banc –Unanimous Decision female genitalia has not been established, the crime committed amounts merely to
329 SCRA 270, G.R. No. 129433 attempted rape.
30 March 2000
The SC seriously doubted on the veracity of Corazon’s claim that she saw the inter-
Facts: (J. Bellosillo) genital contact between Primo and Crysthel. It is the burden of the prosecution to
As Corazon is preparing drinks, she heard her daughter, Crysthel, crying “Aray ko! establish how Corazon could have seen the sexual contact. The prosecution failed
Aray Ko!” prompting Corazon to run upstairs. She saw Primo Campuhan kneeling in this respect, thus the SC cannot conclude without any taint of serious doubt that
before Crysthel whose pajamas were already removed while his short pants were inter-genital contact was achieved. To hold otherwise would be to resolve the doubt
down to his knees. Primo ran but was apprehended. Physical Examination revealed in favor of the prosecution but to prejudice the constitutional right of the accused to
negative results. No sign of entry in Crysthel’s organ. Although Primo insisted on be presumed innocent.
his innocence, the trial court found him guilty of statutory rape, sentenced him to the
extreme penalty of death, and ordered him to pay the victim damages and costs. Although a child's testimony must be received with due consideration on account of
Campuhan assails the credibility of Corazon. He argues that her narration should her tender age, the Court endeavors at the same time to harness only what in her
not be given any weight since it contains improbabilities inconsistent with human story appears to be true, acutely aware of the equally guaranteed rights of the
nature and experience. He claims that it was truly inconceivable for him to commit accused. Even on the basis of the testimony of Crysthel alone the accused cannot
the rape considering that Crysthel's younger sister was also in the room playing be held liable for consummated rape; worse, be sentenced to death.
while Corazon was just downstairs preparing drinks for her daughters. Their
presence alone as possible eyewitnesses and the fact that the episode happened In cases of rape where there is a positive testimony and a medical certificate, both
within the family compound where a call for assistance could easily be heard and should in all respects complement each other; otherwise, to rely on the testimonial
responded to, would have been enough to deter him from committing the crime. evidence alone, in utter disregard of the manifest variance in the medical certificate,
Hence this petition. would be productive of unwarranted or even mischievous results. It is necessary to
carefully ascertain whether the penis of the accused in reality entered the labial
Issue: threshold of the female organ to accurately conclude that rape was consummated.
WON Primo is guilty of consummated or attempted rape. Failing in this, the thin line that separates attempted rape from consummated rape
will significantly disappear.
Held:
The Decision of the Court finding primo guilty of statutory rape and sentencing him Under Art. 6, in relation to Art. 335, of the Revised Penal Code, rape is attempted
death and to pay damages was modified. The SC found him guilty of ATTEMPTED when the offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts, and
RAPE and sentenced him imprisonment of 8 years. does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of rape
by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Ruling: All the elements of attempted rape — and only of attempted rape — are present in
the instant case, hence, the accused should be punished only for it.
Rape was consummated from the moment the offender had carnal knowledge of the
victim since by it he attained his objective. All the elements of the offense were People vs. De la Cruz
already present and nothing more was left for the offender to do, having performed
all the acts necessary to produce the crime and accomplish it. Perfect penetration Facts:
was not essential; any penetration of the female organ by the male organ, however
slight, was sufficient. Any penetration, in whatever degree, is enough to raise the Accused Rosemarie de la Cruz was caught holding by the hand Whiazel Soriano, a
crime to its consummated stage. Complete or full penetration of the vagina is not seven-year old schoolgirl, and leading her out of the school grounds. At the request
of the principal, five policemen brought accused to the station. Accused pleaded not confirmed that outsiders can consult in the school’s clinic thus she had a valid
guilty before the RTC. There were 5 who served as principal witnesses for the reason to be there.
prosecution. First was Cecilia Caparos, neighbor of Whiazel. According to her, she
was waiting for her two children when she saw Whiazel held on the hand and being The people, through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that Whaizel was still
led away by Rosemarie. Cecilia asked the accused where she was going with deprived of her liberty no matter how short that time was because the accused
Whiazel. The accused told her that she asked Whiazel to bring her to Rowena prevented Whaizel to go to her neighbor. Considering the young age of the victim,
Soriano (Whiazle’s mother) while on the other, Whiazel told her that the accused deprivation of liberty was really consummated even without force or threats
requested her to look for the latter’s child. Cecilia grew suspicious because of the imposed.
inconsistent answers, Whiazel’s terrified look, and scratches on the child’s face.
