Rpc-case-doctrines

Act No. 3815 - Revised Penal Code

Art. 2 - Application of Its Provisions Indeed it is fundamental that the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but is an essential element of jurisdiction. In order for the courts to acquire jurisdiction in criminal cases, the offense should have been committed or any one of its essential ingredients should have taken place within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. If the evidence adduced during the trial shows that the offense was committed somewhere else, the court should dismiss the action for want of jurisdiction. Teofilo Evangelista vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 163267, May 5, 2010

Art. 4 – Criminal Liability The basic principle in our criminal law is that a person is criminally liable for a felony committed by him. Under the classical theory on which our penal code is mainly based, the basis of criminal liability is human free will. Man is essentially a moral creature with an absolutely free will to choose between good and evil. When he commits a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso), the act is presumed to have been done voluntarily, i.e., with freedom, intelligence and intent. Man, therefore, should be adjudged or held accountable for wrongful acts so long as free will appears unimpaired. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

Distinct penalties prescribed by law in special complex crimes is in recognition of the primacy given to criminal intent over the overt acts that are done to achieve that intent. This conclusion is made implicit in various provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, practically all of the justifying circumstances, as well as the exempting circumstances of accident (paragraph 4, Article 12) and lawful or insuperable cause (paragraph 7, Article 12), are based on the lack of criminal intent. 2 In felonies committed by means of dolo, as opposed to those committed by means of culpa (including offenses punished under special laws), criminal intent is primordial and overt acts are considered basically as being mere manifestations of criminal intent. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

1

Paragraph 2, Article 4, of the Revised Penal Code places emphasis on "intent" over effect, as it assigns criminal liability to one who has committed an "impossible crime," said person having intended and pursued such intent to commit a felony although, technically, no crime has actually been committed. Article 134 of the same Code, penalizing the crime of rebellion, imposes a distinct penalty, the rebel being moved by a single intent which is to overthrow the existing government, and ignores individual acts committed in the furtherance of such intent. People of the Phil. vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, et al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

Art. 6 – Consummated, Frustrated and Attempted Felonies (Stages of Execution) In general Consummated felony Frustrated and attempted felonies Frustrated felony Attempted felony Overt acts Stages of execution in rape

In general The subjective phase in the commission of a felony is that portion of its execution starting from the point where the offender begins by overt acts to pursue the crime until he is prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from performing all of the acts which would produce the offense. If the subjective phase has not yet passed, then the crime is only attempted. If that phase has been done but the felony is not produced, the crime is frustrated. United States vs. Protasio Eduave, G.R. No. 12155, Feb. 2, 1917

It is not the gravity of the wounds inflicted which determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated but whether or not the subjective phase in the commission of an offense has been passed. By subjective phase is meant "[t]hat portion of the acts Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

2

constituting the crime included between the act which begins the commission of the crime and the last act performed by the offender which, with the prior acts, should result in the consummated crime. From that time forward, the phase is objective. It may also be said to be that period occupied by the acts of the offender over which he has control — that period between the point where he begins and the point where he voluntarily desists. If between these two points the offender is stopped by reason of any cause outside of his own voluntary desistance, the subjective phase has not been passed and it is an attempt. If he is not so stopped but continues until he performs the last act, it is frustrated." People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Balas Medios, G.R. Nos. 132066-67, Nov. 29, 2001

It is not the gravity of the wounds alone which determines whether a felony is attempted or frustrated, but whether the assailant had passed the subjective phase in the commission of the offense. Leonidas Epifanio vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 157057, June 26, 2007

Consummated felony A felony is consummated when all the elements necessary for its execution and accomplishment are present. People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dogaojo y Morante, G.R. Nos. 137834-40, December 3, 2001

The crime is consummated if, following the subjective phase, the last of the elements of the felony meets to concur. These rules are inapplicable to offenses governed by special laws. United States vs. Jose Lopez Basa, G.R. No. L-3540, March 19, 1907, 8 Phil. 89 People of the Phil. Islands vs. Ngan Te, G.R. No. 42574, Dec. 12, 1935, 62 Phil. 588 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Enriquez, et al., G.R. No. 99838, Oct. 23, 1997

Frustrated and attempted felonies It must be remembered that a felony is frustrated when: 1.] the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would produce the felony; 2.] the felony is Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

3

not produced due to causes independent of the perpetrator's will. On the other hand, in an attempted felony: 1.] the offender commits overt acts to commence the perpetration of the crime: 2.] he is not able to perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; and 3.] his failure to perform all the acts of execution was due to some cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. The distinction between an attempted and frustrated felony was lucidly differentiated thus in the leading case of United States vs. Protasio Eduave, G.R. No. 12155, February 2, 1917, 36 Phil. 209: A crime cannot be held to be attempted unless the offender, after beginning the commission of the crime by overt acts, is prevented, against his will, by some outside cause from performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. In other words, to be an attempted crime the purpose of the offender must be thwarted by a foreign force or agency which intervenes and compels him to stop prior to the moment when he has performed all of the acts which should produce the crime as a consequence, which acts it is his intention to perform. If he has performed all the acts which should result in the consummation of the crime and voluntarily desists from proceeding further, it cannot be an attempt. The essential element which distinguishes attempted from frustrated felony is that, in the latter, there is no intervention of a foreign or extraneous cause or agency between the beginning of the commission of crime and the moment when all the acts have been performed which should result in the consummated crime; while in the former there is such intervention and the offender does not arrive at the point of performing all of the acts which should produce the crime. He is stopped short of that point by some cause apart from his voluntary desistance.

To put it another way, in case of an attempt the offender never passes the subjective phase of the offense. He is interrupted and compelled to desist by the intervention of outside causes before the subjective phase is passed. On the other hand, in case of frustrated crimes, the subjective phase is completely passed. Subjectively the crime is complete. Nothing interrupted the offender while he was passing through the subjective phase. The crime, however, is not consummated by reason of the intervention of causes independent of the will of the offender. He did all that was necessary to commit the crime. If the crime did not result as a consequence it was due to something beyond his control. People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Balas Medios, G.R. Nos. 132066-67, Nov. 29, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

4

People of the Phil. vs. Armando Caballero, et al., G.R. Nos. 149028-30, April 2, 2003

Distinctions between frustrated and attempted felony are as follows: 1)

In frustrated felony, the offender has performed all the acts of execution which should produce the felony as a consequence; whereas in attempted felony, the offender merely commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts and does not perform all the acts of execution.

2)

In frustrated felony, the reason for the non-accomplishment of the crime is some cause independent of the will of the perpetrator; on the other hand, in attempted felony, the reason for the non-fulfillment of the crime is a cause or accident other than the offender's own spontaneous desistance.

The crucial point to consider is the nature of the wound inflicted which must be supported by independent proof showing that the wound inflicted was sufficient to cause the victim's death without timely medical intervention. Giovani C. Serrano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010, citing Palaganas v. People, G.R. No. 165483, September 12, 2006

Frustrated felony For there to be frustrated murder, the offender must perform all the acts of execution that would produce the felony as a consequence, but the felony is not thereby produced by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. A verbal expression that Lugatiman would be killed sixteen (16) hours after such statement was made is not sufficient to show an actual design to perpetrate the act. Intent must shown not only by a statement by the aggressor of the purpose to kill, but also by the execution of all acts and the use of means necessary to deliver a fatal blow while the victim is not placed in a position to defend himself. However, after the performance of the last act necessary, or after the subjective phase of the criminal act was passed, the crime is not produced by reason of forces outside of the will of the aggressor. (People of the Phil. vs. Basilio Borinaga, G.R. No. 33463, December 18, 1930, 55 Phil., 433) People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Ravelo, et al., G.R. Nos. 78781-82, Oct. 15, 1991

The information more than substantially satisfies the requirement of designating the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

5

offense of frustrated murder considering that it contains the acts constituting the felony, the name of the crime by statute and the stage (frustrated) of the commission of the crime by definition. Besides the absence of the averment of intent to kill may be inferred from the allegation that the stab wound would have caused the death (in this case murder) of the victim. (People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Pilpa, G.R. No. L-30250, September 22, 1977). People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Francisco, et al., G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000

A felony is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Francisco, et al., G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000 Solomon Rabor vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140344, August 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Padilla, G.R. Nos. 138472-73, Aug. 9, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Lasanas, G.R. Nos. L-48879-82, July 7, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Cenon Brioso, et al., G.R. Nos. 72028-31, Nov. 9, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Emeliano Trinidad, G.R. Nos. 79123-25, Jan. 9, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Rufino Bacalto, et al., G.R. Nos. 116307-10, Aug. 14, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109619-23, June 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Donato B. Continente, et al., G.R. Nos. 100801-02, Aug. 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Allan Jarandilla, G.R. Nos. 115985-86, August 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, October 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Guilbert Arcillas, G.R. No. 126817, Dec. 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. George Bayod, G.R. No. 122664, Feb. 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo Lucero, G.R. Nos. 102407-08, March 26, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Julio R. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Raquim Pinuela, G.R. Nos. 140727-28, January 31, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

6

People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003

such as prompt medical aid. People of the Phil. vs. Allan Jarandilla, G.R. Nos. 115985-86, August 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo Lucero, G.R. Nos. 102407-08, March 26, 2001

For the crime of murder, the frustrated stage is reached only if the wound inflicted would have been mortal. People of the Phil. vs. Noel Padilla, G.R. Nos. 138472-73, Aug. 9, 2001 People of the Phil. Islands vs. Felipe Kalalo, et al., G.R. Nos. 339303-39305, March 17, 1934 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel I. Pilones, G.R. Nos. L-32754-5, July 21, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Tamani, G.R. Nos. L-22160 and L-22161, Jan. 21, 1974

A crime is frustrated when the offender performs all the acts of execution which would produce the felony as a consequence but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. However, if 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, the crime is only attempted. People of the Phil. vs. Lapnayo Buka, et al., G.R. Nos. 68311-13, Jan. 30, 1992 Ramon Ingles vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 117161, March 3, 1997

The essential elements of a frustrated felony are as follows: 1. The offender performs all the acts of execution; 2. All the acts performed would produce the felony as a consequence; 3. But the felony is not produced; 4. By reason of causes independent of the will of the perpetrator. Benjamin P. Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007 Aristotel Valenzuela vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007

Attempted felony The attempted phase of a felony is defined as when the offender commences the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

7

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). People of the Phil. vs. Dominador G. Gavarra, et al., G.R. No. L-37673, Oct. 30, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Herbieto, et al., G.R. No. 103611, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Balderas, G.R. No. 106582, July 31, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino C. Maguikay, G.R. Nos. 103226-28, Oct. 14, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Tiu, G.R. Nos. 75032-33, Dec. 1, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dogaojo y Morante, G.R. Nos. 137834-40, December 3, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Sumibcay, G.R. Nos. 132130-31, May 29, 2002

The prosecution must, therefore, establish the following elements of an attempted felony: 1. The offender commences the commission of the felony directly by overt acts; 2. He does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony; 3. The offender's act be not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance; 4. The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. People of the Phil. vs. Ian Contreras, G.R. Nos. 137123-34, August 23, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003

The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely: (1) That there be external acts; (2) Such external acts have direct connection with the crime intended to be committed. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

8

An overt or external act is defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried out to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the spontaneous desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. The raison d'etre for the law requiring a direct overt act is that, in a majority of cases, the conduct of the accused consisting merely of acts of preparation has never ceased to be equivocal; and this is necessarily so, irrespective of his declared intent. It is that quality of being equivocal that must be lacking before the act becomes one which may be said to be a commencement of the commission of the crime, or an overt act or before any fragment of the crime itself has been committed, and this is so for the reason that so long as the equivocal quality remains, no one can say with certainty what the intent of the accused is. (People vs. Miller, 2 Cal. 2d., 527, 531–532, 42 P. 2d. 308, 310, citing Wharton.) It is necessary that the overt act should have been the ultimate step towards the consummation of the design. It is sufficient if it was the "first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made." (People vs. Gibson, 94 Cal. App. 2d. 468). The act done need not constitute the last proximate one for completion. It is necessary, however, that the attempt must have a causal relation to the intended crime. (Wharton, Criminal Law, Vol. 1, 12 ed. 287). In the words of Viada, the overt acts must have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense. Acts constitutive of an attempt to commit a felony should be distinguished from preparatory acts which consist of devising means or measures necessary for accomplishment of a desired object or end. One perpetrating preparatory acts is not guilty of an attempt to commit a felony. However, if the preparatory acts constitute a consummated felony under the law, the malefactor is guilty of such consummated offense. The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of March 21, 1892, declared that for overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is necessary that their objective be known and established or such that acts be of such nature that they themselves should obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended, said objective and finality to serve as ground for designation of the offense. [People vs. Lamahang, 62 Phil. 703 (1935)] There is persuasive authority that in offenses not consummated as the material damage is wanting, the nature of the action intended (accion fin) cannot exactly be ascertained but the same must be inferred from the nature of the acts executed (accion medio). Hence, it is necessary that the acts of the accused must be such that, by their Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

9

nature, by the facts to which they are related, by circumstances of the persons performing the same, and b the things connected therewith, that they are aimed at the consummation of the offense. This Court emphasized in People vs. Lamahang that: "The relation existing between the facts submitted for appreciation and the offense which said facts are supposed to produce must be direct; the intention must be ascertained from the facts and therefore it is necessary, in order to avoid regrettable instances of injustice, that the mind be able to cause a particular injury." If the malefactor does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of his spontaneous desistance, he is not guilty of an attempted felony. Spontaneous means proceeding from natural feeling or native tendency without external constraint; synonymous with impulsive, automatic and mechanical. (Webster, Third New International Dictionary, p. 2204).] The law does not punish him for his attempt to commit a felony. The rationale of the law, as explained by Viada: "La Ley, en efecto, no hiere sino a pesar suyo; prefiere impedir el crimen que castigarlo. Si el autor de la tentativa, despues de haber comenzado a ejecutar el delito por actos exteriores, se detiene, por un sentimiento libre y espontaneo, en el borde del abismo, salvo esta. Es un llamamiento al remordimiento, a la conciencia, una gracia un perdon que concede la Ley al arrepentimiento voluntario." Aquino, Revised Penal Code, Vol. 1, 1987 ed.

As aptly elaborated on by Wharton: "First, the character of an attempt is lost when its execution is voluntarily abandoned. There is no conceivable overt act to which the abandoned purpose could be attached. Secondly, the policy of the law requires that the offender, so long as he is capable of arresting an evil plan, should be encouraged to do so, by saving him harmless in case of such retreat before it is possible for any evil consequences to ensue. Neither society, nor any private person, has been injured by his act. There is no damage, therefore, to redress. To punish him after retreat and abandonment would be to destroy the motive for retreat and abandonment."

It must be borne in mind, however, that the spontaneous desistance of a malefactor exempts him from criminal liability for the intended crime but it does not exempt him from the crime committed by him before his desistance.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

10

People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003

Felony is attempted where assailants were not able to perform all acts which would consummate killing. The assault cannot be characterized as frustrated murder since the wound inflicted upon them could not have caused their death. As to them, the crime is only attempted murder. There was intent to kill. The accused intended to kill the three victims but were not able to perform all the acts which would consummate the killing. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Corpuz, et al., G.R. No. L-36234, February 10, 1981

Overt acts "Overt acts" has been defined as some physical activity or deed, indicating the intention to commit a particular crime, more than a mere planning or preparation, which if carried to its complete termination following its natural course, without being frustrated by external obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily ripen into a concrete offense. People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Mauricio, G.R. No. 133695, February 28, 2001

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" (Padilla Criminal Law: Revised Penal Code Annotated, vol. I, 1987 ed., p. 141 citing People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio Lamahang, G.R. No. 43530, August 3, 1935, 61 Phil. 703). People of the Phil. vs. Rosemarie N. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 120988, August 11, 1997

The trial court did not err in considering appellant's act of embracing the victim with intent of having carnal knowledge of her against her will as an overt act commencing the perpetration of the crime of rape. For, were it not for the resistance offered by the victim, said act of the appellant would have naturally ended up with the consummation of his criminal objective of having carnal knowledge of the victim against her will which he expressly admitted in his extra-judicial confession. The offender's act need not be one of those mentioned by the appellant in order to be considered as an overt act commencing the perpetration of the crime of rape when the criminal objective of having carnal knowledge of the victim against her will is Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

11

admitted or is sufficiently established and said act would naturally end up with the consummation of said criminal objective unless frustrated by some external cause or by offender's voluntary desistance. Furthermore, even the mentioned acts would not be considered as overt acts commencing the perpetration of the crime of rape when it is sufficiently established that the man had no intention of having sexual intercourse with the woman without her consent. Of vital importance, therefore, is the criminal objective in performing the act. Was there intent to commit rape? The evidence shows there was. Hence the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of the crime of attempted rape with homicide. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gajetas, G.R. No. L-38325, February 24, 1981

Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt to commit a felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony by direct acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. No. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 we held: . . . The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of March 21, 1892, declared that for overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is necessary that their objective be known and established or such that acts be of such nature that they themselves should obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended, said objective and finality to serve as ground for designation of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Noel Darilay, G.R. Nos. 139751-52, January 26, 2004

Stages of execution in rape Correlating these two provisions, there is no debate that the attempted and consummated stages apply to the crime of rape. Our concern now is whether or not the frustrated stage applies to the crime of rape. x x x Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line of cases (People of the Phil. Islands, vs. Catalino Oscar, G.R. No. 24055, December 28, 1925, 48 Phil. 527; People of the Phil. Islands, vs. Domingo Hernandez, G.R. No. 23916, October 14, 1926, 49 Phil. 980; People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

12

1974; People of the Phil. vs. Wendelino Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974), We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People of the Phil. Islands, vs. Jose Tayaba, G.R. No. 43137, December 5, 1935, 62 Phil. 559; People of the Phil. Islands, vs. Lazaro Rabadan, et al., G.R. No. 27856, December 16, 1927, 53 Phil. 594; United States vs. Eligio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-3570, December 23, 1907, 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed. People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990

Let it be said once again that, as the Revised Penal Code presently so stands, there is no such crime as frustrated rape. In People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990, the Court has explicitly pronounced: "Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim, he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In a long line of cases (People of the Phil. Islands, vs. Catalino Oscar, G.R. No. 24055, December 28, 1925, 48 Phil. 527; People of the Phil. Islands, vs. Domingo Hernandez, G.R. No. 23916, October 14, 1926, 49 Phil. 980; People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974; People of the Phil. vs. Wendelino Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974), We have set the uniform rule that for the consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People of the Phil. Islands, vs. Jose Tayaba, G.R. No. 43137, December 5, 1935, 62 Phil. 559; People of the Phil. Islands, vs. Lazaro Rabadan, et al., G.R. No. 27856, December 16, 1927, 53 Phil. 594; United States vs. Eligio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-3570, December 23, 1907, 9 Phil. 434) because not all acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

13

commission of a felony directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage in rape can ever be committed. "Of course, We are aware of our earlier pronouncement in the case of People of the Phil. vs. Julian Eriñia y Vinolla, G.R. No. 26298, January 20, 1927, 50 Phil. 998 where We found the offender guilty of frustrated rape there being no conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the offended party. However, it appears that this is a 'stray' decision inasmuch as it has not been reiterated in Our subsequent decisions. Likewise, We are aware of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 2632 (dated September 12, 1960) and Republic Act No. 4111 (dated March 29, 1965) which provides, in its penultimate paragraph, for the penalty of death when the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. We are of the opinion that this particular provision on frustrated rape is a dead provision. The Eriñia case, supra, might have prompted the law-making body to include the crime of frustrated rape in the amendments introduced by said laws." People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Quiñanola, et al., G.R. No. 126148, May 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Primo Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Decoroso Aca-ac, G.R. No. 142500, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Orande, G.R. Nos. 141724-27, November 12, 2003

The felony is consummated when the penis touches the pudendum, however slightly. People of the Phil. vs. Crisanto Oliver, G.R. No. 123099, February 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Clemente De La Peña, G.R. No. 116060, July 31, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Celerino Castromero, G.R. No. 118992, October 9, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Roger Evangelista, G.R. No. 121627, November 17, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Caballes, et al., G.R. Nos. 102723-24, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Magana, G.R. No. 105673, July 26, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gastador, G.R. No. 123727, April 14, 1999 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

14

Ejaculation is not an element of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gastador, G.R. No. 123727, April 14, 1999 Felix Rait vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 180425, July 31, 2008

Art. 8 - Conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony Definition The act of one is the act of all Degree of participation Presence at the scene of the crime Desistance of co-conspirator Rules to establish conspiracy Not an element of murder or homicide Must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself Circumstantial evidence Eyewitness not necessary May be inferred from confessions of conspirators Formal agreement not necessary May be inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a common design Information / Indictment

Definition A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. People of the Phil. vs. Ging Sam, G.R. No. L-4287, December 29, 1953 People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Clarit, et al, G.R. No. L-14150, October 30, 1961

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

15

People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Angelino Pudpud, et al., G.R. No. L-26731, June 30, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Largo, et. al., G.R. No. L-28106, August 18, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Ogapay, et al., G.R. No. L-28566, August 21, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alonzo, et al., G.R. No. L-32163, October 19, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Monaga, et al., G.R. No. L-39528, November 19, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Alvis, G.R. No. L-39049, June 24, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Rojas, et al., G.R. Nos. L-46960-62, January 8, 1987 Jorge Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Ballinas, et al., G.R. No. 93300, October 4, 1991 Roberto E. Iton vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94065, December 2, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Hadji Jaid Hasiron, G.R. No. 100797, October 15, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo V. Pajarit, et al., G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito "Ben" Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 97144-45, July 10, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Taguba, et al., G.R. Nos. 95207-17, January 19, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Roming Silong, et al., G.R. No. 110830, May 23, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996 Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Pangilinan, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Romero, et al., G.R. No. 145166, October 8, 2003 Alex Asuncion, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140247, October 23, 2003 Nomer Ocampo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 163705, July 30, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Rodas, et al., G.R. No. 175881, August 28, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Delim, et al., G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007 People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

16

whether they act through the physical volition of one or all, proceeding severally or collectively. People of the Phil. vs. Noel Agda, et al., G.R. No. L-36377, January 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Herhelito Dayag, G.R. No. L-35416, June 25, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo G. Sy, et al., G.R. No. L-39400, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Labinia, G.R. No. L-38140, July 20, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Monaga, et al., G.R. No. L-39528, November 19, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Edito R. Petenia, et al., G.R. No. L-51256, August 12, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Rosalio Laguardia, G.R. No. L-63243, February 27, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992

Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. Direct proof is not essential to establish conspiracy, and may be inferred from the collective acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime. [People of the Phil. vs. Gil Templa, et al., G.R. No. 121897, August 16, 2001] Conspiracy can be presumed from and proven by acts of the accused themselves when the said acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interests. [People of the Phil. vs. Roderick Licayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911, August 15, 2001] It is not necessary to show that all the conspirators actually hit and killed the victim. Conspiracy renders all the conspirators as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the act of one conspirator is the act of all. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio L. Sanchez, et al., G.R. No. 131116, August 27, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Casiano Buntag, et al., G.R. No. 123070, April 14, 2004

Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when ten or more offenders agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be proved by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Conspiracy must be shown as distinctly and conclusively as the crime itself. [People of the Philippines vs. Jose Reapor Y San Juan, G.R. No. 130962, October 5, 2001] It may be declared from the acts of the suspect before, during and after the commission of the felony which are Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

17

indicative of a joint purpose, concocted action and concurrence of sentiments. [People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Arapok, G.R. No. 134974, December 8, 2000] To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal objective. [People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001] Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, [People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quinicio, G.R. No. 142430, September 13, 2001] since all the conspirators are principals. To exempt himself from criminal liability, a conspirator must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the conspiracy to commit the felony and prevent the commission thereof. People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, May 27, 2004

Conspiracy transcends mere companionship, it denotes an intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Izon, et al., G.R. No. L-10397. October 16, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Arcadio Aniel, et al., G.R. No. L-34416, February 21, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Segundo Manuel, et al., G.R. Nos. 93926-28, July 28, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, March 1, 2000

An assumed intimacy is of no legal bearing inasmuch as conspiracy "transcends companionship." (Mere companionship does not establish conspiracy.) People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Porferio Sosing, G.R. No. L-42791, January 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo P. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Padrones, G.R. No. 85823, September 13, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto Furugganan, G.R. Nos. 90191-96, January 28, 1991 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

18

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999 People of the Phil. of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, 5 July 2000 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, et al., G.R. No. 138886, October 9, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Isagani P. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003

Mere relationship or association alone is not a badge of conspiracy. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo P. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Primo Camaddo, et al., G.R. No. 97934, January 18, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Ferras, et al., G.R. No. 119495, April 15, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Willy Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 129162, August 10, 2001

From the legal standpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. People of the Phil. vs. Cielito Buluran, et al., G.R. No. 113940, February 15, 2000

It is unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Lising, et al., G.R. Nos. 106210-11, January 30, 1998

Although the facts may show a unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective, essential however is an agreement to commit the crime and a decision to commit it. Wilfredo R. Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57937, October 21, 1988 Jorge Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990

There is conspiracy if at the time of the commission of the offense, the acts of two or more accused show that they were animated by the same criminal purpose and were united in their execution. People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Fabro, G.R. No. 95089, August 11, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo M. Hilario, G.R. No. 128083, March 16, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

19

or where the acts of the malefactors indicate a concurrence of sentiments, a joint purpose and a concerted action. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Sumbillo, et al., G.R. No. 105292, April 18, 1997

There is conspiracy where several accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent are in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. L-35700, October 15, 1973 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Dalusag, et al., G.R. No. L-38988, October 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Edito R. Petenia, et al., G.R. No. L-51256, August 12, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Lasanas, G.R. Nos. L-48879-82, July 7, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Sunpongco, et al., G.R. No. L-42665, June 30, 1988 Wilfredo R. Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57937, October 21, 1988 Geronimo Manalaysay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79946, April 12, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Francisco, et al., G.R. No. 69580, February 15, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Veras, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 86727, September 13, 1991 Roberto E. Iton vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 94065, December 2, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Conrado G. Lagmay, et al., G.R. No. 67973, October 29, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Bayrante, et al., G.R. No. 92508, August 4, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Celedonio B. De Leon, et al., G.R. No. 110558, July 3, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, et.al., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Abordo, et al., G.R. No. 107245, December 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Abendan, et al., G.R. Nos. 132026-27, June 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

20

existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident. People of the Phil. vs. Ramir Carizo, et al., G.R. No. 96510, July 6, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Benedicto Javier, et al., G.R. No. 84449, March 4, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Hitro Sancholes, et al. G.R. Nos. 110999 and 111000, April 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Mercado, et al., G.R. No. 111165, July 17, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jurry Andal, et al., G.R. No. 124933, September 25, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 118967, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Leonilo Villarba, et al., G.R. No. 132784, October 30, 2000

A conspiracy in the statutory language exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The objective then on the part of the conspirators is to perform an act or omission punishable by law. What is required is assent to the perpetration of such a misdeed. That must be their intent. There is need in the language of Justice Mapa in the early leading case of United States vs. Magcomot, a 1909 decision, for 'concurrence of wills' or 'unity of action and purpose.' The usual phraseology employed in many of the later cases is 'common and joint purpose and design.' At times, reference is made to 'previous concert of criminal design.' Its manifestation could be shown by 'united and concerted action. Thus a conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence it may be deducted from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. The conditions attending its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. If, to use the apt words of Chief Justice Bengzon, there is a 'chain of circumstances' to that effect, then conspiracy has been established. If such be the case then, the act of one is the act of all the others involved and each is to be held to the same degree of liability as the others. So it has been our constant ruling from the 1905 decision of United States vs. Mazu" People of the Phil. vs. Angelino Pudpud, et al., G.R. No. L-26731, June 30, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Lunar, et al, G.R. No. L-15579, May 29, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Jose "Pitong" Tiongson, et al., G.R. No. L-29569, October 30, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

21

1972 People of the Phil. vs. Antolin Cardenas, et al., G.R. No. L-29090, April 29, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Venancio Malilay, et al., G.R. No. L-27938, April 22, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Ogapay, et al., G.R. No. L-28566, August 21, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Herminio Taaca, et al., G.R. No. 35652, September 29, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Mangulabnan, et al., G.R. No. 65864, August 16, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 99258, September 13, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Gabatin, et al., G.R. No. 84730, October 28, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime C. Caranzo, G.R. No. 76743, May 22, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Sabornido, G.R. No. 102141, September 18, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo A. Martinado, et al., G.R. No. 92020, October 19, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Julito Mindac, G.R. No. 83030, December 14, 1992

The simultaneous arrival of appellants, their specific acts before and after the shooting, and their simultaneous flight pointed to a conspiracy among them. People of the Phil. vs. Nomer Delos Santos, et al., G.R. No. 132123, November 23, 2000

The essence of conspiracy is the combination of two or more persons, by concerted action, to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself criminal or unlawful, by criminal or unlawful means. Its elements are: agreement to accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or more overt acts in furtherance of the illegal purpose; and requisite intent necessary to commit the underlying substantive offense. United States vs. Melchor-Lopez, 627 F 2d 886, 890 [1980], also citing other cases Jose "Jinggoy" E. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 148965, February 26, 2002

There is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a crime and decide to commit it. It is hornbook doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by positive and convincing evidence, the same quantum of evidence as the crime itself.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

22

Jose S. Ingal vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173282, March 4, 2008

Conspiracy is always predominantly mental in composition because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and intent. By its nature, conspiracy is planned in utmost secrecy. Hence, for collective responsibility to be established, it is not necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime as only rarely would such agreement be demonstrable since, in the nature of things, criminal undertakings are rarely documented by agreements in writing. But the courts are not without resort in the determination of its presence. The existence of conspiracy may be inferred and proved through the acts of the accused, whose conduct before, during and after the commission of the crime point to a common purpose, concert of action, and community of interest. In short, conduct may establish conspiracy. An accepted badge of conspiracy is when the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts though apparently independent were in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Serrano, et al., G.R. No. 179038, May 6, 2010, citing People vs. Jaime Medina, G.R. No. 127157, July 10, 1998

The act of one is the act of all. Each accused is responsible for the act of the others. "The general rule is well settled that, where several parties conspire or combine together to commit any unlawful act, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his associates or confederates committed in furtherance of any prosecution of the common design for which they combine. In contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all. . . . It is immaterial, as affecting the question of co-equal responsibility, that one or more were not actually present at the consummation of the preconceived design." (Conspiracy having been proved, the act of one conspirator becomes the act of all; and it is of no moment that not all the accused participated in the actual commission of every act constituting the crime.) United States vs. Rufino Ponte, et al., G.R. No. 5952, October 24, 1911 United States vs. Roque Dato, et al., G.R. No. L-12855, December 21, 1917 People of the Philippines vs. Ging Sam, G.R. No. L-4287, December 29, 1953 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

23

People vs. Caluag et al., G.R. No. L-6203, February 26, 1954 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Paredes, et al., G.R. No. L-19149, August 16, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito De La Cruz, G.R. No. L-30912, April 30, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Bravante, G.R. No. 73804, May 29, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Tamba, et al., G.R. No. 71272, January 29, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Leoncio Jusep, G.R. No. L-45722, June 23, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987 Wilfredo R. Antonio vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-57937, October 21, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Diomede Orongan, G.R. No. L-32751, December 21, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Arcillo Manlolo, G.R. No. 40778, January 26, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Muñoz, G.R. Nos. 38969-70, February 9, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Armando M. Solares, G.R. No. 82363, May 5, 1989 Renato A. Valdez vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 75896, May 5, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rebulado, et al., G.R. No. L-42987, March 4, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Pama, G.R. No. 90297, December 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Julian Rostata, Jr., G.R. No. 91482, February 9, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Dindo Liquiran, G.R. Nos. 105693-96, November 19, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sion, et al., G.R. No. 109617, August 11, 1997

Each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which follows incidentally in the execution of a common design as one of its probable and natural consequences even though it was not intended as part of the original design. Responsibility of a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to collateral acts and offenses incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. Conspirators are held to have intended the consequences of their acts and by purposely engaging in conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces a prohibited result that they are in contemplation of law, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

24

charged with intending the result. Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator even though such act differs radically and substantively from that which they intended to commit. People of the Phil. vs. Dima Montanir, et al., G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011

A person may be convicted for the criminal act of another, where between them, there has been conspiracy or unity and intention in the commission of the offense charged. People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Talla, et al., G.R. No. 44414, January 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando H. Maranion, G.R. Nos. 90672-73, July 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie D. Cortes, et al., G.R. No. 105010, September 3, 1993

Mere simultaneous aiming by appellant and his co-accused at the victim with their firearms does not by itself demonstrate concurrence of will or unity of action or purpose that could be a basis for their collective responsibility. People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quitlong, et al., G.R. No. 121562, July 10, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. John Edward Leysa, G.R. No. 130889, June 6, 2002

To show conspiracy, direct proof of a previous agreement to commit a crime is not necessary since the synchronized actuations and the oneness of criminal intent may be inferred from the mode, method and manner by which the offense was perpetrated. Once conspiracy is proved to exist, all the accused become equally liable. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Datun, et al., G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 123397, Oct. 13, 1998

For collective responsibility to be established, it is not necessary that conspiracy be proved by direct evidence of a prior agreement to commit the crime. It may be inferred from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. People of the Phil. vs. Estela Romualdez, et al., G.R. No. 31012, September 10, 1932 People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Manabat et al., G.R. Nos. L-1710 & L-1711, December 23, 1948 El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Clemente Macul y Otros, G.R. No. L-2823. May 19, 1950 People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

25

People of the Phil. vs. Ambrocio Belen, et al., G.R. No. L-13895, September 30, 1963 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno D. Pineda, et al., G.R. No. L-72400, January 15, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Capito et al., G.R. No. L-24466, March 19, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Pagaduan, et al., G.R. No. L-26948, August 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Alcantara, et al., G.R. No. L-26867, June 30, 1970 People of the Phil. vs. Angelino Pudpud, et al., G.R. No. L-26731, June 30, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tingson, et al., G.R. No. L-31228, October 24, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Mejia, G.R. No. L-26195, January 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Cariño, et al., G.R. No. L-33608, February 12, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso (Bongcolo) Genoguin, et al., G.R. No. L-23019, March 28, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Ogapay, et al., G.R. No. L-28566, August 21, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Manlangit, et al., G.R. No. L-32993, September 28, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alonzo, et al., G.R. No. L-32163, October 19, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Cabiling, G.R. No. L-38091, December 17, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Roncal, et al., G.R. Nos. L-26857-58, October 21, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Yu, et al., G.R. No. L-29667, November 29, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio Candado, et al., G.R. No. L-34089, August 1, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Cercano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37853, November 21, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. Nos. L-33604-05, October 30, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-30449, October 31, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Eulalio Bohos, et al., G.R. No. L-40995, June 25, 1980 People of the Phis. vs. Simplicio Realon, G.R. No. L-30832, August 29, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Muñoz, et al., G.R. No. L-38016, September 10, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo G. Sy, et al., G.R. No. L-39400, March 29, 1982 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

26

People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Labinia, G.R. No. L-38140, July 20, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Enecito Villason, G.R. No. L-38208, July 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Efreniano Balane, G.R. No. L-48319, July 25, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Pueblas, et al. , G.R. No. L-32859, February 24, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. L-32274, April 2, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Laganzon, et al., G.R. No. L-47118, May 21, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Patog, G.R. No. L-69620, September 24, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, August 6, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador M. Roca, G.R. No. 77779, June 27, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988 Jose P. De La Concepcion vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 73854, May 9, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo R. De La Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 83798, March 29, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Briones, et al., G.R. No. 90319, October 15, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime G. Serdan, G.R. No. 87318, September 2, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Sabornido, G.R. No. 102141, September 18, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo A. Martinado, et al., G.R. No. 92020, October 19, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Tirso Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 94187, November 4, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Pama, G.R. Nos. 90297-98, December 1, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo C. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 100386, December 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio G. Buntan, Sr., G.R. No. 90736, April 12, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. John Amet G. Baello, G.R. No. 101314, July 1, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo S. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 98321-24, June 30, 1993

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

27

People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Lug-aw, et al., G.R. No. 85735, January 18, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Roming Silong, et al., G.R. No. 110830, May 23, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cabrera, et al., G.R. No. 105992, February 1, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. David Cabiles, G.R. No. 115216, July 5, 1996 Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Gayon, et al. , G.R. No. 116228, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, July 23, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sion, et al., G.R. No. 109617, August 11, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Aaron Bionat, G.R. No. 121778, September 4, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Norlito Cara, et al., G.R. Nos. 117483-84, December 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Hilario, G.R. No. 123455, January 16, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pulusan, et al., G.R. No. 110037, May 21, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Gil Tadeje, et al., G.R. No. 123143, July 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 145371, September 28, 2001 Roberto Erquiaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124513, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Garcia, et al., G.R. Nos. 133489 and 143970, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

28

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dalmacio, et al., G.R. No. 126515, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Tejero, et al., G.R. No. 135050, April 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Pangilinan, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003

Conspiracy is a common design to commit a felony. Once established, evidence of participation by an accused in each and every aspect of the crime is not indispensable. All those who, in one manner or another, took part in the consummation of the offense are considered co-principals, People of the Phil. vs. Danilo R. De La Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 83798, March 29, 1990 Benjamin Venturina vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 78038, January 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Primo Camaddo, et al., G.R. No. 97934, January 18, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Miranda, et al., G.R. No. 92369, August 10, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Disipulo, et al., G.R. Nos. 113245-47, August 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Medina, et al., G.R. No. 127157, July 10, 1998

each of them being held liable for the criminal deed executed by the other or others in its perpetration. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, August 6, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Miranda, et al., G.R. No. 92369, August 10, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Disipulo, et al., G.R. Nos. 113245-47, August 18, 1997

Degree of participation The degree of participation by each of them is immaterial. (Role played by each conspirator is of no moment.) El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Clemente Macul y Otros, G.R. No. L-2823, May 19, 1950 People of the Phil. vs. Bautil Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-18997, January 31, 1966 People of the Phil. vs. Makalahi Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-18892, May 30, 1966 People of the Phil. vs. Kamad Akiran, et al., G.R. No. L-18760, September 29, 1966 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Yap, et al., G.R. No. L-50300, October 26, 1983

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

29

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984

Where conspiracy has been proven, a showing as to who inflicted the fatal blow is not required. People of the Phil. vs Roberto Gungon, et al., G.R No. 119574, March 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, January 31, 1989 People of the Phil. vs Tonny Adoc, et al., G.R No. 132079, April 12, 2000 Raymundo Tan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119832, October 12, 2000

Acts done by co-conspirators cannot prejudice a co-accused who participated in the commission of the offense but not in the plan to carry out the same. People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Regular, et al., G.R. No. L-38674, September 30, 1981

Under the law, a conspirator, no matter how minimal his participation in the crime, is as guilty as the principal perpetrator of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Cedon, G.R. No. 101117, June 15, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Robert Dinglasan, G.R. No. 101312, January 28, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Abordo, et al., G.R. No. 107245, December 17, 1999

In the cases where the Court held that persons who provided the weapon used in the commission of the crime are co-conspirators. People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Agbuya, et al., G.R. Nos. 36366-68, September 23, 1932 People of the Phil. vs. Sulpicio Dela Cerna, et al., G.R. No. L-20911, October 30, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001

Although "a conspiracy is in its nature a joint offense . . . it does not follow that one person only cannot be convicted of conspiracy. So long as the acquittal or death of a co-conspirator does not remove the basis for a charge of conspiracy, one defendant may be found guilty of the offense." United States vs. Ponciano Remigio et al., G.R. No. L-12822, February 11, 1918

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

30

Camilo Villa vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 87186, April 24, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Epie Arlalejo, G.R. No. 127841, June 16, 2000 Melecia Paña, et al. vs. Floripinas C. Buyser, et al., G.R. No. 130144, May 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001

To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act or need not even know the exact part to be performed by the others in the execution of the conspiracy. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011

Presence at the scene of the crime Mere passive presence at the scene of the crime does not make a person liable therefor. People of the Phil. vs. Custodio Regal, et al., G.R. No. L-14753, July 31, 1962 People of the Phil. vs. Tirso Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 94187, November 4, 1992

Mere presence of an accused in the crime scene or at the discussion of a conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active participation in the same, is not enough for purposes of conviction. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Hilario, G.R. No. 123455, January 16, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000 Ricardo Salvatierra, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115998, June 16, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Primitiva Dizon, et al., G.R. No. 130742, July 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, October 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Willy Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 129162, August 10, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

31

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, et al., G.R. No. 138886, October 9, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Lomer Mandao, G.R. No. 135048, December 3, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Desistance of co-conspirator To extricate himself from criminal liability, the conspirator must have performed an overt act to dissociate or detach himself from the unlawful plan to commit the felony. People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo De Los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Lug-aw, et al., G.R. No. 85735, January 18, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, July 23, 1997

One who joins a criminal conspiracy in effect adopts as his own the criminal designs of his co-conspirators; he merges his will into the common felonious intent. A person who embraces a criminal conspiracy is properly held to have cast his lot with his fellow conspirators and to have taken his chances that things may go awry and that the offended party may resist or third persons may get killed in the course of implementing the basis criminal design. To free himself from such criminal liability, the law requires some overt act on the part of the conspirator, to seek to prevent commission of the second or related felony or to abandon or dissociate himself from the conspiracy to commit the initial felony. People of the Phil. vs. Pancho A. Pelagio, et al., G.R. No. L-16177, May 24, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Juan G. Escober, et al., G.R. Nos. L-69564 and L-69658, January 29, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Ciriaco Bazar, et al., G.R. No. L-41829, June 27, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Salvador, G.R. No. L-77964, July 26, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991

Rules to establish conspiracy For the prosecution to establish conspiracy, we considered the following rules: Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

32

1. The well-settled rule is that conspiracy must be proven as clearly as the commission of the offense itself. People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Quilaton, et al., G.R. No. 131835, February 3, 2000

2. Proof of previous agreement among the malefactors to commit the crime would be unnecessary to establish conspiracy when by their overt acts it would be deduced that they conducted themselves in concert with one another in pursuing their unlawful design. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Nullan, et al., G.R. No. 126303, April 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Andales, G.R. No. 125994, January 18, 2000

3. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during and after the crime, which are indicative of a joint purpose, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments. People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

Not an element of murder or homicide Conspiracy is not an element of the crime of murder or homicide. Conspiracy assumes pivotal importance in the determination of the liability of the perpetrators. Thus, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution fails to prove conspiracy, only those whose liability can be established can be held liable for the crime charged. In the case under consideration, the prosecution was able to prove that petitioner was the one who stabbed the victim. But since conspiracy was not shown in the instant case, the other accused cannot be convicted because their respective liabilities were not satisfactorily proved as well. Petitioner alone is liable for the death of the victim. Jose S. Ingal vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173282, March 4, 2008

Must be proved as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself To establish conspiracy, there must be proof that two or more persons agreed to commit the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

33

Considering the far-reaching consequences of criminal conspiracy, the same degree of proof required for establishing the crime is required to support a finding of its presence, that is, it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. (Conspiracy must be shown beyond reasonable doubt.) People of the Phil. vs. Antonino Cerdeña, et al., G.R. No. 28389, January 20, 1928 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bernal, G.R. No. L-4409, July 14, 1952, 91 Phil. 619 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Canare, G.R. No. L-10677, September 30, 1959 People of the Phil. vs. Custodio Regal, et al., G.R. No. L-14753, July 31, 1962 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Tividad, et al., G.R. No. L-21469, June 30, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo Portugueza, et al., G.R. No. L-22604, July 31, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Chaw Yaw Shun, G.R. No. L-19590, April 25, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Santiago Tatlonghari, et al., G.R. No. L-22094, March 28, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Vicente, et al., G.R. No. L-26241, May 21, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Bartolay, et al., G.R. No. L-30610, October 22, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tingson, et al., G.R. No. L-31228, October 24, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Llamera, et al., G.R. Nos. L-21604-6, May 25, 1973 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. L-35700, October 15, 1973 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Dorico, et al., G.R. No. L-31568, November 29, 1973 People of the Phil. vs. Policarpo Tumalip, et al., G.R. No. L-28451, October 28, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Lominog Macatanaw, G.R. No. L-37883, February 25, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Ogapay, et al., G.R. No. L-28566, August 21, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alonzo, et al., G.R. No. L-32163, October 19, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo S. Vistido, G.R. No. L-31582, October 26, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Arcadio Aniel, et al., G.R. No. L-34416, February 21, 1980 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

34

People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Realon, G.R. No. L-30832, August 29, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Jacobito Marquez, G.R. No. L-31403, December 14, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Eufemio P. Caparas, et al., G.R. No. L-47411, January 18, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Porferio Sosing, G.R. No. L-42791, January 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Agda, et al., G.R. No. L-36377, January 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Lito Varroga, et al., G.R. No. L-38100, March 15, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Lobaton, G.R. No. L-33431, June 28, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Benavidez, et al., G.R. No. L-59985, January 20, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984 Dolores G. Gomez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 63202, April 9, 1985 Juanito Moniza, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 72719, September 18, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo P. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Elizaga, et al., G.R. No. 78794, November 21, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Pardilla, et al., G.R. No. L-45266, November 24, 1988 Pedro Castañeda vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 61243, March 16, 1989 Alejandro G. Macadangdang vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 75440-43, February 14, 1989 Jose P. De La Concepcion vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 73854, May 9, 1989 Delfin Orodio vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-57519, September 13, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Herminio Taaca, et al., G.R. No. 35652, September 29, 1989 Enrico M. Perez vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 76203-04, December 6, 1989 Jorge Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Padrones, G.R. No. 85823, September 13, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November 14, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Laurio, et al., G.R. No. 95351, August 9, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Dante Donato, et al., G.R. No. 94530, March 6, 1992

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

35

People of the Phil. vs. Tirso Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 94187, November 4, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Belarmino Divina, et al., G.R. Nos. 93808-09, April 7, 1993 Gil Tapalla, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 100682, May 31, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo S. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 98321-24, June 30, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Lug-aw, et al., G.R. No. 85735, January 18, 1994 Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Henry Ortiz, G.R. No. 111713 January 27, 1997, 334 Phil. 590, 1997 Jose P. Dans, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al, G.R. No. 127073, January 29, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Maluenda, et al., G.R. No. 115351 March 27, 1998, 351 Phil. 467, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Ferras, et al., G.R. No. 119495 Phil. 1020, 1998

April 15, 1998, 351

People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinghug, G.R. No. 125814, November 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Quilaton, et al., G.R. No. 131835, February 3, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlie Alagon, et al., G.R. Nos. 126536-37, February 10, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 131840, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Primitiva Dizon, et al., G.R. No. 130742, July 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Tilos, et al., G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roderick Licayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911, August 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Aquino and Romeo Aquino, G.R. No. 145371, September 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Wilfredo Leaño, et al., G.R. No. 138886, October 9, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. John Edward Leysa, G.R. No. 130889, June 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jessee "George" Castro, G.R. No. 132726, July 23, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sabiyon, G.R. No. 129113, September 17, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

36

People of the Phil. vs. Isagani P. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Hugo, et al., G.R. No. 134604, August 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Natividad, et al., G.R. No. 151072, September 23, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 153781, September 24, 2003

To be the basis for a conviction, conspiracy must be proved in the same manner as any element of the criminal act itself. People of the Phil. vs. Arquillos Tabuso, G.R. No. 113708, October 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Cresenciano Canaguran, et al., G.R. No. 108174, October 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Cupino, et al., G.R. No. 125688, April 3, 2000

The same degree of proof required to establish the crime is necessary to support a finding of the presence of conspiracy, that is, it must be shown to exist as clearly and convincingly as the commission of the offense itself. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Primitiva Dizon, et al., G.R. No. 130742, July 18, 2000

Conspiracy, to be the basis for a conviction, should be proved in the same manner as the criminal act itself. It is also essential that a conscious design to commit an offense must be established. Conspiracy is not the product of negligence but of intentionality on the part of the cohorts. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quitlong, et al., G.R. No. 121562, July 10, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Abina, et al., G.R. No. 129891, October 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999 Geronimo Dado vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 131421, November 18, 2002

As to conspiracy, it must be established by the same quantum of evidence as any other ingredient of the offense. The same degree of proof necessary to establish the crime is required to establish a finding of criminal conspiracy, that is, proof beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be established by conjectures but by and conclusive Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

37

evidence. Since conspiracy must be proved beyond peradventure of a doubt, it cannot be appreciated where the facts can be consistent with the non-participation of the accused in the fancied cabal. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November 14, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto Furugganan, G.R. Nos. 90191-96, January 28, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Leoniza S. Villagonzalo, et al., G.R. No. 105388, November 18, 1994

Conspiracy must be established by positive evidence and conviction pursuant thereto must be founded on facts, not on mere inferences and presumption. People of the Phil. vs. Jacobito Marquez, G.R. No. L-31403, December 14, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Lobaton, G.R. No. L-33431, June 28, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Narciso R. Martinez, G.R. No. L-33907, January 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto Furugganan, G.R. Nos. 90191-96, January 28, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Laurio, et al., G.R. No. 95351, August 9, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Timple, et al., G.R. Nos. 100391-92, September 26, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Desoy, et al., G.R. No. 127754, August 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Cresenciano Canaguran, et al., G.R. No. 108174, October 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Willy Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 129162, August 10, 2001

The time-honored jurisprudence is that direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy. It may be shown by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances which vary according to the purposes to be accomplished and from which may logically be inferred that here was a common design, understanding or agreement among the conspirators to commit the offense charged. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003

Direct proof is not essential to show conspiracy. It need not be shown that the parties actually came together and agreed in express terms to enter in and pursue a common design. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

38

People of the Phil. vs. Rey Salison, G.R. No. 115690, February 20, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 126047, September 16, 1999

The existence of the assent of minds may be and from the secrecy of the crime, usually must be inferred from proof of the circumstances which, taken together, apparently indicate they are merely parts of some complete whole. People of the Phil. vs. Rene Ubaldo, et al., G.R. Nos. 128110-11, October 9, 2000

Conspiracy may be proved by facts and circumstances, which taken together, indicate that the assailants cooperated and labored to the same end. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Clemente Macul y Otros, G.R. No. L-2823. May 19, 1950, 86 Phil 423 People of the Phil. vs. Luisito Bernales, et al., G.R. No. L-30966, December 14, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Or from a number of facts done in pursuance of a common unlawful purpose. People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Aguel, et al., G.R. No. L-36554, May 19, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13, 1986

Criminal conspiracy must always be founded on facts People of the Phil. vs. Severino T. Campos, et al., G.R. No. 91716, October 3, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo B. Argawanon, et al., G.R. No. 106538, March 30, 1994

and, like any other ingredient of an offense, it must be established by clear and convincing evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Laurio, et al., G.R. No. 95351, August 9, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo B. Argawanon, et al., G.R. No. 106538, March 30, 1994 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

39

It must be remembered that direct proof of conspiracy is rarely found for criminals do not write down their lawless plans and plots. People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Pagpaguitan, et al., G.R. No. 116599, September 27, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000 Jose Angeles vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 101442, March 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco E. Hapa, et al., G.R. No. 125698, July 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 125895, July 4, 2002

While direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy as it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically be inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense(s) charged, the evidence to prove the same must be positive and convincing considering that conspiracy is a facile devise by which an accused may be ensnared and kept within the penal fold. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tingson, et al., G.R. No. L-31228, October 24, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Ricarte Madali, et al., G.R. Nos. 67803-04, July 30, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Magno, et al., G.R. No. 134535, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000

Proof of the conspiracy need not be based on direct evidence because it may be inferred from the parties' conduct indicating a common understanding among themselves with respect to the commission of a crime. People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Matic, et al., G.R. No. 133650, February 19, 2002 Alex Asuncion, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140247, October 23, 2003

Prior agreement or assent to the crime is usually inferred from the acts of the accused showing concerted action, common design and objective, actual cooperation, concurrence of, or community of interest. People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Domasian, et al., G.R. No. 95322, March 1, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Miranday, et al., G.R. No. 111581, March 23, 1995

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

40

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Marlo L. Compil, G.R. No. 95028, May 15, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Celedonio B. De Leon, et al., G.R. No. 110558, July 3, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Victor Torres, et al., G.R. No. 111289, August 11, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Asoy, et al., G.R. No. 109764, December 29, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Ermelindo Sequiño, et al., G.R. No. 117397, November 13, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Maluenda, et al., G.R. No. 115351, March 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Roderick Licayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911, August 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Pangilinan, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003

A conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. To establish the existence of a conspiracy, direct proof is not essential since it may be shown by facts and circumstances from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the offense charged, or it may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated. People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996 Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo Manriquez, et al., G.R. Nos. 122510-11, March 17, 2000

More explicitly — . . . conspiracy need not be established by direct evidence of acts charged, but may and generally must be proved by a number of indefinite acts, conditions and circumstances, which vary according to the purpose accomplished. Previous agreement to commit a crime is not essential to establish a conspiracy, it being sufficient that the condition attending to its commission and the acts executed may be indicative of a common design to accomplish a criminal purpose and objective. If there is a chain of circumstances to that effect, conspiracy can be Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

41

established. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando H. Maranion, G.R. Nos. 90672-73, July 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003

Thus, the rule is that conspiracy must be shown to exist by direct or circumstantial evidence, as clearly and convincingly as the crime itself. People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003

In the absence of direct proof thereof, as in the present case, it may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of the accused themselves when such acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Noel Pama, G.R. No. 90297, December 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Gil Parica, et al., G.R. No. 80611, April 21, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alberca, G.R. No. 117106, June 26, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Gomez, G.R. No. 101817, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Nardo, et al., G.R. No. 100197, April 4, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Datun, et al., G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pulusan, et. al.,, G.R. No. 110037, May 21, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Elezer Galapin, et al., G.R. No. 124215, July 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Barredo, et al., G.R. No. 122850, October 7, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Adelio Conde, G.R. No. 133647, April 12, 2000 Jose Angeles vs. Court of Appeals, et al, G.R. No. 101442, March 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Cabilto, et al., G.R. Nos. 128816 and 139979-80, August 8, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

42

People of the Phil. vs. Gio Concorcio @ Jun, G.R. Nos. 121201-02, October 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo P. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919, February 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo B. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Donato Caraig, G.R. Nos. 116224-27, March 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 153781, September 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Romero, et al., G.R. No. 145166, October 8, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gildo B. Pelopero PNP, G.R. No. 126119, October 15, 2003 Alex Asuncion, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140247, October 23, 2003

Absent any act or circumstance from which may be logically inferred the existence of a common design among the accused to commit the crime, the theory of conspiracy remains a speculation not a fact. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Viernes, et al., G.R. No. 118091, October 3, 1996 Potenciana M. Evangelista vs. People of the Phil. et al., G.R. Nos. 108135-36, September 30, 1999

The community of interests due to relationship, the absence of immediate and sufficient cause or provocation, the joint attack and the obvious plan to deal separately with the complainants are facts and circumstances from which the unity of design that characterizes conspiracy can be inferred without need of direct proof. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Carbonel, et al., G.R. No. 24177, March 16, 1926, 48 Phil. 236

Circumstantial evidence Circumstantial evidence, provided it is competent and convincing, will therefore be sufficient to establish conspiracy. People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando E. Roa, G.R. No. 78052, November 9, 1988 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

43

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Aldeguer, G.R. No. 47991, April 3, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Tonog, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 94533, February 4, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo V. Pajarit, et al., G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992

While it is desirable that the conspiracy be proved by direct evidence, like an express understanding among the plotters affirming their commitment and defining their respective roles, it may nevertheless be established at times by circumstantial evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Donato Petil, et al., G.R. No. 70223, March 31, 1987 Valentino G. Castillo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-52352-57, June 30, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Ancheta, G.R. No. 70222, February 27, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Viray, G.R. No. 72892, January 27, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990 People of the Phils. vs. Joselito Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992

Not necessary for eyewitnesses It is not essential that there be eyewitnesses testifying to the actual conversation, agreements, and acts of the accused as they conspired together to commit the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Cercano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37853, November 21, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984

May be inferred from confessions of conspirators Conspiracy may be inferred from the individual confessions of the defendants. "These confessions are so intimately interwoven that it is hard, if not impossible, to draw a line with a view to sifting the individually admitted facts. In the absence of collusion among the declarants, their confessions should be read together, in order to form a complete picture of the whole situation, and to consider them collectively merely as corroborative and/or confirmatory of the evidence independent therefrom." People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Castelo, et al., G.R. No. L-10774, May 30, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Pamintuan, et al., G.R. No. L-48273, November 28, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

44

1983 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 129211, October 2, 2000

As regards the act or declaration of a conspirator relating to the conspiracy and during its existence, the law on evidence provides that such acts and declaration may only be given in evidence against the co-conspirator after the conspiracy is shown by evidence other than such act or declaration. Of course, it would be an entirely different matter if any of the conspirators who are charged with the commission of an offense are utilized as state witnesses. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993

Proof of conspiracy is perhaps most frequently made by evidence of a chain of circumstances only. People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Miranday, et al., G.R. No. 111581, March 23, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Theodore Bernal, et al., G.R. No. 113685, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Maluenda, et al., G.R. No. 115351, March 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001

Formal agreement not necessary In conspiracy, no formal agreement between the parties to do the act charged is necessary. It is sufficient that the minds of the parties meet understanding so as to bring about an intelligent and deliberate agreement to do the act and to commit the offense charged, although such agreement is not manifested by any formal words. A mutual implied understanding is sufficient, so far as the combination or confederacy is concerned, to constitute the offense. Previous acquaintance is unnecessary, and it is not essential that each conspirator shall take part in every act, or the other conspirators in the execution of the act of conspiracy. Conspiracy implies concert of design and not participation in every detail of execution . . .. If the object of the combination is unlawful, the means contemplated to effect such object is immaterial. . . . and it is not even necessary that the means should have been agreed on, or that anytime should have been set for the accomplishment of the design. (12 CJ. 544-545; People of the Philippines vs. Ging Sam alias Taba, G.R. No. L-4287, December 29, 1953). Conspiracy is inferrable and proven by joint and concerted acts of the accused. (People of the Phil. vs. Emiliano Plandez, et al., G.R. No. L-31282, September 17, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

45

1984). There is conspiracy where several accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and another performing another part so as to complete it with a view to the attainment of the same object, and their acts, though apparently independent are in fact concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of personal association, concerted action and concurrence of sentiments.(People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Dalusag, et al., G.R. No. L-38988, October 31, 1984). Conspiracy having been established, all the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of the extent and character of their participation because in contemplation of law, the act of one is the act of all. (People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio Loreno, et al., G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984)." People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Apawan, G.R. No. 85329, August 16, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Abordo, et al., G.R. No. 107245, December 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Herida, et al., G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 2001

Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 126047, September 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999

Conspiracy to exist does not require an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence; from the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Clarit, et al, G.R. No. L-14150, October 30, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo Bollena, et al., G.R. No. L-13415, December 30, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Felino C. Simon, et al., G.R. No. L-18035, February 28, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Castro, et al., G.R. No. L-17465, August 31, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Julian Tiongson y De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. L-9866-7, November Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

46

28, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Bautil Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-18997, January 31, 1966 People of the Phil. vs. Kamad Akiran, et al., G.R. No. L-18760, September 29, 1966 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer Estrada, G.R. No. L-26103, January 17, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Fontillas, et al., G.R. No. L-25298, April 16, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Magcamit, G.R. No. L-25555, March 28, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Odoncio Tarrayo, et al., G.R. No. L-26489, April 21, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Pastor Tapac, et al., G.R. No. L-26491, May 20, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Pagaduan, et al., G.R. No. L-26948, August 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Casey, et al., G.R. No. L-30146, February 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo G. Sy, et al., G.R. No. L-39400, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Enecito Villason, G.R. No. L-38208, July 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Pueblas, et al. , G.R. No. L-32859, February 24, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Delfino Beltran, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37168-69, September 13, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Ermelindo Sequiño, et al., G.R. No. 117397, November 13, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Aaron Bionat, G.R. No. 121778, September 4, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Hilario, G.R. No. 123455, January 16, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rex Bergante, et al., G.R. Nos. 120369-70, February 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Elezer Galapin, et al., G.R. No. 124215, July 31, 1998

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

47

People of the Phil. vs. Nonoy Felix, et al., G.R. No. 126914, October 1, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Silveriano Botona, G.R. No. 115693, March 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 126047, September 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Regino Marcelino et al., G.R. No. 126269, October 1, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinghug, G.R. No. 125814, November 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Cielito Buluran, et al., G.R. No. 113940, February 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Cleopas, et al., G.R. No. 121998, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 118967, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Ubaldo, et al., G.R. Nos. 128110-11, October 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Carrozo, et al., G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo M. Hilario, G.R. No. 128083, March 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Hermosa, et al., G.R. No. 131805, September 7, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Villaver, et. Al., G.R. No. 133381, November 27, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Bagano, et al., G.R. No. 139531, January 31, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Dinamling, et al., G.R. No. 134605, March 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Settled is the rule that proof of previous agreement to commit the crime is not necessary for conspiracy may be deduced from the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense. Concert of action at the moment of consummating the crime and the form and manner in which assistance is rendered to the person inflicting the fatal wound may determine complicity. People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Tirol, et al., G.R. No. L-30538, January 31, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Delfino Beltran, et al., G.R. No. L-37168-69, September 13, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando H. Maranion, G.R. Nos. 90672-73, July 18, 1991 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

48

People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio O. Lorenzo, et al., G.R. No. 89376, August 5, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Conrado G. Lagmay, et al., G.R. No. 67973, October 29, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Pama, G.R. No. 90297, December 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente D. Deuna, et al., G.R. No. 87555, November 16, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Larry B. Laurente, et al., G.R. No. 116734, March 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Nicasio Enoja, et al., G.R. No. 102596, December 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Godoy, G.R. No. 140545, May 29, 2003

Although no formal agreement is necessary to establish conspiracy and said conspiracy may be inferred from the circumstances attending the commission of the crime, yet conspiracy like any other ingredient of the offense, must be established by clear and convincing evidence. There must be evidence of intentional participation in the transaction with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. People of the Phil. vs. Noel Agda, et al., G.R. No. L-36377, January 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Manguigin Macatana, et al., G.R. No. L-57061, May 9, 1988 Jose B. Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84423, January 31, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Herminio Taaca, et al., G.R. No. 35652, September 29, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Belarmino Divina, et al., G.R. Nos. 93808-09, April 7, 1993 Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996 Fidelino Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001

The mere fact that certain persons know each other do not necessarily prove conspiracy. Other acts than this must be established. While conspiracy need not be supported by documentary evidence, it may be from the mode and manner in which the offense was committed. People of the Phil. vs. Angelino Pudpud, et al., G.R. No. L-26731, June 30, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Mejia, G.R. No. L-26195, January 31, 1974 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

49

People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso (Bongcolo) Genoguin, et al., G.R. No. L-23019, March 28, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Calixto T. Tumale, G.R. No. 89116, August 22, 1990

[F]or conspiracy to exist, proof of an actual planning of the perpetration of the crime is not a condition precedent. It may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated or inferred from the acts of the accused evincing a joint or common purpose and design, concerted action and community of interest." People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Datun, et al., G.R. No. 118080, May 7, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Silveriano Botona, G.R. No. 115693, March 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. David Andales, G.R. No. 130637, August 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Roche, G.R. No. 115182, April 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Adelio Conde, G.R. No. 133647, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Herman D. Bato, et al., G.R. No. 127843, December 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Cabilto, et al., G.R. Nos. 128816 and 139979-80, August 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Bagano, et al., G.R. No. 139531, January 31, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 125895, July 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Hamton, et al., G.R. Nos. 134823-25, January 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo B. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, March 26, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Garcia, G.R. No. 138470, April 1, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Lastide A. Sube, et al., G.R. No. 146034, April 9, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Robert Gomez, et al., G.R. No. 128378, April 30, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

50

People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003

May be inferred from the acts of accused pointing to a common purpose or design A settled ruled is that conspiracy may be inferred from the acts and circumstances of the accused themselves when such acts and circumstances point to a common purpose and design. From the legal viewpoint, conspiracy exists if, at the time of the commission of the offense, the accused had the same purpose and were united in its execution. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Crisostomo, et al., G.R. No. L-19034, February 17, 1923, 46 Phil. 775, 1923 People of the Phil. vs. Mandagay, et al., G.R. No. L-20353, July 17, 1923, 46 Phil. 838 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Carbonel, et al., G.R. No. 24177, March 16, 1926, 48 Phil. 866 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Cu Unjieng, G.R. No. 41200, March 26, 1935, 61 Phil. 236 People of the Phil. vs. Datu Dima Binasing, G.R. No. L-4837, April 28, 1956, 98 Phil. 902 People of the Phil. vs. Diego Colman, et al., G.R. Nos. L-6652-54, February 28, 1958, 103 Phil. 6 People of the Phil. vs. Garduque, G.R. No. L-10133, July 31, 1958 (unreported) People of the Phil. vs. Catao, G.R. No. L-9532, April 29, 1960, 107 Phil. 861 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Clarit, et al, G.R. No. L-14150, October 30, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Filemon Cutura, G.R. No. L-12702, March 30, 1962 People of the Phil. vs. Ambrocio Belen, et al., G.R. No. L-13895, September 30, 1963, 118 Phil. 880 People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Castro, et al., G.R. No. L-17465, August 31, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Verzo, et al., G.R. No. L-22517, December 26, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer Estrada, G.R. No. L-26103, January 17, 1968, 130 Phil. 108 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Pagaduan, et al., G.R. No. L-26948, August 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Alcantara, et al., G.R. No. L-26867, June 30, 1970 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

51

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Largo, et., al., G.R. No. L-28106, August 18, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Pajenado, G.R. No. L-26458, January 30, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Aleta, et al., G.R. No. L-40694, August 31, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Cabiling, G.R. No. L-38091, December 17, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Roncal, et al., G.R. Nos. L-26857-58, October 21, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Cercano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37853, November 21, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. Nos. L-33604-05, October 30, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Agripino Carzano, et al., G.R. No. L-29571, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Eulalio Bohos, et al., G.R. No. L-40995, June 25, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo G. Sy, et al., G.R. No. L-39400, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Labinia, G.R. No. L-38140, July 20, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Laganzon, et al., G.R. No. L-47118, May 21, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Manalo, et al., G.R. No. L-42505, December 26, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Delfino Beltran, et al., G.R. Nos. L-37168-69, September 13, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Amador Masangkay, et al., G.R. No. L-73461, January 25, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Napoleon Montealegre, G.R. No. L-67948, May 31, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, January 31, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Pasco, et al., G.R. No. 68520, January 22, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Pio Cantuba, et al., G.R. No. 79811, March 19, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Adolfo Quiñones, et al., G.R. No. 80042, March 28, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Paquito Manzon, et al., G.R. No. 74784, October 11, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Gil Uy, G.R. No. 84275, February 14, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rebulado, et al., G.R. No. L-42987, March 4, 1992

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

52

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo V. Pajarit, et al., G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Gito Magalang, et al., G.R. No. 84274, January 27, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente D. Deuna, et al., G.R. No. 87555, November 16, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Juan G. Gundran, G.R. No. 105666, December 17, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Mallari, et al., G.R. No. 104891, February 6, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Modesto R. De Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 106783, February 15, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Victor Torres, et al., G.R. No. 111289, August 11, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. David Cabiles, G.R. No. 115216, July 5, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio P. Ortaleza, G.R. No. 111549, July 5, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

To prove conspiracy, the prosecution need not establish that all the parties thereto agreed to every detail in the execution of the crime or that they were actually together at all the stages of the conspiracy. It is enough that, from the individual acts of each accused, it may reasonably be deduced that they had a common plan to commit the felony. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo M. Caitor, G.R. No. L-66615, July 26, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio O. Lorenzo, et al., G.R. No. 89376, August 5, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Deborah Woolcock, et al., G.R. No. 110658, May 22, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Willito Salodaga, et al., G.R. No. 106784, August 7, 1995

Jurisprudential account tells us consistently that the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime may be considered to show an extant conspiracy. People of the Phil. vs. Federico Balanag, et al., G.R. No. 103225, September 15, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Timple, et al., G.R. Nos. 100391-92, September 26, 1994

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

53

People of the Phil. vs. Hermes Dalanon, G.R. No. 107458, October 14, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Marlo L. Compil, G.R. No. 95028, May 15, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Suchinda Leangsiri, et al., G.R. No. 112659, January 24, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Diomedes Magallano, et al., G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Obello, G.R. No. 108772, January 14, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Sumalpong, et al., G.R. No. 124705, January 20, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998 People of the Phil. vs Roberto Gungon, et al., G.R No. 119574, March 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Perez, G.R. No. 130501, September 2, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Quilaton, et al., G.R. No. 131835, February 3, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Mansueto, G.R. No. 135196, July 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001

If it is proved that two or more persons aimed by their acts towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful object, each doing a part so that their acts, though apparently independent, were in fact, connected and cooperative, indicating a closeness of personal association and a concurrency of sentiment, a conspiracy may be inferred though no actual meeting among them to concert is proved. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Carbonel, et al., G.R. No. 24177, March 16, 1926, 48 Phil. 868 People of the Phil. vs. Calucer, G.R. No. L-6460, May 7, 1954

It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt acts as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his con-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000

The presence of the element of conspiracy among the accused can be proven by Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

54

their conduct before, during or after the commission of the crime showing that they acted in unison with each other, evincing a common purpose or design. People of the Phil. vs. Ralphy Alcantara, et al., G.R. Nos. 112858-59, March 6, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Erick Macahia, G.R. No. 130931, May 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001

There must be a showing that appellant cooperated in the commission of the offense, either morally, through advice, encouragement or agreement or materially through external acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying aid in the perpetration of the crime in an efficacious way. People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Visaya, G.R. No. 136967, February 26, 2001

Where the acts of the accused collectively and individually demonstrate the existence of a common design towards the accomplishment of the same unlawful purpose, conspiracy is evident, and all the perpetrators will be liable as principals. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Roque Ellado, G.R. No. 124686, March 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Godoy, G.R. No. 140545, May 29, 2003

Mere knowledge, acquiescence or agreement to cooperate is not enough to constitute one as a conspirator, absent any active participation in the commission of the crime, with a view to the furtherance of the common design and purpose. People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Roseller Alas, et al., G.R. Nos. 118335-36, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999 Ricardo Salvatierra, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115998, June 16, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Campos, G.R. No. 111535, 19 July 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Isagani P. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003

In other words, to hold an accused guilty as a co-principal by reason of conspiracy, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

55

he must be shown to have performed an overt act in pursuance or furtherance of the plan to commit the felony. People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Elijorde, et al., G.R. No. 126531, April 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Conspiracy is established by concerted action. People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo M. Rosas, G.R. No. 72782, April 30, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Abagon, et al., G.R. No. L-68940, May 9, 1988

A concert and coordination of acts. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Tala, et al., G.R. Nos. L-69153-54, January 30, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben F. Ebora, et al., G.R. No. L-31013, February 10, 1986 Jose B. Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84423, January 31, 1989

Conspiracy is considered present when the pursuit and assault on the victim is simultaneous or at least contemporaneous. People of the Phil. vs. Juan C. Maguddatu, G.R. No. L-36446, September 9, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991

or when two or more persons act together in the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Acquiatan, G.R No. L-32072, July 25, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991

Conspiracy is established by evidence of unity of purpose at the time of the commission of the offense and unity in its execution. People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo M. Rosas, G.R. No. 72782, April 30, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Bravante, G.R. No. 73804, May 29, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Abagon, et al., G.R. No. L-68940, May 9, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Pio Cantuba, et al., G.R. No. 79811, March 19, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Damaso, et al., G.R. Nos. 41490-92, October 18, 1990 People of the Phils. vs. Joselito Villalobos, G.R. No. 71526, May 27, 1992 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

56

People of the Phil. vs. Jaime G. Serdan, G.R. No. 87318, September 2, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Conrado G. Lagmay, et al., G.R. No. 67973, October 29, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Primo Camaddo, et al., G.R. No. 97934, January 18, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Manero, G.R. Nos. 86883-85, January 29, 1993

The concert of action at the moment of consummating the crime and the form and manner in which assistance was rendered to the person inflicting the fatal wound establish their common criminal design. People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Yu, et al., G.R. No. L-29667, November 29, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador M. Roca, G.R. No. 77779, June 27, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Salvador, G.R. No. 77964, July 26, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Sabornido, G.R. No. 102141, September 18, 1992

There is conspiracy since the evidence presented by the prosecution clearly indicates that the acts and behavior of both appellants reveal their common purpose to assault and inflict harm upon the deceased and that there was a concerted execution of that common purpose People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao A. Batas, et al., G.R. Nos. 84277-78, August 2, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Arroyo, et al., G.R. No. 99258, September 13, 1991

To establish conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation rather than mere cognizance or approval of an illegal act is required (Underhill's Criminal Evidence, Section 773, pp. 1403-1405; Sibal and Salazar Jr., Compendium on Evidence, 1990 3rd ed. p. 403; 7 Francisco, Revised Rules of court, 1973 ed., p. 724). People of the Phil. vs. Noel Paguntalan, et al., G.R. No. 116272, March 27, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Roseller Alas, et al., G.R. Nos. 118335-36, June 19, 1997

Even if an accused did not fire a single shot but his conduct indicated cooperation with his co-accused, as when his armed presence unquestionably gave encouragement and a sense of security to the latter, his liability is that of a co-conspirator. People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Hermogenes Flora, et al., G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

57

It must be shown that all participants performed specific acts with such closeness and coordination as to indicate a common purpose or design to commit the felony. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alib, et al., G.R. No. 130944, January 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607, January 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alipio Carbonell and Dionisio Carbonell, G.R. Nos. 140789-92, September 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Barnuevo. Et al., G.R. No. 134928, September 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Bryan Ferdinand Dy, et al., G.R. Nos. 115236-37, January 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Lomer Mandao, G.R. No. 135048, December 3, 2002

Proof of the conspiracy may be inferred from the proven conduct of the accused, at the time of the commission of the felony, disclosing a common understanding among them for the perpetration of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Geguira, G.R. No. 130769, March 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Yamashito Ronquillo, G.R. No. 126136, April 5, 2002

Conspiracy can be inferred and proved by the totality of the acts of the accused when said acts point to a joint purpose and design. People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Bayrante, et al., G.R. No. 92508, August 4, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Gemoya, et al., G.R. No. 132633, October 4, 2000

"Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. The agreement may be deduced from the manner in which the crime was committed; or from the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime, indubitably pointing to and indicating a joint purpose, a concert of action and a community of interest." People of the Phil. vs. Suchinda Leangsiri, et al., G.R. No. 112659, January 24, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, November 28, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Diomedes Magallano, et al., G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

58

People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Obello, G.R. No. 108772, January 14, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Verzosa, et al., G.R. No. 118944, August 20, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Glenn Lotoc, et al., G.R. No. 132166, May 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Perez, G.R. No. 130501, September 2, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Orbita, et al., G.R. No. 122104, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Osmundo Fuertes ,et. Al., G.R. No. 95891-92, February 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Mendoza, G.R. No. 128890, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Daroy, et al., G.R. No. 118942, July 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador De La Rosa, et al., G.R. No. 133443, September 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Carrozo, et al., G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Nomer Delos Santos, et al., G.R. No. 132123, November 23, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Cafgu Francisco Baltar, G.R. No. 125306, December 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Barnuevo. Et al., G.R. No. 134928, September 28, 2001 Roberto Erquiaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124513, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Dinamling, et al., G.R. No. 134605, March 12, 2002

Tacit and spontaneous coordination of the attack by two accused shows existence of conspiracy. People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Aleta, et al., G.R. No. L-40694, August 31, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador M. Roca, G.R. No. 77779, June 27, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo S. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 98321-24, June 30, 1993

The criminal intent of an accused to commit the crime charged not only should be Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

59

known to but also shared by the other or others in conspiracy with him. People of the Phil. vs. Jessee "George" Castro, G.R. No. 132726, July 23, 2002

The other contemporaneous acts of the accused before, during, and after the commission of the crime showed that the accused acted in unison for a common purpose. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001

For an accused to be held liable as conspirator, ". . . it must be established that he performed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, either by actively participating in the actual commission of the crime, or by lending moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the scene of the crime, or by exerting moral ascendancy over the rest of the conspirators as to move them to executing the conspiracy..." People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Peralta et al., G.R. No. L-19069, October 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Efreniano Balane, G.R. No. L-48319, July 25, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Villanueva, et al., G.R. No. L-32274, April 2, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Luayon, G.R. No. 105672, August 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Berroya, et al., G.R. No. 122487, December 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Hermogenes Flora, et al., G.R. No. 125909, June 23, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Agpawan, G.R. No. 123853, August 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Tilos, et al., G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 2001

Except when he is the mastermind in a conspiracy, it is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect contribution in the execution of the crime planned to be committed. The overt act may consist of active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over the other co-conspirators. People of the Phil. vs. Modesto R. De Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 106783, February 15, 1995

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

60

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995 Odon Pecho vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 111399, September 27, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Tamayo, G.R. No. 138608, September 24, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Isagani P. Guittap, et al., G.R. No. 144621, May 9, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Esponilla, et al., G.R. No. 122766, June 20, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gildo B. Pelopero PNP, G.R. No. 126119, October 15, 2003

Neither joint nor simultaneous action per se sufficient indicium of conspiracy, unless proved to have been motivated by a common design. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Tividad, et al., G.R. No. L-21469, June 30, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Dorico, et al., G.R. No. L-31568, November 29, 1973 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo P. Saavedra, G.R. No. L-48738, May 18, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Padrones, G.R. No. 85823, September 13, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo R. Jorge, G.R. No. 99379, April 22, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ludivino Miana, et al., G.R. No. 134565, August 9, 2001 Geronimo Dado vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 131421, November 18, 2002

In this case, the presence of accused-appellant and his colleagues, all of them armed with deadly weapons at the locus criminis, indubitably shows their criminal design to kill the victims. People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Listerio, et al., G.R. No. 122099, July 5, 2000

The fact that both appellants left together would not necessarily prove conspiracy since they live in the same vicinity. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Tividad, et al., G.R. No. L-21469, June 30, 1967

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

61

People of the Phil. vs. Nilo De Jesus, et al., G.R. No. L-58506, November 19, 1982

Effect of conspiracy When a conspiracy animates several persons with a single purpose, their individual acts in pursuance of that purpose are treated as a single act, the act of execution, which gives rise to a complex offense. The felonious agreement produces a sole and solidary liability. People of the Phil. vs. Emerito Abella, G.R. No. L-32205, August 31, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Garcia, et al., G.R. No. L-40106, March 13, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pincalin, et al., G.R. No. L-38755, January 22, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Corpuz, et al., G.R. No. L-36234, February 10, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tenorio, G.R. No. 122098, January 20, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmel Sanidad, et al., G.R. No. 146099, April 30, 2003

Although there was conspiracy in the case at bar, as evident from concert of action and unity of purpose, it could not elevate the motive of the crime to a more serious offense. Conspiracy is neither aggravating nor qualifying but rather a manner in incurring collective criminal liability among every co-conspirator in an equal degree, whereby the effect is that the act of one becomes the act of all. The presence of conspiracy cannot per se qualify a killing to murder. People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Peran, et al., G.R. No. 95259, October 26, 1992

Conspiracy is not a qualifying circumstance. Conspiracy may be a felony by itself when the law defines it as a crime with an imposable penalty therefor or is merely a mode of increasing criminal liability. Examples of conspiracy to commit a crime per se include conspiracy to sell illicit drugs under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 6485, conspiracy to bribe voters under Section 261 (b) of the Omnibus Election Code and conspiracy to commit any violation under Article 115 of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Zosimo Miranda, G.R. No. 123917, December 10, 2003

While courts have not infrequently regarded the existence of conspiracy as being itself indicative of premeditation, there are instances when a finding of the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

62

circumstance of premeditation does not automatically follow a finding of conspiracy or vice versa. United States vs. Pedro Larion, G.R. No. 1285, August 31, 1903, 2 Phil 476 United States vs. Vicente Maquiraya, et al., G.R. No. 4846, October 9, 1909, 14 Phil 243 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Dulot, et al., G.R. No. 137770, January 30, 2001

Although as a rule, conspiracy is not a crime, the existence of a conspiracy is decisive in determining whether two or more persons who participated in the commission of an offense are liable as co-principals or accomplices or are exempt from criminal liability. If an express or implied conspiracy is proven, then all the conspirators may be regarded as co-principals regardless of the extent of their participation in the execution of the crime. Their liability is collective or joint. People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Cogonon, G.R. No. 94548, October 4, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo M. Hilario, G.R. No. 128083, March 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

Information / Indictment In a conspiracy, the act of one becomes the act of all and the particular act of an accused becomes of secondary relevance. Thus, it is essential that an accused must know from the information whether he is criminally accountable not only for his acts but also for the acts of his co-accused as well. People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quitlong, et al., G.R. No. 121562, July 10, 1998 Fidelino Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001

An indictment for conspiracy is sufficient if: (1) it follows the words of the statute creating the offense and reasonably informs the accused of the character of the offense he is charged with conspiring to commit; or (2) following the statute, contains a sufficient statement of an overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy; or (3) alleges both the conspiracy and the contemplated crime in the language of the respective statutes defining them. Fidelino Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001 Jose "Jinggoy" E. Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 148965, February 26, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

63

2002

The rule is that conspiracy must be alleged, not merely inferred, in the information. Absence of a particular statement in the accusatory portion of the charge sheet concerning any definitive act constituting conspiracy renders the indictment insufficient to hold one accused liable for the individual acts of his co-accused. Thus, each of them would be held accountable only for their respective participation in the commission of the offense. Fidelino Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124036, October 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Luis Tampis, et al., G.R. No. 148725, July 31, 2003

Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode, method, and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused when those acts point to a joint purpose and design, concerted action, and community of interests. Proof of a previous agreement and decision to commit the crime is not essential, but the fact that the malefactors acted in unison pursuant to the same objective suffices. In a long line of cases, we have held thus: To be a conspirator, one need not participate in every detail of the execution; he need not even take part in every act. Each conspirator may be assigned separate and different tasks which may appear unrelated to one another but, in fact, constitute a whole collective effort to achieve their common criminal objective. Once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The precise extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are principals. People of the Phil. vs. John Alvin Pondivida, G.R. No. 188969, February 27, 2013

Conspirators are persons who, under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), "come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." Because witnesses are rarely present when several accused come to an agreement to commit a crime, such agreement is usually inferred from their "concerted actions" while committing it. On the other hand, accomplices, according to Article 18 of the RPC, are the persons who, not being included in Article 17 [which identifies who are principals], "cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts." People of the Phil., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Eusebio, et al., G.R. No. 182152, February 25, 2013

The line that separates a conspirator by concerted action from an accomplice by Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

64

previous or simultaneous acts is indeed slight. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; but they assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. The solution in case of doubt is that, as the RTC said with ample jurisprudential support, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. People of the Phil., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Eusebio, et al., G.R. No. 182152, February 25, 2013

Art. 11 - Justifying Circumstances It is a settled rule that when an accused claims the justifying circumstance of self-defense, an accused admits the commission of the act of killing. The burden of evidence, therefore, shifts to the accused's side in clearly and convincingly proving that the elements of self-defense exist that could justify the accused's act. People of the Phil. vs. David Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011

Art. 11 (1) - Justifying Circumstance: Self-defense Elements Admission of offense; burden of proof of self defense is on accused Accused must rely on strength of own evidence Unlawful aggression Necessity of means employed to repel aggression Self-defense distinguished from retaliation Flight

Elements Ladislao Espinosa vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181071, March 15, 2010 Severino E. David, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 136037, August 13, 2008

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

65

The elements of self-defense are: (1) unlawful aggression on the part of the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. People of the Phil. vs. Juan M. Ganzagan, Jr., G.R. No. 113793, August 11, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Cahindo, G.R. No. 121178, January 22, 1997 Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Magallanes, G.R. No. 114265, July 8, 1997 Uldarico Escoto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118002, September 5, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Robinson Timblor, G.R. No. 118939, January 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Noel A. Aguilar, G.R. Nos. 120622-23, July 10, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Frederick Villamor, et al., G.R. No. 124981, July 10, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998 People of the Phil. vs Roger Dorado, G.R. No. 122248, February 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Cesario Sanchez, G.R. No. 118423, June 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudioso More, et al., G.R. No. 128820, December 23, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alib, et al., G.R. No. 130944, January 18, 2000 Roque G. Galang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128536, January 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Benito Mier, G.R. No. 130598, February 3, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Meneque, G.R. No. 129964-65, August 29, 2000 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

