Criminal Law Digests - March 2001 - Philippine Law Reviewers

6/22/2016
CriminalLawDigestsMarch2001|PhilippineLawReviewers
PhilippineLawReviewers
CriminalLawDigestsMarch2001
JAN24
PostedbyMagz
PEOPLEv.ROBERTNUEZyLAGASCA
G.R.No.112092.March1,2001
AccusedwasfoundguiltyofIllegalpossessionofrearmresultingtothedeathofthevictimandpursuanttoP.D.1866inrelationtothe
1987Constitutionthecourtsentencesthesaidaccusedtosuerthepenaltyoflifeimprisonmentandwithcosts.
HELD:
Appellantwasconvictedofillegalpossessionofrearmsresultingtothedeathofthevictim.Atthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime,
theexistingjurisprudencewasPeoplev.Quijada.TheSCheldthenthattheuseofanunlicensedrearminakillingresultsintwoseparate
crimesonefortheaggravatedformofillegalpossessionofrearmandtwo,forhomicideormurder.Inthemeantime,however,
CongresspassedRepublicActNo.8294,27whichloweredthepenaltiesforillegalpossessionofrearms.Further,Section1,thirdpar.of
R.A.No.8294providesIfhomicideormurderiscommiedwiththeuseofanunlicensedrearm,suchuseofanunlicensedrearm
shallbeconsideredasanaggravatingcircumstance.
Inthepresentcase,therewerefourcasesledagainstappellantwhichwereallseparatelytried.Hence,theevidenceastothehomicide
andfrustratedhomicidecaseswereneitheradoptednorpresentedbeforethetrialcourttryingtheillegalpossessioncase.Forthisreason,
thereisadearthofevidenceonrecordtosupportthendingofhomicideand/orfrustratedhomicide.
https://lawphilreviewer.wordpress.com/2012/01/24/criminallawdigestsmarch2001/
TheCourtheldthataccordingly,appellantshouldonlybeconvictedofsimpleillegalpossessionofrearms.Theloweredpenaltiesas
1/21
6/22/2016
TheCourtheldthataccordingly,appellantshouldonlybeconvictedofsimpleillegalpossessionofrearms.Theloweredpenaltiesas
providedinR.A.No.8294,beingfavorabletotheaccused,shouldbeappliedretroactively.
PEOPLEv.PEDROSASPA,ETAL.
G.R.No.123069March1,2001
ThetrialcourtfoundbothPedroSaspaandRafaelSumilingprincipallyliableforthemurderofIsidroHayo,andsentencedeachofthem
tosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua,togetherwithitsaccessorypenalties,andorderedthemtoindemnifytheheirsofthevictimin
theamountofP50,000.00.
HELD:
TheSCarmedthetrialcourtsholdingthatappellantsemployedsuperiorstrengthintheexecutionofthecrime,thusqualifyingthe
killingtomurder.Whenappellantsaackedthevictim,theyhadtheadvantageofnumericalsuperiorityandwerecarryinghighpowered
rearms;whereasthevictimwasunarmedanduerlydefenseless,nottomentionthathewastakenbysurprisebytheswiftnessofthe
assault.Clearly,therewasanotoriousinequalitybetweenthestrengthofthevictimandhisassailants.TheCourt,however,didnotsustain
thetrialcourtsappreciationoftheaggravatingcircumstancesofbandandignominy.Abandconsistsofatleastfourarmedmalefactors
actingtogetherinthecommissionofanoense.TheprosecutionfailedtoprovethattherewereatleastfourarmedmenThelma
testiedthatthreeofIsidrosassailantswerearmed,whileSulpiciodidmakeanydeclarationastohowmanyofhissonsaackerswere
actuallyarmed.Neitherdidtheprosecutionprovetheexistenceofignominy,whichisacircumstancethataddsdisgraceandobloquyto
thematerialinjurycausedbythecrime.Therewasnoshowingthatappellantsdeliberatelyemployedmeanswhichwouldcausemore
sueringorhumiliationtothevictim.
Atthetimethecrimewascommiedthepenaltyfordeathwasreclusiontemporalinthemaximumperiodtodeath.Intheabsenceofany
aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances,thepenaltyshouldbeimposedinitsmediumperiod,orreclusionperpetua.TheSCfound
appellantsguiltyofthecrimeofmurder,andsentencedthemeachtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaandtopaytheheirs.
PEOPLEv.MARIOCALDONAyLLAMAS
G.R.No.126019March1,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofrapinghis15yrolddaughter.Hewassentencedtosuerthepenaltyofdeath.
HELD:
TheSCfoundaccusedguilty,butsentencedhimtosuerreclusionperpetuainsteadofdeath.TheCourtsaidthatwhenavictimofrape 2/21
6/22/2016
TheSCfoundaccusedguilty,butsentencedhimtosuerreclusionperpetuainsteadofdeath.TheCourtsaidthatwhenavictimofrape
saysshehasbeendeled,shesaysineectallthatisnecessarytoshowthatrapehasbeeninictedonherandsolongashertestimony
meetsthetestofcredibility,theaccusedmaybeconvictedonthebasisthereof.Asinmostrapecases,accusedappellantassailsthe
credibilityofthevictim.However,theSChasconsistentlyheldthatthetrialcourtsassessmentofthecredibilityofcomplainants
testimonyisentitledtogreatweight,absentanyshowingthatsomefactswereoverlookedwhich,ifconsidered,wouldaecttheoutcome
ofthecase.
Nevertheless,whiletheguiltoftheaccusedappellantwasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubt,theCourtndstheimpositionofthedeath
penaltyagainsthimunwarranted.ThecircumstancesundertheamendatoryprovisionsofR.A.No.7659,Section11,areinthenatureof
qualifyingcircumstanceswhichcannotbeprovedassuchunlessallegedintheinformation.Evenifsuchcircumstancesareproved,the
deathpenaltycannotbeimposedwherethesanewerenotproperlyallegedintheInformation.
However,whilethequalifyingcircumstanceofrelationshiphasbeenallegedintheInformation,itisdevoidofanyavermentonprivate
complainantsminority.Sinceoneofthetwinrequirementsmentioned,namely,minority,wasnotallegedintheInformation,accused
appellantcanneitherbeconvictedforqualiedrapenorcouldthedeathpenaltybemeteduponhimbecausetodosowouldbetodeprive
himoftherighttobeinformedofthenatureandcauseoftheaccusationagainsthim.
PEOPLEv.RODELIOPERALTA
G.R.No.131637March1,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofthecrimeofmurder,qualiedbytreacheryaschargedintheInformationandsentencedtosuerthepenalty
reclusionperpetua.
HELD:
TheSCarmedthedecisionofthelowercourt.Withregardtotheissueofconspiracy,theSCheldthatitwasamplyandsuciently
proveninthiscase.Accusedappellantsapproachedthevictimfrombehind.WhenaccusedappellantQuiambaotoldPeraltatostabthe
victim,accusedappellantPeraltayankedtheleftshoulderofRamonandimmediatelystabbedthelaeronhischest.Afterthestabbing,
bothaccusedappellantsedandwereapprehendedonlyaftermorethannine(9)yearsfromthelingofthecriminalcaseincourt.These
actstakentogether,aresucienttoestablishtheexistenceofacommondesignamongaccusedappellantstocommittheoensecharged.
