Crim.digests

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 1

Article 17: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILFREDO TALLA et.al G.R. No. L-44414, January 18, 1990 Facts: The two accused, conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, armed with a firearm locally known as "pugakhang" without any justifiable motive, with treachery and evident premeditation, and with a decided purpose to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one ERNESTO MADERSE. Inflicting upon said Ernesto Maderse gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body which caused his death thereafter. The Court finds Wilfredo Talla guilty of the crime of murder. While, the accused Jolito Talla is acquitted of the offense charged. Accused-appellant further argues that, although the witness may have seen him and his brother at the scene of the crime, he could not have seen him actually shoot Ernesto considering that the place was full of talahib, tall grass and big stones enough to hide people. He added that since Ernesto suffered eight (8) gunshot wounds, it is probable that other persons had also shot him right after the first shot, even assuming that the latter shot was fired by him (appellant) or his brother. Issue: Whether or Not the court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder. Ruled: No. Even though, the Court is convinced that it was not the appellant who fired the fatal shot. And although appellant did not pull the trigger, his actual presence, and his act of pointing a gun towards Ernesto and their act of fleeing together when Ernesto who fell down after the shot fired by Jolito, are all indicative of an existing conspiracy between him and his brother. Their acts show a unity of purpose and unity in the execution of their unlawful objective. No conclusion can be drawn from the acts of appellant except that he consented and approved the act of his brother in firing upon Ernesto. It is well settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged. Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly to commit the felony and forthwith to pursue it. Once the assent is established each and every one of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by anyone of them. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. ______ Vino vs. People GR no. 84163 October 19, 1989 FACTS: Roberto Tejada while on his way home on the night of March 21, 1985, had been shot with a gun allegedly by Jessie Salazar. Upon hearing 2 gunshots, the father of Roberto ran towards outside of the house and saw Roberto was crying for help. In that moment, Roberto’s father and brother saw Vino driving the bicycle while Salazar was riding on it carrying an armalite/gun. Roberto was brought to the hospital but later on died. Vino and Salazar were charged with murder, however on January 21, 1986, the trial court rendered decision finding Vino guilty as an accessory, while Salazar was tried separately but later on acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of Salazar as the perpetrator. ISSUE:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 2

1 Whether or not Vino can thereafter be convicted as an accessory in as much as he was charged in the information as principal for the crime of murder. 2 Whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against the principal. 3 Whether or not the conviction of Vino as an accessory be maintained even the alleged principal was acquitted. HELD: First Issue: The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. While the petitioner was being held responsible as principal in the information but the evidence adduced however showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. This was being corroborated by the witnesses, when they seen Vino who was driving the bicycle while the alleged assailant riding on it carrying a gun/armalite. This clearly shows that Vino assisted the assailant in his escape. Therefore he is liable for the crime as an accessory. Second Issue: The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the offense is duly established in evidence, the determination of liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal. Third Issue: The Supreme Court held that the identity of the assailant is of no material significance for the purpose of the prosecution of the accessory. What is important is that the commission of the crime was established. In this case, there was crime committed and Vino was seen and identified, that he assisted in the escape of the perpetrator. _____________ Article 17: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. WILFREDO TALLA et.al G.R. No. L-44414, January 18, 1990 Misajon, Juvelyn M. Facts: The two accused, conspiring, confederating, and helping one another, armed with a firearm locally known as "pugakhang" without any justifiable motive, with treachery and evident premeditation, and with a decided purpose to kill, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one ERNESTO MADERSE. Inflicting upon said Ernesto Maderse gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body which caused his death thereafter. The Court finds Wilfredo Talla guilty of the crime of murder. While, the accused Jolito Talla is acquitted of the offense charged. Accused-appellant further argues that, although the witness may have seen him and his brother at the scene of the crime, he could not have seen him actually shoot Ernesto considering that the place was full of talahib, tall grass and big stones enough to hide people. He added that since Ernesto suffered eight (8) gunshot wounds, it is probable that other persons had also shot him right after the first shot, even assuming that the latter shot was fired by him (appellant) or his brother. Issue: Whether or Not the court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder. Ruled:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 3

No. Even though, the Court is convinced that it was not the appellant who fired the fatal shot. And although appellant did not pull the trigger, his actual presence, and his act of pointing a gun towards Ernesto and their act of fleeing together when Ernesto who fell down after the shot fired by Jolito, are all indicative of an existing conspiracy between him and his brother. Their acts show a unity of purpose and unity in the execution of their unlawful objective. No conclusion can be drawn from the acts of appellant except that he consented and approved the act of his brother in firing upon Ernesto. It is well settled that a person may be convicted for the criminal act of another where, between them, there has been conspiracy or unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime charged. Conspiracy arises on the very instant the plotters agree, expressly or impliedly to commit the felony and forthwith to pursue it. Once the assent is established each and every one of the conspirators is made criminally liable for the crime actually committed by anyone of them. ACCORDINGLY, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED in toto. __________________ Vino vs. People GR no. 84163 October 19, 1989 Plaza, Mariafe M. FACTS: Roberto Tejada while on his way home on the night of March 21, 1985, had been shot with a gun allegedly by Jessie Salazar. Upon hearing 2 gunshots, the father of Roberto ran towards outside of the house and saw Roberto was crying for help. In that moment, Roberto’s father and brother saw Vino driving the bicycle while Salazar was riding on it carrying an armalite/gun. Roberto was brought to the hospital but later on died. Vino and Salazar were charged with murder, however on January 21, 1986, the trial court rendered decision finding Vino guilty as an accessory, while Salazar was tried separately but later on acquitted by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of Salazar as the perpetrator. ISSUE: (1)Whether or not Vino can thereafter be convicted as an accessory in as much as he was charged in the information as principal for the crime of murder. (2)Whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against the principal. (3)Whether or not the conviction of Vino as an accessory be maintained even the alleged principal was acquitted. HELD: First Issue: The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. While the petitioner was being held responsible as principal in the information but the evidence adduced however showed that his participation is merely that of an accessory. This was being corroborated by the witnesses, when they seen Vino who was driving the bicycle while the alleged assailant riding on it carrying a gun/armalite. This clearly shows that Vino assisted the assailant in his escape. Therefore he is liable for the crime as an accessory. Second Issue: The Supreme Court answered in the affirmative. The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the offense is duly established in evidence, the determination of liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal. Third Issue:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 4