66

People of the Phil. vs. Edison Plazo, G.R. No. 120547, January 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Toradio Silvano, G.R. No. 125923, January 31, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Henry Almazan, G.R. No. 138943-44, September 17, 2001 Doroteo Tobes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127441, October 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Ubaldo, G.R. No. 129389, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer M. Damitan, G.R. No. 140544, December 7, 2001 Florentino Paddayuman vs. People of the Phil. , G.R. No. 120344, January 23, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dalmacio, et al., G.R. No. 126515, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Castillano, et al., G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

The elements of self-defense are: (1) that the victim has committed unlawful aggression amounting to actual or imminent threat to the life and limb of the person claiming self-defense; (2) that there be reasonable necessity in the means employed to prevent or repel the unlawful aggression; and (3) that there be lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person claiming self-defense or, at least, that any provocation executed by the person claiming self-defense be not the proximate and immediate cause of the victim's aggression. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Enfectana, et al., G.R. No. 132028, April 19, 2002

One who invokes self-defense, complete or incomplete, thereby admits having killed the victim by inflicting injuries on him. The burden of evidence is shifted on the accused to prove the confluence of the essential elements for the defense as provided Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

67

in Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code: . . . (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. Benjamin P. Martinez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168827, April 13, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano M. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007

The accused must prove the existence of all of these elements by clear and convincing evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Diomedes Magallano, et al., G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997 Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Veriato Molina, et al., G.R. Nos. 115835-36, July 22, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Noay, G.R. No. 122102, September 25, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Meneque, G.R. No. 129964-65, August 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 130397, January 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, March 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Aliben, G.R. No. 140404, February 27, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003 Conrado S. Cano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 155258, October 7, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Paycana, Jr., G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008

As a justifying circumstance, self-defense may be complete or incomplete. It is complete when all the three essential requisites are present; it is incomplete when the mandatory element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, plus any one of the two essential requisites. Noel B. Guillermo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 153287, June 30, 2008

A plea of self-defense cannot be justifiably appreciated where it is not only uncorroborated by independent and competent evidence, but also extremely doubtful Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

68

by itself. People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109619-23, 26 June 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, July 22, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Pagador, G.R. No. 140006-10, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003

The question whether appellant acted in self-defense is essentially a question of fact. People of the Phil. vs. Editho Suyum, et al., G.R. No. 137518, March 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Case law has it that like alibi, the affirmative defense of self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, is a weak defense. [People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Noay, G.R. No. 122102, September 25, 1998] The accused who invokes self-defense thereby admits having killed the victim, and the burden of evidence is shifted on him to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, the confluence of the following essential elements: (1) unlawful aggression; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and, (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because even if the evidence of the prosecution is weak, the same can no longer be disbelieved. The accused cannot escape conviction if he fails to prove the essential elements of a complete self-defense. People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rene De Los Reyes, G.R. No. 140680, May 28, 2004

Admission of offense; burden of proof of self-defense is on accused Jurisprudence holds that when the accused admits killing the victim, but invokes a justifying circumstance, the constitutional presumption of innocence is effectively waived and the burden of proving the existence of such circumstance shifts to the accused. The rule regarding an accused's admission of the victim's killing has been articulated in Ortega v. Sandiganbayan, to wit: Well settled is the rule that where the accused had admitted that he is Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

69

the author of the death of the victim and his defense anchored on self-defense, it is incumbent upon him to prove this justifying circumstance to the satisfaction of the court. To do so, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution, for the accused himself had admitted the killing. The burden is upon the accused to prove clearly and sufficiently the elements of self-defense, being an affirmative allegation, otherwise the conviction of the accused is inescapable. Aguilar v. DOJ, G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013, citing Ortega v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664 February 8, 1989

Having invoked self-defense, appellant is deemed to have admitted having killed the victim, and the burden of proof thereupon is shifted to him to establish and prove the elements of self-defense. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Alapide, G.R. No. 104276, September 20, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Nuestro, et al., G.R. No. 111288, January 18, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Cahindo, G.R. No. 121178, January 22, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Enriquito Unarce, G.R. No. 120549, April 4, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Frederick Villamor, et al., G.R. No. 124981, July 10, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. George De la Cruz, G.R. No. 111704, March 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gil Tadeje, et al., G.R. No. 123143, July 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Benito Mier, G.R. No. 130598, February 3, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 131840, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Teofisto Cotas, G.R. No. 132043, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edison Plazo, G.R. No. 120547, January 29, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

70

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jomer Cabansay, G.R. No. 138646, March 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Tumayao, et al., G.R. No. 137045, April 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Henry Almazan, G.R. No. 138943-44, September 17, 2001, 417 Phil. 697 People of the Phil. vs. Nole M. Zate, G.R. No. 129926, October 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Ubaldo, G.R. No. 129389, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Enfectana, et al., G.R. No. 132028, April 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Quijano, Sr., G.R. Nos. 144523–26, June 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Well-entrenched is the rule that one who invokes self-defense admits authorship of the killing, thus the burden shifts to that person to establish the justifying circumstance with clear and convincing evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Borreros, G.R. No. 125185, May 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109619-23, June 26, 1998 Nerio Salcedo y Medel vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 137143, December 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001

Burden of evidence is shifted, not the burden of proof Fe J. Bautista, et al. vs. Malcolm G. Sarmiento, et al., G.R. No. L-45137, September 23, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

71

1985 People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Emarjonel Francisco Tomolin, G.R. No. 126650, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999 Doroteo Tobes @ Doting vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127441, October 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

A plea of self-defense automatically shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense since such a plea means that the accused admits to having performed the criminal act, but disclaims legal liability on the ground that his life had been exposed to harm first before he committed the act in defense of himself. People of the Phil. vs. Robinson Timblor, G.R. No. 118939, January 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar De La Cruz, G.R. Nos. 109619-23, June 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Meneque, G.R. No. 129964-65, August 29, 2000

It devolves upon him to establish the elements of self-defense, to show that the killing was justified and, consequently, he incurred no criminal liability therefor. People of the Phil. vs. Elezer Galapin, et al., G.R. No. 124215, July 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002

Although it is a cardinal principle in criminal law that the prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused, the rule is reversed where the accused admits committing the crime, but only in defense of oneself. People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Magallanes, G.R. No. 114265, July 8, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Magaro, G.R. No. 113021, July 2, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

72

People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel I. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non que negat — he who asserts, not he who denies, must prove. People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Masalihit, G.R. No. 124329, December 14, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

In such case, the burden of evidence shifted to the accused to prove the elements of self-defense by clear and preponderant evidence, otherwise conviction would follow from his admission that he killed the victim. People of the Phil. vs. George R. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, August 4, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Samson Patalinhug, G.R. Nos. 125814-15, November 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, July 20, 2001 Doroteo Tobes @ Doting vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127441, October 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Nole M. Zate, G.R. No. 129926, October 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Accused must rely on strength of own evidence Accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence, and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Obzunar, G.R. No. 92153, December 16, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto D. Carpio, G.R. No. 110031, November 17, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Melvin Mendoza, G.R. No. 115809, January 23, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Peña, G.R. No. 116022, July 1, 1998 People of the Phil. vs Roger Dorado, G.R. No. 122248, February 11, 1999 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

73

People of the Phil. vs. Emarjonel Francisco Tomolin, G.R. No. 126650, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Norlito Tan, and Jose Tan, G. R. No. 132324, September 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Caverte and Teofilo Caverte, G.R. No. 123112, March 30, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edison Plazo, G.R. No. 120547, January 29, 2001 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Basadre, G.R. No. 131851, February 22, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jomer Cabansay, G.R. No. 138646, March 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002

for, even if the latter were weak, it could not be disbelieved after the accused's open admission of responsibility for the killing. People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Silang Cruz, G.R. No. 31045, October 1, 1929, 53 Phil 635 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Ansoyon, G.R. No. L-3, January 29, 1946, 75 Phil 772 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Clemente, et al., G.R. No. L-23463, September 28, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Castulo Corecor, G.R. No. L-63155, March 21, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Abagon, et al., G.R. No. L-68940, May 9, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, May 27, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Tidong, G.R. No. 101583, August 13, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Papa Talaboc, Jr., G.R. No. 103290, April 23, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Melvin Mendoza, G.R. No. 115809, January 23, 1998

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

74

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Peña, G.R. No. 116022, July 1, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Meneque, G.R. No. 129964-65, August 29, 2000 Gil Macalino, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 121802, September 7, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Cueto, G.R. No. 147764, January 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Alcodia, G.R. No. 134121, March 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Areo, G.R. No. 138692, June 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Unlawful aggression People of the Phil. vs. Clemente C. Casta, G.R. No. 172871, September 16, 2008 Peter C. Tarapen vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173824, August 28, 2008

Unlawful aggression is defined as an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger — not merely threatening and intimidating Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

75

action. It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. People of the Phil. vs. David Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011 citing People vs. Manulit, G.R. No. 192581, November 17, 2010

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude. There must be actual physical force or a threat to inflict physical injury. In case of a threat, it must be offensive and positively strong so as to display a real, not imagined, intent to cause injury. Peter C. Tarapen vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173824, August 28, 2008

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has committed unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. In the absence of such element, petitioner's claim of self-defense must fail. United States vs. Emilio Carrero, G.R. No. L-3956, January 10, 1908, 9 Phil. 544 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Cañete, G.R. No. 82113, July 5, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Rosendo Delgado, G.R. No. 79672, February 15, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Agapinay, et al., G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990 Mariano R. De Luna vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111484, June 2, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Claro Bernal, G.R. No. 101332, March 13, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999 Roque G. Galang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128536, January 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 131840, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

76

Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001 Benito Calim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140065, February 13, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001, 411 Phil. 715 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer M. Damitan, G.R. No. 140544, December 7, 2001 Eladio C. Tangan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105830, January 15, 2002 Florentino Paddayuman vs. People of the Phil. , G.R. No. 120344, January 23, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Enfectana, et al., G.R. No. 132028, April 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

There is unlawful aggression when the peril to one's life, limb or right is either actual or imminent. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon. It is a statutory and doctrinal requirement to establish self-defense that unlawful aggression must be present. It is a condition sine qua non; there can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim commits unlawful aggression against the person defending himself. People of the Phil. vs. Clemente C. Casta, G.R. No. 172871, September 16, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio A. Ansowas, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002

We must stress that unlawful aggression is the first and primordial element of self-defense. Without it, the justifying circumstance cannot be invoked. As one commentator observed, "if there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel." (Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus, 1st ed., p. 45) People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Abdulajid Sabdani, G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

77

Benito Calim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140065, February 13, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001, 411 Phil. 715 Conrado S. Cano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 155258, October 7, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Areo, G.R. No. 138692, June 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003 Jose Rimano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 156567, November 27, 2003

Unlawful aggression is indispensable, it being the main ingredient to self-defense. People of the Phil. vs. Segundino "Goding" Jotoy, G.R. No. L-61154, May 31, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

Unlawful aggression refers to an attack or a threat to attack, positively showing the intent of the aggressor to cause injury. United States vs. Emilia Guy-Sayco, G.R. No. 4912, March 25, 1909, 13 Phil 292 People of the Phil. vs. Abdulajid Sabdani, G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000

Without unlawful aggression, self-defense will not have a leg to stand on and this justifying circumstance cannot and will not be appreciated, even if the other elements are present. People of the Phil. vs. Sergio A. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003

It presupposes not merely a threatening or an intimidating attitude, but an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or an imminent danger thereof, which imperils one's life or limb. Thus, when there is no peril, there is no unlawful aggression. People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Noel A. Aguilar, G.R. Nos. 120622-23, July 10, 1998 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

78

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, July 22, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Abdulajid Sabdani, G.R. No. 134262, June 28, 2000 Gil Macalino, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 121802, September 7, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramonito Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio A. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Areo, G.R. No. 138692, June 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dala, G.R. No. 134563, October 28, 2003

It bears stressing that, for unlawful aggression to be present, there must be a real danger to life or personal safety. People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Sabio, G.R. No. L-23734, April 27, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo R. Cagalingan, et al., G.R. No. 79168, August 3, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Without it, there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete, that can validly be invoked. "There is an unlawful aggression on the part of the victim when he puts in actual or imminent danger the life, limb, or right of the person invoking self-defense. There must be actual physical force or actual use of a weapon." It is present only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life. It must be continuous; otherwise, it does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense. People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013

There must be an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

79

Uldarico Escoto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118002, September 5, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Borreros, G.R. No. 125185, May 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

To constitute aggression, the person attacked must face a real threat to his life and the peril sought to be avoided is imminent and actual, not imaginary. People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto D. Langres, G.R. No. 128754, October 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer M. Damitan, G.R. No. 140544, December 7, 2001

The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon. People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-38180, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Ebrada, G.R. No. 122774, September 25, 1998, 357 Phil. 345 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Georgino Bonifacio, et al., G.R. No. 133799, February 5, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramonito Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003

Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense. Simon A. Flores vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013

Self-defense cannot be proved except by sufficient and credible evidence. On one hand, it excludes any vestige of unlawful aggression on the part of the person invoking it. People of the Phil. vs. Cesario Sanchez, G.R. No. 118423, June 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

80

People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002

On the other hand, self-defense fails where unlawful aggression on the part of the victim is not properly established. People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Pagador, G.R. No. 140006-10, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002

Verily, to invoke self-defense successfully, there must have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that endangered the life of the accused who was then forced to inflict severe wounds upon the assailant by employing reasonable means to resist the attack. People of the Phil. vs. Hermes B. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 126145, April 30, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

An act of aggression when its author does not persist in his purpose, or when he discontinues his aggression such that the object of his attack is no longer in peril, is not unlawful aggression. People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, July 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

Even the cocking of a rifle without aiming the firearm at any particular target is not sufficient to conclude that one's life was in imminent danger. Hence, a threat, even if made with a weapon, or the belief that a person was about to be attacked, is not sufficient. It is necessary that the intent be ostensibly revealed by an act of aggression or by some external acts showing the commencement of actual and material unlawful aggression. Lolito T. Nacnac vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012 citing People vs. Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003

A police officer is trained to shoot quickly and accurately. A police officer cannot earn his badge unless he can prove to his trainors that he can shoot out of the holster quickly and accurately . . . . Given this factual backdrop, there is reasonable basis to presume that the appellant indeed felt his life was actually threatened. Facing an armed police officer like himself, who at that time, was standing a mere five meters from the appellant, the [latter] knew that he has to be quick on the draw. It is worth Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

81

emphasizing that the victim, being a policeman himself, is presumed to be quick in firing. Hence, it now becomes reasonably certain that in this specific case, it would have been fatal for the appellant to have waited for SPO1 Espejo to point his gun before the appellant fires back. Lolito T. Nacnac vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191913, March 21, 2012

Unlawful aggression is an actual physical assault, or at least a threat to inflict real imminent injury, upon a person. In case of threat, it must be offensive and strong, positively showing the wrongful intent to cause injury. It "presupposes actual, sudden, unexpected or imminent danger — not merely threatening and intimidating action." It is present "only when the one attacked faces real and immediate threat to one's life." In the present case, the element of unlawful aggression is absent. Mere allegation by appellant that the victim pulled out a knife is insufficient to prove unlawful aggression and warrant the justification of the victim's killing. People of the Phil. vs. Efren R. Laurio, G.R. No. 182523, September 13, 2012

Necessity of means employed to repel aggression The gauge of rational necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression as against one's self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the situation as it appears to the person repelling the aggression. It has been held time and again that the reasonableness of the means adopted is not one of mathematical calculation or "material commensurability between the means of attack and defense" but the imminent danger against the subject of the attack as perceived by the defender and the instinct more than reason that moves the defender to repel the attack. It has further been stressed in such cases that to the imminent threat of the moment, one could not be hoped to exercise such calm judgment as may be expected of another not laboring under any urgency and who has sufficient time to appraise the urgency of the situation. Noli Eslabon vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-66202, February 24, 1984

"The law does not require, and it would be too much to ask of the ordinary man, that when he is defending himself from a deadly assault, in the heat of an encounter at close quarters, he should so mete out his blows that upon a calm and deliberate review of the incident, it will not appear that he exceeded the precise limits of what was absolutely necessary to put his antagonist hors de combat; or that he struck one blow more than was absolutely necessary to save his own life; or that he failed to hold his Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

82

hand so as to avoid inflicting a fatal wound where a less severe stroke might have served his purpose. Of course, the victim of an unlawful aggression may not lawfully exceed the bounds of rational necessity in repelling the assault. But the measure of rational necessity in cases of this kind is to be found in the situation as it appears to the victim of the assault at the time when the blow is struck; and the courts should not and will not, in the light of after events or fuller knowledge, hold the victims of such deadly assaults at close quarters, to so strict a degree of accountability that they will hesitate to put forth their utmost effort in their own defense when that seems to them to be reasonably necessary." United States vs. Mariano Singson, G.R. No. 15697, September 6, 1920

"The reasonableness of the means employed to prevent an aggression depends upon the nature and quality of the weapon used by the aggressor, his physical condition, his size, his character and the surrounding circumstances vis-a-vis those of the person defending himself. It is also well-settled that in emergencies which imperil the life and limb of a person, human nature acts not upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the imperious dictates of the instinct of self-preservation . . . the protective mantle of the law shields not only him who repels actual aggression but as well as him who prevents an aggression that is real and imminent. And the killing of the aggressor would be justified at a time when all the elements of self-defense are present." People of the Phil. vs. Zambarrano, 54 O.G. 8455

The means employed by a person claiming self-defense must be commensurate to the nature and the extent of the attack sought to be averted, and must be rationally necessary to prevent or repel an unlawful aggression. Simon A. Flores vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013

"In emergencies of this kind, human nature does not act upon processes of formal reason but in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation, and when it is apparent that a person has reasonably acted upon this instinct, it is the duty of the courts to sanction the act and to hold the actor irresponsible in law for the consequences." People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Lara, G.R. No. 24014, October 16, 1925, 48 Phil. 153 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, August 6, 1987

Self-defense distinguished from retaliation Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

83

Self-defense must be distinguished from retaliation; in that in retaliation, the inceptual unlawful aggression had already ceased when the accused attacked him. In self-defense, the unlawful aggression was still existing when the aggressor was injured or disabled by the person making the defense. People of the Phil. vs. George R. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, August 4, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003

"When unlawful aggression ceases, the defender no longer has any justification to kill or wound the original aggressor. The assailant is no longer acting in self-defense but in retaliation against the original aggressor." Retaliation is not the same as self-defense. In retaliation, the aggression that was begun by the injured party already ceased when the accused attacked him, while in self-defense the aggression still existed when the aggressor was injured by the accused. Simon A. Flores vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181354, February 27, 2013 People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013

Flight The justifying circumstance of self-defense may not survive in the face of accused's flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities of the incident. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gerolaga, et al., G.R. No. 89075, October 15, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000 Benito Calim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140065, February 13, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Atadero, et al., G.R. No. 135239-40, August 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

Accident and self-defense do not have the same meaning or legal effect. Self-defense is a justifying circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 11, while accident is an exempting circumstance under paragraph 4 of Article 12, both of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

84

It is settled that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by an assailant are constantly and unremittingly considered important incidents which disprove a plea of self-defense, or, for that matter, defense of a stranger. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Rivera, G.R. No. 101798, May 10, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

The bare fact that the appellants sustained injuries does not prove that they acted in self-defense or in defense of a relative. People of the Phil. vs. TWolver Tumaob, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 125690, June 22, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

Art. 11 (2) – Justifying Circumstance: Defense of Relative Whether the accused acted in self-defense or in defense of a relative is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court based on the evidence on record. Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

For defense of a relative to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense took no part therein. People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Babor, et al., G.R. No. 106875, September 24, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Agapinay, et al., G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990 Procerfina Olbinar vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 76235, January 21, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Broncano, et al., G.R. No. 104870, August 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio De Gracia et al., G.R. No. 112984, November 14, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

85

1996 People of the Phil. vs. Cristituto Cortes, et al., G.R. No. 120920, February 12, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Amamangpang, G.R. No. 108491, July 2, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Barrameda, et al., G.R. No. 130177, October 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Mana-ay, G.R. No. 132717, November 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Madrid, et al., G.R. No. 129896, November 23, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607, January 16, 2001 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Lansang, G.R. No. 131815, August 14, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

In the event that not all of the aforementioned requisites are attendant, the accused shall be entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

The burden is on the accused to prove these elements of self-defense or defense of relative. Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607, January 16, 2001

Of these three requisites, "unlawful aggression" is said to be the most essential and primary, without which any "defense" is not possible or justified. Thus: "If there is no unlawful aggression there would be nothing to prevent or repel." In that event, not even incomplete self-defense can be validly invoked.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

86

People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Malazzab, G.R. No. L-39136, April 15, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Agapinay, et al., G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997 Alex Jacobo vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 107699, March 21, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

Our running jurisprudence is that the unlawful aggression of the victim must be clearly established by evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Quino, G.R. No. 105580, May 17, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Cristituto Cortes, et al., G.R. No. 120920, February 12, 1998

Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, the presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of defense, be it of self, relative, or stranger. There can be no defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending. For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that the stranger be assaulted or at least be threatened with an attack in an immediate and imminent manner. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel, and the second requisite of defense will have no basis. Ernesto Andres vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-48957, June 23, 1987 Angelito Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Joanes Agravante, et al., G.R. No. 105402-04, September 5, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

87

1994 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002 Ricardo Balunueco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 126968, April 9, 2003

In addition, for unlawful aggression to be appreciated, there must be an actual, sudden, unexpected attack or imminent danger thereof, and not merely a threatening or intimidating attitude (People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino Rey, (G.R. No. 80089, April 13, 1989), People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., (G.R. No. 129961-62, August 25, 2003), People of the Phil. vs. Armando Sarabia, (G.R. No. 106102, October 29, 1999) and the accused must present proof of positively strong act of real aggression (Jorge C. Pacificar vs. Court of Appeals, et al. (G.R. No. L-33277, November 25, 1983); People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Aquiatan, (G.R. No. L-32072 July 25, 1983); People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, (G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983). Unlawful aggression must be such as to put in real peril the life or personal safety of the person defending himself or of a relative sought to be defended and not an imagined threat. People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991

When an unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Capoquian, G.R. No. 109145, September 22, 1994

The gauge of rational necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression as against one's self or in defense of a relative is to be found in the situation as it appears to the person repelling the aggression. It has been held time and again that the reasonableness of the means adopted is not one of mathematical calculation or "material commensurability between the means of attack and defense" but the imminent danger against the subject of the attack as perceived by the defender and the instinct more than reason that moves the defender to repel the attack. It has further been stressed in such cases that to the imminent threat of the moment, one could not be hoped to exercise such calm judgment as may be expected of another not laboring under any urgency and who has sufficient time to appraise the urgency of the situation. People of the Phil. vs. Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero, G.R. No. L-23249, November 25, 1974

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

88

Carlos Castañares vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-41269-70, August 6, 1979 Norman Lacson vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-46485, November 21, 1979 Noli Eslabon vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-66202, February 24, 1984

The law does not require, and it would be too much to ask of the ordinary man, that when he is defending himself from a deadly assault, in the heat of an encounter at close quarters, he should so mete out his blows that upon a calm and deliberate review of the incident, it will not appear that he exceeded the precise limits of what was absolutely necessary to put his antagonist hors de combat; or that he struck one blow more than was absolutely necessary to save his own life; or that he failed to hold his hand so as to void inflicting a fatal wound where a less severe stroke might have served his purpose. Of course the victim of an unlawful aggression may not lawfully exceed the bounds of rational necessity in repelling the assault. But the measure of rational necessity in cases of this kind is to be found in the situation as it appears to the victim of the assault at the time when the blow is struck; and the courts should not and will not, in the light of after events or fuller knowledge, hold the victims of such deadly assaults at close quarters, to so strict a degree of accountability that they will hesitate to put forth their utmost effort in their own defense when that seems to them to be reasonably necessary. United States vs. Mariano Singson, G.R. No. 15697, September 6, 1920, 41 Phil. 53 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Broncano, et al., G.R. No. 104870, August 22, 1996

For lack of a clear unlawful aggression on the part of the victim Roberto and of the reasonable necessity of the means employed by the accused-appellant, the justifying circumstance of defense of relative cannot be availed of. People of the Phil. vs. Rubico Sagre, G.R. No. L-32306, April 30, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019, January 29, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Eduarte, et al., G.R. No. 72976, July 9, 1990

His failure to report the attempt on the life of his sister to the authorities and his hiding in a remote place is certainly incompatible with his claim that be killed the deceased in defense of his sister. People of the Phil. vs. Sergio R. Pospos, G.R. No. L-40310, July 25, 1983

If indeed he acted in defense of his younger brother Sergon who was then under Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

89

attack, he would not harbor any fear in presenting himself to the proper authorities. Instead, he made no such report. Persons who act in legitimate defense of their persons or rights invariably surrender themselves to the authorities and describe fully and in all candor all that has happened with a view to justify their acts. They lose no time in going to the punong barangay, the municipal mayor or the police and lay before them all the facts. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Espidol, et al., G.R. No. 150033, November 12, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Lacson, G.R. No. L-1900, May 12, 1949, 83 Phil. 574 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Pulido, et al., G.R. No. L-2447, March 4, 1950, 85 Phil. 695 People of the Phil. vs. Consorcio Pelago y Bekilla, G.R. No. L-24884, August 31, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Briones, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 101257, September 23, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000

The natural impulse of any person who has killed someone in defense of his person or relative is to bring himself to the authorities and try to dispel any suspicion of guilt that the authorities might have against him. Ricardo Balunueco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 126968, April 9, 2003

We cannot appreciate the justifying circumstance of defense of relative in favor of the accused-appellants. There was no necessity at all of defending the brother since his life was not actually in danger. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019, January 29, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Eswan, et al., G.R. No. 84713, June 4, 1990

For this justifying circumstance to prosper, the evidence adduced must be persuasive. People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Eduarte, et al., G.R. No. 72976, July 9, 1990

Appellant invokes the defense of a relative, thereby admitting the fact that he did hack the deceased on that fatal day. Correspondingly, a person who seeks justification for his act must prove by clear and convincing evidence the presence of the necessary Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

90

justifying circumstance. Having admitted the slaying of the victim, he is criminally liable unless he is able to convince the Court that he acted in legitimate defense. People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Capoquian, G.R. No. 109145, September 22, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

Case law has it that like alibi, self-defense or defense of relatives are inherently weak defenses which, as experience has shown, can easily be fabricated. People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

An accused relying on said justifying circumstances must prove the same by means of sufficient, satisfactory, and convincing evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Quino, G.R. No. 105580, May 17, 1994

As the burden of proof rests upon him to establish the same, he must necessarily rely on the strength of his own evidence and not upon the weakness of that of the prosecution. People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caras, G.R. No. 112731, July 18, 1994

And, where the prosecution evidence, as in the present appeal, renders extremely doubtful the veracity of the defense version, said defenses cannot be granted any evidentiary weight. People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Babor, et al., G.R. No. 106875, September 24, 1996

Anyone who admits the killing of a person but invokes the defense of relative to justify the same has the burden of proving these elements by clear and convincing evidence. The accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution, for even if the prosecution evidence is weak it cannot be disbelieved if the accused has admitted the killing. People of the Phil. vs. Joven Bausing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Peñones, et al., G.R. No. 71153, August 16, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Julito Mindac, G.R. No. 83030, December 14, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

91

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Cahindo, G.R. No. 121178, January 22, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Barrameda, et al., G.R. No. 130177, October 11, 2000

Just as the presence and severity of a large number of wounds on the part of the victim disprove self-defense, so do they belie the claim of defense of a relative and indicate not the desire to defend one's relative but a determined effort to kill. People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio De Gracia et al., G.R. No. 112984, November 14, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Barrameda, et al., G.R. No. 130177, October 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Ubaldo, G.R. No. 129389, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Madrid, et al., G.R. No. 129896, November 23, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

The bare fact that the appellants sustained injuries does not prove that they acted in self-defense or in defense of a relative. People of the Phil. vs. TWolver Tumaob, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 125690, June 22, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Caabay, et al., G.R. Nos. 129961-62, August 25, 2003

Art. 11 (3) - Justifying Circumstance: Defense of Stranger Self-defense and defense of the rights of another are recognized circumstances justifying an offense and exempting the perpetrator from criminal liability. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Punzalan, G.R. No. L-54562, August 6, 1987

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

92

The question of whether appellant acted in self-defense, and defense of a stranger for that matter, is essentially a question of fact. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 130397, January 17, 2002

A party who invokes the justifying circumstance of "defense of a stranger" has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the exculpatory cause that can save him from conviction. People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002

The justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of stranger, like alibi, is a defense which can easily be fabricated. People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

The justifying circumstance of self-defense or defense of stranger, like alibi, is a defense which can easily be fabricated. Hence, it is inherently weak, and in order that it may be successfully invoked, accused-appellant must prove the following elements: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means to prevent or repel it; and (3) the person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment, or other evil motive. People of the Phil. vs. Renato Moral, et al., G.R. No. L-31139, October 12, 1984 Norberto Masipequiña, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-51206, August 25, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Peñones, et al., G.R. No. 71153, August 16, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Obias, G.R. No. 114185, January 30, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Calabroso, et al., G.R. No. 126368, September 14, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Benny Acosta, G.R. No. 140386, November 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 130397, January 17, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

93

People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

Absent either or both of the last two (2) requisites, the mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of stranger may be appreciated. However, in either case, unlawful aggression is always an essential element. It has been held that without unlawful aggression, there could never be a defense, complete or incomplete. People of the Phil. vs. Irving D. Flores, G.R. Nos. 103801-02, October 19, 1994

The unlawful aggression must be a continuing circumstance or must have been existing at the time the defense is made. Once unlawful aggression is found to have ceased, the one making the defense of a stranger would likewise cease to have any justification for killing, or even just wounding, the former aggressor. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002

Defense, whether of one's self, a relative or a stranger, as a justifying or mitigating circumstance requires as a condition sine qua non the element of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Julian Apolinario, G.R. No. 38562, October 18, 1933, 58 Phil. 586 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Tesorero, G.R. Nos. L-34828-31, June 30, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Obeda, G.R. No. L-40150, Dec. 19, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caras, G.R. No. 112731, July 18, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Balamban, et. al., G.R. No. 119591, November 21, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Magnabe, Jr., G.R. No. 143071, August 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

There can be no defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending. For the right of defense to exist, it is necessary that the stranger be assaulted or at least be threatened with an attack in an Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

94

immediate and imminent manner. If there is no unlawful aggression, there is nothing to prevent or repel, and the second requisite of defense will have no basis. Ernesto Andres vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-48957, June 23, 1987 Angelito Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Joanes Agravante, et al., G.R. No. 105402-04, September 5, 1994

With the absence of unlawful aggression that can be attributed to the victim, it becomes unnecessary to determine the remaining requisites for they obviously have no leg to stand on. Thus, in this case, the defense of stranger will not lie, complete or incomplete. People of the Phil. vs. Ricarte Madali, et al., G.R. Nos. 67803-04, July 30, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996 Rudy Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120853, March 13, 1997

Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof. The person defending himself must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon. People of the Phil. vs. Ramonito Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rafael Trapane, G.R. No. 134534, August 29, 2002

In both self-defense and defense of a stranger, unlawful aggression is a primordial element. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual, sudden and unexpected attack or imminent danger on the life and limb of a person — not a mere threatening or intimidating attitude — but, most importantly, at the time the defensive action was taken against the aggressor. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto E. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 128359, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Galvez, et al., G.R. No. 130397, January 17, 2002

It is settled that the nature and number of wounds inflicted by an assailant are constantly and unremittingly considered important incidents which disprove a plea of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

95

self-defense, or, for that matter, defense of a stranger. People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Barrameda, et al., G.R. No. 130177, October 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo Dijan, G.R. No. 142682, June 5, 2002

Moreover, the number, location and severity of the fatal wounds suffered by the victim belie the claim of defense of stranger but is indicative of a determined effort to kill. People of the Phil. vs. Manlapaz, G.R. No. L-27259, February 27, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bigcas, et al., G.R. No. 94534, July 20, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996 Rudy Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120853, March 13, 1997

Accused must then show by clear and convincing evidence that he indeed acted in self-defense or in defense of a relative or a stranger. For that purpose, he must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the prosecution's evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Regoberto Ybeas, G.R. No. 98062, September 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo C. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 100386, December 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ariel Gomez, G.R. No. 109146, August 17, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Abelo Albarico, G.R. Nos. 108596-97, November 17, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Rivero, G.R. No. 112721, March 15, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Mario C. Aliviado, G.R. Nos. 113782-84, August 14 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Gutual, et al., G.R. No. 115233, February 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Elezer Galapin, et al., G.R. No. 124215, July 31, 1998 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

96

People of the Phil. vs Roger Dorado, G.R. No. 122248, February 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Gaspar, G.R. No. 131479, November 19, 1999

Art. 11 (4) - Justifying Circumstance - State of necessity (In order to avoid evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another) Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code reads: ART. 11.

Justifying circumstances. — xxx

xxx

xxx

4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another provided that the following requisites are present: First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it; Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

The provision was taken from Article 8, paragraph 7 of the Spanish Penal Code, which reads: ARTICULO 8. 7. El que para evitar un mal ejecuta un hecho que produzca dañ en la propiedad ajena, siempre que concurran las circumstancias siguientes: Primera.

Realidad del mal que se trata de evitar.

Segunda.

Quesea mayor que el causado para evitarlo.

Tercera. para impedirlo.

Que no haya otro medio practicable y menos perjudicial

Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code is not an accurate translation of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

97

the Spanish Penal Code. The phrase "an injury" does not appear in the first paragraph in the Spanish Penal Code. Neither does the word "injury" appear in the second subparagraph of the Spanish Penal Code. The justification is what is referred to in the Spanish Penal Code as el estado de necessidad: Es una situation de peligro, actual o immediato para bienes, juridicamente protegides que solo puede ser evitada mediante, la lesion de bienes, tambien juridicamento protegidos, pertenecientes a otra personas. The phrase "state of necessity" is of German origin. Countries which have embraced the classical theory of criminal law, like Italy, do not use the phrase. The justification refers to a situation of grave peril (un mal), actual or imminent (actual o imminente). The word propiedad covers diverse juridical rights (bienes juridicos) such as right to life, honor, the integrity of one's body, and property (la vida, la integridad corporal, el pudor, el honor, bienes patrimoniales) belonging to another. It is indispensable that the state of necessity must not be brought about by the intentional provocation of the party invoking the same. A number of legal scholars in Europe are of the view that the act of the accused in a state of necessity is justifying circumstance; hence, lawful. Under Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, a "state of necessity" is a justifying circumstance. The accused does not commit a crime in legal contemplation; hence, is not criminally and civilly liable. Civil liability is borne by the person/persons benefited by the act of the accused. Crimes cannot exist unless the will concurs with the act, and when, says Blackstone, "a man intending to do a lawful act, does that which is unlawful, the deed and the will act separately" and there is no conjunction between them which is necessary to constitute a crime. Others are of the view that such act is a cause for exclusion from being meted a penalty; still others view such act as a case of excluding the accused from culpability. According to Groizard, rights may be prejudiced by three general classes of acts, namely, (a) malicious and intentional acts; (b) negligent or reckless acts; (c) acts which are neither malicious, imprudent nor negligent but nevertheless cause damages. Nuestra propiedad puede ser perjudicada, puede sufrir detrimentos por tres clases de hechos. Por actos maliciosos, intencionales, encaminados directamente a causarnos daño; por actos que, sin llevar ese malicioso fin y Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

98

por falta de prudencia, por culpa o temeridad del que los ejecuta, den ese mismo resultado, y por actos que, sin concurrir en su ejecucion un proposito doloso, ni culpa, ni negligencia sin embargo produzcan menocabo en nuestros bienes.

The defense of a state of necessity is a justifying circumstance under Article 11, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. It is an affirmative defense that must be proved by the accused with clear and convincing evidence. By admitting causing the injuries and killing the victim, the accused must rely on the strength of his own evidence and not on the weakness of the evidence of the prosecution because if such evidence is weak but the accused fails to prove his defense, the evidence of the prosecution can no longer be disbelieved. Whether the accused acted under a state of necessity is a question of fact, which is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. The legal aphorism is that the findings of facts by the trial court, its calibration of the testimony of the witnesses of the parties and of the probative weight thereof as well as its conclusions based on its own findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless the trial court ignored, misconstrued or misapplied cogent facts and circumstances of substance which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. We have meticulously reviewed the records and find no basis to deviate from the findings of the trial court. People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Retubado, G.R. No. 124058, December 10, 2003

Under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, infliction of damage or injury to another so that a greater evil or injury may not befall one's self may be justified only if it is taken as a last resort and with the least possible prejudice to another. If there is another way to avoid the injury without causing damage or injury to another or, if there is no such other way but the damage to another may be minimized while avoiding an evil or injury to one's self, then such course should be taken. People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012

Art. 11 (5) - Justifying Circumstance: Fulfillment of a duty A person incurs no criminal liability when he acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office. But we must stress there are two requisites for Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

99

this justifying circumstance: (a) that the offender acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right: and (b) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such right or office. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Z. Oanis, et al., G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943 Jose Frias, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-65762, June 23, 1984 Bernardo Lacanilao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34940, June 27, 1988 Fausto Andal vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 60159, Nov. 6, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses M. Cawaling, et al., G.R No. 117970, July 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000 Eduardo P. Balanay vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 112924, October 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001 John Angcaco vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 146664, February 28, 2002 Mario Valeroso vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149718, September 29, 2003

In the absence of the second requisite, the justification becomes an incomplete one thereby converting it into a mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the same Code. People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000

"Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office." The requisites of the defense of fulfillment of duty are: (1) that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or duty; (2) that the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right. Jose Frias, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-65762, June 23, 1984

Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) provides that a person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office does not incur any Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

100

criminal liability. Two requisites must concur before this defense can prosper: 1) the accused must have acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office; and 2) the injury caused or the offense committed should have been the necessary consequence of such lawful exercise. These requisites are absent in this case. Appellant was not performing his duties at the time of the shooting, because the men he shot had not been indiscriminately firing guns in his presence, as he alleges. Further, as found by the RTC, "nothing was mentioned in [his] direct testimony that he was there to effect an arrest." People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo Catbagan, G.R. Nos. 149430-32, February 23, 2004

In no way can Sarenas claim the privileges under paragraphs 5 and 6, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, for the massacre of the Magdasals can by no means be considered as done in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of an office or in obedience to an order issued by a superior for some lawful purpose. People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997

This exercise of a statutory right to suspend installment payments is, to our mind, a valid defense against the purported violations of B.P. Blg. 22 that petitioner is charged with… Following Article 11 (5) 24 of the Revised Penal Code, petitioner's exercise of a right of the buyer under Article 23 of P.D. No. 957 is a valid defense to the charges against him. Francisco T. Sycip vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125059, March 17, 2000

The fifth justifying circumstance which exempts a person from criminal liability is found in this provision: "Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office." The requisites of the defense of fulfillment of duty are: (1) that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or duty; (2) that the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of such right. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Z. Oanis, et al., G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943 Jose Frias, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-65762, June 23, 1984 Bernardo Lacanilao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34940, June 27, 1988 Fausto Andal vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 60159, Nov. 6, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

101

People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000 Eduardo P. Balanay vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 112924, October 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001 John Angcaco vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 146664, February 28, 2002

In the absence of the second requisite, the justification becomes an incomplete one thereby converting it into a mitigating circumstance under Articles 13 and 69 of the same Code. People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000

The justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under paragraph 5, Article 11, of the Revised Penal Code may be invoked only after the defense successfully proves that: (1) the accused acted in the performance of a duty; and (2) the injury inflicted or offense committed is the necessary consequence of the due performance or lawful exercise of such duty. People of the Phil. vs. Cawaling, G.R. No. 117970, July 28, 1998 Rufino S. Mamangun vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149152, February 2, 2007

Art. 11 (6) - Justifying Circumstance: Compliance with Superior Order Compliance with a superior order is justifiable only where the order was "lawful" and that the accused acted without criminal intent. In this case, the alleged order was not within legal bounds, but at the same time, the petitioner, in complying therewith, had indeed criminal designs. People of the Phil. vs. Luciano S. Barroga, G.R. No. 31563, January 16, 1930, 54 Phil. 277 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Beronilla, G.R. No. L-4445, February 28, 1955, 96 Phil. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

102

566 Isidro Recamadas vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-53694-99, November 5, 1987

Neither can petitioner be declared as having merely obeyed a lawful order issued by a superior officer; there being a clear violation of Circular No. 40, series of 1974 of the Bureau of Posts, while Galinato, on whose order Ramos supposedly paid the questioned vouchers, was not even his immediate supervisor. Aniceto Ramos vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 58876, November 27, 1990

Even if the order is illegal if it is patently legal and the subordinate is not aware of its illegality, the subordinate is not liable, for then there would only be a mistake of fact committed in good faith. Such is the ruling in "Nassif vs. People", 78 Phil. 67…… This is not a sheer case of blind and misguided obedience, but obedience in good faith of a duly executed order. Indeed, compliance to a patently lawful order is rectitude far better than contumacious disobedience. In the case at bench, the order emanated from the Office of the President and bears the signature of the President himself, the highest official of the land. It carries with it the presumption that it was regularly issued. And on its face, the memorandum is patently lawful for no law makes the payment of an obligation illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent tenor for its execution constrains one to act swiftly without question. Obedientia est legis essentia. Besides, the case could not be detached from the realities then prevailing. Luis A. Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 103501-03 and 103507, February 17, 1997

Art. 12 – Exempting Circumstances in General In General Good Faith in Malum Prohibitum Entrapment

In General It should be noted, however, that a mitigating circumstance differs from an Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

103

exempting circumstance. The former presupposes the existence of both the crime and the criminal while the latter recognizes only a felonious act but admits that there is no criminal offender because the performance of the act was not attended with voluntariness on the part of the human actor. People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Talavera, G.R. No. 139967, July 19, 2001

Good Faith in Malum Prohibitum Even granting that accused acted in good faith, he cannot escape criminal responsibility. The crime with which he is charged is a malum prohibitum. Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances. As held in People of the Phil. vs. Lo Ho Wing, et al. [G.R. No. 88017, January 21, 1991]: Moreover, the act of transporting a prohibited drug is a malum prohibitum because it is punished as an offense under a special law. It is a wrong because it is prohibited by law. Without the law punishing the act, it cannot be considered a wrong. As such, the mere commission of said act is what constitutes the offense punished and suffices to validly charge and convict an individual caught committing the act so punished, regardless of criminal intent. Likewise, in People of the Phil. vs. Cornelio Bayona, G.R. No. 42288, February 16, 1935, 61 Phil. 181, citing United States vs. Go Chico, G.R. No. 4963, September 15, 1909, 14 Phil. 128, it was held: The rule is that in acts mala in se there must be a criminal intent, but in those mala prohibita it is sufficient if the prohibited act was intentionally done. "Care must be exercised in distinguishing the difference between the intent to commit the crime and the intent to perpetrate to act." Indeed, Comia cannot claim to have acted in good faith. Even assuming that he did not know that the packages contained shabu, the fact is that he tried to facilitate the importation of dutiable goods free of customs duties. People of the Phil. vs. Go Shiu Ling, et al., G.R. No. 115156, December 14, 1995

It is settled that lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum. Hence, appellant’s contention that he did not know that the box he was carrying contained "shabu" cannot constitute a valid defense. Mere possession and/or delivery of a regulated drug, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

104

without legal authority, is punishable under the Dangerous Drugs Act. People of the Phil. vs. Sy Bing Yok, G.R. No. 121345, June 23, 1999

Lack of knowledge cannot constitute a valid defense, for lack of criminal intent and good faith are not exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum prohibitum. [People of the Phil. vs. Sy Bing Yok, G.R. No. 121345, June 23, 1999] Thus, this Court has uniformly held that the uncorroborated claim of an accused of lack of knowledge that he had a prohibited drug in his possession is insufficient. [People of the Phil. vs. Josefina A. Esparas, et al., G.R. No. 120034, July 10, 1998; People of the Phil. vs. William Robert Burton, G.R. No. 114396, February 19, 1997] To warrant his acquittal, accused-appellant must show that his act of transporting the package containing marijuana in his tricycle was done without intent to possess a prohibited drug. People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Baludda, G.R. No. 114198, November 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Del Mundo, G.R. No. 138929, October 2, 2001

Entrapment In an entrapment, ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breakers in the execution of their criminal plan; whereas, in instigation, the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into the commission of the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal. Entrapment is no bar to the prosecution and conviction; in instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted. United States vs. James O. Phelps, G.R. No. 5728, August 11, 1910, 16 Phil. 440 People of the Phil. vs. Apolinario Abella, et al., G.R. No. L-20600, October 16, 1923, 46 Phil. 857 People of the Phil. vs. Lua Chu, et al., G.R. No. 34917, September 7, 1931, 56 Phil. 44 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Valmores, G.R. No. L-58635, June 24, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer P. Nillos, G.R. No. L-66161, January 30, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Beralde, G.R. No. L-68482, October 23, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Patog, G.R. No. L-69620, September 24, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Putthi Natipravat, et al., G.R. No. L-69876, November 13, 1986 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

105

People of the Phil. vs. Andru Lapatha, et al., G.R. Nos. L-63074-75, November 9, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Efren M. Asio, G.R. No. 84960, September 1, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. John K. Guiagui, G.R. No. 78527, April 25, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo E. Estevan, G.R. No. 69676, June 4, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio B. Payumo, G.R. No. 81761, July 2, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao T. Yutuc, G.R. No. 82590, July 26, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando B. Madriaga, G.R. No. 82293, July 23, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Queroben A. Polizon, G.R. No. 84917, September 18, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio M. Rivera, G.R. No. 86491, December 11, 1992

Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker. Oftentimes it is the only effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. In entrapment the idea to commit the crime originated from the accused. Nobody induces or prods him into committing the offense. A criminal is caught committing the act by ways and means devised by peace officers. It must be distinguished from inducement or instigation wherein the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him. The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal. In entrapment ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in fragrante delicto. In entrapment, the crime had already been committed while in instigation, it was not and could not have been committed were it not for the instigation by the peace officer. People of the Phil. vs. Yabes Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio B. Payumo, G.R. No. 81761, July 2, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao T. Yutuc, G.R. No. 82590, July 26, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Melvin B. Odicta, et al., G.R. No. 93708, May 15, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Ramos, Jr., G.R. No. 88301, October 28, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. George P. Agustin, G.R. No. 98362, November 13, 1992

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

106

People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Eligino, G.R. No. 70113, December 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Salih S. Juma, G.R. No. 90391, March 24, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo A. Bay, G.R. No. 101310, May 28, 1993

There is a wide difference between entrapment and instigation, for while in the latter case the instigator practically induces the will be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal, in entrapment ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breaker in the execution of his criminal plan. People of the Phil. vs. Galicia, 40 O.G. 4476 People of the Phil. vs. Jose C. Quintana, et al., G.R. No. 83888, June 30, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo M. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 87607, October 31, 1990

Instigation and inducement must be distinguished from entrapment. The general rule is that instigation and inducement to commit a crime, for the purpose of filing criminal charges, is to be condemned as immoral, while entrapment, which is the employment of means and ways for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breaker, is sanctioned and permissible. And the reason is obvious. Under the first instance, no crime has been committed, and to induce one to commit it makes of the instigator a co-criminal. Under the last instance, the crime has already been committed and all that is done is to entrap and capture the law breaker. People of the Phil. vs. De Leon, 48 O.G. 4858 People of the Phil. vs. Jose C. Quintana, et al., G.R. No. 83888, June 30, 1989

A buy-bust operation is the method employed by peace officers to trap and catch a malefactor in flagrante delicto. (People of the Phil. vs. Don Rodrigueza, G.R. No. 95902, February 4, 1992) It is essentially a form of entrapment since the peace officer neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime. Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of trapping or capturing a lawbreaker from whose mind the criminal intent originated. Oftentimes, it is the only effective way of apprehending a criminal in the act of the commission of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Juan G. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 83260, April 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Yabes Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro B. William, et al., G.R. No. 93712, June 15, 1992 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

107

People of the Phil. vs. Gilberto Yumang, G.R. No. 94977, May 17, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Macasa, G.R. No. 105283, January 21, 1994

Entrapment, therefore, has received judicial sanction as long as it is carried out with constitutional and legal circumspection. People of the Phil. vs. Floro Del Pilar, G.R. No. 86360, July 28, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Salih S. Juma, G.R. No. 90391, March 24, 1993

It must be noted that in instigation, where the officers of the law or their agents incite, induce, instigate or lure an accused into committing an offense, which he otherwise would not commit and has no intention of committing, the accused cannot be held liable. But in entrapment, where the criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged originates from the mind of the accused and law enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of the offense, the accused cannot justify his conduct. Instigation is a "trap for the unwary innocent." Entrapment is a trap for the unwary criminal (Enrico M. Cabrera, vs. James B. Pajares, A.M. Nos. R-278-RTJ & R-309-RTJ, May 30, 1986). In entrapment, the entrapper resorts to ways and means to trap and capture a lawbreaker while executing his criminal plan. On the other hand, in instigation the instigator practically induces the would-be defendant into committing the offense, and himself becomes a co-principal (People vs. Natipravat, infra). Entrapment is no bar to prosecution and conviction while in instigation, the defendant would have to be acquitted (People of the Phil. vs. Andru Lapatha, et al., G.R. Nos. L-63074-75, November 9, 1988). The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the means originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime come from him. In instigation, the law enforcer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. The legal effects of entrapment do not exempt the criminal from liability. Instigation does (Aquilina R. Araneta, vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-46638, July 9, 1986). People of the Phil. vs. Dante S. Marcos, G.R. No. 83325, May 8, 1990

Entrapment has consistently proven to be an effective method of apprehending drug peddlers. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

108

People of the Phil. vs. Yabes Gatong-o, G.R. No. 78698, December 29, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando B. Madriaga, G.R. No. 82293, July 23, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Bobby G. De Paz, G.R. No. 104277, July 5, 1993

The crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs had already been committed by the accused when the policemen resolved to entrap him into revealing such possession and selling of the prohibited drug. The acts of the arresting officers here constituted entrapment, a process or operation not prohibited by the Revised Penal Code People of the Phil. vs. June C. Sanchez, G.R. No. 77588, May 12, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Lamberto M. Borja, G.R. No. 71838, February 26, 1990

Art. 12 (1) - Exempting Circumstance: Insanity In General Must be present before the act or at the moment of its execution Burden of proof is upon one invoking insanity Should be proven by clear and positive evidence Not exempting if subsequent to commission of offense Lucid interval Acquittal for insanity does not mean outright release of accused Imbecility Feebleness, not exempting Schizophrenia Amnesia Pedophilia

In General In order that insanity may be taken as an exempting circumstance, there must be complete deprivation of intelligence in the commission of the act or that the accused Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

109

acted without the least discernment because there is complete absence of the power to discern, or that there is total deprivation of freedom of the will. Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will not exclude imputability. The onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950, 87 Phil 658 People of the Phil. vs. Remigio Cruz, G.R. Nos. L-13219-20, August 31, 1960, 109 Phil. 288 People of the Phil. vs. Loreto S. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Ambal, G.R. No. L-52688, October 17, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo O. Manalang, G.R. No. L-47136-39, July 25, 1983, 208 Phil. 504 People of the Phil. vs. Renato M. Aldemita, G.R. No. L-55033-34, November 13, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Aragon, G.R. No. L-51736, August 4, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Gole Cruz, G.R. No. 69251, September 13, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Q. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Danao, G.R. No. 96832, November 19, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ariel S. Catanyag, G.R. No. 103974, September 10, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Elyboy O. So, G.R. No. 104664, August 28, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Medina, G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Mengote, G.R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Dewing V. Cañeta, et al., G.R. No. 110855-56, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

110

People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Pambid, G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Ocfemia, G.R. No. 126135, October 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002

As an exempting circumstance, insanity means that the accused must have been deprived completely of reason and freedom of the will at the time of the commission of the crime or be incapable of entertaining criminal intent. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Mengote, G.R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999

The nature of insanity may be gleaned from the definition of insane persons in Section 1039 of the Revised Administrative Code which provides: "Insanity is a manifestation in language or conduct of disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality, functional or organic, and characterized by perversion, inhibition, or disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties, or by impaired or disordered volition." Article 800 of the Civil Code provides: "The law presumes that every person is of sound mind, in the absence of proof to the contrary." The allegation of insanity must be clearly proved. The law presumes all acts to be voluntary. Not every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency is insanity. People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Danao, G.R. No. 96832, November 19, 1992

Insanity itself is a condition, not a thing. It is not susceptible of the usual means of proof and to this fact is due the unusual difficulty of making proof of its existence and measuring its effect, when once proven to exist. As no man can look into the mind of another, the state of such mind can only be measured as the same is reflected in the actions of the body it is created to govern. Thus, we have held that mind can only be known by outward acts. Thereby we read the thoughts, the motives and emotions of a person and come to determine whether his acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. In interpreting these physical manifestations, scientific knowledge and experience have been resorted to by our judicial agencies. People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937, 64 Phil. 87 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Q. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, June 27, 1990 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

111

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000

Although the Court has ruled many times in the past on the insanity defense, it was only in People vs. Formigones that the Court elaborated on the required standards of legal insanity, quoting extensively from the Commentaries of Judge Guillermo Guevara on the Revised Penal Code. The standards set out in Formigones were commonly adopted in subsequent cases. A linguistic or grammatical analysis of those standards suggests that Formigones established two (2) distinguished tests: (a) the test of cognition — "complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the [criminal] act," and (b) the test of volition — "or that there be a total deprivation of freedom of the will." People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991

Our caselaw shows common reliance on the test of cognition, rather than on a test relating to "freedom of the will;" examination of our caselaw has failed to turn up any case where this Court has exempted an accused on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of "freedom of the will," i.e., without an accompanying "complete deprivation of intelligence." This is perhaps to be expected since a person's volition naturally reaches out only towards that which is presented as desirable by his intelligence, whether that intelligence be diseased or healthy. In any case, where the accused failed to show complete impairment or loss of intelligence, the Court has recognized at most a mitigating, not an exempting, circumstance in accord with Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code: "Such illness of the offender as would diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender without however depriving him of the consciousness of his acts." People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991

In considering the plea of insanity as a defense in a prosecution for crime, the starting premise is that the law presumes all persons to be of sound mind or otherwise stated, the law presumes all acts to be voluntary, and that it is improper to presume that acts were done unconsciously. Insanity being the exception, rather than the rule, in the human condition, " . . . the moral and legal presumption is that freedom and intelligence constitute the normal condition of a person . . . " and that ". . . a felonious or criminal act (delito doloso) . . . (has) been done with deliberate intent, that is, with freedom, intelligence and malice. . . ." Whoever, therefore, invokes insanity as a defense has the burden of proving its existence. Another basic premise is that the inquiry into the mental condition of an accused who pleads insanity as an exempting circumstance must relate to the time preceding, or coetaneous with, the commission of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

112

the offense with which he is charged. The evidence (of mental condition), it has been held " . . . must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution." People of the Phil. vs. Renato M. Aldemita, G.R. No. L-55033-34, November 13, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Danao, G.R. No. 96832, November 19, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Ocfemia, G.R. No. 126135, October 25, 2000

Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties which is manifested in language and conduct. An insane person has no full and clear understanding of the nature and consequences of his acts. Hence, insanity may be shown by the surrounding circumstances fairly throwing light on the subject, such as evidence of the alleged deranged person's general conduct and appearance, his acts and conduct consistent with his previous character and habits, his irrational acts and beliefs, as well as his improvident bargains. The vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts, by means of which we read thoughts, motives and emotions of a person, and through which we determine whether the acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. People of the Phil. vs. Rosalino Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, July 31, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Enrico A. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, July 3, 2002

Insanity must be present before the act or at the moment of its execution When insanity is alleged as a ground for exemption from responsibility, the evidence on this point must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution (U.S. vs. Guevara, 27 Phil. 547). People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Yam-Id, G.R. No. 126116, June 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

113

Burden of proof is upon one invoking insanity The onus probandi rests upon him who invokes insanity as an exempting circumstance and he must prove it by clear and positive evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Loreto S. Renegado, G.R. No. L-27031, May 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Renato M. Aldemita, G.R. No. L-55033-34, November 13, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Aragon, G.R. No. L-51736, August 4, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Gole Cruz, G.R. No. 69251, September 13, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Q. Aquino, G.R. No. 87084, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Elyboy O. So, G.R. No. 104664, August 28, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto San Juan, G.R. No. 144505, August 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October 8, 2003

Insanity should be proven by clear and positive evidence People of the Phil. vs. Donato Bascos, G.R. No. 19605, December 19, 1922 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Yam-Id, G.R. No. 126116, June 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

The law presumes everyone to be sane. The accused who pleads the exempting circumstance of insanity incurs the burden of proving it. To be adjudged insane under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, he or she must have been completely deprived of reason or discernment and freedom of the will at the time the crime was committed. For such deprivation to be ascertained, it is but proper to receive evidence during a reasonable period before or after the commission of the crime, for the mind — its thoughts, motives and emotions — may be fathomed only by examining whether the external acts conform with those of people of sound minds. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

114

People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996, 328 Phil. 1208 People of the Phil. vs. Oliver Arevalo Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 150542-87, February 3, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Anacito Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004

Since insanity is a condition of the mind, it is not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man can know what is going on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person's mind can only be measured and judged by his behavior. (People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000) Thus, the vagaries of the mind can only be known by outward acts, by means of which we read the thoughts, motives, and emotions of a person, and then determine whether the acts conform to the practice of people of sound mind. People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937, 64 Phil 87 People of the Phil. vs. Rosalino Dungo, G.R. No. 89420, July 31, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Enrico A. Valledor, G.R. No. 129291, July 3, 2002

Insanity is evinced by a deranged and perverted condition of the mental faculties which is manifested in language and conduct. (People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000) However, not every aberration of the mind or mental deficiency constitutes insanity. (People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Medina, G.R. No. No. 113691, February 6, 1998; People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R. No. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980) As consistently held by us, "A man may act crazy, but it does not necessarily and conclusively prove that he is legally so." Thus, we had previously decreed as insufficient or inconclusive proof of insanity certain strange behavior, such as, taking 120 cubic centimeters of cough syrup and consuming three sticks of marijuana before raping the victim; slurping the victim's blood and attempting to commit suicide after stabbing him; crying, swimming in the river with clothes on, and jumping off a jeepney. The stringent standard established in People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950 [87 Phil. 658] requires that there be a complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the act, i.e., the accused acted without the least discernment because of a complete absence of the power to discern or a total deprivation of the will. In People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

115

1991 we analyzed the Formigones standard into two distinguishable tests: (a) the test of cognition — whether there was a "complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act" and (b) the test of volition — whether there was a "total deprivation of freedom of the will." We observed that our case law shows common reliance on the test of cognition, rather than on the test of volition, and has failed to turn up any case where an accused is exempted on the sole ground that he was totally deprived of the freedom of the will, i.e., without an accompanying "complete deprivation of intelligence." This is expected, since a person's volition naturally reaches out only towards that which is represented as desirable by his intelligence, whether that intelligence be diseased or healthy. Establishing the insanity of an accused often requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the accused; has rational basis to conclude that the accused was insane based on his own perception; or is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist. People of the Phil. vs. Anacito Opuran, G.R. Nos. 147674-75, March 17, 2004

Mere prior confinement in a mental institution does not prove that the perpetrator was deprived of reason at the time the crimes were committed. In the present case, while Organista had indeed been confined at the National Center for Mental Health for treatment, it does not necessarily follow that he still suffered from schizophrenia during the period of the rapes. No convincing evidence was presented by the defense to show that he had not been in his right mind, or that he had acted under the influence of a sudden attack of insanity, or that he had generally been regarded as insane around the time of the commission of the acts attributed to him. Well-settled is the rule that an inquiry into the mental state of the accused should relate to the period immediately before or at the very moment the act under prosecution was committed. Mere prior confinement in a mental institution does not prove that the perpetrator was deprived of reason at the time the crimes were committed. People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Oliver Arevalo Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 150542-87, February 3, 2004

Insanity subsequent to commission of offense is not exempting Indeed, when insanity is alleged as a ground for exemption from criminal Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

116

responsibility, the evidence must refer to the time preceding the act under prosecution or to the very moment of its execution. If the evidence points to insanity subsequent to the commission of the crime, the accused cannot be acquitted. People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002

To ascertain a person's mental condition at the time of the act, it is permissible to receive evidence of the condition of his mind within a reasonable period both before and after that time. Direct testimony is not required. Neither are specific acts of derangement essential to establish insanity as a defense. Circumstantial evidence, if clear and convincing, suffices; for the unfathomable mind can only be known by overt acts. A person's thoughts, motives, and emotions may be evaluated only by outward acts to determine whether these conform to the practice of people of sound mind. People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937, 64 Phil. 87 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Fausto y Tomas, G.R. No. L-16381, December 30, 1961, 113 Phil. 841 People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Condino, G.R. No. 130945, November 19, 2001

While there is evidence tending to show that the accused in some instances had displayed some unusual behavior, at most these could only be eccentricities which do not mean complete deprivation of intelligence or discernment. The presumption of sanity is not overcome by mere abnormality of behavior. People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980

Lucid Interval An insane person is exempt from criminal liability unless he has acted during a lucid interval. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

Acquittal for insanity does not mean outright release of accused Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

117

If the court therefore finds the accused insane when the alleged crime was committed, he shall be acquitted but the court shall order his confinement in a hospital or asylum for treatment until he may be released without danger. An acquittal of the accused does not result in his outright release, but rather in a verdict which is followed by commitment of the accused to a mental institution. United States vs. Simeon Guendia, G.R. No. L-12462, December 20, 1917, 37 Phil. 345 People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937, 64 Phil. 87 People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Estrada, G.R. No. 130487, June 19, 2000

Imbecility Imbecility, like insanity, is a defense which pertains to the mental condition of a person. Our caselaw projects the same standards in respect of both insanity and imbecility, that is, that the insanity or imbecility must constitute complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act, or total deprivation of freedom of the will. People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992

Feebleness, not exempting The defendant-appellant, Rolando Aragon, may be mentally deficient, but his feeblemindedness does not exempt him from criminal liability. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Aragon, G.R. No. L-51736, August 4, 1988

Schizophrenia Schizophrenia pleaded by appellant has been described as a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. Formerly called dementia praecox, it is said to be the most common form of psychosis and usually develops between the ages 15 and 30. In previous cases where schizophrenia was interposed as an exempting circumstance, it has mostly been rejected by the Court. In each of these cases, the evidence presented tended to show that if there was impairment of the mental Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

118

faculties, such impairment was not so complete as to deprive the accused of intelligence or the consciousness of his acts. People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October 8, 2003

Schizophrenia is defined as a chronic mental disorder characterized by inability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and often accompanied by hallucinations and delusions. A "Paranoid Type Schizophrenia" is described as follows: "Frequently the prepsychotic personality of the paranoid schizophrenic is characterized by poor interpersonal rapport. Often he is cold, withdrawn, distrustful, and resentful of other persons. Many are truculent, have a chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, and are argumentative, scornful, sarcastic, defiant, resentful of suggestions or of authority, and given to caustic remarks. Sometimes flippant, facetious responses cover an underlying hostility. . . . The patient's previous negative attitudes become more marked, and misinterpretations are common. Ideas of reference are among the first symptoms. Disorders of association appear. Many patients show an unpleasant emotional aggressiveness. Through displacement, the patient may begin to act out his hostile impulses. His grip on reality begins to loosen. At first his delusions are limited, but later they become numerous and changeable . . . Delusions of persecution are the most prominent occurrences in paranoid schizophrenia, but expansive and obviously wish-fulfilling ideas and hypochondriacal and depressive delusions are not uncommon. With increasing personality disorganization, delusional beliefs become less logical. Verbal expressions may be inappropriate and neologistic. The patient is subjected to vague magical forces; and his explanations become extremely vague and irrational. Imaginative fantasy may become extreme but take on the value of reality. Repressed aggressive tendencies may be released in a major outburst; some inarticulate paranoids may manifest an unpredictable assaultiveness. Many paranoid schizophrenics are irritable, discontented, resentful, and angrily suspicious and show a surly aversion to being interviewed. Some manifest an unapproachable, aggressively hostile attitude and may live in a bitter aloofness." People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000

Amnesia Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

119

Accused-appellant's charade of amnesia is evidently a desperate gambit for exculpation. Yet, amnesia, in and of itself, is no defense to a criminal charge unless it is shown by competent proof that the accused did not know the nature and quality of his action and that it was wrong. Failure to remember is in itself no proof of the mental condition of the accused when the crime was performed. People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998

Pedophilia The doctor's testimony however did not help accused-appellant’s case because although he admitted having initially categorized accused-appellant as insane, the doctor eventually diagnosed accused-appellant to be afflicted with pedophilia, a mental disorder not synonymous with insanity. He explained that pedophilia is a sexual disorder wherein the subject has strong, recurrent and uncontrollable sexual and physical fantasies about children which he tries to fulfill, especially when there are no people around. He claimed, however, that despite his affliction the subject could distinguish right from wrong. In fact, he maintained that pedophilia could be committed without necessarily killing the victim although injuries might be inflicted on the victim in an effort to repel any resistance. People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999

Art. 12 (1) - Exempting Circumstance: Imbecility Imbecility Epilepsy

Imbecility Imbecility, like insanity, is a defense which pertains to the mental condition of a person. Our case law projects the same standards in respect of both insanity and imbecility, that is, that the insanity or imbecility must constitute complete deprivation of intelligence in committing the criminal act, or total deprivation of freedom of the will. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

120

People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950, 87 Phil. 658 People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992

Imbecility, one of the exempting circumstances under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, is defined as feeblemindedness or a mental condition approaching that of one who is insane. It is analogous to childishness and dotage. An imbecile, within the meaning of Article 12, is one who must be deprived completely of reason or discernment and freedom of will at the time of committing the crime. He is one who, while advanced in age, has a mental development comparable to that of children between two and seven years of age. People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. No. 112429-30, July 23, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950, 87 Phil. 658

Epilepsy Epilepsy per se is not an exempting circumstance. As early as 1927, the Court has dismissed the defense of epilepsy thus: Neither can the defense of lack of free will of the accused Ciriaco Aguilar, who is an epileptic, be sustained. While Ciriaco Aguilar, as an epileptic was susceptible to nervous attacks that may momentarily deprive him of his mental faculties and lead him to unconsciously attempt to take his own life and the lives of others, nevertheless, it has not been shown that he was under the influence of an epileptic fit before, during, and immediately after the aggression. People of the Phil. vs. Crispino Mancao, et al., G.R. No. 26361, January 20, 1927, 49 Phil. 887 People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo Almaden, G.R. No. 112088, March 25, 1999

Art. 12 (3) - Exempting Circumstance: Minor Over Nine and Under Fifteen Years of Age The surfacing of a corollary controversy with respect to the first issue raised is Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

121

evident, that is, whether the term "discernment", as used in Article 12(3) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is synonymous with "intent." It is the position of the petitioner that "discernment" connotes "intent" (p. 96, Rollo), invoking the unreported case of People vs. Nieto, G.R. No. 11965, 30 April 1958. In that case We held that the allegation of "with intent to kill . . ." amply meets the requirement that discernment should be alleged when the accused is a minor between 9 and 15 years old. Petitioner completes his syllogism in saying that: "If discernment is the equivalent of 'with intent', then the allegation in the information that the accused acted with discernment and willfully unlawfully, and feloniously, operate or cause to be fired in a reckless and imprudent manner an air rifle .22 caliber' is an inherent contradiction tantamount to failure of the information to allege a cause of action or constitute a legal excuse or exception." (Memorandum for Petitioner, p. 97, Rollo) If petitioner's argument is correct, then no minor between the ages of 9 and 15 may be convicted of a quasi-offense under Article 265 of the RPC. On the contrary, the Solicitor General insists that discernment and intent are two different concepts. We agree with the Solicitor General's view; the two terms should not be confused. The word "intent" has been defined as: "(a) design; a determination to do a certain things; an aim the purpose of the mind, including such knowledge as is essential to such intent; . . .; the design resolve, or determination with which a person acts." (46 CJS Intent p. 1103.)

It is this intent which comprises the third element of dolo as a means of committing a felony, freedom and intelligence being the other two. On the other hand, We have defined the term "discernment," as used in Article 12(3) of the RPC, in the old case of People vs. Doquena, 68 Phil. 580(1939), in this wise: "The discernment that constitutes an exception to the exemption from criminal liability of a minor under fifteen years of age but over nine, who commits an act prohibited by law, is his mental capacity to understand the difference between right and wrong . . ." (italics Ours) p. 583

From the foregoing, it is clear that the terms "intent" and "discernment" convey two Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

122

distinct thoughts. While both are products of the mental processes within a person, the former refers to the desired of one's act while the latter relate to the moral significance that person ascribes to the said act. Hence a person may not intend to shoot another but may be aware of the consequences of his negligent act which may cause injury to the same person in negligently handling an air rifle. It is not connect, therefore, to argue, as petitioner does, that since a minor above nine years of age but below fifteen acted with discernment, then he intended such act to be done. He may negligently shoot his friend, thus did not intend to shoot him, and at the same time recognize the undesirable result of his negligence. In further outlining the distinction between the words "intent" and "discernment," it is worthy to note the basic reason behind the enactment of the exempting circumstances embodied in Article 12 of the RPC; the complete absence of intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of the accused. In expounding on intelligence as the second element of dolus, Albert has stated: "The second element of dolus is intelligence; without this power, necessary to determine the morality of human acts to distinguish a licit from an illicit act, no crime can exist, and because . . . the infant (has) no intelligence, the law exempts (him) from criminal liability." (Emphasis Ours)

It is for this reason, therefore, why minors nine years of age and below are not capable of performing a criminal act. On the other hand, minors above nine years of age but below fifteen are not absolutely exempt. However, they are presumed to be without criminal capacity, but which presumption may be rebutted if it could be proven that they were "capable of appreciating the nature and criminality of the act, that is, that (they) acted with discernment." The preceding discussion shows that "intelligence" as an element of dolo actually embraces the concept of discernment as used in Article 12 of the RPC and as defined in the aforecited case of People vs. Doquena, supra. It could not therefore be argued that discernment is equivalent or connotes "intent" for they refer to two different concepts. Intelligence, which includes discernment, is a distinct element of dolo as a means of committing an offense. In evaluating felonies committed by means of culpa, three (3) elements are indispensable, namely, intelligence, freedom of action, and negligence. Obviously, intent is wanting in such felonies. However, intelligence remains as an essential element, hence, it is necessary that a minor above nine but below fifteen years of age be possessed with intelligence in committing a negligent act which results in a quasi-offense. For him to be criminally liable, he must discern the rightness or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

123

wrongness of the effects of his negligent act. Indeed, a minor over nine years of age but below fifteen may be held liable for a said Article would reveal such fact as it starts off with the phrase "Any person . . ." without any distinction or exception made. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos. In his last attempt to justify his position equating the words "intent" and "discernment" used under the law, he cites the case of People vs. Nieto, supra. However, petitioner failed to present the qualifying sentence preceding the ruling he now invokes, which reads: "That requirement should be deemed amply met with the allegation in the formation that she . . . 'with the intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, criminally and feloniously push one Lolita Padilla . . ." into a deep place of the Penaranda River and as a consequence thereof Lolita Padilla got drowned and died right then and there.' This allegation clearly conveys the idea that she knew what would be the consequence of her unlawful act of publishing her victim into deep water and that she knew it to be wrong. (Emphasis Ours) From the above, it is clear that We did not mean to equate the words "intent" and discernment." What We meant was that the combines effect of the words used in the information is to express a knowledge, on the part of the accused Nieto, of the wrongness or rightness of her act. Hence, petitioner may not validly contend that since the information now in question alleged "discernment," it in effect alleged "intent." The former may never embrace the idea of the latter; the former expresses the thought of passivity while the latter signifies activity. John Philip Guevarra vs. Ignacio Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 29, 1989

Art. 12 (4) - Exempting Circumstance: Accident Whether or not the appellant is exempt from criminal liability is a factual issue. The appellant was burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, his affirmative defense that the victim’s death was caused by his gun accidentally going off, the bullet hitting the victim without his fault or intention of causing it; hence, is exempt from criminal liability under Article 12, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code. The basis for the exemption is the complete absence of intent and negligence on the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

124

part of the accused. For the accused to be guilty of a felony, it must be committed either with criminal intent or with fault or negligence. The elements of this exempting circumstance are (1) a person is performing a lawful act; (2) with due care; (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident; and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. An accident is an occurrence that “happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences.” If the consequences are plainly foreseeable, it will be a case of negligence. People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Genita, G.R. No. 126171, March 11, 2004

In Jarco Marketing Corporation vs. Court of Appeals et al., G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999, this Court held that an accident is a fortuitive circumstance, event or happening; an event happening without any human agency, or if happening wholly or partly through human agency, an event which under the circumstance is unusual or unexpected by the person to whom it happens. Negligence, on the other hand, is the failure to observe, for the protection of the interest of another person, that degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand without which such other person suffers injury. Accident and negligence are intrinsically contradictory; one cannot exist with the other. In criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another act performed without malice. [People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Z. Oanis, et al., G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943, 74 Phil. 257] The appellant must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of that of the prosecution because by admitting having caused the death of the victim, he can no longer be acquitted. In this case, the appellant failed to prove, with clear and convincing evidence, his defense. People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Fallorina, G.R. No. 137347, March 4, 2004

It must be stressed that the accused has the burden of proving the elements of this exempting circumstance. He must show the following with clear and convincing evidence: 1) he was performing a lawful act with due care, 2) the injury caused was by a mere accident, and 3) he had no fault or intention of causing the injury. People of the Phil. vs. Segundino Utrela, G.R. No. L-38172, July 15, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, July 22, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez, G.R. No. 129304, September 27, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

125

1999 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Suelto y Cordeta, G.R. No. 103515, October 7, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo T. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794, October 16, 2001

For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act has to be lawful. People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 127818, November 11, 1998

The act of firing a shotgun at another is not a lawful act. People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio Borja, G.R. No. L-54114, June 29, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo T. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794, October 16, 2001

An accident is an occurrence that "happens outside the sway of our will, and although it comes about through some act of our will, lies beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable consequences." It connotes the absence of criminal intent. Intent is a mental state, the existence of which is shown by a person's overt acts. United States vs. Victoriano Mendoza , G.R. No. 13818, September 26, 1918, 38 Phil. 691 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926, 51 Phil. 967 Roman Catholic vs. Mun. in the Prov. of Iloilo, G.R. No. L-3008, March 19, 1951, 88 Phil. 368 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo T. Agliday, G.R. No. 140794, October 16, 2001

As has been noted by the Court, "the failure of the accused to prove self-defense belies his claim that he was performing a lawful act" — one of the essential elements of the exempting circumstance of accident. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Janairo, G.R. No. 129254, July 22, 1999

For the exempting circumstance of accident to be properly appreciated in accused-appellant's favor, the following requisites must concur: (1) that the accused person was performing a lawful act with due care; (2) that the injury is caused by mere accident; and (3) that there was no fault or intent of causing the injury (Paragraph 4, Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code). In the case at bar, accused-appellant is liable Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

126

for his unlawful act even if he never intended to hit his mother since his act of hitting his mother was not done in the performance of a lawful act as required by the aforementioned Article. People of the Phil. vs. Pacalso K. Mat-an, G.R. No. 91115, December 29, 1992

At all events, accident to be exempting, presupposes that the act done is lawful. Here, however, the act of accused-appellant of drawing a weapon in the course of a quarrel, the same not being in self-defense, is unlawful — it at least constitutes light threats (Article 285, par. 1, Revised Penal Code). There is thus no room for the invocation of accident as a ground for exemption (People vs. Reyta, Jr., 13 CAR (25) 1190 [1968]). People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 127818, November 11, 1998

Accused-appellant's invocation of accident deserves scant consideration. Under paragraph 4 of Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who, while performing a lawful act with due care, causes an injury by accident without fault or intention of causing it, is exempt from criminal liability. Having ruled, however, that self-defense was not present, then it cannot be said that accused-appellant was performing a lawful act. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998

Accident and self-defense do not have the same meaning or legal effect. Self-defense is a justifying circumstance under paragraph 1 of Article 11, while accident is an exempting circumstance under paragraph 4 of Article 12, both of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002

Accident presupposes lack of intention to stab the victim, while self-defense presumes voluntariness, induced only by necessity. People of the Phil. vs. Fausto Carlos, G.R. No. L-16306, July 31, 1962, 115 Phil. 704

Indeed, if there is truth to either of his claim, his natural course of action was to assist the victim, or at the very least, report the incident to the authorities. Certainly, the justifying circumstance of self-defense. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

127

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Rivera, G.R. No. 101798, May 10, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gerolaga, et al., G.R. No. 89075, October 15, 1996

For the exempting circumstance of accident cannot be appreciated considering accused-appellant's flight from the crime scene and his failure to inform the authorities of the incident. Furthermore, that he did not surrender the knife to the authorities is inconsistent with a clean conscience and, instead, indicates his culpability of the crime charged. People of the Phil. vs. Willy Figuracion, et al., G.R. No. 129162, August 10, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

Well settled is the rule in criminal cases, that the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused. 15 However, once the defendant admits the commission of the offense charged, but raises an exempting circumstance as a defense, the burden of proof is shifted to him. By invoking mere accident as a defense, appellant now has the burden of proving that he is entitled to that exempting circumstance under Article 12 (4) of the Code. The existence of accident must be proved by the appellant to the satisfaction of the court. For this to be properly appreciated in appellant's favor, the following requisites must concur: (1) that the accused was performing a lawful act with due care; (2) that the injury is caused by mere accident; and (3) that there was no fault or intent on his part to cause the injury. People of the Phil. vs. Pacalso K. Mat-an, G.R. No. 91115, December 29, 1992

Appellant must convincingly prove the presence of these elements in order to benefit from the exempting circumstance of accident. People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Rodolfo Concepcion y Peralta, G.R. No. 136844, August 1, 2002

Practically all of the justifying circumstances, as well as the exempting circumstances of accident (paragraph 4, Article 12) and lawful or insuperable cause (paragraph 7, Article 12), are based on the lack of criminal intent. People of the Phil. vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, et al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

"Accident" is an affirmative defense which the accused is burdened to prove, with clear and convincing evidence. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

128

People of the Phil. vs. Isaias C. Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007

Before an accused may be exempted from criminal liability by the invocation of Article 12 (paragraph 4) of the RPC, the following elements must concur: (1) a person is performing a lawful act (2) with due care, and (3) he causes an injury to another by mere accident and (4) without any fault or intention of causing it. For an accident to become an exempting circumstance, the act that causes the injury has to be lawful. Victoriano's act of physically maltreating his spouse is definitely not a lawful act. To say otherwise would be a travesty — a gross affront to our existing laws on violence against women. People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano L. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010

Art. 12 (5) - Exempting Circumstance: Irresistible Force Under Article 12 of the Revised Penal Code, a person is exempt from criminal liability if he acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury, because such person does not act with freedom. (People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002) In Del Rosario, however, we held that for such defense to prosper the duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending, and of such nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act be done. A threat of future injury is not enough. People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Saldaña, et al., G.R. No. 148518, April 15, 2004

It has been held that fear or duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's life or limb. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. (People vs. Semañada, 103 Phil. 790 [1958]) Does the appellant's defense meet this test? The answer is in the negative. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio L. Ong, G.R. No. L-43957, February 10, 1981

The defense invoked by the appellants that they acted in view of the irresistible force and uncontrollable fear …. Basis of these two exempting circumstances is the complete absence of freedom.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

129

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto A. Ramos, G.R. No. L-32265, May 16, 1983

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. (Actus me invito factus non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will is not my act.) The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13, 1986

The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio M. Loreno, et al., G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro T. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958, 104 Phil. 450 People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo De Los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Lising, et al., G.R. Nos. 106210-11, January 30, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Dante L. Domingo, G.R. No. 131817, August 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002

A speculative, fanciful or remote fear, People of the Phil. vs. Miguel M. Moreno, G.R. No. L-64, October 28, 1946, 77 Phil. 549, Oct. 28, 1946 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Fernando, et al., G.R. No. L-24781, May 29, 1970 People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

130

even fear of future injury, is insufficient. People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Palencia, et al., G.R. No. L-38957, April 30, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Abanes, et al., G.R. No. L-30609, September 28, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997

As a rule, it is natural for people to be seized by fear when threatened with weapons, even those less powerful than a gun, such as knives and clubs. People will normally, usually and probably do what an armed man asks them to do, nothing more, nothing less. In the instant case, del Rosario was threatened with a gun. He could not therefore be expected to flee nor risk his life to help a stranger. A person under the same circumstances would be more concerned with his personal welfare and security rather than the safety of a person whom he only saw for the first time that day. People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999

A person who invokes the exempting circumstance of compulsion due to irresistible force must prove his defense by clear and convincing evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Capoquian, G.R. No. 109145, September 22, 1994

Art. 12 (6) - Exempting Circumstance: Uncontrollable Fear For this exempting circumstance to be invoked successfully, the following requisites must concur: (a) existence of an uncontrollable fear; (b) the fear must be real and imminent; and (c) the fear of an injury is greater than or at least equal to that committed. People of the Phil. vs. Edito R. Petenia, et al., G.R. No. L-51256, August 12, 1986

It has been held that fear or duress as a valid defense should be based on real, imminent, or reasonable fear for one's life or limb. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful, or remote fear. (People vs. Semañada, et al., 103 Phil. 790 [1958]) People of the Phil. vs. Jesus (alias Ernesto Quilloy), G.R. No. L-2313, January 10, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

131

1951, 88 Phil. 53 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Abanes, et al., G.R. No. L-30609, September 28, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Borja, G.R. No. L-22947, July 12, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio L. Ong, G.R. No. L-43957, February 10, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto A. Ramos, G.R. No. L-32265, May 16, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, et.al., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Geral, et al., G.R. No. 145731, June 26, 2003

A person who acts under the compulsion of an irresistible force, like one who acts under the impulse of uncontrollable fear of equal or greater injury is exempt from criminal liability because he does not act with freedom. The force must be irresistible to reduce him to a mere instrument who acts not only without will but against his will. The duress, force, fear or intimidation must be present, imminent and impending and of such a nature as to induce a well-grounded apprehension of death or serious bodily harm if the act is not done. A threat of future injury is not enough. The compulsion must be of such a character as to leave no opportunity to the accused for escape or self-defense in equal combat. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro T. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-9529, August 30, 1958, 104 Phil. 450 People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio M. Loreno, et al., G.R. No. L-54414, July 9, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Serrano, G.R. No. L-45382, May 13, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dagangon, et al., G.R. Nos. L-62654-58, November 13, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo De Los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, et.al., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

132

People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. No. 112429-30, July 23, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Lising, et al., G.R. Nos. 106210-11, January 30, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Del Rosario, G.R. No. 127755, April 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Dante L. Domingo, G.R. No. 131817, August 8, 2001

Thus, duress has been held unavailing where the accused had every opportunity to run away if he has wanted to or to resist any possible aggression because he was also armed. People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Palencia, et al., G.R. No. L-38957, April 30, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Abanes, et al., G.R. No. L-30609, September 28, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Edito R. Petenia, et al., G.R. No. L-51256, August 12, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, et.al., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996

Under the situation, the alleged threat can hardly be characterized as real and irresistible, since it could not have induced in the appellant a well-grounded fear for his life or limb. Before force or intimidation can be considered to be an irresistible one, it must produce such an effect upon an individual that, inspite of all resistance on his part, it reduces him to a mere instrument . . . who acts not only without will, but against his will. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Elicanal, G.R. No. 11439, October 28, 1916, 35 Phil. 209 People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Serrano, G.R. No. L-45382, May 13, 1985

Art. 12 (7) - Exempting Circumstance: Lawful or insuperable cause Distinct penalties prescribed by law in special complex crimes is in recognition of the primacy given to criminal intent over the overt acts that are done to achieve that intent. This conclusion is made implicit in various provisions of the Revised Penal Code. Thus, practically all of the justifying circumstances, as well as the exempting circumstances of accident (paragraph 4, Article 12) and lawful or insuperable cause (paragraph 7, Article 12), are based on the lack of criminal intent. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

133

People of the Phil. vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, et al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