Withregardtothepresenceoftheaggravatingcircumstanceoftreachery,theSCalsoagreedwiththelowercourt.Incrimesagainst
persons,treacheryexistswhentheaccusedemploys,means,methods,andformswhichdirectlyandspeciallyensureitsexecution,
withoutrisktohimselfarisingfromthedefensewhichtheoendedpartymightmake.Torulethattreacheryexistsinthecommissionof
thecrimeitmustbeshownthatatthetimeoftheaack,thevictimwasnotinapositiontodefendhimselfandaccusedappellants
3/21
consciouslyanddeliberatelyadoptedtheparticularmeans,methodsorformsoftheaackemployedbyhim.Intheinstantcase,thevictim
6/22/2016
consciouslyanddeliberatelyadoptedtheparticularmeans,methodsorformsoftheaackemployedbyhim.Intheinstantcase,thevictim
wasstabbedonhischest.Whilethestabwoundappearsfrontal,itwasshownthataccusedappellantscamefrombehindandyankedthe
victimsshoulderinordertoinictthefatalblow.Themannerofaackwasdulyprovenandtheinictionofthestabwoundwasthe
resultofadeliberateact.Atthetimeofthefatalaack,thevictimwasstandinginfrontoftheparlorwhilewaitingforhiswife.The
victim,atthatmomentwasunawareofwhatwouldbefallhimandwasnotgivenanopportunitytodefendhimselforretaliate.
PEOPLEv.ALFREDONARDO
G.R.No.133888March1,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofrapinghis14yrolddaughter,andwassentencedtosuerthepenaltyofdeath.Forhumanitarianreasons,
however,thetrialcourtrecommendedthattheDEATHpenaltybecommutedtoRECLUSIONPERPETUA.
HELD:
TheSCfoundaccusedguilty,andsentencedhimtosuerthepenaltyofdeath.Theconcurrenceofthetwospecialqualifying
circumstances,namelythevictimsminorityandtherelationshipbetweenthevictimandtheculprit,increasesthepenaltyofrapetoone
(1)degree,thusresultingintheimpositionofthedeathpenalty.Inordertobeappreciatedasqualifyingcircumstances,however,these
mustbeproperlypleadedintheindictment.Inaddition,thequalifyingcircumstancesshouldbedulyprovedduringthetrial.
TheSCheldthattheserequirementsweremetinthiscase.TheInformationsucientlyallegesthataccusedappellantisthefatherofthe
victim,andthatthelaerwasfourteen(14)yearsoldatthetimeofcommissionoftherape.Theseelements,furthermore,were
categoricallyarmedbyElizabethNardo,thevictimsmotherandthemostcompetentwitness.Moreover,thevictimsbirthdateandher
relationshiptoaccusedappellantwereshownbyherCerticateofBaptism.Thiswaspresentedbyhermother,Elizabeth,inlieuofher
CerticateofLiveBirth,whichwasdestroyedbyre.Thebaptismalcerticate,coupledbyhermotherstestimony,issucienttoestablish
victimsage.
PEOPLEv.JESSIEVENTURACOLLADO
G.R.Nos.135667701March1,2001
Thetrialcourtfoundaccusedappellantguiltyofstatutoryrapeandsentencedhimtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.Likewise,it
foundhimguiltyofthree(3)countsofactsoflasciviousnessandsentencedhimtosuerimprisonmentofsix(6)yearsofprision
correctionalinitsmaximumperiodforeachcount.ItalsoorderedhimtoindemnifytheprivatecomplainantintheamountofP50,000.00,
andP100,000.00formoraldamages.
HELD:
4/21
6/22/2016
HELD:
Thetrialcourtwascorrectinndingaccusedappellantguiltyofthree(3)countsofactsoflasciviousness.TheSCtookhowevertoits
ndingthatstatutoryrapewascommiedbyhimon5June1993.Athoroughevaluationoftherecordswillshowthataccusedappellant
shouldonlybeconvictedforactsoflasciviousnessandnotforconsummatedrape.
TheSCheldthatabsentanyshowingoftheslightestpenetrationofthefemaleorgan,i.e.touchingofeitherthelabiaofthepudendumby
thepenis,therecanbenoconsummatedrape;atmost,itcanonlybeaemptedrape,ifnotactsoflasciviousness.
TheSCfoundaccusedguiltyof4countsofactsoflasciviousness,aggravatedbyobviousungratefulness.ApplyingtheIndeterminate
SentenceLaw,accusedappellantwassentencedtoanindeterminateprisontermoffour(4)monthsandtwenty(20)daysofarrestomayor
maximumasminimum,tofour(4)yearssix(6)monthsandten(10)daysofprisioncorreccionalmaximumasmaximum,ineachcountof
ActsofLasciviousness.AccusedappellantwasfurtherdirectedtopaytheprivatecomplainantP30,000.00ascivilindemnity,P40,000.00
formoraldamages,P20,000.00forexemplarydamages,ineachofthefour(4)countsofActsofLasciviousness,andtopaythecosts.
PEOPLEv.BALTAZARAMIONyDUGADUGA
G.R.No.140511.March1,2001
AccusedwasfoundguiltyasPrincipalbyDirectParticipationofthecrimeofMurder,qualiedbytreachery,denedandpenalizedunder
Article248oftheRevisedPenalCodeasamendedbyR.A.7659.Thefollowingordinaryaggravatingcircumstanceswerepresentinthe
commissionofthecrime:
1.Abuseofpublicoceduetotheuseofhisservicerearminthekilling;
2.Useofmotorvehiclewhichfacilitatedthecommissionofthecrime;and
3.Aidofarmedmeninthecommissionofthecrime.
Thereispresentonlyone(1)mitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntarysurrender.
TheaccusedwassentencedtosuertheMAXIMUMPENALTYOFDEATH.
HELD:
TheSCheldthatwithrespecttotheaendantcircumstances,theuseofamotorvehiclecannotbeconsideredasanaggravating
circumstance,asthepolicevehicleusedtoreachtheSanicasresidencewasnotuseddirectlyorindirectlytofacilitatethecriminalact.
5/21
Neithermaytheaggravatingcircumstanceofaidofarmedmenbeappreciatedinthiscase.Thetrialcourtfoundthatduringtheshooting,
6/22/2016
Neithermaytheaggravatingcircumstanceofaidofarmedmenbeappreciatedinthiscase.Thetrialcourtfoundthatduringtheshooting,
anarmedcompanionwasonboardthepatrolcarpointinghisrieinthedirectionofDejoras.Intherstplace,thisaggravating
circumstancecontemplatesmorethanonearmedman,astheuseofthepluralformeasilysuggests.Inthesecondplace,therequisitesof
thisaggravatingcircumstanceare:1)thatarmedmenorpersonstookpartinthecommissionofthecrime,directlyorindirectly,and2)that
theaccusedavailedhimselfoftheiraidorrelieduponthemwhenthecrimewascommied.Neithercircumstancewasprovenpresent;itis
clearfromtheevidencethattheaccusedappellantcarriedoutthekillingallbyhimselfanddidnotrelyonhiscompanionforassistance.