The Supreme Court held that the identity of the assailant is of no material significance for the purpose of the prosecution of the accessory. What is important is that the commission of the crime was established. In this case, there was crime committed and Vino was seen and identified, that he assisted in the escape of the perpetrator. _____________________ People v. Nunag G.R. No. L-54445, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 274 Lopena, Maria Lourdes M. Facts: Accused-appellants Nunag, Mandap, Salangsang, Carpio, and Manalili were charged before the CFI of Pampanga with the crime of rape with the aggravating circumstance of night time. The complainant, Lorenza Lopez, then about fifteen years old, declared that in May 1978, as she was watching a television program in the house of her neighbor Carmen Laxamana, the accused Mario Nunag came towards her, staggering and appearing to be drunk. Nunag asked her to go with him. But she refused, so that Nunag held her by the hand and poked a knife at her stomach and threatened to kill her. Nunag then placed something in her mouth and led her to a nearby ricefield, behind the house of Laxamana. Thereafter, they were joined by the other four accused-appellants who held hands and feet, and forced her on the ground. She struggled to free herself, but the accused held her tightly. Nunag then had sexual intercourse with her followed by Mandap. After Mandap had finished, she lost consciousness and regained it while Manalili was abusing her. The five accused warned her not to report the incident to anybody, otherwise, they would kill her, her parents and brothers. After the incident, the complainant got pregnant and only then did she tell her mother and brothers that she was raped by the five accused-appellants. Several months after, she gave birth prematurely to female twins who both died after a few hours. During trial, all the accused-appellants denied the charge of rape. Nunag, Salangsang and Manalili admitted having sexual intercourse with Lopez on her initiation on three separate instances. Carpio and Mandap on the other hand, denied having sexual intercourse with the complainant at any time. However, the trial judge found the accused guilty of the charge. From this judgment, all the five (5) accused appealed to SC assailing the trial court for giving credence to the testimony of the complainant, which they claim to be concocted and fraught with irreconcilable contradictions. Issue: Whether or not each accused is guilty of five (5) distinct and separate crimes of rape. Held: No. There is no conclusive evidence that the accused-appellants Carpio and Salangsang had sexual intercourse with complainant Lopez, who narrated that she lost consciousness after the second man, Arnel Mandap (the first being Mario Nunag) had sexually abused her and only regained consciousness while Diosdado Manalili was abusing her sexually, and that she merely assumed that Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang had also sexually abused her because they were in the company of the three (3) accused. Therefore, each of the five (5) accused-appellants must be found guilty of three (3) distinct and separate crimes of rape, the first three, namely, Mario Nunag, Arnel Mandap and Diosdado Manalili, by direct act and participation and the other two, namely Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang, by indispensable cooperation. People v Dela Cerna (21 SCRA 569, 1967) Ignacio, Jacqueline Leslie People v Dela Cruz (97 SCRA 385, 1980) Jalinao, Laarni People v. Montealegre G.R. No. L-67948 May 31, 1988

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 5

Ceballos, Jesus C. Facts: While the victim was in the process of arresting the accused and Capalad for smoking marijuana, the accused and Capalad suddenly attacked the victim. Capalad stabbed the victim while the accused held the hands of the victim. The lower court convicted the accused for complex crime of murder being a principal by indispensable cooperation. Issue: WON the lower court was correct in finding the accused guilty of murder as a principal. Held: Yes, the lower court was correct. The act of the accused in holding both hands of the victim prevented him from reaching his sidearm and defend himself from the duo, without which the crime would not have been accomplished making him a principal by indispensable cooperation under Art. 17 par. 3 of the RPC. _____________________ People v Hernandez GR 6025-26; July 18, 1956 Facts: Defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of Congress of Labor Organizations. CLO is an affiliate of Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, a known group performing rebellious activities. Hernandez was charged and convicted of the crime of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Prosecution maintains that capital punishment may be imposed for the crime he was convicted of. Defense contends that there is no complex crime in the crime of rebellion. It was deemed best not to disturb the course of action taken by the lower court, which denied bail to Hernandez, hence the motion to post bail. Issue: Whether or not equal protection was observed in the administration of justice? Decision: Motion for bail granted. The ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately there from. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily discernible. When two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties for each offense. __________________ Enrile vs Salazar G.R. No. 92163; June 5, 1990 Facts: In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941. The warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 6

crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres. On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on March 2, 1990), alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights. Issue: Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from an offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? Held: There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant. __________________ Enrile vs. Amin G.R. No. 93335; September 13, 1990 Facts: Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged as having committed rebellion complexed with murder. Another separate information was filed against petitioner for violation of PD 1829 when he allegedly harbored and concealed Ex-Lt. Col. Gregorio Honasan in his house during a mass and party on December 1, 1989. On March 2, 1990, petitioner filed an omnibus motion but was denied. A motion for reconsideration and to quash/dismiss the information was filed, but was again denied. In return, Sen. Enrile, filed for certiorari on the Supreme Court imputing grave abuse of discretion committed by the respondent court on the following grounds: (a) the facts do not constitute an offense; (b) the alleged harboring of Honasan is absorbed in complexed rebellion; (c) that justice requires only one prosecution for all the components of rebellion; (d) no probable cause for the violation of PD 1829; and (e) no preliminary investigation was conducted for the alleged violation of PD 1829. Issue: Whether or not petitioner could be separately charged for violation of PD 1829 notwithstanding the rebellion case earlier filed against him. Held: NO. The Court held that the petitioner cannot be tried separately under PD 1829 in addition to his being prosecuted in the rebellion case. Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code says that “when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.” It also held the ruling in the light of Hernandez doctrine where ‘all crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are mere components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated as separate crimes in themselves. ________________