Art. 13 - Mitigating Circumstances in General It should be noted, however, that a mitigating circumstance differs from an exempting circumstance. The former presupposes the existence of both the crime and the criminal while the latter recognizes only a felonious act but admits that there is no criminal offender because the performance of the act was not attended with voluntariness on the part of the human actor. People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Talavera, G.R. No. 139967, July 19, 2001

No doubt, the concept of mitigating circumstances is founded on leniency in favor of an accused who has shown less perversity in the commission of an offense. People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000

Art. 13 (1) - Mitigating Circumstance: Incomplete Justifying or Incomplete Exempting Incomplete Defense Unlawful aggression Incomplete Fulfillment of Duty

Incomplete Defense (Self, Relative or Stranger) Under prevailing law and jurisprudence, the presence of unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of defense, be it of self, relative, or stranger. There can be no defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending. People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Hisugan, G.R. No. L-38687, August 31, 1982 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

134

People of the Phil. vs. Simeon Gamut, G.R. No. L-34517, November 2, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Regino Camilet, G.R. No. 70392, June 30, 1986 Ernesto Andres vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-48957, June 23, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Prudencio Nulla, G.R. No. L-69346, August 31, 1987 Angelito Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao A. Batas, et al., G.R. Nos. 84277-78, August 2, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Segundino "Goding" Jotoy, G.R. No. L-61154, May 31, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Joanes Agravante, et al., G.R. No. 105402-04, September 5, 1994 Mariano R. De Luna vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111484, June 2, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Lascota, G.R. No. 113257, July 17, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cario, G.R. No. 123325, March 31, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Ebrada, G.R. No. 122774, September 25, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 118311, February 19, 1999 Roque G. Galang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128536, January 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001 Benito Calim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 140065, February 13, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

135

People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001 Eladio C. Tangan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105830, January 15, 2002 Florentino Paddayuman vs. People of the Phil. , G.R. No. 120344, January 23, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ansowas y Ampatin, G.R. No. 140647, December 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Gallego, et al., G.R. No. 127489, July 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003 Jose Rimano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 156567, November 27, 2003

For the claim of incomplete self-defense or defense of relative to prosper, it is essential to prove unlawful aggression. Absent this evidence, there could be no defense, complete or incomplete. For defense of a relative to be appreciated, the following requisites must concur: (1) unlawful aggression by the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; and (3) in case the provocation was given by the person attacked, that the person making the defense took no part therein. In the event that not all of the aforementioned requisites are attendant, the accused shall be entitled to the privileged mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

Just as the presence and severity of a large number of wounds on the part of the victim disprove self-defense, (People of the Phil. vs. Amador Masangkay, et al., G.R. No. 73461, October 27, 1987; People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, May 27, 1991; People of the Phil. vs. Juan Ganzagan, Jr., G.R. No. 113793, August 11, 1995; People of the Phil. vs. Elyboy O. So, G.R. No. 104664, August 28, 1995) so do they belie the claim of incomplete defense of a relative and indicate not the desire to defend one's relative but a determined effort to kill. People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio De Gracia et al., G.R. No. 112984, November 14, 1996 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

136

The mitigating circumstance of incomplete defense of a relative cannot be appreciated in favor of Sinonor. Although this mitigating circumstance can be appreciated even if based on the mistaken belief of the person making the defense that there was unlawful aggression against his relative, [United States vs. Ponciano Esmedia, et al., G.R. No. L-5749 October 21, 1910, 17 Phil. 260] it is required that the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be [United States vs. Ah Chong, G.R. No. 5272, March 19, 1910, 15 Phil. 488]. It is settled that a person making a defense has no more right to attack an aggressor when the unlawful aggression has ceased [People of the Phil. vs. Dioscoro Alconga, et al., G.R. No. L-162, April 30, 1947, 78 Phil. 366]. Felipe E. Pepito, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999

Incomplete self-defense is not considered as a justifying act, but merely a mitigating circumstance; hence, the burden of proving the crime charged in the information is not shifted to the accused. In order that it may be successfully appreciated, however, it is necessary that a majority of the requirements of self-defense be present, particularly the requisite of unlawful aggression on the part of the victim. United States vs. Antonio Navarro, G.R. No. L-1878, March 9, 1907, 7 Phil. 713 People of the Phils. vs. Aniceto Martin, G.R. No. L-3002, May 23, 1951, 89 Phil. 18 People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23, 2001

Unlawful agression Unlawful aggression by itself or in combination with either of the other two requisite suffices to establish incomplete self-defense. Absent the unlawful aggression, there can never be self-defense, complete or incomplete, because if there is nothing to prevent or repel, the other two requisites of defense will have no basis. Angelito Ortega vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 57664, February 8, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando M. Picardal, G.R. No. 72936, June 18, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 118311, February 19, 1999 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

137

People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dano, G.R. No. 117690, September 1, 2000

Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non, without which there can be no self-defense, whether complete or incomplete. There is incomplete self-defense when the element of unlawful aggression by the victim is present, and any of the other two essential requisites for self-defense. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Tabarnero, et al., G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010

Incomplete Fulfillment of Duty Unquestionably, the present case would have fallen under No. 5 of Article 11 if the two conditions therefor, viz.: (1) that the accused acted in the performance of a duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office and (2) that the injury or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due performance of such duty or the lawful exercise of such right or office, concurred. But here only the first condition is fulfilled; the second is wanting. The accused acted in the performance of a duty but that the shooting of the victim was not the necessary consequence of the due performance thereof, therefore, crediting to him the mitigating circumstance consisting of the incomplete justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Z. Oanis, et al., G.R. No. 47722, July 27, 1943, 74 Phil 257 Bernardo Lacanilao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-34940, June 27, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Belbes, G.R. No. 124670, June 21, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ulep, G.R. No. 132547, September 20, 2000

Art. 13 (2) - Mitigating Circumstance: Age – Under 18 or Over 70 Years Old

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

138

Whether petitioner was either 16 years old or over 17 years old but below 18 years at the time of the commission of the crime charged herein, he is entitled to the special mitigating circumstance of minority which allows the reduction of the imposable penalty provided by law to one degree lower upon a defendant or accused" over fifteen and under eighteen years of age" (par. 2, Art. 68 in relation to Art. 13, par. 2, Revised Penal Code). 05plpecda

Pacifico De Sagun vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-53196, July 31, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar B. Fernandez, G.R. No. 94008, February 21, 1992

Reasonable doubt on the issue of age of the accused will be resolved in his favor. United States vs. Severa Bergantino, G.R. No. 1441, December 29, 1903, 3 Phil. 118 United States vs. Silvino Roxas, G.R. No. 1594, December 5, 1905, 3 Phil. 375 United States vs. Pedro Barbicho, G.R. No. 5109, July 31, 1909, 13 Phil 616 United States vs. Estaban Agadas, et al., G.R. No. 11632, February 12, 1917, 36 Phil 246 People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Alex V. Regalado, et al. , G.R. No. 101451, March 23, 1993 Joaquin E. David vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 111168-69, June 17, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer Bolivar, G.R. No. 130597, February 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. No. 137520-22, August 15, 2003

The analogous circumstance of age of over 70 years cannot be considered mitigating because accused-appellant was only 59 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Walter Nacional, G.R. Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995

Art. 13 (3) - Mitigating Circumstance: Lack of Intention to Commit So Grave a Wrong (Praeter Intentionem) Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

139

Article 13, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code "addresses itself to the intention of the offender at the particular moment when he executes or commits the criminal act; not to his intention during the planning stage." People of the Phil. vs. Dicto Arpa, et al., G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Abueg, G.R. No. L-54901, November 24, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21, 1990

Intention is a mental process and is an internal state of mind. The intention must be judged by the action, conduct and external acts of the accused. What men do is the best index of their intention. In the case at bar, the aforesaid mitigating circumstance cannot be appreciated considering that the acts employed by the accused were reasonable sufficient to produce the result that they actually made — the death of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Amit, G.R. No. L-29066, March 25, 1970 People of the Phil. vs. Miguel Regato, et al., G.R. No. L-36750, January 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cabarrubias, et al., G.R. Nos. 94709-10, June 15, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Isleta, G.R. No. 114971, November 19, 1996

Since intention partakes of the nature of a mental process, an internal act, it can, as a general rule, be gathered from and determined only by the conduct and external acts of the offender, and the results of the acts themselves. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988

The lack of "intent" to commit a wrong so grave is an internal state. It is weighed based on the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Pajenado, G.R. No. L-26458, January 30, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Elbert Callet, G.R. No. 135701, May 9, 2002

The brute force employed by the accused completely contradicts the claim that they had no intention to kill the victim. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

140

People of the Phil. vs. Julian Flores, G.R. No. 27093, August 11, 1927, 50 Phil. 548 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio R. Orongan, G.R. No. L-38435, September 19, 1933, 58 Phil. 421 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Reyes, G.R. No. 42117, March 29, 1935, 61 Phil. 341 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988

Lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong does not mitigate in homicide cases where the accused used a deadly weapon in inflicting mortal wounds on vital organs of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Emiliano Dayrit, G.R. No. L-14388, May 20, 1960, 108 Phil. 100 People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999

The location of the stab wounds manifest accused-appellants' intention to kill and belies their claim that they did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that committed. People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 127818, November 11, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Francisco, et al., G.R. Nos. 118573-74, May 31, 2000

The sheer number of wounds, twenty-one in all, inflicted by the accused-appellant Cual on the body of the victim brings forth in bold relief the intention of the accused to snuff out the life of the deceased, and definitely negates any pretense of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Braña, G.R. No. L-29210, Oct. 31, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Dario Cabanas Cual, et al., G.R. No. 131925, March 9, 2000

There was no notable and evident disproportion between the means employed to shoot Manondo and its consequences. Intending to kill Manondo, Vicente shot him. Death was the result. He intended the resulting wrong. United States vs. Vicente Reyes, G.R. No. 12635, Sept. 25, 1917, 36 Phil. 904 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Mancao, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 61215, Oct. 31, 1984 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

141

Where the evidence shows that the accused repeatedly stabbed Milagros on the chest, left side of the neck and inflicted two lacerated wounds on her left hand, with a pair of scissors, while holding her in tight embrace, it is clear that the accused intended to do exactly what he did and must be held responsible for the consequences of his act and he cannot avail of the mitigating circumstance of lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong. Intention, being an internal state must be judged by external acts, that is, by considering the weapon used, the part of the body injured, the injury inflicted, the manner it is inflicted, and the attitude of the mind when the accused attacked the deceased. People of the Phil. vs. Sofronio Amoto, G.R. No. L-28273, Jan. 18, 1982

Taking into consideration the circumstances under which the appellant's act was executed, as well as the marked disproportion between the means employed and the ultimate consequence thereof, the appellant's claim that he merely intended to chastise Ferdinand, and not to do away with him, deserves the fullest credence. On this premise, the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong should be appreciated in his favor. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Castro, G.R. No. L-38989, Oct. 29, 1982

Accused used a deadly weapon in consummating the killing. The means which he employed were adequate to bring about the evil which was caused and intended. This is not a case where the wrongful act was different from that which was intended. People of the Phil. vs. Cayetano Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-41263, Dec. 15, 1982

Lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong must be appreciated in favor of the petitioner. Barring exceptional circumstances indicating otherwise, such as clear physical capability to inflict a fatal blow, an intention to kill cannot be deduced from a single fist blow, especially when the assailant, as in the case at bar, was intoxicated when the attack took place. Job Quial vs. Court of Appeals, et al., et al., G.R. No. L-63564, November 28, 1983

Art. 13 (4) - Mitigating Circumstance: Sufficient Provocation by Offended Party Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

142

A criminal liability may be mitigated if there was sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party which immediately preceded the act complained of. To avail oneself of this mitigating circumstance, it must be duly proven that the alleged provocation originated from the offended party. Roberto Licyayo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008

Provocation is defined to be any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. In order to be mitigating, provocation must be sufficient and should immediately precede the act. Provocation is sufficient if it is adequate to excite a person to commit the wrong, which must accordingly be proportionate in gravity. That the provocation must immediately precede the act means that there should not be any interval of time between the provocation by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the person provoked. Felipe E. Pepito, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119942, July 8, 1999 Felipe Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

The provocation must immediately precede the act so much so that there is no interval between the provocation by the offended party and the commission of the crime by the accused. Felipe Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

Under paragraph 4, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, a criminal liability may be mitigated if there was sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party which immediately preceded the act complained of. To avail oneself of this mitigating circumstance, it must be duly proven that the alleged provocation originated from the offended party. Roberto Licyayo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 169425, March 4, 2008

The mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation or threat on the part of the offended party should be credited in favor of appellant. Aside from the fact that the provocation should immediately precede the commission of the offense, it should also be "proportionate to the damage caused by the act and adequate to stir one to its commission." People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Luayon, G.R. No. 105672, August 22, 1996

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

143

To avail of this benefit, it must be shown that the provocation originated from the offended party, in this case, the victim. Rudy Almeda vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120853, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000

The provocation sufficient to mitigate an offense must be proportionate to the gravity of the retaliatory act. People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999

The provocation contemplated here is one that is sufficient and immediate to the commission of the crime. In other words, the invasion of the privacy of the offended party’s house must have been the direct and immediate consequence of the provocation given by the latter as where, for example, the accused and the victim quarrelled in front of the latter’s house and the accused, in a fit of rage entered the victim’s house and proceeded to stab him. United States vs. Vicenta Licarte, G.R. No. 6784, August 15, 1912, 23 Phil. 10 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Molina, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999

The derogatory statement made by the deceased Santos which so irritated Centeno did not constitute such a grave provocation as to warrant the lessening of his penalty for reacting as he did in punishing the victim to death. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Centeno, et al., G.R. No. 33284, April 20, 1989

Art. 13 (5) - Mitigating Circumstance: Immediate Vindication of a Grave Offense The benefit of the said mitigating circumstance cannot be considered in favor of the appellant pursuant to the established rule that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his serenity." People of the Phil. vs. Alberto R. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, December 17, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Leandro F. Pajares, G.R. No. 96444, June 23, 1992

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

144

People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

It may be noted that the English text providing for the immediate vindication of a grave offense is not an exact translation of the Spanish text which is controlling and states "La de haber ejecutado el hecho en vindicacion proxima de una ofensa grave." However, in the factual context of this case, such divergence would be insignificant since proximate also means "that immediately preceding or following (as in a chain of events, causes or effects)" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1993). People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998 People of the Phils. vs. Roberto Palabrica, G.R. No. 129285, May 7, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

While the law speaks of an "immediate" vindication of a grave offense, the same should be understood to mean "proximate." The English translation appears to be erroneous since the Spanish text, which is controlling, states: "La de haber ejecutado el hecho en vindicacion proxima de una ofensa grave." Thus, for instance, in U.S. vs. Diokno, et al., 63 Phil. 601 (1936), People vs. Parana, 64 Phil. 331 (1937), and People vs. Dagatan, 106 Phil. 88 (1959), there was a substantial interval of time between the commission of the crime by the accused and the prior commission by the victim of the offense sought to be vindicated. People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Babor, et al., G.R. No. 106875, September 24, 1996 People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

Although the incident did not immediately precede the killing (a few hours had lapsed), its impact, by reason of its seriousness and the circumstances under which it was inflicted, festered till the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Primo Parana, G.R. No. 45373, March 31, 1937, 64 Phil. 331 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cañete, et al., G.R. No. 138366, September 11, 2003

If not done immediately, it is no longer to vindicate the wrong done to him and his family but rather to take revenge that accused-appellant killed the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Evangelista, G.R. Nos. 84332-33, May 8, 1996

Immediate vindication of a grave offense, like any other, modifying circumstance, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

145

should be affirmatively proven. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Dioscoro Alconga, et al., G.R. No. L-162, April 30, 1947, 78 Phil. 366

Aside from the fact that the provocation should immediately precede the commission of the offense, it should also be proportionate to the damage caused by the act and adequate to stir one to its commission. People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Luayon, G.R. No. 105672, August 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Lopez, G.R. No. 136861, November 15, 2000

If appellant attacked his victim in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he cannot successfully claim in the same breath that he was also blinded by passion and obfuscation. At most, only one of two circumstances could be considered in favor of appellant (People vs. Yaon, Court of Appeals, 43 O.G. 4142 cited in I Reyes, Revised Penal Code [1981]). People of the Phil. vs. Juan De los Santos, G.R. No. L-2405, March 31, 1950, 85 Phil. 870 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Dagatan, G.R. No. L-10851, August 28, 1959, 106 Phil. 88 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995 People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

In an earlier case involving the infidelity of a wife, the killing of her paramour prompted proximately — though not immediately — by the desire to avenge the wrong done, was considered an extenuating circumstance in favor of the accused. (US vs. Davis, 11 Phil. 96 (1908); US vs. Arribas, 1 Phil. 86, 87 (1902)) The time elapsed between the offense and the suspected cause for vindication, however, involved only hours and minutes, not days. Hence, we agree with the Solicitor General that the lapse of two (2) weeks between his discovery of his wife's infidelity and the killing of her supposed paramour could no longer be considered proximate. The passage of a fortnight is more than sufficient time for appellant to have recovered his composure and assuaged the unease in his mind. The established rule is that there can be no immediate vindication of a grave offense when the accused had sufficient time to recover his serenity. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

146

People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

This mitigating circumstance is not available where appellant was not present when the alleged assault on his father (i.e., the wrong sought to be vindicated) was made. People of the Phil. vs. Emilio D. Santos, G.R. No. 99259-60, March 29, 1996

What was done was an immediate vindication of the stabbing perpetrated by Magaso on appellant's brother Moises. For relatively less serious crimes than this, this Court has taken into consideration this mitigating circumstance. United States vs. Clemente Ampar, G.R. No. L-12883, November 26, 1917, 37 Phil. 201 People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Diokno, et al., G.R. No. 45100, October 26, 1936, 63 Phil. 601 People of the Phil. vs. Custodio Rosel, G.R. No. 46095, October 10, 1938, 66 Phil. 323 People of the Phil. vs. Santos Doniego, G.R. No. L-17321, November 29, 1963, 118 Phil. 1384 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, October 23, 1982

Certainly it seems probable that the reason why the lower court failed to do so was the fact that appellant was a member of the police force. That is not conclusive. What is decisive is the fact that the brothers Capalac, responsive to what is a traditional norm of conduct, reacted in a manner which for them was necessary under the circumstances. That was a fulfillment of what family honor and affection require. The aggressor who did them wrong should not go unpunished. This is not to justify what was done. It offers though an explanation. At the same time, the rule of law, which frowns on an individual taking matters into his own hands, requires that every circumstance in favor of an accused should not be ignored. That is to render justice according to law. This mitigating circumstance calls for application. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, October 23, 1982

The appellant, however, is entitled to the mitigating circumstance analogous to, if not the same as, vindication of a grave offense committed by the deceased when the latter took away the carabao of the appellant and held it for ransom, and thereafter, failed to fulfill his promise to pay its value after the carabao had died. People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Monaga, et al., G.R. No. L-39528, November 19, 1982

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

147

The accused-appellant is also entitled to the mitigating circumstance of having acted in proximate vindication of a grave offense committed by the deceased against the honor of his daughter when the deceased said: "Oh, come on, let your daughter dance with Padi Nanong. Anyway, my nephew is already thru with your daughter and someday we'll be in-laws." It is not denied that the appellant was embarrassed, to say the least, by the utterance of these words. In fact, he threw a glass half-filled with beer at the deceased and they would have fought had not their companions separated them. No doubt, the accused-appellant sought to vindicate the honor of his family and appease his self-respect when he killed the deceased. People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Regulacion, G.R. No. L-33489, March 18, 1983

We thus appreciate the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense under Art. 13, par. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, or as a circumstance similar in nature or analogous to it, pursuant to Art. 13, Art. 10, of the same code. The circumstance that Felix, Arthur's father, was boxed by Marbel was serious enough to perturb Arthur's mind and diminish the voluntariness of his action. People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 130608, August 26, 1999

The act of the victim, which undoubtedly insulted and humiliated accused-appellant, came within the purview of a "grave offense" under Article 13, paragraph 5, of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Espina, G.R. Nos. 132325-26, July 26, 2001

Art. 13 (6) - Mitigating Circumstance: Passion or Obfuscation In general Lawful sentiments Cannot co-exist with treachery Cannot co-exist with evident premeditation Analogous circumstances Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

148

In general Passion and obfuscation exists when (1) there is an act, both unlawful and sufficient to produce such a condition of the mind, and (2) the said act which produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. People of the Phil. vs. Juan Alanguilang, G.R. No. 30125, January 21, 1929, 52 Phil. 663 People of the Phil. vs. Guillano, G.R. No. L-11904, February 29, 1960 (unreported) People of the Phil. vs. Fabian Ulita, G.R. No. L-12655, June 30, 1960, 108 Phil. 730 People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio S. Gervacio, et al., G.R. No. L-21965, August 30, 1968, 133 Phil. 805 People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Layson, et al., G.R. No. L-25177, October 31, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe B. Pareja, et al., G.R. No. L-21937, November 29, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Constancio L. Cauyan, G.R. No. L-33697, April 2, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Takbobo, G.R. No. 102984, June 30, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Basin Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 103613 & 105830, February 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Noel Feliciano, G.R. No. 127759-60, September 25, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Arande Colina Adlawan, G.R. No. 131839, January 30, 2002 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

149

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor and Mario Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002 People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003 Miguel Danofrata vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 143010, September 30, 2003

The mitigating circumstance of passion and obfuscation is also not obtaining. For this mitigating circumstance to be considered, it must be shown that (1) an unlawful act sufficient to produce passion and obfuscation was committed by the intended victim; (2) that the crime was committed within a reasonable length of time from the commission of the unlawful act that produced the obfuscation in the accused's mind; and that (3) "the passion and obfuscation arouse from lawful sentiments and not from a spirit of lawlessness or revenge". People of the Phil. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001

Provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit the wrong committed and that the provocation must be commensurate to the crime committed. The sufficiency of provocation varies according to the circumstances of the case. People of the Phil. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001

As a fact, there was no threat or provocation directed at petitioner, then he could not have been provoked into passion or obfuscation. Doroteo Tobes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127441, October 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999

Passion and obfuscation cannot be considered extenuating because the accused acted in a spirit of unmitigated lawlessness (and revenge). Moreover, the act producing the obfuscation must not be far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Hernandez, G.R. No. L-17283, March 7, 1922, 43 Phil. 104 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Alanguilang, G.R. No. 30125, January 21, 1929, 52 Phil. 663 People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Daos, et al., G.R. No. 40331, April 27, 1934, 60 Phil 143 People of the Phil. vs. Alexander M. Dela Fuente, G.R. Nos. L-63251-52, December 29, 1983 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

150

People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pampanga, G.R. No. L-66046, October 17, 1985

Passion and obfuscation cannot be considered when accused acted more in a spirit of lawlessness rather than due to a sudden and legitimate impulse of natural and uncontrollable fury. People of the Phil. vs. Magdalena Caliso, G.R. No. 37271, July 1, 1933, 58 Phil 283 People of the Phil. vs. Laurencio Laspardas, G.R. No. L-46146, October 23, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983, 207 Phil. 107 People of the Phil. vs. Sukarno K. Mawallil, G.R. No. 63154, June 19, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pampanga, G.R. No. L-66046, October 17, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cabarrubias, et al., G.R. Nos. 94709-10, June 15, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Bates, G.R. No. 139907, March 28, 2003

Lawful sentiments Passion and obfuscation as affecting the mind and resulting in lack of reason and self-control must originate from lawful sentiments. People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Silang Cruz, G.R. No. 31045, October 1, 1929, 53 Phil. 637 United States vs. Manuel Flores, et al., G.R. No. 9008, September 17, 1914, 28 Phil. 29 United States vs. Augustus Hicks, G.R. No. 4971, September 23, 1909, 14 Phil. 217 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio G. Reyes, G.R. No. L-33767, October 30, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pampanga, G.R. No. L-66046, October 17, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

151

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo L. Tiongco, G.R. No. 108430, September 14, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Lopez, G.R. No. 132168, October 10, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

The exercise of a lawful right cannot be the proper source of obfuscation that may be considered a mitigating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Lopez, G.R. No. 132168, October 10, 2000

With respect to passion and obfuscation, it must be brought by causes naturally producing in a person powerful excitement such that he losses his reason and self-control thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power. United States vs. Donato Salandanan et al., G.R. No. 947, November 4, 1902, 1 Phil. 464 United States vs. Gabriel Diaz, G.R. No. 5155, February 2, 1910, 15 Phil. 123 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

Accused cannot claim passion and obfuscation as a mitigating circumstance because he did not act due to an uncontrollable burst of passion provoked by prior and unjust improper acts, or due to a legitimate stimulus which would overcome reason. United States vs. Anderson Taylor, G.R. No. 2309, April 19, 1906, 6 Phil. 162 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Mancao, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 61215, Oct. 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rodel Dizon, G.R. No. 131506, September 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Noel Feliciano, G.R. Nos. 127759-60, September 25, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

152

People of the Phil. vs. Samuel "Sonny" Emperador y Lopez, G.R. No. 132669, September 25, 2002 Miguel Danofrata vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 143010, September 30, 2003

To be blinded by passion and obfuscation is to lose self-control, not consciousness. Moreover, courts cannot appreciate passion and obfuscation unless there is a clear showing that there was cause naturally tending to produce such powerful excitement as to deprive the accused of reason and self-control. People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Caña Leonor, G.R. No. 125053, March 25, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

The turmoil and unreason which naturally result from a quarrel or fight should not be confused with the sentiment or excitement in the mind of person injured or offended to such a degree as to deprive him of his sanity and self-control, because the cause of this condition of mind must necessarily have preceded the commission of the offense. United States vs. Juan Giner, G.R. No. 2736, August 30, 1906, 6 Phil 406 People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

The excitement which is inherent in all persons who quarrel and come to blows does not constitute obfuscation. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999 United States vs. Ciriaco Herrera, G.R. No. 4960, July 17, 1909, 13 Phil. 583

The circumstance of passion and obfuscation cannot be mitigating in a crime which is planned and calmly meditated before its execution. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro M. Pagal, et al., G.R. No. L-32040, October 25, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Gentem Kintuan, G.R. No. L-74100, December 3, 1987

It has been held that where at least half an hour elapsed between the previous fight and the killing, the accused cannot be given the benefit of the attenuating Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

153

circumstance of obfuscation. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60 Phil. 887 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

Passion and obfuscation not considered when act which was supposed to have caused it was committed three (3) days earlier. People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

The lapse of more than 24 hours, reckoned from the commission of the act which produced the passion or obfuscation up to the time of the commission of the felony, constituted a considerable period of time after which such circumstance would no longer be deemed present. United States vs. Sarikala, G.R. No. L-12988, January 24, 1918, 37 Phil. 486

The period of two (2) weeks which spanned the discovery of his wife's extramarital dalliance and the killing of her lover was sufficient time for appellant to reflect and cool off. People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

There can be no passion and obfuscation when more than five (5) hours had lapsed between the discovery of his wife's unfaithfulness and the killing of his wife. The appellant had enough time to reflect and gain control of his self. People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Aguilando, et al., G.R. No. L-5346, January 30, 1953, 92 Phil. 583 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60 Phil. 887 United States vs. Sarikala, G.R. No. L-12988, January 24, 1918, 37 Phil. 486 People of the Phil. vs. Fernandito S. Sicat, G.R. No. 89278, September 4, 1992

When crime was committed almost a year after the victim had abandoned the conjugal dwelling. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993

If appellant attacked his victim in the proximate vindication of a grave offense, he cannot successfully claim in the same breath that he was also blinded by passion and Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

154

obfuscation. At most, only one of two circumstances could be considered in favor of appellant. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Yaon, 43 O.G. 4142

Passion cannot co-exist with treachery Passion cannot co-exist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his control and reason, while in treachery the means employed are consciously adopted and one who loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately employ a particular means, method or form of attack in the execution of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Wong, 70 O.G. 4844, Oct. 5, 1973 People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Germina, G.R. No. 120881, May 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Dante L. Domingo, G.R. No. 131817, August 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Samuel "Sonny" Emperador y Lopez, G.R. No. 132669, September 25, 2002

Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with evident premeditation The aggravating circumstance of evident premeditation cannot co-exist with the circumstance of passion and obfuscation. The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by calm thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a composed judgment. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro M. Pagal, et al., G.R. No. L-32040, October 25, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

The rule is that the mitigating circumstances of vindication of a grave offense and passion and obfuscation cannot be claimed at the same time, if they arise from the same facts or motive. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995, 312 Phil. 775 People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

155

Analogous Circumstances An impulse of invidious or resentful feelings contemplates a situation akin to passion and obfuscation. This circumstance is mitigating since, like passion and obfuscation, the accused who acts with these feelings suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent, a reduction in his mental and rational faculties. People of the Phil. vs. Nestor G. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003

Examples a) Passion and obfuscation considered There can be no question that the accused was driven strongly by jealousy because of the rumors regarding the amorous relationship between his wife and the victim. The feeling of resentment resulting from rivalry in amorous relations with a woman is a powerful stimulant to jealousy and is sufficient to produce loss of reason and self-control. In other words, it is a powerful instigator of jealousy and prone to produce anger and obfuscation. United States vs. Vicente Santillan, G.R. No. 1541, January 27, 1905, 4 Phil. 170 People of the Phil. vs. Delfin Muit, G.R. No. L-48875, October 21, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

Natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue of a beleaguered son, regardless of whether the latter be right or wrong – People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Castro, G.R. No. L-38989, Oct. 29, 1982

Finding one’s house being unlawfully damaged and its accessibility to the highway as well as of his rice mill being closed – People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Narvaez, G.R. Nos. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983

b) Passion and obfuscation not considered When provocative act which caused the incident was parents’ disapproval of appellant’s proposal to marry their daughter – People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

156

The act of the victim in berating and humiliating appellant was enough to produce passion and obfuscation, considering that the incident happened in a market place within full view and within hearing distance of many people. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995

Art. 13 (7) - Mitigating Circumstance: Plea of Guilty Under Article 13 (7) of the Code, a plea of guilty on arraignment is a mitigating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Joey Manlansing, et al., G.R. Nos. 131736-37, March 11, 2002

To be entitled to such mitigating circumstance, the accused must have voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. The following requirements must therefore concur: (1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before a competent court trying the case; and (3) the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution. People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-32243, April 15, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Bueza, G.R. No. 79619, August 20, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. William Montinola, G.R. Nos. 131856-57, July 9, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco L. Calpito, G.R. No. 123298, November 27, 2003

To effectively alleviate the criminal liability of an accused, a plea of guilty must be made at the first opportunity, indicating repentance on the part of the accused. In determining the timeliness of a plea of guilty, nothing could be more explicit than the provisions of the Revised Penal Code requiring that the offender voluntarily confess his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. It is well settled that a plea of guilty made after arraignment and after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Roman Meneses, G.R. No. 111742, March 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

157

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

Under Section 7, Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, a plea of guilty can be considered a mitigating circumstance if done before the prosecution presents it evidence. In the event, the prosecution did not consent to this desperate attempt of appellant to qualify for a lower penalty. The trial court argued and did not re-arraign appellant. Dura lex sed lex. People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Callos, G.R. No. 133478, January 16, 2002

Article 13(7) requires that the offender voluntarily confesses his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of the evidence for the prosecution. A plea of guilty made after arraignment and after trial had begun does not entitle the accused to have such plea considered as a mitigating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

It is elementary that a plea of guilty, besides being a mitigating circumstance, is a judicial confession of guilt — an admission of all the material facts alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances alleged. To be considered, it must be made spontaneously in open court prior to presentation of evidence. It must also be made unconditionally. People of the Phil. vs. Moro Quinta, G.R. Nos. 29373-76, August 4, 1928, 51 Phil. 820 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ubaldo, G.R. No. 33522, October 31, 1930, 55 Phil. 95 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Berio, G.R. No. 40602, February 20, 1934, 59 Phil. 533 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Ansoyon, G.R. No. L-3, January 29, 1946, 75 Phil 772 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Bauden, G.R. No. L-270, August 30, 1946, 77 Phil. 105 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Egido, G.R. No. L-4217, January 31, 1952, 90 Phil. 762 People of the Phil. vs. Llagas, G.R. No. L-50115, May 31, 1957 People of the Phil. vs. Eutiquio Yamson, et al., G.R. No. L-14189, October 25, 1960

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

158

People of the Phil. vs. Roger M. Perete, et al., G.R. No. L-15515, April 29, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Dario Roldan, G.R. No. L-22030, May 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Dicto Arpa, et al., G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969 People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Petronilo Espejo, et., al., G.R. No. L-27708, December 19, 1970 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Ariola, et al., G.R. No. L-38457, October 29, 1980

It is the essence of a plea of guilty that the accused admits absolutely and unconditionally his guilt and responsibility for the offense imputed to him. People of the Phil. vs. Patrick De Luna, G.R. No. 77969, June 22, 1989 People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000

Hence, an accused may not foist a conditional plea of guilty on the court by admitting his guilt provided that a certain penalty will be meted unto him. United States vs. Ambrosio Estabillo, et al., G.R. No. L-3934, January 21, 1908, 9 Phil. 668 People of the Phil. vs. Moro Sabilul, G.R. No. L-5520, July 31, 1953, 93 Phil. 567 People of the Phil. vs. Rolly O. Albert, G.R. No. 114001, December 11, 1995 People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000

Accused-appellant's plea of guilty is undoubtedly a conditional plea. Hence, the trial court should have vacated such a plea and entered a plea of not guilty for a conditional plea of guilty, or one subject to the proviso that a certain penalty be imposed upon him, is equivalent to a plea of not guilty and would, therefore, require a full-blown trial before judgment may be rendered. People of the Phil. vs. Moro Sabilul, G.R. No. L-5520, July 31, 1953, 93 Phil. 567 People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000

While it is true that accused-appellant requested for a lesser penalty, such does not make his plea of guilty conditional. It remains to be an admission of the facts alleged Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

159

in the information charging robbery with homicide. At most, said plea for a lesser penalty is an appeal to emotion as it does not assail, restrict or qualify the information. It does not even specify the penalty desired to be imposed. Unlike in People vs. Sabilul, 93 Phil. 567, the case cited by accused-appellant in support of his contention, the plea for the lesser penalty of destierro qualifies the information for murder to that crime described under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit death under exceptional circumstances, as the plea therein specifies a certain penalty to be imposed. People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980

While the accused offered to plead guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, he was charged with murder for which he had already entered a plea of not guilty. We have ruled that an offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be considered as an attenuating circumstance under the provisions of Art. 13 of The Revised Penal Code because to be voluntary the plea of guilty must be to the offense charged. People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Noble, G.R. No. L-288, August 29, 1946, 77 Phil 104

Rule 116 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides: SECTION 3. Plea of guilty to capital offense; reception of evidence. — When the accused pleads guilty to a capital offense, the court shall conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea and require the prosecution to prove his guilt and the precise degree of culpability. The accused may also present evidence on his behalf.

Under this Rule, three things are enjoined upon the trial court when a plea of guilty to a capital offense is entered: (1) the court must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness of the plea and the accused's full comprehension of the consequences thereof; (2) the court must require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and, (3) the court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he desires. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Camay, G.R. No. L-51306, July 29, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Verano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-45589, July 28, 1988

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

160

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando G. Dayot, G.R. No. 88281, July 20, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Arnel B. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995, 321 Phil. 657 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Expedito Abapo, G.R. Nos. 133387-423, March 31, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Bernardino Aranzado, G.R. Nos. 132442-44, September 24, 2001

What constitutes a searching inquiry is that the plea of guilt must be based on a free and informed judgment. Hence, a searching inquiry must focus on: (1) the voluntariness of the plea, and (2) the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea. People of the Phil. vs. Arnel B. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995, 321 Phil. 657 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

So indispensable is this requirement that a plea of guilt to a capital offense can be held null and void where the trial court has inadequately discharged the duty of conducting the prescribed "searching inquiry." People of the Phil. vs. Arnel B. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995, 321 Phil. 657 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Tizon, et al., G.R. No. 126955, October 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Durango, G.R. Nos. 135438-39, April 5, 2000

There is no debate that the trial court had persuasively observed the second command of the rule by directing the prosecution to adduce evidence to determine the exact culpability of the accused, taking into account the presence of other possible aggravating or mitigating circumstances. It then heard with remarkable diligence and dispatch the prosecution's case. It is in the rule's first and third requirements that, sadly but not without hope of immediate rectification, the trial court missed its bounden duty. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

161

On the first requirement, it bears to note that a searching inquiry must focus on the voluntariness of the plea and the full comprehension of the consequences of the plea so that the plea of guilty can be truly said to be based on a free and informed judgment. While there can be no hard and fast rule as to how a judge may conduct a "searching inquiry," it would be well for the court to do the following: (1) Ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and (c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated during the investigations. These the court shall do in order to rule out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats of physical harm coming from malevolent or avenging quarters. (2) Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with, and completely explained to, the accused the meaning and consequences of a plea of guilty. (3) Elicit information about the personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic status, and educational background, which may serve as a trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea of guilty. (4) Inform the accused the exact length of imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the law and the certainty that he will serve such sentence. Not infrequently indeed an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment or upon bad advice or because of promises of the authorities or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express remorse. It is the duty of the judge to see to it that the accused does not labor under these mistaken impressions. (5) Require the accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges against him or make him reenact the manner in which he perpetrated the crime, or cause him to supply missing details of significance. The searching inquiry conducted by the trial court left much to be desired. People of the Phil. vs. Bernardino Aranzado, G.R. Nos. 132442-44, September 24, 2001

The trial court should also be convinced that the accused has not been coerced or placed under a state of duress either by actual threats or physical harm coming from Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

162

malevolent or avenging quarters, and this it can do either by eliciting from the accused himself the manner in which he has been brought into the custody of the law and whether he had the assistance of competent counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations or by ascertaining from him the conditions of his detention and interrogation during the investigation. Likewise, a series of questions directed at defense counsel on whether or not counsel has conferred with the accused and has completely explained to him the meaning of a plea of guilt are well-taken steps along those lines. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. L-69317, September 11, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Henry Parba, G.R. No. L-63409, May 30, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Petalcorin, et al., G.R. No. 65376, December 29, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor G. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Durango, G.R. Nos. 135438-39, April 5, 2000

The warnings given by the trial court in this case fall short of the requirement that it must make a searching inquiry to determine whether accused-appellant understood fully the import of his guilty plea. As has been said, a mere warning that the accused faces the supreme penalty of death is insufficient. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor G. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996, 326 Phil. 429 People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

For more often than not, an accused pleads guilty upon bad advice or because he hopes for a lenient treatment or a lighter penalty. The trial judge must erase such mistaken impressions. People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

He must be completely convinced that the guilty plea made by the accused was not made under duress or promise of reward. The judge must ask the accused the manner the latter was arrested or detained, and whether he was assisted by counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations. In addition, the defense counsel should also be asked whether he conferred with the accused and completely explained to him the meaning and the consequences of a plea of guilt. Furthermore, since the age, educational attainment and socio-economic status of the accused may reveal insights Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

163

for a proper verdict in the case, the trial court must ask questions concerning them. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor G. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996, 326 Phil. 429 People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

In this case, absent any showing that these questions were put to accused-appellant, a searching inquiry cannot be said to have been undertaken by the trial court. People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000

Even if [the] accused['s] . . . plea was improvidently made, if the evidence presented thereafter by the prosecution is sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court's verdict of guilt based solely on the hard evidence presented can be sustained. At this point then, the improvidence of the plea of guilt is irrelevant. People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Tahop, G.R. No. 125330, September 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Expedito Abapo, G.R. Nos. 133387-423, March 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Jabien, G.R. Nos. 133068-69, May 31, 2000

As held by this Court in People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Lakindanum, G.R. No. 127123, March 10, 1999, People of the Phil. vs. Romeo E. Nismal, G.R. No. L-51257, June 25, 1982, People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Petalcorin, et al., G.R. No. 65376, December 29, 1989, and People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Tahop, G.R. No. 125330 September 29, 1999, convictions based on pleas of guilty to capital offenses have been set aside because of improvidence of the plea, but only when such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. Where, as here, the trial court relied solely on the prosecution's sufficient and convincing evidence to convict the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, not on his guilty plea, the same must be sustained. People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Nuñez y Dubduban, G.R. No. 128875, July 8, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Jabien, G.R. Nos. 133068-69, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Lima, G.R. No. 128289, April 23, 2002

A plea of guilt is improvidently accepted where no effort is made to explain to the accused that, in a case involving a capital offense, such plea may result in the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

164

imposition of the death penalty. People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, March 6, 2002

Recently, in People vs. Bernas, the Court set aside a death sentence and remanded the case to the trial court, because the Aranzado guidelines on how to conduct a "searching inquiry" had not been followed. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Bernas, G.R. Nos. 133583-85, February 20, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, March 6, 2002

Art. 13 (7) - Mitigating Circumstance: Voluntary Surrender Elements Requisites Intent and conduct of accused Person in authority or his agents Flight Immediate surrender not necessary

Elements Article 13 (7) of the Revised Penal Code provides that an accused is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary confession of guilty if "he had voluntarily confessed his guilt before the court prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution." The following requisites must concur: (1) the accused spontaneously confessed his guilt; (2) the confession of guilt was made in open court, that is, before a competent court trying the case; and (3) the confession of guilt was made prior to the presentation of evidence by the prosecution. People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Juan, G.R. No. 152289, January 14, 2004

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

165

Requisites In order that the mitigating circumstance may be appreciated, the defense must clearly satisfy three requisites: (a) the offender has not been actually arrested; (b) the offender surrenders himself to a person in authority or the latter's agent; and (c) the surrender is voluntary. People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Ignacio, G.R. No. 134568, February 10, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Dario Cabanas Cual, et al., G.R. No. 131925, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Teofisto Cotas, G.R. No. 132043, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cardel, et al., G.R. No. 105582, July 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Dichoso, et al., G.R. No. 131822, July 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Vital, G.R. No. 130785, September 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. John Panela, G.R. No. 124475, November 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Bayotas, G.R. No. 136818, December 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alo, et al., G.R. No. 125533, December 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Marcos, G.R. No. 132392, January 18, 2001 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Toradio Silvano, G.R. No. 125923, January 31, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Hernani Dichoson, G.R. No. 118986-89, February 19, 2001 Exuperancio Canta vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140937, February 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quinicio, G.R. No. 142430, September 13, 2001 People of the Philippines vs. Marlon Gadia, G.R. No. 132384, September 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Noel Feliciano, G.R. Nos. 127759-60, September 25, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

166

People of the Philippines vs. Sherjohn Arondain, et al., G.R. Nos. 131864-65, September 27, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo R. Ancheta, G.R. No. 138306-07, December 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Quening, G.R. No. 132167, January 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Job Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, January 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Joey Manlansing, et al., G.R. No. 131736-37, March 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Angelo Zeta, G.R. No. 140901, May 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 125895, July 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Michael Tadeo, G.R. No. 127660, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Raelito Librando, G.R. No. 132251, July 6, 2000 People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002 Josue R. Ladiana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002 Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Lastide A. Sube, et al., G.R. No. 146034, February 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel I. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Tinampay, G.R. No. 146271, May 29, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio A. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rufino I. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, June 17, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

167

People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Hugo, et al., G.R. No. 134604, August 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003 People of the Phils. vs. June Ignas, G.R. Nos. 140514-15, September 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140513, November 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Roger Ospig, G.R. No. 141766, November 18, 2003

A fourth requisite was added by the following cases, thus: (4) there is no pending warrant of arrest or information filed. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sion, et al., G.R. No. 109617, August 11, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ampie C. Taraya, et al., G.R. No. 135551, October 27, 2000 Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003

But in the case of Rivera vs. CA, voluntary surrender was considered in favor of accused even if he surrendered after the order of arrest was issued. The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender was properly appreciated in favor of petitioner. The records show that when the Information was filed after the preliminary investigation, he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and posted his bail bond before he could be arrested. In People v. Yeda (68 Phil. 740 [1939]) and People v. Turalba (G.R. No. L-29118, February 28, 1974), it was held that when after the commission of the crime and the issuance of the warrant of arrest, the accused presented himself in the municipal building to post the bond for his temporary release, voluntary surrender is mitigating. The fact that the order of arrest had already been issued is no bar to the consideration of the circumstances because the law does not require that the surrender be prior to the order of arrest. Benjamin Rivera vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125867, May 31, 2000

The fact that the warrants had already been issued is no bar to the consideration of this mitigating circumstance, because the law does not require that the surrender be Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

168

prior to the order of arrest. People of the Phil. vs. Teodulo Yecla, G.R. No. 46612, October 14, 1939, 68 Phil. 740 People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo Valera, G.R. No. L-15662, August 30, 1962 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Macandog, et al., G.R. No. 129534, June 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Herson Florague, et al., G.R. No. 134779, July 6, 2001

In this case, it was appellant's commanding officer who surrendered him to the custody of the court. Being restrained by one's superiors to stay within the camp without submitting to the investigating authorities concerned is not tantamount to voluntary surrender as contemplated by law. The trial court is correct in not appreciating the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in appellant's favor. People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000

There can be no voluntary surrender if the warrant of arrest showed that the defendant was in fact arrested. El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Martin Conwi, G.R. No. 47557, Abril 22, 1941, 71 Phil. 595 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Baybado, G.R. No. 132136, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Tinampay, G.R. No. 146271, May 29, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Roger Ospig, G.R. No. 141766, November 18, 2003

In order that the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender may be credited to the accused, the following requisites should be present: (a) the offender has not actually been arrested; (b) the offender surrendered himself to a person in authority; and (c) the surrender must be voluntary. A surrender, to be voluntary, must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either because he acknowledges his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses in capturing him. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Tabarnero, et al., G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010

Intent and conduct of accused The essence of voluntary surrender is spontaneity and the intent of the accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities either because he acknowledges his guilt or he wants to save the State the trouble of having to effect his arrest. (For Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

169

voluntary surrender to be appreciated, the same must be spontaneous in such a manner that it shows the interest of the accused to surrender unconditionally to the authorities, either because he acknowledged his guilt or because he wishes to save them the trouble and expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture.) People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Noble, G.R. No. L-288, August 29, 1946, 77 Phil. 104 Job Quial vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-63564, Nov. 28, 1983, 211 Phil. 220 People of the Phil. vs. Clemente S. Radomes, G.R. No. L-68421, March 20, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Carlo M. Lagrana, et al., G.R. No. L-68790, January 23, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Lingatong, G.R. No. 34019, January 29, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben A. Lee, G.R. No. 66848, December 20, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Devaras, et al., G.R. No. 48009, February 3, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Umadhay, et al., G.R. No. 119544, August 3, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Rebamontan, G.R. No. 125318, April 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Ignacio, G.R. No. 134568, February 10, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer D. Salas, G.R. No. 115192, March 7, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mendoza, G.R. No. 133382, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo Manriquez, et al., G.R. Nos. 122510-11, March 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

170

People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Dichoso, et al., G.R. No. 131822, July 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Abella, et al., G.R. No. 127803, August 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Vital, G.R. No. 130785, September 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alo, et al., G.R. No. 125533, December 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Marcos, G.R. No. 132392, January 18, 2001 Lucibar Roca vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114917, January 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001 Dela Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139150, July 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001 People of the Philippines vs. Sherjohn Arondain, et al., G.R. Nos. 131864-65, September 27, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eladio Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-35, December 13, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul, et al., G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Job Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, January 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Editho Suyum, et al., G.R. No. 137518, March 6, 2002 People of the Phils. vs. Ruben Logalada Boquila, G.R. No. 136145, March 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Angelo Zeta, G.R. No. 140901, May 9, 2002 Oscar M. Poso vs. Judge Jose H. Mijares, et al., A.M. RTJ-02-1693, August 21, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Verceles, et al., G.R. No. 130650, September 10, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

171

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002 Josue R. Ladiana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002 Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Clarence Astudillo, et al., G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Tinampay, G.R. No. 146271, May 29, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rufino I. Mallari, G.R. No. 145993, June 17, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140513, November 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Roger Ospig, G.R. No. 141766, November 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alex L. Flores, G.R. Nos. 143435-36, November 28, 2003

If none of these two reasons impelled the accused to surrender, because his surrender was obviously motivated more by an intention to insure his safety, his arrest being inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous. People of the Phil. vs. Laurel, C.A. 59 O.G. 7618 People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Basite, G.R. No. 150382, October 2, 2003

The word "spontaneous" emphasizes the idea of an inner impulse, acting without external stimulus. The conduct of the accused, not his intention alone, after the commission of the offense, determines the spontaneity of the surrender. People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Arande Colina Adlawan, G.R. No. 131839, January 30, 2002

The fact alone that accused did not resist but went peacefully with the police officers does not mean that he voluntarily surrendered. People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Siojo, G.R. No. 41746, March 27, 1935, 61 Phil. 307 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

172

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Castillano, et al., G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

The fact that the accused did not escape or go into hiding after the commission of the murder and in fact accompanied the chief of police to the scene of the crime, without however surrendering to him and admitting complicity in the killing, did not amount to voluntary surrender to the authorities, and this circumstance would not be extenuating in that case. People of the Phil. vs. Felicisimo Canoy, et al., G.R. No. L-4224, December 28, 1951, 90 Phil. 633 People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Rubinial, G.R. No. L-12275, November 29, 1960, 110 Phil. 119 People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

Accused must actually surrender his own person to the authorities, admitting to complicity in the crime. His conduct after the commission of the crime must indicate a desire on his part to own responsibility for the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

Voluntary surrender presupposes repentance. This circumstance was not present in the instant case as accused-appellant denied any participation and knowledge of the crime when he was in the custody of the police authorities. Hence, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Job Cortezano, G.R. No. 140732, January 29, 2002 Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003

Although accused admitted that he surrendered because of fear of reprisal, this fact should not be taken against him for this circumstance does not detract from the spontaneity of the surrender, nor does it alter the fact that, by giving himself up, he Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

173

has saved the State the time and trouble of searching for him until arrested. People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Clemente, et al., G.R. No. L-23463, September 28, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607, January 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Elbert Callet, G.R. No. 135701, May 9, 2002

In the case at bar, the appellant's alleged surrender to the barangay chairman was not voluntary. On the contrary, it was solely motivated by self-preservation from what he feared was an imminent retaliation from the immediate relatives of the victim. Consequently, the same cannot be appreciated in his favor. People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140513, November 18, 2003

It is indispensable that the accused must in fact surrender to the custody of a person in authority or of his agent. People of the Phil. vs. Hernani Dichoson, G.R. No. 118986-89, February 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Palo, et al., G.R. Nos. L-9593-94, July 31, 1957, 101 Phil. 963

Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated where the evidence adduced shows that it was the authorities who came looking for the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Irving D. Flores, G.R. Nos. 103801-02, October 19, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Sumalpong, et al., G.R. No. 124705, January 20, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Dichoso, et al., G.R. No. 131822, July 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002

Though they did not give a statement regarding the stabbing incident, the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should nonetheless be considered in their favor. What matters is that they spontaneously, voluntarily and unconditionally placed themselves at the disposal of the authorities. This act of respect for the law indicates a moral disposition favorable to their reform. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Camahalan, et al., G.R. No. 114032, February 22, 1995, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

174

311 Phil. 637 People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio De Gracia et al., G.R. No. 112984, November 14, 1996, 332 Phil. 226 People of the Phil. vs. Clarence Astudillo, et al., G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003

When the accused goes to a police station merely to clear his name and not to give himself up, voluntary surrender may not be appreciated. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Evangelista, G.R. Nos. 84332-33, May 8, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Joel Pinca, G.R. No. 129256, November 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Abella, et al., G.R. No. 127803, August 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eladio Viernes, G.R. Nos. 136733-35, December 13, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Verceles, et al., G.R. No. 130650, September 10, 2002 Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003

Voluntary surrender is not a mitigating circumstance where it appears that the purpose of the accused in going to the authorities is for an entirely different matter as to inquire merely about a warrant of arrest in connection with a pending case against the accused for rape. People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano De Vera, G.R. Nos. 121462-63, June 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Verceles, et al., G.R. No. 130650, September 10, 2002

The accused who had gone to the police headquarters merely to report the shooting incident did not evince any desire to admit responsibility for the killing. Thus, he could not be deemed to have voluntarily surrendered. People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Rogales, G.R. No. L-17531, November 30, 1962 People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987 Josue R. Ladiana vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 144293, December 4, 2002

Appellant's surrender was not voluntary. Rather, he was forced to give himself up, because members of the barangay tanod were already inside his house, thereby precluding his escape. People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Ignacio, G.R. No. 134568, February 10, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

175

Voluntary surrender cannot be considered in favor of accused when his alleged surrender was made too late, and in a place too distant from the crime site as well as his place of residence. People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Costales, G.R. Nos. 141154, January 15, 2002

Person in authority or his agents Although a barangay tanod is not a person in authority but only an agent of a person in authority, (People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo De Guzman, G.R. No. L-73464, August 9, 1988; People of the Phil. vs. Anastacio Caricungan, et al., G.R. No. 71461, September 30, 1991) nevertheless, a tanod could be treated as an intermediary to accused-appellant's surrender so as to justify appreciating this mitigating circumstance in favor of accused-appellant. People of the Phil. vs. Teofisto Cotas, G.R. No. 132043, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Caber, Sr., G.R. No. 129252, November 28, 2000

Purok president also considered an intermediary. People of the Phil. vs. John Panela, G.R. No. 124475, November 29, 2000

Mayor (person in authority). People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000

Governor (person in authority). People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel I. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003

Kagawad is a person in authority under RA No. 7160 (Local Government Code). People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Q. Vicente, G.R. No. 137296, June 26, 2003

Flight Voluntary surrender does not simply mean non-flight. As a matter of law, it does not matter if the accused never avoided arrest and never hid or fled. Job Quial vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-63564, Nov. 28, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Dichoso, et al., G.R. No. 131822, July 27, 2000 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

176

People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001

Voluntary surrender cannot be appreciated in appellant's favor. Appellant fled immediately after the killing. It took him more than a month-and-a-half to surrender himself to the authorities. It cannot be said that such surrender, in view of his fleeing and hiding, was "spontaneous," "showing either acknowledgment of his guilt or an intention to save the authorities the trouble and expense that his search and capture would require." People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

Voluntary surrender and non-flight do not conclusively prove innocence. Ricardo Bacabac vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149372, September 11, 2007

Immediate surrender not necessary For voluntary surrender to mitigate an offense, it is not required that the accused surrender at the first opportunity. For as long the aforementioned requisites are met, voluntary surrender can be appreciated. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Saul and Elmer Avenue, G.R. No. 124809, December 19, 2001

It is of no moment that appellant Antonio did not immediately surrender to authorities, but did so only after the lapse of about six (6) hours. In the case of People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996, the voluntary surrender of the accused to a police authority four (4) days after the commission of the crime was considered attenuating. There is no dispute that appellant Antonio voluntarily surrendered to the mayor, a person in authority, before he was arrested, hence the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender should be considered in appellant Antonio's favor. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Medina, G.R. No. 113691, February 6, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Amamangpang, G.R. No. 108491, July 2, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

177

Surrender day after incident occurred considered. People of the Phil. vs Rolito Cabical, G.R. No. 148519, May 29, 2003

Surrender after lapse of two (2) days considered. People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel I. Annibong, G.R. No. 139879, May 8, 2003

Surrender nine (9) months after issuance of warrant of arrest not considered. People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Mabuyo, G.R. No. L-29129, May 8, 1975

Surrender three (3) years after issuance of warrant of arrest not considered. People of the Phil. vs. Arande Colina Adlawan, G.R. No. 131839, January 30, 2002

Art. 13 (9) - Mitigating Circumstance: Illness In general Psychological Paralysis Schizophrenia Insomia

In general For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Bonoan y Cruz, G.R. No. 45130, February 17, 1937, 64 Phil. 95 El Pueblo De Filipinas Contra Francisco Balneg, G.R. No. L-1085, Enero 9, 1948, 79 Phil. 805 People of the Phil. vs. Rucila B. Amit, G.R. No. L-2060, February 15, 1949, 82 Phil. 820 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

178

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Basin Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999

Psychological Paralysis The severe beatings repeatedly inflicted on appellant constituted a form of cumulative provocation that broke down her psychological resistance and self-control. This "psychological paralysis" she suffered diminished her will power, thereby entitling her to the mitigating factor under paragraphs 9 and 10 of Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004

Schizophrenia Schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting 'because it does not completely deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., as an illness which diminishes the exercise of the offender's will-power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999

The evidence of accused-appellant shows that while there was some impairment of his mental faculties, since he was shown to suffer from the chronic mental disease called schizo-affective disorder or psychosis, such impairment was not so complete as to deprive him of his intelligence or the consciousness of his acts. The schizo-affective disorder or psychosis of accused-appellant may be classified as an illness which diminishes the exercise of his will-power but without depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. He may thus be credited with this mitigating circumstance but will not exempt him from his criminal liability. People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 144266, November 27, 2002

Insomnia In this appeal, accused-appellant alleged that prior to the incident, he had been suffering from insomnia for around a month, thus leading him to commit an act Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

179

beyond his control, the killing of his wife. The defense went on to cite medical literature on the effects of total and partial sleep loss to support his contentions. For the mitigating circumstance of illness of the offender to be appreciated, the law requires the presence of the following requisites: (1) illness must diminish the exercise of the will-power of the offender; and (2) such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts. Since accused-appellant has already admitted to the killing, it is incumbent upon him to prove the claimed mitigating circumstance of illness. In this case, however, aside from the testimony of the accused that his mind went blank when he killed his wife due to loss of sleep, no medical finding was presented regarding his mental condition at the time of killing. This Court can hardly rely on the bare allegations of accused-appellant, nor on mere presumptions and conjectures. No clear and convincing evidence was shown that accused-appellant was suffering an illness which diminished his exercise of will-power at the time of the killing. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Basin Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999

Art. 13 (10)- Mitigating Circumstances: Analogous Mitigating Circumstances Passion or Obfuscation Membership in a Cultural Minority Vindication of a Grave Offense Plea of Guilty Voluntary Surrender Over 70 Years of Age Illness Schizophrenia Retarded or impaired mental faculties

Passion or Obfuscation Accused was given the mitigating circumstances of plea of guilty and one Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

180

analogous to passion and obfuscation because Chua previously threatened Ong for non-payment of debt arising from gambling, causing Ong humiliation and shame. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981

An outraged feeling, believing the deceased to be a rebel People of the Phil. vs. Franklin Quintos, G.R. No. 51107, June 4, 1990

An impulse of invidious or resentful feelings contemplates a situation akin to passion and obfuscation. This circumstance is mitigating since, like passion and obfuscation, the accused who acts with these feelings suffers a diminution of his intelligence and intent, a reduction in his mental and rational faculties. People of the Phil. vs. Nestor G. Soriano, G.R. No. 142565, July 29, 2003

In this case it was established that petitioner and his wife had a violent altercation and that petitioner was mauled by his neighbors after he kicked some of them for laughing at him. These events and circumstances prior to the killing of Alfredo Gonzales could have caused unusual outbursts of passion and emotion on petitioner's part. These resulted in the tragic stabbing of the victim thus entitling petitioner to the mitigating circumstance analogous to passion and obfuscation. Miguel Danofrata vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 143010, September 30, 2003

Membership in a Cultural Minority Mere membership in a cultural minority is not expressly mentioned by the Revised Penal Code among the mitigating circumstances, nor would it come under paragraph 10, Art. 13 of said Code, which speaks of "any other circumstances of a similar nature and analogous to those above mentioned." People of the Phil. vs. Saglala Macatanda, G.R. No. L-51368, November 6, 1981

Vindication of a Grave Offense The appellant, however, is entitled to the mitigating circumstance analogous to, if not the same as, vindication of a grave offense committed by the deceased when the latter took away the carabao of the appellant and held it for ransom, and thereafter, failed to fulfill his promise to pay its value after the carabao had died.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

181

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Monaga, et al., G.R. No. L-39528, November 19, 1982

We thus appreciate the mitigating circumstance of vindication of a grave offense under Art. 13, par. 5, of the Revised Penal Code, 17 or as a circumstance similar in nature or analogous to it, pursuant to Art. 13, Art. 10, of the same code. The circumstance that Felix, Arthur's father, was boxed by Marbel was serious enough to perturb Arthur's mind and diminish the voluntariness of his action. People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 130608, August 26, 1999

Plea of Guilty Accused-appellant further contends that the lower court erred in not considering repentance and remorse as a similar or analogous mitigating circumstance. We find no merit in this contention. As correctly observed by the Solicitor-General repentance is already one of the overriding considerations in appreciating the voluntary plea of guilt as a mitigating circumstance. Thus in People v. De la Cruz (63 Phil. 874) we held that a confession of guilt constitutes a cause for the mitigation of the penalty because it is an act of repentance and respect for the law. It indicates a moral disposition in the accused favorable to his reform. People of the Phil. vs. Nonceto Gravino, G.R. Nos. L-31327-29, May 16, 1983

The late plea of guilty entered by herein appellant cannot be considered mitigating because the plea made is not "of a similar nature and analogous" to the plea of guilty contemplated in paragraph 7 of Article 13. A plea of guilty is considered mitigating on the rationale that an accused spontaneously and willingly admits his guilt at the first opportunity as an act of repentance. An accused should not be allowed to speculate on the outcome of the proceedings by pleading not guilty on arraignment, only to later substitute the same with a plea of guilty after discovering that the People has a strong case against him. People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997

Voluntary Surrender In malversation of public funds, payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of funds misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, does not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender which, at most, can merely affect the accused's civil liability thereunder and be considered a mitigating circumstance being analogous to Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

182

voluntary surrender. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Santiago S. Velasquez, 72 Phil. 98 Luciano N. Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 95604, April 29, 1994

When it took the petitioner several years before he returned the government property, such circumstance cannot be considered a special mitigating circumstance analogous to voluntary surrender, as the trial court did credit to the petitioner. Said government property appear to be under the control and possession of petitioner all the time. There was no reason why he could not return the same promptly if not soonest to the government. The much delayed return of the property must be a desperate act and afterthought of petitioner when he realized that all possible hope of exoneration was lost during the trial. Emiliano Cimafranca, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 94408, February 14, 1991

In petitioner's case, he voluntarily took the cow to the municipal hall of Padre Burgos to place it unconditionally in the custody of the authorities and thus saved them the trouble of having to recover the cow from him. This circumstance can be considered analogous to voluntary surrender and should be considered in favor of petitioner. Exuperancio Canta vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140937, February 28, 2001

Over 70 Years of Age The analogous circumstance of age of over 70 years cannot be considered mitigating because accused-appellant was only 59 years old at the time of the commission of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Walter Nacional, G.R. Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995

Illness The injury sustained by accused-appellant after he was allegedly struck by a stool on the head will not entitle him to a mitigating circumstance. The alleged injury hardly qualifies as mitigating circumstance analogous to illness or defect that would diminish the exercise of will-power. People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Antonio, G.R. No. 144933, July 3, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

183

Schizophrenia In People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, (G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981), the Court ruled that schizophrenic reaction, although not exempting because it does not completely deprive the offender of the consciousness of his acts, may be considered as a mitigating circumstance under Article 13(9) of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., as an illness which diminishes the exercise of the offender's will-power without, however, depriving him of the consciousness of his acts. People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991

Retarded or impaired mental faculties At the same time, we believe, however, that the medical evidence of record does show that appellant's mental faculties were to some extent retarded or impaired in their development, which impairment or retardation reflects a diminished level of responsibility for his criminal acts. (Article 13 (9) of the Revised Penal Code) We think that the mitigating circumstance contemplated in Article 13 (9) of the Revised Penal Code was present in the case at bar. People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992

Art. 14 – Aggravating Circumstances: In general Qualifying and aggravating circumstances, which are taken into consideration for the purpose of increasing the degree of penalty to be imposed, must be proved with equal certainty as the commission of the act charged and cannot be considered as being integrated with the plea of guilty. People of the Phil. vs. Jose P. Tampus, G.R. No. L-44690, March 28, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Latupan, G.R. Nos. 112453-56, June 28, 2001 Oscar M. Poso vs. Judge Jose H. Mijares, et al., A.M. RTJ-02-1693, August 21, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

184

Art. 14 (1) - Aggravating Circumstance: Advantage Due to Public Position In general Allegation in the information Absorbed in treachery Police officer Barangay captain Mayor Member of the AFP/Soldier

In general For public position to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, the public official must use his influence, prestige and ascendancy which his office gives him in realizing his purpose. If the accused could have perpetrated the crime without occupying his position, then there is no abuse of public position. United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-6343, March 11, 1911, 19 Phil 23 Manuel Montilla, et al. vs. Zoilo Hilario, et al., G.R. No. L-4922, September 24, 1951, 90 Phil 49 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Sales, G.R. No. L-29340, April 27, 1972, 97 Phil 995 People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Sumaoy, G.R. No. 105961, October 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bangcado, et al., G.R. No. 132330, November 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Amion, G.R. No. 140511, March 1, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Renato F. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

185

The essence of the matter is presented in the inquiry "Did the accused abuse his office to commit the crime?" United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911, 19 Phil 150 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Magayac, G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Renato F. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002

It could not be said that the accused purposely used or took advantage of his position or rank in killing the victim because he could have committed the crime just the same by using another weapon not necessarily his service firearm. People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Sales, G.R. No. L-29340, April 27, 1972, 97 Phil 995 People of the Phil. vs. CIC Loreto Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. 73489, April 25, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Amion, G.R. No. 140511, March 1, 2001

In Manuel Montilla, et al. vs. Zoilo Hilario, et al., G.R. No. L-4922, September 24, 1951, 90 Phil 49, we held: The fact that, as alleged, the accused public officers made use of firearms which they were authorized to carry or possess by reason of their positions, could not supply the required connection between the office and the crime charged (murder). Firearms however and wherever obtained are not an ingredient of murder or homicide. In the murder by a public officer, it was ruled that firearms, however and whenever obtained, are not an ingredient of murder or homicide. The crime could have been committed by defendants in the same or like manner and with the same ease if they had been private individuals and fired with unlicensed weapons. In the case at bar, although the victim was killed with appellant's armalite rifle which was issued to him, there was nothing to show that appellant took advantage of his position. In the absence of proof that advantage was taken by appellant, the aggravating circumstance of abuse of position could not be properly appreciated against him. People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Amion, G.R. No. 140511, March 1, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

186

Allegation in the information People of the Phil. vs. Demosthenes L. Magallanes (G.R. No. 118013-14, October 11, 1995) - The allegation of "aking advantage of his position" or "taking advantage of their respective positions" incorporated in the informations is not sufficient to bring the offenses within the definition of "offenses committed in relation to public office." In Manuel Montilla, et al. vs. Zoilo Hilario, et al., G.R. No. L-4922, September 24, 1951, 90 Phil 49, such an allegation was considered merely as an allegation of an aggravating circumstance, and not as one that qualifies the crime as having been committed in relation to public office. It says: But the use or abuse of office does not adhere to the crime as an element; and even as an aggravating circumstance, its materiality arises, not from the allegations but on the proof, not from the fact that the criminals are public officials but from the manner of the commission of the crime. Also, in Rolando P. Bartolome vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-64548, July 7, 1986, despite the allegation that the accused public officers committed the crime of falsification of official document by "taking advantage of their official positions," this Court held that the Sandiganbayan had no jurisdiction over the case because "[t]he information [did] not allege that there was an intimate connection between the discharge of official duties and the commission of the offense. Accordingly, for lack of an allegation in the informations that the offenses were committed in relation to the office of the accused PNP officers or were intimately connected with the discharge of the functions of the accused, the subject cases come within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Court and not of the Sandiganbayan as insisted by the petitioner. No evidence was adduced to show that the killing was in any way facilitated by the accused-appellant's public position. It was not even shown whether the accused-appellant wore his uniform or used his service firearm when he committed the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. 73489, April 25, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Sumaoy, G.R. No. 105961, October 22, 1996

Must be alleged in the information. People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

187

Absorbed in treachery People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo C. Pascual, G.R. No. 42769, December 5, 1991

Police officer Policemen who purposely used their being such to gain ready entrance into the residence of the victims. People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. L-33127, July 15, 1981

Circumstance was not taken against policeman who acted instinctively to aid his brother who was assaulted and who did not purposely rely on his being a policeman to commit the act. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Capalac, G.R. No. L-38297, October 23, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Libardo, G.R. No. L-33638, February 20, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Malazzab, G.R. No. L-39136, April 15, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Reynato Asuncion, et al., G.R. No. 83870, November 14, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr., G.R. No. 39519, November 21, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Sumaoy, G.R. No. 105961, October 22, 1996

The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of one's public position, however, is present since the gun used by accused-appellant was the service revolver issued to him. People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Gutierrez, G.R. No. 116281, February 8, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Noroña and Freddie Noroña, G.R. No. 132192, March 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Renato F. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002

A policeman committed the crime with the aid of a gun which he had been authorized to carry as a peace officer. Instead of upholding the law, the appellant broke the law: instead of using his service firearm for good, he used it for evil. Clearly, his crime is graver and his responsibility greater. People of the Phil. vs. Angel A. Reyes, G.R. No. L-33154, February 27, 1976 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

188

People of the Phil. vs. Arcito Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988

The policeman who, taking advantage of his public position, maltreats a private citizen, merits no judicial leniency. The methods sanctioned by medieval practice are surely not appropriate for an enlightened democratic civilization. While the law protects the police officer in the proper discharge of his duties, it must at the same time just as effectively protect the individual from the abuse of the police. United States vs. Joaquin Pabalan et al., G.R. No. L-13020, December 20, 1917, 37 Phil. 352 People of the Phil. vs. Arcito Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988

The mere fact that the three (3) accused were all police officers at the time of the robbery placed them in a position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding the mobile patrol car and forced them to hand over their money. Precisely it was on account of their authority that the Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact committed a crime and would be brought to the police station for investigation unless they gave them what they demanded. Ricardo Fortuna vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 135784, December 15, 2000

The mere fact that accused-appellant is a policeman and used his government issued .38 caliber revolver to kill Ganan is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position in the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

Barangay Captain Ferrera was ostensibly illicitly asserting his authority as barangay captain concurrently CHDF head and were it not for the abused power of the latter, the victim would not have meekly obeyed the command for him to go down from the "motorela" and to enter the camp with Ferrera, et al. People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio B. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965, June 18, 1987

It is a settled doctrine that mere failure of official duty, such as the failure of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

189

accused Ferrera to maintain law and order in his barangay, suffices to aggravate criminal liability under paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio B. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965, June 18, 1987

Mayor Mayor found guilty of rape with aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of his public position. People of the Phil. vs. Robert Poculan, G.R. Nos. 70565-67, November 9, 1988

Mayor who gave instructions to his policemen and henchmen to kill victim. People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. L-33127, July 15, 1981

Member of the AFP/Soldier Appellant undoubtedly took advantage of his public position as a soldier, when he maltreated and killed a civilian victim of mauling, whom he was supposed to protect in the performance of his duties. People of the Phil. vs. Esperidion Alegarbes, Jr., G.R. No. L-49761, September 21, 1987

At the time of the incident, the accused was an army draftee and was in full army fatigue uniform. It was on account of his being an army man that he arrested the victim on the pretext that the latter was a rebel and brought him to the ranch where the victim was mauled to death. People of the Phil. vs. Franklin Quintos, G.R. No. 51107, June 4, 1990

Where the accused was a sergeant of the Philippine Army, the Court held that the mere fact that he was in fatigue uniform and had an army rifle at the time is not sufficient to establish that he misused his public position. People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968

Appellant, a member of the Philippine Constabulary, committed the crime with an armalite which was issued to him when he received the mission order – People of the Phil. vs. Paciano Madrid, G.R. No. L-3023, January 3, 1951, 88 Phil 1

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

190

People of the Phil. vs. CIC Loreto Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. 73489, April 25, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gutierrez, G.R. No. 132878, September 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo I. Acaya, G.R. No. 108381, March 7, 2000

That accused-appellant was a member of the dreaded CAFGU and used his government issued M-14 rifle to kill Jimmy does not necessarily prove that he took advantage of his public position to commit the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Magayac, G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villa, Jr., G.R. No. 129899, April 27, 2000

Art. 14 (2) - Aggravating Circumstance: Contempt of or insult to public authorities Requisites Teacher, not a person in authority

Requisites The requisites of this circumstance are: (1) the public authority is engaged in the discharge of his duties and (2) he is not the person against whom the crime is committed. People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Rizal, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Hernando De Mesa, et al., G.R. No. 137036, March 14, 2001

In order that the aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime with insult to public authority be appreciated, it must not only be shown that the crime was committed in the presence of the public authority but also that the crime was not committed against the public authority himself. United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911, 19 Phil 150 People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Siojo, G.R. No. 41746, March 27, 1935, 61 Phil. 307 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

191

People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Rizal, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Tiongson, G.R. Nos. L-35123-24, July 25, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Hermogenes Magdueño, G.R. No. L-68699, September 22, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Gutierrez, G.R. No. 116281, February 8, 1999

The aggravating circumstance that the crimes were committed in contempt of or with insult to the public authorities cannot also be appreciated since Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela were the very ones against whom the crime were committed. Besides, Pat. Gelera and PC Constable Canela are not persons in authority, but merely agents of a person in authority. People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Verzo, et al., G.R. No. L-22517, December 26, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Tiongson, G.R. Nos. L-35123-24, July 25, 1984

If the accused herein were charged with the complex crime of murder with assault against an agent of a person in authority, and not merely murder, then the aggravating circumstance of disregard of rank or contempt of or insult to public authority cannot be appreciated as aggravating because either circumstance is inherent in the charge of assault against a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority. People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981

The aggravating circumstance of contempt of, or insult to public authority under paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code can likewise be appreciated in the case at bar. The evidence of the prosecution clearly established that Chief of Police Primo Panaligan of Indang was present as he was taking his lunch in the same restaurant when the incident occurred. While it may be true in the cases of United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911, (19 Phil. 150, 157-158), People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Siojo, G.R. No. 41746, March 27, 1935, (61 Phil. 307, 317); and People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Verzo, et al., G.R. No. L-22517, December 26, 1967, this Court ruled that the term public authority refers to a person in authority and that a PC lieutenant or town chief of police is not a public authority but merely an agent of a person in authority; there is need of re-examining such a ruling since it is not justified by the employment of the term public authority which is specifically used in Articles 148 and 152 of the Revised Penal Code. There is no extended reasoning of the doctrine enunciated in the aforesaid three (3) cases why the phrase public authority Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

192

should comprehend only person in authority. The lawmaker could have easily utilized the term "person in authority" in the aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 in much the same way that it employed the said phrase in Articles 148 and 152. The lawmaker must have intended a different meaning for the term public authority, which may however include, but not limited to persons in authority. Under the decided cases, a municipal mayor, barrio captain, barrio lieutenant or barangay captain is a person in authority or a public authority. Even a public school teacher is now considered a person in authority under CA 578 amending Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code (Sarcepudes vs. People, 90 Phil. 228). So is the town municipal health officer (People vs. Quebral, et al., 73 Phil. 640), as well as a nurse, a municipal councilor or an agent of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (People vs. Yosoya, CA-G.R. No. 8522-R, May 26, 1955; People vs. Reyes, et al., O.G.S. 11 p. 24) The chief of police should therefore be considered a public authority or a person in authority; for he is vested with jurisdiction or authority to maintain peace and order and is specifically duty bound to prosecute and to apprehend violators of the laws and municipal ordinances, more than the aforementioned officials who cannot prosecute and who are not even enjoined to arrest malefactors although specifically mentioned as persons in authority by the decided cases and by Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 1978 of June 22, 1957. The town chief of police heads and supervises the entire police force in the municipality as well as exercises his authority over the entire territory of the municipality, which is patently greater than and includes the school premises or the town clinic or barrio, to which small area the authority or jurisdiction of the teacher, nurse, or barrio lieutenant, respectively, is limited. People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Regala, et al., G.R. No. L-23693, April 27, 1982

Teacher, not a person in authority Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 1978 and Presidential Decree No. 299, provides as follows: "Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority. — Who shall be deemed as such. — In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly vested with jurisdiction, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

193

whether as an individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in authority. A person who by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, teachers, professors and persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (As amended by P.D. No. 299, September 19, 1973 and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12, 1985)."