TheSCalsodidnotagreethatthefactthataccusedappellantusedhisservicerearminshootingVaorshouldbeconsideredasan
aggravatingcircumstanceashetookadvantageofhispublicposition.Thereisauthoritytotheeectthatforpublicpositiontobe
appreciatedasanaggravatingcircumstance,thepublicocialmustusehisinuence,prestigeandascendancywhichhisocegiveshim
inrealizinghispurpose.Intheabsenceofproofthatadvantagewastakenbyappellant,theaggravatingcircumstanceofabuseofposition
couldnotbeproperlyappreciatedagainsthim.
Inviewoftheabsenceofaggravatingcircumstancesandthepresenceofonemitigatingcircumstance,thepenaltyimposedbythetrial
courtshouldbemodied.ThepenaltyformurderUnderArticle248isreclusionperpetuatodeath.PursuanttoArticle63,incaseoftwo
indivisiblepenalties,whenthecommissionoftheactisaendedbysomemitigatingcircumstanceandthereisnoaggravating
circumstance,thelesserpenaltyshallbeapplied.Hencetheimposablepenaltyisreclusionperpetua.
PEOPLEv.MANUELPEREZyMAGPANTAY
G.R.No.113265.March5,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofrapinga12yrold,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.Appellantisthecommonlaw
husbandofthevictimsmother.
HELD:
Havingexaminedtheentirerecord,theSCfoundthatthetotalityoftheevidencepresentedbytheprosecutionprovedbeyonddoubtall
theelementsofrape.Privatecomplainanttestiedastohowappellanthadcarnalknowledgeofher.Thecarnalknowledgetookplace
undercircumstancesofviolenceandintimidation.Hertestimonyissupportedbytheresultsofthemedicolegalexaminationconducted
uponheratthepolicecrimelaboratory.Moreover,shepositivelypointedtoappellantinopencourtasthepersonresponsibleforher
delement.Againstsaidpositiveidentication,appellantspueriledefenseofdenialwillnotholdwater,forhedoesnotevendenythathe
waswiththeoendedpartyatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrime.Moreover,hisaemptstocastillmotiveonprivatecomplainantor
herfamilyforfabricatingthechargeofrapeagainsthimhavenoevidentiaryweight.Itwouldbemostunnaturalforayoungand
immaturegirltofabricateastoryofrapebyhermotherscommonlawspouse;allowamedicalexaminationofhergenitalia;andsubject 6/21
6/22/2016
immaturegirltofabricateastoryofrapebyhermotherscommonlawspouse;allowamedicalexaminationofhergenitalia;andsubject
herselftoapublictrialandpossibleridicule,allbecausehermaternalrelativeswanthermothertoseparatefromhercommonlawspouse.
Perforce,appellantsconvictionmuststand.
Astothepenaltyimposed,theSCheldthatthetrialcourtcorrectlysentencedappellanttoreclusionperpetua.Notethattherape
complainedofinthiscasetookplaceonMay31,1990orwaybeforetherestorationofthedeathpenaltyforcasesofqualiedrapeby
virtueofR.A.No.7659.ThedeathpenaltylawtookeectonlyonDecember31,1993,aspertheCourtsholdinginPeoplev.Simon,234
SCRA555,569(1994).
PEOPLEv.ROQUEUKINGELLADO
G.R.No.124686.March5,2001
Appellantwasconvictedofthecrimeofmurder,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
HELD:
TheSCarmedthedecisionofthelowercourt.TheSCheldthatbothoftheaccusedactedinconcertintheassaultonthevictim.They
hadthesamepurposeandwereunitedinitsexecution.Conspiracyexistsatthetimeofthecommissionoftheoense.Theiractuation
couldonlypointtotheexistenceofapreconceivedplantomaimandkillthevictim.Wheretheactsoftheaccusedcollectivelyand
individuallydemonstratetheexistenceofacommondesigntowardstheaccomplishmentofthesameunlawfulpurpose,conspiracyis
evident,andalltheperpetratorswillbeliableasprincipals.
TheSCalsoheldthattheactsofappellantindicatethatheandBakunawahadplannedtheaackinamannerthatwouldcatchthevictim
unaware.Theirmoveinitiallywasintheguiseofaconciliatoryoverture.Itservedtocovertheirnefariousplot.EvenifitwasBakunawa
whoinictedthefatalwound,liabilityalsoexistsonthepartofappellantnotwithstandingnonparticipationineverydetailinthe
executionofthecrime.Thedeceptivemannerbywhichthetwoaccusedfatallyassaultedthevictimshowsthattheyhadintendedtocatch
himoguard,toinsurethesuccessoftheaack.Anunexpectedandsuddenaackundercircumstanceswhichrenderthevictimunable
andunpreparedtodefendhimselfbyreasonofthesuddennessandseverityoftheaackconstitutesalevosia.
Astreacheryaendedthekillingofthevictim,theoensecommiedbyappellantandhiscoaccusedBakunawaismurder.However,the
aggravatingcircumstancesofevidentpremeditationandabuseofsuperiorstrengthallegedintheinformationtobeaendantcannotbe
appreciated,astheelementsoftheformerwerenotproven,andthelaerisdeemedabsorbedbytreachery.
PEOPLEv.JULIOHERIDA,ETAL.
G.R.No.127158March5,2001
7/21
6/22/2016
G.R.No.127158March5,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofthecrimeofmurder,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.AccusedJamila,ontheother
hand,wasacquiedforfailureoftheprosecutiontoprovehisguiltbeyondreasonabledoubt.
HELD:
TheSCagreedwithappellantthatnowhereintheassailedjudgmentisitshownhowthetrialcourtarrivedatitsconclusionthatthe
killingofthevictimwasaendedbytreachery.Therewasabsolutelynoshowingfromthetestimonyofthewitnesshowtheaack
commenced;noindiciawhethertheaackwassosuddenandunexpectedthatitaordedthevictimnochancetodefendhimself.Inthe
absenceofthisinformation,treacherycannotbeestablishedfromthecircumstances.Treacherycannotbepresumed;itmustbeprovedby
clearandconvincingevidenceasclearlyasthekillingitself.Wheretheaackwasnottreacherous,thenumberofaggressorswould
constituteabuseofsuperiorstrength.Abuseofsuperiorstrength,therefore,qualiesthekillingasmurder.
Inndingthekillingaggravatedbyevidentpremeditation,thetrialcourtcharacterizedthemethodofaackasdeliberatelyand
consciouslyadoptedbythethreeaackers.Forevidentpremeditationtobeappreciated,thefollowingmustbeproven:(1)thetimewhen
theaccuseddecidedtocommitthecrime;(2)anovertactmanifestlyindicatingthathehasclungtohisdetermination;and(3)sucient
lapseoftimebetweenthedecisionandtheexecutiontoallowtheaccusedtoreectupontheconsequencesofhisact.Intheinstantcase,
however,thereisnoshowingofthetimewhenappellantandhisconfederatesdecidedtocommitthecrime.Neitheristhereprooftoshow
howappellantandtheothertwoassailantsplannedthekillingofthevictim.Noristhereanyevidenceshowinghowmuchtimeelapsed
beforetheplanwasexecuted.Absentallthese,theconclusionbythetrialcourtthatevidentpremeditationqualiedthekillingofDelarais
devoidofanyfactualmooring.