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 7

People vs. Yabut G.R. Nos. 115719-26; October 5, 1999 : THE FACTS: Appellant Yabut was charged with 8 counts of estafa and illegal recruitment in large scale. The trial court acquitted him of the 8 counts of estafa but convicted him of illegal recruitment in large scale. He appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. THE ISSUE May the appellant be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the crime of estafa? THE RULING [The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction of the appellant of the crime of ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT in large scale.] YES, the appellant be convicted of illegal recruitment in large scale despite his acquittal of the crime of estafa. In this jurisdiction, it is settled that a person who commits illegal recruitment may be charged and convicted separately of illegal recruitment under the Labor Code and estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code. The offense of illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum where the criminal intent of the accused is not necessary for conviction, while estafa is malum in se where the criminal intent of the accused is crucial for conviction. Conviction for offenses under the Labor Code does not bar conviction for offenses punishable by other laws. Conversely, conviction for estafa under par. 2 (a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code does not bar a conviction for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. It follows that one's acquittal of the crime of estafa will not necessarily result in his acquittal of the crime of illegal recruitment in large scale, and vice versa _______________ People v Hernandez GR 6025-26; July 18, 1956 Facts: Defendant-appellant Amado Hernandez is a bonafide member of Congress of Labor Organizations. CLO is an affiliate of Hukbong Magpalayang Bayan, a known group performing rebellious activities. Hernandez was charged and convicted of the crime of rebellion complexed with murders, arsons and robbery and was sentenced to life imprisonment. Prosecution maintains that capital punishment may be imposed for the crime he was convicted of. Defense contends that there is no complex crime in the crime of rebellion. It was deemed best not to disturb the course of action taken by the lower court, which denied bail to Hernandez, hence the motion to post bail. Issue: Whether or not equal protection was observed in the administration of justice? Decision: Motion for bail granted. The ingredients of a crime form part and parcel thereof, and, hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately there from. Indeed, if one act constitutes two or more offenses, there can be no reason to inflict a punishment graver than that prescribed for each one of said offenses put together. In directing that the penalty for the graver offense be, in such case, imposed in its maximum period, Article 48 could have had no other purpose than to prescribe a penalty lower than the aggregate of the penalties for each offense, if imposed separately. The reason for this benevolent spirit of Article 48 is readily discernible. When two or more crimes are the result of a single act, the offender is deemed less perverse than when he commits said crimes thru separate and distinct acts. Instead of sentencing him for each crime independently from the other, he must suffer the maximum of the penalty for the more serious one, on the assumption that it is less grave than the sum total of the separate penalties for each offense. ___________________ Enrile vs Salazar G.R. No. 92163; June 5, 1990 Facts:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 8

In the afternoon of February 27, 1990, Senate Minority Floor Leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested by law enforcement officers led by Director Alfredo Lim of the National Bureau of Investigation on the strength of a warrant issued by Hon. Jaime Salazar of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. 9010941. The warrant had issued on an information signed and earlier that day filed by a panel of prosecutors composed of Senior State Prosecutor Aurelio C. Trampe, State Prosecutor Ferdinand R. Abesamis and Assistant City Prosecutor Eulogio Mananquil, Jr., charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder allegedly committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990. Senator Enrile was taken to and held overnight at the NBI headquarters on Taft Avenue, Manila, without bail, none having been recommended in the information and none fixed in the arrest warrant. The following morning, February 28, 1990, he was brought to Camp Tomas Karingal in Quezon City where he was given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the Northern Police District, Brig. Gen. Edgardo Dula Torres. On the same date of February 28, 1990, Senator Enrile, through counsel, filed the petition for habeas corpus herein (which was followed by a supplemental petition filed on March 2, 1990), alleging that he was deprived of his constitutional rights. Issue: Whether the petitioner has committed complex crimes (delito compleio) arising from an offense being a necessary means for committing another, which is referred to in the second clause of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? Held: There is one other reason and a fundamental one at that why Article 48 of the Penal Code cannot be applied in the case at bar. If murder were not complexed with rebellion, and the two crimes were punished separately (assuming that this could be done), the following penalties would be imposable upon the movant, namely: (1) for the crime of rebellion, a fine not exceeding P20,000 and prision mayor, in the corresponding period, depending upon the modifying circumstances present, but never exceeding 12 years of prision mayor, and (2) for the crime of murder, reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death, depending upon the modifying circumstances present. In other words, in the absence of aggravating circumstances, the extreme penalty could not be imposed upon him. However, under Article 48 said penalty would have to be meted out to him, even in the absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed in conformity with the theory of the prosecution, would be unfavorable to the movant. _________ COMPLEX CRIME People of the R.P. vs. Castromero G.R.No. 118992 09October1997 FACTS OF THE CASE: The accused Celerino Castromero was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Serious Physical Injuries sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. That on the February 26, 1993 at about 2am in the province of Batangas Philippines, the accused armed with a balisong wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge w/ the offended party Josephine Baon against her will and consent and as a consequence thereof she suffered serious physical injuries, by jumping down through the 2nd floor window of her house. Castromero and Baon are relatives. Josephine Baon's husband is the second-cousin of Castromero. They were neighbors wherein their houses are located a mere 50 meters apart. During the incident Castromero's penis due to their movement sideways was able to touch Baon's private parts. When Baon, noticed that Castromero was no longer holding the knife she tried to escape by pushing him off and jumping through the 2nd flr window. Upon falling down she yelled for help wherein her in laws came out to help her and bring her to the hospital, as she was experiencing intense pain. ISSUES OF THE CASE: Can the accused be charge of a complex crime of rape with serious physical injuries? HELD:

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 9

JUDGEMENT OF THE LOWER COURT WAS AFFIRMED APPELANT CASTROMERO IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF RAPE WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES. Well settled is the principle that the mere touching of the external genitalia of the penis capable of consummating a sexual act constitutes carnal knowledge. This case Rape was consummated, because sexual assault was perpetrated by force and intimidation. In relation to the charge that rape was complexed with the crime of serious physical injuries, we stress the settled principle that a person who creates in anothers mind an immediate sense of danger that causes the latter to try to escape is responsible for whatever the other person may consequently suffer. In this case, Josephine jumped from a window of her house to escape from Appellant Castromero; as a result, she suffered serious physical injuries, specifically a broken vertebra which required medical attention and surgery for more than ninety days. This being the case, the court a quo correctly convicted Appellant Castromero of the complex crime of rape with serious physical injuries. Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. — When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period. _________________ PEOPLE V. COMADRE (GR 153559, 2004) FACTS: August 6, 1995 at around 7:00 in the evening while the victims were having a drinking spree, the above-named accused lobbed a hand grenade that landed and eventually exploded at the roof of the house of Jaime Agbanlog trajecting deadly shrapnels that hit and killed one ROBERT AGBANLOG, and causing Jerry Bullanday, Jimmy Wabe, Lorenzo Eugenio, Rey Camat, Emelita Agbanlog and Elena Agbanlog to suffer shrapnel wounds on their bodies. On trial, accused-appellants denied their participation and presence in the grenade-throwing incident. RTC: Found accused Antonio Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and sentencing them to suffer the imposable penalty of death; Hence, automatic review pursuant to Article 47 of the Revised Penal Code. ISSUE: WON the court erred on imposing upon the accused-appellants the supreme penalty of death despite the evident lack of the quantum of evidence to convict them of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

HELD: No. The underlying philosophy of complex crimes in the Revised Penal Code, which follows the pro reo principle, is intended to favor the accused by imposing a single penalty irrespective of the crimes committed. The rationale being, that the accused who commits two crimes with single criminal impulse demonstrates lesser perversity than when the crimes are committed by different acts and several criminal resolutions.