Careful reading of the last paragraph of Article 152 will show that while a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is deemed to be a "person in authority," such teacher or professor is so deemed only for purposes of application of Articles 148 (direct assault upon a person in authority), and 151 (resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person) of the Revised Penal Code. In marked contrast, the first paragraph of Article 152 does not identify specific articles of the Revised Penal Code for the application of which any person "directly vested with jurisdiction, etc." is deemed "a person in authority." Because a penal statute is not to be given a longer reach and broader scope than is called for by the ordinary meaning of the ordinary words used by such statute, to the disadvantage of an accused, we do not believe that a teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school may be regarded as a "public authority" within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, the provision the trial court applied in the case at bar. People of the Phil. vs. Renato H. Tac-an, G.R. Nos. 76338-39, February 26, 1990

Art. 14 (3) - Aggravating Circumstance: With insult or disregard of rank, age,

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

194

sex In general Rank Sex Age

In general It is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim is a woman, (or an old man or one of high rank) showing insult or disregard of sex (age or rank) in order that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Valencia, C.A., 43 O.G. 3740

There must be evidence that in the commission of the crime, the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex or age of the offended party. People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil. 548 People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999

Disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of his rank, age, or sex may be taken in account only in crimes against persons or honor, when in the commission of the crime there is some insult or disrespect shown to rank, age, or sex. It is not proper to consider this aggravating circumstance in crimes against property. Robbery with homicide is primarily a crime against property and not against persons. Homicide is a mere incident of the robbery, the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal. It is thus erroneous to take this aggravating circumstance into account in robbery with homicide. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro M. Pagal, et al., G.R. No. L-32040, October 25, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Juan L. Nabaluna, et al., G.R. No. L-60087, July 7, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pecato, et al., G.R. No. L-41008, June 18, 1987

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

195

People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Collado, et al., G.R. No. 88631, April 30, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence S. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Ely Cabiles, et al., G.R. No. 113785, September 14, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy P. Padilla, G.R. No. 126124, January 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. William Montinola, G.R. Nos. 131856-57, July 9, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

Even if disrespect or disregard of age or sex were not appreciated, the four circumstances enumerated in Article 14, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, can be considered singly or together. (In this case, dwelling was considered as an aggravating circumstance.) People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

Rank "The term 'rank' should be given its plain, ordinary meaning, and as such, refers to a high social position or standing as a grade in the armed forces (Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, p. 1881); or to a graded official standing or social position or station (75 CJS 458); . . . or to a grade or official standing, relative position in civil or social life, or in any scale of comparison, status, grade, including its grade, status or scale of comparison within a position (Vol. 36, Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, p. 100). xxx xxx xxx "As explained by Mr. Justice Mariano Albert, then of the Court of Appeals, those 'generally considered of high station in life, on account of their rank (as well as age or sex), deserve to be respected. Therefore, whenever there is a difference in social condition between the offender and the offended party, this aggravating circumstance sometimes is present' (Albert M.A. - The Revised Penal Code Annotated, 1946 Ed., p. 109). People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Regala, et al., G.R. No. L-23693, April 27, 1982

The aggravating circumstance of with insult or in disregard due to rank is appreciated against an accused only when there is proof of fact of disregard and Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

196

deliberate intent to insult the rank of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Talay, G.R. No. L-24852, November 28, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Peña, G.R. No. 116022, July 1, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001

Disregard of the rank of the victim who was a barangay captain cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. There is no proof of the specific fact or circumstance that the defendants disregarded the respect due to the offended party. People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Talay, G.R. No. L-24852, November 28, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Regino Camilet, G.R. No. 70392, June 30, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Madrid, et al., G.R. No. 129896, November 23, 2000 – barangay tanod

Thus, disregard of rank aggravated the killing of a staff sergeant by his corporal (People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Mil, G.R. Nos. L-28104-05, July 30, 1979), the killing of the Assistant Chief of Personnel Transaction of the Civil Service Commission by a clerk therein (People of the Phil. vs. Alberto R. Benito, G.R. No. L-32042, February 13, 1975), the murder by a pupil of his teacher (U.S. vs. Cabling, 7 Phil. 469; People vs. Aragon, 107 Phil. 706), the murder of a municipal mayor (People vs. Lopez de Leon, 69 Phil. 298), the murder of a city chief of police by the chief of the secret service division (People vs. Hollero, 88 Phil. 167); assault upon a 66-year old District Judge of the Court of First Instance by a justice of the peace (People vs. Torrecarreon, CA 52 OG 7644), the killing of a Spanish consul by his subordinate — a mere chancellor (People vs. Godinez, 106 Phil. 597), and the killing of an army general (People vs. Torres, L-4642, May 29, 1953). People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981

Disregard or insult of rank appreciated where accused knows the official position of victim People of the Phil. vs. Mario Ablao, G.R. No. 69184, March 26, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

197

People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001

Sex Disregard of sex is not aggravating where there is no evidence that the accused deliberately intended to offend or insult the sex of the victim or showed manifest disrespect to her womanhood. United States vs. Felix De Jesus, G.R. No. 5003, September 18, 1909, 14 Phil. 190 People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil. 548 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Jaula, G.R. No. L-3835, November 15, 1951, 90 Phil. 379 People of the Phil. vs. Mori (Bilaan), et al., G.R. Nos. L-23511 & L-23512, January 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto F. Puno, G.R. No. L-33211, June 29, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Remegio Suza, G.R. No. 130611, April 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. George Cortes, G.R. No. 137050, July 11, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito T. Inggo, G.R. No. 140872, June 23, 2003

There is no showing that appellant specially saw to it that his victim would be a woman. In US vs. De Jesus, 14 Phil. 190, the aggravating circumstance of sex "is not sustained by the fact that the victim was a woman, unless it further appears that aside from the unlawful taking of her life, there was in the commission of the crime some specific insult or disrespect shown to her womanhood." People of the Phil. vs. Cristuto Ursal, G.R. No. L-33768, April 20, 1983 Quirico Mari vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127694, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002

There was no proof of specific fact or circumstance, other than the victim is a woman, showing insult or disregard of sex in order that it may be considered as aggravating circumstance. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

198

United States vs. Felix De Jesus, G.R. No. 5003, September 18, 1909, 14 Phil. 190 People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil. 548 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Limaco, G.R. No. L-3090, January 9, 1951, 88 Phil. 35 People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio S. Gervacio, et al., G.R. No. L-21965, August 30, 1968, 133 Phil. 805 People of the Phil. vs. Mori (Bilaan), et al., G.R. Nos. L-23511 & L-23512, January 31, 1974 Quirico Mari vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127694, May 31, 2000

It has not been shown that Appellant had particularly intended to cast insult or commit disrespect to the sex of the victim. In one case where lesiones were inflicted by the defendant on his prospective mother-in-law, abuse of superiority was considered aggravating but not disregard of sex. United States vs. Juan Escobar, G.R. No. 108, April 8, 1902, 1 Phil. 200 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Braña, G.R. No. L-29210, Oct. 31, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989

Abuse of superior strength absorbs disregard of sex of victim – People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Modesto R. De Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 106783, February 15, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999 Quirico Mari vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127694, May 31, 2000

Age The circumstance of disregard of age cannot also be considered because it has neither been proved nor admitted by the accused that in committing the crime he had intended to offend or insult the age of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil. 548 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

199

People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Diaz, et al., G.R. No. L-24002, January 21, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003

For this aggravating circumstance to be appreciated, it is necessary that there be such a deliberate intent. People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938, 65 Phil. 548 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Limaco, G.R. No. L-3090, January 9, 1951, 88 Phil. 35 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 68319, March 31, 1992

We hold that for this circumstance to constitute an aggravation of criminal liability, it is necessary to prove the specific fact or circumstance, other than that the victim is an old man, showing insult or disregard of age in order that it may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Clemente E. Mangsant, G.R. No. 45704, May 25, 1938 People of the Phil. vs. Cristuto Ursal, G.R. No. L-33768, April 20, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. George R. Decena, G.R. No. 107874, August 4, 1994

Disregard of sex and old age in the case of the 79-year-old woman victim. People of the Phil. vs. Felicito Tawat, et al., G.R. No. 62871, May 25, 1984

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of sex and age cannot be similarly absorbed. Treachery refers to the manner of the commission of the crime. Disregard of sex and age pertains to the relationship of the victim, who is a 70-year old woman, and the appellant who is young man, 27 years old, at the time of the commission of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Cristoto Lapaz, et al., G.R. No. 68898, March 31, 1989

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

200

Disregard of age is included in that of treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Limaco, G.R. No. L-3090, January 9, 1951, 88 Phil. 35 People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988

The mere fact that Julio Bactong was 74 years old does not warrant the appreciation of said aggravating circumstance against the accused-appellant in the absence of proof that the latter deliberately intended to offend or insult the age of the offended party. In fact, it has not been denied that the accused-appellant in this case did not even know whether the deceased was more than 70 years or not. People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio B. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Putito Café, G.R. No. L-60674, October 28, 1988

The aggravating circumstance of disregard of the respect due the victim on account of her age, 58 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, is not present. The prosecution failed to show that the accused had deliberately intended to offend or insult her age People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Diaz, et al., G.R. No. L-24002, January 21, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989

Accused-appellant, who was nearly 20 years younger than the victim, manifestly showed grave disrespect to the latter. People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Tilos, et al., G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 2001

Art. 14 (3) - Aggravating Circumstance: Dwelling (morada) In general Dwelling an aggravating circumstance in rape cases Provocation by offended party Aggravating even when offense ends outside dwelling Aggravating even when dwelling is temporary Includes dependencies Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

201

Not necessary for assailant to have entered dwelling Separate structure Not aggravating if accused and victim have the same dwelling When aggravating in abduction and illegal detention cases Inherent in robbery with force upon things When aggravating in robbery with homicide Allegation in information

In general It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo S. Mesias, G.R. No. 67823, July 9, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Roland Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, November 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Dizon, G.R. No. 129893, December 10, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Quinciano Rendoque, et al., G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Locsin Fabon, G.R. No. 133226, March 16, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso, et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Joel Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, September 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Delos Santos, G.R. No. 134525, February 28, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

202

As one commentator puts it, one's dwelling is a sanctuary worthy of respect; thus one who slanders another in the latter's house is more severely punished than one who offends him elsewhere. According to Cuello Calon, the commission of the crime in another's dwelling shows worse perversity and produces graver alarm. People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Feliciano, G.R. No. 102078, May 15, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Molina, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Biñas, G.R. No. 121630, December 8, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso, et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Hilarion Bergonio, Jr., G.R. No. 133981, September 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003

"He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong, is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere." Viada, 5th Ed., Vol. II, pp. 323-324, cited in Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Twelfth Edition, Vol. I, p. 336. People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Amania, et al., G.R. No. 108598, September 21, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Feliciano, G.R. No. 102078, May 15, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Molina, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

203

People of the Phil. vs. Roland Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, November 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Biñas, G.R. No. 121630, December 8, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, March 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso, et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Gallego, G.R. No. 130603, August 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Riglos, et al., G.R. No. 134763, September 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Joel Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, September 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Hilarion Bergonio, Jr., G.R. No. 133981, September 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Perreras, et al., G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Morial, et al., G.R. No. 129295, August 15, 2001

The rationale for considering dwelling as an aggravating circumstance is the violation by the offender of the sanctity of the home of the victim by trespassing therein to commit a crime. People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999

The Code speaks of "dwelling", not domicile. El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Celestino Basa y Otros, G.R. No. L-1212, Mayo 18, 1949, 83 Phil 622 People of the Phil. vs. Amado Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Sto. Tomas, G.R. Nos. L-40367-69, August 22, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

Appellants' contention that said aggravating circumstance exists only when there is trespass upon the dwelling of the offended party with the use of force or violence or against his will is clearly erroneous. For it is not the trespass which transgresses the sanctity of one's dwelling but the commission of the crime in said dwelling, regardless of how the offender gained entrance to the same. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

204

People of the Phils. vs. Jovito Mercado, G.R. No. L-39511, April 28, 1980

Dwelling an aggravating circumstance in rape cases Under Article 14 (3) of the Revised Penal Code, dwelling is an aggravating circumstance where the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended party and the latter has not given provocation. Hence, we have steadfastly held that dwelling is an aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape. Dwelling is considered as an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy the law accords to human abode. People of the Phil. vs. Rolly L. Montesa, G.R. No. 181899, November 27, 2008

Provocation by offended party The circumstance of dwelling aggravates the felony when the crime was committed in the residence of the offended party and the latter had not given provocation. People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Tirol, et al., G.R. No. L-30538, January 31, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Atienza, G.R. No. L-39777, August 31, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Mario A. Bañez, G.R. No. 95456, September 18, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Edna P. Cordero, G.R. No. 97229, January 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Julian Rostata, Jr., G.R. No. 91482, February 9, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Almenario, G.R. No. 66420, April 17, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Feliciano, G.R. No. 102078, May 15, 1996, 326 Phil 719 People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Andres Caisip, G.R. No. 119757, May 21, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Molina, G.R. No. 129051, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Roland Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, November 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Juan, et al., G.R. Nos. 100718-19, January 20, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

205

People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, March 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Gallego, G.R. No. 130603, August 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Riglos, et al., G.R. No. 134763, September 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Sasan Bariquit, et al., G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Hilot, et al., G.R. No. 129532, October 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000 Melecia Paña, et al. vs. Floripinas C. Buyser, et al., G.R. No. 130144, May 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Perreras, et al., G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003

Provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling must be: (a) given by the offended party, (b) sufficient, and (c) immediate to the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000 Melecia Paña, et al. vs. Floripinas C. Buyser, et al., G.R. No. 130144, May 24, 2001

Aggravating even when offense ends outside the dwelling An act performed cannot be divided or its unity be broken up, when the offender began the aggression in the dwelling of the offended party and ended it in the street or outside said dwelling. Dwelling is aggravating if the victim was taken from his house and killed just beside his abode although the offense was not completed therein. United States vs. Felipe Lastimosa, G.R. No. 9178, March 30, 1914, 27 Phil. 432 People of the Phil. vs. Horacio Jardiniano, G.R. No. L-37191, March 30, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Carlo Y. Uycoque, et al., G.R. No. 107495, July 31, 1995 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

206

People of the Phil. vs. Josue Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, January 15, 2002

Aggravating even when dwelling is temporary Dwelling may be appreciated even if place of crime is only a temporary sojourn (e.g., boarding house) of victim. Dwelling, then, may mean temporary dwelling. Dwelling is an aggravating circumstance even though the victim was not the owner of the house where the crime was committed. El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Celestino O. Basa, G.R. No. L-1212, Mayo 18, 1949, 83 Phil 622 People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio B. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Amado Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Sto. Tomas, G.R. Nos. L-40367-69, August 22, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Julian Perante, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-63709-10, July 16, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Dante Alfeche, et al., G.R. No. 124213, August 17, 1998

"[O]ne does not lose his right of privacy where he is offended in the house of another because as [an] invited guest [or a housemaid as in the instant case], he, the stranger, is sheltered by the same roof and protected by the same intimacy of life it affords. It may not be his house, but it is, even for a brief moment, "home" to him. He is entitled to respect even for that short moment." People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso, et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Hilot, et al., G.R. No. 129532, October 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Josue Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003

Regardless of whether the victim was a lessee, a boarder, a bedspacer, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

207

People of the Phil. vs. Amado Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997

or even an invited guest, El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Celestino Basa y Otros, G.R. No. L-1212, Mayo 18, 1949, 83 Phil 622 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990

the place is his home, the sanctity of which the law seeks to protect and uphold. People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Sto. Tomas, G.R. Nos. L-40367-69, August 22, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Hilot, et al., G.R. No. 129532, October 5, 2000

Includes dependencies A dwelling must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort. The crime was committed in a store which was about fifteen meters away from the complainant's house. It is obvious that the store can not be considered a dwelling, or even a dependency of complainant's home. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo C. Joya, G.R. No. 79090, October 1, 1993

The word dwelling includes every dependency of the house that forms an integral part thereof and therefore it includes the staircase of the house and much more, its terrace. People of the Phil. vs. Paulo Alcala, G.R. No. L-18988, December 29, 1922, 46 Phil. 739 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000

Although the same was a makeshift room inside her brother's motor shop, said room constituted for all intents and purposes a dwelling as the term is used in Article 14(3) of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

Where at the very moment that the victim was hacked on the leg, he was at the top rung of the stairs locking their house, dwelling aggravates the penalty because the staircase forms an integral part of the house. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

208

People of the Phil. vs. Paulo Alcala, G.R. No. L-18988, December 29, 1922, 46 Phil. 739 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Gida, et al., G.R. No. L-41419, January 19, 1981

Not necessary for assailant to have entered dwelling For the circumstance of dwelling to be considered, it is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from without. (Since the victim was killed inside his house, even though the assailants were outside the house, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated.) People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Ompad, et al., G.R. No. L-23513, January 31, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Quinciano Rendoque, et al., G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Perreras, et al., G.R. No. 139622, July 31, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Angelito B. Bagsit, G.R. No. 148877, August 19, 2003

Dwelling may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance considering that it is not necessary that the accused should have entered the dwelling of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Lacanieta, et al., G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Talo, G.R. No. 125542, October 25, 2000

Although the attack was made not from inside the house but from below the floor of the house, nevertheless, the aggravating circumstance of dwelling may be considered as attending the shooting, as in fact the target/victim was hit inside his own house People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Lazaro Albar, G.R. No. L-3024, April 1, 1950, 86 Phil. 36

Separate structure The building where the two offenses were committed was not entirely for dwelling purposes. It consisted of two floors: the ground floor, which was being operated as a Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

209

video rental shop, and the upper floor, which was used as a residence. It was in the video rental shop where the rape was committed. Being a commercial shop that caters to the public, the video rental outlet was open to the public. As such, it is not attributed the sanctity of privacy that jurisprudence accords to residential abodes. Hence, dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance in the crime of rape. People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000

The mere fact that a woman knocked at the victim's door to buy ice is not sufficient to prove that the victim was running a store inside her house. People of the Phil. vs. Lito M. Palino, et al., G.R. No. 73044, March 26, 1990

Dwelling cannot be considered as victim was attacked while seated on a bench outside his house. Although that bench was beside the steps leading to the door of the house, it cannot be considered as an integral part or a dependency of the victim's dwelling. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Ramirez Sarino, et al., G.R. Nos. 94992-93, April 7, 1993

It cannot be definitely stated that the crime was committed inside the house of the victim. All that can be gathered from the record is that Aquilina when struck by appellant "was near the awning of the house." This would indicate that she was outside her house. People of the Phil. vs. Cristuto Ursal, G.R. No. L-33768, April 20, 1983

Not aggravating if accused and victim have the same dwelling The aggravating circumstance of dwelling is not appreciated against accused who lived in the same dwelling as the victim/s. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Morales, G.R. No. L-35413, November 7, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Lito B. Revotoc, et al., G.R. No. L-37425, July 25, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 31, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

210

People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Felixberto Lao-As, G.R. No. 126396, June 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo S. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 137843, October 12, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Josue Dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor and Mario Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002

It is true that Español and the victims lived in the same house but the fact is that his dwelling place was the bodega of the wine store, a place distinct from the residential portion of the house where the master bedroom was located. It is not proper to conclude under the circumstances that Español and his victims had the same dwelling. United States vs. Chu Ning Co, G.R. No. L-3418, March 8, 1907, 7 Phil. 710 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador E. Español, et al., G.R. Nos. L-57597, 57598 & 57599, June 29, 1982

Dwelling should also have been disregarded because the accused (except Domingo Mendoza) all resided in the servants' quarter of Mrs. Fule's residence. The servants' quarter may be assimilated to the victim's house, the former being an appendage of, or attachment to, the latter. People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991

When aggravating in abduction and illegal detention cases In the crimes of abduction and illegal detention where the offended party is taken from his house, dwelling may be taken into account as an aggravating circumstance. United States vs. Higino Velasquez, G.R. No. L-3586, August 7, 1907, 8 Phil. 321 United States vs. Pedro Banila, G.R. No. 6624, March 20, 1911, 19 Phil. 130 People of the Phil. vs. Domnino G. Grefiel, G.R. No. 77228, November 13, 1992

Inherent in robbery with force upon things The circumstance of dwelling is an inherent element of robbery with force upon things committed inside the dwelling of the victim. Entrance to said house is Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

211

inevitable, without such entrance there could be no robbery. People of the Phil. vs. Ewaldo Cabatlao, G.R. No. L-42149, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Escabarte, et al., G.R. No. L-42964, March 14, 1988

When aggravating in robbery with homicide The trial court correctly appreciated against accused-appellants the aggravating circumstance of dwelling since the crime of robbery with homicide (or robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons) can be committed without the necessity of transgressing the sanctity of the home. (Although dwelling (morada) is considered as inherent in crimes which can only be committed in the abode of the victim such as trespass to dwelling and robbery in an inhabited house, it has been held as aggravating in robbery with homicide because the author thereof could have accomplished the heinous deed of snuffing out the victim's life without having to violate his domicile.) United States vs. Florentino Leyba, et al., G.R. No. L-3767, September 28, 1907, 8 Phil. 671 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Valdez, G.R. No. 45589, October 25, 1937, 64 Phil 860 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Napili, G.R. No. L-2406, February 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 521 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Y. Sebastian, et al., G.R. No. L-2725, February 27, 1950, 85 Phil. 601 People of the Phil. vs. Primitivo Pinca, et al., G.R. No. L-16595, February 28, 1962, 114 Phil 498 People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio Mongado, et al., G.R. No. L-24877, June 30, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Crisostomo Saquing, et al., G.R. No. L-27903, December 26, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Aquino, G.R. No. L-27184, May 21, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Lucero, G.R. No. L-28811, March 31, 1980 People of the Phils. vs. Jovito Mercado, G.R. No. L-39511, April 28, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Teodulfo Gatcho, G.R. No. L-27251, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

212

People of the Phil. vs. Darwin M. Veloso, G.R. No. L-32900, February 25, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Rufineo L. Dejaresco, et al., G.R. No. L-32701, June 19, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. L-52017, October 27, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pecato, et al., G.R. No. L-41008, June 18, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Sabangan Cabato, G.R. No. L-37400, April 15, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Candido Robante, et al., G.R. No. 69307, October 16, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo S. Mesias, G.R. No. 67823, July 9, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo De Los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Lagario, et al., G.R. No. 92000, July 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Feliciano, G.R. No. 102078, May 15, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Pareja, et al., G.R. No. 88043, December 9, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Locsin Fabon, G.R. No. 133226, March 16, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Clarito Arizobal, et al., G.R. No. 135051-52, December 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Charlie Almoguerra, et al., G.R. No. 121177, November 12, 2003

In robbery with homicide, dwelling is aggravating even if homicide was committed outside of the house if the principal offense of robbery was perpetrated inside. People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo L. Penillos, et al., G.R. No. 65673, January 30, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Hermes Dalanon, G.R. No. 107458, October 14, 1994

Allegation in information We have previously ruled that the aggravating circumstance of dwelling may be appreciated against the accused even if it was not alleged in the information when proved without any objection on his part People of the Phil. vs. Hector Estares, G.R. No. 121878, December 5, 1997

or even over his objection. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

213

People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998

However, in the case of People of the Phil. vs. Raul Gallego, (G.R. No. 130603, August 15, 2000) citing People of the Phil. vs. Rolly O. Albert, G.R. No. 114001, December 11, 1995, the court did not consider dwelling as it was not alleged in the information. People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Joel Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, September 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo S. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 137843, October 12, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Joey Manlansing, et al., G.R. No. 131736, March 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor and Mario Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Llanda, G.R. No. 133386, November 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Philip Hammer, G.R. No. 147836, December 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Casitas Jr., G.R. No. 137404, February 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Dionesio Santiago, G.R. No. 133445, February 27, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Castillano, et al., G.R. No. 139412, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Daniela, et al., G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio B. Sibonga, et al., G.R. No. 95901, June 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito D. Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 138931-32, July 17, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

Although dwelling has not been alleged in the informations, it may nonetheless be considered for the purpose of determining liability of accused-appellants for exemplary damages in view of Art. 2230 of the Civil Code which provides that exemplary damages may be awarded as a part of the civil liability of the accused in criminal cases "when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances." Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

214

People of the Phil. vs. Melchor and Mario Rafael, G.R. Nos. 146235-36, May 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo H. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jolito Oranza, G.R. No. 127748, July 25, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

Art. 14 (4) - Aggravating Circumstance: Abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness

Abuse of confidence As to the aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, it is essential to show that confidence between the parties must be immediate and personal, such as would give the accused some advantage or make it easier for him to commit the criminal act. The confidence must be a means of facilitating the commission of the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the offended parties' belief that the former would not abuse said confidence. United States vs. Florencio Torrida, G.R. Nos. 7450, 7451 & 7452, September 18, 1912, 23 Phil 189 People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Luchico, G.R. No. 26170 689

December 6, 1926, 49 Phil

People of the Phil. vs. Armingol Y. Hanasan, G.R. No. L-25989, September 30, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Martin Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Gelera, et al., G.R. No. 121377, August 15, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Arrojado, G.R. No. 130492, January 31, 2001

For this circumstance to be taken and appreciated, it is necessary that there exists a relation of trust and confidence between the accused and the one against whom the crime was committed and the accused made use of such relation to commit the crime. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

215

People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Belinda V. Lora, G.R. No. L-49430, March 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Martin Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Villanueva, G.R. No. 135330, August 31, 2000

It certainly cannot be said, therefore, that the commission of the crime was facilitated by the confidence deceased had in appellant, which alone would justify the appreciation of abuse of confidence as an aggravating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Luchico, G.R. No. 26170 689

December 6, 1926, 49 Phil

People of the Phil. vs. Gabino Alqueza, G.R. No. 28995, August 4, 1928, 51 Phil. 817 People of the Phil. vs. Magdalena Caliso, G.R. No. 37271, July 1, 1933, 58 Phil 283 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe T. Villas, G.R. No. L-20953, April 21, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Armingol Y. Hanasan, G.R. No. L-25989, September 30, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-33609, December 14, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Onabia, G.R. No. 128288, April 20, 1999

“Abuse of confidence” will not hold true if the victim had already lost confidence in the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Luchico, G.R. No. 26170 689

December 6, 1926, 49 Phil

People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. No. L-33609, December 14, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Onabia, G.R. No. 128288, April 20, 1999

"When the killer of the child is the domestic servant of the family and was sometimes the deceased child's amah, the aggravating circumstance of grave abuse of confidence is present." People of the Phil. vs. Magdalena Caliso, G.R. No. 37271, July 1, 1933, 58 Phil 283 People of the Phil. vs. Belinda V. Lora, G.R. No. L-49430, March 30, 1982

Español was allowed to have lodging in the bodega of the store because of the trust and confidence reposed in him by his employers, the Arellano spouses. Abuse of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

216

confidence was considered aggravating in a case where the cook inflicted physical injuries on his mistress. United States vs. Saturnino Trinidad, G.R. No. 1851, January 23, 1905, 4 Phil. 152 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador E. Español, et al., G.R. Nos. L-57597, 57598 & 57599, June 29, 1982

The accused was treated like a member of the family and was completely trusted. That confidence facilitated the commission of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Verdad, G.R. No. L-51797, May 16, 1983

The victim trusted accused-appellant in going with him upon the latter's invitation on account of her familiarity with him as their neighbor. People of the Phil. vs. Nolito Boras, G.R. No. 127495, December 22, 2000

The aggravating circumstances of dwelling and abuse of confidence or obvious ungratefulness are appreciated in the killing of Ricardo Rivera. Ricardo Rivera was killed in his own home by the appellant who was a guest of the deceased. People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence S. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991

The rape of the child of accused-appellant's common-law spouse is attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence. People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Villanueva, G.R. No. 135330, August 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 139445-46, June 20, 2001

The rape of a child by her father is attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of confidence, there being the relation of trust and confidence between them. People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes D. Platilla, G.R. No. 140723, March 6, 2002

Obvious ungratefulness (manifest ingratitude) The ungratefulness of the accused to the victim is very obvious. He admitted he was living in the house of the victim. He was employed by the victim as overseer and in charge of carpentry work. He had free access to the house of the victim who was very kind to him, his family, and who helped him solve his problems. He paid all the kindness shown him by the victim by committing the most heinous of crimes against Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

217

his benefactor. People of the Phil. vs. Alexio Lupango, G.R. No. L-32633, November 12, 1981

There could have been no obvious ungratefulness in the commission of the crime for the simple reason that the requisite trust of the victims upon the accused prior to the criminal act and the breach thereof as contemplated under Article 14, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code are manifestly lacking or non- existent. In all likelihood, the accused Army then in their uniforms and holding their high-powered firearms cowed the victims into boarding their jeep for a ride at machine gun point which certainly is no source of gratefulness or appreciation. People of the Phil. vs. Martin Mandolado, G.R. No. L-51304, June 28, 1983

Obvious ungratefulness cannot be appreciated as there is no evidence as to what generosities and the extent thereof were received by the appellant from the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21, 1990

Art. 14 (5) - Aggravating Circumstance: Crime is committed in the palace of Chief Executive or in his presence, where public authorities are engaged in discharge of their duties, or place dedicated to religious worship

Place where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties It must be pointed out that this aggravating circumstance is based on the greater perversity of the offender, as shown by the place of the commission of the crime, which must be respected. People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

The aggravating circumstance of commission of a crime in a place where the public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their duties should be appreciated against petitioner Navarro. The offense in this case was committed right in the police station where policemen were discharging their public functions. People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Regala, et al., G.R. No. L-23693, April 27, 1982

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

218

Felipe Navarro vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 121087, August 26, 1999

Place dedicated to religious worship It was proven at the trial that the violation of the child Brigida took place in the Sta. Cruz Chapel in Sta. Maria, Bulacan, a building dedicated to and actively used for religious worship. The criminal information did not apparently specify the place of the commission of the rape. Nonetheless, the trial court could have and should have found the presence of the generic aggravating circumstance of commission of the offense in a place dedicated to religious worship. The trial court made no mention of such aggravating circumstance in its decision. People of the Phil. vs. Carlos V. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 75267, September 10, 1990

Art. 14 (6) - Aggravating Circumstance: Nighttime (nocturnidad), uninhabited place (despoblado), by a band (cuadrilla) In general Tests Nighttime Uninhabited place Band

In general If the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited place or band concur in the commission of the crime, all will constitute one aggravating circumstance only as a general rule although they can be considered separately if their elements are distinctly perceived and can subsist independently, revealing a greater degree of perversity. People of the Phil. vs. Raelito Librando, G.R. No. 132251, July 6, 2000 El Pueblo De Filipinas vs. Jacinto Santos, G.R. No. L-4189, Mayo 21, 1952, 91 Phil 320

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

219

Tests There are two tests for nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance. First is the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the offense. Second is the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought by the offender. The two tests should be applied in the alternative. People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997, 338 Phil. 1010 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Demate, et al., G.R. Nos. 132310 & 143968-69, January 20, 2004

Nighttime (nocturnidad) The mere fact that the offense was committed at night will not suffice to sustain a finding of nocturnity. People of the Phil. vs. Permonette Joy Fortich, et al., G.R. Nos. 80399-404, November 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Dizon, G.R. No. 129893, December 10, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Amer Moyong, et al., G.R. Nos. 135413-15, November 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio R. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002 People of the Phils. vs. Ruben Logalada Boquila, G.R. No. 136145, March 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

The essence of this aggravating circumstance is the "obscuridad" afforded by, and not merely the chronological onset of, nighttime. United States vs. Benito Paraiso et al., G.R. No. L-5658, September 28, 1910, 17 Phil 142 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

220

Nocturnidad (to be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance) "must concur with the intent or design of the offender to capitalize on the intrinsic impunity afforded by the darkness of the night." People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60 Phil. 887 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Pelagio Condemena, et al., G.R. No. L-22426, May 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Flores y Marikit, G.R. No. L-32692, July 30, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981

There are two tests of nocturnity as an aggravating circumstance: the objective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it facilitates the commission of the crime and the subjective test, under which nocturnity is aggravating because it was purposely sought for by the offender. The two are to be applied in the alternative. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-30449, October 31, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Ronquillo, G.R. No. 96125, August 31, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Dayson, G.R. No. 106234, March 2, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Pallarco, G.R. No. 119971, March 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Gailo, et al., G.R. No. 116233, October 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Galam, G.R. No. 114740, February 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000

By and of itself, nighttime is not an aggravating circumstance. It becomes so only when (1) it is specially sought by the offender; or (2) it is taken advantage of by him; or (3) it facilitates the commission of the crime, by insuring the offender's immunity from capture. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

221

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Z. Marra, et al., G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 109619, June 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Amamangpang, G.R. No. 108491, July 2, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Madelo Espina, G.R. No. 123102, February 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Gallego, G.R. No. 130603, August 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Conde, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 134483, January 16, 2002 People of the Phils. vs. Ruben Logalada Boquila, G.R. No. 136145, March 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28, 2003

The law provides that there are three (3) elements to be taken into account before the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and uninhabited place may be considered, to wit: (a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or (b) When especially sought for by the offender; or (c) When offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity. United States vs. Inocente Billedo, et al., G.R. No. 10883, December 20, 1915, 32 Phil 574 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60 Phil. 887 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Narciso, G.R. No. 103875, September 18, 1996

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

222

People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000

Nighttime is aggravating when it is especially sought for the purpose of impunity. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60 Phil. 887 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pardo, G.R. No. L-562, November 19, 1947, 79 Phil. 568 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Teodulfo Gatcho, G.R. No. L-27251, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto V. Lagtu, G.R. No. L-52237, September 30, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Darwin M. Veloso, G.R. No. L-32900, February 25, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Paulino Morales, G.R. No. 37107, April 27, 1982, 199 Phil. 157 People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Alcober Gueron, et al., G.R. No. L-29365, March 25, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. 102062, March 14, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tampon, G.R. No. 105583, July 5, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Andres Caisip, G.R. No. 119757, May 21, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Senen Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Constancio Merino, et al., G.R. No. 132329, December 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Clarito Arizobal, et al., G.R. No. 135051-52, December 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Benny Cabangcala, et al., G.R. No. 135065, August 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

223

People of the Phil. vs. Alvin Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003

Nighttime must be purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the crime and the criminal’s escape from the scene or his immunity from identification. People of the Phil. vs. Paulo Alcala, G.R. No. L-18988, December 29, 1922, 46 Phil. 739 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60 Phil. 887 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pardo, G.R. No. L-562, November 19, 1947, 79 Phil. 568 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Bato, G.R. No. L-23405 December 29, 1967, 129 Phil. 740 People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio S. Cristobal, Jr., G.R. No. L-32562, June 29, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto V. Lagtu, G.R. No. L-52237, September 30, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Alexio Lupango, G.R. No. L-32633, November 12, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Nolasco Famador, G.R. No. L-36553, March 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Miguel Regato, et al., G.R. No. L-36750, January 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Mesias, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. L-40318-20, February 28, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Moral, et al., G.R. No. L-31139, October 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Mamerto Serante, G.R. No. L-46724, July 31, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Cabale, et al., G.R. Nos. 73249-50, May 8, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Luis B. Toring, et al., G.R. No. 56358, October 26, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Aguiluz, G.R. No. 91662, March 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Armando G. Pasiliao, et al., G.R. Nos. 98152-53, October 26, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Peter Cadevida, et al., G.R. No. 94528, March 1, 1993

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

224

People of the Phil. vs. Crisologo Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Segundo Manuel, et al., G.R. No. 93926-28, July 28, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Z. Marra, et al., G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Casingal, et al., G.R. No. 87163, March 29, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Abe Rosario, et al., G.R. No. 108789, July 18, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ambrosio Ronquillo, G.R. No. 96125, August 31, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Dionel Meren, G.R. No. 120998, July 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Talo, G.R. No. 125542, October 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003

The application of nocturnity is proper when accused waited until midnight/nighttime to execute their designs and took advantage of the cover of darkness to avoid discovery, minimize the risk of capture and facilitate their escape. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60 Phil. 887 People of the Phil. vs. Jorge Barredo, G.R. No. L-2728, December 29, 1950, 87 Phil. 800 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Boyles, et al., G.R. No. L-15308, May 29, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador R. Salcedo, G.R. No. 78774, April 12, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Baring, G.R. No. 87017, July 20, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto M. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 90255, January 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Benitez, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 83697, October 4, 1991

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

225

People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Barba, G.R. No. 50433, November 13, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bigcas, et al., G.R. No. 94534, July 20, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Armando G. Pasiliao, et al., G.R. Nos. 98152-53, October 26, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Z. Marra, et al., G.R. No. 108494, September 20, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Garcia, G.R. No. 118824, July 5, 1996

To take advantage of a fact or circumstance in committing a crime clearly implies an intention to do so, and one does not avail oneself of the darkness unless one intended to do so. People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Pamintuan, et al., G.R. No. L-48273, November 28, 1983

Where the scene of the crime was well-illuminated, nighttime is not generally considered aggravating. (Nocturnity is not aggravating where the place of the commission of the crime was well-illuminated.) People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Bato, G.R. No. L-23405 December 29, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Moral, et al., G.R. No. L-31139, October 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Benito I. Espiritu, et al., G.R. No. 80406, November 20, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Abe Rosario, et al., G.R. No. 108789, July 18, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Pallarco, G.R. No. 119971, March 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Laudemar Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 109619, June 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Dionel Meren, G.R. No. 120998, July 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Gailo, et al., G.R. No. 116233, October 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Galam, G.R. No. 114740, February 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Madelo Espina, G.R. No. 123102, February 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Leo Macaliag, et al., G.R. No. 130655, August 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Clarito Arizobal, et al., G.R. No. 135051-52, December 14, 2000 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

226

People of the Phil. vs. Federico Abrazaldo, G.R. No. 124392, February 7, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003

Nighttime is not specially sought for when the notion to commit the crime was conceived only shortly before its commission. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pardo, G.R. No. L-562, November 19, 1947, 79 Phil. 568 People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Bayani Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 85771, November 19, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

Nocturnity would not be an aggravating circumstance if it was not purposely sought for and a crime was committed at night upon mere casual encounter. People of the Phil. vs. Bayani Delos Reyes, G.R. No. 85771, November 19, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cayabyab, G.R. No. 123073, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999

Nighttime appreciated when the darkness of the night was merely incidental to the collision between the two vehicles which caused the heated argument and the eventual stabbing of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991

The aggravating circumstance of nighttime (nocturnidad) cannot be absorbed in treachery because in this crime treachery arose from the defenseless position of Chua when he was killed, while nighttime was purposely sought by the accused to facilitate immunity in the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981

We have already ruled that nighttime is inherent (or absorbed) in treachery and cannot be appreciated separately. People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Corpuz and Julian Serquiña, G.R. No. L-12718, February 24, 1960, 107 Phil. 44 People of the Phil. vs. Nicanor Sespeñe, G.R. No. L-9346, October 30, 1957, 102 Phil Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

227

199 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Ramillano, et al., G.R. No. 61119, November 14, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Bardon, et al., G.R. No. L-60764, September 19, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Maravilla, Jr., G.R. No. 77968, November 23, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Bueza, G.R. No. 79619, August 20, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Benito I. Espiritu, et al., G.R. No. 80406, November 20, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Amando Tasarra, et al., G.R. No. 85531, December 10, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rosalino Necerio, G.R. No. 98430, July 10, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Vergara, et al., G.R. No. 103313, May 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Dionel Meren, G.R. No. 120998, July 26, 1999

The lighting of a matchstick or use of flashlights does not negate the aggravating circumstance of nighttime. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Soriano, G.R. No. L-32244, June 24, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989

The fact that they brought with them a flashlight clearly shows that they intended to commit the crime in darkness. People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002

Nighttime, being a generic aggravating circumstance, need not be alleged in the information. People of the Phil. vs. Juan Martinez Godinez, G.R. No. L-12268, November 28, 1959, 106 Phil 597 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Vergara, et al., G.R. No. 103313, May 5, 1993

Uninhabited place (despoblado) The law provides that there are three (3) elements to be taken into account before the aggravating circumstance of nighttime and uninhabited place may be considered, to wit: (a) When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or (b) When especially Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

228

sought for by the offender; or (c) When offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity. United States vs. Inocente Billedo, et al., G.R. No. 10883, December 20, 1915, 32 Phil 574 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Matbagon, G.R. No. 42165, November 12, 1934, 60 Phil. 887 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Ely Cabiles, et al., G.R. No. 113785, September 14, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Caballes, et al., G.R. Nos. 102723-24, June 19, 1997

Uninhabited place is aggravating when the crime is committed in a solitary place, where help to the victim is difficult and escape of the accused is easy, provided that solitude was purposely sought or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the felony. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rubia, et al., G.R. No. 28792, October 6, 1928, 52 Phil 172

An uninhabited place is one where there are no houses at all, a place at a considerable distance from the town, or where the houses are scattered at a great distance from each other. (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, 1974, Book 1, p. 318). United States vs. Leocadio Salgado, G.R. No. 4498, August 5, 1908, 11 Phil 56 People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rubia, et al., G.R. No. 28792, October 6, 1928, 52 Phil 172 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, February 11, 1931, 55 Phil. 610 People of the Phil. vs. Victor B. Asibar, et al., G.R. No. L-37255, October 23, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Dalmacio C. Maalihan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-34106-08, July 25, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Tiongson, G.R. Nos. L-35123-24, July 25, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Sancho A. Budol, et al., G.R. No. L-48010, July 31, 1986

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

229

The term uninhabited place does not refer to the distance of the nearest house to the locus criminis for the more important consideration is whether the place of commission affords a reasonable possibility for the victim to receive some help. (The site of the killing was purposely selected so that succor would not be available.) People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rubia, et al., G.R. No. 28792, October 6, 1928, 52 Phil 172 People of the Phil. vs. Dicto Arpa, et al., G.R. No. L-26789, April 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Fausto Damaso, G.R. No. L-30116, November 20, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Sadiwa, et al., G.R. No. L-37203, October 23, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Maribung, et al., G.R. No. L-47500, April 29, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador F. Balisteros, et al., G.R. No. 110289, October 7, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Ely Cabiles, et al., G.R. No. 113785, September 14, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando R. Cayago, G.R. No. 128827, August 18, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Z. Dizon, G.R. No. 134802, October 26, 2001

It is evident that the aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place was present since appellant and his co-accused obviously and deliberately chose the desolation and isolation of the sugarcane plantation to perpetrate the crime far from the gaze of potential eye-witnesses. People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Sancho A. Budol, et al., G.R. No. L-48010, July 31, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo L. Padica, et al., G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place can neither be appreciated. Although there is testimony to the effect that the crime was committed in a secluded place where people rarely pass, the fact remains that it is the usual road going to the residences of Aquino and the deceased, at the junction where it met with another road going to the residence of Aquino. It is not apparent from the evidence that the accused selected the place of the commission of the crime either to obtain their object without Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

230

interference or to secure themselves against detection and punishment. People of the Phil. vs. Juan Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, February 11, 1931, 55 Phil. 610 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dequia, G.R. No. L-3731, April 20, 1951, 88 Phil 520 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983

The appellant likewise claims despoblado "is not present even if the crime was committed in an uninhabited place, if the offended party was casually encountered by the accused and the latter did not take advantage of the place or it can not be shown that it facilitated the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Luneta, et al., G.R. No. L-840, January 12, 1948, 79 Phil. 815 People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984

While there may be occasional passersby, this does not destroy its being an uninhabited place. People of the Phil. vs. Juan Bangug, et al., G.R. No. 28832, September 17, 1928, 52 Phil. 87 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Saylan, G.R. No. L-36941, June 29, 1984

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place (despoblado) is present due to the deliberate selection of an isolated place for killing and burying the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot be appreciated if the place is can easily be located. United States vs. Cornelio Devela, et al., G.R. No. 1542, April 9, 1904, 3 Phil 625 People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place cannot be appreciated if there are houses in the vicinity. People of the Phil. vs. Sancho A. Budol, et al., G.R. No. L-48010, July 31, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Peter Cadevida, et al., G.R. No. 94528, March 1, 1993 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

231

The aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place considered when there were no houses near the scene of the crime and the possibility of any help or assistance to the victims during the commission of the crime in such place is almost nil. It is clear that the malefactors selected that uninhabited place as the scene of the crime to prevent any interference with their evil act. People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dequia, G.R. No. L-3731, April 20, 1951, 88 Phil 520 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Boado, G.R. No. L-44725, March 31, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Aquino, G.R. No. L-50523, September 29, 1983

Although the offense was committed in an uninhabited place, the record does not show that the defendant-appellant actually sought the solitude of the place to better attain his purpose. United States vs. Julio Vitug et al., G.R. No. L-5430, September 8, 1910, 17 Phil. 1 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Luneta, et al., G.R. No. L-840, January 12, 1948, 79 Phil. 815 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dequia, G.R. No. L-3731, April 20, 1951, 88 Phil 520 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Andaya, G.R. No. L-63862, July 31, 1987

Aggravating circumstance of uninhabited place appreciated in that the felony was perpetrated in the open sea, where no help could be expected by the victim from other persons and the offenders could easily escape punishment. People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rubia, et al., G.R. No. 28792, October 6, 1928, 52 Phil 172 People of the Phil. vs. Prudencio Nulla, G.R. No. L-69346, August 31, 1987

This aggravating circumstance of despoblado should, therefore, be considered against appellant even if it was not alleged in the informations since it was duly proved. People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Collado, G.R. No. 41248, September 14, 1934, 60 Phil. 610 People of the Phil. vs. Emilio H. Domondon, G.R. No. 41523, October 11, 1934, 60 Phil. 729 People of the Phil. vs. Noel R. Jovellano, et al., G.R. No. L-32421, March 27, 1974 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

232

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo L. Padica, et al., G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993

Band (cuadrilla) Under Article 14, No. 6, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the indispensable elements of band are: 1) there must be at least four (4) malefactors; and 2) all of the four (4) malefactors must be armed. People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Sadia, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 92633, October 17, 1991

The element of "in band," that is, "whenever more than three armed malefactors shall have acted together in the commission of an offense," has been satisfied. United States vs. Emigdio Mendigoren, G.R. No. 950, January 23, 1903, 1 Phil. 658 United States vs. Alfonso Melegrito, et al., G.R. No. 4487, September 7, 1908, 11 Phil. 229 People of the Phil. vs. Janahudin Pakah, et al., G.R. No. L-1263, August 27, 1948, 81 Phil. 426 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo A. Pizarras, G.R. No. L-35915, October 30, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Mabilangan, et al., G.R. No. L-48217, January 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Escabarte, et al., G.R. No. L-42964, March 14, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Jackariya Lungbos, et al., G.R. No. L-57293, June 21, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben A. Lee, G.R. No. 66848, December 20, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Lapnayo Buka, et al., G.R. Nos. 68311-13, Jan. 30, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando G. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 102063, January 20, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Jury Magdamit, et al., G.R. No. 118130, September 24, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Sasan Bariquit, et al., G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Saspa, et al., G.R. No. 123069, March 1, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Dinamling, et al., G.R. No. 134605, March 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Narciso, G.R. No. 146425, November 21, 2002 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

233

People of the Phil. vs. Raul R. Guimba, et al., G.R. No. 139472, November 27, 2002

Band was not proven because it was not shown that the four malefactors were all armed. People of the Phil. vs. Francisco See, G.R. No. L-36347, December 21, 1983

Band is not aggravating when only three malefactors are armed. People of the Phil. vs. Dalmacio C. Maalihan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-34106-08, July 25, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Jackariya Lungbos, et al., G.R. No. L-57293, June 21, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

There is an intention to cause death if the accused throws a stone at the victims, thus including stone under the term arms in the phrase "more than 3 armed malefactors acted together". People of the Phil. vs. Arcillo Manlolo, G.R. No. 40778, January 26, 1989

Band or cuardrilla was likewise absorbed in treachery People of the Phil. vs. Mori (Bilaan), et al., G.R. Nos. L-23511 & L-23512, January 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Laureano Sangalang, G.R. No. L-32914, August 30, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Jimenez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36613-14, July 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio Arbois, et al., G.R. No. L-36936, August 5, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Isa Abdul et al., G.R. No. 128074, July 13, 1999

If treachery absorbs abuse of superiority and band (U.S. vs. Abelinde, 1 Phil. 568), then it is reasonable to hold that band should not be treated as an aggravating circumstance separate and distinct from abuse of superior strength. The two circumstances have the same essence which is the utilization of the combined strength of the assailants to overpower the victim and consummate the killing. People of the Phil. vs. Mori (Bilaan), et al., G.R. Nos. L-23511 & L-23512, January 31, 1974

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

234

People of the Phil. vs. Ceferino T. Medrana, G.R. No. L-31871, December 14, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Bantillo, et al., G.R. No. 117949, October 23, 2000

The aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of their superior strength and with the use of firearms is absorbed by the generic aggravating circumstance of the commission of the offense by a band. People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Escabarte, et al., G.R. No. L-42964, March 14, 1988

Since the robbery with homicide herein was committed by a band, the element of band would be appreciated as an ordinary aggravating circumstance which may be offset by mitigating circumstances. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alvarez, G.R. No. 70446, January 31, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Marquez, et al.,, G.R. Nos. L-24373-74, November 28, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Crisostomo Saquing, et al., G.R. No. L-27903, December 26, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Aniceto Pedroso, G.R. No. L-32997, July 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Cruz, G.R. No. L-37173, November 29, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Lamosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 74291-93, May 23, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Mateo, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 53926-29, November 13, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Precioso, et al., G.R. No. 95890, May 12, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Cayanan, et al., G.R. Nos. 73257-58, June 16, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Pacapac, et al., G.R. No. 90623, September 7, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando L. Lutao, et al., G.R. No. 107798, November 16, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Reyes and Nestor Pagal, G.R. No. 120642, July 2, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Carrozo, et al., G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000

In the crime of robbery with rape, band is an aggravating circumstance. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

235

People of the Phil. vs. Orlando L. Lutao, et al., G.R. No. 107798, November 16, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Tejero, G.R. No. 128892, June 21, 1999

We cannot treat the ordinary aggravating circumstance of band because it was not alleged in the body of the information. Though it is an ordinary aggravating circumstance, the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure require that even generic aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the Information. People of the Phil. vs. Nerio Suela, G.R. No. 133570-71, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Tumulak, G.R. No. 112459, March 28, 2003

Although the new rule took effect on December 1, 2000 long after the crime was committed, the same shall be applied retroactively being favorable to the appellant. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Salvador, G. R. No. 132481, August 14, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pio Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003

Art. 14 (9) - Aggravating Circumstance: Recidivism (Reincidencia) Article 14(9) of the Revised Penal Code defines a recidivist as "one who, at the time of his trial for one crime shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code." To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the Information and to attach thereto certified copies of the sentences rendered against the accused. [People of the Phil. vs. Roland Molina, G.R. Nos. 134777-78, July 24, 2000] Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such aggravating circumstance credence if the accused does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism. People of the Phil. vs. Conde Rapisora, G.R. No. 147855, May 28, 2004

A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of this Code. It is one of the requisites of recidivism that both the first and second offenses are embraced in the same title of the Code. People of the Phil. vs. Amador Atienza, G.R. No. L-38571, March 31, 1980 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

236

People of the Phil. vs. Victor B. Asibar, et al., G.R. No. L-37255, October 23, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Toledo, G.R. No. L-38495, July 25, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Gentem Kintuan, G.R. No. 74100, December 3, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Kyamko, G.R. No. 103805, May 17, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Roland Molina, G.R. Nos. 134777-78, July 24, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Escarda, G.R. No. 120548, October 26, 2001

In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14[g]. In reiteracion, the offender shall have been punished previously for an offense of which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14 [10]). Unlike in recidencia, the offender in reiteracion commits a crime different in kind from that for which he was previously tried and convicted (Guevarra, Penal Sciences and Philippine Criminal Law 129 [1974). People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995

"At the time of trial for an offense" is employed in the general sense, including the rendering of judgment. People of the Phil. vs. Juan P. Enriquez, G.R. No. L-4934, November 28, 1951, 90 Phil 423 People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio G. Lagarto, Jr., G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991

"At the trial" is meant to include everything that is done in the course of the trial from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in open court. United States vs. J. Valentine Karelsen, G.R. No. 1376, January 21, 1904, 3 Phil. 223 People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio G. Lagarto, Jr., G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991

There can be no recidivism without final judgment. Carlos Lopido y Galang vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 45698, December 18, 1937, 65 Phil 189 (1937) People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Escarda, G.R. No. 120548, October 26, 2001

The best evidence of a prior conviction is a certified copy of the original judgment Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

237

of conviction, and such evidence is always admissible and conclusive unless the accused himself denies his identity with the person convicted at the former trial. United States vs. Ah Tung, et al., G.R. No. 8946, December 20, 1913, 26 Phil 321 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Escarda, G.R. No. 120548, October 26, 2001

To find recidivism against an accused, the same must be alleged in the Information and certified copies of the sentences rendered must be adduced at the trial and admitted as evidence with knowledge of the accused. United States vs. Eulogio De Mesa, et al., G.R. No. L-3441, March 9, 1907, 7 Phil. 729 People of the Phil. vs. Swame Claudett Scott, G.R. No. 43178, December 4, 1935, 62 Phil. 553 People of the Phil. vs. Diego Hermosilla, G.R. No. L-58414, June 24, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

However, even if it is not alleged, the same may be appreciated if proven by evidence, People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro L. Perez, G.R. No. 50044, July 31, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Entes, G.R. No. L-50632, February 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando C. Monteverde, G.R. No. L-60962, July 11, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Martinada, et al., G.R. Nos. 66401-03, February 13, 1991

or if admitted by the accused during the trial (or if the accused does not object to the presentation of evidence on the fact of recidivism). People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Luna, G.R. No. L-28812, July 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Agripino Carzano, et al., G.R. No. L-29571, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Ariola, et al., G.R. No. L-38457, October 29, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro L. Perez, G.R. No. 50044, July 31, 1981 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

238

People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando C. Monteverde, G.R. No. L-60962, July 11, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Martinada, et al., G.R. Nos. 66401-03, February 13, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Peter Cadevida, et al., G.R. No. 94528, March 1, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Roland Molina, G.R. Nos. 134777-78, July 24, 2000

But, it was also held that absence of allegation in the information bars the trial court from allowing presentation of evidence regarding the matter. United States vs. Tieng Pay, G.R. No. 17333, October 3, 1921, 42 Phil. 212 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Molato, G.R. No. 66634, February 27, 1989

Even if the prosecution did not formally offer the judgment of conviction in another criminal case involving the accused, the trial court may appreciate recidivism by taking judicial notice of the finality of said judgment. The decision in that case was rendered by the same trial court which convicted appellant in the instant case. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Somera, G.R. No. 65589, May 31, 1989

Recidivism cannot be appreciated if prosecution fails to present "certified true copies of the judgment of conviction" in the other case even if accused-appellant fails "to object to such lack or presentation." People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio C. Compendio, Jr., G.R. No. 114002, July 5, 1996

Pardon for a preceding offense does not obliterate the fact that accused is a recidivist upon conviction of a second offense embraced in the same title of the Code. People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Lacao, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 95320, September 4, 1991

Art. 14 (10) - Aggravating Circumstance: Habitual offender (reiteracion)

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

239

By reason of his previous three convictions by final judgment for the crime of theft, the lower court also rightly considered him as a habitual delinquent. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Oquiño, G.R. No. L-37483, June 24, 1983

In recidivism or reincidencia, the offender shall have been previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal Code (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14[g]). In reiteracion, the offender shall have been punished previously for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty (Revised Penal Code, Art. 14[10]). Unlike in reincidencia, the offender in reiteracion commits a crime different in kind from that for which he was previously tried and convicted (Guevarra, Penal Sciences and Philippine Criminal Law 129 [1974]). People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995

The robbery was aggravated by habituality or reiteracion under Article 14(10) not recidivism under Article 14(9) as ruled by the trial court. Habituality requires that the offender "has been previously punished for an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty." Unlike in recidivism where the offender has been "previously convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title" of the Revised Penal Code, in reiteracion, the previous crime must not belong to the same title of the Code as the second offense. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Q. Monterey, G.R. No. 109767, September 3, 1996

To prove reiteracion, it is necessary to present as evidence certified copies of the sentence rendered against the accused except when the defendant pleads guilty to an information alleging reiteracion. United States vs. Juan Ramos et al., G.R. No. 539, April 1, 1902, 1 Phil. 192 United States vs. Eulogio De Mesa, et al., G.R. No. L-3441, March 9, 1907, 7 Phil. 729 People of the Phil. vs. Swame Claudett Scott, G.R. No. 43178, December 4, 1935, 62 Phil. 553 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco De La Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 45284, December 29, 1936, 63 Phil. 874 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Q. Monterey, G.R. No. 109767, September 3, 1996

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

240

Art. 14 (11) - Aggravating Circumstance: In consideration of a price, reward or promise (precio, recompensa or promesa) Evident premeditation and price, reward or promise must be considered separately "It has been suggested that the commission of the crime with deliberate premeditation and 'for a price or promise of reward' should not be treated as two distinct aggravating circumstances, because it is said that the latter necessarily implies the former. This contention, however, can not be sustained in this case and is fully answered by the language of the Supreme Court of Spain in its decision of March 3, 1885: 'Considering, it says, 'that one or the other of the circumstances (treachery or premeditation) is present, either one of them serves to qualify the crime of assassination, and the other to determine the penalty according to the constant jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, and it further appears that the assassination was committed for a price, without there existing any incompatibility between this circumstance and that of premeditation, because, if it is certain that by the general rule the first implies the second, it is not less certain that the latter may be present without the former, and in the present case, after the agreement of the criminals as to the price, they exhibited in their acts a studied and insistent tenacity in accomplishing the criminal object they had proposed.' (Vinda, Vol. 1, p. 263)." United States vs. Blas Rabor, G.R. No. L-3290, March 9, 1907, 7 Phil 726 People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano C. Hipolito, et al., G.R. No. L-31402, August 17, 1981

The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and offer of money, reward or promise are not incompatible and may be appreciated together, one being independent of the other. United States vs. Moro Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292, August 28, 1909, 14 Phil 77 People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Fabro, G.R. No. 95089, August 11, 1997

The aggravating circumstance of price, reward or promise considered regardless of non prosecution of alleged giver of price, reward or promise. People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano C. Hipolito, et al., G.R. No. L-31402, August 17, 1981

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

241

The aggravating circumstance of price was present in the commission of the crime and this affects not only the person who received the money or the reward but also the person who gave it. People of the Phil. vs. Leonora Talledo, et al., G.R. No. L-1778, February 23, 1950, 85 Phil. 533 People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Cañete, et al., G.R. No. L-37945, May 28, 1984

As defined by Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is the crime committed by a person who kills another "in consideration of a price, reward, or promise." Said qualifying circumstance of price or reward equally affects both the offeror and the offeree — the former becomes a principal by inducement and the latter, a principal by direct participation. United States vs. Maharaja Alim, G.R. No. 13312, April 1, 1918, 38 Phil. 1 People of the Phil. vs. Nenito Alincastre y Nabor, et al., G.R. No. L-29891, August 30, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gerolaga, et al., G.R. No. 89075, October 15, 1996

Art. 14 (13) - Aggravating (Premeditation Conocida)

Circumstance:

Evident

Premeditation

In general Requisites First element - The time when the offender determined to commit the crime Second element - An act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination Third element - Sufficient lapse of time between determination and execution Must be proven as clearly as the crime itself Conspiracy Motive Inherent in crimes against property Cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

242

May exist even when definite victim has not been settled upon Not appreciated if deceased was not intended victim May be appreciated even if deceased was not intended victim if conspirators were determined to kill anyone who may resist

In general There is evident premeditation when the killing had been carefully planned by the offender, when he prepared before hand the means which he deemed suitable for carrying it into execution, and when he had sufficient time dispassionately to consider and accept the consequences, and when there has been a concerted plan. United States vs. Eulalio Cornejo, G.R. No. 9773. November 20, 1914, 28 Phil. 457 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Bangug, et al., G.R. No. 28832, September 17, 1928, 52 Phil. 87 People of the Phil. vs. Lucas Canitan, et al., G.R. No. L-16498. June 29, 1963, 118 Phil. 370 People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Camano, G.R. Nos. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Lasanas, G.R. No. L-48879-82, July 7, 1987

The essence of evident premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent, during the space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment. People v. Dearo, G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013

Requisites Evident premeditation requires proof of the following: (1) the time when the offender determined to commit the crime; (2) an act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will after he decided to hearken its warnings. People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Magno, et al., G.R. No. 134535, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Casimiro Jose, G.R. No. 130666, January 31, 2000 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

243

People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Virtucio Jr., G.R. No. 130667, February 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Orio et al., G.R. No. 128821, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Ladit, et al., G.R. No. 127571, May 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Luter Orcula, et al., G.R. No. 132350, July 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio De la Tongga G.R. No. 133246, July 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Samolde, et al., G.R. No. 128551, July 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy Casingal, G.R. No. 132214, August 1, 2000 Solomon Rabor vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140344, August 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Sabado, G.R. No. 135963, November 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael D. Torres Jr., G.R. No. 138046, December 8, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Cafgu Francisco Baltar, G.R. No. 125306, December 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Cortez, et al., G.R. No. 131924, December 26, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Capitle, G.R. No. 137046, February 26, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Herida, et al., G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jomer Cabansay, G.R. No. 138646, March 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Galvez, G.R. No. 136790, March 26, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Enriquez, G.R. No. 138264, April 20, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Roberto Palabrica, G.R. No. 129285, May 7, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Aquino and Romeo Aquino, G.R. No. 145371, September Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

244

28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Cabote a.k.a. "Pito", G.R. No. 136143, November 15, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Rosauro Sia, et al., G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Gario Alba, G.R. No. 130523, January 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Calago, G.R. No. 141122, April 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Loterono G.R. No. 146100, November 13, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alvin Villanueva, G.R. No. 139177, August 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Perez, G.R. No. 134485, October 23, 2003

For evident premeditation to be considered, it must affirmatively appear from the overt acts of the accused that they definitely resolved to commit the offense; that they coolly and dispassionately reflected on the means of carrying their resolution into execution and on the consequences of their criminal design; and, that an appreciable length of time elapsed as to expect an aroused conscience to otherwise relent and desist from the accomplishment of the intended crime. People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio T. Pastoral, G.R. No. 51686, September 10, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro R. Cedenio, et al., G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994

First Element - The time when the offender determined to commit the crime To warrant a finding of evident premeditation, it must appear not only that the accused decided to commit the crime prior to the moment of its execution but also that this decision was the result of meditation, calculation, reflection, or persistent attempt People of the Phil. vs. Antonio V. Eribal, G.R. No. 127662, March 25, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

245

People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Riz M. Jarlos, G.R. No. 140897, February 19, 2003

Evident premeditation can not be appreciated where the prosecution failed to establish that the accused killed the victim pursuant to a preconceived plan. People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Molina, G.R. No. 125397, August 10, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000

The essence of premeditation is that the accused meditated and reflected on his criminal intent between the time when the crime was conceived by him and the time it was actually perpetrated. People of the Phil. vs. Elorde Antud, G.R. No. 95684, October 27, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Balderama, et al., G.R. Nos. 89597-98, September 17, 1993

When there is no showing as to how and when the plan to kill was decided or what time had elapsed before it was carried out, evident premeditation cannot be considered to exist People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Patawaran, G.R. No. 108616, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Naag, G.R. No. 123860, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Ladit, et al., G.R. No. 127571, May 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Noel Feliciano, G.R. Nos. 127759-60, September 25, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

Evident premeditation cannot be considered to qualify murder where it is not shown when the plan to kill was hatched, or how much time had elapsed before it was carried out. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Capitle, G.R. No. 137046, February 26, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Herrera De Leon, G.R. No. 126287, April 26, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

246

People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Cabote a.k.a. "Pito", G.R. No. 136143, November 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Riz M. Jarlos, G.R. No. 140897, February 19, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Liberato Solamillo, et al., G.R. No. 123161, June 18, 2003

Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify a killing to murder in the absence of evidence, not only of sufficient lapse of time, but also of the planning and preparation to kill when the plan was conceived. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Soldao, et al., G.R. No. 80225, March 31, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Nell, G.R. No. 109660, July 1, 1997

Second Element - An act manifestly indicating that the culprit had clung to his determination It is not sufficient to suspect that premeditation preceded the crime. The criminal intent evidenced by outward acts must be notorious and manifest, and the purpose and determination must be plain and have been adopted after mature consideration on the part of the persons who conceived and resolved upon the perpetration of the crime, as a result of deliberation, meditation, and reflection sometime before its commission. United States vs. Felipe Bañagale, G.R. No. 7870, January 10, 1913, 24 Phil. 69 People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Mendova, G.R. No. L-7030, January 31, 1957, 100 Phil. 811 People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Lacao, et al., G.R. No. L-32078, September 30, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Lamosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 74291-93, May 23, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Onyot Mahinay, et al., G.R. No. 125311, March 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Tan, G.R. No. 129882, September 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000

In order to be considered an aggravation of the offense, the circumstance must not merely be "premeditation" but must be "evident premeditation." Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

247

People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Umayam, G.R. No. 134572, April 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002

Evident premeditation must be based on external acts and must be evident, not merely suspected, indicating deliberate planning. Otherwise stated, there must be a demonstration by outward acts of a criminal intent that is notorious and manifest. It is not enough that premeditation be suspected or surmised, but the criminal intent must be evidenced by notorious outward acts evincing determination to commit the crime. United States vs. Mariano Ricafort, G.R. No. 55. March 19, 1902, 1 Phil. 173 United States vs. Felipe Bañagale, G.R. No. 7870, January 10, 1913, 24 Phil. 69 People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Mendova, G.R. No. L-7030, January 31, 1957, 100 Phil. 811 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito C. Alde, G.R. No. L-31041, May 20, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Emilio F. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Frederick Villamor, et al., G.R. No. 124981, July 10, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Dimailig, G.R. No. 120170, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002

The plan to kill the victim must be evident and not merely suspected, or contemplated mentally without external acts. People of the Phil. vs. Armin Besana, G.R. No. 102722, March 17, 1993

The plan to commit the offense can be deduced from the outward circumstances. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Ompad, et al., G.R. No. L-23513, January 31, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus C. Saliling, G.R. No. 117732, October 10, 1995

Third Element – A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution of the crime to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act and to Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

248

allow his conscience to overcome the resolution of his will after he decided to hearken its warnings. The qualifying circumstance of premeditation can be satisfactorily established only if it could be proved that the defendant had ample and sufficient time to allow his conscience to overcome the determination of his will, if he had so desired, after meditation and reflection, following his plan to commit the crime. United States vs. Felipe Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255, August 17, 1903, 2 Phil 417 United States vs. Joaquin Gil, G.R. No. 4704, April 26, 1909, 13 Phil 530 People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. L-119, April 10, 1946, 76 Phil. 473 People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

In other words, the qualifying circumstance of premeditation can be taken into account only when there had been a cold and deep meditation, and a tenacious persistence in the accomplishment of the criminal act. United States vs. Felino Cunanan, G.R. No. L-13177, March 12, 1918, 37 Phil. 777 People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. L-119, April 10, 1946, 76 Phil. 473 People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

But when the determination to commit the crime was immediately followed by execution, the circumstance of premeditation cannot be legally considered. United States vs. Buenaventura Blanco, G.R. No. L-6071, January 4, 1911, 18 Phil. 206 People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. L-119, April 10, 1946, 76 Phil. 473 People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

To justify the inference of deliberate premeditation there must be a period sufficient in a judicial sense to afford full opportunity for meditation and reflection, and sufficient time to allow the conscience of the actor to overcome the resolution of his will (vencer las determinaciones de la voluntad) had he desired to hearken to its warnings. The execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space of time Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

249

sufficient to arrive at a clear judgment. People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Francisco, et al., G.R. No. 69580, February 15, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Emilio F. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Barba, G.R. No. 50433, November 13, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Edna P. Cordero, G.R. No. 97229, January 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo E. Cabodoc, G.R. No. 118320, October 15, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Joel Sol, G.R. No. 118504, May 7, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Albao, et al., G.R. No. 117481, March 6, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Nonoy Felix, et al., G.R. No. 126914, October 1, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Tabones, et al., G.R. No. 129695, March 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Raul H. Sesbreño, G.R. No. 121764, September 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Carlie Alagon, et al., G.R. Nos. 126536-37, February 10, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pio Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003

The essence of premeditation is that the execution of the criminal act must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the resolution to carry out the criminal intent during a space of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment People of the Phil. vs. Carlie Alagon, et al., G.R. Nos. 126536-37, February 10, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Samolde, et al., G.R. No. 128551, July 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Cabote a.k.a. "Pito", G.R. No. 136143, November 15, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Rosauro Sia, et al., G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

250

People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Loterono G.R. No. 146100, November 13, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Rivera, G.R. No. 139185, September 29, 2003

Evident premeditation connotes a deliberate adherence to a plan to commit a crime. The mere lapse of time is not enough, i.e., premeditation is not to be presumed from mere lapse of time. United States vs. Mariano Ricafort, G.R. No. 55. March 19, 1902, 1 Phil. 173 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Manalo, G.R. No. L-55177, February 27, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Emilio F. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Barba, G.R. No. 50433, November 13, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 111568, March 2, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Deopante, G.R. No. 102772, October 30, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Layno, et al., G.R. No. 110833, November 21, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Joel Sol, G.R. No. 118504, May 7, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Nell, G.R. No. 109660, July 1, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Piamonte, G.R. No. 91999, February 25, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Pio Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe Montemayor, G.R. No. 125305, June 18, 2003

It is necessary to establish that the accused meditated on his intention between the time it was conceived and the time the crime was actually perpetrated. Defendant's proposition (to kill the victim some time before the killing) was nothing but an expression of his own determination to commit the crime which is entirely different from premeditation. People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Carillo, G.R. No. L-283, October 30, 1946, 77 Phil 572 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito C. Alde, G.R. No. L-31041, May 20, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio G. Lagarto, Jr., G.R. No. 65833, May 6, 1991

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

251

The law does not prescribe a time frame that must elapse from the time the felon has decided to commit a felony up to the time that he commits it. Each case must be resolved on the basis of the extant factual milieu. People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003

This Court has ruled that the lapse of just two (2) hours from the inception of the plan to the execution of the crime satisfies the last requisite for the appreciation of evident premeditation People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas G. Mojica, G.R. No. L-17234, March 31, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993

The interval between the two (2) events was only fifteen (15) minutes; we are unable to say with any confidence that fifteen (15) minutes were enough to allow reflection and the activation and operation of conscience. United States vs. Buenaventura Blanco, G.R. No. L-6071, January 4, 1911, 18 Phil. 206 People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente D. Deuna, et al., G.R. No. 87555, November 16, 1993

The killing of the deceased was aggravated by evident premeditation, because the accused conceived of the assault at least one hour before its perpetration People of the Phil. vs. Porfirio Dumdum, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-35279, July 30, 1979

Where the assault followed closely a previous incident, between the assailant and the victim, the qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation cannot be deemed to have attended the commission of the crime People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Sagayno, et al., G.R. Nos. L-15961-62, October 31, 1963 People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto M. Montejo, G.R. No. L-68857, November 21, 1988

Accidental encounter negates existence of evidence premeditation People of the Phil. vs. Felix Mozar, G.R. No. L-33544, July 25, 1984

Must be proven as clearly as the crime itself Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

252

The requisites/elements of evident premeditation must be established with proof, as clear as that for the crime itself. The evidence must be such as to dispel any reasonable doubt as to its existence. The same quantum as is necessary to establish the crime is required; that degree of clarity is indispensable. People of the Phil. vs. Casimiro Jose, G.R. No. 130666, January 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Mendoza, G.R. No. 128890, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Amer Moyong, et al., G.R. Nos. 135413-15, November 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Capitle, G.R. No. 137046, February 26, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tan, et al., G.R. Nos. 116200-02, June 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Tobechukwu Nicholas, G.R. No. 142044, November 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Abadies, G.R. No. 135975, August 14, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Bello, et al., G.R. No. 139054, December 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Perez, G.R. No. 134485, October 23, 2003

Mere presumptions and inferences, no matter how logical and probable they might be, would not suffice to establish evident premeditation People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Villanueva, G.R. No. 116610, December 2, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Onyot Mahinay, et al., G.R. No. 125311, March 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Andres Peñaflorida, G.R. No. 130550, September 2, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Tan, G.R. No. 129882, September 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pio Biso, G.R. Nos. 111098-99, April 3, 2003

Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated to qualify a killing murder in the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

253

absence of direct evidence of the planning and preparation to kill when the plan was conceived. People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Tampon, G.R. No. 105583, July 5, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Nazareno, et al., G.R. No. 103964, August 11, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Patawaran, G.R. No. 108616, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Rodencio Narca, et al., G.R. No. 108488, July 21, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Asto, et al., G.R. No. 108611, August 20, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Platilla, G.R. No. 126123, March 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Altabano, et al., G.R. No. 121344, October 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Orio et al., G.R. No. 128821, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Naag, G.R. No. 123860, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Orlito Gadin, G.R. No. 130658, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001

nor can it be deduced from a mere presumption or sheer speculation. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo B. Barros, G.R Nos. 101107-08, June 27, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Danny Queliza, G.R. No. 124135, September 15, 1997

Conspiracy Under normal conditions, where conspiracy is directly established with proof of the attendant deliberation and selection of the method, time and means of executing the crime, the existence of evident premeditation can be taken for granted. People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Custodio, et al., G.R. No. L-7442, October 24, 1955, 97 Phil. 698 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Ramirez Sarino, et al., G.R. Nos. 94992-93, April 7, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Moreno, et al., G.R. No. 120956, June 11, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Matt G. Campomanes, et al., G.R. No. 132568, February 6, 2002

The existence of conspiracy notwithstanding, evident premeditation cannot be Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

254

presumed. Only where conspiracy is directly established, as opposed to its being merely implied, can this aggravating circumstance itself be possibly assumed to be attendant. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Padlan, et al., G.R. No. 111263, May 21, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Amador Sapigao, et al., G.R. No. 144975, June 18, 2003

When conspiracy is merely inferred from the acts of the accused in the perpetration of the crime, evident premeditation may not be appreciated in the absence of proof as to how and when the plan to kill the victim was hatched, or what period of time elapsed before it was carried out. People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Custodio, et al., G.R. No. L-7442, October 24, 1955, 97 Phil. 698 People of the Phil. vs. Charlie R. Repe, et al., G.R. No. 64935, July 19, 1989

Motive While the motive for the commission of the crime may be duly established it does not constitute sufficient ground to consider the existence of evident premeditation People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, March 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

Inherent in crimes against property People of the Phil. vs. Dindo F. Pajotal, et al., G.R. No. 142870, November 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Cantonjos, et al., G.R. No. 136748, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Felipe, G.R. No. 131808, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Javier, G.R. No. 130489, February 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Eligio Ciron, G.R. No. 139409, March 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002

but it may be considered in robbery with homicide if there is premeditation to kill besides stealing. People of the Phil. vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al., G.R. No. L-35465, May 31, 1984 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

255

People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000

Cannot co-exist with passion and obfuscation People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cañete, et al., G.R. No. 138366, September 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Ponce Jamon, G.R. No. 141942, October 13, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 140513, November 18, 2003

May exist even when definite victim has not been settled upon Evident premeditation may exist even if at the time the offender determined to commit the crime, a definite victim had not been settled upon. (The fact that the arrangement between the instigator and the tool considered the killing of unknown persons, the first encountered, does not bar the consideration of the circumstance of premeditation. The nature and the circumstances which characterize the crime, the perversity of the culprit, and the material and moral injury are the same, and the fact that the victim was not predetermined does not affect nor alter the nature of the crime.) plpecdtai

United States vs. Moro Manalinde, G.R. No. 5292, August 28, 1909, 14 Phil 77 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Balatucan, et al., G.R. Nos. 93805-06, February 7, 1992

Not appreciated if deceased was not intended victim Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated if the deceased was not the intended victim. (Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in a case where, although the accused had planned the perpetuation of the killing, the victim was different from the person whom the accused had originally intended to kill.) People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Mabug-at, G.R. No. 25459, August 10, 1926, 51 Phil. 967 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950, 85 Phil. 307 People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Umali, G.R. No. L-5803, November 29, 1954, 96 Phil. 185 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

256

People of the Phil. vs. Constancio Guevarra, et al., G.R. No. L-24371, April 16, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Dueño, et al., G.R. No. L-31102, May 5, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Boniao, G.R. No. 100800, January 27, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo B. Barros, G.R Nos. 101107-08, June 27, 1995

May be appreciated even if deceased was not intended victim if conspirators were determined to kill anyone who may resist Evident premeditation may be considered as present, even if a person other than the intended victim was killed (or wounded, as in this case), if it is shown that the conspirators were determined to kill not only the intended victim but also anyone who may help him put a violent resistance. People of the Phil. vs. Timbol, 47 OG 1862, August 4, 1944 People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Ubiña, et al., G.R. No. L-6969, August 31, 1955, 97 Phil. 515 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer O. Belga, G.R. Nos. 94376-77, July 11, 1996

Art. 14 (14) - Aggravating Circumstance: Craft, fraud or disguise (disfraz) Craft, fraud or disguise is a species of aggravating circumstance that denotes intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by an accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design or to lure the victim into a trap and to conceal the identity of the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Quiñanola, et al., G.R. No. 126148, May 5, 1999

Craft Fraud Disguise (disfraz)

Craft In the crime of robbery with homicide, craft is not absorbed by treachery when it Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

257

has a very distinct application to robbery and is not employed to make treachery more effective (treachery is applicable only to the homicide). United States vs. Clemente Gampoña, et al., G.R. No. 12057, August 30, 1917, 36 Phil 817 People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27 People of the Phil. vs. Luisito San Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-44274, January 22, 1980

Craft may be absorbed in treachery if it is deliberately adopted as the means, method or from for the treacherous strategy. It may co-exist independently from treachery only when both circumstances are adopted for different purposes in the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27 People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002

Craft involves the use of intellectual trickery or cunning on the part of the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Napili, G.R. No. L-2406, February 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 521 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Juliano, G.R. No. L-33053, January 28, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Lito B. Revotoc, et al., G.R. No. L-37425, July 25, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Sabeniano Lobetania, G.R. No. L-56973, August 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Miguel Regato, et al., G.R. No. L-36750, January 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al., G.R. No. L-35465, May 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Violin, et al., G.R. Nos. 114003-06, January 14, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Disipulo, et al., G.R. Nos. 113245-47, August 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Vivencio Labuguen, G.R. No. 127849, August 9, 2000

Craft is chicanery resorted to by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design. It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Realino Zea, G.R. No. L-23109, June 29, 1984

The aggravating circumstance of craft in the commission of the crime should not and cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because it is not such an Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

258

intellectual trickery or cunning device, scheme or artifice resorted to by the accused in order to carry out his evil design. People of the Phils. vs. Diosdado Comendador, G.R. No. L-38000, September 19, 1980

Craft or fraud, too, although neither alleged in the Information, attended the commission of the crime because had not Romeo cunningly utilized the son-in-law, Antonio, to call the victim in the middle of the night, the probability is that the victim would have been more suspicious of a midnight caller and would not have been induced to respond. United States vs. Clemente Gampoña, et al., G.R. No. 12057, August 30, 1917, 36 Phil 817 People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Daos, et al., G.R. No. 40331, April 27, 1934, 60 Phil 143 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Napili, G.R. No. L-2406, February 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 521 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Yap, et al., G.R. No. L-50300, October 26, 1983

A generic aggravating circumstance like craft or fraud not alleged in the information may be proven during the trial over the objection of the defense and may be appreciated in imposing the penalty People of the Phil. vs. Juan Martinez Godinez, G.R. No. L-12268, November 28, 1959, 106 Phil 597 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Palon, G.R. No. L-33271, February 20, 1984

Craft is likewise present herein since the accused and his cohorts pretended to be bona fide passengers of the jeep in order not to arouse suspicion. However, once inside the jeep, they robbed the driver and the other passengers. People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Daos, et al., G.R. No. 40331, April 27, 1934, 60 Phil 143 People of the Phil. vs. Mauro Vallente, G.R. No. L-37937, September 30, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben A. Lee, G.R. No. 66848, December 20, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando G. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 102063, January 20, 1993

This Court has held stratagems and ruses of this sort to constitute the aggravating circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g.: where the accused — a) pretended to be constabulary soldiers and by that ploy gained entry into the residence of their prey whom they thereafter robbed and killed (People of the Phil. vs. Crisostomo Saquing, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

259

et al., G.R. No. L-27903, December 26, 1969); b) pretended to be needful of medical treatment, and through this artifice, entered the house of the victim whom they thereupon robbed and killed (People vs. Casalme, 101 Phil. 1249); c) pretended to be wayfarers who had lost their way and by this means gained entry into a house, in which they then perpetrated the crime of robbery with homicide (People vs. Saulog, 74 Phil. 527); d) pretended to be a customer wanting to buy a bottle of wine (People vs. Bundal, 3 Phil. 89); e) pretended to be co-passengers of the victim in a public utility vehicle (People of the Phil. vs. Mauro Vallente, G.R. No. L-37937, September 30, 1986); f) posed as customers wishing to buy cigarettes; and as being thirsty, asking for drink of water. People of the Phil. vs. Crisologo Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993

Craft was employed in the commission of the offense since accused-appellant and his cohorts pretended that they were only after a free ride when they flagged down the vehicle of the victim. Taking advantage of the goodness of the victim, accused-appellant, albeit unsuccessful, commenced to rob the victim but killed the victim in the process. People of the Phil. vs. Ruben A. Lee, G.R. No. 66848, December 20, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto C. Perciano, et al., G.R. No. 101576, June 27, 1994

They pretended they were customers and this devious scheme facilitated the commission of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Crisologo Empacis, G.R. No. 95756, May 14, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Ramos, et al., G.R. No. 104497, January 18, 1995

Fraud Fraud constitutes deceit and manifested by insidious words and machinations. (Where is a direct inducement by insidious words or machinations, fraud is present.) People of the Phil. vs. Jose De Leon, G.R. No. 26867, August 10, 1927, 50 Phil. 539 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Disipulo, et al., G.R. Nos. 113245-47, August 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Vivencio Labuguen, G.R. No. 127849, August 9, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

260

Disguise (disfraz) It is also worth mentioning that while appellant reportedly had a sort of a mask and was using sunglasses, these clumsy accouterments could not constitute the aggravating circumstance of disguise. Legally, disfraz contemplates a superficial but somewhat effective dissembling to avoid identification. People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Reyes, G.R. No. 118649, March 9, 1998

There is disguise when one uses some device to prevent recognition. United States vs. Manuel Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 6344, March 21, 1911, 19 Phil 150 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999

Disguise cannot be considered when the malefactors did not resort to means and measures to conceal their identities during the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Soriano, G.R. No. L-32244, June 24, 1983

Disguise as soldiers. People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Rizal, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Marquez, et al., G.R. No. L-32860, September 30, 1982

Disguise is present when accused wore masks to conceal their identity during the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Darwin M. Veloso, G.R. No. L-32900, February 25, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999

Disguise is considered even if the mask worn by the accused fell down. People of the Phil. vs. Sabangan Cabato, G.R. No. L-37400, April 15, 1988

Under Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. The aggravating circumstance of disguise was proven in court, but it was not alleged in the complaint. For this reason, it cannot, as the Solicitor General pointed out, be appreciated in view of Rule 110, § 8 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

261

of the Revised Rules of Court, which requires that qualifying and aggravating circumstances be alleged in the information. Although this rule took effect on December 1, 2000, after the commission of the offense in this case, nonetheless we have given it retroactive effect in several of our cases considering that the same is favorable to the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Nerio Suela, G.R. No. 133570-71, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Salvador, G. R. No. 132481, August 14, 2002

Art. 14 (15) - Aggravating Circumstance: Abuse of superior strength or means to weaken defense In general Relative physical strength must be shown Numerical superiority alone is not proof of abuse of superior strength Deliberate intent Attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman Allegation in information Evident from grave disparity of ages Absorbed by treachery But distinct from treachery Absorbs nocturnity Absorbed by commission of offense by a band Absorbs disregard of sex In relation to rape

In general The aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength depends on the age, size and strength of the parties. "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. This circumstance should always be considered whenever there is Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

262

notorious inequality of forces between victim and aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. To properly appreciate it, not only is it necessary to evaluate the physical conditions of the protagonists or opposing forces and the arms or objects employed by both sides, but it is also necessary to analyze the incidents and episodes constituting the total development of the event." People of the Phil. vs. Billy De Leon, G.R. No. 129057, January 22, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Carlo Ellasos, et al., G.R. No. 139323, June 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Hermosa, et al., G.R. No. 131805, September 7, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Dindo F. Pajotal, et al., G.R. No. 142870, November 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Mark Whisenhunt, G.R. No. 123819, November 14, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Rosauro Sia, et al., G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito A. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731, November 21, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Marcos Asuela, et al., G.R. No. 140393-94, February 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Sansaet, et al., G.R. No. 139330, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Hermo, G.R. No. 135026, February 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando R. Jakosalem, G.R. No. 130506, February 28, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jemreich Matignas, et al., G.R. No. 126146, March 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Beruega, et al., G.R. No. 142931, April 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Sunny Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 132915, August 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Belaong, G.R. No. 138615, September 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Barcelon, Jr., G.R. No. 144308, September 24, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Casitas Jr., G.R. No. 137404, February 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Pedrito C. Andres, et al., G.R. No. 135697-98, August 15, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Hugo, et al., G.R. No. 134604, August 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Lachica, et al., G.R. No. 131915, September 3, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Gregorio, et al., G.R. No. 153781, September 24, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

263

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Ponce Jamon, G.R. No. 141942, October 13, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco L. Calpito, G.R. No. 123298, November 27, 2003

Abuse of superior strength is present whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a situation of superiority of strength notoriously advantageous for the aggressor selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime." "The fact that there were two persons who attacked the victim does not per se establish that the crime was committed with abuse of superior strength, there being no proof of the relative strength of the aggressors and the victim." The evidence must establish that the assailants purposely sought the advantage, or that they had the deliberate intent to use this advantage. "To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked." The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size, and strength of the parties. People of the Phil. vs. Elizer Beduya, et al., G.R. No. 175315, August 9, 2010

To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Bello, G.R. No. L-18792, February 28, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Cabiling, G.R. No. L-38091, December 17, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Talay, G.R. No. L-24852, November 28, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Michael J. Butler, G.R. No. L-50276, January 27, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Bacay, G.R. No. L-38787, September 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Alan Alitao, et al., G.R. No. 74736, February 19, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Casingal, et al., G.R. No. 87163, March 29, 1995

Abuse of superior strength is present where means were used to render victim defenseless. People of the Phil. vs. Sofronio Amoto, G.R. No. L-28273, Jan. 18, 1982

To appreciate abuse of superiority, what should be considered is not that there were three, four or more assailants of one victim, but whether the aggressors took advantage of their combined strength to jointly consummate the offense as superiority in number does not necessarily mean superiority in strength. It is necessary to show Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

264

that the aggressors acted in concert to secure advantage from their superiority in strength. Inevitably, therefore, they must have acted as principals. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Manalo, et al., G.R. No. 107329, January 24, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Padilla, G.R. No. 75508, June 10, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo S. Bongadillo, G.R. No. 96687, July 20, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Abulkhair Patamama, G.R. No. 107938, December 4, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Balano, et al., G.R. No. 116721, May 29, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 118311, February 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Platilla, G.R. No. 126123, March 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Rebamontan, G.R. No. 125318, April 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Tambis, G.R. No. 124452, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 126047, September 16, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Roland Paraiso, G.R. No. 127840, November 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Lacbayan, et al., G.R. No. 125006, August 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Benny Cabangcala, et al., G.R. No. 135065, August 8, 2001

There is abuse of superior strength even if there is only one malefactor and one victim. Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the aggressor's natural strength over that of the victim, considering the position of both and the employment of means to weaken the defense, although not annulling it. The aggressor must have taken advantage of his natural strength to insure the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Loreto, G.R. Nos. 137411-13, February 28, 2003

Similarly, the fact that only one of the alleged aggressors inflicted the fatal wound is a circumstance negating the existence of abuse of superior strength. People of the Phil. vs. Crispin D. Flores, G.R. No. L-30169, February 16, 1982

There is no rigid or established rule as to whether there is abuse of superior strength, which qualifies the crime to murder, if two or more assailants attack a single person. If the felons take advantage of their collective strength to overwhelm their Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

265

comparatively defenseless victim, the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength is present. People of the Phil. vs. Moises Moka, et al., G.R. No. 88838, April 26, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando W. Waggay, G.R. No. 98154, February 9, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo L. Padica, et al., G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Raul G. Escoto, et al., G.R. No. 91756, May 11, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Silvestre, et al., G.R. No. 109142, May 29, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Diarangan Dansal, G.R. No. 105002, July 17, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Marcos Paramil, G.R. No. 128056-57, March 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Remegio Suza, G.R. No. 130611, April 6, 2000

The fact that the offender is strong does not of itself prove its existence. People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968

There is abuse of superior strength when two or more armed persons attack an unarmed person for the purpose of robbery, or in robbery with homicide, where three or four men attacked and killed the victim. United States vs. Tampacan, et al., G.R. No. 6491, March 23, 1911, 19 Phil. 185 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Mabassa et al., G.R. No. 45554, May 27, 1938, 65 Phil. 568 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Cruz, G.R. No. L-8776. May 19, 1958, 103 Phil. 693 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Lucero, G.R. No. L-28811, March 31, 1980

The defenseless and unarmed victims who had just awakened from their sleep were attacked by their killers, armed with a lead pipe, a bottle and a piece of wood. So there was abuse of superior strength People of the Phil. vs. Lito B. Revotoc, et al., G.R. No. L-37425, July 25, 1981

Relative physical strength must be shown The mere fact that one person was attacked by two or more aggressors does not constitute the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength, if the relative Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

266

physical strength of the parties does not appear. People of the Phil. vs. Crispin D. Flores, G.R. No. L-30169, February 16, 1982

There is no marked difference in physical strength here to warrant the appreciation of the attending circumstance of abuse of superior strength People of the Phil. vs. Teodulfo Gatcho, G.R. No. L-27251, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981

There must be evidence that the accused were physically stronger and abused such superiority, People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Bustos, G.R. No. 27200, January 20, 1928, 51 Phil 385 People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Diokno, et al., G.R. No. 45100, October 26, 1936, 63 Phil. 601 People of the Phil. vs. Crispin D. Flores, G.R. No. L-30169, February 16, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Luis Formentera, et al., G.R. No. L-30892, June 29, 1984

or cooperated in such a way as to secure advantage from superiority of strength. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Casey, et al., G.R. No. L-30146, February 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Federico M. Basas, G.R. No. L-34251, January 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Crispin D. Flores, G.R. No. L-30169, February 16, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al., G.R. No. L-35465, May 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Mabansag, G.R. No. 60039-40, March 20, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Baluyot, G.R. No. 82998, February 23, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Magno G. Gupo, et al., G.R. No. 75814, September 24, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro B. Canciller, G.R. No. 97296, March 4, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bigcas, et al., G.R. No. 94534, July 20, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Julito Mindac, G.R. No. 83030, December 14, 1992

The existence of abuse of superior strength is evident from the notorious disparity between the relative strength of the victim and the accused. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

267

People of the Phil. vs. Fortunato G. Casillar, et al, G.R. No. L-28132, November 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Michael J. Butler, G.R. No. L-50276, January 27, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Lopez, et al., G.R. No. 112448, October 30, 1995

Abuse of superior strength may be considered even when victim himself seemed to be sufficiently armed. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Manalo, et al., G.R. No. 107329, January 24, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Robert Gomez, et al., G.R. No. 128378, April 30, 2003

Numerical superiority alone is not proof of abuse of superior strength Likewise the mere fact of there being a superiority of numbers is not sufficient to constitute the aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength. People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Crispin D. Flores, G.R. No. L-30169, February 16, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al., G.R. No. L-35465, May 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Bacay, G.R. No. L-38787, September 12, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Carpio, et al., G.R. Nos. 82815-16, October 31, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bigcas, et al., G.R. No. 94534, July 20, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Temistocles T. Castor, G.R. No. 93664, December 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Salvador, et al., G.R. No. 101215, July 30, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Buela, et al., G.R. No. 92536, November 8, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Walter Nacional, G.R. Nos. 111294-95, September 7, 1995

Deliberate intent For superior strength to aggravate a crime, it must be clearly shown that there was deliberate intent to take advantage of the same.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

268

People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Sazon, G.R. No. 89684, September 18, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Temistocles T. Castor, G.R. No. 93664, December 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Alex V. Regalado, et al. , G.R. No. 101451, March 23, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Raul G. Escoto, et al., G.R. No. 91756, May 11, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Gayon, et al. , G.R. No. 116228, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Dominic Cañete, et al., G.R. No. 120495, March 12, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Agsunod, Jr., G.R. No. 118331, May 3, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo San Andres, G.R. No. 134246, February 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Levy Monieva, G.R. No. 123912, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Beruega, et al., G.R. No. 142931, April 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Frank Lobrigas, G.R. No. 147649, December 17, 2002