Withregardtotheissueofconspiracy,therewasatransparentmanifestationoftheircommonsentimenttoinictharmandinjuryupon
thevictim.First,whileReneandEdmundwerehackingandstabbingthevictim,appellantwaswiththem,poundinghimwithaconcrete
hollowblock.Evidently,appellantwasperformingovertacts,whichdirectlyorindirectlycontributedtotheexecutionofthecrime.
Second,afterthevictimsomehowmanagedtofendohisaackersandee,allthreeaackerspursuedhim.
Clearly,theaforementionedactspointtoacommonpurpose,concertofaction,andcommunityofinterestamongtheassailants.In
conspiracy,itisimmaterialwhoinictedthefatalblows.Aconspirator,nomaerhowminimalhisparticipation,isasguiltyasthe
principalperpetratorofthecrime.
PEOPLEv.ALFREDOIBO
G.R.No.132353March5,2001
Accusedwasconvictedofthecrimeofmurder,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
HELD:
8/21
6/22/2016
HELD:
TheSCarmedthedecisionofthelowercourt.Thecourtfoundthattherewastreacheryinthetakingofthelifeofthevictimaswithout
anywarning,accusedappellantsuddenlyandunexpectedlyshotthevictiminfrontofhisfamilyrightinhisownhome.Neitherthe
victimnorhisfamilyhadanyopportunitytoputupanydefense.Themodeofaackwasexecutedinsuchamannerthatretaliationwas
notpossible.Thevictimdidnotevenhaveaninklingofthedangertohislife,theaackagainsthimbeingsuddenandunexpected.The
prosecutionhaseectivelyshownthattheshootingwascalculatedastoensuretheinictionofthefatalwoundswithoutgivingthevictim
andhisfamilyanyopportunitytoputupadefense.Thequalifyingcircumstanceoftreacheryhavingbeenlikewiseprovenbeyond
reasonabledoubt,theaccusedappellantisguiltyofthecrimeofmurder.
Atthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimein1995,thepenaltyformurderwasreclusionperpetuatodeath.Therebeingnoaggravating
normitigatingcircumstance,theSCheldthatthetrialcourtcorrectlysentencedaccusedappellantstosuerthepenaltyofreclusion
perpetua.
PEOPLEv.JOMERCABANSAYyPALERMO
G.R.No.138646.March6,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofthecrimeofmurder.Afterconsideringinhisfavorthemitigatingcircumstanceofsurrender,theaccusedwas
sentencedtosuerthepenaltyofReclusionPerpetua.
HELD:
Theaccusedadmitsthekillingofthevictimbutdeniesanyliabilitybyinvokingselfdefense.Takingintoaccounttheversionofthe
prosecution,thetheoryofselfdefenseisnottenable.Attheoutset,wementionedthatforselfdefensetoprosper,alltheessentialelements
thereofmustbeadequatelyprovenbytheaccused.Unlawfulaggression,therstofthesethreeessentialelements,presupposesanactual,
suddenandunexpectedaackorimminentdangeronthelifeandlimbofthepersondefendinghimself.Withoutthiselement,therecan
benosuccessfulinvocationofselfdefense.Whentheaccusedstabbedthevictim,thelaerandhiscompanionswereconversingand
sortingbulang.Theyposednothreatordangertotheaccused.Ifthereisanyaggressionpresentinthiscase,itwouldbethatauthored
bytheaccusedwhichresultedinthedeathofCastillo.Absenttheelementofunlawfulaggression,thetheoryofselfdefenseoftheaccused
collapses.Inevitably,theresultwouldbetheconvictionoftheaccusedspringingfromhisownadmissionthathekilledthevictim.
Anentthequalifyingcircumstanceoftreachery,theSCheldthatitwasdulyprovenbytheprosecution.Inthiscase,thequalifying
circumstanceoftreacherywasestablishedbytheprosecutionwitnesswhotestiedthatheandthevictim,togetherwithtwoother
companions,wereconversingandsortingbulangwhentheaccusedsuddenlyandwithoutprovocationstabbedthevictim.Thelocation
ofthewoundindicatesthatthevictimwasstabbedbytheaccusedfromtheback.Afterthevictimfelltohisside,theaccusedappellant
9/21
6/22/2016
ofthewoundindicatesthatthevictimwasstabbedbytheaccusedfromtheback.Afterthevictimfelltohisside,theaccusedappellant
madeafollowupthrust.Thewitness,whowasshockedbythesuddennessoftheaack,waslikewisestabbedbytheaccusedthreetimes.
TheSCheldthatthemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntarysurrenderwasproperlyappreciatedbythetrialcourt.Prosecutionwitness
SPO4PatrocinioAbesiahimselftestiedthatthemotheroftheaccusedintercededforthelaerssurrender,andsubsequently,theaccused
voluntarilysurrenderedtohim.
PEOPLEv.ANTONIOSAMUDIO
G.R.No.126168.March7,2001
Alloftheaccusedappellantswerefoundguiltyofthecrimeofmurder,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
HELD:
WithregardtotheclaimofselfdefenseofSamudio,hefailedtodischargethisburdenconvincinglyforhedidnotadequatelysupporthis
allegationofselfdefense.Noonecorroboratedhistestimonythattheaggressionwasinitiatedbythevictim.Thus,histestimonyisself
serving.Anaccusedwhoinvokesselfdefensehastorelyonthestrengthofhisevidenceandnotontheweaknessoftheprosecutions
evidence,for,evenifthelaerwereweak,itcouldnotbedisbelievedafterhisopenadmissionofresponsibilityforthekilling.
ItisallegedintheInformationthatthekillingwasqualiedbytreachery,evidentpremeditation,abuseofsuperiorstrengthanddisregard
ofrespectduetotheoendedpartyonaccountofhisrank.However,theSCheldthatthetrialcourtfailedtomakeandingastothe
existenceofanyofthesequalifyingcircumstances.
Intheinstantcase,treacherycannotbeappreciatedconsideringthattheonlyeyewitnesstotheactualstabbing,didnotseetheinitialstage
andparticularsoftheaackonthevictim.Similarly,theprosecutionfailedtoestablishtheaendanceofevidentpremeditation.Therewas
noprooforshowingof(1)thetimewhentheoenderdeterminedtocommitthecrime;(2)anactmanifestlyindicatingthattheoender
hadclungtohisdetermination;and(3)asucientlapseoftimebetweenthedeterminationtocommitandtheexecutionthereof,toallow
theoendertoreectontheconsequenceofhisact.Noneoftheseelementsofevidentpremeditationcanbefairlyinferredfromthe
evidenceadducedbytheprosecutioninthecaseatbar.
Neithercanabuseofsuperiorstrengthbeappreciated.Meresuperiorityinnumberisnotenoughtoconstitutesuperiorstrength.The
prosecutiondidnotpresentanydirectproofthattherewasadeliberateintentonthepartoftheaccusedappellantstotakeadvantageof
theobviousinequalityofforcebetweenthevictimandtheaccusedappellants.
Thequalifyingcircumstanceofdisregardofrespectduetotheoendedpartyonaccountofhisrank,beingabarangaycaptainalleged10/21
6/22/2016
Thequalifyingcircumstanceofdisregardofrespectduetotheoendedpartyonaccountofhisrank,beingabarangaycaptainalleged
intheinformationislikewiseunavailing.TheprosecutionfailedtoestablishproofofthespecicfactsdemonstratingthatSamudiosactof
killingthevictimwasdeliberatelyintendedtodisregardorinsulttherespectduehimonaccountofhisrankasabarangaycaptain.