Cecilia then brought accused to the guidance counselor. The accused agreed to go Issue:
with her. Second was Whiazel Soriano, who testified that she voluntarily went with
the accused after being asked for help in looking for the school dentist. She also Whether or not RTC erred in finding the accused guilty of kidnapping and illegal
mentioned that accused asked for help in looking for her child in a place far away detention of a minor and granting 50,000 pesos as moral damages
from school. She was neither threatened nor hurt in any way by the accused but
Held:
when she told her that she wanted to go, accused refused and held her hand.
Whiazel cried when they reached the teacher. Third was Eufemia Magpantay, In a prosecution for kidnapping, the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of the
guidance teacher of the school. She confirmed that the incident was reported to her latter’s liberty needs to be established by INDUBITABLE PRROF
office. Accused told her that she was asking for Whiazel’s help in looking for the
school dentist. This reason was reiterated before the principal. Magpantay testified Well entrenched rule that factual findings by the court, especially testimony of
that school allows patients not connected with the school to consult at the clinic. witnesses, are accorded great respect. But when the judgment is based on a
Fourth testimony was from Gorgonia Nieva, mother-in-law of the accused. She misapprehension of facts, THE COURT MAY CHOOSE TO SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN
testified that the day prior to the incident, accused asked her to look for Dr. Medina, FINDINGS.
a dentist, because the latter’s child was sick. Her inquiries that Dr. Medina may be
found at the Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School (place of incident). Thus, the next Damages are granted to compensate victim for the injury suffered, but PROOF OR
day, they both went to that school but parted ways when they arrived there. And MORAL SUFFERING must be introduced.
lastly, the accused gave her own testimony. She testified that when she got to the
school she asked a guard where the clinic was. When she got to the clinic, no one Decision:
was there. On her way out, Whiazel walked with her at arm’s length. She did not
hold the child’s hand, not looked at the child, they did not talk, not even smiles were decision modified. Accused is guilty of ATTEMPTED kidnapping and serious illegal
exchanged. Then Cecilia suddenly came up accusing her of kidnapping. Cecilia detention. Award for moral damages of 50,000 pesos is hereby deleted.
dragged her to the guidance counselor’s office and she voluntarily went with her.
People v. Orita
When the guidance counselor asked Whiazel if the accused was really going to
kidnap her, she answered no. Lending credence to the testimony of the witnesses, FACTS:The accused, CeilitoOrita, was charge with the crime of Rape and was
the trial court rendered accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of found guilty of frustrated rapeby the trial court .
kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor. Pertinent information of the case:
Complainant, Cristina S. Abayan arrived at her boarding house. Her classmates had
Accused contended that her act of holding the child by hand and leading her out of just brought her home from a party. Shortly after her classmates had left, she
the school cannot be considered kidnapping. Whiazel even testified she voluntarily knocked at the door of her boarding house. All of a sudden, somebody held her and
went with her and that she did not try t kidnap her. The guidance counselor poked a knife to her neck. She then recognized appellant who was a frequent visitor
of another boarder. She pleaded with him to release her, but he ordered her to go
upstairs with him. With the Batangas knife still poked to her neck, they entered dictionary the act of a man in having sexual bodily connections with a womanof his
complainant's room. victim he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the
He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He made her hold his essentialelements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to
penis and insert it in be done by theoffender, because he has performed the last act necessary to
her vagina. She followed his order as he continued to poke the knife to her. At said produce the crime. Thus, thefelony is consummated
position, however,
appellant could not fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as
she kept on moving PEOPLE V. COMADRE
Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. In this 431 SCRA 366
position, only a small part June 8, 2004
again of his penis was inserted into her vagina. At this stage, appellant had both his
hands flat on the floor. Complainant thought of escaping. Still naked, she darted to Facts: (Per Curiam)
the municipal building. Pat. Donceras, the first policeman to see her, took off his August 6, 1995 at around 7:00 in the evening Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry
jacket and wrapped it around her. Due to darkness, they failed to apprehend Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking spree on the
appellant. Dr. Ma. Luisa Abude, the resident physician who examined complainant, terrace of the house of Robert’s father, Barangay Councilman Jaime Agbanlog,
issued a Medical Certificate which states: situated in Barangay San Pedro, Lupao, Nueva Ecija. Jaime Agbanlog was seated
'Physical Examination — Patient is fairly built, came in with loose clothing with no on the banister of the terrace listening to the conversation of the companions of his
under-clothes; appears in state of shock, per unambulatory. son.