Attack by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman To take advantage of superior strength means to purposely use excessive force out of proportion to the means of defense available to the person attacked. The appreciation of this aggravating circumstance depends on the age, size and strength of the parties, and is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressor, assuming a superiority of strength notoriously advantageous to the aggressor, which is selected or taken advantage of by him in the commission of the crime. Unlike in treachery, where the victim is not given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression, taking advantage of superior strength does not mean that the victim was completely defenseless. Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of the aggressor's natural strength over that of the victim, considering the momentary position of both and the employment of means weakening the defense, although not annulling it. Hence, the fact that the victim attempted to fend off the attack on her and her husband by throwing nearby objects, such as an electric cord, at appellant does not automatically negate the possibility that the latter was able to take advantage of his superior strength. On the contrary, this Court in a very long line of cases has consistently held that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and defenseless woman Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

269

constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. People of the Phil. vs. Felix Q. Ventura, et al., G.R. Nos. 148145-46, July 5, 2004

The circumstance of abuse of superior strength is likewise present. The accused had abused that superiority which his sex and the weapon he had employed afforded him and from which the victim was unable to defend herself. People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Alcartado, G.R. No. 119070, August 30, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Ocumen, G.R. Nos. 120493-94, December 2, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Madelo Espina, G.R. No. 123102, February 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roldan Bohol, G.R. No. 130587, July 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jerito Amazan, et al., G.R. Nos. 136251, 138606 and 138607, January 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jessie Olivo, G.R. No. 130335, January 18, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Lauro Martinez, G.R. No. 124892, Jan. 30, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ericto Appegu, et al., G.R. No. 130657, April 1, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Dionesio Santiago, G.R. No. 133445, February 27, 2003

Where a pregnant woman was shot in cold blood while lying down in the hammock, there is abuse of superior strength as there was a marked difference of physical strength between her and the offenders. People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Capillas, G.R. No. L-27177, October 23, 1981

Allegation in information If not alleged in information, can only be considered a generic aggravating circumstance (cannot qualify offense). People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo A. Martinado, et al., G.R. No. 92020, October 19, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Vergara, et al., G.R. No. 103313, May 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Engracio T. Valeriano, G.R. Nos. 103604-05, September 23, 1993

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

270

People of the Phil. vs. Narciso G. Fuertes, G.R. No. 104067, January 17, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Fordito V. Ruelan, G.R. No. 106152, April 19, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Platilla, G.R. No. 126123, March 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Cielito Buluran, et al., G.R. No. 113940, February 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Q. Balacanao, et al., G.R. No. 118133, February 18, 2003

But it is well-settled that where treachery qualifies the crime to murder, it absorbs abuse of superior strength and the latter cannot be appreciated even as a generic aggravating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Hitro Sancholes, et al. G.R. Nos. 110999 and 111000, April 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Estorco, et. al., G.R. No. 111941, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Go-od, et al., G.R. No. 134505, May 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Riglos, et al., G.R. No. 134763, September 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo I. Delmo, et al., G.R. Nos. 130078-82, October 4, 2002

For abuse of superior strength to be aggravating or qualifying, the same must be alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. People of the Phil. vs. Randy G. Bocalan, G.R. No. 141527, September 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Garcia, G.R. No. 145505, March 14, 2003

Evident from grave disparity of ages People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982

But the Court has also held that disparity in age may not reflect notoriety of inequalities in strength. People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Parayno, et al., G.R. No. L-24804, July 5, 1968

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

271

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Lor, et al., G.R. Nos. L-47440-42, September 12, 1984

Absorbed by treachery Abuse of superior strength, concurring with treachery, is absorbed by treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Quinciano Rendoque, et al., G.R. No. 106282, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Osmundo Fuertes, et al., G.R. No. 95891-92, February 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Estorco, et. al., G.R. No. 111941, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Bandy Repollo, et al., G. R. No. 134631, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Dimailig, G.R. No. 120170, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Candare, et al., G.R. No. 129528, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Forca, et al., G.R. No. 134938, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Riglos, et al., G.R. No. 134763, September 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Bantillo, et al., G.R. No. 117949, October 23, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eddison Casturia, et al., G.R. No. 128819, November 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Bayotas, G.R. No. 136818, December 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Lucena, G.R. No. 137281, April 3, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Julianda, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 128886, November 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Pascua, Jr., G.R. No. 130963, November 27, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Editho Suyum, et al., G.R. No. 137518, March 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Donato Cruz, G.R. No. 127789, April 2, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo I. Delmo, et al., G.R. Nos. 130078-82, October 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Loreto, G.R. Nos. 137411-13, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Caballero, et al., G.R. Nos. 149028-30, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio B. Sibonga, et al., G.R. No. 95901, June 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

272

People of the Phil. vs. Zosimo Miranda, G.R. No. 123917, December 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Felipe, et al., G.R. No. 142505, December 11, 2003

But distinct from treachery People of the Phil. vs. Damaso Del Valle, G.R. No. L-49181, March 27, 1981

Absorbs nocturnity People of the Phil. vs. Marvin Millora, et al., G.R. No. L-38831, December 27, 1982

Absorbed by commission of offense by a band People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Escabarte, et al., G.R. No. L-42964, March 14, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Canturia, et al., G.R. No. 108490, June 22, 1995

Absorbs disregard of sex People of the Phil. vs. Roel Punzalan, et al., G.R. No. 78853, November 8, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Modesto R. De Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 106783, February 15, 1995

In relation to rape People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio B. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Basas, et al., G.R. No. L-48019-22, June 29, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Caballes, et al., G.R. Nos. 102723-24, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo De Leon, G.R. No. 128436, December 10, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Edem, G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Lining, G.R. No. 138401, July 11, 2002

Abuse of superior strength is inherent in rape. People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo De Leon, G.R. No. 128436, December 10, 1999

But in 1997, after the instant case, however, Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

273

Law of 1997, Section 2, Article 266-A (2) removed the distinction between the sexes in the crime of rape. Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of statutory rape, taking into account the disparity of age and size between accused and victim. People of the Phil. vs. Roderick Legaspi, G.R. No. 137283, February 17, 2003

Art. 14 (16) – Aggravating Circumstance - Treachery Elements First element - The malefactor employed means, method or manner of execution affording the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. Person attacked had no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate Victim was asleep or had just awakened or was still in bed Attack from behind Frontal attack Warning Second element - The means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender Must be alleged in the information to qualify offense to murder Must be proved by clear and convincing evidence Treachery in robbery with homicide Related circumstances People of the Phil. vs. Richard Napalit, G.R. No. 181247, March 19, 2010 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Tabarnero, et al., G.R. No. 168169, February 24, 2010 People of the Phil. vs. Cesario Osianas, et al., G.R. No. 182548, September 30, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Sison, G.R. No. 172752, June 18, 2008

Elements Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

274

Article 14 (6) of the Revised Penal Code provides that there is treachery (alevosia) "when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make." The essence of treachery lies in the attack which comes without warning, and is swift, deliberate and unexpected, and affords the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape, ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, without the slightest provocation on the part of the victim. What is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. Treachery may also be appreciated even if the victim was warned of the danger to his life where he was defenseless and unable to flee at the time of the infliction of the coup de grace. People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Sison, G.R. No. 172752, June 18, 2008

There is treachery when the offenders commit any of the crimes against persons employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make. In order that alevosia may be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance, it must be shown that: a.) the malefactor employed means, method or manner of execution affording the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate; and b.) the means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender. People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Barona, et al., G.R. No. 119595, January 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jomer Cabansay, G.R. No. 138646, March 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Hernando De Mesa, et al., G.R. No. 137036, March 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Galvez, G.R. No. 136790, March 26, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Enriquez, G.R. No. 138264, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Ayupan, et al., G.R. No. 140550, February 13, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Javier, G.R. No. 142996, July 11, 2002 Joel Luces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149492, January 20, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Raquim Pinuela, G.R. No. 140727-28, February 3, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

275

People of the Phil. vs. Donato Caraig, G.R. Nos. 116224-27, March 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio A. Caratao, G.R. No. 126281, June 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Ausa, G.R. No. 174194, March 20, 2007

As can be gleaned from Art. 14, paragraph 16 of the Revised Penal Code, two essential elements/conditions are required in order that treachery may be appreciated: (1) The employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would ensure the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who has, thus no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; (2) deliberate or conscious choice of means, methods or manner of execution. Further, it must always be alleged in the information and proved in trial in order that it may be validly considered. People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Guzman, G.R. No. 169246, January 26, 2007

Treachery requires the concurrence of the following conditions: (1) the employment of means, methods or manner of execution that would insure the offender's safety from any retaliatory act on the part of the offended party, who has, thus, no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) deliberate or conscious choice of such means, methods or manner of execution. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Cajurao, G.R. No. 122767, January 20, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cabinan, G.R. No. 176158, March 27, 2007

Treachery under paragraph 16 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is defined as the deliberate employment of means, methods, or forms in the execution of a crime against persons which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the intended victim might raise. For treachery to be present, two conditions must concur: (a) the employment of means of execution which would ensure the safety of the offender from defensive and retaliatory acts of the victim, giving the victim no opportunity to defend himself; and (b) the means, method and manner of the execution were deliberately and consciously adopted by the offender. People of the Phil. vs. Malabago, G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Ausa, G.R. No. 174194, March 20, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cabinan, G.R. No. 176158, March 27, 2007 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

276

Ricardo Bacabac vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149372, September 11, 2007

Not applicable if accused is not criminally liable. People of the Phil. vs. Roger N. Austria, G.R. Nos. 111517-19, July 31, 1996

Treachery may be taken into account even if the victim of the attack was not the person whom the accused intended to kill. People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Tolentino, et al., G.R. No. L-1667, February 10, 1949, 82 Phil. 808 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950, 85 Phil. 307 People of the Phil. vs. Bulalakao Mamasalaya, et al., G.R. No. L-4911, February 10, 1953, 92 Phil. 639 People of the Phil. vs. Constancio Guevarra, et al., G.R. No. L-24371, April 16, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Trinidad, G.R. No. L-38930, June 28, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

Treachery should only be appreciated only against assailant who resorted to mode of attack. People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Devaras, et al., G.R. No. 48009, February 3, 1992

Where the killing of the victim was attended by treachery, proof of the victim's bad character is not necessary. People of the Phil. vs. Geronimo B. Soliman, et al, G.R. No. L-9723, June 28, 1957, 101 Phil. 766 People of the Phil. vs. Noel Lee, G.R. No. 139070, May 29, 2002

First element - The malefactor employed means, method or manner of execution affording the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate. There is treachery in a sudden and unexpected attack which renders the victim unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack. People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Bermudez, et al., G.R. No. 129033, June 25, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

277

People of the Phil. vs. Calixto Recones, et al., G.R. No. 129535, July 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Arizala, G.R. No. 130708, October 22, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Barellano, G.R. No. 121204, December 2, 1999 People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Elberto Base, G.R. No. 109773, March 30, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Sebastian, G.R. No. 131734, March 7, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Hermano Antipolo, et al., G.R. No. 141135, July 4, 2002

The essence of treachery is the swift and unexpected attack by the aggressor on an unsuspecting victim, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend himself, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation by the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Natividad Lovedorial, G.R. No. 139340, January 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Garcia, G.R. No. 129216, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando F. Muerong, G.R. No. 132318, July 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Bituon, G.R. No. 142043, September 13, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Balas Medios, G.R. Nos. 132066-67, Nov. 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. PO3 Renato F. Villamor, G.R. Nos. 140407-08, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Castillano, G.R. No. 130596, February 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Norman Obordo, G.R. No. 139528, May 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Resty Silva, et al., G.R. No. 140871, August 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Eliaquim Mejares, G.R. No. 140204, August 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Felix J. Lopez, G.R. Nos. 141112-13, January 14, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

278

People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Rubiso, G.R. No. 128871, March 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Delada, Jr., G.R. No. 137406, March 26, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Tinampay, G.R. No. 146271, May 29, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Romero, et al., G.R. No. 145166, October 8, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Punzalan, Jr., G.R. No. 199892, December 10, 2012

The essence of treachery is that the attack comes without warning and in a swift, deliberate and unexpected manner, affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or to escape. People of the Phil. vs. Ben Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio De la Tongga G.R. No. 133246, July 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Joemarie Chua, G.R. Nos. 126255-56, August 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Baltazar, G.R. No. 129933, February 26, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Tumayao, et al., G.R. No. 137045, April 16, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Coscos, et al., G.R. No. 132321, January 21, 2002

The essence of treachery lies in the adoption of ways that minimize or neutralize any resistance which may be put up by the offended party. People of the Phil. vs. Juan M. Ganzagan, Jr., G.R. No. 113793, August 11, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Ombrog, G.R. No. 104666, February 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Tavas, G.R. No. 123969, February 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Academia, G.R. No. 129251, May 18, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Rada, et al., G.R. No. 128181, June 10, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Adoviso, G.R. Nos. 116196-97, June 23, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Borreros, G.R. No. 125185, May 5, 1999 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

279

People of the Phil. vs. Roland Molina, G.R. Nos. 134777-78, July 24, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo Lucero, G.R. Nos. 102407-08, March 26, 2001

Treachery does not connote element of surprise alone (mere suddenness of attack, not sufficient); victim must have had no opportunity to defend himself or repel initial assault or aggressor adopted a mode of attack to facilitate the offense without risk to himself. People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Juan, et al., G.R. Nos. 100718-19, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Flores, G.R. No. 138841, April 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Javier, G.R. No. 142996, July 11, 2002

The suddenness of an attack does not, of itself, suffice to support the finding of alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was made all of a sudden and the victim's helpless position was incidental. People of the Phil. vs. Emilio F. Narit, G.R. No. 77087, May 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Eutropio A. Tiozon, G.R. No. 89823, June 19, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Remelito Lubreo, et al., G.R. No. 74146, August 2, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Sunga, et al., G.R. No. 106096, November 22, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Supremo, G.R. No. 100915, May 31, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Claudio Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio K. Templo, G.R. No. 133569, December 1, 2000

Treachery negated by provocation on the part of the victim (even if the attack may have been sudden and unexpected). People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Sabanal, G.R. Nos. 73486-87, April 18, 1989

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

280

People of the Phil. vs. Antonio K. Templo, G.R. No. 133569, December 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Peralta, G.R. No. 128116, January 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Ayupan, et al., G.R. No. 140550, February 13, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Javier, G.R. No. 142996, July 11, 2002

No treachery when element of sudden unprovoked attack is lacking. People of the Phil. vs. Paciano M. Plaza, et al., G.R. No. L-69511, November 22, 1985

Person attacked had no opportunity to defend himself or to retaliate No treachery when victim was able to defend himself. People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Diva, et al., G.R. No. L-22946, April 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Maribung, et al., G.R. No. L-47500, April 29, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Caldito, et al., G.R. Nos. 78432-33, February 9, 1990

Where the deceased was suddenly attacked, but he was able to retreat to avoid being hit by the hacking blows and was hit only when he was already in the act of defending himself against the attack of accused-appellants, there is no treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Diva, et al., G.R. No. L-22946, April 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Badon, et al., G.R. No. 126143, June 10, 1999

Further, even if the deceased was shot while he was lying wounded on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot was a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was wounded, with no appreciable time intervening between the delivery of the blows and the firing of the shots, it cannot be said that the crime was attended by treachery People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Badon, et al., G.R. No. 126143, June 10, 1999

Treachery cannot be appreciated when the victim was given time, no matter how fleeting, to retreat after seeing his attackers People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Ledesma, G.R. No. 105958, November 20, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Max Mejos, G.R. No. 111541, December 17, 1996

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

281

People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Bautista, et al., G.R. No. 131840, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Saragina, G.R. No. 128281, May 30, 2000

There is treachery even when victim was able to inflict wounds on his attacker as these may merely be the result of a reflex action in order to avoid the attacks of his assailant. People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Go-od, et al., G.R. No. 134505, May 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eric V. Baltazar, G.R. No. 143126, July 31, 2003

There is treachery when killing was committed without any risk from defense by victim. People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Celestino, G.R. No. L-44363, March 12, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Jorge Golfo, G.R. No. L-43720, December 27, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Robert Tomimbang, G.R. No. 66474, March 7, 1984

There is treachery when victim was unarmed and had hands upraised (held by one of the perpetrators). People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Jutie, G.R. No. 72975, March 31, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Ricarte Madali, et al., G.R. Nos. 67803-04, July 30, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Valtony J. Javier, G.R. No. 104729, February 3, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Cleopas, et al., G.R. No. 121998, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Bandy Repollo, et al., G. R. No. 134631, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Mataro, et al., G.R. No. 130378, March 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Matt G. Campomanes, et al., G.R. No. 132568, February 6, 2002

Treachery is present when a scheme (e.g., one of the accused engages victim in conversation) is contrived to avoid any possible defense from the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Diomedes Magallano, et al., G.R. No. 114872, January 16, 1997

Treachery may be appreciated even in the presence of defense wounds on the body of the victim People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Abapo, G.R. Nos. 93632-33, December 28, 1994 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

282

People of the Phil. vs. Maximo T. Abrenica, G.R. No. 118771, January 18, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. David Salvatierra, G.R. No. 104663, July 24, 1997

The number, nature and location of the wounds inflicted are strong indications that appellants had ensured the success of their effort to kill without risk to themselves People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Mallari, G.R. No. 94299, August 21, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Patawaran, G.R. No. 108616, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Roseller Alas, et al., G.R. Nos. 118335-36, June 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Bayotas, G.R. No. 136818, December 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gario Alba, G.R. No. 130523, January 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

The deadly nature of the weapons used, the treacherous manner of the assault and the number and location of the wounds inflicted upon the victim conjointly demonstrate a deliberate and determined assault with intent to kill (element of treachery). People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Hitro Sancholes, et al. G.R. Nos. 110999 and 111000, April 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Bitoon, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 112451, June 28, 1999

The fact that the location of the fatal stab wound is in front does not in itself negate treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Expedito Alfon, G.R. No. 126028, March 14, 2003

Victim was asleep or had just awakened or was still in bed It is settled that if the victim, when killed, was sleeping or had just awakened, the killing is with treachery because in such cases, the victim was not in a position to put up any form of defense. Treachery is present when victim was killed while asleep. People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Galido, et al., G.R. No. 128883, February 22, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

283

People of the Phil. vs. Teofisto Cotas, G.R. No. 132043, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Hilarion Bergonio, Jr., G.R. No. 133981, September 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Lucena, G.R. No. 137281, April 3, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Fernandez, G.R. No. 134762, July 23, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Bernal, G.R. No. 132791, September 2, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Larry Caritativo, G.R. Nos. 145452-53, June 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

That victim was asleep must be proven. People of the Phil. vs. Pedrito B. Añonuevo, G.R. No. 112989, September 18, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Balansi, G.R. No. 77284, July 19, 1990

Present when attack was done upon an unconscious victim who could not put up any defense whatsoever. People of the Phil. vs. Lyndon M. Flores, G.R. No. 116524, January 18, 1996 People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002

or when the victim had already collapsed. Santiago B. Serrano vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 97484, August 11, 1995

There is treachery when victim was shot while urinating. People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Espinosa, Jr. , et al., G.R. No. 113795, March 28, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Cahindo, G.R. No. 121178, January 22, 1997

Treachery is present when victim was drunk. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Retuta, et al., G.R. No. 95758, August 2, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Jason Naredo, G.R. No. 107802, July 31, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Felix de Guia, G.R. No. 123172, October 2, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Feloteo, G.R. No. 124212, September 17, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Basadre, G.R. No. 131851, February 22, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

284

People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pericelito Vallespin, G.R. No. 132030, October 18, 2002

There is treachery when the victim was killed while he was dancing. People of the Phil. vs. Angel Acaya, G.R. No. L-72998, July 29, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Berzuela, G.R. No. 132078, September 25, 2000

There is treachery when victim was shot while blindfolded. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando R. Jakosalem, G.R. No. 130506, February 28, 2002

An attack upon a person who could not put up a defense by reason of his temporary physical handicap is treacherous. People of the Phil. vs. Alex Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 125895, July 4, 2002

Present when assailant purposely placed his victims in a completely defenseless position before shooting them. People of the Phil. vs. Claudio Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995

Attack from behind An attack from behind which is sudden and unexpected establishes a prima facie presumption that the killing was attended by treachery. Fatal assaults from behind are earmarks of treachery although it is required that alevosia must be proved as clearly as the crime itself. People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Germina, G.R. No. 120881, May 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Apolonia, G.R. No. 111707, August 4, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Q. Muyano, G.R. Nos. 105621-23, August 5, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Florentino I. Mesa, G.R. No. 120072, July 28, 1997

The fact that the fatal wounds were found at the back of the deceased does not, by itself, compel a finding a treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro A. Ocsimar, G.R. No. 104630, February 20, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer O. Belga, G.R. Nos. 94376-77, July 11, 1996 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

285

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Garma, G.R. No. 110872, April 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Germina, G.R. No. 120881, May 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Noel A. Aguilar, G.R. Nos. 120622-23, July 10, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Borreros, G.R. No. 125185, May 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Silvestre, G.R. No. 127573, May 12, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo Monte, et al., G.R. No. 125332, March 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Quening, G.R. No. 132167, January 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Zenaida Manalad, G.R. No. 128593, August 14, 2002

These wounds might have been the last ones inflicted in order to finish the victim, or might have been inflicted by accident, or inflicted in a frontal encounter. People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001

Mere location of the bullet wound at the back by itself does not prove treachery, even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was sudden and the victim's position accidental. People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Isaias Macalisang, G.R. No. L-24546, February 22, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer O. Belga, G.R. Nos. 94376-77, July 11, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando M. Guerrero, G.R. No. 134759, September 19, 2002

Frontal attack No treachery when attack was frontal (victim is facing the assailant when assault starts). People of the Phil. vs. Waldo Casiguran, et al., G.R. No. L-45387, November 7, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Regino Camilet, G.R. No. 70392, June 30, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Segundino "Goding" Jotoy, G.R. No. L-61154, May 31, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

286

There can be treachery even if attack is frontal, if the same is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no opportunity to repel it or defend himself. What is decisive is the execution of the attack, without the slightest provocation from a victim who is unarmed. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Adrales, et al., G.R. No. 132152, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Francisco, G.R. No. 121682, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mindanao, G.R. No. 123095, July 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Leonilo Villarba, et al., G.R. No. 132784, October 30, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Felixberto Lao-as, G.R. No. 126396, June 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Peter Peleras, et al., G.R. No. 140512, September 13, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Coscos, et al., G.R. No. 132321, January 21, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Castillano, G.R. No. 130596, February 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Norman Obordo, G.R. No. 139528, May 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert M. Dadivo, G.R. No. 143765, July 30, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Villegas, G.R. No. 138782, September 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Bello, et al., G.R. No. 139054, December 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Expedito Alfon, G.R. No. 126028, March 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Arca, G.R. No. 135857, June 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Leonilo L. Pidoy, G.R. No. 146696, July 3, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Roger L. De Guzman, G.R. No. 173197, April 24, 2007

Although the victim and his assailant were face to face at the time the stabbing was made, where it appears that the attack was not preceded by a dispute and the offended party was unable to prepare for his defense, treachery should be taken into account. People of the Phil. vs. Lito Lagarteja, et al., G.R. No. 127095, June 22, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 139970, June 6, 2002

When the accused flashed the beam of his flashlight on the face of his victim. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

287

People of the Phil. vs. Pongol, 66 O.G. 5617 (1970) People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Noay, G.R. No. 122102, September 25, 1998

Warning No treachery if offended party was warned or by the exercise of a reasonable degree of anticipatory caution and vigilance could have defended himself. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cunanan, G.R. No. L-30103, January 20, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Panganiban, et al., G.R. No. 97969, February 6, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Hubilla, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 114904, January 29, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Landicho, G.R. No. 116600, July 3, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer O. Belga, G.R. Nos. 94376-77, July 11, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Herbieto, et al., G.R. No. 103611, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Germina, G.R. No. 120881, May 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Ladit, et al., G.R. No. 127571, May 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Sueene Discalsota, G.R. No. 136892, April 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Michael Tadeo, G.R. No. 127660, September 17, 2002

Treachery is not present where the assault on one of the victims must have put the others on guard. People of the Phil. vs. Santos Doniego, G.R. No. L-17321, November 29, 1963 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Quiban, G.R. Nos. L-57809-10, August 28, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mercado, G.R. No. L-33492, March 30, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando J. Iligan, et al., G.R. No. 75369, November 26, 1990

Exception: when assault on others preceded assault on victim by mere seconds. People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996

Where victim was not totally unaware of the attack made in the presence of other people who if willing, could have lent support. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

288

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo D. Nemeria, G.R. No. 96288, March 20, 1995

When the victim is placed on guard, as when a heated argument preceded the attack, especially when the victim was standing face to face with his assailants, and the initial assault could not have been unforeseen (There is no treachery where the victim was aware of the danger on his life, when he chose to be courageous, instead of being cautious, courting obvious danger which, when it came, cannot be defined as sudden, unexpected and unforeseen). People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo O. San Gabriel, G.R. No. 107735, February 1, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Salvador, et al., G.R. No. 113025, September 16, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tenorio, G.R. No. 122098, January 20, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Mazo, G.R. No. 136869, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Reyes alias "Turing", G.R. Nos. 137494-95, October 25, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mantes, et al., G.R. No. 138914, November 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Salva, G.R. No. 132351, January 10, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Javier, G.R. No. 142996, July 11, 2002

No treachery when element of surprise is absent. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Cunanan, G.R. No. L-30103, January 20, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Moreno, et al., G.R. No. 120956, June 11, 1997

While the killing itself appears to have occurred on sudden impulse, it was preceded by acts of appellant showing hostility and a heated temper that indicated an imminent attack and should have put the deceased on guard. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Chua, G.R. No. 121792, October 7, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000

The existence of a struggle before the delivery of the fatal shot negates the attendance of treachery in the commission of the offense since this shows that the victim was forewarned of the impending attack and afforded the opportunity to put up Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

289

a defense. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo J. Fernandez, G.R. Nos. L-32322-23, January 27, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Pascual Baylon Rillorta, et al., G.R. No. 57415, December 15, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Langit, G.R. No. 134757-58, August 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Deomedes Iglesia, G.R. No. 132354, September 13, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Dindo F. Pajotal, et al., G.R. No. 142870, November 14, 2001

No treachery if the victim was aware of the hostility of the assailant toward him. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Rivera, G.R. No. 101798, May 10, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Reyes alias "Turing", G.R. Nos. 137494-95, October 25, 2001

Treachery may still be appreciated even when the victim was forewarned of danger to his person or even when victim was initially frontally assaulted. What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. People of the Phil. vs. Jonahs Jabian, et al., G.R. Nos. 139213-14, April 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Gualberto Mirador alias "Goling", G.R. No. 135936, September 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Samson, G.R. No. 124666, February 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Rivera, et al., G.R. No. 125895, July 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Nasayao y Borromeo, G.R. No. 141237, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pericelito Vallespin, G.R. No. 132030, October 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Niel C. Piedad, et al., G.R. No. 131923, December 5, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Raquim Pinuela, G.R. No. 140727-28, February 3, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Musa, et al., G.R. No. 137042, June 17, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Leonilo L. Pidoy, G.R. No. 146696, July 3, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

290

There is treachery even when attack was preceded by a fistfight (altercation) when accused and victim were already pacified. People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo O. San Gabriel, G.R. No. 107735, February 1, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Mataro, et al., G.R. No. 130378, March 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ramonito Saure, G.R. No. 135848, March 12, 2002

There is treachery when victim is lulled into a false sense of security. People of the Phil. vs. Zoilo Castro, G.R. Nos. L-20555 and L-21449, June 30, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Benito S. Tabije, G.R. No. L-36099, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Mataro, et al., G.R. No. 130378, March 8, 2001

Second element - The means, method or manner of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted by the offender It is not sufficient that the victim was unarmed and that the means employed by the malefactor brought about the desired result. The prosecution must prove that appellant deliberately and consciously adopted such means, method or manner of attack as would deprive the victim of an opportunity for self-defense or retaliation. People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Sumalpong, et al., G.R. No. 124705, January 20, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Veriato Molina, et al., G.R. Nos. 115835-36, July 22, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Conrado De Leon, G.R. No. 144052, March 6, 2002

The second element of treachery is more difficult to determine as it involves a subjective aspect. [People of the Phil. vs. Winchester Abut, et al., G.R. No. 137601, April 24, 2003 citing People of the Phil. vs. Edison Arellano, G.R. No. 122477, June 30, 2000]. However, Justice Reynato Puno's dissenting opinion in People of the Phils. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000 is instructive on this matter. In determining whether the mode of execution was deliberately adopted, three categories of evidence are considered: (1) planning activity or what the accused did prior to the killing; (2) motive or facts which show the accused's prior relationship or conduct with the victim, and (3) nature of the killing or facts which show the manner of killing was so particular that defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design. The following examples were given to illustrate each category: (1) prior possession of the murder weapon or surreptitious approach of the victim; (2) Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

291

prior threats to do violence to the victim or prior conduct of the victim known to have angered the accused, and (3) evidence showing that the wounds were deliberately placed at vital areas of the body. People of the Phil. vs. Pericelito Vallespin, G.R. No. 132030, October 18, 2002

The prosecution must prove that the killing was premeditated or that the assailant chose a method or mode of attack directly and especially to facilitate and insure the killing without danger to himself. People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996. The essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and without warning done in a swift and unexpected manner of execution affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no chance to resist or escape. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin G. Galano, et al., G.R. No. 111806, March 9, 2000. There is no treachery where the attack is neither sudden nor preconceived and deliberately adopted but just triggered by the sudden infuriation on the part of the offender. People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo Monte, et al., G.R. No. 125332, March 2, 2000. To establish treachery, the evidence must show that the offender made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to insure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or difficult for the person attacked to defend himself. Idem, supra, See also People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Bates, G.R. No. 139907, March 28, 2003 citing People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Magaro, G.R. No. 113021, July 2, 1998. The mode of attack must be planned by the offender and must not spring from the unexpected turn of events. People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, (G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999). There is no treachery when the killing results from a verbal altercation between the victim and the assailant such that the victim was forewarned of the impending danger. People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Ereño, G.R. No. 124706, February 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Percival Gonza, G.R. No. 138612, November 11, 2003

The fact that the culprits resorted to overwhelming force, or that the victim was defenseless, or that the crime was perpetrated under cover of darkness did not in itself connote treachery. There must be a clear and palpable showing that the assailants resorted to a method of attack that would guarantee its execution without fear of retaliation on the part of their prey. People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002

It must be clearly shown that the method of assault adopted by the aggressor was deliberately chosen to accomplish the crime without risk to the aggressor.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

292

People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Bacho, et al., G.R. No. 66645, March 29, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Jocel Bejo, G.R. No. 138454, February 13, 2002

Chance encounters, impulse killing or crimes committed at the spur of the moment or that were preceded by heated altercations are generally not attended by treachery for lack of opportunity of the accused to deliberately employ a treacherous mode of attack. People of the Phil. vs. Nilo De Jesus, et al., G.R. No. L-58506, November 19, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Rufino Demonteverde, G.R. No. 124978, May 19, 1998 People of the Phils. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Julio R. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001

There is no treachery if the attack was the result of an impulse of the moment resulting from a sequence of unexpected events. People of the Phil. vs. Celestino O. Garillo, G.R. No. L-30281, August 2, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Reboltiado, et al., G.R. No. 123915, September 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Stephen Santillana, G.R. No. 127815, June 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Elger Guzman, G.R. No. 132750, December 14, 2001

To establish treachery, the evidence must show that the accused made some preparation to kill the victim in such a manner as to ensure the execution of the crime or to make it impossible or hard for the person attacked to defend himself. A killing done at the spur of the moment is not treacherous. People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Tumaob, G.R. No. L-2300, May 27, 1949, 83 Phil 738 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Abalos, G.R. No. L-2190, October 19, 1949, 84 Phil 771 People of the Phil. vs. Adolfo Saez, G.R. No. L-15776, March 29, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Federico C. Torejas, G.R. No. L-29935, January 31, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Floro Rodil, G.R. No. L-35156, November 20, 1981 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

293

People of the Phil. vs. Nilo De Jesus, et al., G.R. No. L-58506, November 19, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Bernal, G.R. Nos. L-29016-18, April 5, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Florestan D. Nitcha, G.R. No. 113517, January 19, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Rufino Demonteverde, G.R. No. 124978, May 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando J. Iligan, et al., G.R. No. 75369, November 26, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Javier, G.R. No. 142996, July 11, 2002

No treachery when assailant acted on impulse (rather than a deliberate act of will). People of the Phil. vs. Merlo Ramirez, G.R. Nos. 80747-48, October 17, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Peter Hatague, et al., G.R. No. 97308, April 7, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Roger Genial, G.R. No. 105692, December 7, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Raul G. Escoto, et al., G.R. No. 91756, May 11, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Acuram, G.R. No. 117954, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Cabacan, G.R. No. 130965, August 22, 2002

The rule that a sudden attack by the assailant constitutes treachery, whether frontally or from behind, does not apply where the attack was not preconceived and deliberately adopted but was first triggered evidently by a sudden anger of the accused; attack resulted from the sudden infuriation of the accused because of the provocative act of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ramy Valles, G.R. No. 110564, January 28, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Rufino Demonteverde, G.R. No. 124978, May 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Navarro, G.R. No. 125538. September 3, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Tavas, G.R. No. 123969, February 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Academia, G.R. No. 129251, May 18, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo Monte, et al., G.R. No. 125332, March 2, 2000 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

294

People of the Phils. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Cabacan, G.R. No. 130965, August 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Bates, G.R. No. 139907, March 28, 2003

No treachery when meeting between victim and accused was accidental or when the killing was a result of a casual encounter (accused had no time to reflect on the method of execution of the crime). People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Velaga, Jr., G.R. No. 87202, July 23, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Aguiluz, G.R. No. 91662, March 11, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Peter Hatague, et al., G.R. No. 97308, April 7, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor B. Real, G.R. No. 93436, March 24, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Raul G. Escoto, et al., G.R. No. 91756, May 11, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo N. Bautista, G.R. No. 109800, March 12, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Magallanes, G.R. No. 114265, July 8, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Bernal, G.R. Nos. L-29016-18, April 5, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Magaro, G.R. No. 113021, July 2, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Rivera, G.R. No. 117471, September 3, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo Monte, et al., G.R. No. 125332, March 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Salva, G.R. No. 132351, January 10, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jocel Bejo, G.R. No. 138454, February 13, 2002

but even while slaying as the consequence of a chance encounter, the manner in which it was perpetrated was treacherous. People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. 142905, March 18, 2002

Treachery was not negated by the mere fact that the attacker and the victim had spoken to each other briefly. People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Elijorde, et al., G.R. No. 126531, April 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

295

People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Alib, et al., G.R. No. 130944, January 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Ramirez, G.R. No. 138261, April 17, 2001

No treachery when attack was preceded by a quarrel (or verbal altercation) and the victim could have been forewarned and could anticipate the aggression from the assailants. People of the Phil. vs. Cielito Buluran, et al., G.R. No. 113940, February 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Ereño, G.R. No. 124706, February 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Langit, G.R. No. 134757-58, August 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Briones, G.R. No. 128127, October 23, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Deomedes Iglesia, G.R. No. 132354, September 13, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Reyes alias "Turing", G.R. Nos. 137494-95, October 25, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Lumintigar G.R. No. 132557, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Angelo Zeta, G.R. No. 140901, May 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Lansang, G.R. No. 131815, August 14, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Ernosa, et al., G.R. No. 137273, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Timoteo Escarlos, G.R. No. 148912, September 10, 2003

except when it is clearly shown that the accused deliberately employed a form of attack to ensure the consummation of their objectives with impunity. People of the Phil. vs. Juan G. Gundran, G.R. No. 105666, December 17, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Obias, G.R. No. 114185, January 30, 1997

Even if the aggression was from behind, it is not treacherous if preceded by a heated argument. People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Salva, G.R. No. 132351, January 10, 2002

No treachery where the immediate context of killing is one of a melee or riot or commotion (and as a result of it). Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

296

People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Isaias Macalisang, G.R. No. L-24546, February 22, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Ricarte Macariola, G.R. No. L-40757, January 24, 1983, 205 Phil. 64 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Rhoda, G.R. No. L-58613, June 24, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Bautista, G.R. No. L-68731, February 27, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Maldo, et al., G.R. No. 131347, May 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Wilbert Cabareño, G.R. No. 138645, January 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Ayupan, et al., G.R. No. 140550, February 13, 2002

Treachery must be alleged in the information to qualify the offense to murder In the case of People v. Aquino (G.R. Nos. 144340-42, Aug. 6, 2002), the Court clarified its ruling in the cases of Alba and Manlansing by holding that: [T]he Court has repeatedly held, even after the recent amendments to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, that qualifying circumstances need not be preceded by descriptive words such as "qualifying" or "qualified by to properly qualify an offense. xxx

xxx

xxx

Section 9, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states that the ". . . qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know . . . (the) qualifying and aggravating circumstances . . . ." Thus, even the attendant circumstance itself, which is the essential element that raises the crime to a higher category, need not be stated in the language of the law. With more reason, the words "aggravating/qualifying circumstances" as used in the law need not appear in the Information, especially since these words are merely descriptive of the attendant circumstances and do not constitute an essential clement of the crime. These words are also not necessary in informing the accused that he is charged of a qualified crime. What properly informs the accused of the nature of the crime charged is the specific allegation of the circumstances mentioned in the law that Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

297

raise the crime to a higher category. The rules require the qualifying circumstances to be specifically alleged in the Information in order to comply with the constitutional right of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The purpose is to allow the accused to prepare fully for his defense to prevent surprises during the trial. xxx

xxx

xxx

Section 8 of Rule 110 requires that the Information shall "state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances." (Emphasis supplied). Section 8 merely requires the Information to specify the circumstances. Section 8 does not require the use of the words "qualifying" or "qualified by" to refer to the circumstances which raise the category of an offense. It is not the use of the words "qualifying" or "qualified by" that raises a crime to a higher category, but the specific allegation of an attendant circumstance which adds the essential element raising the crime to a higher category. xxx

xxx

xxx

We therefore reiterate that Sections 8 and 9 of Rule 110 merely require that the Information allege, specify or enumerate the attendant circumstances mentioned in the law to qualify the offense. These circumstances need not be preceded by the words "aggravating/qualifying," "qualifying," or "qualified by" to be considered as qualifying circumstances. It is sufficient that these circumstances be specified in the Information to apprise the accused of the charges against him to enable him to prepare fully for his defense, thus precluding surprises during the trial. When the prosecution specifically alleges in the Information the circumstances mentioned in the law as qualifying the crime, and succeeds in proving them beyond reasonable doubt, the Court is constrained to impose the higher penalty m&ated by law. This includes the death penalty in proper cases. In the case at bar, the Information clearly passes the test as it specified treachery as an attending circumstance in the commission of the crime. The allegation, although not preceded by the words "aggravating/qualifying," "qualifying," or "qualified by," is sufficient to apprise appellant of the charge against him as to enable him to prepare fully his defense. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

298

People of the Phil. vs. Hever Paulino, G.R. No. 148810, November 18, 2003

Teachery may not be considered as a qualifying circumstance when not alleged in the information. People of the Phil. vs. Edelciano Amaca, G.R. No. 110129, August 12, 1997

To change the nature of the crime from homicide to murder, treachery must be alleged in the information; otherwise, it may only be considered a generic aggravating circumstance (even when duly proven). People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Dumlao, G.R. No. L-62032, November 25, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Exequiel B. Cantre, et al., G.R. No. 70743, June 4, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo C. Pascual, G.R. No. 42769, December 5, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Lapnayo Buka, et al., G.R. Nos. 68311-13, Jan. 30, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Narciso G. Fuertes, G.R. No. 104067, January 17, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Abitona, G.R. Nos. 96943-45, January 20, 1995 Ramon Ingles vs. Court Of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 117161, March 3, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Agunias, G.R. No. 121993, September 12, 1997

Allegation of facts in information sufficient to constitute treachery, not necessary to specifically use the word alevosia or treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino Rey, G.R. No. 80089, April 13, 1989

Pursuant to the amended provisions of Rule 110, Sections 8 and 9, 25 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, which took effect on Dec 1, 2000, aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances, affecting the commission of the crime, must be alleged in the information, otherwise, they cannot be considered against the accused even if proven at the trial (applied retroactively if favorable to the accused). People of the Phil. vs. Castanito Gano, G.R. No. 134373, February 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Ramirez, G.R. No. 136094, April 20, 2001 People of the Philippines vs. Joel Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, September 4, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

299

People of the Phil. vs. Carmelito Vicente, G.R. No. 142447, December 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Paragas, et al., G.R. No. 146308, July 18, 2002

The purpose is to allow the accused to prepare fully for his defense to prevent surprises during trial. What properly informs the accused of the nature of the crime charged is the specific allegation of the circumstances mentioned in the law that raise the crime to a higher category. People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Bajar, G.R. No. 143817, October 27, 2003

Treachery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence Treachery cannot be presumed; it must be established as clearly as elements of crime; it cannot be deduced from mere presumption or sheer speculation. Treachery must be proved with the same degree of proof to dispel reasonable doubt. People of the Phil. vs. Albert Nagum, G.R. No. 134003, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Orio et al., G.R. No. 128821, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Levy Monieva, G.R. No. 123912, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Henry Flores, G.R. No. 116794, June 23, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roland Molina, G.R. Nos. 134777-78, July 24, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Leo Macaliag, et al., G.R. No. 130655, August 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Hilot, et al., G.R. No. 129532, October 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Cirilo, G.R. No. 134245, December 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Wilbert Cabareño, G.R. No. 138645, January 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Oliva, et al., G.R. No. 106826, January 18, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rodelio Peralta, G.R. No. 131637, March 1, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Julio Herida, et al., G.R. No. 127158, March 5, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

300

People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Camacho, G.R. No. 138629, June 20, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jesemiel Mosquerra, et al., G.R. No. 129209, August 9, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Mantes, et al., G.R. No. 138914, November 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mendoza, G.R. No. 142654, November 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Quening, G.R. No. 132167, January 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Lumintigar G.R. No. 132557, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Angelo Zeta, G.R. No. 140901, May 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Javier, G.R. No. 142996, July 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Mahilum, G.R. No. 137990, September 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito A. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731, November 21, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Delim, et al., G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 131035, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Percival Gonza, G.R. No. 138612, November 11, 2003

For treachery to be appreciated, the circumstance must be present at the inception of the attack, and if absent and the attack is continuous, treachery if present at a subsequent stage is not to be considered. People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Go-od, et al., G.R. No. 134505, May 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Givera, G.R. No. 132159, January 18, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Florante Leal, G.R. No. 139313, June 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Abendan, et al., G.R. Nos. 132026-27, June 28, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Rosauro Sia, et al., G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Ayupan, et al., G.R. No. 140550, February 13, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Angelo Zeta, G.R. No. 140901, May 9, 2002

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

301

People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Barcelon, Jr., G.R. No. 144308, September 24, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Loterono G.R. No. 146100, November 13, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Bello, et al., G.R. No. 139054, December 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 131035, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Camilo D. Ansus, G.R. No. 149784, July 14, 2003

United States vs. Pedro Balagtas, et al., G.R. No. 6432, March 22, 1911, 19 Phil. 164 but see People of the Phil. vs. Hernando Dalabajan, et al., G.R. No. 105668, October 16, 1997 citing People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Cariño, et al., G.R. No. L-33608, February 12, 1974, where it was held that treachery may not be present at the inception of the attack, but if the attack is continuous and treachery existed at the time of the consummation of the killing the crime committed is not homicide but murder. The critical point of inquiry to sustain a finding of treachery is not the initial attack or assault, which the trial court utilized as basis, but the final phase. People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Balamban, et. al., G.R. No. 119591, November 21, 1996

Must be shown that treacherous acts preceded the commencement of the attack which caused the injury complained of. United States vs. Pedro Balagtas, et al., G.R. No. 6432, March 22, 1911, 19 Phil. 164 United States vs. Jose I. Baluyot, G.R. No. 14476, November 6, 1919, 40 Phil. 385 People of the Phil. vs. David Leal, et al., G.R. No. L-28379, August 31, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Regular, et al., G.R. No. L-38674, September 30, 1981

In this case, the start of the attack was attended by treachery. The aggression was executed through a continuous chain of treacherous acts which cannot be broken up to constitute separate, distinct and independent attacks. People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

No treachery when an altercation which ends in a homicide is begun without alevosia on the part of the slayer, and the criminal design is prosecuted to its consummation without any break in the continuity of the aggression and without the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

302

intervention of any factor which materially changes the conditions of the aggression, although the final fatal blow may be delivered under conditions exhibiting some of the features of alevosia. People of the Phil. vs. Fortunato Canete, G.R. No. 19233, February 5, 1923, 44 Phil. 478 People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Bello, G.R. No. L-18792, February 28, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo S. Martinez, G.R. No. L-31755, March 31, 1980

That the final blows may have in truth been delivered under conditions exhibiting some features of treachery, as in this case where the victim was said to have dropped his knife and was thus attacked by accused-appellants who were both armed, does not remedy the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of treachery at the onset of the attack. People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito A. Ilo, G.R. No. 140731, November 21, 2002

It is true that treachery should normally attend at the inception of the aggression. However, when the victim was first seized and bound and then slain, treachery is present. United States vs. Teodoro De Leon, G.R. No. 522, March 10, 1902, 1 Phil. 163 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Elicanal, G.R. No. 11439, October 28, 1916, 35 Phil. 209 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio Mongado, et al., G.R. No. L-24877, June 30, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Abella, et al., G.R. No. 127803, August 28, 2000

If there was break in the continuity of the aggression and at the time the fatal wound was inflicted on the deceased he was defenseless, the circumstance of treachery must be taken into account. United States vs. Regino Baluyot, G.R. No. 14528, September 10, 1919 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Quiban, G.R. Nos. L-57809-10, August 28, 1984

Treachery cannot be considered where the lone witness (or witnesses) did not see commencement of assault (manner of initial assault was not established). Where the eyewitness saw the incident already in progress, he was not considered as having Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

303

testified as to how it began. People of the Phil. vs Tonny Adoc, et al., G.R No. 132079, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Leo Macaliag, et al., G.R. No. 130655, August 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Florante Leal, G.R. No. 139313, June 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Eduardo Ancheta y Rodigol, G.R. No. 138306-07, December 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Caloza, Jr., G.R. No. 138404, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alex L. Flores, G.R. No. 143435-36, November 28, 2003

No treachery absent any particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act which resulted in the death of the victim unfolded. People of the Phil. vs. Nicanor Llanes, et al., G.R. No. 116986, February 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Madelo Espina, G.R. No. 123102, February 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Santos, et al., G.R. No. 122935, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Rios, G.R. No. 132632, June 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Henry Flores, G.R. No. 116794, June 23, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Luter Orcula, et al., G.R. No. 132350, July 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Leo Macaliag, et al., G.R. No. 130655, August 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Tiboy Albacin, G.R. No. 133918, September 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Oliva, et al., G.R. No. 106826, January 18, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edison Plazo, G.R. No. 120547, January 29, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Samudio, G.R. No. 126168, March 7, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Florante Leal, G.R. No. 139313, June 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Uganap, et al., G.R. No. 130605, June 19, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

304

People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Parba, G.R. No. 133886, September 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Reapor y San Juan, G.R. No. 130962, October 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Bantiling, G.R. No. 136017, November 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mendoza, G.R. No. 142654, November 16, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Rosauro Sia, et al., G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Quening, G.R. No. 132167, January 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Bonito, et al., G.R. No. 128002, October 10, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Loterono G.R. No. 146100, November 13, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Dionesio Santiago, G.R. No. 133445, February 27, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Cirilo Magalona, G.R. No. 143294, July 17, 2003

A recognized exception is People of the Phil. vs. Charly S. Ganohon, G.R. Nos. 74670-74, April 30, 1991, where the killing of a child was characterized as treachery even if the manner of assault was not shown, because the weakness of the victim due to tender age assures the absence of danger to the attacker. Treachery attended the killing of the victim even if there was no eyewitness to testify as to the details and circumstances of the actual killing itself, as there was, in fact, testimony as to the commencement of the attack on the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Aaron Bionat, G.R. No. 121778, September 4, 1997

There being no eyewitness to the killing or evidence on the mode of attack adopted by appellant, treachery could not be appreciated. People of the Phil. vs. Randy Raquiño, G.R. No. 132480, September 30, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Lyndon Sañez, G.R. No. 132512, December 15, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Hernando De Mesa, et al., G.R. No. 137036, March 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Icalla, G.R. No. 136173, March 7, 2001

What is decisive is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to retaliate or resort to self-defense. People of the Phil. vs. Regando Villonez, et al., G.R. Nos. 122976-77, November 16, 1998 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

305

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Abendan, et al., G.R. Nos. 132026-27, June 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Castillano, G.R. No. 130596, February 15, 2002

but there is treachery even when no evidence was presented to show the start of the attack when appellants continued to stab the victim even when he was already pleading for his life. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Andres, et al., G.R. No. 122735, September 25, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Dionesio Santiago, G.R. No. 133445, February 27, 2003

The existence or non-existence of treachery is not dependent on the success of the assault. People of the Phil. vs. Efren Tejero, et al., G.R. No. 135050, April 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Raquim Pinuela, G.R. No. 140727-28, February 3, 2003

Necessary to prove the manner in which victim was attacked (there must be evidence of mode of attack). People of the Phil. vs. Mario Ablao, G.R. No. 69184, March 26, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Gumercindo E. Quilaton, G.R. No. 69666, January 23, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo V. Pajarit, et al., G.R. No. 82770, October 19, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Cabarrubias, et al., G.R. Nos. 94709-10, June 15, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro R. Cedenio, et al., G.R. No. 93485, June 27, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Eutiquio Apa-ap, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 110993, August 17, 1994

When there is no proof to justify the manner in which the crime was committed it cannot be insisted that the circumstance of treachery [is] present. People of the Phil. vs. Nerio C. Gaddi, G.R. No. 74065, February 27, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Bacho, et al., G.R. No. 66645, March 29, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Ablao, G.R. No. 69184, March 26, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Abulkhair Patamama, G.R. No. 107938, December 4, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Bahenting, G.R. No. 127659, February 24, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

306

People of the Phil. vs. Guiamad Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, July 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Randy Raquiño, G.R. No. 132480, September 30, 1999

When manner of attack was not proven, appellant should be given the benefit of the doubt (doubt as to the existence of treachery must be resolved in favor of the accused) and the crime should be considered homicide only. People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Agcaoili, G.R. No. 92143, February 26, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Manlulu, et al., G.R. No. 102140, April 22, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Dante Beltran, G.R. No. 119306, July 31, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Alcartado, G.R. No. 119070, August 30, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Ballabare, et al, G.R. No. 108871, November 19, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio V. Eribal, G.R. No. 127662, March 25, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Loredo Real, G.R. No. 121930, June 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Albert Nagum, G.R. No. 134003, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Santos, et al., G.R. No. 122935, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Hilot, et al., G.R. No. 129532, October 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Doctolero, G.R. No. 131866, August 20, 2001

When there is no evidence that the accused has, prior to the moment of the killing, resolved to commit the crime, or there is no proof that the death of the victim was the result of meditation, calculation or reflection, treachery cannot be considered. United States vs. Pedro Balagtas, et al., G.R. No. 6432, March 22, 1911, 19 Phil. 164 People of the Phil. vs. Julio R. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001

Treachery cannot be presumed from number of stab wounds sustained. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto V. Lagtu, G.R. No. L-52237, September 30, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Barba, G.R. No. 50433, November 13, 1991

Treachery may be proven by circumstantial evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, May 27, 1991

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

307

People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Agcaoili, G.R. No. 92143, February 26, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Elmo Catua, et al., G.R. No. 101367, March 23, 1992

Killing by an adult of a minor child is treacherous (the killing of minor children who, by reason of their tender years, could not be expected to put up a defense, is considered treacherous; the requisites for treachery are conclusively deemed present) even if the manner of attack was not shown. People of the Phil. vs. Tito Zuela, et al., G.R. No. 112177, January 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Ugiaban Lumandong, G.R. No. 132745, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Talavera, G.R. No. 139967, July 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Donato Cruz, G.R. No. 127789, April 2, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Samus, G.R. No. 135957-58, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Ostia, G.R. No. 131804, February 26, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Jorolan, G.R. Nos. 142683-84, June 23, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Charlie Almoguerra, et al., G.R. No. 121177, November 12, 2003

Treachery in robbery with homicide Treachery as aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide - treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed by treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, et al., G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003

The issues that now come to fore are (1) whether or not treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide; and if in the affirmative, (b) whether treachery may be appreciated against Juan and Victor. On the first issue, we rule in the affirmative. This Court has ruled over the years that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in the felony of robbery with homicide, a special complex crime (un delito especial complejo) and at the same time a single and indivisible offense (uno solo indivisible). [Sentencia de 17 de Diciembre de 1875 of the Supreme Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

308

Court of Spain. People of the Phil. vs. Felix Semañada, G.R. No. L-11361, May 26, 1958, 103 Phil. 790 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-12090, April 30, 1960, 107 Phil 1091 People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Tiongson, G.R. Nos. L-15201-02, October 31, 1962 People of the Phil. vs. Bautil Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-18997, January 31, 1966 People of the Phil. vs. Balbal Sigayan, et al., G.R. Nos. L-15823-26, April 30, 1966 People of the Phil. vs. Epifanio Pujinio, et al., G.R. No. L-21690, April 29, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Crisostomo Saquing, et al., G.R. No. L-27903, December 26, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Cornelio, et al., G.R. No. L-1289, June 10, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Repato, G.R. No. L-23431, July 20, 1971 People of the Phils. vs. Vicente Pajanustan, G.R. No. L-38162, May 17, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Hermilo Arcamo, et al., G.R. No. L-34217, July 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Pio Tintero, G.R. No. L-30435, February 15, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. L-52017, October 27, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo O. Badilla, G.R. No. 69317, May 21, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo P. Manansala, G.R. No. 88752, July 3, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Bechayda, G.R. No. 72001, August 7, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Vivas, G.R. No. 100914, May 6, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Pacapac, et al., G.R. No. 90623, September 7, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Mores, et al., G.R. No. 107746, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Reyes and Nestor Pagal, G.R. No. 120642, July 2, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Isa Abdul et al., G.R. No. 128074, July 13, 1999

In several cases, this Court held that robbery with homicide is a special complex crime, e.g., People of the Phil. vs. Allan Jarandilla, G.R. Nos. 115985-86, August 31, 2000; People of the Phil. vs. Willie Quibido, et al., G.R. No. 136113, August 23, 2000; People of the Phil. vs. Joey Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 129288, March 30, 2000; Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

309

People of the Phil. vs. Tito Zuela, G.R. No. 112177, January 28, 2000; People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000. In some cases, this Court has held that robbery with homicide is a single and indivisible crime, e.g., People vs. Labita, 99 Phil. 1068 (unreported [1956]); People of the Phil. vs. David A. Alfeche, Jr., G.R. No. 102070, July 23, 1992] However, this Court in two cases has held that robbery with homicide is a crime against property and hence treachery which is appreciated only to crimes against persons should not be appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. [People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Timple, et al., G.R. Nos. 100391-92, September 26, 1994; People of the Phil. vs. Luisito San Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-44274, January 22, 1980] It held in another case that treachery is not appreciated in robbery with rape precisely because robbery with rape is a crime against property. [People vs. Loseo, G.R. No. 5508-09, April 29, 1954 (unpublished). Under Republic Act 8383, rape is a crime against persons.] These rulings of the Court find support in case law that in robbery with homicide or robbery with rape, homicide or rape are merely incidents of the robbery, with robbery being the main purpose and object of the criminal. People of the Phil. vs. Joemarie Navales, et al., G.R. No. 112977, January 23, 1997. Indeed, in People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000, two distinguished members of this Court advocated a review of the doctrine that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide. They opined that treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. After all, in People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Sasan Bariquit, et al., G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000, this Court in a per curiam decision promulgated in year 2000 declared that treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. However, this Court held in People vs. Cando that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide, citing its prior rulings that in robbery with homicide, treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance when the victim of homicide is killed with treachery. This Court opted not to apply its ruling earlier that year in People vs. Bariquit. Going by the letter of the law, treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons as enumerated in Title Eight, Chapters One and Two, Book II of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Supreme Court of Spain has consistently applied treachery to robbery with homicide, classified as a crime against property. Citing decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, Cuello Calon, a noted commentator of the Spanish Penal Code says that despite the strict and express reference of the penal code to treachery being applicable to persons, treachery also applies to other crimes such as robbery with homicide: Treachery is not an element of robbery with homicide. Neither does it constitute a Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

310

crime specially punishable by law nor is it included by the law in defining the crime of robbery with homicide and prescribing the penalty therefor. Treachery is likewise not inherent in the crime of robbery with homicide. Hence, treachery should be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide for the imposition of the proper penalty for the crime. In its Sentencia dated March 14, 1877, the Supreme Court of Spain declared that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance not only in crimes against persons but also in robbery with homicide. The high court of Spain applied Article 79 of the Spanish Penal Code (Article 62 of the Revised Penal Code) and ruled that since treachery is not a constitutive element of the crime of robbery with homicide nor is it inherent in said crime, without which it cannot be committed, treachery is an aggravating circumstance to said crime. The high court of Spain was not impervious of the fact that robbery with homicide is classified as a crime against property. Indeed, it specifically declared that the classification of robbery with homicide as a crime against property is irrelevant and inconsequential in the application of treachery. It further declared that it would be futile to argue that in crimes against property such as robbery with homicide, treachery would have no application. This is so, the high tribunal ruled, because when robbery is coupled with crimes committed against persons, the crime is not only an assault (ataca) on the property of the victims but also of the victims themselves (ofende): In fine, in the application of treachery as a generic aggravating circumstance to robbery with homicide, the law looks at the constituent crime of homicide which is a crime against persons and not at the constituent crime of robbery which is a crime against property. Treachery is applied to the constituent crime of "homicide" and not to the constituent crime of "robbery" of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. The crime of robbery with homicide does not lose its classification as a crime against property or as a special complex and single and indivisible crime simply because treachery is appreciated as a generic aggravating circumstance. Treachery merely increases the penalty for the crime conformably with Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code absent any generic mitigating circumstance. Be that as it may, treachery cannot be appreciated against Juan and Victor in the case at bar because the same was not alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedures which reads: Sec. 8. Copyright 2014

Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

311

designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. Although at the time the crime was committed, generic aggravating circumstance need not be alleged in the Information, however, the general rule had been applied retroactively because if it is more favorable to the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Onabia, G.R. No. 128288, April 20, 1999. Even if treachery is proven but it is not alleged in the information, treachery cannot aggravate the penalty for the crime. Generic aggravating circumstance only when present in special complex crime of robbery with homicide. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Vivas, G.R. No. 100914, May 6, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Timple, et al., G.R. Nos. 100391-92, Sept. 26, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Salvatierra, et.al., G.R. No. 111124, June 20, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Reyes and Nestor Pagal, G.R. No. 120642, July 2, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Macabales, et al., G.R. No. 111102, December 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. William Montinola, G.R. Nos. 131856-57, July 9, 2001

Under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, treachery is applicable only to crime against persons. Accordingly, inasmuch as robbery with homicide is a crime against property and not against persons, treachery cannot be validly considered. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Sasan Bariquit, et al., G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Danilo Lobitania, G.R. No. 142380, September 5, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sabiyon, G.R. No. 129113, September 17, 2002

Element of defense against bodily injury makes treachery proper for consideration only in crimes against persons as provided by the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Luisito San Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-44274, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Danilo Lobitania, G.R. No. 142380, September 5, 2002

Treachery and superior strength, however, only pertain to crimes against persons. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

312

The crime of kidnapping, falling as it does within the classification of crimes against liberty, is aggravated neither by treachery nor superior strength. People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Delim, et al., G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003

Related circumstances Self -defense Passion or obfuscation Intent to kill Circumstances absorbed by treachery

Self-defense Relationship of treachery to self-defense: when the act is attended by treachery on the part of the offender, it could not be said that there was unlawful aggression the part of the offended party. People of the Phil. vs. Noel Baniel, G.R. No. 108492, July 15, 1997

Passion or obfuscation Passion cannot co-exist with treachery because in passion, the offender loses his control and reason while in treachery the means employed are consciously adopted. One who loses his reason and self-control could not deliberately employ a particular means, method or form of attack in the execution of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Wong, 70 O.G. 4844 People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Germina, G.R. No. 120881, May 19, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Dante L. Domingo, G.R. No. 131817, August 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pansensoy, G.R. No. 140634, September 12, 2002

Intent to kill Treachery cannot be appreciated in the absence of intent to kill as there is no deliberate employment of means, methods, and manner of execution to ensure the safety of the accused from the defensive or retaliatory attacks coming from the victim. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

313

People of the Phil. vs. Juancho Gatchalian, G.R. No. 90301, December 10, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Samson Suplito, G.R. No. 104944, September 16, 1999 People of the Phils. vs. Eutiquia Carmen, G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001

Circumstances absorbed by treachery Nighttime, abuse of superior strength, employing means to weaken defense, by a band and abuse of superior strength are absorbed by treachery when they form part of treacherous mode of attack. People of the Phil. vs. Agripino Carzano, et al., G.R. No. L-29571, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Gida, et al., G.R. No. L-41419, January 19, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Andaya, G.R. No. L-48735, January 19, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Tirol, et al., G.R. No. L-30538, January 31, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Araja, et al., G.R. No. L-24780, June 29, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Jimenez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36613-14, July 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Mabini Garachico, et al., G.R. No. L-30849, March 29, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Camano, G.R. Nos. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Efreniano Balane, G.R. No. L-48319, July 25, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Karunsiang Guiapar, et al., G.R. No. L-35465, May 31, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. L-52017, October 27, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. L-69619, September 15, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Irenea, G.R. Nos. L-44410-11, August 5, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Bardon, et al., G.R. No. L-60764, September 19, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Maravilla, Jr., G.R. No. 77968, November 23, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Benito I. Espiritu, et al., G.R. No. 80406, November 20, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Maceda, G.R. No. 91106, May 27, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo C. Pascual, G.R. No. 42769, December 5, 1991 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

314

People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Bechayda, G.R. No. 72001, August 7, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Esrael Amodina, et al., G.R. No. 75295, March 17, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Abitona, G.R. Nos. 96943-45, January 20, 1995

The rule is that nocturnity is absorbed in treachery if the former cannot be perceived distinctly from the facts obtaining. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Artieda, G.R. No. L-38725, May 15, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio B. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965, June 18, 1987

Nighttime or nocturnity deemed absorbed in treachery (The reason for this rule is that nighttime forms an integral part of the peculiar treacherous means and manner adopted to insure the execution of the crime). People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Tolibas, et al., G.R. No. 103506, February 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Dacibar, et al., G.R. No. 111286, February 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, March 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Hilarion Bergonio, Jr., G.R. No. 133981, September 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Cirilo, G.R. No. 134245, December 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael M. Catapang, G.R. No. 128126, June 25, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Costales, G.R. Nos. 141154-56, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Luciano De Guzman, et al., G.R. Nos. 135779-81, November 21, 2003

Nighttime is not absorbed by treachery when it was purposely sought by the accused to facilitate immunity in the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Efreniano Balane, G.R. No. L-48319, July 25, 1983

Cuadrilla or band is deemed absorbed in treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Jimenez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36613-14, July 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Oliver S. Tajon, G.R. No. L-47067, April 17, 1984 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

315

People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio Arbois, et al., G.R. No. L-36936, August 5, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. L-52017, October 27, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Rojas, et al., G.R. Nos. L-46960-62, January 8, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Ampo-an, et al., G.R. No. 75366, July 4, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Isa Abdul et al., G.R. No. 128074, July 13, 1999

Abuse of superior strength is absorbed in treachery. People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando R. Jakosalem, G.R. No. 130506, February 28, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Editho Suyum, et al., G.R. No. 137518, March 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Donato Cruz, G.R. No. 127789, April 2, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Yamashito Ronquillo, G.R. No. 126136, April 5, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Galgo, G.R. No. 133887, May 28, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo I. Delmo, et al., G.R. Nos. 130078-82, October 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Loreto, G.R. Nos. 137411-13, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Caballero, et al., G.R. No. 149028-30, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Melendres, G.R. No. 134940, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio B. Sibonga, et al., G.R. No. 95901, June 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Hugo, et al., G.R. No. 134604, August 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Luciano De Guzman, et al., G.R. Nos. 135779-81, November 21, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

316

People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Felipe, et al., G.R. No. 142505, December 11, 2003

Treachery and abuse of superior strength, treated as one aggravating circumstance when they co-exist. United States vs. Pablo Jamino, et al., G.R. No. 1247, December 22, 1903, 3 Phil. 102 People of the Phil. vs. Proceso Bustos, G.R. No. 17763, July 28, 1923, 45 Phil. 9 People of the Phil. vs. Ceferino T. Medrana, G.R. No. L-31871, December 14, 1981

Treachery deemed included in abuse of superiority. People of the Phil. vs. Proceso Bustos, G.R. No. 17763, July 28, 1923, 45 Phil. 9 Cipriano Ofiasa vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 47221, August 11, 1941, 73 Phil. 87 People of the Phil. vs. Mario A. Bañez, G.R. No. 95456, September 18, 1992

Abuse of superior strength, not treachery, present. People of the Phil. vs. Damaso Del Valle, G.R. No. L-49181, March 27, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Agapinay, et al., G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990

Disregard of sex and age, not absorbed by treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Cristoto Lapaz, et al., G.R. No. 68898, March 31, 1989

Aid of armed men absorbed in treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Esrael Amodina, et al., G.R. No. 75295, March 17, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Cadiz Lapay, et al., G.R. No. 123072, October 14, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Sergon Manes, et al., G.R. No. 122737, February 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Necesario Hijapon, et al., G.R. No. 133928, July 10, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Pascua, Jr., G.R. No. 130963, November 27, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Yamashito Ronquillo, G.R. No. 126136, April 5, 2002

Craft may be absorbed in treachery if it is deliberately adopted as the means, method or form for the treacherous strategy. People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

317

People of the Phil. vs. Prudencio Damiar, et al., G.R. No. L-27178, February 20, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Oliver S. Tajon, G.R. No. L-47067, April 17, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo L. Padica, et al., G.R. No. 102645, April 7, 1993 People of the Phils. vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002

Craft not absorbed by treachery when not employed to make treachery more effective. People of the Phil. vs. Causiano Enot, et al., G.R. No. L-17530, October 30, 1962 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Berdida, et al., G.R. No. L-20183, June 30, 1966 People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Layson, et al., G.R. No. L-25177, October 31, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Victor Abletes, et al., G.R. No. L-33304, July 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Echaluce, et al., G.R. No. L-29776, August 27, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Laguia Undong, et al., G.R. No. L-32641, August 29, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Mauro Tizon, et al., G.R. No. L-29724, August 29, 1975 People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Pajenado, G.R. No. L-26458, January 30, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Luisito San Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-44274, January 22, 1980

Art. 14 (17) - Aggravating Circumstance: Ignominy (Ignominia) Ignominy is aggravating when the manner in which the crime was committed added shame, disgrace or obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. United States vs. Teodoro De Leon, G.R. No. 522, March 10, 1902, 1 Phil. 163 United States vs. Felipe Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255, August 17, 1903, 2 Phil 417 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Celestino, G.R. No. L-44363, March 12, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Paciano Nierra, et al., G.R. No. L-32624, February 12, 1980

Ignominy is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order which adds disgrace and Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

318

obloquy to the material injury caused by the crime. United States vs. Felipe Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255, August 17, 1903, 2 Phil 417 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Acaya, G.R. No. L-72998, July 29, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Bacule, G.R. No. 127568, January 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Osmundo Fuertes ,et. Al., G.R. No. 95891-92, February 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Cortezano, G.R. No. 123140, September 23, 2003

The fact that the crime was committed in a public place and in the presence of many persons did not necessarily tend to make the effects of the crime more humiliating or put the offended party to shame. People of the Phil. vs. Angel Acaya, G.R. No. L-72998, July 29, 1988

No ignominy when there is no evidence to show that means were employed or circumstances surrounded the act tending to make the effects of the crime more humiliating or to put the offended party to shame. United States vs. Felipe Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255, August 17, 1903, 2 Phil 417 People of the Phil. vs. Peter Cadevida, et al., G.R. No. 94528, March 1, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Osmundo Fuertes ,et. Al., G.R. No. 95891-92, February 28, 2000

Ignominy requires that the offense be committed in a manner that tends to make its effects more humiliating to the victim, that is, add to his moral suffering. United States vs. Felipe Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255, August 17, 1903, 2 Phil 417 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime G. Jose, et al., G.R. No. L-28232, February 6, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Israel Carmina, et al., G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Peter Cadevida, et al., G.R. No. 94528, March 1, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

319

People of the Phils. vs. Vicente Valla, G.R. No. 111285, January 24, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000

Ignominy cannot be appreciated in cases where wounds were inflicted (or body was dismembered) when the victim was already dead. United States vs. Felipe Abaigar, G.R. No. 1255, August 17, 1903, 2 Phil 417 People of the Phil. vs. Pascual Curiano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-15256-57, October 31, 1963 People of the Phil. vs. Getulio Pantoja, G.R. No. L-18793, October 11, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Diego Balondo, G.R. No. L-27401, October 31, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Asterio Marcina, G.R. No. L-29912, May 31, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio B. Ferrera, G.R. No. L-66965, June 18, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Beniano Renejane, et al., G.R. Nos. 76954-55, February 26, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Israel Carmina, et al., G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Osmundo Fuertes ,et. Al., G.R. No. 95891-92, February 28, 2000

This Court in previous rape cases, has held the following circumstances ignominious: where the accused ordered the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten minutes before raping her People of the Phil. vs. Jaime G. Jose, et al., G.R. No. L-28232, February 6, 1971

where the rape was committed in front of the husband of the victim United States vs. Pedro Iglesia, et al., G.R. No. 6868, December 14, 1911, 21 Phil 55 United States vs. Camiloy, et al., G.R. No. 12693, August 11, 1917, 36 Phil 757 People of the Phil. vs. Cucufate Adlawan, G.R. No. L-456, March 29, 1949, 83 Phil. 194 People of the Phil. vs. Macaram, G.R. No. L-8438, August 30, 1957 (unreported) People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Obtinalia, et al., G.R. No. L-30190, April 30, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo A. Pizarras, G.R. No. L-35915, October 30, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Soriano, G.R. No. L-32244, June 24, 1983, 207 Phil. 630 People of the Phil. vs. Bernido Detuya, et al., G.R. No. L-39300, September 30, 1987 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

320

or by two or more persons in view of one another, People of the Phil. vs. Jose Cañete, G.R. No. L-30491, January 21, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Bonfilo Martinez, G.R. No. 116918, June 19, 1997

where the sexual intercourse was performed in the "dog style" position (While such a position has been resorted to by consenting adults, it adds ignominy when employed in rape cases.) People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Saylan, G.R. No. L-36941, June 29, 1984 People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo S. Mejorada, G.R. No. 102705, July 30, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Siao, G.R. No. 126021, March 3, 2000

and where the accused plastered mud on the victim's private part. People of the Phil. vs. Melquiades Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. 62116, March 22, 1990

Ignominy was also present where the victim was pregnant and whose pleas on that ground were ignored by the accused who went on to force his lust on her. The accused then tied a banana fiber around his penis and inserted it again into her vagina. Thereafter, he pulled out his organ and forced the victim to suck it. People of the Phil. vs. Temestocles Lozano, G.R No. 125080, September 25, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Bacule, G.R. No. 127568, January 28, 2000

Ignominy was appreciated in a case where a woman was raped in the presence of her betrothed (US vs. Casañas, 5 Phil. 377-378 [1905]) or of her husband or was made to exhibit to the rapists her complete nakedness before they raped her. People of the Phil. vs. Jaime G. Jose, et al., G.R. No. L-28232, February 6, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Baliwang Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000

The act of disposing of a cadaver into the river did not make the crime more shameful nor add to the victim's moral suffering since it was done after death had occurred and intended more to conceal the effects of the felony. People of the Phil. vs. Ruben M. Calijan, G.R. No. 94592, September 28, 1993

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

321

Art. 14 (18) - Aggravating Circumstance: Unlawful entry The aggravating circumstances of unlawful entry through the window and dwelling are absorbed in the crime of robbery. People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Escabarte, et al., G.R. No. L-42964, March 14, 1988

Under paragraph 20, Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code, motor vehicle would be an aggravating circumstance if the crime was committed by means thereof. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Del Castillo, Sr., G.R. No. L-32995, April 30, 1984

The crime committed is simple Homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of: xxx (2) Breaking a wall or door to gain entry (Art. 14, No. 19, Revised Penal Code), instead of unlawful entry, as erroneously found by the trial court, since the accused-appellants rammed the door off its hinges in order to gain entry, whereas "unlawful entry" exists only when entrance into a building is made by a way not for the purpose of entry; xxx People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Lamosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 74291-93, May 23, 1989

The qualifying circumstance of breaking down a wall should be deemed absorbed in unlawful entry. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Bondoy, G.R. No. 79089, May 18, 1993

The aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry was properly appreciated against the accused as he and his companion, Jerry, had entered the Borja residence through the second-floor window, a way not intended for ingress. People of the Phil. vs. John Amet G. Baello, G.R. No. 101314, July 1, 1993

The crime was likewise attended by the aggravating circumstance of unlawful entry. The barangay chairman testified that when he went to the house of the victim the day after the rape incident, he noticed that a baluster in the ceiling at the rear part of the house had been forcibly removed and that there was a ladder propped nearby. There was thus entry to complainant's house through an opening which was one not intended for that purpose. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

322

People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Talo, G.R. No. 125542, October 25, 2000

Art. 14 (19) - Aggravating Circumstance: Wall, roof, floor, door or window be broken The crime committed is simple Homicide, with the aggravating circumstances of: xxx (2) Breaking a wall or door to gain entry (Art. 14, No. 19, Revised Penal Code), instead of unlawful entry, as erroneously found by the trial court, since the accused-appellants rammed the door off its hinges in order to gain entry, whereas "unlawful entry" exists only when entrance into a building is made by a way not for the purpose of entry; xxx People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Lamosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 74291-93, May 23, 1989

The qualifying circumstance of breaking down a wall should be deemed absorbed in unlawful entry. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Bondoy, G.R. No. 79089, May 18, 1993

Art. 14 (20) - Aggravating Circumstance: With the aid of persons under 15 years of age, or by means of motor vehicle, motorized watercraft, airships or other similar means The aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle is appreciated when it is shown that the vehicle was purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense or to insure its success or when it is manifested that without it the offense charged could not have been committed. People of the Phil. vs. Elias Jaranilla, et al., G.R. No. L-28547, February 22, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Mil, G.R. Nos. L-28104-05, July 30, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Realino Zea, G.R. No. L-23109, June 29, 1984

Use of motor vehicle not considered when it was not used as a “means” used to Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

323

commit the crime. There is no showing that the motor vehicle was used precisely to facilitate the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Ramon P. Rebullar, et al., G.R. No. 88414, August 21 1990

The use of a motor vehicle is aggravating when it is used either to commit the crime or to facilitate escape. People of the Phil. vs. Erasmo Cuadra, G.R. No. L-27973, October 23, 1978 People of the Phils. vs. Reynaldo S. Lozada, G.R. No. 141121, July 17, 2003

The generic aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle is present. The appellant and his companions used motor bicycles in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof, and in facilitating their escape. People of the Phil. vs. Raul Oco, G.R. Nos. 137370-71, September 29, 2003

The aggravating circumstance of the use of a motor vehicle was, however, correctly appreciated by the trial court. The Ford Fiera played an important role in the accomplishment of appellant's design. Not only that, appellant and his companions made good their escape by speeding away in the jeep in order to avoid discovery of their identities. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Bardon, et al., G.R. No. L-60764, September 19, 1988

The use of the motor vehicle facilitated the taking of the victim and her subsequent rape. Accordingly, the said aggravating circumstance should and must be considered and appreciated against the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Collado, G.R. No. 41248, September 14, 1934, 60 Phil. 610 People of the Phil. vs. Perfecto Cruz, et al., G.R. No. L-2620, February 27, 1950, 85 Phil. 577 People of the Phil. vs. Noel R. Jovellano, et al., G.R. No. L-32421, March 27, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes, et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981

It appears that the use of motor vehicle in this case was merely incidental and was not purposely sought to facilitate the commission of the offense or to render the escape of the offender easier and his apprehension difficult. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Mil, G.R. Nos. L-28104-05, July 30, 1979 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

324

People of the Phil. vs. Luis F. Garcia, G.R. No. L-32071, July 9, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Permonette Joy Fortich, et al., G.R. Nos. 80399-404, November 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Clarence Astudillo, et al., G.R. No. 141518, April 29, 2003

The aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle not appreciated where the same is merely incidental and has not been alleged in the information. People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Muñoz, et al., G.R. No. L-38016, September 10, 1981

The aggravating circumstance of use of motor vehicle in the commission of the crime can be considered present because the car was used to trail the victim's car and to facilitate the commission of the crime and the escape of the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981

But the lower court erred in considering the use of motor vehicle as an aggravating circumstance. The accused and his co-conspirators used the jeep merely to facilitate their escape. It was not intentionally sought to ensure the success of their nefarious plan; and there is no showing that without the use of the vehicle the offense charged could not have been committed. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Tingson, et al., G.R. No. L-31228, October 24, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Elias Jaranilla, et al., G.R. No. L-28547, February 22, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Mil, G.R. Nos. L-28104-05, July 30, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Darwin M. Veloso, G.R. No. L-32900, February 25, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Ballinas, et al., G.R. No. 93300, October 4, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Permonette Joy Fortich, et al., G.R. Nos. 80399-404, November 13, 1997

Dwelling, nighttime, and the use of a motor vehicle are aggravating circumstances in rape. People of the Phil. vs. Juan U. Moreno, et al., G.R. No. 92049, March 22, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Armando V. Padilla, G.R. No. 111956, March 23, 1995

The aggravating circumstance of the use of motor vehicle attended the commission of the crime of rape where the appellant abducted complainant by pushing her into a Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

325

taxicab and bringing her to the place where he later raped her. People of the Phil. vs. Nolasco Famador, G.R. No. L-36553, March 30, 1982

The aggravating circumstance of "by means of a motor vehicle" should also have been considered in this case because the robbery could not have been effected without the aid of a motor vehicle. People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Cayanan, et al., G.R. No. 73257-58, June 16, 1995 Jonathan D. Cariaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143561, June 6, 2001

The use of the jeep facilitated the commission of the crime considering that their victim was driving a motorcycle. Also, the jeep afforded the killers an easy means of escape from the scene of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Dascil, et al., G.R. No. L-36364, November 25, 1982

The use of a motor vehicle is not aggravating in this case even if a jeep was used in concealing the victim's corpse. The jeep was not used as a means for the commission of the assassination. People of the Phil. vs. Marvin Millora, et al., G.R. No. L-38831, December 27, 1982

The use of the truck was not necessary to facilitate the perpetration of the heinous crime. In fact, they could have consummated their nefarious design by simply waiting in ambush at some point along the route of the truck. People of the Phil. vs. Realino Zea, G.R. No. L-23109, June 29, 1984

It has been established that the victim's jeep was necessary and actually used for the original intention of kidnapping him for ransom; that said vehicle was used to trick the victim to bring the accused to the isolated place where he was murdered; that the same was used to enable the appellants to dispose of the victim's body and finally, to facilitate their flight. Without the jeep, they could not have committed the crime with ease and facility. People of the Phil. vs. Glicerio Masilang, et al., G.R. No. L-64699, July 11, 1986

The commission of this crime was attended by the generic aggravating circumstance of use of a motor vehicle. 54 It has been established during the trial that appellant used the tricycle in going to the place of the crime, and in facilitating his escape. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

326

People of the Phil. vs. Petronilo Espejo, et., al., G.R. No. L-27708, December 19, 1970 People of the Phil. vs. Elizalde Faco, G.R. No. 115215, September 16, 1999 People of the Phils. vs. Baltazar Bongalon, G.R. No. 125025, January 23, 2002

The use of a motor vehicle cannot be considered as an aggravating circumstance, as the police vehicle used to reach the residence was not used directly or indirectly to facilitate the criminal act. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo S. Herbias, G.R. Nos. 112716-17, December 16, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Amion, G.R. No. 140511, March 1, 2001

Art. 14 (21) - Aggravating Circumstance: Causing other wrong not necessary for commission of offense (Cruelty or ensañamiento) According to Article 14 (21) of the Revised Penal Code, there is cruelty when the wrong done in the commission of the crime is deliberately augmented by causing another wrong which is not necessary for its commission. This has not been shown in the case at bar. Llabres did not deliberately prolong the physical suffering of his victim; on the contrary, his repeated blows show that he intended to kill Yap as soon as he could. People of the Phil. vs. Roger Llabres, G.R. No. 74294-96, August 4, 1993

The test in appreciating cruelty as an aggravating circumstance is "whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by causing another wrong not necessary for its commission or inhumanly increased the victim' suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse." People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Lacao, et al., G.R. No. L-32078, September 30, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. 102062, March 14, 1996 People of the Phils. vs. Bernardino Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Panida, et al., G.R. No. 127125, July 6, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

327

People of the Phil. vs. Romenciano "Omeng" Ricafranca, et al., G.R. No. 124384-86, January 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Bonito, et al., G.R. No. 128002, October 10, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Lopez, G.R. No. 132168, October 10, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ludring Valdez, et al., G.R. No. 128105, January 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando M. Guerrero, G.R. No. 134759, September 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio B. Sibonga, et al., G.R. No. 95901, June 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

The appreciation of cruelty, as an aggravating circumstance, is relative. It depends upon the crime committed. As long as the wrong done in the commission of the offense is deliberately augmented and that such wrong is not essential for the accomplishment of the ultimate purpose of the offender, the same could be considered as aggravating. The nature of the wrong or the number thereof is immaterial. People of the Phil. vs. Renato Z. Dizon, G.R. No. 134802, October 26, 2001

There is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing him unnecessary moral and physical pain in the consummation of the criminal act which he intends to commit. People of the Phil. vs. Jovencio Lucas, G.R. No. 80102, January 22, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben E. Ilaoa, et al., G.R. No. 94308, June 16, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Robert Alban, et al., G.R. No. 112279, July 3, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. 102062, March 14, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Augusto Tanzon, G.R. No. 129793, December 15, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Lacanieta, et al., G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gaspar S. Sinda, et al., G.R. Nos. 115247-48, December 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ludring Valdez, et al., G.R. No. 128105, January 24, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

328

People of the Phil. vs. Renato Z. Dizon, G.R. No. 134802, October 26, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Catian, et al., G.R. No. 139693, January 24, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002

The mere fact of inflicting various successive wounds upon a person in order to cause his death, no appreciable time intervening between the infliction of one wound and that of another to show that he had wanted to prolong the suffering of his victim, is not sufficient for taking this aggravating circumstance into consideration. People of the Phil. vs. Dayug, et al., G.R. No. 25782, September 30, 1926, 49 Phil 423 People of the Phil. vs. Teodulfo Gatcho, G.R. No. L-27251, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. L-69619, September 15, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. 102062, March 14, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Basao, et al., G.R. No. 128286, July 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Magayac, G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Estorco, et. al., G.R. No. 111941, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. George Cortes, G.R. No. 137050, July 11, 2001

We have frequently held that the mere fact that a number of grave wounds are found upon the body of a murdered man can rarely be considered conclusive of the fact that they were inflicted with the deliberate and inhuman intention of unnecessarily increasing the sufferings of the offended party. It is, as a rule, the unnecessary mutilation of the body which constitutes the qualifying circumstance of 'ensañamiento,' and the mere fact that wounds far in excess of what would have been necessary to cause death were inflicted upon the body of the deceased does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly increasing the sufferings of the offended party. The object sought to be attained in such cases may well have been merely to make assurance doubly sure, and to make the recovery of the victim of the attack absolutely impossible. United States vs. Julio Vitug et al., G.R. No. L-5430, September 8, 1910, 17 Phil. 1