Absentanyoftheabovequalifyingcircumstances,thecrimecommiedisnotmurder,butonlyhomicideunderArticle249oftheRevised
PenalCodewhichispunishablebyreclusiontemporal.Itappears,however,thatthemitigatingcircumstanceofvoluntarysurrender
shouldbeappreciatedinSamudiosfavor.Tobethusconsidered,three(3)requisitesmustbeproven,namely,(a)theoenderhadnot
actuallybeenarrested;(b)theoendersurrenderhimselftoapersoninauthority;and(c)thesurrenderwasvoluntary.
TheactsofSamudiovisavisthoseofhiscoaccusedfailedtoestablishbeyondreasonabledoubtthepresenceofconspiracy.Sincethesole
prosecutionwitnesstotheactualkilling,didnotseeitsinceptionandthedetailsastohowitprogressed,theprosecutionfailedtoadduce
sucientevidencetocompletelyestablishtheexistenceofconspiracyamongtheaccused.Itbearsstressingthatconspiracymustbe
provedasconvincinglyandindubitablyasthecrimeitself.Nonetheless,thefailureoftheprosecutiontoprovetheexistenceofconspiracy
doesnoteliminateanycriminalliabilityonthepartoftheotheraccusedappellants.Althoughtheycouldnotbeconvictedasaco
principal,theyareliableasaccomplices.
PEOPLEv.ERNESTOICALLAyINES
G.R.No.136173.March7,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofthecrimeofmurder,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofdeath.
HELD:
TheSCnotedthatappellantfaultsthetrialcourtforitsrelianceoncircumstantialevidence.However,itiswellseledthatdirectevidence
ofthecommissionofacrimeisnottheonlymatrixwherefromatrialcourtmaydrawitsconclusionandndingofguilt.Convictionmay
stillbeproperiffactualcircumstancesdulyprovenbytheprosecutionconstituteanunbrokenchainwhichleadtoafairandreasonable
conclusionthattheaccusedisguiltytotheexclusionofallothers.Tosupportaconvictionbasedoncircumstantialevidence,the
concurrenceofthefollowingrequisitesisessential:(a)theremustbemorethanonecircumstance;(b)thefactsfromwhichtheinferenceof
guiltisbasedmustbeproved;and(c)thecombinationofallthecircumstancesissuchastoproduceconvictionbeyondreasonabledoubt.
Evenifthereisnoeyewitnesstothecrime,responsibilitythereforcanbeestablishedbythetotalityofthedulyprovenfactsthatyieldan
inevitableconclusionconsistentwiththeguiltoftheaccused.
Theoensecommiedisnotmurder.Appellantcannotbeheldliableforthecrimeofmurderaschargedintheinformation,butonlyfor
homicide,whichwastheoenseproved.AsobservedbytheOSG,thereisnoevidenceastothemannerinwhichtheassaultwasmadeor
howthestabbingbegananddeveloped.Althoughthedeceasedsustainedvewounds,someofwhichwereattheback,thisfactbyitself
11/21
doesnotconstitutetreacherywhichwouldqualifythekillingtomurder.Therebeingnoeyewitnesstothekillingorevidenceonthemode
6/22/2016
doesnotconstitutetreacherywhichwouldqualifythekillingtomurder.Therebeingnoeyewitnesstothekillingorevidenceonthemode
ofaackadoptedbyappellant,treacherycouldnotbeappreciatedinthiscaseasaqualifyingcircumstance.
Likewise,thereisadearthofevidencetoestablishevidentpremeditationaseitheraqualifyingorgenericaggravatingcircumstance.
Whilethewitnessesmayhavetestiedregardingincidentspriortothekilling,thereisnoevidencethatappellanthadeverconceivedor
expressedaresolvetokillthevictim.
PEOPLEv.CONRADOSALADINOYDINGLE
G.R.Nos.13748183&138455March7,2001
Accusedwasconvictedofthree(3)countsofrapeforrapinghis13yroldniece.Takingintoaccountthequalifyingcircumstanceofthe
minorityofthevictimandherrelationshiptoaccusedappellant,thelowercourtmetedthree(3)deathpenaltiespursuanttoRA7659.The
trialcourtalsofoundaccusedappellantguiltyofaemptedrape,andsentencedhimtoserveanindeterminatepenaltyofeight(8)years
andone(1)dayofprisionmayorminimumasminimum,tofourteen(14)years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)dayofreclusiontemporal
minimum,asmaximum.
HELD:
TheSCsaidthatthevictimsfailuretoshoutoroertenaciousresistancedidnotmakevoluntaryhersubmissiontothecriminalactsofthe
accusedappellant.Theyheldthatthe(i)ntimidationmustbeviewedinthelightofthevictimsperceptionandjudgmentatthetimeof
thecommissionofthecrimeandnotbyanyhardandfastrule;itisthereforeenoughthatitproducesfearfearthatifthevictimdoesnot
yieldtothebestialdemandsoftheaccusedsomethingwouldhappentoheratthatmomentoreventhereafteraswhensheisthreatened
withdeathifshereportstheincident.Thefailuretoshoutoroerresistancewasnotbecausesheconsentedtothedeedbutbecauseshe
honestlybelievedshewouldbekilledifsheshoutedorresisted.Suchthreatissucientintimidationascontemplatedbyour
jurisprudenceonrape.Andbethatasitmay,ifresistancewouldneverthelessbefutilebecauseofacontinuingintimidation,thenoering
noneatallwouldnotmeanconsenttotheassaultastomakethevictimsparticipationinthesexualactvoluntary.
However,thelowercourterredinimposingthedeathpenalty.InPeoplev.Ramos20theconcurrenceoftheminorityofthevictimandher
relationshiptotheoender,beingspecialqualifyingcircumstancesshouldbeallegedintheinformation,otherwise,thedeathpenalty
cannotbeimposed.Inthecaseatbar,althoughtheprosecutiondidprovecomplainantsminorityandrelationshiptoaccusedappellant,it
failedtoimpleadbothminorityandrelationshipinthefour(4)Informationsledagainstaccusedappellant.Itisnotenoughthatthe
relationshipwassubsequentlyprovedduringthetrial.BothrelationshipandminoritymustbeallegedintheInformationtoqualifythe
crimeaspunishablebydeath.Toholdotherwisewoulddenyaccusedappellantsconstitutionalrighttobeinformedofthenatureandthe
causeoftheaccusationagainsthim.Thus,hecanonlybeconvictedofsimplerape,punishablebyreclusionperpetua.
Theimpositionofanindeterminatepenaltyofeight(8)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayorminimumasminimum,tofourteen(14) 12/21
6/22/2016
Theimpositionofanindeterminatepenaltyofeight(8)yearsandone(1)dayofprisionmayorminimumasminimum,tofourteen(14)
years,eight(8)monthsandone(1)dayofreclusiontemporalminimumasmaximum,inaemptedrapeisalsoerroneous.Theproper
penaltyforrapeintheaemptedstageshouldbetwo(2)degreeslowerthanthepenaltyforconsummatedrape,orprisionmayor.
ApplyingtheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,themaximumimposablepenaltyshouldbetakenfromprisionmayorinitsmediumperiod
andtheminimumfromprisioncorreccional.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILv.EUGENIOMANGOMPIT
G.R.Nos.13996266March7,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyfor5countsofrape,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofdeathforeachcount.Hewasfoundguiltyforraping
his16yroldniece.
HELD:
TheSCfoundtheaccusedguilty,butreducedthepenaltytoreclusionperpetuaforeachcount.Inthecaseatbench,thetrialcourt
apparentlyreliedonthe1stspecialcircumstanceintroducedbyR.A.7659,thatofminorityofthevictimandrelationshipwiththe
oender,inimposingthedeathpenalty.However,theconcurrenceoftheminorityofthevictimandherrelationshiptotheoender
shouldbespecicallyallegedintheinformationconformablywiththerightofanaccusedtobeinformedofthenatureandcauseofthe
accusationagainsthim.EventhoughtheminorityofMaritesandherrelationshipwithaccusedappellantwereprovenbeyonddoubt,the
deathpenaltycannotbeimposedbecausebothofthesequalifyingcircumstanceswerenotallegedintheinformation.Therefore,despite
theve(5)countsofrapecommiedbyaccusedappellant,hecannotbesentencedtothesupremepenaltyofdeath.Accordingly,the
penaltyofdeathimposedbythetrialcourtshouldbereducedtoreclusionperpetua.
TheSCheldthatthetrialcourtlikewisecorrectlyimposedtheamountofP25,000foreachcountofrape,oratotalofP125,000.00,asandby
wayofexemplarydamages.UnderArticle2230oftheNewCivilCode,(I)ncriminaloenses,exemplarydamagesasapartofthecivil
liabilitymaybeimposedwhenthecrimewascommiedwithoneormoreaggravatingcircumstances.Inthecaseatbench,the
aggravatingcircumstancesofrelationship,dwelling,and,fortwoofthecharges,nighimewereproventohaveaendedthecommission
ofthecrime.Relationship,thatofuncleandniece,wasprovenbythetestimonyofthevictimandbytheadmissionofaccusedappellant
himself.Dwellingwaslikewiseprovenasitwasshownthattheveincidentsofrapewereallcommiedinsidethehouseofthefamilyof
thevictimwhereaccusedappellantwasstayingasahouseguest.Finally,theaggravatingcircumstanceofnighimewaslikewiseproven
intwooftheverapeincidentsasitwasshownthataccusedappellantwaiteduntillateinthenightwhentheotherfamilymemberswere
indeepslumberbeforeconsummatinghiscarnaldesireforthevictim.
PEOPLEv.ARNELMATARO
13/21
6/22/2016
PEOPLEv.ARNELMATARO
G.R.No.130378.March8,2001
Accusedappellantswerefoundguiltyforthecrimeofmurder,andbothweresentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuaandto
paytheheirsofthevictim.
HELD:
Theaccusedappellantsinvoketheequipoiserulebecausetheirguilthadnotbeenestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt.TheSCsaid
thatithasenumeratedtherequisitesforcredibleidenticationinthecaseof
Peoplev.Teehankee,Jr.,249SCRA54(1995)asfollows:
1)thewitnessopportunitytoviewthecriminalatthetimeofthecrime;
2)witnessdegreeofaentionatthattime;
3)theaccuracyofanypriordescriptiongivenbythewitness;
4)thelevelofcertaintydemonstratedbythewitnessattheidentication;
5)thelengthoftimebetweenthecrimeandtheidentication;and
6)thesuggestivenessoftheidenticationprocedure.18
TheCourtheldthatintheirview,theserequirementsweremet.Intheinstantcase,thereisnoquestionthatbothwitnesseshadthe
opportunitytoviewtheincidentasitunfoldedbeforethemwithadegreeofaentionthatallowedthemtotakeintheimportantdetails
andrecallthemclearly.Moreover,asrepeatedlystressed,appellatecourtshouldaccordtothefactualndingsoftrialcourtsandtheir
evaluationgreatweightandrespectconcerningthecredibilityofwitnesses.Theconditionsofvisibilitybeingfavorableandthese
witnessesnotappearingtobebiased,theconclusionoftrialcourtsregardingtheidentityofthemalefactorsshouldnormallybeaccepted.
TheSCalsoheldthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrinqualifyingthekillingasmurder.Therewastreacheryinthiscasesince,astestiedtoby
prosecutionwitnessFernandez,thevictimhadalreadydismissedtheappellantsaftertheytalkedtohim.Thevictimwasdeliberately
allowedtoenjoyafalsesenseofsecurity.Theyshotthevictimwhenthelaerhadhishandsraised.TheSCthereforearmedtheruling
ofthelowercourt,butmademodicationswiththecoststobepaidbytheaccused.
PEOPLEv.RICKYROGERAUSTRIA
G.R.No.134279March8,2001
14/21
6/22/2016
G.R.No.134279March8,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofthecrimeofmurder,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetuawithalltheaccessory
penaltiesprovidedbylaw,andtopaythecosts.
HELD:
TheSCheldthattheinconsistenciesinRowenaJuniostestimonydonotrefertoincidentalorcollateralmaers.Thebasisofher
identicationofaccusedappellantasthevictimsassailantwaspreciselyherpurportedfamiliaritywithaccusedappellant.Shedidnot
pickhimoutofapolicelineupnordidsheprovidethepolicewithadescriptionoftheassailant.Shepointedtoaccusedappellant
becausesheallegedlyknewhimpriortothekilling.Ifthewitnesswasnotatallfamiliarwithaccusedappellant,theprosecutionswhole
casecollapsesforsuchfamiliaritywasitsveryfoundation.
Inthefaceofdoubtsregardingthefamiliarityofthewitnesswiththeallegedassailant,thedistanceofthewitnessfromthesceneandthe
visibilityconditionsthereatassumegreatersignicance.Theprosecutiondidnotshow,however,whethertheintensityofthedefective
lampwassucienttoenablethewitnesstoseeaccusedappellantsface,consideringherdistancefromthescene.
Accusedappellantinvokedalibi,whichhefailedtocorroboratewithotherevidence.Nevertheless,thiscircumstancewouldnotsustain
hisconviction.Asarule,alibisshouldbeconsideredwithsuspicionandreceivedwithcaution,notonlybecausetheyareinherentlyweak
andunreliable,butalsobecausetheycaneasilybefabricated.Butequallyfundamentalistheaxiomthatevidencefortheprosecutionmust
standorfallonitsownmeritsandcannotbeallowedtodrawstrengthfromtheweaknessofthedefense.And,wheretheprosecutions
evidenceisweakorjustasequallytenuous,alibineednotbeinquiredinto.
Theprosecutionhasalsofailedtoestablishanymotiveonthepartoftheaccusedappellanttokillthedeceased.Whilegenerally,the
motiveoftheaccusedisimmaterialanddoesnothavetobeproven,proofofthesamebecomesrelevantandessentialwhen,asinthiscase,
theidentityoftheassailantisinquestion.