'PE Findings — Pertinent Findings only.
'Neck — Circumscribed hematoma at Ant. neck. As the drinking session went on, Robert and the others noticed appellants Antonio
'Breast — Well developed, conical in shape with prominent nipples; linear abrasions Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano walking. The three stopped in front
below (L) breast. of the house. While his companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed an object
'Back Multiple pinpoint marks. which fell on the roof of the terrace. Appellants immediately fled by scaling the fence
'Extremities — Abrasions at (R) and (L) knees. of a nearby school. The object, which turned out to be a hand grenade, exploded
'Vulva — No visible abrasions or marks at the perineal area or over the vulva, ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Robert Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Gerry
errythematous (sic) areas noted surrounding vaginal orifice, tender; hymen intact; Bullanday, Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were hit by shrapnel and slumped
no laceration fresh and old noted; examining finger can barely enter and with unconscious on the floor.They were all rushed to the San Jose General Hospital in
difficulty; vaginal canal tight; no discharges noted.' Lupao, Nueva Ecija for medical treatment. However, Robert Agbanlog died before
reaching the hospital.
ISSUE: whether or not the accused’s conviction for frustrated rape is proper given
thatthere was no penetration. Dr. Tirso de los Santos, the medico-legal officer who conducted the autopsy on the
cadaver of Robert Agbanlog, certified that the wounds sustained by the victim were
HELD: NO.We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect consistent with the injuries inflicted by a grenade explosion and that the direct cause
penetration is not of death was hypovolemic shock due to hand grenade explosion.The surviving
essential.There is no debate that the attempted and consummated stages apply to victims, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat, Jaime Agbanlog and Gerry Bullanday sustained
the crime of rape.Our concern now is whether or not the frustrated stage applies to shrapnel injuries.
the crime of rape.Frustrated felony are: (1) that the offender has performed all the
acts of execution whichwould produce the felony and (2) that the felony is not SPO3 John Barraceros of the Lupao Municipal Police Station, who investigated the
produced due to causesindependent of the perpetrator's will.Clearly, in the crime of scene of the crime, recovered metallic fragments at the terrace ofthe Agbanlog
rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge definedby blacks house. These fragments were forwarded to the Explosive Ordinance Disposal
Division in Camp Crame, Quezon City, where SPO2 Jesus Q. Mamaril, a specialist WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appealed decision of the Regional
in said division, identified them as shrapnel of an MK2 hand grenade. Trial Court of San Jose City, Branch 39 in Criminal Case No. L-16(95) is AFFIRMED
insofar as appellant Antonio Comadre is convicted of the complex crime of Murder
The three denied the charges against them, appellant Antonio Comadre claimed with Multiple Attempted Murder and sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. He is
that on the night of August 6, 1995, he was with his wife and children watching ordered to pay the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity,
television in the house of his father, Patricio, and his brother, Rogelio. He denied P50,000.00 as moral damages and P18,000.00 as actual damages and likewise
any participation in the incident and claimed that he was surprised when three ordered to pay the surviving victims, Jaime Agbanlog, Jimmy Wabe, Rey Camat and
policemen from the Lupao Municipal Police Station went to his house the following Gerry Bullanday, P25,000.00 each as temperate damages for the injuries they
morning of August 7, 1995 and asked him to go with them to the police station, sustained. Appellants Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano are ACQUITTED for
where he has been detained since. lack of evidence to establish conspiracy, and they are hereby ordered immediately
RELEASED from confinement unless they are lawfully held in custody for another
Appellant George Comadre, for his part, testified that he is the brother of Antonio cause. Costs de oficio.
Comadre and the brother-in-law of Danilo Lozano. He also denied any involvement
in the grenade-throwing incident, claiming that he was at home when it happened. Ruling:
He stated that he is a friend of Rey Camat and Jimmy Wabe, and that he had no The acts of Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not constitute acts of
animosity towards them whatsoever. Appellant also claimed to be in good terms conspiracy.
with the Agbanlogs so he has no reason to cause them any grief. Appellant Danilo
Lozano similarly denied any complicity in the crime. He declared that he was at The trial court’s finding of conspiracy was reassessed. The undisputed facts show
home with his ten-year-old son on the night of August 6, that when Antonio Comadre was in the act of throwing the hand grenade, George
1995. He added that he did not see Antonio and George Comadre that night and Comadre and Danilo Lozano merely looked on without uttering a single word of
has not seen them for quite sometime, either before or after the incident. Like the encouragement or performed any act to assist him. The mere presence of George
two other appellants, Lozano denied having any misunderstanding with Jaime Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not provide encouragement and a sense of
Agbanlog, Robert Agbanlog and Jimmy Wabe. security to Antonio Comadre, because it was not supported by the evidence on
record and cannot therefore be a valid basis of a finding of conspiracy.