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

329

United States vs. Nazario Palermo, et al., G.R. No. 10370, September 17, 1915, 31 Phil. 425 United States vs. Narciso A. Siblag, G.R. No. 13156, February 25, 1918, 37 Phil 703 United States vs. Martina Rivera, G.R. No. 16443, March 21, 1921, 41 Phil 472 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, February 11, 1931, 55 Phil. 610 People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Manzano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-33643-44, July 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Lanseta, G.R. No. L-30413, January 22, 1980

For cruelty to be appreciated, it must be shown that the accused, for his pleasure and satisfaction, caused the victim to suffer slowly and painfully as he inflicted on him unnecessary physical and moral pain. The crime is aggravated because by deliberately increasing the suffering of the victim, the offender denotes sadism and, consequently, a marked degree of malice and perversity. People of the Phil. vs. Dayug, et al., G.R. No. 25782, September 30, 1926, 49 Phil 423 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Magayac, G.R. No. 126043, April 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Estorco, et. al., G.R. No. 111941, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. George Cortes, G.R. No. 137050, July 11, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Bonnie R. Rabanal, G.R. No. 146687, August 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo I. Delmo, et al., G.R. Nos. 130078-82, October 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gildo B. Pelopero PNP, G.R. No. 126119, October 15, 2003

Cruelty is not to be inferred from the fact that the body of the deceased was dismembered and placed inside a sack, in the absence of proof that this was done while the deceased was still alive. People of the Phil. vs. Eligio Jimenez, G.R. No. L-7151, May 30, 1956, 99 Phil. 285 People of the Phil. vs. Armida Rodriguez De Pascual, G.R. No. L-32512, March 31, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben E. Ilaoa, et al., G.R. No. 94308, June 16, 1994

Cruelty refers to physical suffering of the victim purposely intended by the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

330

offender. Hence, the wrong done must be performed while the victim is still alive.

plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Teodulfo Gatcho, G.R. No. L-27251, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin K. Ong, G.R. No. L-37908, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Rojas, et al., G.R. No. L-46960-62, January 8, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Prudencio Nulla, G.R. No. L-69346, August 31, 1987

No cruelty where is no showing that the wounds on the bodies of the victims were inflicted unnecessarily while they were still alive in order to prolong their physical suffering. People of the Phil. vs. Dayug, et al., G.R. No. 25782, September 30, 1926, 49 Phil 423 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 33843, February 11, 1931, 55 Phil. 610 People of the Phil. vs. Gelacio Dequiña, G.R. No. 41040, August 9, 1934, 60 Phil. 279 People of the Phil. vs. Pascual Curiano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-15256-57, October 31, 1963 People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Manzano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-33643-44, July 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Valeriano Pacris, et al., G.R. No. 69986, March 5, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio M. Curaraton, G.R. No. 96765, July 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. 102062, March 14, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio B. Sibonga, et al., G.R. No. 95901, June 16, 2003

The gagging of the mouth of a three-year-old child with stockings, dumping him with head downwards into a box, and covering the box with sacks and other boxes, thereby causing slow suffocation, is cruelty. People of the Phil. vs. Belinda V. Lora, G.R. No. L-49430, March 30, 1982

Number of wounds alone is not sufficient to show that the killing was committed for the purpose of deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim. (The mere fact that wounds in excess of what was indispensably necessary to cause death were found in the body of the victim does not necessarily imply that such wounds were inflicted with cruelty and with the intention of deliberately and inhumanly intensifying or aggravating the sufferings of the victim.) Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

331

People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Solis, G.R. No. 93629, March 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Tonog, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 94533, February 4, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben E. Ilaoa, et al., G.R. No. 94308, June 16, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Robert Alban, et al., G.R. No. 112279, July 3, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sion, et al., G.R. No. 109617, August 11, 1997 People of the Phils. vs. Bernardino Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Panida, et al., G.R. No. 127125, July 6, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Emberga, et al., G.R. No. 116616, November 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Estorco, et. al., G.R. No. 111941, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Almendras, G.R. No. 137277, December 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Liberato Solamillo, et al., G.R. No. 123161, June 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Florendo, G.R. No. 136845, October 8, 2003

Cruelty is present in this case where appellant tied the victim to a bed, burnt her face with a lighted cigarette while raping her and laughed as he did all these. People of the Phil. vs. Jovencio Lucas, G.R. No. 80102, January 22, 1990

Cruelty was clearly present considering that the accused deliberately prolonged the suffering of the victim by boxing and kicking him in a malevolent manner. People of the Phil. vs. Franklin Quintos, G.R. No. 51107, June 4, 1990

When the killing was done with cruelty, by deliberately or inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse, it was likewise qualified to murder. People of the Phil. vs. Cecilio Binondo, G.R. No. 97227, October 20, 1992

Art. 15 - Alternative Circumstances: In General Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

332

People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Fetalino, G.R. No. 174472, June 19, 2007

According to the Revised Penal Code: "Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission." People of the Phil. vs. Maximo B. Baltazar, G.R. No. L-30557, March 28, 1980

Art. 15, par. 2 - Alternative Circumstance: Relationship People of the Phil. vs. John Montinola, G.R. No. 178061, January 31, 2008

Relationship as an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code is considered aggravating in the crime of rape. People of the Phil. vs. Joselito A. Lopit, G.R. No. 177742, December 17, 2008

In order that the alternative circumstance of relationship may be taken into consideration in the imposition of the proper penalty, the offended party must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant, (c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by affinity in the same degree, of the offender. 05plpe

People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Tolentino, G.R. No. 130514, June 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Ocfemia, G.R. No. 126135, October 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Marcos, G.R. No. 132392, January 18, 2001

Alternative circumstances are those which must be taken into consideration as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and other conditions attending its commission. Based on a strict interpretation, alternative circumstances are thus not aggravating circumstances per se. The Revised Penal Code is silent as to when relationship is mitigating and when it is aggravating. Jurisprudence considers relationship as an aggravating circumstance in crimes against chastity. However, rape is no longer a crime against chastity for it is now classified as a crime against persons. The determination of whether an alternative circumstance is aggravating or not to warrant the death penalty cannot be left on a case-by-case basis. The law must declare unequivocally an attendant circumstance as Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

333

qualifying to warrant the imposition of the death penalty. The Constitution expressly provides that the death penalty may only be imposed for crimes defined as heinous by Congress. Any attendant circumstance that qualifies a crime as heinous must be expressly so prescribed by Congress. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004

Outside these enumerations and consistent with the doctrine that criminal laws must be liberally construed in favor of the accused, no other relationship, kinship or association between the offender and the victim may aggravate the imposable penalty for the crime committed. The fact, then, that the offended party is the granddaughter or descendant of appellant's live-in partner cannot justify the imposition of death upon the rapist. People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Atop, G.R. No. 124303-05, February 10, 1998

Since the degree of relationship was not clearly established to be one of those provided for by law, we cannot use such circumstance against the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Caballes, et al., G.R. Nos. 102723-24, June 19, 1997

The relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationships mentioned. United States vs. Ramon Insierto, G.R. No. 5606, March 2, 1910, 15 Phil. 358 People of the Phil. vs. Diego Balondo, G.R. No. L-27401, October 31, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Mansueto Lamberte, G.R. No. L-65153, July 11, 1986 People of the Phil. vs. Roque Cabresos, G.R. No. 109776, May 26, 1995

The relationship between appellant and AAA as first cousins is not covered by any of the relationships mentioned. People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Fernandez, G.R. No. 176060, October 5, 2007

While it is true that the alternative circumstance of relationship is always aggravating in crimes against chastity, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party, it is only taken into consideration "when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender." People of the Phil. vs. Mansueto Lamberte, G.R. No. L-65153, July 11, 1986 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

334

The alternative circumstance of relationship is taken into consideration when, as in this case, the victim is the descendant of the offender [Art. 15, Revised Penal Code]. In crimes against chastity, relationship is aggravating. The gravity of a crime attended by abuse of relationship was emphasized in the case of People vs. Porras [58 Phil. 578, 579 (1933)], which likewise involved the rape of a daughter by the father, wherein it was held that: "[t]he crime in this case was so monstrous that no punishment which is in the power of this or any other human tribunal to decree, could possibly be a sufficient expiation of the offense." People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Porras, G.R. No. 38107, October 16, 1933, 58 Phil. 578 People of the Phil. vs. Jovencio Lucas, G.R. No. 80102, January 22, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Jose T. Ocampo, G.R. Nos. 90247-49, February 13, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel P. Matrimonio, G.R. Nos. 82223-24, November 13, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Philip C. Tan, Jr., G.R. Nos. 103134-40, November 20, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Perez, G.R. No. 118332, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Cirilo Balmoria, G.R. Nos. 120620-21, March 20, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rizalino Fundano, G.R. No. 124737, June 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Procopio Tresballes, G.R. No. 126118, September 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Mosqueda, G.R. Nos. 131830-34, September 3, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Docena, G.R. Nos. 131894-98, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Gajo, G.R. No. 127749, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo Alvero, G.R. Nos. 134536-38, April 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Muller Baldino, G.R. No. 137269, October 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Navida, G.R. Nos. 132239-40, December 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Mariño, G.R. No. 132550, February 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo B. Sampior, G.R. No. 117691, March 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo H. Catubig, G.R. No. 137842, August 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Caiñgat, G.R. No. 137963, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Solmoro, G.R. Nos. 139187-94, November 27, 2002 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

335

People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Lilo, G.R. Nos. 140736-39, February 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003

We appreciate the presence of alternative or aggravating circumstance of relationship in this case, as "the relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter is included by analogy as similar to that of ascendant and descendant." People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Bersabal, G.R. No. 24532, December 11, 1925, 48 Phil. 439 People of the Phil. vs. Paterno, CA, 38 O.G. 467 People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Ramirez, G.R. No. 97920, January 20, 1997

As the crime was committed by the father of the offended party, the alternative circumstance of relationship should be appreciated. In crimes against chastity, such as Acts of Lasciviousness, relationship is always aggravating. People of the Phil. vs. Salvino Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009

Art. 15, par. 3 - Alternative Circumstance: Intoxication of the offender People of the Phil. vs. Perlito A. Mondigo, G.R. No. 167954, January 31, 2008

Under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, intoxication of the offender shall be taken into consideration as a mitigating circumstance when the offender committed a felony in a state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony. Otherwise when habitual or intentional, it shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Crisostomo, G.R. No. L-32243, April 15, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. No. 137520-22, May 9, 2002 People of the Philippines vs. Edgar Dawaton, G.R. No. 146247, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

Under the third paragraph of Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code, intoxication is considered as an alternative circumstance, it may either be taken as an aggravating or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

336

a mitigating circumstance. For intoxication to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, the following conditions must be present: (1) the same is not habitual or is not subsequent to a plan of the commission of a felony; otherwise, it is aggravating if it is habitual and intentional; and (2) the consumption of alcoholic drinks was in such quantity as to blur the accused's reason and deprive him of certain degree of control [People of the Phil. vs. Fernando F. Muerong, G.R. No. 132318, July 6, 2001]. In People of the Phil. vs. Francisco C. Ventura, G.R. No. 90015, April 10, 1992], this Court had the occasion to state, thus: Intoxication or drunkenness is mitigating if not habitual nor intentional, and it must be indubitably proved (Art. 15, Revised Penal Code; People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Camano, G.R. Nos. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982. Accused-appellant is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of intoxication merely on the declaration of the prosecution witness that appellant was drunk (Exh. D, Original Record, page 151). Accused-appellant must prove that such intoxication is not habitual nor intentional. This he failed to do, for the reason that the accused-appellant’s defense was that of alibi. Jaime testified that he noticed that the appellant was drunk as his movement was swaying and he smelled of liquor. Nothing else was mentioned about the appellant’s drunkenness during the incident. For his part, the appellant presented nothing to prove that he was, indeed, not drunk. Having failed to prove that intoxication was neither habitual nor intentional, the mitigating circumstance of intoxication cannot be appreciated against or in favor of the appellant. People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Borbon, G.R. No. 143085, March 10, 2004

Intoxication, according to this article, is mitigating if not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony; having been accidental and prior to any criminal resolve, it was more out of impulse or delusion born of alcohol that the offender committed the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. No. 137520-22, May 9, 2002

Intoxication is mitigating when it affects the mental faculties of the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Noble, G.R. No. L-288, August 29, 1946, 77 Phil 104 People of the Phil. vs. Marcos Liera, et al., G.R. No. L-32147-49, March 17, 1978 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

337

People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Rabanes, G.R. No. 93709, May 8, 1992

Appellant's line of argument therefore is supportive of not appreciating drunkenness as a mitigating circumstance in his favor. Appellant should have attempted to prove instead that the evidence presented is not sufficient to indicate that his inebriated state was habitual or intentional, these being the bases for considering intoxication an aggravating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Beniano Renejane, et al., G.R. Nos. 76954-55, February 26, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

On the other hand, the records indicate that after they had planned the crime, the accused went on a drinking spree — first with whiskey then with gin — with some of their would-be victims. In this instance, intoxication is aggravating because it was intentional, i.e., it was subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. The accused drank to embolden themselves in the commission of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al., G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990

To be mitigating, the accused's state of intoxication must be proved. Once intoxication is established by satisfactory evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional. People of the Phil. vs. Serafin Dungka y Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 45423, July 1, 1937, 64 Phil. 421 People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Permonette Joy Fortich, et al., G.R. Nos. 80399-404, November 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo I. Acaya, G.R. No. 108381, March 7, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jonahs Jabian, et al., G.R. Nos. 139213-14, April 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Ibañez, G.R. Nos. 133923-24, July 30, 2003

The ordinary rule is that intoxication may be considered either as aggravating or as mitigating, depending upon the circumstances attending the commission of the crime. Intoxication has the effect of decreasing the penalty, if the intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the contemplated crime, upon the other hand, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

338

when intoxication, is habitual or intentional, it is considered as an aggravating circumstance. The person pleading intoxication must present proof that he had taken a quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to the commission of the crime, sufficient to produce the effect of blurring his reason, and at the same time, he must prove that not only was intoxication not habitual but also that his imbibing the alcoholic drink was not intended to fortify his resolve to commit the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Hernandez, G.R. No. L-3391, May 23, 1952, 91 Phil. 334 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Boduso, G.R. Nos. L-30450-51, September 30, 1974 Lorenzo Ga. Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 54719-50, January 17, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Serenio, G.R. No. 60490, November 14, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Permonette Joy Fortich, et al., G.R. Nos. 80399-404, November 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Joel Pinca, G.R. No. 129256, November 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Tambis, G.R. No. 124452, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. George Cortes, G.R. No. 137050, July 11, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Olicia, G.R. No. 134775, July 9, 2002 Oscar M. Poso vs. Judge Jose H. Mijares, et al., A.M. RTJ-02-1693, August 21, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Bernal, G.R. No. 132791, September 2, 2002

To be mitigating, the accused's state of intoxication should be proved or established by sufficient evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Apduhan, et al., G.R. No. L-19491, August 30, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999

It should be such an intoxication that would diminish or impair the exercise of his willpower or the capacity to know the injustice of his act. People of the Phil. vs. Jesus G. Ruiz, G.R. Nos. L-33604-05, October 30, 1979 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

339

The accused must then show that (1) at the time of the commission of the criminal act, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of self-control; and (2) such intoxication is not habitual or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Boduso, G.R. Nos. L-30450-51, September 30, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, February 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Marquita, et al., G.R. Nos. 119958-62, March 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo I. Acaya, G.R. No. 108381, March 7, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Fernando F. Muerong, G.R. No. 132318, July 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. Nos. 137520-22, May 9, 2002

The accused pleading intoxication must present proof that (1) at the time he committed the crime, he has taken such quantity of alcoholic beverage sufficient to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of control, and that (2) such intoxication was not habitual, or was not intended to fortify his resolve to commit the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aquino, G.R. No. 128887, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Olicia, G.R. No. 134775, July 9, 2002

Intoxication, which was nonhabitual and unintentional is mitigating. People of the Phil. vs. Fidel Mateo, et al., G.R. No. L-65165, June 29, 1984

Our penal laws do not look kindly on habitual drunkards, or if the accused already resolved to commit the crime, then got intoxicated so as to fortify that resolve with false courage dictated by liquor, his liability should be aggravated. Although there is no hard and fast rule on the amount of liquor that the accused imbibed on that occasion, but the test is that it must have sufficed to affect his mental faculties, to the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

340

extent of blurring his reason and depriving him of self-control. People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Noble, G.R. No. L-288, August 29, 1946, 77 Phil 104 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Boduso, G.R. Nos. L-30450-51, September 30, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito T. Inggo, G.R. No. 140872, June 23, 2003

Drunkenness or intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual nor intentional, that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. It is aggravating if habitual or intentional. To be mitigating, it must be indubitably proved. A habitual drunkard is one given to intoxication by excessive use of intoxicating drinks. The habit should be actual and confirmed. It is unnecessary that it be a matter of daily occurrence. It lessens individual resistance to evil thought and undermines will-power making its victim a potential evildoer. People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Camano, G.R. Nos. L-36662-63, July 30, 1982 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco C. Ventura, G.R. No. 90015, April 10, 1992

Appellant’s intoxication cannot be considered aggravating because there was no showing that it was habitual or intentional; and neither can it be considered mitigating because it did not sufficiently impair the accused-appellant's will power or his capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his acts. United States vs. Louis A. Dowdell, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 4191, July 18, 1908, 11 Phil. 4 People of the Phil. vs. Serafin Dungka y Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 45423, July 1, 1937, 64 Phil. 421 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Noble, G.R. No. L-288, August 29, 1946, 77 Phil 104 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Boduso, G.R. Nos. L-30450-51, September 30, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Ancheta, G.R. No. 70222, February 27, 1987 People of the Phil. vs. Beniano Renejane, et al., G.R. Nos. 76954-55, February 26, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Serenio, G.R. No. 60490, November 14, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence S. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Rabanes, G.R. No. 93709, May 8, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Bañez, G.R. No. 125849, January 20, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

341

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Baliao Empante, G.R. No. 130665, April 21, 1999

Under normal circumstances, a glass of beer is not so intoxicating as to diminish a man's rational capacity. It was not proven at all that such amount of alcohol blurred his reason. This element is essential for intoxication to be considered mitigating. People of the Phil. vs. Joel Pinca, G.R. No. 129256, November 17, 1999

Drug addiction is not an alternative circumstance analogous to habitual intoxication under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code provides a list of mitigating circumstances, which work to reduce the accused's penalty. Article 13(10) allows courts to consider "any other circumstance of a similar nature and analogous to those" mentioned therein. Neither Article 14 of the same Code on aggravating circumstances nor Article 15 on alternative circumstances, however, contain a provision similar to Article 13(10). Accordingly, the Court cannot consider appellant's drug addiction as an aggravating circumstance. Criminal statutes are to be strictly construed and no person should be brought within their terms who is not clearly within them. People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002

Drunkenness or intoxication is mitigating if accidental, not habitual or intentional; that is, not subsequent to the plan to commit the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Herman D. Bato, et al., G.R. No. 127843, December 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. No. 137520-22, May 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert M. Dadivo, G.R. No. 143765, July 30, 2002

To be mitigating, the state of intoxication of the accused must be proved or established by sufficient evidence. But if intoxication is proved, then in the absence of truth to the contrary, it is presumed to be unintentional or not habitual. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Rabanillo, G.R. No. 130010, May 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. No. 137520-22, May 9, 2002

In People vs. Vega, 208 Phil. 221, June 29, 1983, the Court ruled that intoxication was present when the rape was committed, because the evidence had not established that the drunkenness of the accused was intentional or habitual. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

342

People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. No. 137520-22, May 9, 2002

Art. 15 - Alternative Circumstances: Degree of instruction and education of offender Lack of education must be proved positively and cannot be based on mere deduction or inference. People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo, 40 O.G., 170 People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980

Mere illiteracy is not sufficient to constitute a mitigating circumstance. There must be also lack of intelligence. People of the Phil. vs. Felix Ripas, G.R. No. L-6246, May 26, 1954, 95 Phil. 63 People of the Phil. vs. Melquiades Gorospe, G.R. Nos. L-10644-45, February 19, 1959, 105 Phil. 184 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Semañada, G.R. No. L-11361, May 26, 1958 People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Tengyao, G.R. No. L-14675, November 29, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980

True, none of the appellants had gone beyond the elementary level. But we are not inclined to disturb the action of the trial court in denying them this alternative mitigating circumstance. People of the Phil. vs. Felix Magpantay, G.R. No. L-19133, November 27, 1964 People of the Phil. vs. Mauro Verges, et al., G.R. No. L-36882-84, July 24, 1981

For illiteracy alone will not constitute such circumstance; it must be accompanied by lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full significance of one's act. People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Tengyao, G.R. No. L-14675, November 29, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Agustin, et al., G.R. No. L-18368, March 31, 1966 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

343

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Geronimo, et al., G.R. No. L-35700, October 15, 1973 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Abanes, et al., G.R. No. L-30609, September 28, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin R. Retania, G.R. No. L-34841, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Rizal, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Mauro Verges, et al., G.R. No. L-36882-84, July 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999

Although the criterion in determining lack of education is not illiteracy alone, but lack of sufficient intelligence, People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Abanes, et al., G.R. No. L-30609, September 28, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985

there is no showing that the accused were of such low mental capacity that they had not realized the full significance of their acts. No one, however unschooled he may be, is so ignorant as not to know that theft or robbery, or assault upon the person of another is inherently wrong and a violation of the law. People of the Phil. vs. Causiano Enot, et al., G.R. No. L-17530, October 30, 1962 People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Ang, et al., G.R. No. L-62833, October 8, 1985

As pointed out in the latest edition of Padilla on Criminal Law: "Lack of instruction is generally mitigating, except in crimes against property and chastity." In a more extensive discussion of such an alternative circumstance, Justice Aquino, in the latest edition of his work on Criminal Law, pointed out that even in cases of theft and robbery, the court could take into consideration the "lack of instruction and education of the offender where it appears that, under all the circumstances attending the commission of the offense, he should not be held to the strict degree of responsibility prescribed in the Code for the ordinary offender." People of the Phil. vs. Maximo B. Baltazar, G.R. No. L-30557, March 28, 1980

Lack of instruction is not applicable to crimes of theft and robbery, much less to the crime of homicide. United States vs. Nicolasa Pascual, G.R. No. L-3777, January 6, 1908, 9 Phil. 491 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo N. Melendrez, G.R. No. 39913, December 19, 1933, 59 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

344

Phil. 154 People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso De La Cruz, et al., G.R. No. L-357, September 30, 1946, 77 Phil. 449 People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Mendova, G.R. No. L-7030, January 31, 1957, 100 Phil. 811 People of the Phil. vs. Pelagio Condemena, et al., G.R. No. L-22426, May 29, 1968 People of the Phil. vs. Luisito San Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-44274, January 22, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Rufineo L. Dejaresco, et al., G.R. No. L-32701, June 19, 1984

The reason is that robbery and killing are, by their nature, wrongful acts, and are manifestly so to the enlightened, equally as to the ignorant. People of the Phil. vs. Salip Manla, et al., G.R. No. L-21688, November 28, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Luisito San Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-44274, January 22, 1980

The mere lack of instruction or illiteracy of the appellant cannot be considered as a mitigating circumstance. One does not have to be educated or intelligent to be able to know that it is unlawful to take the life of another person even if it is to redress a wrong committed against him. People of the Phil. vs. Cristoto Lapaz, et al., G.R. No. 68898, March 31, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999

The mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction simply because the accused is illiterate can not be appreciated in the crime of rape for "No one is so ignorant as not to know that the crime of rape is wrong and in violation of the law.” United States vs. Eustaquio Gamilla, G.R. No. 13981, December 6, 1918, 39 Phil. 234 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Nopia, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36297-99, April 26, 1982

It is the trial court that is in the better position to determine the degree of instruction or the lack of it of the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Fortunato G. Casillar, et al, G.R. No. L-28132, November 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Luis F. Garcia, G.R. No. L-32071, July 9, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

345

It is for the trial court, rather than the appellate court, to find and consider the circumstance of lack of instruction, for it is not illiteracy alone but the lack of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full significance of one's acts that constitutes this mitigating circumstance and only the trial court can properly assess the same. People of the Phil. vs. Fortunato G. Casillar, et al, G.R. No. L-28132, November 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Luis F. Garcia, G.R. No. L-32071, July 9, 1981

Thus, it is the trial court, rather than the appellate court, to find and consider the circumstance of lack of instruction. People of the Phil. vs. Fortunato G. Casillar, et al, G.R. No. L-28132, November 25, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Luis F. Garcia, G.R. No. L-32071, July 9, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999

The said court was in a better position to gauge appellant's level of intelligence from his appearance, demeanor and manner of answering questions. People of the Phil. vs. Cornelio Manuel, G.R. Nos. L-23786-87, August 29, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999

In this case, the trial court did not make any findings as to the degree of instruction of appellant. Indeed, the alleged presence of this circumstance is being raised for the first time here. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Belaro, G.R. No. 99869, May 26, 1999

It is significant that neither to the trial court nor to the appellant's counsel has the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction entered the mind. No attempt was made to prove it, as direct proof, not mere inference, is required, and must be invoked in the court below the reason being that the trial court can best gauge a person's level of intelligence from his from his manner of answering questions in court. People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio Mongado, et al., G.R. No. L-24877, June 30, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Cornelio Manuel, G.R. Nos. L-23786-87, August 29, 1969 People of the Phil. vs. Luisito San Pedro, et al., G.R. No. L-44274, January 22, 1980 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

346

While lack of instruction may not be appreciated in favor of appellant as argued by counsel, the offense of taking one's life being forbidden by natural law and therefore within the instinctive knowledge and feeling of any human being not deprived of reason People of the Phil. vs. Mutyat, G.R. Nos. 11255-56, September 30, 1959 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Agbot, G.R. No. L-37641, July 31, 1981

appellant being a member of the cultural minority may be considered in his favor, pursuant to Sec. 106 of the Administrative Code of Mindanao and Sulu and entitle him, regardless of the attending circumstances, to life imprisonment instead of death. People of the Phil. vs. Yakans Pawin, et al., G.R. No. L-2707, February 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 528 People of the Phil. vs. Moro Disimban, G.R. No. L-1746, January 31, 1951, 88 Phil. 120 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Agbot, G.R. No. L-37641, July 31, 1981

It is no legal obstacle to accord to him this benefit of the law because he failed to invoke same in the court a quo, for in an appeal of a criminal case, same is thrown open for a complete review of all errors, by commission or omission, as may be imputable to the trial court. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Agbot, G.R. No. L-37641, July 31, 1981

Some later cases which categorically held that the mitigating circumstance of lack of instruction does not apply to crimes of theft and robbery 5 leave us with no choice but to reject the plea of appellant. Membership in a cultural minority does not per se imply being an uncivilized or semi-uncivilized state of the offender, which is the circumstance that induced the Supreme Court in the Maqui case, to apply lack of instruction to the appellant therein who was charged also with theft of large cattle. Incidentally, the Maqui case is the only case where lack of instruction was considered to mitigate liability for theft, for even long before it, in U.S. vs. Pascual, 9 Phil. 491, a 1908 case, lack of instruction was already held not applicable to crimes of theft or robbery. The Maqui case was decided in 1914, when the state of civilization of the Igorots has not advanced as it had in reaching its present state since recent years, when it certainly can no longer be said of any member of a cultural minority in the country that he is uncivilized or semi-uncivilized. People of the Phil. vs. Saglala Macatanda, G.R. No. L-51368, November 6, 1981 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

347

The appellant's lack of education which apparently hampered him from giving coherent and even simple responsive answers is not sufficient in view of the failure of his counsel to prove convincingly before the court that said appellant, as a result thereof, did not fully realize the consequences of his criminal act. People of the Phil. vs. Olimpio Rizal, G.R. Nos. L-43487-89, February 26, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Calixto Zinampan, et al., G.R. No. 126781, September 13, 2000

Art. 17 – Principals In general By direct participation By inducement By indispensable cooperation

In general If part of a crime has been committed in one place and part in another, each person concerned in the commission of either part is liable as principal. No matter how wide may be the separation of the conspirators, if they are all engaged in a common plan for the execution of a felony and all take their part in furtherance of the common design, all are liable as principals. Actual presence is not necessary if there is a direct connection between the actor and the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Delim, et al., G.R. No. 142773, January 28, 2003

Principal by direct participation He was a co-principal not a mere accomplice. He was a principal by direct participation. He participated in the criminal resolution to commit the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Ramon M. Solomon, et al., G.R. No. L-77206, October 28, 1988

Where one cooperates in the commission of the crime by performing overt acts which by themselves are acts of execution, he is a principal by direct participation, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

348

and not merely an accomplice. People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Appellant was obviously a principal by direct participation. His act of choking the young victim until she passed out tended directly toward the commission of the rape and was as effective as the sexual assault itself. He personally took part in the performance of acts leading to the accomplishment of the malevolent objective sought by his co-felon. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo B. Magalong, et al., G.R. No. 100125, May 12, 1995

Principal by inducement The requisites necessary in order that a person may be convicted as a principal by inducement are: "1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission of the crime; and "2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the material executor." People of the Phil. vs. Agapito De La Cruz, G.R. No. L-30912, April 30, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Jeanette (Ginette) Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. Nos. 133527-28, December 13, 1999 United States vs. Panglima Indanan, G.R. No. 8187, January 29, 1913, 24 Phil 203

To constitute inducement, there must exist on the part of the inducer the most positive resolution and the most persistent effort to secure the commission of the crime, together with the presentation to the person induced of the very strongest kind of temptation to commit the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Jeanette (Ginette) Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. Nos. 133527-28, December 13, 1999

"A chance word spoken without reflection, a wrong appreciation of a situation, an ironical phrase, a thoughtless act, may give birth to a thought of, or even a resolution to crime in the mind of one for some independent reason predisposed thereto without the one who spoke the word or performed the act having any expectation that his suggestion would be followed or any real intention that it produce the result. In such Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

349

case, while the expression was imprudent and the results of it grave in the extreme, he (the one who spoke the word or performed the act) would not be guilty of the crime committed". United States vs. Panglima Indanan, G.R. No. 8187, January 29, 1913, 24 Phil 203 People of the Phil. vs. Jeanette (Ginette) Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. Nos. 133527-28, December 13, 1999

"One is induced to commit a crime either by a command (precepto) or for a consideration (pacto), or by any other similar act which constitutes the real and moving cause of the crime and which was done for the purpose of inducing such criminal act and was sufficient for that purpose. (Ramon C. Aquino, Revised Penal Code, 1997 Ed., Vol. One, p. 483) Where the circumstances of force, fear, price, promise or reward are not present, the question that may arise is whether the command given by a person to the author of the crime amounts to a criminal inducement. (Ibid., at p. 488) The inducement exists whenever the act performed by the physical author of the crime is determined by the influence of the inducer over the mind of him who commits the act whatever the source of such influence." (Ibid.) Thus, the inciting words must have great dominance and influence over the person who acts; they ought to be direct and as efficacious, or powerful as physical or moral coercion or violence itself. (People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, November 28, 1996) People of the Phil. vs. Cresenciano Canaguran, et al., G.R. No. 108174, October 28, 1999

For utterances of an accused to make him a principal by inducement, the same must be of such a nature and uttered in such a manner as to become the determining cause of the crime to serve such purpose, and that such inducement was uttered with the intention of producing the result (People vs. Caimbre, G.R. No. L-12087, Dec. 29, 1960, People of the Phil. vs. Arnold M. Castillo, G.R. No. 116122, September 6, 1996; People of the Phil. vs. Marlo A. Canial, G.R. Nos. L-31042-31043, August 18, 1972). In other words, the inciting words must have great dominance and influence over the person who acts; they ought to be direct and as efficacious, or powerful as physical or moral coercion or violence itself. Thus, where the alleged inducement to commit the crime was no longer necessary to incite the assailant, the utterer can not be held accountable for the crime as a principal by inducement (People of the Phil. vs. Marlo A. Canial, G.R. Nos. L-31042-31043, August 18, 1972); United States vs. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

350

Panglima Indanan, G.R. No. 8187, January 29, 1913, 24 Phil 203). People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Parungao, G.R. No. 125812, November 28, 1996

Inducement exists if the command or advice is of such a nature that, without its concurrence, the crime would not have materialized. People of the Phil. vs. Adel Hernandez, et al., G.R. No. 9405, December 24, 1914, 29 Phil. 109 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cruz, G.R. No. 74048, November 14, 1990

It is the opinion of this Court, and based on the records, that she can not be held liable (as a principal by inducement). Her words, "Kill him and we will bury him" amount but to imprudent utterances said in the excitement of the hour or in the heat of anger (it does not appear whether or not Rapada held a grudge against the deceased), and not, rather, in the nature of a command that had to be obeyed. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Agapinay, et al., G.R. No. 77776, June 27, 1990

As it was the appellant who conceived the perpetration of the crime, met with the Cotillas cousins to deliberate on its execution and was present at the time of its consummation, he is a principal by direct inducement (U.S. vs. Bundal, 3 Phil. 89). His promise of P2,000 to Alfredo is equivalent to moral coercion as it was the moving cause which impelled Alfredo to kill Gandola, (U.S. vs. Mijares, 3 Phil. 447). People of the Phil. vs. Leoncio Jusep, G.R. No. L-45722, June 23, 1987

Principal by indispensable cooperation To be considered as a principal by indispensable cooperation, there must be direct participation in the criminal design by another act without which the crime could not have been committed. People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000

The requisites of this provision are: "(1) participating in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime charged; and (2) cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which it would not have been accomplished." People of the Phil. vs. Napoleon Montealegre, G.R. No. L-67948, May 31, 1988 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

351

People of the Phil. vs. Stalin P. Guevarra, G.R. No. 65017, November 13, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo R. Jorge, G.R. No. 99379, April 22, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Obello, G.R. No. 108772, January 14, 1998

The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered, which cannot exist without previous cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed. It is therefore required in order to be liable either as a principal by indispensable cooperation, or as an accomplice, that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo R. Jorge, G.R. No. 99379, April 22, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Abina, et al., G.R. No. 129891, October 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Elijorde, et al., G.R. No. 126531, April 21, 1999

As defined by Art. 248 of the Revised Penal Code, murder is the crime committed by a person who kills another "in consideration of a price, reward, or promise." Said qualifying circumstance of price or reward equally affects both the offeror and the offeree — the former becomes a principal by inducement and the latter, a principal by direct participation. United States vs. Maharaja Alim, G.R. No. 13312, April 1, 1918, 38 Phil. 1 People of the Phil. vs. Nenito Alincastre y Nabor, et al., G.R. No. L-29891, August 30, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gerolaga, et al., G.R. No. 89075, October 15, 1996

Considering that appellant had sexual intercourse with complainant against her will by employing force and intimidation, the crime committed is rape through direct participation. And, when he aided Berto Simbra and made it possible for the latter to have carnal knowledge of complainant also against her will and through force and intimidation, appellant committed another crime of rape through indispensable cooperation. Thus, appellant is guilty of two crimes of consummated rape. People of the Phil. vs. Berto Simbra, et al., G.R. No. L-39401, September 30, 1982

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

352

Art. 18 – Accomplices As defined in the Revised Penal Code, accomplices are those who, not being included in Article 17, cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts. The two elements necessary to hold petitioner liable as an accomplice are present: (1) community of criminal design, that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; and (2) performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. Ernesto Garces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173858, July 17, 2007

Where the accused does not fall under any of the three concepts of principals defined in Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code, he may only be considered guilty as an accomplice. People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Ubiña, et al., G.R. No. L-6969, August 31, 1955, 97 Phil. 515 People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Suarez, et al., G.R. No. 111193, January 28, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Carriaga, G.R. No. 135029, September 12, 2003

And where there is no showing of conspiracy or confabulation on his part, and the extent of the accused's participation in the crime is uncertain, he should be given the benefit of the doubt and be declared as a mere accomplice therein. People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Clemente, et al., G.R. No. L-23463, September 28, 1967 People of the Phil. vs. Lauro Tolentino, et al., G.R. No. L-29419, August 31, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Suarez, et al., G.R. No. 111193, January 28, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000 Felipe Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 134730, September 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santiago, et al., G.R. No. 129371, October 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo F. Lobrigo, et al., G.R. No. 132247, May 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001

When there is doubt as to whether a guilty participant in the killing has committed Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

353

the role of a principal or that of an accomplice, the court should favor the milder form of responsibility. People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Pastores, et al., G.R. No. L-29800, August 31, 1971 People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Bongo, et al., G.R. No. L-26909, February 22, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Elefaño, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-32573, November 25, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Corbes, et al., G.R No. 113470, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, October 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Garcia, et al., G.R. Nos. 133489 and 143970, January 15, 2002

An accomplice is one who cooperates by an act not indispensable in the commission of the crime, meaning, that without such act, the crime would still be committed by the culprit. People of the Phil. vs. Herman D. Bato, et al., G.R. No. 127843, December 15, 2000

In order that a person may be considered an accomplice, the following requisites must concur: (a) community of design, i.e., knowing that criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose; (b) he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts; and, (c) there must be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person charged as accomplice. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Tamayo, et al., G.R. No. 18289, November 17, 1922, 44 Phil 38 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo R. Jorge, G.R. No. 99379, April 22, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Villanueva, G.R. No. 110613, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Elijorde, et al., G.R. No. 126531, April 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

354

People of the Phil. vs. Dario Cabanas Cual, et al., G.R. No. 131925, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Cupino, et al., G.R. No. 125688, April 3, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Roche, G.R. No. 115182, April 6, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Donato B. Continente, et al., G.R. Nos. 100801-02, Aug. 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Joemarie Chua, G.R. Nos. 126255-56, August 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, October 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jonathan Fabros, G.R. No. 139179, April 3, 2002 People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013

It has been held before that being present and giving moral support when a crime is being committed will make a person responsible as an accomplice in the crime committed. It should be noted that the accused-appellant's presence and company were not indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only liable as an accomplice. Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling in People v. Clemente, et al., where it was stressed that in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a principal. People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, citing People v. Clemente, 128 Phil. 268, 278-279 (1967)

An accomplice must therefore have knowledge of the criminal intention of the principal, and his complicity is evidenced by a simultaneous or previous act which contributes to the commission of the felony, as an aid thereto, whether physical or moral. [Padilla, Criminal Law, Revised Penal Code Annotated, Book I, 1987 ed, p. 700; People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993]. In other words, the participation of an accomplice presupposes that the principal and the accomplice acted in conjunction and directed their efforts to the same end. [Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. I, 1987 ed.] People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Villanueva, G.R. No. 110613, March 26, 1997

Article 18 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, penalizes as accomplices those persons who cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts not indispensable to the consummation of the offense. Accomplices cooperate in the execution of the crime by previous or simultaneous acts, by means of which they Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

355

aid, facilitate or protect the execution of the crime, without, however, taking any direct part in such execution, or forcing or inducing others to execute it, or contributing to its accomplishment by any indispensable act. People of the Phil. vs. Leonilo Cui, et al., G.R. No. 121982, September 10, 1999

To be convicted as an accomplice, it is necessary that the accused be aware of the criminal intent of the principal and then cooperates knowingly or intentionally by supplying material or moral aid for the efficacious execution of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Quinao, et al., G.R. No. 108454, March 13, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Tilos, et al., G.R. No. 138385, January 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Lemuel Compo, et al., G.R. No. 112990, May 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jonathan Fabros, G.R. No. 139179, April 3, 2002

To be deemed an accomplice, one needs to have had both knowledge of and participation in the criminal act. (Felipe Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 134730, September 18, 2000) In other words, the principal and the accomplice must have acted in conjunction and directed their efforts to the same end. [People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Villanueva, (G.R. No. 110613, March 26, 1997)] Thus, it is essential that both were united in their criminal design. (People of the Phil. vs. Dario Cabanas Cual, et al., G.R. No. 131925, March 9, 2000) People of the Phil. vs. Jonathan Fabros, G.R. No. 139179, April 3, 2002

"The cooperation that the law punishes is the assistance knowingly or intentionally rendered, which cannot exist without previous cognizance of the criminal act intended to be executed. It is therefore required in order to be liable either as a principal by indispensable cooperation, or as an accomplice, that the accused must unite with the criminal design of the principal by direct participation. . . ." People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo R. Jorge, G.R. No. 99379, April 22, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Abina, et al., G.R. No. 129891, October 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Elijorde, et al., G.R. No. 126531, April 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Dario Cabanas Cual, et al., G.R. No. 131925, March 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Cupino, et al., G.R. No. 125688, April 3, 2000 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

356

The Court has held that an accomplice is "one who knows the criminal design of the principal and cooperates knowingly or intentionally therewith by an act which, even if not rendered, the crime would be committed just the same." People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Lingad y Santos, G.R. No. L-6989, November 29, 1955, 98 Phil. 5 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Corbes, et al., G.R No. 113470, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo F. Lobrigo, et al., G.R. No. 132247, May 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Tamayo, G.R. No. 138608, September 24, 2002

To hold a person liable as an accomplice, two elements must be present: (1) the "community of criminal design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose;" and (2) the performance of previous or simultaneous acts that are not indispensable to the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Tamayo, et al., G.R. No. 18289, November 17, 1922, 44 Phil 38 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Custodio, G.R. No. L-30463, October 30, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Tamayo, G.R. No. 138608, September 24, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

Accomplices come to know about the criminal resolution of the principal by direct participation after the principal has reached the decision to commit the felony and only then does the accomplice agree to cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent to the plan of the principal by direct participation and cooperate in its accomplishment. People of the Phil. vs. Rene Gayot Pilola, G.R. No. 121828, June 27, 2003

"An accomplice does not enter into a conspiracy with the principal by direct participation. He does not have previous agreement or understanding with the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

357

principal to commit a crime. But he participates to a certain point in the common criminal design" (People vs. Aplegido, et al., 76 Phil. 571). People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Elefaño, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-32573, November 25, 1983

We have previously held that the liability of one whose participation in a crime was limited to driving for the killers, (People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Corbes, et al., G.R No. 113470, March 26, 1997) or one who himself tied the victim's hands and joined armed men in taking the victim to the hills, (People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Fronda, G.R. Nos. 102361-62, May 14, 1993) is only that of an accomplice. The rationale for these rulings is that where the quantum of proof required to establish conspiracy is lacking, the doubt created as to whether accused acted as principal or accomplice will always be resolved in favor of the milder form of criminal liability, that of a mere accomplice. (People vs. Corbes, supra; People of the Phil. vs. Quintin T. Garraez, G.R. Nos. 106083-84, March 29, 1996; People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Bongo, et al., G.R. No. L-26909, February 22, 1974; People of the Phil. vs. Federico C. Torejas, G.R. No. L-29935, January 31, 1972; People of the Phil. vs. Lauro Tolentino, et al., G.R. No. L-29419, August 31, 1971) People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Ragundiaz, et al., G.R. No. 124977, June 22, 2000

Conspirators and accomplices have one thing in common: they know and agree with the criminal design Conspirators, however, know the criminal intention because they themselves have decided upon such course of action. Accomplices come to know about it after the principals have reached the decision, and only then do they agree to cooperate in its execution. Conspirators decide that a crime should be committed; accomplices merely concur in it. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; they merely assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. Conspirators are the authors of the crime; accomplices are merely their instruments who perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Edwin De Vera, G.R. No. 128966, August 18, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Donato B. Continente, et al., G.R. Nos. 100801-02, Aug. 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Garcia, et al., G.R. Nos. 133489 and 143970, January 15, 2002

It is an essential condition to the existence of complicity, not only that there should be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to the person Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

358

charged as accomplice, but it is furthermore necessary that the latter, with knowledge of the criminal intent, should cooperate with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an efficacious way. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Tamayo, et al., G.R. No. 18289, November 17, 1922, 44 Phil 38 Felipe Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 134730, September 18, 2000

May the liability of an accomplice be determined in the absence of trial of the supposed principals? "The corresponding responsibilities of the principal, accomplice, and accessory are distinct from each other. As long as the commission of the offense can be duly established in evidence the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal." Lito Vino vs. The People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84163, October 19, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, October 13, 2000

Conspirators are persons who, under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), "come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it." Because witnesses are rarely present when several accused come to an agreement to commit a crime, such agreement is usually inferred from their "concerted actions" while committing it. On the other hand, accomplices, according to Article 18 of the RPC, are the persons who, not being included in Article 17 [which identifies who are principals], "cooperate in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts." People of the Phil., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Eusebio, et al., G.R. No. 182152, February 25, 2013

The line that separates a conspirator by concerted action from an accomplice by previous or simultaneous acts is indeed slight. Accomplices do not decide whether the crime should be committed; but they assent to the plan and cooperate in its accomplishment. The solution in case of doubt is that, as the RTC said with ample jurisprudential support, such doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. People of the Phil., et al. vs. Ricardo P. Eusebio, et al., G.R. No. 182152, February 25, 2013

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

359

Art. 19 – Accessories For one to be held liable as an accessory, it is essential that he must have knowledge of the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993

The accessories are those who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner: (1) by profiting themselves or assisting the offenders to profit by the effects of the crime; (2) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; and (3) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt at the life of the chief executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime. People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Realon, G.R. No. L-30832, August 29, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Jeanette (Ginette) Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. Nos. 133527-28, December 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Bulu Chowdury, G.R. Nos. 129577-80, February 15, 2000

Under Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, accessories are defined as those who (1) have knowledge of the commission of the crime, (2) did not take part in its commission as principal or accomplice, but (3) took part in it subsequent to its commission by any of the three modes enumerated in this article. People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Lojo, G.R. No. L-33522, June 24, 1983 People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Maluenda, et al., G.R. No. 115351, March 27, 1998

Conviction of an accused as an accessory requires the following elements: (1) that he has knowledge of the commission of the crime; and (2) that he took part in it subsequent to its commission by any of the three modes enumerated in Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. People of the Phil. vs. Moros Amajul, et al., G.R. Nos. L-14626-27, February 28, 1961 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

360

People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Verzola, et al., G.R. No. L-35022, December 21, 1977 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Cordova, et al., G.R. Nos. 83373-74, July 5, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Maluenda, et al., G.R. No. 115351, March 27, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Leonilo Cui, et al., G.R. No. 121982, September 10, 1999

A person who received any property from another, and used it, knowing that the same property had been stolen is guilty as an accessory because he is profiting by the effects of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Samuel M. Tanchoco, G.R. No. L-38, April 6, 1946, 76 Phil. 467 Jorge Taer vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85204, June 18, 1990

Accepting stolen articles for deposit makes the keeper an accessory. Leonardo Mendoza vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-46484, January 29, 1988

The records show that Appellant Garcia is a brother-in-law of Appellant Ortega, the latter's sister, Maritess, being his wife. Such relationship exempts Appellant Garcia from criminal liability as provided by Article 20 of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Ortega, et al., G.R. No. 116736, July 24, 1997

Under paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code, there are two (2) classes of accessories, one of which is a public officer who harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the principal. Such public officer must have acted with abuse of his public functions, and the crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony. Appellant SPO4 Nieto is one such public officer, and he abused his public function when he failed to effect the immediate arrest of accused Antonio and to conduct a speedy investigation of the crime committed. People of the Phil. vs. Alberto S. Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128900, July 14, 2000

The next issue that must be resolved is whether or not the trial of an accessory can proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge against the principal. The answer is also 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 can be duly established in evidence the determination of the liability of the accomplice or accessory can proceed independently of that of the principal. Lito Vino vs. The People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84163, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

361

October 19, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rafael, G.R. No. 123176, October 13, 2000

Notwithstanding the acquittal of the principal due to the exempting circumstance of minority or insanity (Article 12, Revised Penal Code), the accessory may nevertheless be convicted if the crime was in fact established. United States vs. Felisa Villaluz, et al., G.R. No. 10726, December 1, 1915, 32 Phil. 376

The acquittal of the principal must likewise result in the acquittal of the accessory where it was shown that no crime was committed. United States vs. Vicente Mendoza, G.R. No. 7540, September 23, 1912, 23 Phil. 194

The commission of the crime and the participation of the principal or assailant, although not identified, was established. In such case, the Court holds that the accessory can be prosecuted and held liable independently of the assailant. We may visualize another situation as when the principal died or escaped before he could be tried and sentenced. Should the accessory be acquitted thereby even if the commission of the offense and the responsibility of the accused as an accessory was duly proven? The answer is no, he should be held criminally liable as an accessory. Lito Vino vs. The People of the Philippines and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84163, October 19, 1989

The offense was that of concealing the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, i.e., that of being an accessory in the crime of homicide. People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Ortega, et al., G.R. No. 116736, July 24, 1997

Art. 20 – Accessories Exempt From Criminal Liability Accused-appellant Ruby Mariano is the sister of accused-appellant Ruth Mariano. As such, their relationship exempts appellant Ruby Mariano from criminal liability under Art. 20 of The Revised Penal Code . . . The reason for exemption is obvious; it is based on ties of blood and the preservation of the cleanliness of one's name, which compels one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

362

the above-quoted article. This Court is thus mandated by law to acquit accused-appellant Ruby Mariano. People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Mariano, et al., G.R. No. 134847, December 6, 2000

Art. 21 – Penalties That May Be Imposed While death can now be imposed as a penalty with the passage of R.A. No. 7659, Art. 21 of the Revised Penal Code specifically prohibits the imposition of a penalty for a felony which was not so prescribed at the time of its commission. People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Pandiano, et al., G.R. No. 90893, May 30, 1994

Art. 22 - Retroactive Effect of Penal Laws A penal law, as defined by this Court, is an act of the legislature that prohibits certain acts and establishes penalties for its violations. It also defines crime, treats of its nature and provides for its punishment. Panfilo M. Lacson vs. Executive Secretary, et al., G.R. No. 128096, January 20, 1999 Elvira Yu Oh vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125297, June 6, 2003

The above provision of R.A. No. 7659 can be applied in the instant case, pursuant to the principle in criminal law, favorabilia sunt amplianda, adiosa restrigenda (Penal laws which are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect). This principle is embodied in Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code. The provisions of Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code are applicable even to special laws (U.S. vs. Soliman, 36 Phil. 5 [1917]). People of the Phil. vs. Rafael M. Bagares, G.R. No. 99026, August 4, 1994

It is settled that a penal law may have retroactive effect only when it is favorable to the accused. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

363

Arturo V. Escalante vs. Paulino Santos, G.R. No. 36828, February 2, 1932, 56 Phil. 483 People of the Phil. vs. Roman Derilo, et al., G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997

A penal statute, whether substantive or procedural, shall be given a retroactive effect if favorable to the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Nerio Suela, G.R. No. 133570-71, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio R. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gario Alba, G.R. No. 130523, January 29, 2002 Virgilio Santos vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 147615, January 20, 2003

Settled in our jurisprudence is the principle that when a new law will be advantageous to the accused, the same shall be given retroactive effect. (Article 22, Revised Penal Code) Favorabiliab sunt amplianda, adiosa restrigenda. (Penal laws that are favorable to the accused are given retroactive effect). 8 For a long period, this has been the settled doctrine in countries whose criminal laws are based on the Latin system. Article 22 of our Revised Penal Code reads: "Art. 22. Retroactive effect of penal laws. — Penal laws shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this Code, although at the time of the publication of such laws a final sentence has been pronounced and the convict is serving the same." This article is of Spanish origin and is based on Latin principles, thus, in the interpretation thereof, this Court must have recourse to Spanish or Latin jurisprudence [People vs. Parel, 44 Phil. 437, 441 (1923)] That the term "penal laws" or "leyes penales" as employed in Article 22, relates not only to laws prescribing penalties but also to limitations upon the bringing of penal actions, was pronounced in the early case of People vs. Parel. People of the Philippines vs. Panfilo M. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, October 7, 2003 Joemar Ortega vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 151085, August 20, 2008

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

364

Art. 23 – Effect of Pardon by Offended Party In this jurisdiction pardon for adultery and concubinage must come before the institution of the criminal action and both offenders must be pardoned by the offended party if said pardon is to be effective. (People vs. Infante, 57 Phil. 138) The pardon can be express or implied. Thus, when the offended party in writing or in an affidavit asserts that he or she is pardoning his or her erring spouse and paramour for their adulterous act this is a case of express pardon. (People vs. Mendez, et al, (CA) O.G. 1909) There is implied pardon when the offended party continued to live with his spouse even after the commission of the offense. However such consent or pardon cannot be implied when the offended party allows his wife to continue living in the conjugal home after her arrest only in order to take care of their children. (People vs. Boca (CA) O.G. 2248) Petronilo Ligtas vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-47498, May 7, 1987

In cases of seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, pardon by the offended party, to be effective, must be expressly given [Rule 110, Sec. 4 of the Rules of Court, Ruled 110, Sec. 5 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure.] Moreover the length of time it took her to file the second case is of no moment considering that she filed it within the ten (10)-year prescriptive period provided by Article 90 par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code for crimes punishable by a correctional penalty such as Qualified Seduction [See Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code.] Eleuterio C. Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80838, November 29, 1988

With respect to the efficacy of the pardon given to the appellant by his victim, her mother, and grandmother, Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. . . . The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may be. "In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

365

the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after the fact of the abovementioned crimes." In People vs. Miranda (57 Phil. 274), this Court interpreted paragraph 3 of Article 344 as follows: "Paragraph 3 of the legal provision above-quoted prohibits a prosecution for seduction, abduction, rape, or acts of lasciviousness, except upon a complaint made by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above-named persons, as the case may be. It does not prohibit the continuance of a prosecution if the offended party pardons the offender after the cause has been instituted, nor does it order the dismissal of said cause. The only act that according to Article 344 extinguishes the penal action and the penalty that may have been imposed, is the marriage between the offender and the offended party." (Emphasis supplied.) While the Miranda case involved the crime of seduction, the ruling therein is applicable to rape inasmuch as the prosecution of both offenses is covered by Article 344. The rationale of the law on the prosecution of private crimes is simple: The law deems it the wiser policy to let the aggrieved woman and her family decide whether to expose to public view or to heated controversies in court the vices, faults and disgraceful acts occurring in the family (People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo Babasa, G.R. No. L-38072, May 17, 1980). However, when, as in the case at bar, the pardon is given after the filing of the complaint in court, it comes too late to hide the shameful occurrence from public notice. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Lualhati, G.R. No. 66038, March 16, 1989

As early as 1902, this Court, in United States vs. Luna (1 Phil. 360 [1902]), had ruled that the grant of pardon by the parents or guardian of a minor complainant "alone, in the name or on behalf of the minor, is not sufficient, because, as the offense essentially and directly affects the injured party, she alone is entitled to remit the offense and to authorize the extinction of the penal action." Elsewise stated, where the offended party in cases of rape, seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness is a minor, the pardon must be given by both the parents and the offended party. People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 91865-66, July 6, 1993

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

366

People of the Phil. vs. Irvin Tadulan, G.R. No. 117407, April 15, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Makilang, G.R. No. 139329, October 23, 2001

This is the reason why pardon in crimes of chastity must come before the institution of the criminal action. Pardon by the offended party extinguishes criminal liability when made while the crime is still "private" and within the control of the offended party. But once the case is filed in court, the pardon cannot ipso facto operate to dismiss the case. After the institution of the criminal action, any pardon given by the complainant to the offender would be unavailing, (People of the Phil. vs. Ed Fernandez Avila, G.R. No. 84918, December 21, 1990) except of course when the offender validly marries the offended party. (Article 344, Paragraph 4, Revised Penal Code; Laceste vs. Santos, 56 Phil. 472 [1932]; People vs. Vicente Mariano, 50 Phil. 587 [1927]) The offended party's pardon of the offender in a seduction case after the criminal action had been instituted constitutes no bar to said action. (People vs. Miranda, supra; also cited in Francisco, R., Criminal Procedure, Rules 110-127, p. 47 [1996]) A pardon given in a rape case after the filing of the action in court "comes too late to hide the shameful occurrence from public notice." (People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Lualhati, G.R. No. 66038, March 16, 1989) Bayani M. Alonte vs. Maximo A. Savellano, et al., G.R. No. 131652, March 9, 1998

Even an affidavit of desistance or a pardon by the offended party cannot justify the dismissal of the complaint for rape considering that the pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal action. People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Entes, G.R. No. L-50632, February 24, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Fermin Igat, G.R. No. 122097, June 22, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo T. Ocampo, G.R. Nos. 145303-04, August 7, 2002

Art. 24 – Measures of Prevention or Safety Which Are Not Considered Penalties We find no merit in petitioner's contention that Section 13 of Republic Act 3019, as amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 195, which includes the crime of Estafa thru Falsification of Public Document as among the crimes subjecting the public officer Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

367

charged therewith with suspension from office pending action in court, is a penal provision which violates the constitutional prohibition against the enactment of ex post facto law. Paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the Revised Penal Code clearly states that suspension from the employment or public office during the trial or in order to institute proceedings shall not be considered as penalty. It is not a penalty because it is not imposed as a result of judicial proceedings. In fact, if acquitted, the official concerned shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and benefits which he failed to receive during suspension. Those mentioned in paragraph Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of said Article 24 are merely preventive measures before final judgment. Not being a penal provision, therefore, the suspension from office, pending trial, of the public officer charged with crimes mentioned in the amendatory provision committed before its effectivity does not violate the constitutional provision on ex post facto law. Reynaldo R. Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 61776 to 61861, March 23, 1984 Corazon C. Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 96131, September 6, 1991

Art. 29 - Period of Preventive Imprisonment Deducted from Term of Imprisonment People of the Phil. vs. Harold Wally Cabierte, G.R. No. 170477, August 7, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio P. Castro, G.R. No. 172691, August 10, 2007 People of the Phil vs. Arturo A. Barlaan, G.R. No. 177746, August 31, 2007

Art. 34 - Civil Interdiction Article 34 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the consequences of civil interdiction. Virgilio Maquilan vs. Dita Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

368

Art. 45 - Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Crime Rodolfo Abenes vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 156320, February 14, 2007

Art. 48 - Penalty for Complex Crimes In general Robbery with homicide Robbery with rape Forcible abduction with rape Kidnapping with murder or homicide Rape with homicide Parricide with unintentional abortion Estafa through falsification of a commercial document Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents

In general In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime. There are two kinds of complex crime. The first is known as compound crime, or when a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies. The second is known as complex crime proper, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other. The classic example of the first of kind is when a single bullet results in the death of two or more persons. A different rule governs where separate and distinct acts result in a number killed. Deeply rooted is the doctrine that when various victims Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

369

expire from separate shots, such acts constitute separate and distinct crimes. People of the Phil. vs. Bernardino Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code requires the commission of at least two crimes, but the two or more grave or less grave felonies must be the result of a single act, or an offense must be a necessary means for committing the other. 41 Negatively put, when two or more crimes are committed but (1) not by a single act or (2) one is not a necessary means for committing-the others, there is no complex crime. People of the Phil. vs. Uldarico Honra, Jr., G.R. Nos. 136012-16, September 26, 2000 Aurea R. Monteverde vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002

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 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. People of the Phil. vs. Sakam, et al., G.R. No. 41566, December 7, 1934, 61 Phil. 27 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Manantan, et al., G.R. No. L-5547, April 29, 1954, 94 Phil. 831

Under the aforecited article, 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. (People of the Phil. vs. Julio Guillen, G.R. No. L-1477, January 18, 1950) Applying the aforesaid provision of law, the maximum penalty for the most serious crime (murder) is death. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Comadre, et al., G.R. No. 153559, June 8, 2004

When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is charged, it is axiomatic that the prosecution must allege in the information and prove during the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

370

trial all the elements of all the offenses constituting the complex crime. Aurea R. Monteverde vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002

In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. People of the Phil. vs. Jimmel Sanidad, et al., G.R. No. 146099, April 30, 2003

Where one of the resulting offenses in criminal negligence constitutes a light felony, there is no complex crime. Marcelino Lontok, Jr. vs. Alfredo Gorgonio, G.R. No. L-37396, April 30, 1979 Isabelita Reodica vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125066, July 8, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Glenn Delos Santos, G.R. No. 131588, March 27, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Inocencio Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, June 21, 2001

Since Article 48 speaks of felonies, it is applicable to crimes through negligence in view of the definition of felonies in Article 3 as "acts or omissions punishable by law" committed either by means of deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa). (1 LUIS B. REYES, THE REVISED PENAL CODE 661-662 (1993), citing People vs. Castro, 40 O.G., Supp. 12, 83) In Isabelita Reodica vs. Court of Appeals, et al., (G.R. No. 125066, July 8, 1998) we ruled that if a reckless, imprudent, or negligent act results in two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. Thus, in Lapuz vs. Court of Appeals, (94 Phil. 710 [1954], cited in People of the Phil. vs. Modesto A. Malabanan, G.R. No. L-16478, August 31, 1961, and People vs. Cuyos, G.R. No. L-46934, April 15, 1988) the accused was convicted, in conformity with Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, of the complex crime of "homicide with serious physical injuries and damage to property through reckless imprudence," and was sentenced to a single penalty of imprisonment, instead of the two penalties imposed by the trial court. Also, in Antonio Soriao vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 56481, July 21, 1989) the accused was convicted of the complex crime of "multiple homicide with damage to property through reckless imprudence" for causing a motor boat to capsize, thereby drowning to death its twenty-eight passengers. People of the Phil. vs. Glenn Delos Santos, G.R. No. 131588, March 27, 2001

It is settled in this jurisdiction that where a complex crime is charged and the evidence fails to support the charge as to one of the component offense, the accused Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

371

can be convicted of the other (the offense proved). United States vs. Pedro Lahoylahoy, et al., G.R. No. 12453, July 15, 1918, 38 Phil. 330 People of the Phil. vs. Radel Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Calabroso, et al., G.R. No. 126368, September 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001

In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law. People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Lopez, G.R. No. 136861, November 15, 2000

On the concept of a complex crime, Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "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." (As amended by Act No. 4000) The instant case does not fall under any of the two (2) mentioned instances wherein a complex crime is committed. The evidence on record shows that the killing of the victim and the wounding of his wife and their children resulted not from a single act but from several and distinct acts of shooting. For one thing, the evidence indicates that not only one gunman was involved, and the act of each gunman was distinct from that of the others. Moreover, there were two (2) empty shells recovered at the crime scene which confirms the fact that several shots were fired. Furthermore, considering the relative positions of the gunmen who surrounded the victims, it was absolutely impossible for the four (4) victims to have been hit by a single bullet. Each act of pulling the trigger of his firearm by each gunman and aiming it at different persons constitute distinct and individual acts which cannot give rise to the complex crime of murder with multiple frustrated murder. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Valdez, G.R. No. 127663, March 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rustom Bermas and Galma Arcilla, G.R. Nos. 76416 and 94312, July 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Abubu, G.R. No. 129072, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Herrera, G.R. Nos. 140557-58, December 5, 2001

"Where the death of two persons does not result from a single act but from two different shots, two separate murders, and not a complex crime, are committed." Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

372

People of the Phil. vs. Mario Tabaco, G.R. Nos. 100382-100385, March 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Latupan, G.R. Nos. 112453-56, June 28, 2001

Robbery With Homicide Four (4) elements are necessary to constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and, (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof the crime of homicide was committed. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Milliam, et al., G.R. No. 129071, January 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Elmer D. Salas, G.R. No. 115192, March 7, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Allan Jarandilla, G.R. Nos. 115985-86, August 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Calixto Zinampan, et al., G.R. No. 126781, September 13, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rodelo Palijon, et al., G.R. No. 123545, October 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Sales Sabadao, et al., G.R. No. 126126, October 30, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Arapok, G.R. No. 134974, December 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Larry Consejero, et al., G.R. No. 118334, February 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Reyderick Lago, G.R. No. 121272, June 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo I. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 130661, June 27, 2001 People of the Philippines vs. Joel Bragat, G.R. No. 134490, September 4, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Ishikawa Amba, G.R. No. 140898, September 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rex T. Canlas, G.R. No. 141633, December 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Matic, et al., G.R. No. 133650, February 19, 2002 People of the Phils. vs. Ruben Logalada Boquila, G.R. No. 136145, March 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo P. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919, February 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Charlie Almoguerra, et al., G.R. No. 121177, November 12, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

373

It should therefore be concretely established that robbery was the principal purpose of the accused and that homicide was committed either by reason of or on the occasion of such robbery. People of the Phil. vs. Ely Cabiles, et al., G.R. No. 113785, September 14, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Joemarie Navales, et al., G.R. No. 112977, January 23, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Melvin Mendoza, G.R. No. 115809, January 23, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Olivarez, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 77865, December 4, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Milliam, et al., G.R. No. 129071, January 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Sasan Bariquit, et al., G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Sales Sabadao, et al., G.R. No. 126126, October 30, 2000

It is the intent of the actor to rob which supplies the connection between the homicide and the robbery necessary to constitute the complex crime of robbery with homicide [People vs. Manuel, 44 Phil. 333 (1922)]. However, the law does not require that the sole motive of the malefactor is robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the occasion thereof. (People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alberca, G.R. No. 117106, June 26, 1996) In People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Tidula (G.R. No. 123273, July 16, 1998) this Court ruled that even if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it does not preclude his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. In People of the Phil. vs. Fausto Damaso (G.R. No. L-30116, November 20, 1978) this Court held that the fact that the intent of the felons was tempered with a desire also to avenge grievances against the victim killed, does not negate the conviction of the accused and punishment for robbery with homicide. A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the homicide is committed before, during or after the commission of the robbery. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of the moment or by mere accident. Even if two or more persons are killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is only one special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What is primordial is the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime. [People vs. Mangulabnan, 99 Phil. 992 (1956), citing Decision of the Spanish Supreme Court, dated Jan. 12, 1889, cited in Cuello Calon's Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

374

Codigo Penal, pp. 501–502] Robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of the robbery is different from the victim of homicide, as long as the homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. [People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto E. Ga, et al. (G.R. No. 49831, June 27, 1990); People of the Phil. vs. Federico Balanag, et al. (G.R. No. 103225, September 15, 1994) cited in People vs. Alberca, supra.] It is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person the malefactor intended to rob. [People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alberca (G.R. No. 117106, June 26, 1996)] For the conviction of the special complex crime, the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as any other element of the crime. [People of the Phil. vs. Joey Aquino, et al. (G.R. No. 129288, March 30, 2000); People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Legaspi, et. al. (G.R. No. 117802, April 27, 2000)] People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Daniela, et al., G.R. No. 139230, April 24, 2003

The phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another, as long as the motive of the offender in killing a person before the robbery is to deprive the victim of his personal property which is sought to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or in killing a person after the robbery to do away with a witness or to defend the possession of the stolen property. (People of the Phil. vs. Judy Sanchez (G.R. No. 120655, October 14, 1998) Thus, it matters not that the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties of the victim. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there be a direct relation and intimate connection between robbery and killing, whether both crimes be committed at the same time. (People vs. Cando,G.R. No.-128114, Oct. 25, 2000) People of the Phil. vs. Danilo I. Torres, et al., G.R. No. 130661, June 27, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rex T. Canlas, G.R. No. 141633, December 14, 2001

Time and again, this Court has held that there is no crime of robbery with double homicide. The term 'homicide' in paragraph 1, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code is to be understood in its generic sense. The juridical concept of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide does not limit the taking of human life to one single victim. In this special complex crime, the homicides or murders and the physical injuries, irrespective of their number committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are merged in the single composite crime of robbery with homicide. Therefore the crime in this case should have been properly denominated as robbery Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

375

with homicide. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Amania, G.R. No. 97612, March 23, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Carrozo, et al., G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000

The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is primarily classified in this jurisdiction as a crime against property, and not against persons, homicide being merely an incident of robbery with the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminals. As such, treachery cannot be validly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance under Art. 14 of The Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Sasan Bariquit, et al., G.R. No. 122733, October 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Clarito Arizobal, et al., G.R. No. 135051-52, December 14, 2000

But in People of the Phil. vs. Juan Gonzales Escote, et al. (G.R. No. 140756, April 4, 2003), the Court ruled that treachery is a generic aggravating circumstance in robbery with homicide when the victim of homicide is killed by treachery. To sustain a conviction for the complex crime of robbery with homicide, which is primarily an offense against property, it is essential that the robbery be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (People of the Phil. vs. Norlito Geron G.R. No. 113788, October 17, 1997; People vs. Parel, G.R. No. 108733, September 16, 1996) Proof of the homicide alone is not sufficient to support a conviction for the aforesaid complex crime (People vs. Geron, supra; People vs. Parel, supra; People vs. Pagal, G.R. No. L-32040, Oct. 25, 1977). People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Asis y Fonperada and Gilbert Formento y Saricon, G.R. No. 142531, October 15, 2002

Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not all actually take part in the homicide; that is, unless it appears that those who did not do so endeavored to prevent the homicide. People of the Phil. vs. Tito Zuela, et al., G.R. No. 112177, January 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Robles, et al., G.R. No. 101335, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ariel Pedroso, G.R. No. 125128, July 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Cando, et al., G.R. No. 128114, October 25, 2000 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

376

People of the Phil. vs. Reyderick Lago, G.R. No. 121272, June 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo P. Cabilto, et al., G.R. Nos. 128816 and 139979-80, August 8, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Nerio Suela, G.R. No. 133570-71, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Matic, et al., G.R. No. 133650, February 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Dinamling, et al., G.R. No. 134605, March 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Raul R. Guimba, et al., G.R. No. 139472, November 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo P. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919, February 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Liberato Solamillo, et al., G.R. No. 123161, June 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Domacyong, et al., G.R. Nos. 137949-52, December 11, 2003

In the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, it is not necessary to identify who among the conspirators have inflicted the stab wound on the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Adelio Conde, G.R. No. 133647, April 12, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Reynaldo S. Lozada, G.R. No. 141121, July 17, 2003

Case law establishes that whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo P. Castro, et al., G.R. No. 187073, March 14, 2012

Indeed, in cases of robbery with homicide, the taking of personal property with intent to gain must itself be established beyond reasonable doubt. Conclusive evidence proving the physical act of asportation by the accused must be presented by the prosecution. It must be shown that the original criminal design of the culprit was robbery and the homicide was perpetrated with a view to the consummation of the robbery by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The mere presence of the accused at the crime scene is not enough to implicate him. It is essential to prove the intent to rob and the use of violence was necessary to realize such intent. People of the Phil. vs. Arturo O. Lara, G.R. No. 199877, August 13, 2012

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

377

Robbery With Rape To be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011

The special complex crime of robbery with rape contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging to another; and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. People of the Phil. vs. Benedicto Cruz, G.R. No. 101844, November 18, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo G. Faigano, G.R. No. 113483, February 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio R. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Boy Domingo, G.R. No. 143660, June 5, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Tamayo, G.R. No. 137586, July 30, 2002

If the original plan was to commit rape, but the accused after committing the rape also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime. People of the Phil. vs. Emeterio Dinola, G.R. No. 54567, March 22, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo G. Faigano, G.R. No. 113483, February 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Ludigario Candelario, et al., G.R. No. 125550, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio R. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Tamayo, G.R. No. 137586, July 30, 2002

Robbery with multiple rape is a special complex crime punishable under Art. 294, par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code and which is committed "when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape." The said provision, needless to say, covers cases of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

378

multiple rapes. This is primarily due to the fact that the juridical concept of this crime does not limit the consummation of rape against one single victim or to one single act, making other rapes in excess of that number as separate, independent offense or offenses. All the rapes are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery. It does not matter too whether the rape occurred before, during, or after the robbery. People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Seguis, et al., G.R. No. 135034, January 18, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Bernardino, 92 Phil. 1070 (1952)

If the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape was committed even before the asportation, the crime is robbery with rape. But if the original plan was to rape but the accused after committing the rape also committed the robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the offense should be viewed as separate and distinct. To be liable for the complex crime of robbery with rape the intent to take personal property of another must precede the rape." People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Canastre, G.R. No. L-2055, December 24, 1948, 82 Phil 480 People of the Phil. vs. Emeterio Dinola, G.R. No. 54567, March 22, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo G. Faigano, G.R. No. 113483, February 22, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Herson Naag, G.R. No. 136394, February 15, 2001

Forcible Abduction With Rape The crime of forcible abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs when there is carnal knowledge with the abducted woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Lacanieta, et al., G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jeffrey Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 141125, February 28, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Caraang, G.R. No. 148424-27, December 11, 2003

However, there can be only one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape committed against each victim. The crime of forcible abduction was necessary only for the first rape. (People vs. Garcia) After the complex crime had already been Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

379

consummated, the subsequent rape can no longer be considered as a separate instance thereof. (Ibid.) That is, it should be detached from, and considered independently of, the forcible abduction. (People vs. Fortich, supra; People vs. Julian, 337 Phil. 411, April 4, 1997) Hence, any subsequent rape of the same victim is simply rape and can no longer be considered as a separate complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. (Ibid.) People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Caraang, G.R. No. 148424-27, December 11, 2003

When a complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code is charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic that the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape. People of the Phil. vs. Victor R. Angeles, G.R. Nos. 104285-86, May 21, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Sabredo, G.R. No. 126114, May 11, 2000

Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. People v. Cayanan, G.R. No. 200080, September 18, 2013 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Sabredo, G.R. No. 126114, May 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Conde Rapisora, G.R. No. 138086, January 25, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Lining, G.R. No. 138401, July 11, 2002

Kidnapping With Murder or Homicide Rules on the correct designation of the crime committed when the kidnapped victim is killed by his abductor. — "Prior to 31 Dec. 1993, the date of effectivity of RA No. 7659, the rule was that where the kidnapped victim was subsequently killed by his abductor, the crime committed would either be a complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art 48 of the Revised Penal Code, or two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping and murder. Thus, where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing him, and he was in fact killed by his abductor, the crime committed was the complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code, as the kidnapping Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

380

of the victim was a necessary means of committing the murder. On the other hand, where the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain as an afterthought, two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping and murder were committed. However, RA No. 7659 amended Art. 267 of the Revised Penal Code by adding thereto a last paragraph which provides — When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of 'special complex crime' of kidnapping with murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought. Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659." Ricardo Parulan vs. Sotero Rodas, et al., G.R. No. L-1536, July 31, 1947, 78 Phil. 855 People of the Phil. vs. Benedicto Ramos, G.R. No. 118570, October 12, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Rimorin, et al., G.R. No. 124309, May 16, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Mercado, et al., G.R. No. 116239, November 29, 2000

Rape With Homicide In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term "homicide" is to be understood in its generic sense, and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the rape. People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo L. Penillos, et al., G.R. No. 65673, January 30, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001

The prosecution of the complex crime of rape with homicide is particularly difficult since the victim can no longer testify against the perpetrator of the crime. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

381

People of the Phil. vs. Renante Robles, G.R. No. 124300, March 25, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Radel Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Teofilo Seranilla, et al., G.R. Nos. 113022-24, December 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Nanas, G.R. No. 137299, August 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Corfin, G.R. No. 131478, April 11, 2002 People of the Philippines vs. Fernando (Ferdinand) Monje y Rosario @ Fernan, et al., G.R. No. 146689, September 27, 2002

Parricide with Unintentional Abortion People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002

Estafa Through Falsification of a Commercial Document The falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa, because before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of public, official, or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification has already existed. Actually utilizing that falsified public, official, or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. But the damage is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Therefore, the falsification of the public, official, or commercial document is only a necessary means to commit estafa. Gina A. Domingo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009 Aurea R. Monteverde vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 139610, August 12, 2002

In considering whether the accused is liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, it would be wrong to consider the component crimes separately from each other. While there may be two component crimes (estafa and falsification of documents), both felonies are animated by and result from one and the same criminal intent for which there is only one criminal liability. That is the concept of a complex crime. In other words, while there are two crimes, they are treated only as one, subject to a single criminal liability. As opposed to a simple crime where only one juridical right or interest is violated Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

382

(e.g., homicide which violates the right to life, theft which violates the right to property), a complex crime constitutes a violation of diverse juridical rights or interests by means of diverse acts, each of which is a simple crime in itself. Since only a single criminal intent underlies the diverse acts, however, the component crimes are considered as elements of a single crime, the complex crime. This is the correct interpretation of a complex crime as treated under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. In the case of a complex crime, therefore, there is a formal (or ideal) plurality of crimes where the same criminal intent results in two or more component crimes constituting a complex crime for which there is only one criminal liability. (The complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document falls under this category.) This is different from a material (or real) plurality of crimes where different criminal intents result in two or more crimes, for each of which the accused incurs criminal liability. The latter category is covered neither by the concept of complex crimes nor by Article 48. Under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, the formal plurality of crimes (concursus delictuorum or concurso de delitos) gives rise to a single criminal liability and requires the imposition of a single penalty: xxx For this reason, while a conviction for estafa through falsification of public document requires that the elements of both estafa and falsification exist, it does not mean that the criminal liability for estafa may be determined and considered independently of that for falsification. The two crimes of estafa and falsification of public documents are not separate crimes but component crimes of the single complex crime of estafa and falsification of public documents. Therefore, it would be incorrect to claim that, to be criminally liable for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document, the liability for estafa should be considered separately from the liability for falsification of public document. Such approach would disregard the nature of a complex crime and contradict the letter and spirit of Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. It would wrongly disregard the distinction between formal plurality and material plurality, as it improperly treats the plurality of crimes in the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document as a mere material plurality where the felonies are considered as separate crimes to be punished individually. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

383

Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010

Estafa Through Falsification of Public Documents Simon Fernan, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007

In a complex crime, although two or more crimes are actually committed, they constitute only one crime in the eyes of the law as well as in the conscience of the offender. Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for the commission of a complex crime. People of the Phil. vs. Bernardino Gaffud, Jr., G.R. No. 168050, September 19, 2008

Art. 51 - Penalty to Be Imposed Upon Principals of Attempted Crimes Leonidas Epifanio vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 157057, June 26, 2007

Art. 62 (1) (a) - Syndicated or Organized Crime Group The trial court erred in holding that the appellants were part of a syndicated or organized crime group under Article 62(1)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, which merits the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. While the appellants and their co-accused confederated and mutually helped one another for the purpose of gain, it was neither alleged nor proved that they formed part of a group organized for the general purpose of committing crimes for gain which is the essence of a syndicated or organized crime group. People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo P. Napalit, G.R. No. 142919, February 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Marife Bello, et al., G.R. No. 124871, May 13, 2004

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

384

Art. 63 – Rules for Application of Indivisible Penalties Thus, in order to impose the proper penalty, especially in cases of indivisible penalties, the court has the duty to ascertain the presence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. Accordingly, in crimes where the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua to death, the court can impose either reclusion perpetua or death, depending on the mitigating or aggravating circumstances present. But with the enactment of Republic Act No. (RA) 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines, the imposition of death penalty is now prohibited. It provides that in lieu of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC. As a result, courts now cannot impose the penalty of death. Instead, they have to impose reclusion perpetua. Despite this, the principal consideration for the award of damages, following the ruling in People v. Salome and People v. Quiachon, is "the penalty provided by law or imposable for the offense because of its heinousness, not the public penalty actually imposed on the offender." People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pepito D. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010

Article 63 states that the greater penalty, which is death, will be applied when in the commission of rape there is present one aggravating circumstance. We hold that the aggravating circumstance that is sufficient to warrant the imposition of the graver penalty of death must be that specifically enumerated in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Since it is only relationship that is alleged and proven in this case, and it is not an aggravating circumstance per se, the proper penalty is the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua. 05plpecda

People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004

Article 63 of the same Code provides that if the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, as in the instant case, and there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. People of the Philippines vs. Nicolas Guzman, G.R. No. 169246, January 26, 2007

Since the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties, then for the purpose of determining the imposable penalty, Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code must be considered.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

385

People of the Phil. vs. Navida, G.R. No. 132239-40, December 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Celino O. Nabong, G.R. No. 172324, April 3, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo P. Noveras, G.R. No. 171349, April 27, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Delima, Jr., G.R. No. 169869, July 12, 2007

Art. 63 (2) Under this article, in all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the lesser penalty shall be applied when there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances. People of the Phil. vs. Jerry M. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 176735, June 26, 2008

Art. 64 - Rules for the Application of Penalties Which Contain Three Periods Zenon R. Perez vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008

Art. 70 - Successive Service of Sentences; Exception Under Article 70 of the Revised Penal Code, the duration of perpetual penalties is 30 years. In Re: Rogelio Ormilla, et al. vs. Director, Bureau of Corrections, et al., G.R. No. 170497, January 22, 2007

Art. 89 – How Criminal Liability is Totally Extinguished In General

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

386

Death Restitution Pardon Amnesty Pardon vs. Amnesty Prescription Novation Plea of guilty Compromise Payment of Civil Liability Dismissal of Administrative Case Parole

In General Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code enumerates the causes that totally extinguish criminal liability as follows: (1) the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefore is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment; (2) service of the sentence; (3) amnesty, which completely extinguishes the penalty and all its effects; (4) absolute pardon; (5) prescription of the crime; (6) prescription of the penalty; (7) the marriage of the offended woman, as provided in Article 344 of the Code. In the case at bar, it is evident that criminal liability in the homicide case has not been extinguished under any of the above-mentioned causes. Eladio C. Tangan vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 73963, November 5, 1987

Extinction of criminal liability presupposes not merely probable cause but the guilt of the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Napoleon D. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-56443, December 19, 1981

Death By reason of the death of accused in the prison hospital, his criminal liability was extinguished. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

387

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Avellana, et al., G.R. No. L-38345, March 28, 1980 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pincalin, et al., G.R. No. L-38755, January 22, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Jimenez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36613-14, July 24, 1981

Upon death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as the accused; the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the criminal. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Tugbang, G.R. No. 76212, April 26, 1991 People of the Phils. vs. Rogelio C. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994 – has a comprehensive discussion on this issue citing various cases; this case reverses the Court’s ruling in a number of cases including People vs. Sendaydiego People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio D. Sumaya, G.R. Nos. 93281-84, November 17, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Adronico Gregorio, et al., G.R. Nos. 109614-15, March 29, 1996 Lydia A. Villegas, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 82562 & 82592, April 11, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Siccuan, et al., G.R. No. 113790, April 11, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Sambulan, et al., G.R. No. 112972, April 24, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Martin L. Romero, et al., G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jeanette (Ginette) Yanson-Dumancas, G.R. Nos. 133527-28, December 13, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Abungan, et al., G.R. No. 136843, Sept. 28, 2000 – summarizes the ruling in People vs. Bayotas People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Pacaña, et al., G.R. Nos. 97472-73, November 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Tumayao, et al., G.R. No. 137045, April 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Lito Limpangog, et al., G.R. Nos. 141438-40, February 3, 2003 Ma. Lourdes R. De guzman vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 154579, October 8, 2003

Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. People of the Phils. vs. Rogelio C. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

388

People of the Phil. vs. Martin L. Romero, et al., G.R. No. 112985, April 21, 1999

Death of the offended party does not extinguish criminal liability for the offense committed against him. If this were so, no one may be prosecuted for homicide or murder, or convicted of any crime wherein the offended party had died at any time before final judgment in the case had been rendered. It is a truism that a criminal offense is prosecuted not because of the injury or harm inflicted on the offended party, but because a crime is supposed to be an outrage to the sovereignty of the State. (City of Manila vs. Rizal, 27 Phil. 50.) People of the Phil. vs. Mario M. Bundalian, G.R. No. L-29985, October 23, 1982

Accused died before the promulgation of the decision convicting him. Hence, that part of the challenged decision holding him guilty as charged and imposing penalties and damages upon him must be set aside as null and void ab initio. (As a consequence of the death of the accused before rendition of final judgment, his criminal and civil liability is extinguished.) People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Alison, et al., G.R. No. L-30612, April 27, 1972 People of the Phil. vs. Benito Satorre, et al., G.R. No. L-26282, August 27, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo S. Taruc, et al., G.R. Nos. 69337-38, March 8, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto B. Soriano, G.R. No. 74783, April 22, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Tugbang, G.R. No. 76212, April 26, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Badeo, G.R. No. 72990, November 21, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Villagracia, et al., G.R. No. 94311, September 14, 1993

Pursuant to Article 89, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the death of [respondent] totally extinguished his criminal liability. Because [respondent] died even before arraignment and trial, there is no relevance in declaring the extinction as well of civil liability that was based exclusively on the crime for which an accused is convicted (i.e., ex delicto). Only civil liability predicated on a source of obligation other than the delict, if any, survived the death of the accused, which the offended party can recover by means of a separate civil action. Making Enterprises, Inc. et al. vs. Jose Marfori, et al., G.R. No. 152239, August 17, 2011

It is plain that both the personal penalty of imprisonment and pecuniary penalty of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

389

fine of Brillantes were extinguished upon his death pending appeal of his conviction by the lower courts. We recite the rules laid down in People vs. Bayotas, (G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994) to wit: 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore." 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict. Article 1157 of the Civil Code enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission: a)

Law

b)

Contracts

c)

Quasi-contracts

d)

...

e)

Quasi-delicts xxx

xxx

xxx

There is no civil liability involved in violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. No private offended party is involved as there is in fact no reference to civil liability in the decision of the trial court. People of the Phil. vs. Jose L. Brillantes, G.R. No. 190610, April 25, 2012

Restitution Restitution did not affect criminal liability because the robbery was already consummated. It merely extinguished civil liability for those objects of the robbery. People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Acejo, G.R. No. L-32605, April 28, 1980 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

390

Assuming therefore, that the accused had indeed fully reimbursed or returned the amounts he is supposed to have malversed, still, his criminal liability is not extinguished thereby and he must still account and be prosecuted for any malversation he has committed." Office of the Court Administrator vs. Amando S. Soriano, A.M. No. 2864-P, May 16, 1985

Pardon By pardon, accused-appellants' criminal liability is thereby extinguished but their civil liability remains. People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Albofera, G.R. No. L-69377, April 8, 1988 Salvacion A. Monsanto vs. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., G.R. No. 78239, February 9, 1989

Amnesty Criminal action or liability is totally extinguished by, among others, amnesty. People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio Vera, et al., G.R. No. 26539, February 28, 1990

Pardon vs. Amnesty "Pardon is granted by the Chief Executive and as such it is a private act which must be pleaded and proved by the person pardoned, because the courts take no notice thereof; while amnesty by Proclamation of the Chief Executive with the concurrence of Congress, is a public act of which the courts should take judicial notice. Pardon is granted to one after conviction; while amnesty is granted to classes of persons or communities who may be guilty of political offenses, generally before or after the institution of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after conviction. Pardon looks forward and relieves the offender from the consequences of an offense of which he has been convicted, that is, it abolishes or forgives the punishment, and for that reason it does 'not work the restoration of the rights to hold public office, or the right of suffrage unless such rights be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon,' and it 'in no case exempts the culprit from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence' (Article 36, Revised Penal Code). While amnesty looks backward and abolishes and puts into oblivion the offense itself, it so overlooks and obliterates Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

391

the offense with which he is charged that the person released by amnesty stands before the law precisely as though he had committed no offense." People of the Phil. vs. William O. Casido, et al., G.R. No. 116512, March 7, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Patriarca, et al., G.R. No. 135457, September 29, 2000

Prescription The offense ascertained from the evidence adduced during trial was a light offense and under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, light offenses prescribe in two (2) months. Article 89(5) of the Revised Penal Code expressly provides: "Criminal liability is totally extinguished. xxx

xxx

xxx.

