Valenzuela v People 160188

Facts:

While a security guard was manning his post the open parking area of a supermarket, he saw the accused,
Aristotel Valenzuela, hauling a push cart loaded with cases of detergent and unloaded them where his co-
accused, Jovy Calderon, was waiting. Valenzuela then returned inside the supermarket, and later emerged with
more cartons of detergent. Thereafter, Valenzuela hailed a taxi and started loading the boxes of detergent inside.
As the taxi was about to leave the security guard asked Valenzuela for the receipt of the merchandise. The
accused reacted by fleeing on foot, but were subsequently apprehended at the scene. The trial court convicted
both Valenzuela and Calderon of the crime of consummated theft. Valenzuela appealed before the Court of
Appeals, arguing that he should only be convicted of frustrated theft since he was not able to freely dispose of
the articles stolen. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision, thus the Petition for Review was filed before the
Supreme Court

Issue

Whether or not, petitioner Valenzuela is guilty of frustrated theft.

Held

No. Article 6 of the RPC provides that a felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its
execution and accomplishment are present. In the crime of theft, the following elements should be present – (1)
that there be taking of personal property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking be done
with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be
accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidating of persons or force upon things. The court held
that theft is produced when there is deprivation of personal property by one with intent to gain. Thus, it is
immaterial that the offender is able or unable to freely dispose the property stolen since he has already
committed all the acts of execution and the deprivation from the owner has already ensued from such acts.
Therefore, theft cannot have a frustrated stage, and can only be attempted or consummated.

People v. Dela Cruz

G.R. No. 120988 August 11, 1997

Lessons Applicable: consummated crime

Laws Applicable:

FACTS:
• September 27, 1994 11:30 am: Cecilia Caparos, a neighbor of Whiazel Soriano, waiting for her two children
inside the compound of the Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School when she saw Whiazel held on the hand and
being led away by Rosemarie de la Cruz. Knowing that Whiazel was enrolled in the afternoon class, she went
after them and asked de la Cruz where she was going with Whiazel. De la Cruz answred that she was asked by
Rowena Soriano, Whiazel’s mother, to bring Whiazel to her. Then, Caparos asked Whiazel the same question,
Whiazel said to look for De la Cruz’ child. During this time, Whiazel told De la Cruz that she wanted to go. But
De la Cruz refused and held her hand. The inconsistent answer, scratches on Whiazel’s face and terrified look
made her suspicious so she told De la Cruz to bring Whiazel to the teacher was surprised and reasoned out but
soon agreed. When they arrived, Whiazel cried.
• When Eufemia Magpantay, guidance teacher, asked De la Cruz what she was doing with Whiazel, De la Cruz
told her she was looking for the school dentist. This was also her answer when they went to the principal.
• Gorgonia Nieva, De la Cruz’ mother-in-law: on the day prior to the incident, De la Cruz’ asked her to look
for Dr. Luisa Medina, a dentist because her daughter was sick. Since Nieva heard that Dr. Luisa Medina may be
found at the Aurora A. Quezon Elementary School, she accompanied De la Cruz there at around 11:00 am.
• De la Cruz: she asked; guard where the clinic was. The guard gave her directions, and told her to pass
through the same gate on her way out. When she got to the clinic, no one was there so she left. On her way out,
she saw Whiazel and who walked with her. She did not hold, look or even smile at the child. But, before she
could get out she was seen by Caparos.
• RTC: kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor

ISSUE: W/N there is a consummate crime.

HELD: NO. MODIFIED attempted kidnapping and serious illegal detention

• the felony committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention of a minor in the attempted stage only
• The attempted phase of a felony is defined as when the offender commences the commission of a felony,
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason
of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance (Article 6, Revised Penal Code).
• The overt act must be an external one which has direct connection with the felony, it being "necessary to
prove that said beginning of execution, if carried to its complete termination following its natural course without
being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the offender, will logically and
necessarily ripen to a concrete offense"
• already commenced her criminal scheme by taking hold of Whiazel by the hand and leading her out of the
school premises

PEOPLE v. LAMAHANG [61 Phil.703 (1935)]

Facts:
Aurelio Lamahang was caught opening with an iron bar a wall of a store of cheap goods in Fuentes St. Iloilo. He
broke one board and was unfastening another when a patrolling police caught him. Owners of the store were
sleeping inside store as it was early dawn. Convicted of attempt of robbery
Issue:
WON crime is attempted robbery?
Held:
No. Attempted trespass to dwelling. Attempt should have logical relation to a particular and concrete offense
which would lead directly to consummation. Necessary to establish unavoidable connection & logical & natural
relation of cause and effect. Important to show clear intent to commit crime. In case at bar, we can only infer that
his intent was to enter by force, other inferences are not justified by facts. Groizard: infer only from nature of
acts executed. Acts susceptible of double interpretation can’t furnish ground for themselves. Mind should not
directly infer intent. Spain SC: necessary that objectives established or acts themselves obviously disclose
criminal objective.