The single act by appellant of detonating a hand grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of several separate and distinct offenses, yet these component

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 10

criminal offenses should be considered only as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is imposed because the offender was impelled by a single criminal impulse which shows his lesser degree of perversity.

Under the aforecited article (ART. 48), when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period irrespective of the presence of modifying circumstances, including the generic aggravating circumstance of treachery in this case. Applying the aforesaid provision of law, the maximum penalty for the most serious crime (murder) is death. The trial court, therefore, correctly imposed the death penalty _________________ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MELECIO ROBIOS y DOMINGO G.R. No. 138453. May 29, 2002 Facts : That on or about March 25, 1995 at around 7:00 a.m. in Brgy. San Isidro, Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused Melecio Robinos, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously stab by means of a bladed knife 8 inches long, his legitimate wife Lorenza Robinos, who was, then six (6) months pregnant causing the instantaneous death of said Lorenza Robinos, and the fetus inside her womb RTC: Found accused Melecio Robios guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion, this Court hereby renders judgment sentencing him to suffer the penalty of DEATH by lethal injection Issue: Whether or not the RTC erred in sentencing the accused-appellant of Death Penalty Held : Yes , it nonetheless erred in imposing the death penalty on appellant.It imposed the maximum penalty without considering the presence or the absence of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The imposition of the capital penalty was not only baseless, but contrary to the rules on the application of penalties as provided in the Revised Penal Code. Even the Office of the Solicitor General concedes this error in the imposition of the death penalty. Since appellant was convicted of the complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion, the penalty to be imposed on him should be that for the graver offense which is parricide. This is in accordance with the mandate of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which states: When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, x x x, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, x x x. The law on parricide, as amended by RA 7659, is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death. In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties, the court is mandated to impose one or the other, depending on the presence or the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. The rules with respect to the application of a penalty consisting of two indivisible penalties are prescribed by Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, the pertinent portion of which is quoted as follows: In all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof: 2.When there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied. Hence, when the penalty provided by law is either of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lower penalty shall be

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 11

imposed. Considering that neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances were established in this case, the imposable penalty should only be reclusion perpetua. Indeed, because the crime of parricide is not a capital crime per se, it is not always punishable with death. The law provides for the flexible penalty of reclusion perpetua to death -- two indivisible penalties, the application of either one of which depends on the presence or the absence of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. _________________ Article 48: Complex Crimes Kinds of Complex Crimes Compound Crime (Delito Compuesto) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. LEONITO MACAGALING G.R. Nos. 109131-33 October 3, 1994 Facts: On July 19, 1991, accused-appellant Leonito Macagaling was charged with the crimes of murder and homicide and, on October 29, 1991, an additional charge was filed for illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition. These cases were filed following the incident on the occasion of the barangay fiesta. The accused, using a gun, fired at his own nephew Dennis Macagaling. The accused missed his target and hit one Teotimo Fameronag instead. He then pursued his target and killed him in the process. Accussed pleaded not guilty in all circumstances and claimed self-defense instead. However, the Trial Court ruled against the accused-appellant finding him guilty as charged. Hence this appeal. Issue: WON the cases against the accused were correctly filed and appreciated. Ruling: For the killing of Teotimo Fameronag, it cannot be said to be accidental as it was the result of an aberratio ictus, or miscarriage of the blow. As a matter of law, since such death resulted from a culpable aberratio ictus, appellant should be punished under Article 48, in relation to Article 4, of the Revised Penal Code. Having committed attempted homicide as against Dennis Macagaling and consummated homicide with respect to Teotimo Fameronag when he fired the first shot, appellant committed two grave felonies with one single act and, accordingly, he would be liable for a complex crime in the nature of a delito compuesto, or a compound crime. However, not having been so charged, he cannot be convicted of a complex crime. Hence the court below did not err in finding him guilty of simple homicide. _________________ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ELADIO BALOTOL G.R. No. L-1935 August 11, 1949 FACT: The appellant saw Potenciano Sabasido at a cockpit in the barrio of Silaga, Sabasido was standing outside the ring close behind Bernardino Lacambra. The appellant approached Sabasido from behind and stabbed him with a bolo in the back. The weapon pierced thru the body of Sabasido at the abdominal region and wounded Lacambra also. Sabasido fell face downward and the appellant stabbed him again in the back near the right shoulder, the bolo again piercing thru his body. Sabasido died instantaneously and Lacambra, seven days later. ISSUE: WON the crime committed was double murder. HELD: Yes. The crime committed by the appellant was double murder, defined and penalized in article 248, in relation to article 48, of the Revised Penal Code. Article 48 provides that when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 12

The penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death. Since under article 48 this penalty must be applied in its maximum period, the appellant should be sentenced to death. However, in view of the lack of the necessary number of votes to impose the death penalty, we are constrained to apply the penalty next lower in degree, which is life imprisonment. _____________ Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. de Carungcong v. People and Sato G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010 FACTS: William Sato, the son-in-law of Manolita Carungcong (who was already 79 years old and blind). induced the latter to sign and thumbmark an SPA in favor of his daughter. Wendy. The old woman believed that the SPA involved only her taxes, while in fact, it authorized Wendy, to sell Manolita’s properties. As a defense, the accused applies Art 332 of the Revised Penal Code. He cites that he falls under the enumeration of those relatives who shall be exempt from criminal prosecution. Being a relative by affinity, he cannot be held liable for the crime of estafa as stated in the law. He further said that the death of his spouse though dissolved the marriage with the accused, did not on the other hand dissolve the mother-in-law and son-in-law relationship between Sato and his wife’s mother, Manolita. ISSUES: Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his relationship to Manolita. HELD: No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to hold the offender civilly liable. However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification. Under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the State waives its right to hold the offender criminally liable for the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief and considers the violation of the juridical right to property committed by the offender against certain family members as a private matter and therefore subject only to civil liability. The waiver does not apply when the violation of the right to property is achieved through (and therefore inseparably intertwined with) a breach of the public interest in the integrity and presumed authenticity of public documents. For, in the latter instance, what is involved is no longer simply the property right of a family relation but a paramount public interest. ___________________ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. IRINEO TUMLOS G.R. No. L-46428, April 13, 1939 A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is defined as a single crime, consisting of a series of acts but all arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one crime committed; hence, only one penalty shall be imposed. Facts: On or about November 21, 1937, eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega and five belonging to his son-in-law, Ambrosio Pecasis, then grazing together in the barrio of Libong-cogon, municipality of Sara, Province of Iloilo, were taken by Tumlos, the defendant without the consent of their respective owners. The deputy fiscal of Iloilo filed on July 11, 1938, an information against the said defendant for the offense of theft of the eight cows belonging to Maximiano Sobrevega, which resulted in his being sentenced on