5. By prescription of the crime; xxx Where an accused has been found to have committed a lesser offense includible within the offense charged, he cannot be convicted of the lesser offense, if it has already prescribed. To hold otherwise would be to sanction the circumvention of the law on prescription by the simple expedient of accusing the defendant of the graver offense. Emiliano A. Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45674, May 30, 1983 Rudolfo S. Magat, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 92201, August 21, 1991

Philippine jurisprudence considers prescription of a crime or offense as a loss or waiver by the State of its right to prosecute an act prohibited and punished by law. Efigenio S. Damasco vs. Hilario L. Laqui, et al., G.R. No. L-81381, September 30, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Moran, et al., G.R. No. 17905, January 27, 1923, 44 Phil. 387 Patricio Santos vs. Supt. of the "Phil. Training School for Girls, G.R. No. 34334, November 28, 1930, 55 Phil. 345 Aniceto Recebido vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 141931, December 4, 2000 Reynato Baytan, et al. vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 153945, February 4, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

392

Prescription is the only known ground by which the State's right to prosecute an offense may be lost. Antonio A. Nepomuceno vs. Secretary of National Defense, G.R. No. L-45487, October 30, 1981

Prescription, although not invoked in the trial, may, as in this case, be invoked on appeal. Aniceto Recebido vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 141931, December 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Balagtas, 105 Phil. 1362-1363 [Unreported]

Under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, "prescription of the crime" is one of the grounds for "total extinction of criminal liability." Under the Rules of Court, an order sustaining a motion to quash based on prescription is a bar to another prosecution for the same offense. [Sections 2(f) and 8, Rule 117, Revised Rules of Court; see Cabral vs. Puno, G.R. No. L-41692, April 30, 1976] People of the Phils. vs. Benjamin Relova, G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987

The defense of prescription of the offense charged in the information should be pleaded in the criminal action otherwise it would be deemed waived. Manuel Aldeguer vs. Henry Hoskyn, G.R. No. 1164, September 17, 1903, 2 Phil. 500 Cirila Domingo vs. Antonio Osorio, G.R. No. L-3150, February 1, 1907, 7 Phil. 405 Arcadio Maxilom vs. Gaudencio Tabotabo, G.R. No. L-3505, December 20, 1907, 9 Phil. 390 Jeremiah J. Harty vs. Angel Luna, G.R. No. 4943, February 19, 1909, 13 Phil. 31 Tomas Sunico vs. Manuel Ramirez, G.R. No. 5009, November 26, 1909, 14 Phil. 500 United States vs. Jose S. Serapio, G.R. No. 7557, December 7, 1912, 23 Phil. 584 Eden D. Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 89989, January 28, 1991

Novation The novation theory may perhaps apply to the filing of the criminal information in court by the state prosecutors because up to that time the original trust relation may be converted by the parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor situation, thereby placing the complainant in estoppel to insist on the original trust. But after the justice authorities Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

393

have taken cognizance of the crime and instituted action in court, the offended party may no longer divest the prosecution of its power to exact the criminal liability, as distinguished from the civil. The crime being an offense against the state, only the latter can renounce it (People vs. Gervacio, 54 Off. Gaz. 2898; People vs. Velasco, 42 Phil. 76; U.S vs. Montañes, 8 Phil. 620). "It may be observed in this regard that novation is not one of the means recognized by the Penal Code whereby criminal liability can be extinguished; hence, the role of novation may only be to either prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction, whether or not it was such that its breach would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to (cf. Abeto vs. People, 90 Phil. 681; U.S. vs. Villareal, 27 Phil. 481)." Fernando Ong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-58476, September 2, 1983 Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al. vs. City Fiscal of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 60033, April 4, 1984

While it is true that novation does not extinguish criminal liability, it may however, prevent the rise of criminal liability as long as it occurs prior to the filing of the criminal information in court. Carlos B. Gonzales vs. Eulogio Serrano, G.R. No. L-25791, September 23, 1968 Teofisto Guingona, Jr., et al. vs. City Fiscal of Manila, et al., G.R. No. 60033, April 4, 1984

Although novation is not one of the means recognized by the Revised Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability, it may "prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction," provided the novation takes place before the filing of the Information with the trial court. Social Security System vs. Department of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 158131, August 8, 2007

Novation is not a ground under the law to extinguish criminal liability. Article 89 (on total extinguishment) and Article 94 (on partial extinguishment) of the Revised Penal Code list down the various grounds for the extinguishment of criminal liability. Not being included in the list, novation is limited in its effect only to the civil aspect of the liability, and, for that reason, is not an efficient defense in estafa. This is because only the State may validly waive the criminal action against an accused. The role of novation may only be either to prevent the rise of criminal liability, or to cast Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

394

doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction, whether or not it was such that the breach of the obligation would not give rise to penal responsibility, as when money loaned is made to appear as a deposit, or other similar disguise is resorted to. Degaños v. People, G.R. No. 162826, October 14, 2013

A compromise made after the commission of the crime does not extinguish criminal liability or bar the prosecution for estafa. Novation is not a mode of extinguishing criminal liability for estafa. A compromise or settlement entered into after the commission of the crime does not extinguish accused's liability for estafa. Neither will the same bar the prosecution of said crime. Metrobank vs. Rogelio Reynado, et al., G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010

Plea of Guilty Criminal liability is not extinguished nor mitigated by plea of guilty after the prosecution has rested. People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Armada, Jr., G.R. No. 100592, August 26, 1993

Compromise A compromise is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the extinction of criminal liability. Antonio Diaz vs. Davao Light and Power Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 160959, April 4, 2007

Payment of Civil Liability Payment of civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability. Sps. Rodolfo and Sylvia Cabico vs. Evelyn L. Dimaculangan-Querijero, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1735, April 27, 2007

Dismissal of Administrative Case The dismissal of an administrative case, does not per se exonerate the criminal action… Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides the manner in which Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

395

criminal liability is totally extinguished, does not contemplate such a case. Brigido B. Paredes vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169534, July 30, 2007

Parole Parole is not one of the modes of totally extinguishing criminal liability under Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano M. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007

Art. 90 – Prescription of Crimes Under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, light offenses prescribe in two months. Article 13 of the Civil Code provides that when the law speaks of months, it shall be understood that months are of thirty days each. Rafael Yapdiangco vs. Concepcion B. Buencamino, G.R. No. L-28841, June 24, 1983

The law itself provides for a period of prescription. Prescription of the crime is forfeiture or loss of the rights of the State to prosecute the offender after the lapse of a certain time, while prescription of the penalty is the loss or forfeiture by the government of the right to execute the final sentence after the lapse of a certain time (Padilla, Criminal Law, Vol. 1, 1974, at p. 855). Board of Commissioners (CID) vs. Joselito Dela Rosa, G.R. No. 95122-23, May 31, 1991

It will be noted that the respondent court in its order of 30 August 1991 granted the motion to quash on the additional ground of prescription. It ruled that since the offense of libel prescribes within one (1) year (in accordance with Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code), and further considering that the informations at bench were filed only in May 1988, or more than one (1) year after the alleged libelous article was published, the crimes charged had already prescribed when the informations were filed. While it may be true that prescription of offenses is a ground upon which a motion to quash may be anchored — on the theory that criminal liability has, in effect, been extinguished — we do not again agree with the respondent court that the libel, if any, had prescribed when the informations were filed. In the present case, the criminal Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

396

complaint was filed with the office of the prosecutor on 10 April 1987. The alleged libelous article was published on 07 April 1987. Hence, the complaint was filed with the prosecutor's office three (3) days after the publication of the alleged libelous article. Thus, the running of the prescriptive period was interrupted on 10 April 1987. Adelina Calderon-Bargas, et al. vs. Regional Trial Court of Pasig, et al., G.R. No. 103259, October 1, 1993

The one-year period of prescription for the crime was interrupted on February 2, 1994 when respondents filed a joint complaint-affidavit for libel against petitioner before the Office of the City Prosecutor in Quezon City. At this point, the prescription period had already run for forty-two (42) days. Fidelis Arambulo vs. Hilarion Laqui, et al., G.R. No. 138596, October 12, 2000

Under Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of grave oral defamation, which is the subject of the information in Criminal Case No. 35684-R of the MTC of Cebu, prescribes in 6 months. Since Article 13 of the Civil Code provides that when the law speaks of months it shall be understood to be of 30 days, then grave oral defamation prescribes in 180 days. (People vs. Paz del Rosario, 97 Phil. 67 [1995].) Susan V. Llenes vs. Isaias P. Dicdican, et al., G.R. No. 122274, July 31, 1996

On the issue of prescription, the Court affirms the holding of the Sandiganbayan that the offense has not as yet prescribed. Although, it is true that more than ten years have elapsed from the time of the alleged commission of the offense on 22 September 1977 and/or 27 March 1978 to the date of filing of the information on 21 July 1993, the then 11 applicable 10-year prescriptive period has, however, been effectively suspended by the filing of the complaint on 26 May 1987 with the Ombudsman. Domingo Ingco, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 112584, May 23, 1997

In resolving the issue of prescription, the following must be considered, namely: (1) the period of prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time when the period of prescription starts to run; and (3) the time when the prescriptive period is interrupted. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013

The crime of corruption of public officials charged in Criminal Case No. 28001 is punished by Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code with the "same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted." Under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (direct bribery), if the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

397

the execution of an act that does not constitute a crime, and the officer executes the act, he shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and minimum periods and a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift. Conformably with Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription for this specie of corruption of public officials charged against Disini is 15 years. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013

Art. 91 – Computation of Prescription of Offenses People of the Phil. vs. Clemente Bautista, G.R. No. 168641, April 27, 2007

Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, which adopts the "discovery rule" for the prescription of offenses, provides: ARTICLE 91. Computation of prescription of offenses. — The period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably stopped for any reason not imputable to him. The term of prescription shall not run when the offender is absent from the Philippine Archipelago. People of the Phil. vs. Arturo F. Pacificador, G.R. No. 139405, March 13, 2001

For crimes punishable by the Revised Penal Code, Article 91 thereof provides that prescription starts to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013

Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code provides that "the period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents, and shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information, and shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, or are unjustifiably Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

398

stopped for any reason not imputable to him." Interpreting the foregoing provision, this Court in People vs. Tayco (73 Phil. 509) held that the complaint or information referred to in Article 91 is that which is filed in the proper court and not the denuncia or accusation lodged by the offended party in the Fiscal's Office. This is so, according to the court, because under this rule it is so provided that the period shall commence to run again when the proceedings initiated by the filing of the complaint or information terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted, adding that the proceedings in the Office of the Fiscal cannot and there in the acquittal or conviction of the accused. The basis of the doctrine in the Tayco case, however, was disregarded by this Court in the Olarte case, cited by the Solicitor General. It should be recalled that before the Olarte case, there was diversity of precedents on the issue of prescription. One view declares that the filing of the complaint with the justice of the peace (or municipal judge) does interrupt the course of prescriptive term. This view is found in People vs. Olarte, L-13027, June 30, 1960 and cases cited therein; People vs. Uba, L-13106, October 16, 1959; People vs. Aquino, 68 Phil. 588, 590. The other pronouncement is that to produce interruption, the complainant or information must have been filed in the proper court that has jurisdiction to try the case on its merits, found in the cases of People vs. del Rosario, L-15140, December 29, 1960; People vs. Coquia, L-15456, June 29, 1963. The Olarte case set at rest the conflict views, and enunciated the doctrine aforecited by the Solicitor General. The reasons for the doctrine which We find applicable to the case at bar reads: "In view of this diversity of precedents, and in order to provide guidance for Bench and Bar, this Court has reexamined the question and, after mature consideration, has arrived at the conclusion that the true doctrine is, and should be, the one established by the decisions holding that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court, even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, should, and does, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed can not try the case on its merits. Several reasons buttress this conclusion: first, the text of Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code, in declaring that the period of prescription "shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information" without distinguishing whether the complaint is filed in the court for preliminary examination or investigation merely, or for action on the merits. Second, even if Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

399

the court where the complaint or information is filed may only proceed to investigate the case, its actuations already represent the initial step of the proceedings against the offender. Third, it is unjust to deprive the injured party of the right to obtain vindication on account of delays that are not under his control. All that the victim of the offense may do on his part to initiate the prosecution is to file the requisite complaint. "And it is no argument that Article 91 also expresses that the interrupted prescription "shall commence to run again when such proceedings terminate without the accused being convicted or acquitted", thereby indicating that the court in which the complaint or information is filed most have power to acquit or convict the accused. Precisely, the trial on the merits usually terminates in conviction or acquittal, not otherwise. But it is in the court conducting a preliminary investigation where the proceedings may terminate without conviction or acquittal, if the court should discharge the accused because no prima facie case has been shown." As is a well-known fact, like the proceedings in the court conducting a preliminary investigation, a proceeding in the Fiscal's Office may terminate without conviction or acquittal. As Justice Claudio Teehankee has observed: "To the writer's mind, these reasons logically call with equal force, for the express overruling also of the doctrine in People vs. Tayco, 73 Phil. 509, (1941) that the filing of a complaint or denuncia by the offended party with the City Fiscal's Office which is required by law to conduct the preliminary investigation does not interrupt the period of prescription. In chartered cities, criminal prosecution is generally initiated by the filing of the complaint or denuncia with the city fiscal for preliminary investigation. In the case of provincial fiscals, besides being empowered like municipal judges to conduct preliminary investigations, they may even reverse actions of municipal judges with respect to charges triable by Courts of First instance . . ." (Footnote in the case of Lino G. David vs. Arturo B. Santos, G.R. No. L-26336, February 27, 1970.) Clearly, therefore, the filing of the denuncia for complaint for intriguing against honor by the offended party, later changed by the Fiscal to grave oral defamation, even if it were in the Fiscal's Office, 39 days after the alleged defamatory remarks were committed (or discovered) by the accused interrupts the period of prescription. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

400

Emiliano A. Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45674, May 30, 1983 Susan V. Llenes vs. Isaias P. Dicdican, et al., G.R. No. 122274, July 31, 1996

Notably, Art. 91, in declaring that the prescriptive period "shall be interrupted by the filing of the complaint or information," does not distinguish whether the complaint is filed for preliminary examination or investigation only or for an action on the merits. (People vs. Olarte, (G.R. No. L-22465, February 28, 1967) Thus, in Francisco vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-45674, May 13, 1983) and People vs. Cuaresma, (G.R. No. 67787, April 18, 1989) this Court held that the filing of the complaint even with the fiscal's office suspends the running of the statute of limitations. Isabelita Reodica vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125066, July 8, 1998

The prevailing rule is, therefore, that irrespective of whether the offense charged is punishable by the Revised Penal Code or by a special law, it is the filing of the complaint or information in the office of the public prosecutor for purposes of the preliminary investigation that interrupts the period of prescription. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013

The period of prescription therein decreed is the time that supervenes from the commission of the offense up to the time of arraignment. Contrary to the petitioner's submittal, the period is not interrupted by the commencement of trial, but by the arraignment of the accused. Saturnino Domingo vs. Minister of National Defense, G.R. No. L-55212, September 2, 1983

Generally, the prescriptive period shall commence to run on the day the crime is committed. That an aggrieved person "entitled to an action has no knowledge of his right to sue or of the facts out of which his right arises," does not prevent the running of the prescriptive period. An exception to this rule is the "blameless ignorance" doctrine, incorporated in Section 2 of Act No. 3326. Under this doctrine, "the statute of limitations runs only upon discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right which will support a cause of action. In other words, the courts would decline to apply the statute of limitations where the plaintiff does not know or has no reasonable means of knowing the existence of a cause of action." It was in this accord that the Court confronted the question on the running of the prescriptive period in People v. Duque which became the cornerstone of our 1999 Decision in Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto (G.R. No. 130149), and the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

401

subsequent cases which Ombudsman Desierto dismissed, emphatically, on the ground of prescription too. Thus, we held in a catena of cases, that if the violation of the special law was not known at the time of its commission, the prescription begins to run only from the discovery thereof, i.e., discovery of the unlawful nature of the constitutive act or acts. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013, citing Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, G.R. No. 135715, April 13, 2011

It is obvious that the order of dismissal in the criminal action for falsification, which was based on prescription of the crime, cannot be considered res judicata or a bar to the civil action. Eugenio Cabral, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-54449, July 20, 1984

If the offense is a continuing one perpetrated over a span of time, the period of its prescription shall be computed from the latest act of solicitation or acceptance of contributions, and not from the first. People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Castañeda, et al., G.R. No. 47131, July 3, 1990

The period of prescription for the offense of failure to register with the SSS shall begin from the day of the discovery of the violation if this was not shown at the time of its commission. A contrary view would be dangerous as the successful concealment of an offense during the period fixed for its prescription would be the very means by which the offender may escape punishment. People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Monteiro, G.R. No. 49454, December 21, 1990

The Sandiganbayan correctly observed that "the date of the violation of the law becomes the operative date for the commencement of the period of prescription". People of the Phil. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 101724, July 3, 1992

It is true that bigamy is a public offense. But, it is entirely incorrect to state, as the petitioner does, that only the State is the offended party in such case, as well as in other public offenses, and, therefore, only the State's discovery of the crime could effectively commence the running of the period of prescription therefor. Article 91 of the RPC provides that "[t]he period of prescription shall commence to run from the day on which the crime is discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents . . ." This rule makes no distinction between a public crime and a private crime. In both cases then, the discovery may be by the "offended party, the authorities, or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

402

their agents." Jose G. Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119063, January 27, 1997

In the old but oft-cited case of People v. Olarte, [G.R. No. L-22465, 28 February 1967] this Court ruled that the filing of the complaint in the Municipal Court even if it be merely for purposes of preliminary examination or investigation, should, and thus, interrupt the period of prescription of the criminal responsibility, even if the court where the complaint or information is filed cannot try the case on the merits. This ruling was broadened by the Court in the case of Francisco, et al. v. Court of Appeals, et al. [207 Phil. 471, 477 (1983)] when it held that the filing of the complaint with the Fiscal's Office also suspends the running of the prescriptive period of a criminal offense. People of the Phil. vs. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012

There is no more distinction between cases under the RPC and those covered by special laws with respect to the interruption of the period of prescription. The ruling in Zaldivia v. Reyes, Jr. is not controlling in special laws. In [several] cases involving special laws, this Court held that the institution of proceedings for preliminary investigation against the accused interrupts the period of prescription. In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Interport Resources Corporation, et al., [G.R. No. 135808, 6 October 2008] the Court even ruled that investigations conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission for violations of the Revised Securities Act and the Securities Regulations Code effectively interrupts the prescription period because it is equivalent to the preliminary investigation conducted by the DOJ in criminal cases. People of the Phil. vs. Ma. Theresa Pangilinan, G.R. No. 152662, June 13, 2012

Art. 94 - Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability A compromise is not one of the grounds prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the extinction of criminal liability. Antonio Diaz vs. Davao Light and Power Co., Inc., et al., G.R. No. 160959, April 4, 2007

Payment of civil liability does not extinguish criminal liability. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

403

Sps. Rodolfo and Sylvia Cabico vs. Evelyn L. Dimaculangan-Querijero, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1735, April 27, 2007

Although novation is not one of the means recognized by the Revised Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability, it may "prevent the rise of criminal liability or to cast doubt on the true nature of the original basic transaction," provided the novation takes place before the filing of the Information with the trial court. Social Security System vs. Department of Justice, et al., G.R. No. 158131, August 8, 2007

Art. 100 - Civil Liability of Person Guilty of Felony The extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111 [now Section 2 (b) of Rule 111], refers exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been committed by the accused. Mauricio Manliclic, et al. vs. Modesto Calaunan, G.R. No. 150157, April 27, 2007 Pedro Elcano vs. Raginald Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977

Under Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable except in instances when no actual damage results from an offense, such as espionage, violation of neutrality, flight to an enemy country, and crime against popular representation. Ferdinand A. Cruz vs. Alberto Mina, et al., G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007 Gemma Ilagan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. Nos. 166873, 168069 & 168543, April 27, 2007

Generally, a criminal case has two aspects, the civil and the criminal. The civil aspect is borne of the principle that every person criminally liable is also civilly liable. The civil action, in which the offended party is the plaintiff and the accused is the defendant, is deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

404

waives the civil action or reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. The law allows the merger of the criminal and the civil actions to avoid multiplicity of suits. Thus, when the state succeeds in prosecuting the offense, the offended party benefits from such result and is able to collect the damages awarded to him. But, when the trial court acquits the accused or dismisses the case on the ground of lack of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the civil action is not automatically extinguished since liability under such an action can be determined based on mere preponderance of evidence. The offended party may peel off from the terminated criminal action and appeal from the implied dismissal of his claim for civil liability. The purpose of a criminal action, in its purest sense, is to determine the penal liability of the accused for having outraged the state with his crime and, if he be found guilty, to punish him for it. In this sense, the parties to the action are the People of the Philippines and the accused. The offended party is regarded merely as a witness for the state. Also in this wise, only the state, through its appellate counsel, the OSG, has the sole right and authority to institute proceedings before the CA or the Supreme Court. Heirs of Sarah Marie Palma Burgos vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 169711, February 8, 2010

In cases of murder and homicide, civil indemnity and moral damages are awarded automatically. Indeed, such awards are mandatory without need of allegation and proof other than the death of the victim, owing to the fact of the commission of murder or homicide. When the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua, the damages to be imposed are: PhP50,000 as civil indemnity, PhP50,000 as moral damages, and PhP30,000 as exemplary damages. These amounts are proper since there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the crime in accordance with Art. 63 of the Revised Penal Code. Interest at the rate of 6% per annum reckoned from January 19, 2000, which is the date of the killing, up to the finality of the judgment should be imposed on the damages. In addition, interest at 12% per annum shall be imposed on said damages from finality of judgment until paid. People of the Phil. vs. Larry Torres, Sr., G.R. No. 190317, August 22, 2011

In Banal v. Tadeo, Jr., (240 Phil. 326, 331 (1987)) we elucidated on the civil Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

405

liability of the accused despite his exoneration in this wise: While an act or omission is felonious because it is punishable by law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much because it is a crime but because it caused damage to another. Viewing things pragmatically, we can readily see that what gives rise to the civil liability is really the obligation and moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole the damage caused to another by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, whether or not the same be punishable by law. . . . Simply stated, civil liability arises when one, by reason of his own act or omission, done intentionally or negligently, causes damage to another. Felixberto A. Abellana vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 174654, August 17, 2011

This Court has consistently held that upon the finding of the fact of rape, the award of civil damages ex delicto is mandatory. As we elucidated in People v. Prades, (G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998) the award authorized by the criminal law as civil indemnity ex delicto for the offended party, aside from other proven actual damages, is itself equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. Thus, we held that the civil liability ex delicto provided by the Revised Penal Code, that is, restitution, reparation, and indemnification, all correspond to actual or compensatory damages in the Civil Code. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011

In the 1998 landmark case of People v. Victor (G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998), the Court enunciated that if, in the crime of rape, the death penalty is imposed, the indemnity ex delicto for the victim shall be in the increased amount of NOT less than P75,000.00. To reiterate the words of the Court: "this is not only a reaction to the apathetic societal perception of the penal law and the financial fluctuation over time, but also an expression of the displeasure of the Court over the incidence of heinous crimes . . ." After the enactment R.A. 9346, prohibiting the imposition of death penalty, questions arose as to the continued applicability of the Victor ruling. Thus, in People v. Quiachon (G.R. No. 170236, August 31, 2006), the Court pronounced that even if the penalty of death is not to be imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the civil indemnity ex delicto of P75,000.00 still applies because this indemnity is not dependent on the actual imposition of death, but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the penalty of death attended the commission of the offense. As explained in People v. Salome (G.R. No. 169077, August 31, 2006), while R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the fact remains that the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

406

penalty provided for by the law for a heinous offense is still death, and the offense is still heinous. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011

Art. 102 - Subsidiary Civil Liability of Innkeepers, Tavernkeepers and Proprietors of Establishments The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability — Articles 102 and 103 — are deemed written into the judgments in cases to which they are applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer. Nonetheless, before the employers' subsidiary liability is enforced, adequate evidence must exist establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2) they are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) the execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. The determination of these conditions may be done in the same criminal action in which the employee's liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced, in a hearing set for that precise purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment. Rolito Calang, et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 190696, August 3, 2010 Sps. Oscar and Eliza Delos Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169498, December 11, 2008

Art. 103 – Subsidiary Civil Liability of Other Persons The same negligent act may produce civil liability arising from a delict under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, or may give rise to an action for a quasi-delict under Article 2180 of the Civil Code. An aggrieved party may choose between the two remedies. An action based on a quasi-delict may proceed independently from the criminal action. There is, however, a distinction between civil liability arising from a delict and civil liability arising from a quasi-delict. The choice of remedy, whether to Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

407

sue for a delict or a quasi-delict, affects the procedural and jurisdictional issues of the action. Fausto Barredo vs. Severino Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 48006, July 8, 1942, 73 Phil. 607

An action based on a delict seeks to enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer for the criminal negligence of the employee as provided in Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. To hold the employer liable in a subsidiary capacity under a delict, the aggrieved party must initiate a criminal action where the employee’s delict and corresponding primary liability are established. (Franco vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71137, 5 October 1989) Hermana R. Cerezo vs. David Tuazon, G.R. No. 141538, March 23, 2004

Article 102 of the Revised Penal Code states the subsidiary civil liabilities of innkeepers. The foregoing subsidiary liability applies to employers, according to Article 103. At the outset, we must explain that the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure has clarified what civil actions are deemed instituted in a criminal prosecution. Section 1 of Rule 111 of the current Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: "When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action. "xxx

xxx

xxx"

Only the civil liability of the accused arising from the crime charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a criminal action; that is, unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the criminal action. Hence, the subsidiary civil liability of the employer under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code may be enforced by execution on the basis of the judgment of conviction meted out to the employee. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004

Under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code, employers are subsidiarily liable for the adjudicated civil liabilities of their employees in the event of the latter's insolvency. (Orlando Lagazon vs. Visia P. Reyes, G.R. No. L-41380, October 18, 1988) The provisions of the Revised Penal Code on subsidiary liability — Articles 102 and 103 — are deemed written into the judgments in the cases to which they are Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

408

applicable. Thus, in the dispositive portion of its decision, the trial court need not expressly pronounce the subsidiary liability of the employer. In the absence of any collusion between the accused-employee and the offended party, the judgment of conviction should bind the person who is subsidiarily liable. (Maria Luisa Martinez vs. Manuel H. Barredo, et al., G.R. No. 49308, May 13, 1948, 81 Phil. 1) In effect and implication, the stigma of a criminal conviction surpasses mere civil liability. To allow employers to dispute the civil liability fixed in a criminal case would enable them to amend, nullify or defeat a final judgment rendered by a competent court. (Lucia S. Pajarito vs. Alberto V. Señeris, et al., G.R. No. L-44627, December 14, 1978) By the same token, to allow them to appeal the final criminal conviction of their employees without the latter's consent would also result in improperly amending, nullifying or defeating the judgment. The decision convicting an employee in a criminal case is binding and conclusive upon the employer not only with regard to the former's civil liability, but also with regard to its amount. The liability of an employer cannot be separated from that of the employee. Before the employers' subsidiary liability is exacted, however, there must be adequate evidence establishing that (1) they are indeed the employers of the convicted employees; (2) that the former are engaged in some kind of industry; (3) that the crime was committed by the employees in the discharge of their duties; and (4) that the execution against the latter has not been satisfied due to insolvency. Virgilio Ozoa vs. Caridad Vda. De Madula, et al., G.R. No. L-62955, December 22, 1987

The resolution of these issues need not be done in a separate civil action. But the determination must be based on the evidence that the offended party and the employer may fully and freely present. Such determination may be done in the same criminal action in which the employee's liability, criminal and civil, has been pronounced; and in a hearing set for that precise purpose, with due notice to the employer, as part of the proceedings for the execution of the judgment. Just because the present petitioner participated in the defense of its accused-employee does not mean that its liability has transformed its nature; its liability remains subsidiary. Neither will its participation erase its subsidiary liability. The fact remains that since the accused-employee's conviction has attained finality, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

409

then the subsidiary liability of the employer ipso facto attaches. Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 147703, April 14, 2004 Sps. Oscar and Eliza Delos Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169498, December 11, 2008

Art. 104 - What is Included in Civil Liability As a rule, the Court awards three kinds of damages in these types of criminal cases (where the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua or death): civil indemnity and moral and exemplary damages. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pepito D. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010

Civil indemnity ex delicto is the indemnity authorized in our criminal law for the offended party, in the amount authorized by the prevailing judicial policy and apart from other proven actual damages, which itself is equivalent to actual or compensatory damages in civil law. This award stems from Art. 100 of the RPC which states, "Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pepito D. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010 Eduardo G. Ricarze vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 160451, February 9, 2007

We take this opportunity to increase the amounts of indemnity and damages, where, as in this case, the penalty for the crime committed is death which, however, cannot be imposed because of the provisions of R.A. No. 9346: 1.

P100,000.00 as civil indemnity;

2. P100,000.00 as moral damages which the victim is assumed to have suffered and thus needs no proof; and 3. P100,000.00 as exemplary damages to set an example for the public good.

These amounts shall be the minimum indemnity and damages where death is the penalty warranted by the facts but is not imposable under present law. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

410

People v. Gambao y Esmail, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013

Art. 107 - Indemnification — What is Included As to damages, when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be awarded: "(1) civil indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim; (2) actual or compensatory damages; (3) moral damages; (4) exemplary damages; and (5) temperate damages." Civil indemnity in the amount of P75,000.00 is mandatory and is granted without need of evidence other than the commission of the crime. Moral damages in the sum of P50,000.00 shall be awarded despite the absence of proof of mental and emotional suffering of the victim's heirs. As borne out by human nature and experience, a violent death invariably and necessarily brings about emotional pain and anguish on the part of the victim's family. Also under Article 2230 of the Civil Code, exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, like treachery, as in this case. Thus, the award of P30,000.00 for exemplary damages is in order. People of the Phil. vs. Samson Escleto, G.R. No. 183706, April 25, 2012

Art. 109 - Share of Each Person Civilly Liable If there are two or more persons civilly liable for a felony, as in this case, the court shall determine the amount for which each must respond to be enforced in accordance with Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code. Ernesto Garces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173858, July 17, 2007

Art. 110 - Several and Subsidiary Liability of Principals, Accomplices and

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

411

Accessories of a Felony Under Article 110 of the Revised Penal Code, the principals are, jointly and severally liable for the civil liabilities arising from the delict. People of the Phil. vs. Elvie Ejandra, et al., G.R. No. 134203, May 27, 2004

The ruling of this Court in People v. Montesclaros is instructive on the apportionment of civil liabilities among all the accused-appellants. The entire amount of the civil liabilities should be apportioned among all those who cooperated in the commission of the crime according to the degrees of their liability, respective responsibilities and actual participation. Hence, each principal accused-appellant should shoulder a greater share in the total amount of indemnity and damages than Perpenian who was adjudged as only an accomplice. People v. Gambao, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013, citing People v. Montesclaros, G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009

Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. Ernesto Garces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173858, July 17, 2007

Art. 113 - Obligation to Satisfy Civil Liability Accused-appellant's civil liability subsists despite his release on parole. People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano M. Abesamis, G.R. No. 140985, August 28, 2007

Art. 114 - Treason "In the nature of things, the giving of aid and comfort can only be accomplished by some kind of action. Its very nature partakes of a deed or physical activity as opposed to a mental operation. (Cramer v. U.S., ante) This deed or physical activity may be, and often is, in itself a criminal offense under another penal statute or provision. Even Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

412

so, when the deed is charged as an element of treason it becomes identified with the latter crime and can not be the subject of a separate punishment, or used in combination with treason to increase the penalty as article 48 of the Revised Penal Code provides. Just as one can not be punished for possessing opium in a prosecution for smoking the identical drug, and a robber cannot be held guilty of coercion or trespass to a dwelling in a prosecution for robbery, because possession of opium and force and trespass are inherent in smoking and in robbery respectively, so may not a defendant be made liable for murder as a separate crime or in conjunction with another offense where, as in this case, it is averred as a constitutive ingredient of treason." People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Prieto, et al., G.R. No. L-399, January 29, 1948, 80 Phil. 138

Under the amendatory sections of R.A. No. 7659, the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death is also imposed on treason by a Filipino (Section 2)… People of the Phil. vs. Conrado B. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 108172-73, January 9, 1995

It is now an accepted dictum that the life of the law is not necessarily logic but experience. These considerations must have prompted the Court to also defend the doctrine of absorption in treason cases [People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Prieto, et al., G.R. No. L-399, January 29, 1948, 80 Phil. 138; People of the Phil. vs. Cucufate Adlawan, G.R. No. L-456, March 29, 1949, 83 Phil. 194] holding that more serious offenses committed for treasonous purposes are absorbed in the former, with the piquant observation in Labra that "(t)he factual complexity of the crime of treason does not endow it with the functional ability of worm multiplication or amoeba reproduction." People of the Phil. vs. Daniel C. Quijada, G.R. No. 115008-09, July 24, 1996

It is basic law that the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law is mandatory where imprisonment exceeds one (1) year, except only in the following cases: "a. Offenses punished by death or life imprisonment. b. Those convicted of treason (Art. 114), … Jose Bacar, et al. vs. Salvador De Guzman, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-96-1349, April 18, 1997

Conspiracy is not punishable except when the law specifically provides a penalty therefor, such as in conspiracies to commit treason,… People of the Phil. vs. Zheng Bai Hui, et al., G.R. No. 127580, August 22, 2000 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

413

Art. 117 – Espionage Go Tian Sek Santos vs. Eriberto Misa, G.R. No. L-319 March 28, 1946

Art. 122 - Piracy in General and Mutiny on the High Seas Under Sec. 3 (a) of Presidential Decree No. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy Law, amending Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code and which took effect on August 8, 1974, the penalty imposable upon persons found guilty of the crime of piracy where rape, murder or homicide is committed is mandatory death penalty. People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. 60100, March 20, 1985

P.D. No. 532 considers qualified piracy, i.e. rape, murder or homicide is committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy, as a special complex crime punishable by death regardless of the number of victims. People of the Phil. vs. Julaide Siyoh, et al., G.R. No. L-57292, February 18, 1986

Laurente cannot be validly convicted for highway robbery with homicide under P.D. No. 532. The object of the decree is to deter and punish lawless elements who commit acts of depredation upon persons and properties of innocent and defenseless inhabitants who travel from one place to another — which acts constitute either piracy or highway robbery/brigandage — thereby disturbing the peace, order, and tranquility of the nation and stunting the economic and social progress of the people. People of the Phil. vs. Larry B. Laurente, et al., G.R. No. 116734, March 29, 1996

Accused-appellant argues that in order that piracy may be committed it is essential that there be an attack on or seizure of a vessel. He claims that he and his companion did not attack or seize the fishing boat of the Pilapil brothers by using force or intimidation but merely boarded the boat, and it was only when they were already on board that they used force to compel the Pilapils to take them to some other place. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

414

Appellant also insists that he and Ursal had no intention of permanently taking possession or depriving complainants of their boat. As a matter of fact, when they saw another pumpboat they ordered the brothers right away to approach that boat so they could leave the Pilapils behind in their boat. Accordingly, appellant claims, he simply committed grave coercion and not piracy. We do not agree. Under the definition of piracy in PD No. 532 as well as grave coercion as penalized in Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code, this case falls squarely within the purview of piracy. While it may be true that Eugene and Juan Jr. were compelled to go elsewhere other than their place of destination, such compulsion was obviously part of the act of seizing their boat. People of the Phil. vs. Emiliano Catantan, G.R. No. 118075, September 5, 1997

To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, any person is covered by the law. Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness condemned by the penal statutes of all countries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws. As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates) and its cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by the pirates to Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

415

Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although Presidential Decree No. 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence, the same need not be committed in Philippine waters. Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the instant case, were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters. Verily, Presidential Decree No. 532 should be applied with more force here since its purpose is precisely to discourage and prevent piracy in Philippine waters (People v. Catantan, (G.R. No. 118075, September 5, 1997). It is likewise, well-settled that regardless of the law penalizing the same, piracy is a reprehensible crime against the whole world (People v. Lol-lo, 43 Phil. 19 [1922]). People of the Phil. vs. Roger P. Tulin, G.R. No. 111709, August 30, 2001

Art. 124 – Arbitrary Detention Requisites First element - Public officer or employee Second element - Detention/confinement Third element - Detention without legal grounds Intent to take Arrest without a warrant Booking sheet

Requisites Arbitrary Detention is committed by a public officer who, without legal grounds, detains a person. (Art. 124, Revised Penal Code) The elements of this crime are the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

416

following: 1. That the offender is a public officer or employee. 2. That he detains a person. 3. That the detention is without legal grounds. United States vs. Hilario Braganza, et al., G.R. No. L-3971, February 3, 1908, 10 Phil. 79 Ramon S. Milo vs. Angelito C. Salanga, G.R. No. L-37007, July 20, 1987 Benito Astorga vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 154130, October 1, 2003

First Element - Public officer or employee Is a barrio captain a public officer who can be liable for the crime of Arbitrary Detention? The public officers liable for Arbitrary Detention must be vested with authority to detain or order the detention of persons accused of a crime. Such public officers are the policemen and other agents of the law, the judges or mayors. xxx Long before Presidential Decree 299 was signed into law, barrio lieutenants (who were later named barrio captains and now barangay captains) were recognized as persons in authority. In various cases, this Court deemed them as persons in authority, and convicted them of Arbitrary Detention. In U .S. vs. Braganza, 10 Phil. 79, Martin Salibio, a barrio lieutenant, and Hilario Braganza, a municipal councilor, arrested Father Feliciano Gomez while he was in his church. They made him pass through the door of the vestry and afterwards took him to the municipal building. There, they told him that he was under arrest. The priest had not committed any crime. The two public officials were convicted of Arbitrary Detention. (See Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 Ed., Vol. 2, p. 822) In U .S. vs. Gellada, 15 Phil. 120, Geronimo Gellada, a barrio lieutenant, with the help of Filoteo Soliman, bound and tied his houseboy Sixto Gentugas with a rope at around 6:00 p.m. and delivered him to the justice of the peace. Sixto was detained during the whole night and until 9:00 a.m. of the next day when he was ordered Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

417

released by the justice of the peace because he had not committed any crime, Gellada was convicted of Arbitrary Detention. (See Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 Ed. Vol. 2, pp. 822-823) Under Republic Act No. 3590, otherwise known as The Revised Barrio Charter, the powers and duties of a barrio captain include the following: to look after the maintenance of public order in the barrio and to assist the municipal mayor and the municipal councilor in charge of the district in the performance of their duties in such barrio; (Sec. 14c, R.A. 3590) to look after the general welfare of the barrio; (Sec. 14, R.A. 3590) to enforce all laws and ordinances which are operative within the barrio; (Sec. 14a, R.A. 3590) and to organize and lead an emergency group whenever the same may be necessary for the maintenance of peace and order within the barrio. (Sec 14f, R.A. 3590) xxx One need not be a police officer to be chargeable with Arbitrary Detention. It is accepted that other public officers like judges and mayors, who act with abuse of their functions, may be guilty of this crime. (Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 1981 ed., p. 40; Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 ed., Vol. 2, p. 821) A perusal of the powers and function vested in mayors would show that they are similar to those of a barrio captain (Sections 88 and 171 of the Local Government Code) except that in the case of the latter, his territorial jurisdiction is smaller. Having the same duty of maintaining peace and order, both must be and are given the authority to detain or order detention. Noteworthy is the fact that even private respondent himself admitted that with the aid of his rural police, he as a barrio captain, could have led the arrest of petitioner. From the foregoing, there is no doubt that a barrio captain, like private respondent, can be held liable for Arbitrary Detention. Ramon S. Milo vs. Angelito C. Salanga, G.R. No. L-37007, July 20, 1987

Second Element - Detention/Confinement While it is true that complainant was not put behind bars as respondent had intended, however, complainant was not allowed to leave the premises of the jail house. The idea of confinement is not synonymous only with incarceration inside a jail cell. It is enough to qualify as confinement that a man be restrained, either morally or physically, of his personal liberty (Black's Law Dictionary, 270 [1979]). Under the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

418

circumstances, respondent judge was in fact guilty of arbitrary detention when he, as a public officer, ordered the arrest and detention of complainant without legal grounds (Article 124, Revised Penal Code; U.S. vs. Battallones 23 Phil. 46 [1912]). Fernando Cayao vs. Justiniano A. Del Mundo, A.M. No. MTJ-93-813, September 15, 1993

As far back as the case of U.S. v. Cabanag, [8 Phil. 64, 69 (1907)] it was held that in the crime of illegal or arbitrary detention, it is essential that there is actual confinement or restriction of the person of the offended party. The deprivation of liberty must be proved, [People v. Bernal (G.R. No. 113685, June 19, 1997)] just as the intent of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty must also be established by indubitable proof. [People v. Dela Cruz, (G.R. No. 118458, July 24, 1997)] In the more recent case of [People v. Fajardo, (G.R. Nos. 105954-55, September 28, 1999)] this Court reiterated the ruling in U.S. v. Cabanag, i.e., there must be uncontroverted proof of both intent to deprive the victim of his liberty, as well as actual confinement or restriction. Detention is defined as the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure, or in any manner detaining and depriving him of his liberty. [People v. Gungon, G.R. No. 119574, March 19, 1998, citing People v. Domasian, G.R. No. 95322, March 1, 1993] People of the Phil. vs. Aaron Flores, G.R. No. 116488, May 31, 2001

The prevailing jurisprudence on kidnapping and illegal detention is that the curtailment of the victim's liberty need not involve any physical restraint upon the victim's person. If the acts and actuations of the accused can produce such fear in the mind of the victim sufficient to paralyze the latter, to the extent that the victim is compelled to limit his own actions and movements in accordance with the wishes of the accused, then the victim is, for all intents and purposes, detained against his will. In the case at bar, the restraint resulting from fear is evident. Inspite of their pleas, the witnesses and the complainants were not allowed by petitioner to go home. This refusal was quickly followed by the call for and arrival of almost a dozen "reinforcements," all armed with military-issue rifles, who proceeded to encircle the team, weapons pointed at the complainants and the witnesses. Given such circumstances, we give credence to SPO1 Capoquian's statement that it was not "safe" to refuse Mayor Astorga's orders. It was not just the presence of the armed men, but also the evident effect these gunmen had on the actions of the team which proves that fear was indeed instilled in the minds of the team members, to the extent that they felt Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

419

compelled to stay in Brgy. Lucob-Lucob. The intent to prevent the departure of the complainants and witnesses against their will is thus clear. Benito Astorga vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 154130, October 1, 2003

Third Element - Detention without legal grounds In overtaking another vehicle, complainant-driver was not committing or had not actually committed a crime in the presence of respondent judge (Section 6, Rule 113, Rules of Court). Such being the case, the warrantless arrest and subsequent detention of complainant were illegal. Fernando Cayao vs. Justiniano A. Del Mundo, A.M. No. MTJ-93-813, September 15, 1993

Intent to take It is necessary that there must be a purposeful or knowing action by accused-appellants to restrain the victim by or with force, because taking coupled with intent completes the crime of illegal or arbitrary detention. People of the Phil. vs. Joel Soberano, G.R. No. 116234, November 6, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Aaron Flores, G.R. No. 116488, May 31, 2001

Arrest without a warrant Care should be exercised in making an arrest without a warrant. Where there is no justification for the arrest, the public officer could be criminally liable for arbitrary detention (under Article 124, Revised Penal Code) or unlawful arrest (under Article 269, idem) or for some other offense. Horacio Morales vs. Juan Ponce Enrile, et al, G.R. No. L-61016, April 26, 1983

Booking sheet The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the accused's being booked and of the date which accompanies the fact of an arrest. It is a police report and may be useful in charges of arbitrary detention against the police themselves. It is not an extrajudicial statement and cannot be the basis of a judgment of conviction. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

420

People of the Phil. vs. Paul N. Bandin, G.R. No. 104494, September 10, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Morico, G.R. No. 92660, July 14, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Ang Chun Kit, G.R. No. 109232, December 29, 1995

As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. [Perpetrators of enforced disappearances may be penalized for the crime of arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code or kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.] The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the determination of what acts are criminal and what the corresponding penalty these criminal acts should carry are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact under the country's constitutional scheme and power structure. Avelino I. Razon, Jr., et al. vs. Mary Jean B. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, 2009

Art. 125 – Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities Dolores L. Español vs. Lorinda B. Toledo-Mupas, A.M. No. 03-1462-MTJ, April 19, 2007

Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code is intended to prevent any abuse resulting from confining a person without informing him of his offense and without permitting him to go on bail [Laurel v. Misa, 76 Phil 372]. More specifically, it punishes public officials or employees who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the periods prescribed by law. The continued detention of the accused becomes illegal upon the expiration of the periods provided for by Art. 125 without such detainee having been delivered to the corresponding judicial authorities [Lino v. Fugoso, 77 Phil. 933]. The words "judicial authority" as contemplated by Art. 125 mean "the courts of justices or judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with having committed a public offense, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

421

that is, ‘the Supreme Court and other such inferior courts as may be established by law. [Sayo v. Chief of Police of Manila, 80 Phil 859 citing Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.] ’" Jasper Agbay vs. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, et al., G.R. No. 134503, July 2, 1999

Further, a person subject of a warrantless arrest must be delivered to the proper judicial authorities within the periods provided in Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, otherwise the arresting officer could be held liable for delay in the delivery of detained persons. Panfilo Lacson, et al. vs. Hernando Perez, et al., G.R. No. 147780, May 10, 2001

Where a judge is not available, the arresting officer is duty-bound to release a detained person, if the maximum hours for detention provided under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code had already expired. Failure to cause the release may result in an offense under Art. 125. Adriano V. Albior vs. Donato A. Auguis, A.M. No. P-01-1472, June 26, 2003

Art. 128 – Violation of Domicile Petitioner Rojas' reliance on Mission Order No. MRF-A-004-98 issued to him by Sergeant Alberto Genise is misplaced. It bears stressing that the petitioner was merely tasked in the said order to "follow up a theft case within the area of responsibility of the Metrodiscom, Davao City." The petitioner was not authorized, under the said order, to commit or tolerate the commission of a crime, such as violation of domicile as defined in Article 128 of the Revised Penal Code. 05plpe

Although petitioner Rojas did not follow petitioner Lui and his cohorts to the second floor of the respondents' house and himself conduct a search therein, he allowed them to search the premises without a warrant. The petitioners and their cohorts were not authorized to conduct a search in the house of the respondents, much less divest the latter of their personal belongings. As a police officer, it was petitioner Rojas' duty to prevent the commission of crimes in his presence, and to arrest the persons committing such crimes. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

422

Eli Lui vs. Sps. Eulogio and Paulina Matillano, G.R. No. 141176, May 27, 2004

Arts. 134 and 134-A – Rebellion or Insurrection and Coup d’ Etat The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Omar U. Amin, G.R. No. 93335, September 13, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Dasig, et al., G.R. No. 100231, April 28, 1993

The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed only by "rising publicly or taking up arms against the Government". A coup d'etat, on the other hand, takes place only when there is a "swift attack accompanied by violence." Once the act of "rising publicly and taking up arms against the Government" ceases, the commission of the crime of rebellion ceases. Similarly, when the "swift attack" ceases, the crime of coup d'etat is no longer being committed. Sanlakas, et al. vs. Angelo Reyes, et al., G.R. Nos. 159085, 159103, 159185 and 159196, February 3, 2004

Rebellion has been held to be a continuing crime, and the authorities may resort to warrantless arrests of persons suspected of rebellion, as provided under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. However, this doctrine should be applied to its proper context — i.e., relating to subversive armed organizations, such as the New People's Army, the avowed purpose of which is the armed overthrow of the organized and established government. Only in such instance should rebellion be considered a continuing crime. Sanlakas, et al. vs. Angelo Reyes, et al., G.R. Nos. 159085, 159103, 159185 and 159196, February 3, 2004

Moreover, in the case of People v. Mangallan (G.R. No. L-38538, April 15, 1988), We held that where the accused who was charged with murder admitted his membership with the NPA and the killing of a suspected PC informer, the crime committed is not murder but rebellion punishable under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

423

People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Dasig, et al., G.R. No. 100231, April 28, 1993

The crime committed is not murder but a political offense which gives rise to the question as to whether the same falls under the Anti-Subversion Act or under Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code. The appellant admits that he was a member of the NPA then operating in the Cagayan area with Ka Daniel as their leader. He asserts that the NPA is the military arm of the Communist Party of the Philippines. (Presidential Proclamation No. 1081 [1972]; People of the Phil. vs. Hon. Simeon N. Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. L-32613-14, December 27, 1972) There is no question likewise that the killing of Apolonio Ragual by the appellant and his companions who were also members of the NPA upon orders of Ka Daniel was politically motivated. They suspected Ragual as an informer for the PC. In fact, after he was killed, they left a letter and a drawing on the body of Ragual as a warning to others not to follow his example. In the case of People vs. Agarin (109 Phil. 430), which was a prosecution for murder, like the present case, where the accused Huk member with his companions killed the victim because he was a PC informer, this Court held that the crime committed is simple rebellion and not murder. People of the Phil. vs. Andres Manglallan, et al., G.R. No. L-38538, April 15, 1988

In the early case of Espana v. Lucido (8 Phil. 419 [1907]), this Court had occasion to rule that war, rebellion, or insurrection suspends the statute of limitations only when the regular courts cannot be kept open and are not within the reach of the people. Thus, there is no suspension, during the duration of the war, if the regular courts are performing their functions (Morales v. Arguelles, 49 Off. Gaz., 5481 [1933]; Talens, et al. v. Chuakay and Co., G.R. No. L-10127, June 30, 1958; Rio 7 Compania v. Jolkipli, 105 Phil. 447 [1959]). Republic of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 29390, April 12, 1989

The elements of the offense are: 1. That there be a (a) public uprising and (b) taking arms against the Government; and 2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either -(a) to remove from the allegiance to said Government or its laws: (1) the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof; or (2) any body of land, naval, or other armed forces; or (b) to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers and prerogatives. Vicente P. Ladlad, et al. vs. Emmanuel Y. Velasco, et al., G.R. Nos. 172070-72, 172074-76 & 175013, June 1, 2007 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

424

Art. 148 – Direct Assault Direct assault, a crime against public order, may be committed in two ways: first, by "any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition;" and second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, "shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance." (Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code) The first mode is tantamount to rebellion or sedition, without the element of public uprising. The second mode, on the other hand, is the more common form of assault, and is aggravated when: (a) the assault is committed with a weapon, or (b) when the offender is a public officer or employee, or (c) when the offender lays a hand upon a person in authority. (People v. Abalos, G.R. No. 88189, July 9, 1996. citing Aquino, R. C., The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1987 ed., p. 146) An agent of a person in authority is "any person who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio policeman and barangay leader, and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority." (Art. 52, Revised Penal Code. as amended) In the case at bar, the victim, — being then the barangay chief tanod — was clearly an agent of a person in authority. However, he was not "engaged in the performance of his official duties" at the time he was shot. Neither was he attacked "on the occasion of such performance," as we will now show. Thus, the attack on him did not amount to direct assault. (United States v. Marasigan, 11 Phil. 27, July 25, 1908) People of the Phil. vs. Julio R. Recto, G.R. No. 129069, October 17, 2001

There are two modes of committing atentados contra la autoridad o sus agentes under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. The first is not a true atentado as it is tantamount to rebellion or sedition, except that there is no public uprising. On the other hand the second mode is the more common way of committing assault and is aggravated when there is a weapon employed in the attack, or the offender is a public officer, or the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. (Aquino, R.C., The Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

425

Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1987 ed., 146) Appellant committed the second form of assault, the elements of which are that there must be an attack, use of force, or serious intimidation or resistance upon a person in authority or his agent; the assault was made when the said person was performing his duties or on the occasion of such performance, and the accused knew that the victim is a person in authority or his agent, that is, that the accused must have the intention to offend, injure or assault the offended party as a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority. (U.S. vs. Alvear, et al., 35 Phil. 626 (1916); People vs. Rellin, 77 Phil. 1038 (1947); People vs. Villaseñor, L-28574, October 24, 1970) People of the Phil. vs. Tiburcio Abalos, G.R. No. 88189, July 9, 1996

Nor do we find the circumstance of "disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank" under Art. 14, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, present in this case. The act of appellant in attacking the victim, an agent of a person in authority, while the latter was in the performance of official duty, is actually constitutive of Direct Assault, or atentado, under Article 148 of the Revised Penal Code. That crime is characterized by the spirit of aggression directed against the authorities or their agents, [Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 Ed., Vol. Two, p. 923, citing People vs. Tabiana and Canillas, 37 Phil 515, 520] hence, the circumstance of "disregard of respect due the offended party on account of his rank" may be considered inherent therein. [People vs. Manlapat, CA, 51 O.G., 849] Thus, in the case of People vs. Catacutan [64 Phil 107 (1937)] wherein the accused who killed a corporal, an agent of the authority who was then conducting a search by virtue of a search warrant, was found by the Court to have committed the complex crime of homicide and assault upon an agent of the authority, that circumstance was not considered aggravating nor was it taken into account in People vs. Lojo, Jr. [52 Phil. 390 (1928)] wherein the Court found the accused, who ran over a policeman who was signalling him to stop, guilty of two crimes, homicide and assault upon an agent of authority; nor in the case of People vs. Hernandez [43 Phil. 104 (1922)] wherein the court found the accused, who killed a policeman, guilty of the complex crime of homicide accompanied by assault upon an agent of authority, nor in the case of People vs. Bangug [52 Phil 87 (1928)] wherein the Court held that two crimes were committed by the accused in the killing of two constabulary soldiers, murder and assault against agents of authority. [See Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1976 Ed., Vol. Two, p. 928, footnote 59] People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Lanseta, G.R. No. L-30413, January 22, 1980

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

426

The crime committed is Murder with Direct Assault upon Agents of a Person in Authority. It is not the complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder, kidnapping not having been a necessary means to commit the murder. [See Parulan vs. Rodas, et al., 78 Phil. 855 (1947); People vs. Parulan, 88 Phil. 615 (1951)] The NBI agents were taken by the accused solely for the purpose of killing them and not for detaining them illegally for any length of time or for the purpose of obtaining ransom for their release. [See People vs. Camo, et al., 91 Phil. 240 (1952); People vs. Ong, G.R. No. L-34497 January 30, 1975] The main purpose of the accused was to kill the agents, their forcible taking having been only incidental to the killing. It was not the purpose of the accused to commit the crime of Illegal Detention. [See U.S. vs. Ancheta, 1 Phil. 165 (1902)]. People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Jimenez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-36613-14, July 24, 1981

The crime which was committed at the spur of the moment was the complex crime of homicide with direct assault against an agent of a person in authority considering that the deceased was a barrio rural policeman. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gutierrez, et al., G.R. No. L-30314, March 15, 1982

In the case of murder with direct assault, only murder will be considered because the deceased Chief of Police was not in the performance of official duty. People of the Phil. vs. Armando P. Seda, G.R. Nos. 44810-12, May 21, 1984

Where injuries were inflicted on a person in authority who was not then in the actual performance of his official duties, the motive of the offender assumes importance because if the attack was by reason of the previous performance of official duties by the person in authority, the crime would be direct assault; otherwise, it would only be physical injuries. People of the Phil. vs. Leonido Cadag, et al., G.R. No. L-13830, May 31, 1961 People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Puno, G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993

The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. It is a vast movement of men and a complex net of intrigues and plots. Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. (Juan Ponce Enrile vs. Omar U. Amin, G.R. No. 93335, September 13, 1990) The act of killing a police officer, knowing too well that the victim is a person in authority is a mere component or ingredient of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

427

rebellion. It cannot be made a basis of a separate charge. People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Dasig, et al., G.R. No. 100231, April 28, 1993

It is clear from the foregoing provision that direct assault is an offense against public order that may be committed in two ways: first, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition; and second, by any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties, or on occasion of such performance. Lydia C. Gelig vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010

Art. 152 – Persons in Authority Atty. Parawan, as barangay captain, is called upon to enforce the law and ordinances in his barangay and ensure peace and order at all times. As such, he is deemed a person in authority under Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Elizar Tomaquin, G.R. No. 133188, July 23, 2004

Gemma being a public school teacher, belongs to the class of persons in authority expressly mentioned in Article 152 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Lydia C. Gelig vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173150, July 28, 2010

Art. 156 – Delivering Prisoners From Jail Article 156 of the Revised Penal Code provides: "Art. 156. Delivering prisoners from jails. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall remove from any jail or penal establishment any person Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

428

confined therein or shall help the escape of such person, by means of violence, intimidation, or bribery. If other means are used the penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed. If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by taking the guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period." The offense may be committed in two ways: (1) by removing a person confined in any jail or penal establishment; and (2) by helping such a person to escape. To remove means to take away a person from the place of his confinement, with or without the active cooperation of the person released. To help in the escape of a person confined in any jail or penal institution means to furnish that person with the material means such as a file, ladder, rope, etc. which greatly facilitate his escape. (Albert, The Revised Penal Code, p. 368) The offense under this article is usually committed by an outsider who removes from jail any person therein confined or helps him escape. If the offender is a public officer who has custody or charge of the prisoner, he is liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner defined and penalized under Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code. Edmundo S. Alberto vs. Rafael De La Cruz, G.R. No. L-31839, June 30, 1980

Art. 157 – Evasion of Service of Sentence Pursuant to Article 157 of the same Code, evasion of service of sentence can be committed only by those who have been convicted by final judgment by escaping during the term of his sentence. Jovendo del Castillo vs. Hon. Rosario Torrecampo, G.R. No. 139033, December 18, 2002

Art. 171 - Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastic Minister Re: Randy S. Villanueva, A.M. No. 2005-24-SC, August 10, 2007

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

429

Paragraph 1 Falsification by Private Individuals the following elements: (a) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (b) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; and (c) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document. Joselito Raniero J. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008

On the other hand, Falsification by Private Individuals penalized under Article 172, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code has the following elements: (a) the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his official position; (b) the offender committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code; and (c) the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document. Joselito Raniero J. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008

Paragraph (2) Re: Alleged Spurious Bailbonds and Release Orders Issued by the RTC, Br. 27, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, A.M. No. 04-6-332-RTC April 5, 2006

In order to properly address the issue presented by petitioner Gloria Aguirre, it is necessary that we discuss the elements of the crime of falsification of private document under the Revised Penal Code, a crime which all the respondents have been accused of perpetrating. The elements of said crime under paragraph 2 of Article 172 of our penal code are as follows: 1) that the offender committed any acts of falsification, except those in par. 7, enumerated in Article 171; 2) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and 3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with intent to cause such damage. Under Article 171, paragraph 2, a person may commit falsification of a private document by causing it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an act or proceeding, when such person or persons did not in fact so participate in the act or proceeding. On the other hand, falsification under par. 3 of the same article is perpetrated by a person or persons who, participating in an act or proceeding, made statements in that act or proceeding and the offender, in making a document, attributed to such person or persons statements other than those in fact Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

430

made by such person or persons. And the crime defined under paragraph 4 thereof is committed when 1) the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts; 2) he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him; 3) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and 4) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre vs. Secretary of the DOJ, et al., G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008

Paragraph 4 For the crime of Falsification of Public Documents through an untruthful narration of facts to be established, the following elements must concur: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. Joselito Raniero J. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008 Dennis Mangangey, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 147773-74, February 18, 2008

Under Article 171, paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code, for the crime of Falsification of Public Documents through an untruthful narration of facts to be established, the following elements must concur: (a) the offender makes in a document untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) the offender has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated; (c) the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false; and (d) the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. Joselito Raniero J. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008

In Relation to Article 172 It is true that the Amended Information did not at all mention any statutory designation of the crime he is charged with. But, it is all too evident that the body of the information against him contains averments that unmistakably constitute falsification under Art. 171 and also Art. 172 of the RPC, which, for reference, are quoted below: Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee; or notary or ecclesiastical Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

431

minister. -- . . . xxx

xxx

xxx

2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate [as testified to by witnesses]. xxx

xxx

xxx

Art. 172. Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. -- The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than 5,000 shall be imposed upon: 1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsification enumerated in the next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any other kind of commercial document; xxx

xxx

xxx

Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceedings or to the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of the false documents embraced in the next preceding article or in any of the foregoing subdivisions of this article shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree. (Emphasis supplied). Note that the last paragraph of Art. 172 does not specify that the offending person is a public or private individual as does its par. 1. Note also that the last paragraph of Art. 172 alludes to the use of the false document embraced in par. 2 of Art. 171 where it was made to appear that "persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact participate". Patently, even a public officer may be convicted under Art. 172. The crime in Art. 171 is absorbed by the last paragraph of Art. 172. Thus, Pactolin's argument about being deprived of his right to be informed of the charges against him when the Sandiganbayan convicted him as a private person under Art. 172, is baseless. The headings in italics of the two articles are not controlling. What is controlling is not the title of the complaint, or the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated, but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. The character of the crime is not determined by the caption or the preamble of the information or by the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the complaint or information. In this case, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

432

the Amended Information encompasses the acts of Pactolin constitutive of a violation of Art. 172 in relation to par. 2 of Art. 171 of the RPC. Rodolfo D. Pactolin vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 161455, May 20, 2008 Rodolfo D. Pactolin vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 161455, May 20, 2008 Lolita Y. Eugenio vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 168163, March 26, 2008 Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre vs. Secretary of the DOJ, et al., G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008

Art. 172 - Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Documents Rodolfo D. Pactolin vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 161455, May 20, 2008

Article 172, Paragraph 2 The elements of Introduction of Falsified Document in a Judicial Proceeding are as follows: 1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person. 2. That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any subdivisions No. 1 or 2 of Article 172. 3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding. Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr., et al. vs. Magdaleno M. Pena, et al., G.R. No. 143591, November 23, 2007

The elements of the offense [Introduction of Falsified Document in a judicial proceeding] are as follows: (1) That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person. (2) That the false document is embraced in Article 171 or in any subdivisions Nos. 1 or 2 of Article 172. (3) That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding. Teodoro C. Borlongan, Jr., et al. vs. Magdaleno M. Peña, et al., G.R. No. 143591, May 5, 2010

Elements of the crime of Falsification of Commercial Document Essentially, the elements of the crime of Falsification of Commercial Document under Art. 172 are: (1) that the offender is a private individual; (2) that the offender Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

433

committed any of the acts of falsification; and (3) that the act of falsification is committed in a commercial document. Gina A. Domingo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009

Encashment slips are commercial documents. Encashment slips are commercial documents. Commercial documents are, in general, documents or instruments which are used by merchants or businessmen to promote or facilitate trade. An encashment slip necessarily facilitates bank transactions for it allows the person whose name and signature appears thereon to encash a check and withdraw the amount indicated therein. Gina A. Domingo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 186101, October 12, 2009

Art. 182 – False Testimony in a Civil Case To constitute the crime of False Testimony in a Civil Case under Article 182 of the Revised Penal Code, the following requisites must concur: 1. The testimony must be given in a civil case; 2. The testimony must relate to the issues presented in the case; 3. The testimony is false; 4. The false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false; and 5. Such testimony must be malicious and given with and intent to affect the issues presented in the case. There is no doubt that the first two requisites are extant in this case. Ark Travel Express vs. Hon Zeus Abrogar, G.R. No. 137010, August 29, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

434

Art. 183 - Perjury It is the deliberate making of untruthful statements upon any material matter, however, before a competent person authorized to administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires, which is imperative in perjury. Venue, in criminal cases, being jurisdictional, the action for perjury must be instituted and tried in the municipality or territory where the deliberate making of an untruthful statement upon any matter was made, in this case, in Makati and Tagaytay. Erlinda K. Ilusorio vs. Ma. Erlinda I. Bildner, et al., G.R. Nos. 173935-38, December 23, 2008

The elements of perjury are: 1. The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; 2. The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer authorized to receive and administer oath; 3. In that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and 4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. All these elements are present in the instant case. Reolandi Diaz vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 65006, October 31, 1990 Alfonso C. Choa vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 142011, March 14, 2003 Antonio B. Monfort III, et al. vs. Ma. Antonia M. Salvatierra, et al., G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007

Following the doctrine laid down, however, in the case of People v. Rufo B. Cruz, No. L-15132, May 25, 1960, 108 Phil. 255 and the earlier case of United States v. Tupasi Molina, 29 Phil. 119, the crime committed under the foregoing facts, is perjury. This offense, as defined in Article 183 of the Revised Penal Code is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation administered by Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

435

authority of law on a material matter. In that case of People v. Cruz, supra, the accused Rufo B. Cruz filled up an application form (Civil Service Form No. 2) for the patrolman examination. He stated therein that he had never been accused, indicted or tried for violation of any law, ordinance or regulation before any court, when in truth and in fact, as the accused well knew, he had been prosecuted and tried before the Justice of the Peace of Cainta, Rizal, for different crimes. The application was signed and sworn to by him before the municipal mayor of Cainta, Rizal. This Court in that case held: "This article is similar to section 3 of Act No. 1697 of the Philippine Commission, which was formerly the law punishing perjury. Under said section 3 of that Act, this Court, in the case of United States v. Tupasi Molina (29 Phil. 119), held that a person, who stated under oath in his application to take police examination that he had never been convicted of any crime, when as a matter of fact he has previous convictions, committed perjury. The facts in that case are almost exactly analogous to those in the present, and we find no reason, either in law or in the arguments of the Solicitor General to modify or reverse the conclusion of this Court therein. More so, because all the elements of the offense of perjury defined in Art. 183 of the Revised Penal Code concur in the present case." Reolandi Diaz vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 65006, October 31, 1990

The crime of perjury undisputedly involves moral turpitude. A person convicted of said offense cannot be said to be possessed of good moral character, an indispensable requirement for one applying for Philippine citizenship. Thus, having been convicted by final judgment of the crime of perjury, committed during the pendency of his petition for naturalization, appellant cannot now claim that he was of good moral character at the time his petition for naturalization was still pending adjudication by the court. Hence, his having been able to obtain Philippine citizenship despite this misconduct, rendered his acquisition thereof fraudulent or illegal. Consequently, the certificate of naturalization issued to him under these circumstances was properly cancelled by the court. Republic of Philippines vs. Cesar Guy, G.R. No. L-41399, July 20, 1982

A court, as a rule, has the power to punish perjury as a contempt even though perjury is an indictable offense, where the circumstances are such that the perjury obstructs the administration of justice. However, criminal contempt proceedings are Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

436

not available as a substitute for a perjury prosecution, and that, inasmuch as perjury is a crime, it should not be punished as a contempt unless exceptional circumstances exist and the administration of justice is obstructed. Jose S. Santos vs. Court of First Instance of Cebu, Branch VI, et al., G.R. Nos. 57190-91, May 18, 1990

The third element of perjury requires that the accused had willfully and deliberately asserted a falsehood. A mere assertion of a false objective fact is not sufficient. The assertion must be deliberate and willful. Antonio B. Monfort III, et al. vs. Ma. Antonia M. Salvatierra, et al., G.R. No. 168301, March 5, 2007

The basis of the crime of perjury is the willful assertion of a falsehood under oath upon a material matter. Although the term "material matter" under Article 183 takes on a fairly general meaning, that is, it refers to the main fact which is the subject of inquiry, in terms of being an element in the execution of a statement under oath it must be understood as referring to a fact which has an effect on the outcome of the proceeding for which the statement is being executed. Nelson T. Lluz, et al. vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 172840, June 7, 2007 Hilario P. Soriano vs. Zenaida A. Cabais, G.R. No. 157175, June 21, 2007

There are thus four elements to be taken into account "in determining whether there is a prima facie case" of perjury, viz.: (a) that the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer oath; (c) that in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal purpose. Erlinda K. Ilusorio vs. Ma. Erlinda I. Bildner, et al., G.R. Nos. 173935-38, December 23, 2008

Art. 189 - Unfair competition, fraudulent registration of trademark, tradename or service mark, fraudulent designation of origin, and false description Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

437

Article 189 (1) of the Revised Penal Code enumerates the elements of unfair competition, to wit: (a) That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another manufacturer or dealer; (b) That the general appearance is shown in the (1) goods themselves, or in the (2) wrapping of their packages, or in the (3) device or words therein, or in (4) any other feature of their appearance; (c) That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a chance or opportunity to do the same with a like purpose; and (d) That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor. NBI-Microsoft Corporation vs. Judy C. Hwang, G.R. No. 147043, June 21, 2005 Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. vs. Supergreen, Inc., G.R. No. 161823, March 22, 2007 Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. vs. Tony Lim, G.R. No. 162311, December 4, 2008

Article 189 (1) Levi Strauss (Phils.), Inc. vs. Tony Lim, G.R. No. 162311, December 4, 2008

Arts. 195, 196, 197, 198 and 199 Gambling is prohibited by the laws of the Philippines as specifically provided in Articles 195 to 199 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Gambling is an act beyond the pale of good morals, and is thus prohibited and punished to repress an evil that undermines the social, moral, and economic growth of the nation. Presidential Decree No. 1602 (PD 1602), which modified Articles 195-199 of the Revised Penal Code and repealed inconsistent provisions, prescribed stiffer penalties on illegal gambling. As a rule, all forms of gambling are illegal. The only form of gambling allowed by law is that stipulated under Presidential Decree No. 1869, which gave PAGCOR its franchise to maintain and operate gambling casinos. Yun Kwan Byung vs. PAGCOR, G.R. No. 163553, December 11, 2009

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

438

Art. 201 – Immoral Doctrines, Obscene Publications and Exhibitions, and Indecent Shows The two (2) informations with which the accused was charged, do not make out only one offense, contrary to private respondent's allegations. In other words, the offense defined in section 7 of Rep. Act No. 3060 punishing the exhibition of motion pictures not duly passed by the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures does not include or is not included in the offense defined in Article 201(3) of the Revised Penal Code punishing the exhibition of indecent and immoral motion pictures. The two (2) offenses do not constitute a jeopardy to each other. A scrutiny of the two (2) laws involved would show that the two (2) offenses are different and distinct from each other. The relevant provisions of Rep. Act No. 3060 state: "Sec. 7. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to exhibit or cause to be exhibited in any motion picture theater or public place, or by television within the Philippines any motion picture, including trailers, stills, and other pictorial advertisements in connection with motion pictures, not duly passed by the Board; or to print or cause to be printed on any motion picture to be exhibited in any theater, or public place or by television, a label or notice showing the same to have been previously passed by the said Board when the same has not been previously authorized, except motion pictures imprinted or exhibited by the Philippine Government and/or its departments and agencies, and newsreels." "Sec. 11. Any violation of Section seven of this Act shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than six months but not more than two years, or by a fine of not less than six hundred nor more than two thousand pesos, or both at the discretion of the court. If the offender is an alien, he shall be deported immediately. The license to operate the movie theater or television shall also be revoked. Any other kind of violation shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one month nor more than three hundred pesos, or both at the discretion of the court. In case the violation is committed by a corporation, partnership or association, the criminal liability shall devolve upon the president, manager, administrator, or any official thereof responsible for the violation." On the other hand, Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code provides: Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions. — The penalty Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

439

of prision correccional in its minimum period, or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon: . . . 3. Those who in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, or any other place open to public view, shall exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows; . . .. It is evident that the elements of the two (2) offenses are different. The gravamen of the offense defined in Rep. Act No. 3060 is the public exhibition of any motion picture which has not been previously passed by the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures. The motion picture may not be indecent or immoral, but if it has not been previously approved by the Board, its public showing constitutes a criminal offense. 3 On the other hand, the offense punished in Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code is the public showing of indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or shows, not just motion pictures. The nature of both offenses also shows their essential difference. The crime punished in Rep. Act No. 3060 is a malum prohibitum in which criminal intent need not be proved because it is presumed, while the offense punished in Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code is malum in se, in which criminal intent is an indispensable ingredient. Considering these differences in elements and nature, there is no identity of the offenses here involved for which legal jeopardy in one may be invoked in the other. (People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Relova, G.R. No. L-45129, March 6, 1987) People of the Phil. vs. City Court of Manila, Br. VI, et al., G.R. No. L-36528, September 24, 1987

It is opined that the respondent board can still utilize "attack against any religion" as a ground allegedly ". . . because section 3 (c) of PD No. 1986 prohibits the showing of motion pictures, television programs and publicity materials which are contrary to law and Article 201 (2) (b) (3) of the Revised Penal Code punishes anyone who exhibits "shows which offend any race or religion." We respectfully disagree for it is plain that the word "attack" is not synonymous with the word "offend." Moreover, Article 201 (2) (b) (3) of the Revised Penal Code should be invoked to justify the subsequent punishment of a show which offends any religion. It cannot be utilized to justify prior censorship of speech. Iglesia ni Cristo (Inc.) vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 119673, July 26, 1996

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

440

Art. 202 (2) – Vagrants and Prostitutes Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection clause; neither does it discriminate against the poor and the unemployed. Offenders of public order laws are punished not for their status, as for being poor or unemployed, but for conducting themselves under such circumstances as to endanger the public peace or cause alarm and apprehension in the community. Being poor or unemployed is not a license or a justification to act indecently or to engage in immoral conduct. Vagrancy must not be so lightly treated as to be considered constitutionally offensive. It is a public order crime which punishes persons for conducting themselves, at a certain place and time which orderly society finds unusual, under such conditions that are repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society, as would engender a justifiable concern for the safety and well-being of members of the community. People of the Phil. vs. Evangeline S. Siton, et al., G.R. No. 169364, September 18, 2009

Art. 203 – Who are Public Officers There is no question that petitioner was a public officer within the contemplation of Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, which includes all persons "who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Philippine Government, or shall perform in said government or any of its branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or class." At the time of the incident, petitioner was a police sergeant assigned to the Legazpi City Police Station. Nazario N. Marifosque vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 156685, July 27, 2004

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

441

Art. 204 – Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment In general "Knowingly"

In general A judge may be criminally liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or interlocutory order or rendering a manifestly unjust judgment or interlocutory order by reason of inexcusable negligence or ignorance (Arts. 204 to 206, Revised Penal Code) Nenita de Vera Suroza vs. Reynaldo P. Honrado, A.M. No. 2026, December 19, 1981

The charge of gross ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment has no factual basis. If ever respondent judge committed any error at all, it was an error of judgment and not every error of judgment can be attributable to a judge's ignorance of the law. Neither can it be said that he knowingly rendered an unjust judgment given the antecedents of the instant case. Moreover, it must be remembered that there is a firmly established principle in our jurisprudence that a judge may not be administratively charged for mere errors of judgment in the absence of a showing of any bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose on his part. In In re Judge Silverio S. Tayao, RTC, Branch 143, Makati (A.M. No. 93-8-1204, February 7, 1994) we held that: A judge cannot be held to account or answer criminally, civilly, or administratively, for an erroneous decision rendered by him in good faith. (In re: Petition for the Dismissal from Service and/or Disbarment of Judge Baltazar R. Dizon, A.C. No. 3086, May 31, 1989). As a matter of Public Policy, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts are erroneous. (Theresita O. Revita vs. Sergio F. Rimando, A.M. No. 1439-MJ, July 22, 1980; Esteban Ubongen vs. Toribio S. Mayo, A.M. No. 1255-CTJ, August 6, 1980; Abraham L. Ramirez vs. Antonia Corpuz-Macandog, A.M. No. R-351-RTJ, September 26, 1986; Gregorio R. Abad vs. Ildefonso Bleza, A.C. No. R-227-RTJ, October 13, 1986; Heirs of Julio Rosas vs. Oscar R. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 91406, July 31, 1990; Pilipinas Bank vs. Socorro Tirona-Liwag, A.M. No. CA-90-11, October 18, 1990). Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

442

Mere errors in the application of such evidence, unless so gross and patent as to produce an inference of ignorance or bad faith, or that the Judge knowingly rendered an unjust decision, are irrelevant and immaterial in administrative proceedings against him. No one, called upon to try facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice, can be infallible in his judgment. All that is expected of him is that he follow the rules prescribed to ensure a fair and impartial hearing, assess the different factors that emerge therefrom and bear on the issues presented, and on the basis of the conclusions he finds established, with only his conscience, and knowledge of the law to guide him, adjudicate the case accordingly. (Thelma Vda. de Zabala vs. Manuel Pamaran, A.C. No. 200-J, June 10, 1971). (Id., at 733-734) (Emphasis ours) For if every error of a judge should be punished, then perhaps no judge, however good, competent, honest and dedicated he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary without a blemished record and a tarnished image. (Eliza Ratilla de la Cruz, et al. vs. Crisanto C. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1994) In Dela Cruz v. Concepcion, (Ibid.) later reiterated in Wingarts v. Judge Servillano M. Mejia, (A.M. No. MTJ-94-1012, March 20, 1995) this Court had the occasion to expound on the nature and the wisdom behind the twin charges of gross ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. There we declared thus: To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the subject decision, order or actuation of the judge in the performance of his official duties must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but, most importantly, he must be moved by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. In the case before us, the administrative complaint does not even allege that the erroneous decision of respondent was thus motivated. Knowingly, rendering an unjust judgment is both a criminal and an administrative charge. As a crime, it is punished under Art. 204 of the Revised Penal Code the elements of which are: (a) the offender is a judge; (b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision (c) the judgment is unjust; and, (d) the judge knows that his judgment is unjust. The gist of the offense therefore is that an unjust judgment be rendered maliciously or in bad faith, that is, knowing it to be unjust. An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence, or both. The source of an unjust judgment may be error or ill-will. There is no liability at all for a mere error. It is well settled that a judicial officer, when required to exercise his judgment or discretion, is not liable criminally for any error which he commits, provided he acts in good faith. Bad faith is therefore the ground of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

443

liability. If in rendering judgment the judge fully knew that the same was unjust in the sense aforesaid, then he acted maliciously and must have been actuated and prevailed upon by hatred, envy, revenge, greed, or some other similar motive. As interpreted by Spanish courts, the term 'knowingly' means sure knowledge, conscious and deliberate intention to do an injustice. Mere error therefore in the interpretation or application of the law does not constitute the crime. The nature of the administrative charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is the same as the criminal charge. Thus, in this particular administrative charge, it must be established that respondent Judge rendered a judgment or decision not supported by law and/or evidence and that he must be actuated by hatred, envy, revenge, greed, or some other similar motive. Heirs of Nasib D. Yasin vs. Augusto N. Felix, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1167, December 4, 1995

The Revised Penal Code holds a judge liable for knowingly rendering a manifestly unjust judgment. Article 204 thereof provides: Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in a case submitted to him for decision shall be punished . . . . The law requires that the (a) offender is a judge; (b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision; (c) the judgment is unjust; (d) he knew that said judgment is unjust. In some administrative cases decided by this Court, We have ruled that in order to hold a judge liable, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is unjust and that it was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. In Re: Rafael C. Climaco, A.C. No. 134-J, January 21, 1974 Louis Vuitton S.A. vs. Francisco D. Villanueva, A.C. No. MTJ-92-643, November 27, 1992 Eliza Ratilla de la Cruz, et al. vs. Crisanto C. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1994 Felicito Basbacio vs. Franklin Drilon, G.R. No. 109445, November 7, 1994 Johan L.H. Wingarts, et al. vs. Servillano M. Mejia, A.M. No. MTJ-94-1012, March 20, 1995 Veronica Gonzales vs. Lucas P. Bersamin, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1344, March 13, 1996 David C. Naval, et al. vs. Jose R. Panday, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-95-1283, July 21, 1997 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

444

Gregorio Limpot Lumapas vs. Camilo E. Tamin, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1519, June 27, 2000 Alfonso C. Ortiz vs. Alex L. Quiroz, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1259, August 4, 2000 Leonardo Daracan, et al. vs. Eli G.C. Natividad, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447, September 27, 2000 Gina B. Ang vs. Judge Enrique B. Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1590, January 15, 2002 Mayor Reynolan T. Sales vs. Judge Melvyn U. Calvan, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1331, February 27, 2002 Jerusalino V. Araos vs. Judge Rosalina L. Luna-pison, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1677, February 28, 2002 Tan Tiac Chiong vs. Hon. Rodrigo V. Cosico, A.M. No. CA-02-33, July 31, 2002 Basa Air Base Savings & Loan Asso. vs. Judge Gregorio G. Pimentel, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-01-1648, August 22, 2002 Salvador P. De Guzman vs. Amalia F. Dy, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1755, July 3, 2003

A charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment constitutes a criminal offense. The keyword in said offense is "knowingly." Thus, the complainant must not only prove beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is patently contrary to law or not supported by the evidence but that it was also made with deliberate intent to perpetrate an injustice. A judge's mere error in the interpretation or application of the law per se will not warrant the imposition of an administrative sanction against him for no one is infallible. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper consideration are sufficient defenses that will protect a judicial officer from the charge of rendering an unjust decision. Romulo S. J. Tolentino vs. Nilo A. Malanyaon, A.M. RTJ-99-1444, August 3, 2000 Basa Air Base Savings & Loan Asso. vs. Judge Gregorio G. Pimentel, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-01-1648, August 22, 2002 Linda M. Sacmar vs. Agnes Reyes-Carpio, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1766, March 28, 2003

For a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment to prosper, it must be shown that the judgment was unjust, and not that the judge merely committed an error of judgment or took the unpopular side of a controversial point of law. He must have known that his judgment was indeed unjust. The failure of a judge to correctly interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

445

Linda M. Sacmar vs. Agnes Reyes-Carpio, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1766, March 28, 2003