Antonio's father, Patricio, and his wife, Lolita, corroborated his claim that he was at
home watching television with them during the night in question. Josie Comadre, Similar to the physical act constituting the crime itself, the elements of conspiracy
George's wife, testified that her husband could not have been among those who must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. To establish conspiracy, evidence of
threw a hand grenade at the house of the Agbanlogs because on the evening of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is
August 6, 1995, they were resting inside their house after working all day in the required.
farm.
A conspiracy must be established by positive and conclusive evidence. It must be
After trial, the court a quo gave credence to the prosecution's evidence and shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the crime itself.
convicted appellants of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Mere presence of a person at the scene of the crime does not make him a
Murder. Thus, they appealed. conspirator for conspiracy transcends companionship. The evidence shows that
George Comadre and Danilo Lozano did not have any participation in the
Issue: commission of the crime and must therefore be set free.Their mere presence at the
WON Gregorio Comadre and Danilo Lozano committed an act of conspiracy with scene of the crime as well as their close relationship with Antonio are insufficient to
Antonio Comadre. establish conspiracy considering that they performed no positive act in furtherance
of the crime.
Held:
Neither was it proven that their act of running away with Antonio was an act of giving motorcycle. And later stood guard with their firearms ready on the road, Edilberto
moral assistance to his criminal act. It would be better to set free ten men who Manero shot to death Fr. Favali. Finally, they joined Norberto Manero, Jr. and
might be probably guilty of the crime charged than to convict one innocent man for a Edilberto Manero in their enjoyment and merriment on the death of the priest.
crime he did not commit. There being no conspiracy, only Antonio Comadre must
answer for the crime. The court found the accused Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay,
Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo
Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño GUILTY beyond reasonable
G.R. Nos. 86883-85 January 29, 1993 doubt of the offense of Murder;Norberto Manero, Jr. alias Commander Bucay
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,  GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Arson; Norberto Manero, Jr.,
vs. alias Commander Bucay, Edilberto Manero alias Edil, Elpidio Manero, Severino
NORBERTO MANERO, JR., EDILBERTO MANERO, ELPIDIO MANERO, Lines, Rudy Lines, Rodrigo Espia alias Rudy, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño
SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO, ROGER BEDAÑO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of Attempted Murder.
RODRIGO ESPIA, ARSENIO VILLAMOR, JR., JOHN DOE and PETER
DOE, accused.
In seeking exculpation from criminal liability, appellants Severino Lines, Rudy Lines,
SEVERINO LINES, RUDY LINES, EFREN PLEÑAGO and ROGER
Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño contend that the trial court erred in disregarding
BENDAÑO, accused-appellants.
their respective defenses of alibi which, if properly appreciated, would tend to
establish that there was no prior agreement to kill; that the intended victim was Fr.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Peter Geremias, not Fr. Tulio Favali; that there was only one (1) gunman, Edilberto;
and, that there was absolutely no showing that appellants cooperated in the
FACTS: shooting of the victim despite their proximity at the time to Edilberto.
The Manero brothers Norberto Jr., Edilberto and Elpidio, along with Rodrigo Espia,
Severino Lines, Rudy Lines, Efren Pleñago and Roger Bedaño, conferred with
ISSUE:
Arsenio Villamor, Jr., private secretary to the Municipal Mayor of Tulunan, Cotabato,
and his two (2) unidentified bodyguards plan to liquidate a number of suspected
communist sympathizers. Arsenio Villamor, Jr. scribbled on a cigarette wrapper the Whether or not the court erred in disregarding the defenses of alibi of the appellants.