Consideringtheapparentunreliabilityoftheevidenceproeredbytheprosecution,thisCourtisconstrainedtoruleforanacquial.Inall
criminalcases,alldoubtsshouldberesolvedinfavoroftheaccusedontheprinciplethatitisbeertoliberateaguiltymanthanto
unjustlykeepinprisononewhoseguilthasnotbeenprovenbytherequiredquantumofevidence.Conviction,itissaid,mustreston
nothinglessthanamoralcertaintyofguiltthatwendheretobewanting.TheSCreversedthedecisionofthelowercourt,andacquied
theaccusedongroundofreasonabledoubt.
PEOPLEOFTHEPHILv.RODOLFOVILLADARES
G.R.No.137649March8,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofrapinga12yroldgirl,andwassentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
15/21
6/22/2016
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofrapinga12yroldgirl,andwassentencedtosuerthepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.
HELD:
Accusedassailsthecredibilityofthewitnessandthesupposedinconsistenciesinthetestimonies.TheSCstillarmedtherulingofthe
lowercourt.
First.Itisdoctrinalthattheevaluationbythetrialcourtofthetestimonyofawitnessisaccordedwithhighestrespectbecausethetrial
courthadthedirectandsingularopportunitytoobservethefacialexpression,gestureandtoneofvoiceofawitnesswhiletestifyingand
therefore,competenttodeterminewhetherornotthewitnessistellingthetruth.
Second.TheallegedinconsistencybetweenthetestimonyofEliza(victim)andEmma,thatis,thatthelaertestiedthatElizashouted,is
trivialandcannotaecttheveracityoftheirtestimonies.Inconsistenciesinthetestimoniesofwitnesseswhichrefertominorand
insignicantdetailsdonotdestroytheircredibility.Suchminorinconsistenciesevenmanifesttruthfulnessandcandoranderaseany
suspicionofrehearsedtestimony.
Third.TheinconsistenciesinEmmasstatementbeforethepoliceauthoritiesandhertestimonyinopencourtcannotdetractfromElizas
testimonythatshewasrapedonJuly20,1996byaccusedappellant.Discrepanciesand/orinconsistenciesbetweenawitnessadavitand
testimonyinopencourtdonotimpaircredibilityasadavitsaretakenexparteandareoftenincompleteorinaccurateforlackofor
absenceofsearchinginquiriesbytheinvestigatingocer.Inanyevent,wendthatEmmastestimonyincourtsucientlycorroborates
thatofElizaonmaterialpoints.
Lastly,withorwithoutthemedicalcerticate,thetestimonyofEliza,ascorroboratedbyhersisterEmmaissucienttoconvict.This
Courthasruledthatamedicalexaminationofthevictimisnotindispensableinaprosecutionforrape;andthatavictimstestimonyalone
ifcredibleissucienttoconvicttheappellantofthecrime.
PEOPLEv.EFRENVALEZ
G.R.No.136738.March12,2001
Accusedwasfoundguiltyofrapinga12yroldgirl,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyofdeath.IntheInformationthatwasled,itwas
indicatedthattherewasabuseofcondenceandtrust,theaccusedbeingthehusbandofcomplainantshalfsister.
HELD:
Accusedappellantmaintainsthatheshouldonlybeconvictedforactsoflasciviousnessbecausetherewasnosexualintercourse.TheSC16/21
6/22/2016
Accusedappellantmaintainsthatheshouldonlybeconvictedforactsoflasciviousnessbecausetherewasnosexualintercourse.TheSC
heldthatitiswellseledthatwheretheaccusedtriedtoinserthispenisintohisvictimsvagina,thatwasallthatwasnecessarytocommit
consummatedrape.Fullpenetrationofthevictimsgenitalorganisnotrequiredinordertosustainaconvictionforrape.Infact,solongas
therewasanaempttoinsert,evenwithoutruptureofthehymen,rapeisconsideredtohavealreadybeenconsummated.Inthiscase,
undoubtedly,thereisnoissueastowhetherornottherewasinsertionorpenetrationwhichcallsforanedistinctionbetweenmere
brushingorepidermalcontactandactualtouchingorslidingintothefemaleorganasenunciatedinthecaseofPeoplev.Campuhan.
TheSCfoundtheaccusedguilty,butreducedthepenaltytoreclusionperpetua.Minorityandrelationshipundertherstparagraphare
specialqualifyingcircumstanceswhichqualifyrapetowarrantthemandatorypenaltyofdeath.Assuch,theymustbothbespecically
pleadedintheInformationandprovenduringtrial.Thesetwocircumstances,minorityandrelationship,mustconcur;otherwise,ifonly
oneisprovenduringtrial,eveniftheInformationallegedboth,thedeathpenaltycannotbeimposed.And,asspecialqualifying
circumstances,thesamemustbeprovenbeyondreasonabledoubtasthecrimeitself.
Inthecaseunderreview,theSCfoundthatevidenceiswantingastothespecialqualifyingcircumstanceofminority.Theonlyproofasto
theminorityofthecomplainantishertestimonyduringdirectexaminationthatshewas13yearsoldandaGradeVIstudent.Noother
proof,waspresentedbytheprosecutiontoestablishcomplainantsminorityatthetimeoftheincident.Evencomplainantsmotherfailed
totestifyastoherdaughtersageonthewitnessstand.
Astoliation,theCourtnotesthatthecircumstanceofrelationshipbyanitywithinthethirdcivildegreewasproperlyallegedinthe
Informationwhichstatedthataccusedappellantisthehusbandofcomplainantshalfsisterandlikewisedulyprovenduringtrial.
Complainantherselfdeclaredthataccusedappellantwasthehusbandofhereldersister.Themotherofthecomplainantandmotherin
lawoftheaccusedalsotestiedthataccusedappellantishissoninlaw.Moreover,theaccusedhimselfadmiedthatthevictimishis
sisterinlaw.Thisnotwithstanding,forfailureoftheprosecutiontoestablishminoritybyproofbeyondreasonabledoubt,thedeath
penaltycannotbeimposed.
Peoplev.NellieCabaisyGamuela
G.R.No.129070.March16,2001
Accusedwasconvictedofillegalrecruitmentcommiedinlargescalebyasyndicate,andsentencedtolifeimprisonmentandane.She
wasalsoconvictedfortwocountsofestafa,andsentencedto(a)inCriminalCaseNo.13999R,tosix(6)monthsandone(1)dayofprision
correccional,asminimum,toseven(7)years,eight(8)monthsandtwentyone(21)daysofprisionmayor,asmaximum,andtoindemnify
theoendedpartyJoanMerante,intheamountofP40,000.00asactualdamages,andcosts;(b)inCriminalCaseNo.14000R,tosix(6)
17/21
6/22/2016
theoendedpartyJoanMerante,intheamountofP40,000.00asactualdamages,andcosts;(b)inCriminalCaseNo.14000R,tosix(6)
monthsandone(1)dayofprisioncorreccional,asminimum,tosix(6)years,eight(8)monthsandtwenty(20)daysofprisionmayor,as
maximum,andtoindemnifytheoendedparty,NancyOidi,intheamountofP21,000.00asactualdamages,andcosts.
HELD:
Theessentialelementsofillegalrecruitmentcommiedinlargescaleare:(1)thattheaccusedengagedinactsofrecruitmentand
placementofworkersasdenedunderArticle13(b)orinanyprohibitedactivitiesunderArticle34oftheLaborCode;(2)thattheaccused
hadnotcompliedwiththeguidelinesissuedbytheSecretaryofLaborandEmployment,particularlywithrespecttotherequirementto
securealicenseoranauthoritytorecruitanddeployworkers,eitherlocallyoroverseas;and(3)thattheaccusedcommiedtheunlawful
actsagainstthree(3)ormorepersons,individuallyorasagroup.