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 13

July 15, 1938, to an indeterminate penalty of from one year, eight months and twentyone days to five years, five months and eleven days of prision correccional, with the accessories prescribed by law and costs. In the information filed in the present case the same defendant is charged with the theft of five cows belonging to Ambrosio Pecasis, committed on November 21, 1937, the date of the commission of the theft to the eight cows of Maximiano Sobrevega were charged to the previous information. Issue: Whether or not the defendant is charged with continued crime under the Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? Rulings: Yes. The theft of the thirteen cows committed by the defendant took place at the same time and in the same place; consequently, he performed but one act. The fact that eight of said cows pertained to one owner and five to another does not make him criminally liable for two distinct offenses. The intention was likewise one, namely, to take for the purpose of appropriating or selling the thirteen cows which he found grazing in the same place. As neither the intention nor the criminal act is susceptible of division, the offense arising from the concurrence of its two constituent elements cannot be divided, it being immaterial that the subject matter of the offense is singular or plural, because whether said subject matter be one or several animate or inanimate objects, it is but one. Therefore, as the five cows alleged to be stolen by Irineo Tumlos were integral parts of the thirteen cows which were the subject matter of theft, and as he had already been tried for and convicted of the theft of the other five. __________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ELIAS JARANILLA, RICARDO SUYO, and FRANCO BRILLANTES GR.No. L-28547 February 22, 1974 AQUINO, J.: FACTS: At around eleven o'clock in the evening of January 9, 1966, Ricardo Suyo, Elias Jaranilla and Franco Brillantes hailed Gorriceta who was driving a Ford pickup truck. Jaranilla requested to bring them to Mandurriao, a district in another part of Ilo-ilo City. Upon reaching Mandurriao, Gorriceta parked the truck at a distance of about fifty to seventy meters from the provincial hospital.Jaranilla instructed Gorriceta to wait for them. Ricardo Suyo, Elias Jaranilla and Franco Brillantestook away the 6 fighting cocks from the door of one cock pens or chicken coops of ValentinBaylon. The coop was made of bamboo and wood with nipa roofing which was locked by means of nails. They ran to the truck and Jaranilla directed Gorriceta to start the truck because they were being chased. Gorriceta drove the truck to Jaro, another district of the city, on the same route that they had taken in going to Mandurriao. While the truck was traversing the detour road near the Mandurriao airport, Gorriceta saw in the middle of the road Patrolmen RamonitoJabatan and Benjamin Castro ordering them to stop the truck, Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot Patrolman Jabatan. The shooting frightened Gorriceta. He immediately started the motor of the truck and drove straight home to La Paz, another district of the city. ISSUE: WON the petitioner is charged with continued crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code Held: Yes,the petitioner is charged with continued crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no evidence that in taking the six roosters from their coop or cages in the yard of Baylon's house violence against or intimidation of persons was employed. Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from their coop should be characterized as theft. The assumption is that the accused were animated by single criminal impulse. The conduct of the accused reveals that they conspired to steal the roosters. The taking is punishable as a single offense of theft. Thus, it was held that the taking of two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to two crimes of theft. With respect to the killing of Patrolman Jabatan, it has already been noted that the evidence for the prosecution points to Jaranilla as the malefactor who shot that

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 14

unfortunate peace officer. The killing was homicide because it was made on the spur of the moment. The treacherous mode of attack was not consciously or deliberately adopted by the offender.It is not reasonable to assume that the killing of any peace officer, who would forestall the theft or frustrate appellants' desire to enjoy the fruits of the crime, was part of their plan. _________________ Santiago vs Garchitorena G.R. No. 109266 December, 2 1993 Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo and Puno, JJ., concur. Facts: On May 1, 1991, petitioner Santiago was charged by the Sandiganbayan with violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by her favoring "unqualified" aliens with the benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. On May 24, 1991, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to enjoin the Sandiganbayan from proceeding with criminal case on the ground that said case was intended solely to harass her as she was then a presidential candidate. She alleged that this was in violation of Section 10, Article IX-C of the Constitution which provides that "(b)ona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination." The petition was dismissed on January 13, 1992. On October 16, 1992, petitioner filed a motion for inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, which motion was set for hearing on November 13, 1992. ten days after, the Sandiganbayan (First Division), of which Presiding Justice Garchitorena is a member, set the criminal case for arraignment on November 13, 1992. On November 6, 1992, petitioner moved to defer the arraignment on the grounds that there was a pending motion for inhibition, and that petitioner intended to file a motion for a bill of particulars. However, on November 9, 1992, the Sandiganbayan (First Division) denied the motion to defer the arraignment. More so, the petitioner cannot accept the legal morality of Sandiganbayan Justice Francis Garchitorena who would her from going abroad for a Harvard scholarship because of graft charges against her. It appears that petitioner tried to leave the country without first securing the permission of the Sandiganbayan, prompting it to issue the holddeparture order which. The letter of Presiding Justice Garchitorena, written in defense of the dignity and integrity of the Sandiganbayan, merely stated that all persons facing criminal charges in court, with no exception, have to secure permission to leave the country. The court issued the Resolution dated March 25, 1993, ordering Presiding Justice Garchitorena "to CEASE and DESIST from sitting in the case until the question of his disqualification is finally resolved by this Court and from enforcing the resolution dated March 11, 1993, ordering petitioner to post bail bonds for the 32 Amended Informations and from proceeding with the arraignment on April 12, 1993. Issue: (a) Whether the petitioner is charged with continued crime (delito continuado) under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code? Held: The 32 Amended Informations charged to the petitioner is known as delito continuado or "continued crime" and sometimes referred to as "continuous crime." In fairness to the Ombudsman's Office of the Special Prosecutor, it should be borne in mind that the