following "NPA v. NPA, starring Fr. Peter, Domingo Gomez, Bantil, Fred Gapate,
Rene alias Tabagac and Villaning." "Fr. Peter" is Fr. Peter Geremias, an Italian HELD:
priest suspected of having links with the communist movement; "Bantil" is Rufino
Robles, a Catholic lay leader; Domingo Gomez is another lay leader, while the Accused brothers Severino and Rudy Lines and Roger Bedaño alleged that they
others are simply "messengers". On the same occasion, the conspirators agreed to were no present in the cime and contend that it was only after they heard gunshots
Edilberto Manero's proposal that should they fail to kill Fr. Peter Geremias, another that they rushed to the house of Norberto Manero, Sr.and joined by their fellow
Italian priest would be killed in his stead. CHDF members and co-accused, and that it was only then that they proceeded
  together to where the crime took place at Km. 125. But, two witnesses appeared
At 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of that day near the house of Rufino Robles (Bantil), and testified that they saw and heard the discussion about killing of some
Edilberto Manero together with Norberto Manero, Jr. shot Robles. They surrounded communist sympathizers. They also testified that they still saw the appellants in the
the house of Domingo Gomez where Robles fled and hid, but later left when company of the Manero brothers at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon when Rufino
Edilberto Manero told them to leave as Robles would die of hemorrhage. At 5:00 Robles was shot. Further, at 5:00 o'clock that same afternoon, appellants were very
o'clock, Fr. Tulio Favali arrived at Km. 125 on board his motorcycle. He entered the much at the scene of the crime, along with the Manero brothers, when Fr. Favali
house of Gomez. While inside, Norberto, Jr., and his co-accused Pleñago towed the was brutally murdered. So the alibis of the appellants were negative in nature and
motorcycle outside to the center of the highway. Norberto, Jr. burned the cannot be prevail. Also, there was direct proof to link them to the conspiracy.
RULING: The act of one is the act of all. There is conspiracy when two or more The judgment is affirmed with modifications indicated below:
persons come to an agreement to commit a crime and decide to commit it It is not
essential that all the accused commit together each and every act constitutive of the P13,940 – hospitalization
offense. It is enough that an accused participates in an act or deed where there is
singularity of purpose and unity in its execution is present.  AFFIRMED P30,000 – indemnity for death

P10,000 – moral damages

PEOPLE V. PUGAY
P5,000 – exemplary damages
167 SCRA 439
Ruling:
17 November 1988
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code:
Facts: (Medialdea, J.)
“A man must use common sense and exercise due reflection in all his
Pugay and Samson were charged with the crime of Murder for the death of acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then
Benjamin Miranda by the CFI. through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone
might foresee and for acts which no one would have performed except through
Sometime after midnight of May 19, 1982, Pugay & Samson with several culpable abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property, all those of his
companions arrived at the town fiesta fair. They appeared to be drunk. When the fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury.”
group saw Miranda, a 25-year old retardate, walking nearby, they started making
fun of him. They made him dance by tickling him with a piece of wood in his ass. There is nothing in the records that shows that there was a precious
Suddenly, Pugay took a can of gasoline under the ferris wheel and poured its conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention bet the two accused
contents on the body of Miranda. Then, Samson set Miranda on fire making a immediately before the crime. There was no animosity and their meeting at
human torch out of him. the scene of the crime was accidental. They only want to make fun of the
deceased.
The accused attacked the credibility of the eyewitness, Gabion, alleging that he was
not only requested by the mother of the deceased to testify in exchange for his Pugay and Samson are only liable for the act committed by them.
absolution from liability but also because his testimony that he was reading a comic
book during an unusual event is contrary to human behavior and experience. 1. Pugay failed to exercise all the diligence necessary to avoid
every undesirable consequence arising from any act that may be
The accused also contested that they were maltreated by the police into admitting committed by his companions who at the time were making fun of
authorship of the crime. the victim. Pugay is only guilty of HOMICIDE THRU RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE under 365 of RPC.
The accused also pointed out that there were a lot of other witnesses but why is it
that only Gabion’s statement was presented. Penalty for Pugay: Indeterminate from 4 months of arresto mayor
as minimum to 4 years and 2 months of prision coreccional
Issue: maximum.

WON the court erred in finding the accused guilty of muder qualified with treachery 2. Samson is guilty of Murder (homicide) for setting the victim on fire
knowing that gasoline has been poured on the deceased. There is
Held:
 an absence of intent to kill and that his act was just part of their
fun-making that evening.
Treachery - deliberate attack and employing means
to insure its execution removing any form of defense from the offended
party.

Article IV: Criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a felony
although the wrongful act done be different from what is intended.