Cruz v People 166441

Facts
This appeal examines the decision promulgated on July 26, 2004,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed
the conviction for attempted rape of the petitioner by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, in Balaoan, La Union
(RTC), and imposing on him the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prison mayor, as maximum, and ordering him to pay
moral damages of ₱20,000.00 to AAA,2 the victim.

That on or about the 21st day of December 1993, at about 2:00 o'clock in the morning, along the Bangar-Luna
Road, Barangay Central West No. 2, Municipality of Bangar,Province of La Union, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously and
by means of force and intimidation commenced the commission ofrape directly byovert acts, to wit: While
private complainant AAA, an unmarried woman, fifteen (15) yearsold, was sleeping inside the tentalong Bangar-
Luna Road, the said accused remove her panty and underwear and lay on top of said AAA embracing and
touching her vagina and breast with intent of having carnal knowledge of her by means of force, and if the
accused did not accomplish his purpose that is to have carnal knowledge of the said AAA it was not because of
his voluntary desistance but because the said offended party succeeded in resisting the criminal attempt of said
accused to the damage and prejudice of said offended party

Issue

Whether or not crime is attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness?

Ruling

The fundamental difference between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness is the offender’s intent to lie with
the female. In rape, intent to lie with the female is indispensable, but this element is not required in acts of
lasciviousness. Attempted rape is committed, therefore, when the "touching" of the vagina by the penis is
coupled with the intent to penetrate. The intent to penetrate is manifest only through the showing of the penis
capable of consummating the sexual act touching the external genitalia of the female. Without such showing,
only the felony of acts of lasciviousness is committed

The petitioner climbed on top of the naked victim, and was already touching her genitalia with his hands and
mashing her breasts when she freed herself from his clutches and effectively ended his designs on her. Yet,
inferring from such circumstances that rape, and no other, was his intended felony would be highly unwarranted.
This was so, despite his lust for and lewd designs towards her being fully manifest. Such circumstances
remained equivocal, or "susceptible of double interpretation," as Justice Recto put in People v. Lamahang, supra,
such that it was not permissible to directly infer from them the intention to cause rape as the particular injury.
Verily, his felony would not exclusively be rape had he been allowed by her to continue, and to have sexual
congress with her, for some other felony like simple seduction (if he should employ deceit to have her yield to
him) could also be ultimate felony.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES petitioner NORBERTO CRUZ y BARTOLOME guilty
of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, and, ACCORDINGLY, PENALIZES him with the indeterminate sentence of
three (3) months of arresto mayor, as the minimum, to two (2) years, four (4) months and one day of prision
correccional, as the maximum; ORDERS him to pay moral damages of ₱30,000.00 and civil indemnity of
₱20,000.00 to the complainant, with interest of 6% per annum on such awards reckoned from the finality of this
decision until full payment; and DIRECTS him to pay the costs of suit.
People v Martin Sunga 93028

FACTS
Accused-appellant Martin Simon y Sunga was alleged that he sold four tea bags found to be marijuana. On
December 4, 1989, the trial court rendered judgment convicting appellant, and sentencing him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment.

ISSUE
Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable to the case?

HELD
Yes. The Indeterminate Sentence Law is a legal and social measure of compassion, and should be liberally
interpreted in favor of the accused. Drug offenses are not included in nor has appellant committed any act which
would put him within the exceptions to said law.

Pentecostes v People 167766

This appeal examines the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA), dated February 18, 2005, in CA-G.R. CR. No.
27458, which affirmed with modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aparri, Cagayan,
Branch 6, in Criminal Case No. VI-984, finding petitioner Engr. Carlito Pentecostes, Jr. guilty of the crime of
less serious physical injuries instead of attempted murder, and the Resolution dated April 19, 2005, denying the
motion for reconsideration.