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 15

concept of delito continuado has been a vexing problem in Criminal Law — difficult as it is to define and more difficult to apply. The concept of delito continuado, although an outcry of the Spanish Penal Code, has been applied to crimes penalized under special laws, e.g. violation of R.A. No. 145 penalizing the charging of fees for services rendered following up claims for war veteran's benefits (People v. Sabbun, 10 SCRA 156 [1964] ). Under Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code, the Code shall be supplementary to special laws, unless the latter provide the contrary. Hence, legal principles developed from the Penal Code may be applied in a supplementary capacity to crimes punished under special laws. In the case at bench, the original information charged petitioner with performing a single criminal act that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not qualified under the law to enjoy such privilege. The original information also averred that the criminal act : (i) committed by petitioner was in violation of a law - Executive Order No. 324 dated April 13, 1988, (ii) caused an undue injury to one offended party, the Government, and (iii) was done on a single day, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The Resolution dated March 3, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 of the Sandiganbayan (First Division) is affirmed and its Resolution dated March 11, 1993 in Criminal Case No. 16698 is modified in the sense that the Office of the Special Prosecutor of the Office of the Ombudsman is directed to consolidate the 32 Amended Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 18371 to 18402) into one information charging only one offense under the original case number, i.e., No. 16698. The temporary restraining order issued by this Court on March 25, 1993 is lifted insofar as to the disqualification of Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena is concerned. _____________ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ASIA MUSA y PINASALO, ARA MONONGAN y PAPAO, FAISAH ABAS y MAMA, and MIKE SOLALO y MILOK G.R. No. 199735 October 24, 2012 FACTS: Information charged the accused Aisa Musa y Pinasilo (Musa), Ara Monongan y Papao, Faisah Abas y Mama (Abas), and Mike Solano y Mlok (Solano) with the following: That, on or about the 1st day of June, 2004 in the Municipality of Taguig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with one another and acting as an organized or syndicated crime group, without being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell and give away to one PO1 Rey Memoracion one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 4.05 grams of white crystalline substance, which was found positive for Methamphetamine hydrochloride also known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law. ISSUE: Whether or not the penalty imposed was proper in the case at bar. HELD Yes. The February 28, 2011 CA Decision CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03758 finding accusedappellants guilty of violating Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 is hereby affirmed with modifications that: (a) accused-appellant Ara Monongan y Papao is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, and fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum; and (b) each of the accused-appellants shall pay a fine in the amount of five hundred thousand pesos (PhP 500,000). _____________ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENE ESCARES G.R. Nos. L-11128-33, December 23, 1957 FACTS: On September 13, 1950, six separate informations for robbery were filed against Salvador Poblador, Armando Gustillo and Rene Escares. Rene Escares was still at large

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 16

when these cases were called for hearing on March 2, 1951, by agreement of the parties, they were tried jointly against Salvador Poblador and Armando Gustillo and they were found guilty of the crimes charged. On April 21, 1954, Rene Escares was arraigned and pleaded not guilty in each of the six above-mentioned cases but later he asked permission to withdraw his former plea of not guilty and substitute it for a plea of guilty. The trial court granted the petition and sentenced him to twelve (12) years, six (6) months, and one (1) day in all the cases, with all the accessories of the law, and to pay the costs. Rene Escares appealed from the decision; his appeal refers to the penalty imposed. He contended that since he pleaded guilty to all the crimes charged and there is no aggravating circumstance to offset it, the penalty to be imposed on him should be reduced to the minimum. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court properly imposed the penalty upon the appellant. HELD: It should be noted that the imposable penalty in each of the six cases where appellant pleaded guilty in accordance with paragraph 5, Article 294, of the Revised Penal Code, is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, which should be applied in its minimum period in view of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty, not offset by any aggravating circumstance, or from 4 years 2 months and 1 day to 6 years one month and 10 days. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellant should be sentenced for each crime to an indeterminate penalty the minimum of which shall not be less than 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor nor more than 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional, and the maximum shall not be less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional nor more than 6 years 1 month and 10 days of prision mayor. But in applying the proper penalty, the trial court imposed upon appellant the three-fold rule provided for in paragraph 4 of Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code. This is an error for said article can only be taken into account, not in the imposition of the penalty, but in connection with the service of the sentence imposed. The penalty imposed upon appellant by the trial court should therefore be modified in the sense that he should suffer in each of the six cases an indeterminate penalty of not less than 4 months and 1 day of arresto mayor and not more than 4 years 2 months and 1 day of prision correccional, plus the corresponding accessory penalties provided for by law. These penalties should be served in accordance with the limitation prescribed in paragraph 4, Article 70, of the Revised Penal Code. _______________ ARTURO A. MEJORADA vs. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. Nos. L-51065-72, June 30, 1987 FACTS: Arturo Mejorada was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section3(E) of RA. 3019, aka Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. Mejorada was a right-away agent whose duty was to process the claims for compensation of damage of property owners affected by highway construction and improvements. He required the claimants to sign blank copies of Sworn Statements and Agreements to Demolish, where it appeared that the properties of the claimants have higher values than the actual value being claimed by them. However, the claimants did not bother reading through the paper because they very much interested in the compensation of damages. After processing the claims, instead of giving to the claimants the proper amount, Mejorada gave one of them Php 5,000 and the rest, Php 1,000 each, saying that there are many who would share in said amounts. The claimants weren’t able to complain because they were afraid of the accused and his armed companion. The Sandiganbayan sentenced Mejorada 56 years and8 years of imprisonment which is equivalent to the eight (8) penalties for the eight (8) informations filed against him. Contention of the State: Section 3 of RA 3019 states that Mejorada should be punished with “imprisonment for not less than 1 year nor more than 10 years” as stated in Sec 9 of the same Act. In this case, there are 8 charges against him and each charge should be served with the

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 17

penalty prescribed by the law. Contention of the Accused: Mejorada states that the penalty imposed upon him is contrary to the three-fold rule and states that the duration should not exceed 40years. This is in accordance to Article 70 of the RPC. ISSUE: WON the penalty imposed upon him violates the three-fold rule under Article 70 of the RPC. RULING: The Court favors the State. Article 70 of the RPC does not state anything about the “imposition of penalty”. It only explains the “service” of sentence, “duration” of penalty and penalty “to be inflicted”. It should be interpreted that the accused cannot be made to serve more than three times the most severe of these penalties the maximum of which is forty (40) years. As stated in a previous case, “The courts can still impose as many penalties as there are separate and distinct offenses committed, since for every individual crime committed, a corresponding penalty is prescribed by law. With these reasons, Mejorada cannot correctly contend that his penalty is excessive. There are eight charges against him and each has an equivalent penalty as prescribed by RA 3019, thus, Sandiganbayan has imposed the correct penalty. _______________ PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ALFREDO BON G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006 FACTS: Eight (8) Informations were filed within the period 21 August 2000 to 23 February 2001 by the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of Gumaca, Quezon against Alfredo Bon (appellant), charging him with the rape of AAA and BBB, the daughters of his older brother. All these cases were consolidated for trial. The rapes were alleged to have been committed in several instances over a span of six (6) years. Both AAA and BBB testified against appellant, their uncle, and both identified him as the man who had raped them. The RTC convicted appellant on all eight (8) counts of rape. It further considered the qualifying circumstances of minority of the victims and the relationship of the victims and appellant, the latter being the former's relative by consanguinity within the third degree. The Court of Appeals downgraded the convictions in Criminal Case Nos. 6906 and 6908 to attempted rape. The sentence was prescribed by the appellate court prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 9346 which ended the imposition of death penalty. The proximate concern as to the appellant is whether his penalty for attempted qualified rape which under the penal law should be two degrees lower than that of consummated rape, should be computed from death or reclusion perpetua. ISSUE: What is the properly penalty for the crimes convicted? HELD: The sentence of death imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the Court of Appeals can no longer be affirmed in view of Rep. Act No. 9346, Section 2 of which mandates that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. Correspondingly, the Court can no longer uphold the death sentences imposed by lower courts, but must, if the guilt of the accused is affirmed, impose instead the penalty of reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment when appropriate. Upon the other hand, Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code establishes that the penalty to be imposed upon the principals of an attempted felony must be a penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals in an attempt to commit a felony. The penalty "lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law" for attempted rape is the prescribed penalty for the consummated rape of a victim duly proven to have been under eighteen years of age and to have been raped by her uncle, is death under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The determination of the penalty two degrees lower than the death penalty entails the application of Articles 61 and 71 of the Revised Penal Code. Following the scale prescribed in Article 71, the penalty two degrees lower than

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 18

death is reclusion temporal, which was the maximum penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals on appellant for attempted rape. Hence, the Court of Appeals sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty for attempted rape, with a maximum penalty within the range of reclusion temporal, and a minimum penalty within the range of the penalty next lower, or prision mayor. If Rep. Act No. 9346 had not been enacted, the Court would have affirmed such sentence without complication. However, the enactment of the law has given rise to the problem concerning the imposable penalty. Appellant was sentenced to a maximum term within reclusion temporal since that is the penalty two degrees lower than death. With the elimination of death as a penalty, does it follow that appellant should now be sentenced to a penalty two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua, the highest remaining penalty with the enactment of Rep. Act No. 9346? If it so followed, appellant would be sentenced to prision mayor in lieu of reclusion temporal. The consummated felony previously punishable by death would now be punishable by reclusion perpetua. At the same time, the same felony in its frustrated stage would, under the foregoing premise in this section, be penalized one degree lower from death, or also reclusion perpetua. It does not seem right, of course, that the same penalty of reclusion perpetua would be imposed on both the consummated and frustrated felony. Thus, RA 9346 should be construed as having downgraded those penalties attached to death by reason of the graduated scale under Article 71. Only in that manner will a clear and consistent rule emerge as to the application of penalties for frustrated and attempted felonies, and for accessories and accomplices. In the case of appellant, the determination of his penalty for attempted rape shall be reckoned not from two degrees lower than death, but two degrees lower than reclusion perpetua. Hence, the maximum term of his penalty shall no longer be reclusion temporal, as ruled by the Court of Appeals, but instead, prison mayor. ____________ PEOPLE v. SARCIA G.R. No. 169641, September 20, 2009 Facts: Sometime in 1996, when AAA, then 5 years old, together with her cousin and other friends were playing in the yard of a neighbor, Richard Sarcia, then allegedly 18 years of age, appeared and invited AAA to the back of neighbor’s house. AAA went with Sarcia where upon reaching the place, the latter removed AAA’s to shorts and underwear as he also removed his trousers and brief. Thereafter, Sarcia ordered AAA to lie on her back and he then lay on top of her and inserted his penis into AAA’s private organ followed by up-and-down movements. Unknown to Sarcia, the cousin of AAA followed them and witnessed the acts. Later on, AAA together with her cousin reported the said incident to her mother. However, it was only after 4 years when AAA’s father filed for acts of lasciviousness against Sarcia. The Regional Trial Court convicted Sarcia of rape against AAA and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua with civil indemnities. However upon appeal upon the Court of Appeals, the penalty was thereby increased to death still with indemnities. Issue: Whether the Court of Appeals rightfully increased the penalty imposed upon Sarcia. Ruling: The Court ruled on the negative. The Court agrees that the governing law at the time of commission of the alleged rape was Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act 7569 and that since it was alleged in the information and proven that the victim was only 5 years old at that time, the rightful penalty should have been the death penalty. However, the Court finds the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority pursuant to Article 68 (2)