Accusedappellantcontendsthatshewasnotinvolvedinrecruitmentbutwasmerelyanemployeeofarecruitmentagency.Anemployee
ofacompanyorcorporationengagedinillegalrecruitmentmaybeheldliableasprincipal,togetherwithhisemployer,ifitisshownthat
heactivelyandconsciouslyparticipatedinillegalrecruitment.Inthiscase,accusedwastheonewhoinformedcomplainantsofjob
prospectsinKoreaandtherequirementsfordeployment.Shealsoreceivedmoneyfromthemasplacementfees.Allofthecomplainants
testiedthattheypersonallymetaccusedappellantandtransactedwithherregardingtheoverseasjobplacementoers.Complainants
partedwiththeirmoney,evidencedbyreceiptssignedbyaccusedCabaisandaccusedForneas.Thus,accusedappellantactively
participatedintherecruitmentofthecomplainants.
Furthermore,accusedappellantdidnotpossessanylicensetoengageinrecruitmentactivities,asevidencedbyacerticationfromthe
POEAandthetestimonyofarepresentativeofsaidgovernmentagency.Heractsconstitutedrecruitment,andconsideringthatshe
admiedlyhadnolicenseorauthoritytorecruitworkersforoverseasemployment,accusedappellantisguiltyofillegalrecruitment.
Despitethefactthatshewasjustanordinaryemployeeofthecompany,hercriminalliabilitywouldstillstandforbeingaconspiratorwith
thecorporateocersinundertakingillegalrecruitmentactivities.Sincetherecruitmentinvolvesthreeormorepersons,accusedappellant
isguiltyofillegalrecruitmentinalargescalepunishableunderArticle39oftheLaborCodewithlifeimprisonmentandaneofone
hundredthousandpesos.
Astothechargesofestafa,accusedappellantcontendsthatsheisnotliablefortheoenseschargedbecauseshedidnotappropriatefor
herownusethemoneygiventoherbycomplainantsasplacementandpassportfees.Theelementsofestafaare:(a)thattheaccused
defraudedanotherbyabuseofcondenceorbymeansofdeceit,and(b)thatdamageorprejudicecapableofpecuniaryestimationis
causedtotheoendedpartyorthirdperson.Fromtheforegoing,thefactthatthemoneywasappropriatedbyaccusedforherownuseis
notanelementofthecrimeofestafa.Thus,accusedappellantCabaiscontentionundersuchgroundisuntenable.Moreover,accused
appellantmisrepresentedherselftocomplainantsasonewhocanmakearrangementsforjobplacementsinKorea.Complainantswere
successfullyinducedtopartwiththeirmoney,causingthemdamageandprejudice.Consequently,accusedappellantisguiltyofestafa.
18/21
6/22/2016
Peoplev.EdgardoLiad
G.R.Nos.13381517.March22,2001
Facts:
Accusedappellantswerefoundguiltyasprincipalsbydirectparticipationofthecrimeofrobberywithhomicide,andsentencedtosuer
thepenaltyofreclusionperpetua.Theywerealsofoundguiltyofillegalpossessionofrearms,andsentencedtosuerthepenaltyoffour
(4)years,nine(9)monthsandeleven(11)daystove(5)years,four(4)monthsandtwenty(20)daysofprisioncorrectionalsic.
Held:
TheCourtndsthattheprosecutionestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubttheexistenceofaconspiracybetweenaccusedappellantsand
thedeceased.Inconspiracy,directproofofapreviousagreementtocommitacrimeisnotnecessary.Itmaybededucedfromthemode
andmannerbywhichtheoensewasperpetrated,orinferredfromtheactsoftheaccusedthemselveswhensuchpointtoajointpurpose
anddesign,concertedactionandcommunityofinterest.Conspiracymaybeinferredfromtheconductoftheaccusedbefore,duringor
afterthecommissionofthecrime.Inthiscase,therewereseveralcircumstancesimmediatelybefore,duringandaftertherobbery
indubitablywhichshowthattheperpetratorswereoneintheirpurposetorobthevictim.Whereconspiracyisshown,thepreciseextentof
participationofeachaccusedinthecrimeissecondaryandtheactofonemaybeimputedtoalltheconspirators.
TheSCheldthatthetrialcourt,therefore,didnoterrinconvictingaccusedappellantsofrobberywithhomicide.Wheneverhomicidehas
beencommiedasaconsequenceorontheoccasionoftherobbery,allthosewhotookpartasprincipalsintherobberywillalsobeheld
guiltyasprincipalsforthespecialcomplexcrimeofrobberywithhomicide,althoughtheydidnotactuallytakepartinthehomicide.
Incasesinvolvingillegalpossessionofrearm,therequisiteelementsare:(a)theexistenceofthesubjectrearmand(b)thefactthatthe
accusedwhoownedorpossessedtherearmdoesnothavethecorrespondinglicenseorpermittopossess.Thelaerisanegativefactthat
constitutesanessentialingredientoftheoenseofillegalpossession,anditisthedutyoftheprosecutionnotonlytoallegeitbutalsoto
proveitbeyondreasonabledoubt.TheCourtagreeswithaccusedappellantsandtheSolicitorGeneralthattheprosecutioninthiscase
failedtoprovethesecondelement.
TheSCdoesnotagreewiththecontentionoftheSolicitorGeneralthatsinceapaltikisahomemadegun,isillegallymanufacturedas
recognizedinPeoplev.Fajardo,andcannotbeissuedalicenseorpermit,itisnolongernecessarytoprovethatitisunlicensed.This
appearstobe,atrstblush,averylogicalproposition.TheCourt,however,yieldtoitbecauseFajardodidnotsaythatpaltikscaninno
casebeissuedalicenseorapermit,andthatproofthatarearmisapaltikdispenseswithproofthatitisunlicensed.
19/21
6/22/2016
Source:
CriminalLawDigests
AteneoCentralBarOperations2001
AboutMagz
Firstofall,Iamnotalawyer.ImagraduateofABPoliticalScienceandwenttotheCollegeofLawbutstoppedgoingtolawschoolforsomereasons.
ImapassionateteacherwhohasbeenteachingEnglishtospeakersofotherlanguagesandapersonwholikeswritingandblogging.Ilostsome
importantlesandsoftwarewhenmycomputerbrokedownsothereasonIcreatedthiswebsiteistopreservethenotes,reviewersanddigestsIcollected
whenIwasatthelawschoolandatthesametime,Iwanttohelpoutlawstudentswhodonothaveenoughtimetogoandreadbooksinthelibrary.
ViewallpostsbyMagz
PostedonJanuary24,2012,inDigestsandtaggedCriminalLawDigestsMarch2001.Bookmarkthepermalink.Leaveacomment.
Leaveacomment
Comments0
BlogatWordPress.com.TheMystiqueTheme.
20/21
6/22/2016
21/21

Criminal Law Digests - March 2001 - Philippine Law Reviewers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Digests - March 2001 - Philippine Law Reviewers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

6/22/2016

You might also like