On September 2, 1998, Rudy Baclig was drinking with his brother-in-law. After consuming ½ bottle of gin, he
left and went to the house of a certain Siababa to buy coffee and sugar. He was accompanied by his four- year-
old son. On their way there, a gray automobile coming from the opposite direction passed by them. After a
while, he noticed that the vehicle was moving backward towards them. When the car was about two arms’ length
from where they were, it stopped and he heard the driver of the vehicle call him by his nickname Parrod. Rudy
came closer, but after taking one step, the driver, which he identified as the petitioner, opened the door and while
still in the car drew a gun and shot him once, hitting him just below the left armpit. Rudy immediately ran at the
back of the car, while petitioner sped away. After petitioner left, Rudy and his son headed to the seashore. Rudy
later went back to the place where he was shot and shouted for help.

Issue

Whether or not the crime is less serious physical injuries or attempted murder?

Ruling

The principal and essential element of attempted or frustrated murder is the intent on the part of the assailant to
take the life of the person attacked. Such intent must be proved in a clear and evident manner to exclude every
possible doubt as to the homicidal intent of the aggressor. In the present case, intent to kill the victim could not
be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Petitioner only shot the victim once and did not hit any vital
part of the latter’s body. If he intended to kill him, petitioner could have shot the victim multiple times or even
ran him over with the car. Favorably to petitioner, the inference that intent to kill existed should not be drawn in
the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt.28 When such intent is lacking
but wounds are inflicted upon the victim, the crime is not attempted murder but physical injuries only.
The less serious physical injury suffered by Rudy is defined under Article 265 of the Revised Penal Code, which
provides that "(A)any person who inflicts upon another physical injuries not described as serious physical
injuries but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten (10) days or more, or shall require
medical attendance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor."1avvphi1

VWHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated February 18, 2005, and
the Resolution dated April 19, 2005 in CA-G.R. CR No. 27458, are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner Engr. Carlito Pentecostes, Jr. is sentenced to suffer the straight penalty of three (3) months of arresto
mayor.

People v Abella 198400

Fact

The undersigned complainant, VIOLETA ABELLA, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law
accuses Carmelito Abella y Savella of the crime of Rape, committed as follows: "That on or about the 12th day
of December, 1996 at about 12:00 midnight, more or less, in the City of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, a father of the victim, Violeta Abella, and by means of
force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously did lie and succeed in having
carnal knowledge of said Violeta Abella.

Issue

Whether or not assuming that accused-appellant indeed committed the crime of rape, the trial court erred in
imposing upon him the supreme penalty of death?

Ruling

With the testimony of the victim and the evidence presented in the court the accused is was found guilty of rape,
however the Court, agrees with the accused-appellant that the trial court did err in imposing the death penalty.
The pertinent provisions of Republic Act No. 7659

In recent rulings of the Court, among them the case of People v. Dela Cuesta, 18 the doctrine has been laid down
thus:jgc:chanr

The seven modes of committing rape introduced under R.A. 7659 and R.A. 4111 which warrant the automatic
imposition of death penalty partake of the nature of a qualifying circumstance under the Revised Penal Code
since it increases the penalty of rape to one degree. As such, this qualifying circumstance, that the child is under
eighteen (18) and the offender is a guardian, should be alleged in the information to be appreciated as such. The
informations filed against the accused do not specify such circumstance. It would be a denial of the right of the
accused to be informed of the charges against him, and consequently, a denial of due process, if he is charged
with simple rape, on which he was arraigned, and be convicted of qualified rape punishable by death. Moreover,
even considering it as an aggravating circumstance, it can not affect the imposable penalty since reclusion
perpetua is a single indivisible penalty.1aw library

All then given, the finding of guilt by the trial court should be affirmed but the penalty warranted therefor is the
lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. Correspondingly, the offended party is entitled to P50,000.00 by
way of indemnity ex delicto, plus an amount of P50,000.00 in moral damages, 19 which accused-appellant must
be ordered to pay. Actual damages has been neither claimed nor established; hence, the trial court did not err in
failing to make an award therefor.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 14, of Cebu City, in
Criminal Case No. CBU-43104 is MODIFIED by now holding that accused-appellant is guilty only of simple
rape and sentenced to suffer the penalty of RECLUSION PERPETUA. Accused-appellant shall indemnify the
victim the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and another P50,000.00 as moral damages. Costs against
Appellant.