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 19

of the Revised Penal Code attendant and thus a valid ground for the modification of penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals. The Court based its judgment on the fact that since the prosecution was not able to prove the exact date and time when the rape was committed, it is not certain that the crime of rape was committed on or after he reached 18 years of age in 1996. It further held that in assessing the attendance of the mitigating circumstance of minority, all doubts should be resolved in favor of the accused, it being more beneficial to the latter. Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a minor under 18 years, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period. For the purpose of determining the proper penalty to be imposed, the penalty imposed by law shall be taken as the benchmark. Since the death penalty is the prescribed penalty pursuant to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law, in reference to Article 71 of the same Code, and ,thus, the proper imposable penalty against Sarcia is reclusion perpetua. _________________ People v. Jacinto G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011 FACTS: In the evening of January 28, 2003 at about 6 o’clock in the evening, FFF, the father of thevictim,AAA, sent his 8 year old daughter CCC to buy cigarettes at the store of Rudy H atague. AAA followed CCC. When CCC returned without AAA, FFF was not worried as he thought AAA was watching television at her aunt Rita Lingcay’s house. Julito Apike went to the same store at around 6:20 PM to buy a bottle of Tanduay Rum and saw appellant place AAA on his lap. Julio, Hermie and AAA left the store at the same time, Julito proceeded to Rita’s house while Hermie and AAA to the “lower area.” AAA was brought by Hermie to the rice field near the house of spouses Alejandro and Gloria Perocho, there AAA was made to lie down on the ground, her panties removed and was boxed by the accused in the chest. Half-naked, accused mounted AAA and made a push and pull movement causing AAA to cry. Appellant then went to the house of the Perochos while the victim went home crying. Medico-legal exam revealed hymenal laceration at 5 and 9 o’clock. RTC finds accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, a fine of PHP75,000 as rape indemnity and PHP 50,000 as moral damages. CA on appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision with the following modifications: (1) accused should suffer an indeterminate penalty from 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of prision mayor as minimum to 17 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal as maximum and fined PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages, and PHP 25,000 as exemplary damages. ISSUE: Is the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape? RULING: Yes, the Court considered three well-entrenched principles: (1) accusation of rape can be made with facility, it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove, (2) testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution, (3) evidence for prosecution must stand on its own merit and not depend on the weakness of the defense. The Court finds that the testimony of the victim was credible, natural and convincing as proven by victim’s positive identification of the accused, description of what was done to her and how the accused spread her legs, inserted his penis and made push and pull movements. This was corroborated by medico-legal findings of hymenal lacerations. Court finds that the prosecution sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but imposes a penalty of reclusion perpetua, and affirms the damages awarded by the CA of PHP 75,000 as civil indemnity, PHP 75,000 as moral damages and increasing exemplary damages to PHP 30,000.

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 20

Furthermore, in accordance with Section 38 of RA 9344, automatic suspension of sentence is applied and in accordance with Section 51 of RA 9344, accused is confined to an agricultural camp or other training facility established, maintained, and controlled by BUCOR in coordination with the DSWD. ____________ CASE DIGEST: People v. Nunag G.R. No. L-54445, May 12, 1989, 173 SCRA 274 PADILLA, J. Facts: Accused-appellants Nunag, Mandap, Salangsang, Carpio, and Manalili were charged before the CFI of Pampanga with the crime of rape with the aggravating circumstance of night time. The complainant, Lorenza Lopez, then about fifteen years old, declared that in May 1978, as she was watching a television program in the house of her neighbor Carmen Laxamana, the accused Mario Nunag came towards her, staggering and appearing to be drunk. Nunag asked her to go with him. But she refused, so that Nunag held her by the hand and poked a knife at her stomach and threatened to kill her. Nunag then placed something in her mouth and led her to a nearby ricefield, behind the house of Laxamana. Thereafter, they were joined by the other four accused-appellants who held hands and feet, and forced her on the ground. She struggled to free herself, but the accused held her tightly. Nunag then had sexual intercourse with her followed by Mandap. After Mandap had finished, she lost consciousness and regained it while Manalili was abusing her. The five accused warned her not to report the incident to anybody, otherwise, they would kill her, her parents and brothers. After the incident, the complainant got pregnant and only then did she tell her mother and brothers that she was raped by the five accused-appellants. Several months after, she gave birth prematurely to female twins who both died after a few hours. During trial, all the accused-appellants denied the charge of rape. Nunag, Salangsang and Manalili admitted having sexual intercourse with Lopez on her initiation on three separate instances. Carpio and Mandap on the other hand, denied having sexual intercourse with the complainant at any time. However, the trial judge found the accused guilty of the charge. From this judgment, all the five (5) accused appealed to SC assailing the trial court for giving credence to the testimony of the complainant, which they claim to be concocted and fraught with irreconcilable contradictions. Issue: Whether or not each accused is guilty of five (5) distinct and separate crimes of rape. Held: No. There is no conclusive evidence that the accused-appellants Carpio and Salangsang had sexual intercourse with complainant Lopez, who narrated that she lost consciousness after the second man, Arnel Mandap (the first being Mario Nunag) had sexually abused her and only regained consciousness while Diosdado Manalili was abusing her sexually, and that she merely assumed that Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang had also sexually abused her because they were in the company of the three (3) accused. Therefore, each of the five (5) accused-appellants must be found guilty of three (3) distinct and separate crimes of rape, the first three, namely, Mario Nunag, Arnel Mandap and Diosdado Manalili, by direct act and participation and the other two, namely Danilo Carpio and Efren Salangsang, by indispensable cooperation. __________ CASE DIGEST Villaseñor and Mesa vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 180700, March 4, 2008 REYES, R.T., J. Facts: Petitioners GERARDO R. VILLASEÑOR and RODEL A. MESA, together with other officials of the City Engineering Office of Quezon City, are criminally charged before the 5th Division of the Sandiganbayan for the crime of multiple homicide through reckless imprudence and for violation of Section 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt

RPC, Art. 17-100, PAGE 21

Practices Act). They were also charged administratively with gross negligence, gross misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the interest of the service. The charges were in relation to the fire that struck the Quezon City Manor Hotel on August 18, 2001, resulting in the death of seventy-four (74) people and injuries to scores of others. Investigation into the tragedy revealed that the hotel was a veritable fire trap. In two separate Orders in the administrative case, petitioners Villaseñor and Mesa were preventively suspended for a period of six (6) months. And during the pendency of the criminal case, on the motion of the Ombudsman’s Special Prosecutor, the Sandiganbayan suspended the petitioners for a period of ninety (90) days. Petitioners opposed8 the motion, contending that they had already been suspended for six (6) months relative to the administrative case and that any preventive suspension that may be warranted in the criminal case was already absorbed by the preventive suspension in the administrative case. But the Sandiganbayan, denied their motion for reconsideration. Thus, Petitioners seek to annul and set aside the Sandiganbayan 1 Resolution ordering their suspension. Issues: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan’s suspension of the petitioners in connection with the pending criminal case is valid. Held: Yes. Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019, as amended, unequivocally provides that the accused public officials "shall be suspended from office" while the criminal prosecution is pending in court. It is well-settled that preventive suspension under Section 13 of R.A. No. 3019 is mandatory. Imposed during the pendency of proceedings, preventive suspension is not a penalty in itself. It is merely a measure of precaution so that the employee who is charged may be separated, for obvious reasons, from office. Thus, preventive suspension is distinct from the penalty. While the former may be imposed on a respondent during the investigation of the charges against him, the latter may be meted out to him at the final disposition of the case. Clearly, there can be no doubt as to the validity of the Sandiganbayan’s suspension of petitioners in connection with the pending criminal case before it. It was merely doing what was required of it by law. __________