An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence, or both. The source of an unjust judgment may be error or ill-will. There is no liability at all for a mere error. It is well settled that a judicial officer, when required to exercise his judgment or discretion, is not liable criminally for any error which he commits, provided he acts in good faith. Bad faith is therefore the ground of liability. If in rendering judgment the judge fully knew that the same was unjust in the sense aforesaid, then he acted maliciously and must have been actuated and prevailed upon by hatred, envy, revenge, greed, or some other similar motive. (IV Viada, Codigo Penal, 305) As interpreted by Spanish courts, the term "knowingly" means sure knowledge, conscious and deliberate intention to do an injustice. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain, October 1884 and January 10, 1900, cited in Guevarra, Commentaries on the Revised Penal Code, p. 418) Mere error therefore in the interpretation or application of the law does not constitute the crime. "The nature of the administrative charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is the same as the criminal charge. Thus, in this particular administrative charge, it must be established that respondent Judge rendered a judgment or decision not supported by law and/or evidence and that he must be actuated by hatred, envy, revenge, greed, or some other similar motive. . . ." Eliza Ratilla de la Cruz, et al. vs. Crisanto C. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1994 Johan L.H. Wingarts, et al. vs. Servillano M. Mejia, A.M. No. MTJ-94-1012, March 20, 1995

A judgment is said to be unjust when it is contrary to the standards of conduct prescribed by law. [Vicente C. Buenavista, Jr. vs. Marcelo G. Garcia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-246, July 19, 1990] The test to determine whether an order or judgment is unjust may be inferred from the circumstances that it is contrary to law or is not supported by evidence. [Ibid.] Louis Vuitton S.A. vs. Francisco D. Villanueva, A.C. No. MTJ-92-643, November 27, 1992

That good faith is a defense to the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment remains to be the law. He is also given the chance to explain his acts and if such explanation is credible, the court may absolve him of the charge. Louis Vuitton S.A. vs. Francisco D. Villanueva, A.C. No. MTJ-92-643, November 27, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

446

1992

Malice and bad faith on the part of the judge in rendering an unjust decision must still be proved" Louis Vuitton S.A. vs. Francisco D. Villanueva, A.C. No. MTJ-92-643, November 27, 1992 Dolores Alforte vs. Ruth C. Santos, A.M. No. MTJ-94-914, April 10, 1995

"A judicial officer, when required to exercise his judgment or discretion, is not criminally liable for any error he commits provided he acts in good faith." "He may be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment only if it is shown beyond cavil that the judgment is unjust as being contrary to law or as not supported by the evidence, and the same was rendered with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice" or "he failed to observe in the performance of his duty that diligence, prudence and care which the law is entitled to exact in the rendering of any public service" (Evangelista vs. Baes, Unnumbered CAR Case, and four other cases against Judge Baes, Adm. Case No. 585-CAR, December 26, 1974; In Re: Rafael C. Climaco, A.C. No. 134-J, January 21, 1974). Esteban Ubongen vs. Toribio S. Mayo, A.M. No. 1255-CTJ, August 6, 1980 Vicente C. Buenavista, Jr. vs. Marcelo G. Garcia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-246, July 19, 1990

In order that a judge may be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond doubt that the judgment is unjust as it is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence, and the same was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice (In re: Rafael C. Climaco, Administrative Case No. 134-J, January 21, 1974; and Pabalan vs. Guevarra, Administrative Matter No. 333-CJ, November 24, 1976.) To hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he had erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable. (Sec. of Justice v. Marcos, Administrative Case No. 207-J, April 25, 1977; and Villa vs. Llamas, Administrative Matter No. 326-CJ, July 31, 1978) And where the facts of record are sufficient to provide a basis for determining whether or not the respondent is to be held administratively liable, a formal investigation is no longer necessary. (Cresencio Garcia v. Alberto Asilo, Adm. Matter No. P-1769, Feb. 28, 1979, First Division, Fernandez, J.) Alejandro Balatbat vs. Jesus De Vega, A.M. No. 2426-CFI, August 31, 1981

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

447

Vicente C. Buenavista, Jr. vs. Marcelo G. Garcia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-246, July 19, 1990

Respondents should know that the provisions of Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code as to "rendering knowingly unjust judgment" refer to an individual judge who does so "in any case submitted to him for decision" and even then, it is not the prosecutor who would pass judgment on the "unjustness" of the decision rendered by him but the proper appellate court with jurisdiction to review the same, either the Court of Appeals and/or the Supreme Court. Respondents should likewise know that said penal article has no application to the members of a collegiate court such as this Court or its Divisions who reach their conclusions in consultation and accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation. It also follows, consequently, that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that such a collective decision is "unjust" cannot prosper. In Re: Wenceslao Laureta, G.R. No. 68635, March 12, 1987 In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, A.M. No. 93-7-696-0, February 21, 1995

Only after the appellate court, in a final judgment, finds that a trial judge's errors were committed with malice and in bad faith may a charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment prosper (Judge Adriano R. Villamor vs. Bernardo Ll. Salas, et al., G.R. No. 101041, November 13, 1991; Raymundo G. Garcia vs. Amante Q. Alconcel, A.M. No. 2499-CCC, January 30, 1982). Adelaida P. Felongco vs. Judge Luis D. Dictado, A.M. No. RTJ-86-50, June 28, 1993

However, administrative liability for ignorance of the law and/or knowingly rendering an unjust judgment does not immediately arise from the bare fact of a judge issuing a decision/resolution/order later adjudged to be erroneous. (Theresita O. Revita vs. Sergio F. Rimando, A.M. No. 1439-MJ, July 22, 1980) Otherwise, perhaps no judge, however competent, honest or dedicated he may be, can ever hope to retire from the judiciary with an unblemished record. (Eliza Ratilla de la Cruz, et al. vs. Crisanto C. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1994) Antonio T. Guerrero, et al. vs. Adriano Villamor, A.M. Nos. RTJ-90-483 and RTJ-90-617, September 25, 1998

“Knowingly” Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment is a criminal offense defined and penalized under Article 204 of the Revised Penal Code; for conviction to lie, it must Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

448

be proven that the judgment is unjust and that the judge that it is unjust. Knowingly means consciously, intelligently, wilfully, or intentionally. (Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth ed., 784). It is firmly established in this jurisdiction that for a judge to be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be shown beyond doubt that the judgment is unjust as it is contrary to law or is not supported by the evidence, and that the same was made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. In Re: Rafael C. Climaco, A.C. No. 134-J, January 21, 1974; Evangelista vs. Baes, Adm. Case No. 585-CAR, December 26, 1974; Pabalan vs. Guevarra, Administrative Matter No. 333-CJ, November 24, 1976; Santiago Rodrigo vs. Sabas Quijano, A.M. No. 731-MJ, September 9, 1977; Quintin Sta. Maria vs. Alberto Ubay, A.M. No. 595-CFI, December 11, 1978). Manuel T. Urada vs. Luzviminda M. Mapalad, A.M. No. MTJ-91-622, March 22, 1993

Arts. 204, 205, 206 and 207 Mention may also be made of felonies punishable under Articles 204 to 207 of the Revised Penal Code and falling under the category of "Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office," which only judges, in the exercise of judicial functions, can be held liable of. Henry T. Go vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 172602, September 3, 2007

Art. 210 – Direct Bribery The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code consists of the following elements: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do, and (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. (Maniego vs. People, 88 Phil. 494) The promise of a public officer to perform an act or to refrain from doing it may be express or implied. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

449

(US vs. Richards, 6 Phil. 545) Nathaniel S. Manipon, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-58889, July 31, 1986 Nestor B. Magno vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 147904, October 4, 2002 Rolando L. Balderama vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 147578-85 & 147598-605, January 28, 2008

There is no question that petitioner was a public officer within the contemplation of Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code, which includes all persons "who, by direct provision of law, popular election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of public functions in the Philippine Government, or shall perform in said government or any of its branches, public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official or any rank or class." At the time of the incident, petitioner was a police sergeant assigned to the Legazpi City Police Station. He directly received the bribe money from Yu So Pong and his daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the recovery of the stolen cylinder tanks, which was an act not constituting a crime within the meaning of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code. The act of receiving money was connected with his duty as a police officer. Nazario N. Marifosque vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 156685, July 27, 2004

Moral turpitude can be inferred from the third element. The fact that the offender agrees to accept a promise or gift and deliberately commits an unjust act or refrains from performing an official duty in exchange for some favors, denotes a malicious intent on the part of the offender to renege on the duties which he owes his fellowmen and society in general. Also, the fact that the offender takes advantage of his office and position is a betrayal of the trust reposed in him by the public. It is a conduct clearly contrary to the accepted rules of right and duty, justice, honesty and good morals. In all respects, direct bribery is a crime involving moral turpitude. Nestor B. Magno vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 147904, October 4, 2002

The crime of corruption of public officials charged in Criminal Case No. 28001 is punished by Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code with the "same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted." Under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (direct bribery), if the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act that does not constitute a crime, and the officer executes the act, he shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and minimum periods Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

450

and a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift. Conformably with Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription for this specie of corruption of public officials charged against Disini is 15 years. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013

Distinction between direct bribery and indirect bribery It is well to note and distinguish direct bribery from indirect bribery. In both crimes, the public officer receives gift. While in direct bribery, there is an agreement between the public officer and the giver of the gift or present, in indirect bribery, usually no such agreement exist. In direct bribery, the offender agrees to perform or performs an act or refrains from doing something, because of the gift or promise; in indirect bribery, it is not necessary that the officer should do any particular act or even promise to do an act, as it is enough that he accepts gifts offered to him by reason of his office, (The Revised Penal Code by Luis P. Reyes, 1975 Ed., p. 332). Gregory James Pozar vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62439, October 23, 1984

A comparison of the elements of the crime of direct bribery defined and punished under Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code and those of violation of Section 3 (b) of RA 3019 shows that there is neither identity nor necessary inclusion between the two offenses. Juanito T. Merencillo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. Nos. 142369-70, April 13, 2007

In Direct Bribery, the public officer agrees to perform an act either constituting or not constituting a crime, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer. Significantly, only the public officer may be indicted under and be held liable for Direct Bribery under Article 210, while the person who conspired with the public officer, who made the promise, offer, or gave the gifts or presents, may be indicted only under Article 212 for Corruption of Public Officials, regardless of any allegation of conspiracy. Henry T. Go vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007 Henry T. Go vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 172602, September 3, 2007

The crime of direct bribery contains the following elements: (1) that the accused is a public officer; (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a crime, or to refrain Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

451

from doing something which is his official duty to do; and (4) that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer. Rolando L. Balderama vs. People of the Phil., G.R. Nos. 147578-85 & 147598-605, January 28, 2008

Art. 211 – Indirect Bribery The essential ingredient of indirect bribery as defined in Article 211 of the Revised Penal Code is that the public officer concerned must have accepted the gift or material consideration. There must be a clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift so offered and consider the same as his own property from then on, such as putting away the gift for safekeeping or pocketing the same. Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show that the crime of indirect bribery has been committed. To hold otherwise will encourage unscrupulous individuals to frame up public officers by simply putting within their physical custody some gift money or other property. Leonor Formilleza vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-75160, March 18, 1988

Art. 212 – Corruption of Public Officials The elements of corruption of public officials under Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code are: 1. That the offender makes offers or promises, or gives gifts or presents to a public officer; and 2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents are given to a public officer under circumstances that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013

The second element of corruption of public officers simply required the public Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

452

officer to be placed under circumstances, not absolute certainty, that would make him liable for direct or indirect bribery. Thus, even without alleging that President Marcos received or accepted Disini's offers, promises and gifts — an essential element in direct bribery — the allegation that President Marcos caused the award of the contracts to Burns & Roe and Westinghouse sufficed to place him under circumstances of being liable for direct bribery. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013

The crime of corruption of public officials charged in Criminal Case No. 28001 is punished by Article 212 of the Revised Penal Code with the "same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted." Under the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code (direct bribery), if the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act that does not constitute a crime, and the officer executes the act, he shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and minimum periods and a fine of not less than three times the value of the gift. Conformably with Article 90 of the Revised Penal Code, the period of prescription for this specie of corruption of public officials charged against Disini is 15 years. Disini v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 169823-24 & 174764-65, September 11, 2013

The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of Corruption of Public Official as consummated offense (which is affirmed by the respondent appellant court) for it is clear from the evidence of the prosecution as recited in both decisions of the trial and appellate courts, that the complainant Probation Officer did not accept the one hundred peso bill. Hence, the crime would be attempted corruption of a public official. (See The Revised Penal Code by Justice Ramon Aquino, 1976 Ed., Vol. II, p. 1168, citing the cases of Uy Matiao, 1 Phil. 487; Camacan, 7 Phil. 329; Tan Gee, 7 Phil. 738; Sy-Guikao, 18 Phil. 482; Te Tong, 26 Phil. 453; Ng Pek, 81 Phil. 562; Ching, CA-G.R. No. 439-R, July 31, 1947). Attempted corruption of a public official is punished with destierro and is cognizable by inferior courts (See Revised Penal Code by Justice Aquino, Vol. II, 1976 Ed., citing the cases of Uy Chin Hua v. Dinglasan, 86 Phil. 617; Santos y Bautista, 87 Phil. 687; Dalao v. Geronimo, 92 Phil. 1942; Ng Pek, 81 Phil. 562). Gregory James Pozar vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62439, October 23, 1984

In Direct Bribery, the public officer agrees to perform an act either constituting or not constituting a crime, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present received by such officer. Significantly, only the public officer may be indicted under and be held liable for Direct Bribery under Article 210, while the person who Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

453

conspired with the public officer, who made the promise, offer, or gave the gifts or presents, may be indicted only under Article 212 for Corruption of Public Officials, regardless of any allegation of conspiracy. Henry T. Go vs. Sandiganbayan (Fifth Division), et al., G.R. No. 172602, April 13, 2007 Henry T. Go vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 172602, September 3, 2007

Art. 217 – Malversation of Public Funds or Property Elements Accountable officer Demand With intent or due to negligence Test to determine negligence Vale system Compared to technical malversation Good faith as a defense Official business Article 217 (In Relation to Article 171)

Malversation may be committed by appropriating public funds or property; by taking or misappropriating the same; by consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, by permitting any other person to take such public funds or property; or by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property. Cecilia U. Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012

Elements The elements of malversation of public property, essential to the conviction of an accused under the above penal provision, are: 1. That the offender is a public officer; 2. That he has the custody or control of the property by reason of the duties of his office; 3. That the property is a public property for which he is accountable; and 4. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

454

That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. Pacifico G. Alejo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173360, March 28, 2008 Joselito Raniero J. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008 Zenon R. Perez vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008 Mariano Un Ocampo III vs. People of the Phil., G.R. Nos. 156547-51 & 156384-85, February 4, 2008

The elements of the offense of malversation of public funds are as follows: (1) the offender is a public officer; (2) he has the custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; (3) the funds or property involved are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and (4) he has appropriated, taken or misappropriated, or has consented to, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted the taking by another person of, such funds or property. Barriga v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 161784-86, April 26, 2005 Sarigumba v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 154239-41, February 16, 2005 Querijero v. People, G.R. No. 153483, February 14, 2003 Gabriel L. Duero vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 162212, January 30, 2007 Zenon R. Perez vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 164763, February 12, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. John Montinola, G.R. No. 178061, January 31, 2008

Petitioner is guilty of the crime of malversation. All the elements of the said crime: 1) that the offender is a public officer; 2) that he has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; 3) that those funds or property are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and 4) that he misappropriated, took or consented or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another to take them (See Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book II, 1981 Rev. Ed., p. 391, and Padilla, Criminal Law, Vol. II, 10th Ed., p. 538) are present. Justo M. Ongkiko vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-48777, September 24, 1987 Nenita E. Babida vs. People of the Phil, et al., G.R. No. 83946, September 29, 1989 Generoso P. Corpuz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 74259, February 14, 1991 Emiliano Cimafranca, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 94408, February 14, 1991 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

455

Oscar P. Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991 Rolando Ang vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 91886, May 20, 1991 Feliciano V. Agbanlog vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 105907, May 24, 1993 Felix Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 107383, December 7, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Porferio M. Pepito, G.R. Nos. 112761-65, February 3, 1997 Pablo G. Quiñon vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 113908 and 114819, April 18, 1997 Pepito Guillen vs. Luis Constantino, A.M. SB-95-6-P, December 10, 1997 Milagros L. Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 125213, January 26, 1999 Fidel T. Salamera vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 121099, February 17, 1999 Francisco Enriquez, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 119239 and 119285, May 9, 2000 Nicanor E. Estrella vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 125160, June 20, 2000 Romeo Diego vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 139282, September 4, 2000 Juan A. Rueda vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 129064, November 29, 2000 Vicente R. Madarang vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 112314, March 28, 2001 Pablo N. Quiñon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 136462, September 19, 2002 Flordeliza F. Querijero vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 153483, February 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. John Peter Hipol, G.R. No. 140549, July 22, 2003

Malversation may be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or property, or passively through negligence. To sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence, and while the prevailing facts of a case may not show that deceit attended the commission of the offense, it will not preclude the reception of evidence to prove the existence of negligence because both are equally punishable under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Jesus Torres vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

456

Where a respondent admits receipt of the money but fails to return the same, a prima facie case of malversation is established. Bonifacio Ancheta, et al. vs. Cristobal Hilario, A.M. Nos. P-1416-17, February 14, 1980 Mariano Tupas vs. Leo R. Caballero, A.M. No. P-88-157, April 23, 1993

"Malversation can only be committed by a public official who has charge of public funds or property by virtue of his official position. A public official not responsible for public funds or property and without authority to safeguard the same can not be convicted of malversation." (Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, 1987 Edition, Volume Two, p. 447) Fidel T. Salamera vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 121099, February 17, 1999

Malversation may thus be committed either through a positive act of misappropriation of public funds or property of passively through negligence by allowing another to commit such misappropriation. Nonetheless, all that is necessary to prove in both acts are the following: (a) that the defendant received in his possession public funds or property (b) that he could not account for them and did not have them in his possession when audited; and (c) that he could not give a satisfactory or reasonable excuse for the disappearance of said funds or property. An accountable officer may thus be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in the officer's accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. Arturo De Guzman vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-54288, December 15, 1982 Pedro C. Bacasnot vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. L-60884, November 5, 1987 Felix H. Cabello vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 93885, May 14, 1991 Edwin B. Villanueva vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 95627, August 16, 1991 Inocencio Peñanueva, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 98000-02, June 30, 1993 Ernesto Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 97214, July 18, 1994

One essential element of the crime of malversation is that a public officer must take public funds, money or property, and misappropriate it to his own private use or benefit. There must be asportation of public funds or property, akin to the taking of another's property in theft. The funds, money or property taken must be public funds or private funds impressed with public attributes or character for which the public Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

457

officer is accountable. Fidel T. Salamera vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 121099, February 17, 1999 Oscar S. Aquino vs. Ricardo C. Olivares, A.M. No. P-02-1534, March 26, 2003

In the face of the evidence presented, petitioner failed to overcome the presumption under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code that the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable upon demand by any public officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds to personal use. In malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the defendant received in his possession public funds, that he could not account for them and did not have them in his possession and that he could not give a reasonable excuse for the disappearance of the same. An accountable public officer may be convicted of malversation even if there is no direct evidence of misappropriation and the only evidence is that there is a shortage in his accounts which he has not been able to explain satisfactorily. [Aquino, The Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, 1976 Edition U.S. vs. Melencio, 4 Phil. 331, (1905); U.S. vs. Javier, 6 Phil. 334 (1906); and People vs. Mingoa, 92 Phil. 856 (1953)] Arturo De Guzman vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-54288, December 15, 1982, 204 Phil 663 Ramon Albores vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-36513, October 23, 1984 Arturo Quizo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 77120, April 6, 1987 Pedro C. Bacasnot vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. L-60884, November 5, 1987 Restituto Palma Gil, et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 73642, September 1, 1989 Leonardo N. Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. L-59670, February 15, 1990 Generoso P. Corpuz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 74259, February 14, 1991 Edwin B. Villanueva vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 95627, August 16, 1991 Lucilyn T. Zambrano vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 82067, April 20, 1992 Maximo Felicilda vs. Nathanael M. Grospe, G.R. No. 102494, July 3, 1992 Oscar C. Valle vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 97651, October 13, 1992 Dante G. Bugayong vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 95624, October 15, 1992 Calinico B. Ilogon vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 102356, February 9, 1993 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

458

Feliciano V. Agbanlog vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 105907, May 24, 1993 Ernesto Navallo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 97214, July 18, 1994 Subo Tanggote vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 103584, September 2, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Porferio M. Pepito, G.R. Nos. 112761-65, February 3, 1997 Melencio S. Sy vs. Carmelita S. Mongcupa, A.M. No. P-94-1110, February 6, 1997 Nicanor E. Estrella vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 125160, June 20, 2000

Under Article 217, a presumption was installed that upon demand by any duly authorized officer, the failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property — with which said officer is accountable — should be prima facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or properties to personal use. When these circumstances are present, a "presumption of law" arises that there was malversation of public funds or properties as decreed by Article 217. To be sure, this presumption is disputable and rebuttable by evidence showing that the public officer had fully accounted for the alleged cash shortage. Cecilia U. Legrama vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 178626, June 13, 2012

There being a satisfactory explanation of the shortage, the presumption of guilt disappears. Restituto Palma Gil, et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 73642, September 1, 1989

This is because the law establishes a presumption that mere failure of an accountable officer to produce public funds which have come into his hands on demand by an officer duly authorized to examine his accounts is prima facie evidence of conversion. However, the presumption is merely prima facie and a rebuttable one. The accountable officer may overcome the presumption by proof to the contrary. If he adduces evidence showing that, in fact, he has not put said funds or property to personal use, then that presumption is at an end and the prima facie case destroyed. United States vs. Rafael B. Catolico, G.R. No. L-6486, March 2, 1911, 18 Phil. 504 United States vs. Alfredo Elviña, G.R. No. 7280, February 3, 1913, 24 Phil 230 Felix Villacorta vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-68286, November 12, 1986 Arturo Quizo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 77120, April 6, 1987 Modesto A. Mahinay vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 61442, May 9, 1989 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

459

Felix H. Cabello vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 93885, May 14, 1991 Milagros L. Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 125213, January 26, 1999 Juan A. Rueda vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 129064, November 29, 2000 Elvira Agullo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 132926, July 20, 2001

The taking or conversion of public funds for personal use must be affirmatively proved. Dante G. Bugayong vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 95624, October 15, 1992 Juan A. Rueda vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 129064, November 29, 2000

That presumption of guilt is founded on human experience and is valid. However, the accused can present evidence to rebut it. People of the Phil. vs. Aquino Mingoa, G.R. No. L-5371, March 26, 1953, 92 Phil. 856 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe A. Livara, G.R. No. L-6201, April 20, 1954, 94 Phil. 771 Ramon Albores vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-36513, October 23, 1984 Pedro C. Bacasnot vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. L-60884, November 5, 1987 Leonardo N. Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. L-59670, February 15, 1990 Lucilyn T. Zambrano vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 82067, April 20, 1992

"Evidence of shortage is necessary before there could be any taking, appropriation, conversion, or loss of public funds that would amount to malversation." The law requires that the shortage must be clearly established as a fact that over and above the funds found by the auditors in the actual possession of the accountable officers, there is an additional amount which could not be produced or accounted for at the time of audit. Francisco Enriquez, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 119239 and 119285, May 9, 2000 Juan A. Rueda vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 129064, November 29, 2000

The prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code arises only if there was no issue as to the accuracy, correctness and regularity of the audit Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

460

findings and if the fact that funds are missing is indubitably established. Gabriel L. Duero vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 162212, January 30, 2007

Accountable officer The failure of the public officer to have duly forthcoming such public funds or property, upon demand by a duly authorized officer, "shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use." In this regard, it has been ruled that once such presumption is rebutted, then it is completely destroyed; in fact, the presumption is never deemed to have existed at all. Joselito Raniero J. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008

An accountable public officer, within the purview of Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code, is one who has custody or control of public funds or property by reason of the duties of his office. To be liable for malversation, an accountable officer need not be a bonded official. The name or relative importance of the office or employment is not the controlling factor. What is decisive is the nature of the duties that he performs and that as part of, and by reason of said duties, he receives public money or property which he is bound to account. (Aquino, Revised Penal Code, Vol. II, [1997], p. 484) Pablo N. Quiñon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 136462, September 19, 2002 Pacifico G. Alejo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173360, March 28, 2008 Jesus Torres vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011

What is essential is that appellant had custody or control of public funds by reason of the duties of his office. He is an employee of, or in some way connected with, the government and, in the course of his employment, he receives money or property belonging to the government for which he is bound to account. Accordingly, what is controlling is the nature of the duties of appellant and not the name or relative importance of his office or employment. Pablo N. Quiñon vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 136462, September 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. John Peter Hipol, G.R. No. 140549, July 22, 2003

Demand Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

461

Accused-appellant criticizes the Sandiganbayan for its having failed to consider the fact that no valid demand has been made, or could have been made, for the repayment of the loaned sum. Demand merely raises a prima facie presumption that missing funds have been put to personal use. The demand itself, however, is not an element of, and not indispensable to constitute, malversation. Even without a demand, malversation can still be committed when enough facts, such as here, are extant to prove it. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Zoilo Tolentino, G.R. No. 47077, Junio 14, 1940, 69 Phil. 715 Felix Nizurtado vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 107383, December 7, 1994 Morong Water District vs. Office of the Deputy Ombudsman, G.R. No. 116754, March 17, 2000

This prima facie presumption does not shift the burden of proof to the defense. The burden of proof still lies on the prosecution which is duty-bound to adduce evidence showing that all the elements of malversation are present before the defense submits rebuttal evidence to overcome the presumption aforementioned. Rolando Ang vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 91886, May 20, 1991

Considering the gravity of the offense of Malversation of Public Funds, accounts should be examined carefully and thoroughly to the last detail, with absolute certainty in strict compliance with the Manual of Instructions. Imperative it is likewise that sufficient time be given examined officers to reconstruct their accounts and refute the charge that they had put government funds to their personal uses. Access to records must be afforded them within reasonable time after audit when disbursements are still fresh in their minds and not years after when relevant official records may no longer be available and the passage of time has blurred human memory (Tinga vs. People, G.R. No. 57650, April 15, 1988). The audit examination conducted by Auditor failed to establish that the funds were indeed missing since she did not follow standard auditing procedures by not including in her examination the funds petitioner kept in the vaults located in Tampilisan and Sindangan. Concepcion Dumagat vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 96915, July 3, 1992 Vicente R. Madarang vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 112314, March 28, 2001 Flordeliza F. Querijero vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 153483, February 14, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

462

With intent or negligence Even on the putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner yielded a case of malversation by negligence but the information was for intentional malversation, under the circumstances of this case his conviction under the first mode of misappropriation would still be in order. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from the mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper. A possible exception would be when the mode of commission alleged in the particulars of the indictment is so far removed from the ultimate categorization of the crime that it may be said due process was denied by deluding the accused into an erroneous comprehension of the charge against him. That no such prejudice was occasioned on petitioner nor was he beleaguered in his defense is apparent from the records of this case. Felix H. Cabello vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 93885, May 14, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Pablo A. Consigna, et al., G.R. No. L-18087, August 31, 1965, 122 Phil 293 Luciano N. Kimpo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 95604, April 29, 1994 Luis A. Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 103501-03 and 103507, February 17, 1997 Milagros L. Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 125213, January 26, 1999 Romeo Diego vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 139282, September 4, 2000

In cases involving public officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. Elias C. Quibal vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 109991, May 22, 1995 Romeo Diego vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 139282, September 4, 2000

Gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to consequences in so far as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care which even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to take on their own property. In cases involving public Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

463

officials, there is gross negligence when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. Victory M. Fernandez vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 193983, March 14, 2012

Test to determine negligence Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a prudent and reasonable man would do. The test by which to determine the existence of negligence in a particular case may be stated as follows: Did the defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinary prudent person would have used in the same situation? If not, he is guilty of negligence. The law here in effect adopts the standard supposed to be supplied by the imaginary conduct of the discreet paterfamilias of the Roman Law. The existence of negligence in a given case is not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him. The Law considers what would be reckless, blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary intelligence and prudence and determines liability to that. (Layugan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73998, November 14, 1988). Nenita L. Leano vs. Eufemio C. Domingo, et al., G.R. No. 84378, July 4, 1991

More in point, the felony involves breach of public trust, and whether it is committed through deceit or negligence, the law makes it punishable and prescribes a uniform penalty therefor. Even when the Information charges willful malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the mode of commission of the offense. Explicitly stated — . . . [E]ven on the putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner yielded a case of malversation by negligence, but the information was for intentional malversation, under the circumstances of this case, his conviction under the first mode of misappropriation would still be in order. Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from mode proved, the same offense of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper. Jesus Torres vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 175074, August 31, 2011

Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code provides that any public officer who, by Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

464

reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall appropriate the same, or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, shall be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property. (Italics supplied) There is no dispute that the presumption of malversation under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code is merely prima facie and rebuttable, so that if the accountable officer has satisfactorily proven that not a single centavo of the missing funds was used by him for his own personal interest but extended as cash advances to co-employees in good faith, with no intent to gain and borne out of goodwill considering that it was a practice tolerated in the office, the presumption of guilt is overthrown (Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 77120, April 6, 1987). However, the circumstances obtaining in the Quizo case are not obtaining in the case at bar. Among others, in the Quizo case, there was full restitution made within a reasonable time, while in the instant case there was none. Modesto A. Mahinay vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 61442, May 9, 1989

The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal uses. (As amended by Rep. Act No. 1060.)" The above presumption of malversation "takes the place of affirmative proofs showing the actual conversion (and) obviates the necessity of proving acts of conversion on the part of the accused, a thing almost always extremely difficult to do (U.S. vs. Acebedo, 18 Phil. 428, 431). Pedrito L. Catingub vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-28701, March 25, 1983 Fidel T. Salamera vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 121099, February 17, 1999

The prima facie presumption under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code arises if there is no issue as to the accuracy, correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if the fact that funds are missing is indubitably established. Catalino Y. Tinga vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-57650, April 15, 1988 Restituto P. Rizon vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 91271, October 3, 1991

A person may be acquitted of malversation where, as in the case at bar, he could Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

465

show that he did not misappropriate the public funds in his possession, but he could be rendered liable to restore said funds or at least to make a proper accounting thereof if he shall spend the same for purposes which are not authorized nor intended, and in a manner not permitted by applicable rules and regulations. Republic of the Phils. vs. Silvestre Br. Bello, G.R. No. L-34906, January 27, 1983

There being no shortage, there has been no taking, appropriation, conversion, or loss of public funds; there is no malversation. Claro B. Narciso vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 98262-63, January 10, 1994 Juan A. Rueda vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 129064, November 29, 2000 Vicente R. Madarang vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 112314, March 28, 2001

The crimes of estafa and malversation are similar in nature in that both involve misappropriation of funds or property, the difference being that in estafa, the property or funds misappropriated is private in character whereas in malversation, the property constitutes public funds or property for which the accused as a public officer is accountable by reason of the duties of his office. In the case of U.S. vs. Cardel, 23 Phil. 207, and U.S. vs. Mesina, 42 Phil. 66, it was held that estafa was consummated in the place where the accused is required to render an accounting and failed to do so. Applying the same ruling in the instant malversation case and Section 14(a), Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Court herein before quoted, We hold and rule that the present case of malversation may be tried in Manila since the offense charged was consummated in Manila. Pedrito L. Catingub vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-28701, March 25, 1983

Well known is the rule that in malversation of funds or estafa, the fact that the shortage was fully restituted does not exempt respondents from responsibility. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Soriano, A.M. No. 2864-P, May 16, 1985). In the case at bar, payment made by the erring employees cannot obliterate the betrayal of trust and confidence in their positions where honesty and integrity are the primary considerations. San Miguel Corporation vs. Deputy Minister of Labor and Employment, et al., G.R. No. L-58927, October 27, 1986

The return of the funds malversed is not a defense and will not be an exempting circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the criminal liability of the accused. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

466

Alfonso Bacsarpa, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-8147, May 18, 1956, 99 Phil. 112 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Miranda, G.R. No. L-16122, May 30, 1961 Office of the Court Administrator vs. Amando S. Soriano, A.M. No. 2864-P, May 16, 1985 Emiliano Cimafranca, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 94408, February 14, 1991 Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the MTC of Bani, Alaminos and Lingayen, in Pangasinan, A.M. No. 01-2-18-MTC, December 5, 2003 Re: Report on Examination of the Cash and Accounts of the Clerks of Court of the RTC and the MTC of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, A.M. No. 01-1-13-RTC, April 2, 2003.

At best it can be a mitigating circumstance. El Pueblo de Filipinas vs. Santiago S. Velasquez, G.R. No. 47741, Abril 28, 1941, 72 Phil. 98 Emiliano Cimafranca, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 94408, February 14, 1991

In malversation of public funds or estafa, payment, indemnification, or reimbursement of, or compromise as to, the amounts or funds malversed or misappropriated, after the commission of the crime, affects only the civil liability of the offender but does not extinguish his criminal liability. People of the Phil. vs. Efren Miranda, G.R. No. L-16122, May 30, 1961 Maximo Felicilda vs. Nathanael M. Grospe, G.R. No. 102494, July 3, 1992 Inocencio Peñanueva, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 98000-02, June 30, 1993 Report of COA on the Shortage of Accountabilities of Lilia Buena, A.M. No. 95-1-01-MTCC, Jan. 5, 1998 Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Joaquin Tonda, G.R. No. 134436, August 16, 2000

No malversation where funds were not put to personal use. Felix Villacorta vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-68286, November 12, 1986

Vale System The practice of disbursing public funds, under the "vale" system as a defense in Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

467

malversation cases, was advanced, briefed and argued in Cabello v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 93885, May 14, 1991, and found not meritorious… The grant of loans through the "vale" system is a clear case of an accountable officer consenting to the improper or unauthorized use of public funds by other persons, which is punishable by the law. To tolerate a such practice is to give a license to every disbursing officer to conduct a lending operation with the use of public funds. Emilia M. Meneses vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 100625, May 20, 1994 Juan A. Rueda vs. Honorable Sandiganbayan and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 129064, November 29, 2000

Compared to technical malversation A comparison of Art. 217 and Art. 220 reveals that their elements are entirely distinct and different from the other. In malversation of public funds, the offender misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such public funds for the latter's personal use. In technical malversation, the public officer applies public funds under his administration not for his or another's personal use, but to a public use other than that for which the fund was appropriated by law or ordinance. Technical malversation is, therefore, not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of public funds charged in the information. Since the acts constituting the crime of technical malversation were not alleged in the information, and since technical malversation does not include, or is not included in the crime of malversation of public funds, he cannot resultantly be convicted of technical malversation. Technical malversation is, therefore, not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of public funds charged in the information. Oscar P. Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991

The fact that petitioners' accounts and vouchers had been passed in audit is not a ground for enjoining the provincial fiscal from conducting a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining the criminal liability of petitioners for malversation of public funds through falsification of public documents. Edilberto M. Ramos, et al. vs. Benjamin H. Aquino, et al., G.R. No. L-28594, June 30, 1971 Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 124471, November 28, 1996

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

468

Good faith as a defense Going now to the defense of good faith, it is settled that this is a valid defense in a prosecution for malversation for it would negate criminal intent on the part of the accused. Thus, in the two (2) vintage, but significant malversation cases of "US v. Catolico" (18 Phil. 504) and "US v. Elviña," (24 Phil. 230) the Court stressed that: "To constitute a crime, the act must, except in certain crimes made such by statute, be accompanied by a criminal intent, or by such negligence or indifference to duty or to consequences as, in law, is equivalent to criminal intent. The maxim is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea — a crime is not committed if the mind of the person performing the act complained of is innocent." The rule was reiterated in "People v. Pacana," (47 Phil. 48) although this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa: "Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act for there to be a crime. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting." American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. It adheres to the view that criminal intent in embezzlement is not based on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction honestly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no wrongful purpose. (Lewis v. People, 99 Colo. 102, 60 Pac. [2d] 1089; Lawyer v. State, 221 Ind. 101, 46 N.E. [2d] 592; State v. Schmidt, 72 N. Dak. 719, 10 N.W. [2d] 868. Underhill's Criminal Evidence, 5th Ed., Book 3, p. 1421.)The accused may thus always introduce evidence to show he acted in good faith and that he had no intention to convert. (Federal Lindgren v. United States, 260 Fed. 772. Underhill, ibid.) Luis A. Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 103501-03 and 103507, February 17, 1997

Official business The Court had heretofore recognized situations that could necessitate the use by accountable public officials of cash on hand for pertinent expenditures in the conduct of official business. In Bugayong vs. People, G.R. No. 95624, October 15, 1992, the Court acquitted an accused government physician of malversation for a shortage in Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

469

cash account upon audit examination because the collections in the hospital were found to have been used as its revolving fund for such official expenditures. In Palma Gil vs. People, G.R. No. 73642, September 1, 1989, where donated logs were disposed of to construct municipal projects, the Court held that if funds or property entrusted to a public officer were validly used for public purposes he should not be held liable for malversation. Milagros L. Diaz vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 125213, January 26, 1999

The Court can intervene and strike down a penalty as cruel, degrading or inhuman only when it has become so flagrantly oppressive and so wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the moral senses. (People v. Dionisio, G.R. No. L-25513, March 27, 1968; People v. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 [1953]; U.S. v. Borromeo, 23 Phil. 279 [1912] Considering that malversation of public funds by a public officer is a betrayal of the public trust, We are not prepared to say that the penalty imposed on petitioner is so disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock the moral sense. Feliciano V. Agbanlog vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 105907, May 24, 1993

Early in the history of this Court, it ruled that in acts mala in se, the criminal intent governs. But in those acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is: has the law been violated? (US vs. Go Chico, 14 Phil. 134 [1909]} Acts constituting malversation, estafa, and bribery are mala in se. The courts must inquire into the criminal intent, the evil nature or wrongful disposition behind the criminal acts. In mala prohibita crimes, there is a violation of a prohibitory law and the inquiry is, therefore, has the law been violated? In the crime of plunder, it is enough that the acts defining malversation or bribery are described. The court then proceeds to determine whether the acts fall under the prohibitory terms of the law. Criminal intent no longer has to be proved. The criminal intent to commit the crime is not required to be proved. The desire to benefit particular persons does not have to spring from criminal intent under the special law creating the crime of plunder. In malversation or bribery under the Revised Penal Code, the criminal intent is an important element of the criminal acts. Under the Plunder Law, it is enough that the acts are committed. Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan (Third Division) and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001

Article 217 (In Relation to Article 171) Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

470

The elements of (the complex crime of Malversation of Public Funds thru Falsification of Public Documents defined and penalized under Article 217, in relation to Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code) are as follows a.) The offender is a public officer; b.) He has custody or control of the funds or property by reason of the duties of his office; c.) The funds or property are public funds or property for which he is accountable; and d.) He has appropriated, taken, misappropriated or consented, or through abandonment or negligence, permitted another person to take them. People of the Phil. vs. Teddy M. Pajaro, et al., G.R. Nos. 167860-65, June 17, 2008

Art. 218 - Failure of Accountable Officer to Render Accounts Article 218 merely provides that the public officer be required by law and regulation to render account. Rosulo Lopez Manlangit vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 158014 August 28, 2007 Florencio B. Campomanes vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 161950, December 19, 2006

Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer has the following elements: (a) the offender is a public officer; (b) the offender must be an accountable officer for public funds or property; (c) the offender is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the COA or to a provincial auditor; and (d) the offender fails to render an account for a period of two months after such accounts should be rendered. Joselito Raniero J. Daan vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 163972-77, March 28, 2008 Florencio B. Campomanes vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 161950, December 19, 2006

Art. 220 – Technical Malversation Elements Compared to malversation of public funds Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

471

Elements Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code provides that for technical malversation to exist it is necessary that public funds or properties had been diverted to any public use other than that provided for by law or ordinance. Restituto Palma Gil, et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 73642, September 1, 1989 Oscar P. Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991

The essential elements of this crime, more commonly known as technical malversation, are: (a) the offender is an accountable public officer; (b) he applies public funds or property under his administration to some public use; and (c) the public use for which the public funds or property were applied is different from the purpose for which they were originally appropriated by law or ordinance. Oscar P. Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991

Compared to Malversation of Public Funds A comparison of Art. 217 and Art. 220 reveals that their elements are entirely distinct and different from the other. In malversation of public funds, the offender misappropriates public funds for his own personal use or allows any other person to take such public funds for the latter's personal use. In technical malversation, the public officer applies public funds under his administration not for his or another's personal use, but to a public use other than that for which the fund was appropriated by law or ordinance. Technical malversation is, therefore, not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of public funds charged in the information. Since the acts constituting the crime of technical malversation were not alleged in the information, and since technical malversation does not include, or is not included in the crime of malversation of public funds, he cannot resultantly be convicted of technical malversation. Technical malversation is, therefore, not included in nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation of public funds charged in the information. Oscar P. Parungao vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 96025, May 15, 1991

[I]n the absence of a law or ordinance appropriating the public fund allegedly Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

472

technically malversed for another public purpose, an accused did not commit technical malversation as set out in Article 220 of the Revised Penal Code. In that case, the Court acquitted [the municipal treasurer] of the charges of technical malversation even though he used funds allotted (by a Department of Environment and Natural Resources circular) for the construction of a road project and re-allocated it to the labor payroll of different barangays in the municipality. The Court held that since the budget for the construction of the road was not appropriated by a law or by an ordinance for that specified public purpose, the re-allocation of the budget for use as payroll was not technical malversation. Office of the Ombudsman vs. Nellie R. Apolonio, G.R. No. 165132, March 7, 2012

Art. 222 - Officers Included in the Preceding Provisions The confiscated logs are considered public property since the same were impressed with public attributes or character for which the public officer was accountable. While these logs were not strictly government property, they partook of the nature of public property. Article 222 of the Revised Penal Code states that private property seized or deposited by public authority may be the object of malversation. Pacifico G. Alejo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173360, March 28, 2008

Art. 238 - Abandonment of Office or Position A public officer cannot abandon his office before his resignation is accepted, otherwise the officer is subject to the penal provisions of Article 238 of the Revised Penal Code. Republic of the Phil. vs. Winston T. Singun, G.R. No. 149356, March 14, 2008

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

473

Art. 244 - Unlawful Appointments The Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division held that the qualifications for a position are provided by law and that it may well be that one who possesses the required legal qualification for a position may be temporarily disqualified for appointment to a public position by reason of the one-year prohibition imposed on losing candidates. However, there is no violation of Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code should a person suffering from temporary disqualification be appointed so long as the appointee possesses all the qualifications stated in the law. There is no basis in law or jurisprudence for this interpretation. On the contrary, legal disqualification in Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code simply means disqualification under the law. Clearly, Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section 94 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991 prohibits losing candidates within one year after such election to be appointed to any office in the government or any government-owned or controlled corporations or in any of their subsidiaries. People of the Phil. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 164185, July 23, 2008

Article 244 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be circumscribed lexically. Legal disqualification cannot be read as excluding temporary disqualification in order to exempt therefrom the legal prohibitions under Section 6, Article IX of the 1987 Constitution and Section 94 (b) of the Local Government Code of 1991. People of the Phil. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 164185, July 23, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. No. 164185, July 23, 2008

Art. 246 - Parricide

Elements The elements of parricide are (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate ascendant, descendant, or spouse of the accused. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

474

People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Baño, G.R. No. 148710, January 15, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Ayuman, G.R. No. 133436, April 14, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Porferio R. Angus, Jr., G.R. No. 178778, August 3, 2010

The key element here is the relationship of the offender with the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Armando C. Dalag, G.R. No. 129895, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Ayuman, G.R. No. 133436, April 14, 2004

Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. People of the Phil. vs. Isaias C. Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Delima, Jr., G.R. No. 169869, July 12, 2007

Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused. People of the Phil. vs. Florenda Castro, et al., G.R. No. 172370, October 6, 2008 People v. Gamez, G.R. No. 202847, October 23, 2013

It is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the deceased is killed by the accused; and (3) the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused. The key element in Parricide — other than the fact of killing — is the relationship of the offender to the victim. In the case of Parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage certificate. In this case, the testimony of the accused that he was married to the victim, in itself, is ample proof of such relationship as the testimony can be taken as an admission against penal interest. People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano L. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

475

Art. 248 - Murder People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Buban, G.R. No. 170471, May 11, 2007

As defined by Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of Murder is committed by a person who kills another with treachery. People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Delim, et al., G.R. No. 175942, September 13, 2007

Treachery, the qualifying circumstance alleged against the appellant, exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms which tend directly or especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make. This definition sets out what must be shown by evidence to conclude that treachery existed, namely: (1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. To reiterate, the essence of qualifying circumstance is the suddenness, surprise and the lack of expectation that the attack will take place, thus depriving the victim of any real opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. People of the Phil. vs. Clemente C. Casta, G.R. No. 172871, September 16, 2008

The elements of murder are: (1) That a person is killed; (2) That the accused killed him; (3) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code; and (4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide. People of the Phil. vs. Larry Torres, Sr., G.R. No. 190317, August 22, 2011 People of the Phil. vs. David Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011 citing People vs. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010 People of the Phil. vs. Rommel Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 175929, December 16, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Rommel Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 175929, December 16, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Dante S. Nueva, G.R. No. 173248, November 3, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Florenda Castro, et al., G.R. No. 172370, October 6, 2008

When the circumstances surrounding the crime call for the imposition of reclusion perpetua only, the Court has ruled that the proper amounts should be PhP50,000.00 as Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

476

civil indemnity, PhP50,000.00 as moral damages, and PhP30,000.00 as exemplary damages. People of the Phil. vs. David Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011 citing People vs. Combate, G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides that the penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua to death. In conjunction, Article 63 of the same Code provides that when the law prescribes two indivisible penalties, and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances, the lesser penalty shall be applied. . . . [However,] [u]nder Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9346, "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended." People of the Phil. vs. Dante Dejillo, et al., G.R. No. 185005, December 10, 2012

It is of judicial notice that extralegal killings are ordinarily executed in a clandestine manner, and, as such, its commission is largely concealed from the public view of any witnesses. Notably, unlike in rape cases wherein the victim — albeit ravaged in the dark — may choose to testify, and whose testimony is, in turn, given great weight and credence sufficient enough for a conviction, the victim of an extralegal killing is silenced by death and therefore, the actual participation of his assailants is hardly disclosed. As these legal realities generally mire extralegal killing cases, the Court observes that such cases should be resolved with a more circumspect analysis of the incidental factors surrounding the same, take for instance the actual or likely presence of the persons charged at the place and time when the killing was committed, the manner in which the victim was executed (of which the location of the place and the time in which the killing was done may be taken into consideration), or the possibility that the victim would have been easily overpowered by his assailants (of which the superior number of the persons detaining the victim and their ability to wield weapons may be taken into consideration). Aguilar v. DOJ, G.R. No. 197522, September 11, 2013

Art. 248 (1) - Murder; Treachery

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

477

Treachery exists when an offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods or forms which tend directly or especially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender, arising from the defense that the offended party might make. This definition sets out what must be shown by evidence to conclude that treachery existed, namely: (1) the employment of such means of execution as would give the person attacked no opportunity for self-defense or retaliation; and (2) the deliberate and conscious adoption of the means of execution. To reiterate, the essence of qualifying circumstance is the suddenness, surprise and the lack of expectation that the attack will take place, thus, depriving the victim of any real opportunity for self-defense while ensuring the commission of the crime without risk to the aggressor. People of the Phil. vs. Dante Jadap, G.R. No. 177983, March 30, 2010

Thus, for the charge of murder to prosper, the prosecution must prove that: (1) the offender killed the victim, (2) through treachery, or by any of the other five qualifying circumstances, duly alleged in the Information. Generally, the elements of murder are: (1) That a person was killed; (2) That the accused killed him; (3) That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art. 248; (4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide. People of the Phil. vs. Leozar B. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010

The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack by the aggressor on unsuspecting victims, depriving the latter of any real chance to defend themselves, thereby ensuring its commission without risk to the aggressor, and without the slightest provocation on the part of the victims. People of the Phil. vs. Ford D. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 188602, February 4, 2010

There is treachery when "the offender commits any of the crimes against persons, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution, which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make." These means or methods are made in the form of a swift, deliberate and unexpected attack, without any warning and affording the victim, which is usually unarmed and unsuspecting, no chance at all to resist or escape the impending attack. People of the Phil. vs. David Maningding, G.R. No. 195665, September 14, 2011

We have ruled that treachery is present when an assailant takes advantage of a Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

478

situation in which the victim is asleep, unaware of the evil design, or has just awakened. People v. Dearo, G.R. No. 190862, October 9, 2013

Art. 249 - Homicide Intent to kill is a state of mind that the courts can discern only through external manifestations, i.e., acts and conduct of the accused at the time of the assault and immediately thereafter. The following factors are considered to determine the presence of an intent to kill: (1) the means used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. We also consider motive and the words uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted injuries on the victim as additional determinative factors. Giovani C. Serrano vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 175023, July 5, 2010, citing Rivera v. People, G.R. No. 166326, January 25, 2006

The intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at whatever stage, may be before or simultaneous with the infliction of injuries. The evidence to prove intent to kill may consist of, inter alia, the means used; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; and the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim. Edmundo J. Escamilla vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 188551, February 27, 2013

Under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code, homicide is punishable by reclusion temporal. Edgar L. Gerasta vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 176981, December 24, 2008 Gregorio Pelonia vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 168997, April 13, 2007 Ricky Bastian vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 160811, Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 160811

The elements of frustrated homicide are: (1) the accused intended to kill his victim, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

479

as manifested by his use of a deadly weapon in his assault; (2) the victim sustained fatal or mortal wound/s but did not die because of timely medical assistance; and (3) none of the qualifying circumstance for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is present. Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons may consist, inter alia, of the means used by the malefactors; the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the victim; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; the circumstances under which the crime was committed; and the motive of the accused. People of the Phil. vs. Rodel B. Lanuza, G.R. No. 188562, August 24, 2011

Art. 262 - Mutilation A straightforward scrutiny of the above provision shows that the elements 55 of mutilation under the first paragraph of Art. 262 of the Revised Penal Code to be 1) that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation; and 2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction. Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre vs. Secretary of the DOJ, et al., G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008

The elements of mutilation under the first paragraph of Art. 262 of the Revised Penal Code are 1) that there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation; and 2) that the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential organ for reproduction. Gloria Pilar S. Aguirre vs. Secretary of the DOJ, et al., G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008

Art. 263, Par. 4 - Serious Physical Injuries Based on Article 263, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the crime of serious physical injuries under paragraph 4 of the Revised Penal Code may be deduced as follows: 1. That the offender has wounded, beaten, or assaulted another; and 2. That the physical injuries inflicted shall have caused the illness or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

480

incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than 30 days. Further, there must be no intent to kill on the part of the offender in inflicting the injury. Reynaldo R. Pilares, Sr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 165685, March 12, 2007

Art. 266 - Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment When the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury, and without causing dishonor, the offense is Maltreatment under Article 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Bernard Mapalo, G.R. No. 172608, February 6, 2007

Art. 266-A - Rape Circumstances Under Paragraph 1 – By Force and intimidation Incestuous rape Physical assault Under Paragraph 2 - Woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious Unconscious victim Under Paragraph 3 - Statutory rape Age of victim Past sexual relations or moral character of victim Testimony of rape victim Young victims Medical examination/certificate Mother of victim Testimony of victim against her father Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

481

Conduct of victim Date or time Conviction on indirect evidence Intact hymen Lacerations in the hymen Vaginal canal Genital contact/penetration Presence or absence of sperm Presence of people nearby Sweethearts theory Court's review of rape cases Moral damages Unfounded charges Death penalty Qualified rape Qualifying circumstance of relationship Qualifying circumstance of insanity of victim Acts of lasciviousness included in rape Article 266-A, Paragraph 1 (d) Article 266-A, Paragraph 2

Circumstances Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation against her will or without her consent. What is imperative is that the element of force or intimidation be proven; and force need not always produce physical injuries. Notably, force, violence, or intimidation in rape is a relative term, depending on the age, size, strength, and relationship of the parties. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo P. Teczon, G.R. No. 174098, September 12, 2008

Carnal knowledge of a minor under 12 years of age is rape as defined under Article Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

482

266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mangubat, G.R. No. 172068, August 7, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio D. Miranda, G.R. No. 176064, August 7, 2007

On the basis thereof, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. Clearly, carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape under the aforesaid provisions of law. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294, February 19, 2008

Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) By using force or intimidation; (2) When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present. The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman against her will or without her consent. People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Ponsica, G.R. Nos. 137661-63 July 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Wilson G. Salvador, G.R. Nos. 136870-72, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Cultura, G.R. No. 133831, February 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Albert Sayana, G.R. Nos. 142553-54, July 1, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Limos, G.R. Nos. 122114-17, January 20, 2004 People of the Phils. vs. Arturo Manambay, G.R. No. 130684, February 5, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Ronie Gabelinio, G.R. Nos. 132127-29, March 31, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Layugan, G.R. Nos. 130493-98, April 29, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Santiago A. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 132125-26, June 3, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Ortizuela, G.R. No. 135675, June 23, 2004 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

483

People of the Phil. vs. Avelino B. Mabonga, G.R. No. 134773, June 29, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Lito A. Bejic, G.R. No. 174060, June 25, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Ariel Z. Jacob, G.R. No. 177151, August 22, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294, February 19, 2008

Every charge of rape is a separate and distinct crime and each must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. People of the Phil. vs. Cristituto Guardian, G.R. No. 142900, August 7, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito M. Marahay, G.R. Nos. 120625-29, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Wilson G. Salvador, G.R. Nos. 136870-72, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Esperanza, G.R. Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003

Carnal knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a woman. People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Anton Burgos, G.R. No. 117451, September 29, 1997 People of the Phils. vs. Bernardino Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Bon, G.R. No. 149199, January 28, 2003

The crime of rape is thus committed either (a) by carnal knowledge or (b) by the insertion of the penis into the mouth or anal orifice of the victim or by the insertion of any object or instrument into the genital or anal orifice of a person. The sexual congress and the insertion of appellants' fingers into the sex organ of the victim, twice committed, have been sufficiently established. Unexplainably, appellant has not been additionally charged in the information under the second mode of committing rape. People of the Phil. vs. Pedro A. Intong, G.R. Nos. 145034-35, February 5, 2004

The same provisions categorize rape as either simple or qualified. It is qualified when any of the qualifying/aggravating circumstances which attended the commission of the crime — as when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim — is alleged in the Information and proven during trial. (People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

484

Pancho, G.R. No. 136592-93, November 24, 2003) A finding of qualified rape raises the penalty to death. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Layugan, G.R. Nos. 130493-98, April 29, 2004

The first paragraph of Article 266-A refers to the traditional concept of rape; that is, having sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The second paragraph, on the other hand, is categorized as rape by sexual assault. People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Fetalino, G.R. No. 174472, June 19, 2007

The elements of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A are: (1) the offender is a man who had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force or intimidation upon her; or she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or she is under 12 years of age or is demented. People of the Phil. vs. Lito Bejic, G.R. No. 174060, June 25, 2007

Under Paragraph 1 – By Force and Intimidation The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends on the age, size and strength of the persons involved and their relationship to each other. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Savellano, G.R. No. L-31227, May 31, 1974 People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Sarile, G.R. No. L-37148, June 30, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Amado Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978 People of the Phils. vs. Medrillo Rodriguez, G.R. No. 133984, January 30, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003

What is essential is that the act was accomplished against the will of the aggrieved person and in spite of her resistance. People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Sarile, G.R. No. L-37148, June 30, 1976 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003

It is not necessary to show that irresistible force or intimidation accompanied the crime of rape; it suffices to show that force or intimidation was present and did result in the accused copulating with the offended woman against her will.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

485

People of the Phil. vs. Federico Mendoza, G.R. No. L-74653, July 26, 1988 People of the Phil. vs. Martin Bruca, G.R. Nos. 76019-20, November 6, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Ronquillo, G.R. No. 76213, April 6, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Isip, Jr., G.R. No. 70568, August 20, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Belon, G.R. No. 87759, February 26, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Noble Bacalzo, G.R. No. 89811, March 22, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Rael, G.R. No. 64415, December 10, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Dado, G.R. No. 87775, June 1, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Zaballero, G.R. No. 100935, June 30, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jose S. Antonio, G.R. No. 107950, June 17, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Henry Reyes, G.R. No. 122453, July 28, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Ramon, G.R. No. 130407, December 15, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Atienza, G.R. No. 131820, February 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor P. Esteves, G.R. No. 140392, September 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Harold Wally Cabierte, G.R. No. 170477, August 7, 2007

Intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. It is sufficient that the victim is intimidated by the fear that, if she does not yield to the bestial demands of the appellant, something will happen to her at that moment, or even after, as when she is threatened with death if she reports the incident. People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Gerald Tayaban, G.R. No. 128481, September 25, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Apolinario Geromo, G.R. No. 126169, December 21, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandre de los Santos, G.R. No. 137968, November 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Francisco, G.R. No. 141631, April 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Metin, G.R. No. 140781, May 8, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo M. Fabian, G.R. Nos. 148368-70, July 8, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

486

Intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim, and being subjective, its presence cannot be tested by any hard and fast rule. Instead, intimidation should be viewed in the light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the rape. People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Nogar, G.R. No. 133946, September 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Redante C. Santos, G.R. No. 145305, June 26, 2003

The circumstance that, despite her testimony that she had fought and resisted vigorously the sexual assault upon her by the accused, there were no signs of physical injury on her body, does not negate the commission of rape. Force, as an element of the crime of rape, need not be irresistible force; all that is required is that force was successfully used. In People vs. Sarile, the Court explained: "Nor is the credibility that attaches to complainant's narration weakened by the assertion of the inadequacy of the force exerted on her. In another early decision, United States vs. Feliciano Villarosa, G.R. No. 1661, April 19, 1905, (4 Phil. 434), promulgated in 1905, this Court, through Justice Torres, held: 'It is a doctrine well established by the courts that in order to consider the existence of the crime of rape it is not necessary that the force employed in accomplishing it be so great or of such character as could not be resisted; it is only necessary that the force used by the guilty party be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in view. (Judgment May 4, 1878, Supreme Court of Spain.)'. There is this similar ruling in People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Momo, G.R. No. 35235, September 10, 1931 (56 Phil. 86 [1931]): 'It need not be irresistible; 'it need but be present, and so long as it brings about the desired result, all consideration of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.' . . ." (Emphasis supplied) People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Tumalad, G.R. No. 84835, July 31, 1990

Intimidation includes the moral kind as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or pistol. And where such intimidation exists and the victim is cowed into submission as a result thereof, thereby rendering resistance futile, it would be extremely unreasonable, to say the least, to expect the victim to resist with all her might and strength. If resistance would nevertheless be futile because of continuing intimidation, then offering none at all would not mean consent to the assault as to make the victim's participation in the sexual act voluntary. People v. Frias, G.R. No. 203068, September 18, 2013, citing People v. Sgt. Bayani, 331 Phil. 169 (1996) Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

487

The act of holding a knife by itself is strongly suggestive of force or, at least, intimidation, and threatening the victim with a knife is sufficient to bring a woman into submission. It would thus be unreasonable, to say the least, to require AAA to establish that she indeed forcibly resisted the accused-appellant's sexual aggression. People v. Frias, G.R. No. 203068, September 18, 2013

Besides, it is a well-settled rule that in rape cases, it is not necessary that there must be marks of physical violence on the victim's body. People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo G. Soronio, G.R. No. 94362, December 10, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Rabanes, G.R. No. 93709, May 8, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao Generalao, Jr., G.R. No. 93141, September 2, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin S. Tayag, G.R. No. 105803, October 12, 1993

The exertion of irresistible force by the accused is not an element of the offense. The force or violence required in rape cases is relative, it need not be overpowering or irresistible. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Ramos, G.R. Nos. 92626-29, May 27, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin S. Tayag, G.R. No. 105803, October 12, 1993

Also it is not required that the victim should have resisted to death. People of the Phil. vs. Jun Aquino, G.R. No. 83214, May 28, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin S. Tayag, G.R. No. 105803, October 12, 1993

As we have ruled in (People of the Phil. vs. Santos Cañada, G.R. No. 112176, February 6, 1996; People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo G. Miranda, G.R. No. 97425, September 24, 1996; People of the Phil. vs. Gener S. De Guzman, G.R. No. 117217, December 2, 1996) for rape to exist it is not necessary that the force or intimidation employed be so great or of such character as could not be resisted. It is only necessary that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused had in mind. In the instant case, the force need not be so great owing to complainant's weakened condition. In fact, under this situation, the law does not even impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance. What needs only to be established is the use of such force or intimidation by the accused that would facilitate his having sexual intercourse with the victim. (People of the Phil. vs. Percival O. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

488

Gecomo, G.R. Nos. 115035-36, February 23, 1996) People of the Phil. vs. Henry Reyes, G.R. No. 122453, July 28, 1999

Physical resistance need not be established in rape when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself against her will to the rapist's lust because of fear for life and personal safety. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo R. Salazar, G.R. Nos. 98121-22, July 5, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Alipio Quiamco, et al., G.R. No. 96249, February 19, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo O. Rabosa, G.R. Nos. 119362 and 120269, June 9, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Senen Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Romy Sagun, G.R. No. 110554, February 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Cula, et al., G.R. No. 133146, March 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rommel Pine, G.R. No. 133441, November 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Pecayo, Sr., G.R. No. 132047, December 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Marcial L. Llanto, G.R. No. 146458, January 20, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rosendo Layoso Sendong, G.R. No. 141773-76, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Manalo, G.R. Nos. 144989-90, January 31, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003 People v. Cedenio, G.R. No. 201103, September 25, 2013

The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance. People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Dreu, G.R. No. 126282, June 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Iñego Las Piñas, Jr., G.R. No. 133444, February 20, 2002 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

489

People of the Phil. vs. Rosendo Layoso Sendong, G.R. No. 141773-76, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Pascua, G.R. Nos. 128159-62, July 14, 2003

Tenacious resistance against rape is not required; neither is a determined or a persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. In fact, the law does not even impose the burden of proving resistance on the part of the rape victim. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cantos, Sr., G.R. No. 129298, April 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Felixberto Fraga, G.R. Nos. 134130-33, April 12, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Carlos Escaño, G.R. Nos. 140218-23, February 13, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Nexiel Ortega, G.R. No. 137824, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Joel B. Gabawa, G.R. No. 139833, February 28, 2003

While it may be said that tenacious resistance from the victim is not a requirement for the crime of rape, the lack of evidence signifying an obstinate resistance to submit to the intercourse, naturally expected from an unwilling victim, could likewise indicate that no rape has occurred. People of the Phil. vs. Joel Galisim, G.R. No. 144401, November 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Roger Eliarda, G.R. No. 148394-96, April 30, 2003

"It would be plain fallacy to say that the failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance makes voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal act of the offender." It is quite enough that the victim repeatedly tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to resist the advances. People of the Phils. vs. Medrillo Rodriguez, G.R. No. 133984, January 30, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003

Even though a man lays no hand on a woman, yet, if by an array of physical forces, he so overpowers her mind that she does not resist or she ceases resistance through fear of greater harm, the consummation of unlawful intercourse by the man is rape. People of the Phil. vs. Robert Mostrales, G.R. No. 125937, August 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Pascua, G.R. Nos. 128159-62, July 14, 2003

In rape cases, the law does not impose a burden on the rape victim to prove Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

490

resistance because it is not an element of rape. Hence, the absence of abrasions or contusions in AAA's body is inconsequential. Also, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. The failure of a rape victim to offer tenacious resistance does not make her submission to accused's criminal acts voluntary. What is necessary is that the force employed against her was sufficient to consummate the purpose which he has in mind. Sufficient force does not mean great or is of such character that is irresistible; as long as it brings about the desired result, all considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible are beside the point. People v. Bacatan, G.R. No. 203315, September 18, 2013

On the degree of force as an element of rape, this Court finds it "not necessary to show that irresistible force or intimidation accompanied the crime of rape; it suffices to show that force or intimidation was present and did result in the accused copulating with the offended woman against her will." People of the Phil. vs. Harold Wally Cabierte, G.R. No. 170477, August 7, 2007

Paragraph 1 under Section 2 of R.A. No. 8353, which is now Paragraph 1 of the new Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, covers rape through sexual intercourse while paragraph 2 refers to rape by sexual assault. Rape through sexual intercourse is also denominated as "organ rape" or "penile rape." On the other hand, rape by sexual assault is otherwise called "instrument or object rape," also "gender-free rape," or the narrower "homosexual rape." People of the Phil. vs. Alvin S. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, August 17, 2007

Under Paragraph 1 – By Force and intimidation People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010 People of the Phil. vs. Herminigildo Salle Sobusa, G.R. No. 181083, January 21, 2010

Physical resistance is not an essential element of the felony and need not be established when intimidation is exercised upon the victim and the latter submits herself, against her will, to the rapist's embrace because of fear for her life and personal safety. The moral and physical ascendancy of the father over his daughter-victim is sufficient to cow her into submission to his bestial desires. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

491

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando B. Iroy, G.R. No. 187743, March 3, 2010 People of the Phil. vs. Radby M. Estoya, G.R. No. 200531, December 5, 2012

Article 266-A, paragraph (1), (a), (c) and (d) of Republic Act (RA) No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law, amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Under this provision, rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation, or by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, or when the offended party is under 12 years of age. People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Escoton, G.R. No. 183577, February 1, 2010

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Andaya, it was held that "sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape" with or without the attendance of force, threat, or intimidation.” People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Barsaga Abella, G.R. No. 177295, January 6, 2010

When the victim's testimony of her violation is corroborated by the physician's findings of penetration, then there is sufficient foundation to conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal knowledge. People of the Phil. vs. Radby M. Estoya, G.R. No. 200531, December 5, 2012

Incestuous rape In cases of incestuous rape, the perpetrator generally takes full advantage of his blood relationship, ascendancy, and influence over his victim, both to commit the sexual assault and to intimidate the victim into silence. 05plpe

People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio V. Melivo, G.R. No. 113029, February 8, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Alba, G.R. Nos. 131858-59, April 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito M. Marahay, G.R. Nos. 120625-29, January 28, 2003

In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the father's parental Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

492

authority and moral ascendancy over his daughter substitutes for violence and intimidation. People of the Phil. vs. Fermin Igat, G.R. No. 122097, June 22, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Hernani Sandico, G.R. No. 128104, May 18, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Acala, G.R. Nos. 127023-25, May 19, 1999 People of the Phils. vs. David Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Docena, G.R. Nos. 131894-98, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe Sancha, G.R. Nos. 131818-19, February 3, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Traya, G.R. No. 129052, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Del Mundo, G.R. No. 132065, April 3, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Medrillo Rodriguez, G.R. No. 133984, January 30, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Celso Morfi, G.R. Nos. 145449-50, August 1, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Miranda, G.R. No. 142566, August 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Tamsi, G.R. Nos. 142928-29, September 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Apattad, G.R. No. 193188, August 10, 2011

In rape committed by a close kin, moral ascendancy takes the place of violence and intimidation. People of the Phil. vs. Jose V. Musa, G.R. No. 143703, November 23, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe G. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 147656-58, May 9, 2003

On the matter of force or intimidation, we have ruled that in incestuous rape of a minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant's father, would suffice. The moral and physical dominion of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires. The instant case is no exception. Appellant took advantage of his overpowering moral and physical ascendancy to unleash his lechery upon his daughter. In the recent case of People of the Phil. vs. Charmie G. Servano, G.R. Nos. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

493

143002-03, July 17, 2003, we held: We have to bear in mind that in incestuous rape, the minor victim is at a great disadvantage because the assailant, by his overpowering and overbearing moral influence, can easily consummate his bestial lust with impunity. As a consequence, proof of force and violence is unnecessary unlike where the accused is not an ascendant or blood relative of the victim. Thus, the failure of the victim to explicitly verbalize, as in this case, the use of force, threat, or intimidation by the accused should not adversely affect the case of the prosecution as long as there is adequate proof that sexual intercourse did take place. People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Orillosa, G.R. No. 148716-18, July 7, 2004

[N]o young girl would concoct a sordid tale of so serious a crime as rape at the hands of her own father, undergo medical examination, then subject herself to the stigma and embarrassment of a public trial, if her motive was other than a fervent desire to seek justice. People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, December 5, 2012

Physical Assault Her contusion on the right cheek and hematoma on the right thigh are ample proof of struggle and resistance against rape. These physical evidence showing the use of brutal force on the victim when she was sexually assaulted certainly speak louder than words. People of the Phil. vs. Hermie Bantilan, G.R. No. 129286, September 14, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Manallo, G.R. No. 143704, March 28, 2003

Under Paragraph 2 – Woman is Deprived of Reason or Otherwise Unconscious Under this type of rape, the elements necessary for conviction are: (1) that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is deprived of reason. People of the Phil. vs. Nestor J. Tan, G.R. No. 89316, July 12, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Bacaling, G.R. No. 133994-95, March 14, 2003

To warrant a conviction for rape under paragraph (2) of Article 335, a woman need not be proven as completely insane or deprived of reason. The phrase "deprived of reason" has been construed to include those suffering from mental abnormality or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

494

deficiency; or some form of mental retardation; the feeble-minded but coherent; or even those suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency of reason. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Guerrero, G.R. No. 95031, March 23, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Almacin, G.R. No. 113253, February 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Joel B. Gabawa, G.R. No. 139833, February 28, 2003

That the victim was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the rape was established by the unrebutted testimony of the doctor. However, the fact alone that the victim suffered from schizophrenia did not render her incompetent to testify on the rape incident. Mental deficiency affects the weight accorded to the testimony, not its admissibility. Accordingly, an adjudication of feeblemindedness or unsoundness of mind does not render a witness incompetent, as long as her mental condition or mental maturity is not impaired at the time of her production for the examination. [Section 21 (a) and (b), Rule 130, Revised Rules of Court] It is established that schizophrenic persons do not suffer from a clouding of consciousness and gross deficits of memory. [People vs. Baid, G.R. No. 129667, July 31, 2000, citing A. Tasman, G. Kay, and Lieberman, Psychiatry 947-948 (1997)] Though she may not have totally lost her memory, it was shown that Eusebia was suffering from an impairment of judgment, which made her incapable of giving an intelligent consent to the sexual act. It has been held that where the rape victim is feeble-minded, even if there may have been no physical force employed on the victim, the force required by the statute is the sexual act itself. [People vs. Rosare, G.R. No. 118823 November 19, 1996, citing Commonwealth vs. Stephens, 17A 2d 919] People of the Phil. vs. Joel B. Gabawa, G.R. No. 139833, February 28, 2003

Sexual intercourse with an insane, deranged, or mentally deficient, feebleminded, or idiotic woman is rape, pure and simple. People of the Phil. vs. Andres P. Lubong, G.R. No. 132295, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Ferdinand A. Omar, G.R. No. 120656, March 3, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Joel B. Gabawa, G.R. No. 139833, February 28, 2003

The term "woman deprived of reason" includes one suffering from mental retardation. People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Almacin, G.R. No. 113253, February 19, 1999

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

495

People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Bacaling, G.R. No. 133994-95, March 14, 2003

The allegation that appellant and the victim were sweethearts is not a plausible defense. In previously decided rape cases involving mental retardates, other accused have tried to use this defense, but to no avail. People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo U. Gallano, G.R. No. L-51565, October 23, 1981 People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Asturias, G.R. No. 61126, January 31, 1985 People of the Phil. vs. Geronimo Goles, G.R. No. 91513, December 21, 1990 People of the Phil. vs. Orpiano delos Santos, G.R. No. 141128, August 30, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Bacaling, G.R. No. 133994-95, March 14, 2003

Sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape, which does not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction. People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy P. Padilla, G.R. No. 126124, January 20, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Montano Lopez, G.R. Nos. 135671-72, November 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Jackson, G.R. No. 131842, June 10, 2003

However, the fact of her mental retardation was not alleged in the Information and, therefore, cannot be the basis of conviction. People of the Phil. vs. Ulysses Capinpin, G.R. No. 118608, October 30, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Jackson, G.R. No. 131842, June 10, 2003

It bears stressing that force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. In this case, the victim is a mental retardate. The appellant took advantage of her condition and succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Hence, he is guilty of forcible rape: In the case of Commonwealth vs. Stephens, the issue involved was whether the carnal knowledge of a woman who was insane at the time of the commission of the act constitutes rape where there is no proof that the act was accomplished with physical force and such insanity was not alleged in the information. The court held that: "Appellant also contends that there cannot be a conviction because the indictment Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

496

charged the commission of the act forcibly and against the will of the alleged victim, while the evidence at most proved carnal knowledge of a woman who was insane. There is no merit in this objection. . . "Common-law rape may be committed in one of several ways, and it is not necessary to set out in the indictment the means or the method employed. It was not required that the indictment allege that the victim was insane and incapable of giving her conscious consent. A forcible ravishment is one done against a woman's will; if it is done against her will, it is of necessity without her consent; if she is insane or too weak of mind to give a rational consent, then it follows that she has been forcibly ravished. . . . ". . . (C)arnal knowledge of an insane woman, knowing her to be insane, is rape. There is a lack of capacity to consent, and it is presumed that the act was done without her consent, hence it is against the female's will; the force required may be in the wrongful act itself. It follows that such act is done 'forcibly and against her will.' In an indictment the office of the words 'against her will' is merely to negative consent." People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Balatazo, G.R. No. 118027, January 29, 2004 Salvador A. Flordeliz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010

Unconscious Victim It is but to be expected that if the sexual assault was committed against the victim while the latter was in a state of unconsciousness, she would not be able to testify on the actual act of sexual intercourse. It is precisely when the sexual intercourse is performed when the victim is unconscious that the act constitutes the statutory offense of rape (e)specially when, as in the instant case, the loss of consciousness was the result of appellant's act of violence. . . . . . . Of course, an unconscious woman will not know who is raping her. If the defense theory were to be adopted, then it would be impossible to convict any person who rapes an unconscious woman, except only where a third person witnesses the crime. Henceforth, the clever rapist would simply knock his potential victim out of her senses before actually raping her, to be later immunized from conviction for insufficient identity. In a situation like this, the identity of the rapist is determined by the events preceding or following the victim's loss of consciousness. . . . Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

497

In the same vein, a woman raped while unconscious will not be able to narrate to the court her defloration during that state. Nonetheless, her violation may be proved indirectly by other evidence. People of the Phil.vs. Florencio "Boy" Palapal, G.R. No. L-42646, June 29, 1982 People of the Phil.vs. Rosauro San Pedro, G.R. No. 94128, February 3, 1993 People of the Phil.vs. Mario Fabro y Arquiza, G.R. No. 104954, December 18, 1994 People of the Phil.vs. Marlon Sarazan, G.R. No. 123269-72, January 22, 2003

The carnal knowledge of an unconscious woman constitutes rape, opposition or resistance not being required, for the state of the woman at that time signifies that she has no will. People of the Phil.vs. Nonoy Dizon, G.R. Nos. 126044-45, July 2, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Cultura, G.R. No. 133831, February 14, 2003

Under Paragraph 3 - Statutory rape Under paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, statutory rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. In this specie of rape, neither force by the man nor resistance from the woman forms an element of the crime and apparent consent thereto will be of no avail, any more than in the case of a child who may actually consent but who by law is conclusively held incapable of legal consent. The law presumes that the victim on account of her tender years, does not and cannot have a will of her own. The heart of the matter is the violation of a child's incapacity to discern evil from good. In the instant case, it was proven that appellant had carnal knowledge of Maria who was then under 12 years of age. People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Natan, G.R. No. 181086, July 23, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso B. Mendoza, G.R. No. 188669, February 16, 2010

The two elements of statutory rape are (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) that the woman is below twelve years of age. People of the Phil vs. Rodolfo Bato, G.R. No. 134939, February 16, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 5, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

498

People of the Phil. vs. Roberto A. Tampos, G.R. No. 142740, August 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Sonny V. Rentoria, G.R. No. 175333, September 21, 2007

Under, Article 266-A(d) 27 of the Revised Penal Code, when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, there is rape even in the absence of force, threat or intimidation. People of the Phil vs. Dionisio Rote, G.R. No. 146188, December 11, 2003 People of the Phil vs. Alberto Luceriano, G.R. No. 145223, February 11, 2004 People of the Phil vs. Geronimo M. Boromeo, G.R. No. 150501, June 3, 2004

In statutory rape, time is not an essential element. What is important is that the information alleges that the victim was a minor under twelve years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her, even if no force or intimidation was used or she was not otherwise deprived of reason. People of the Phil vs. Benjamin M. Hilet, G.R. Nos. 146685-86, April 30, 2003

Art. 335 par. 3 is clear that mere sexual congress with a woman below twelve years of age consummates the crime of statutory rape regardless of her consent to the act or the lack of it. The law presumes that a woman of tender age does not possess discernment and is incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. (People vs. Conchada, G.R. Nos. L-39367-69, February 28, 1979; People vs. Henson, G.R. No. 116732, April 2, 1997. Thus, it was held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if she is engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory rape. (Aquino, Revised Penal Code, vol. III, 1997 ed., pp. 412-414, citing People vs. Perez, CA, 37 O.G. 947; People vs. Parido, 44 O.G. 2964) The application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of the victim becomes irrelevant. The absence of struggle or outcry of the victim or even her passive submission to the sexual act will not mitigate nor absolve the accused from liability. (People vs. Garga, G.R. No. 109396-97, July 17, 1996). People of the Phil vs. Juanito Quinagoran, G.R. No. 105327, September 30, 1999 People of the Phils. vs. Romeo G. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76, November 16, 2001

In any prosecution involving an unchaste act perpetrated by a man against a woman where the willingness of the woman is material such as rape and acts of lasciviousness, the woman's character as to her chastity is admissible to show whether or not she consented to man's act. 26 Hence, in a prosecution for rape, or for Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

499

enticement to prostitution, or in an action or prosecution for indecent assault, the likes of acts of lasciviousness, the woman's character as to chastity is admissible, but not in a prosecution for rape under the age of consent, because in a trial for sex offenses where the woman's consent is immaterial and not in issue, it follows that the woman's unchastity would likewise be immaterial, like a charge for rape of a woman under twelve (12) years of age. David C. Naval, et al. vs. Jose R. Panday, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-95-1283, December 21, 1999

To constitute sexual congress with a girl of minor age into a crime of incestuous rape, it is sufficient that the accused exercised a pervasive influence and control over the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Metin, G.R. No. 140781, May 8, 2003

To convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: first, the age of the complainant; second, the identity of the accused; and last but not the least, the carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant. People of the Phil. vs. Nelson B. Balunsat, G.R. No. 176743, July 28, 2010

Age of victim The victim's age is relevant in rape cases since it may constitute an element of the offense, particularly under Paragraph 3 of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. xxx Furthermore, the victim's age may constitute a qualifying circumstance, warranting the imposition of the death sentence. People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 5, 2003

The failure to sufficiently establish the victim's age with factual certainty and beyond reasonable doubt is fatal and consequently bars conviction for rape in its qualified form. People of the Phil vs. Amado Sandrias Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio Villarama, G.R. No. 139211, February 12, 2003

In cases calling for a conviction of rape in its qualified form, the age of the victim, without qualification, is not a matter of judicial notice, whether mandatory or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

500

discretionary. People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Tundag, G.R. Nos. 135695-96, October 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Liban, G.R. Nos. 136247 and 138330, November 22, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio Villarama, G.R. No. 139211, February 12, 2003

Recent rulings of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. People of the Phil vs. Amado Sandrias Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Brigildo, G.R. No. 124129, January 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Cula, et al., G.R. No. 133146, March 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Tabanggay, G.R. No. 130504, June 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Willy Marquez, G.R. No. 137408-10, December 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Pecayo, Sr., G.R. No. 132047, December 14, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Alipar, G.R. No. 137282, March 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Alvarado, G.R. No. 145730, March 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Desuyo, G.R. No. 140406, April 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Aparejado, G.R. No. 139447, July 23, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Tamsi, G.R. Nos. 142928-29, September 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003

The matter of appreciating the age of the victim, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, was settled when the Court, in the case of People vs. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471 [Oct. 10, 2002], laid down the following guidelines: 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

501

date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. 6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, December 5, 2012 People of the Phil. vs. Terencio L. Funesto, G.R. No. 182237, August 3, 2011 People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio Villarama, G.R. No. 139211, February 12, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 5, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado R. Corial, G.R. No. 143125, June 10, 2003 People of the Philippines vs. Manuel Pruna, et al., G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rodel Antivola, G.R. No. 139236, February 3, 2004 People of the Phils. vs. Bobby Orense, G.R. No. 152969, July 7, 2004 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

502

There can be no question as to the admissibility of a person's appearance in determining his or her age. As to the weight to accord such appearance, especially in rape cases, Pruna laid down guideline no. 3. People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 5, 2003

The foregoing guidelines (Pruna guidelines, for short) apply herein despite their being promulgated subsequent to the filing of the information, for they were only an amalgamation of the norms on proving the age of the victim in rape variously defined in jurisprudence. People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo F. Lupac, G.R. No. 182230, September 19, 2012

Proof of age is critical, considering that the victim, at the time of the rape, was alleged to have been just two years less than seven (7) years. Given the similarities in physical features and attributes between a five-year-old and a seven-year-old child, courts cannot take judicial notice of this circumstance. Independent proof of age is necessary to convince this Tribunal that the victim was indeed below seven (7) years of age when she was raped and that, therefore, the imposition of the death penalty was justified. The Court here 'emphasizes that the severity, as well as the irreversible and final nature, of the penalty of death once carried out makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.' We have consistently ruled that the age of the victim must not only be specifically alleged in the information, but must likewise be established beyond reasonable doubt during trial. People of the Phil. vs. Benito Lachica, G.R. No. 143677, May 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Silveno Estado, G.R. No. 150867, February 5, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Maximo P. Ibarrientos, G.R. Nos. 148063-64, June 17, 2004

Past sexual relations or moral character of victim For the determination of the appellant's culpability in the present case, it would be unnecessary to delve into the past sexual relations of the victim for the fact that the victim had several sexual liaisons will not rule out the crime of rape (People vs. Hortillano, G.R. No. 71116, September 19, 1989); even prostitutes may be raped.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

503

People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio L. Rivera, et al., G.R. Nos. 88298-99, March 1, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Excija, G.R. No. 119069, July 5, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Barera, G.R. No. 99867, September 19, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Edualino, G.R. No. 119072, April 11, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Dante Alfeche, et al., G.R. No. 124213, August 17, 1998 People of the Phil vs. Amado Sandrias Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Rosales, G.R. No. 124920, September 8, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Enrique A. Coloma, G.R. No. 95755, May 18, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Caratay, G.R. No. 119418, October 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Donato Bernaldez, G.R. Nos. 132779-82, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Docena, G.R. Nos. 131894-98, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Mitra, G.R. No. 130669, March 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Benido Alcartado, et al., G.R. Nos. 132379-82, June 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128149, July 24, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Melendres, G.R. Nos. 133999-4001, August 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Baniguid, G.R. No. 137714, September 8, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Reynaldo Bares, G.R. Nos. 137762-65, March 27, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ian Gonzaga, G.R. Nos. 135402-03, September 7, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Conde Rapisora y Estrada, G.R. Nos. 140934-35, October 23, 2001 People of the Phils. vs. Oscar M. Dante, G.R. No. 127652, December 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Baluya, G.R. No. 133005, April 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Aaron, G.R. Nos. 136300-02, September 24, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Manallo, G.R. No. 143704, March 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003

For she can still refuse a man's lustful advances. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

504

People of the Phil vs. Norberto Igdanes, G.R. No. 105804, May 5, 1997 People of the Phil vs. Amado Sandrias Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999 People of the Phil vs. Anthony E. Sandig, G.R. No. 143124, July 25, 2003

The victim's character in rape is immaterial. (People vs. Dela Peña, G.R. No. 128372, March 12, 2001) When a victim of rape says she was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has been inflicted on her, and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof. (People vs. Ambray, G.R. No. 127177, February 25, 1999) People of the Phil. vs. Benido Alcartado, et al., G.R. Nos. 132379-82, June 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ian Gonzaga, G.R. Nos. 135402-03, September 7, 2001 People of the Philippines vs. Pio Dacara y Nacional, G.R. No. 135822, October 25, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Callos, G.R. No. 133478, January 16, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Antonio, G.R. No. 145726, March 26, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Hermosa, G.R. Nos. 140439-40, June 18, 2003

Rape is certainly not confined to single women and children. Prostitutes have also been victims of rape. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio L. Rivera, et al., G.R. Nos. 88298-99, March 1, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Barera, G.R. No. 99867, September 19, 1996 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Edualino, G.R. No. 119072, April 11, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Dante Alfeche, et al., G.R. No. 124213, August 17, 1998

so have middle-aged women, People of the Phil. vs. Inoferio Venerable, G.R. No 110110, May 13, 1998

married women, mothers, and even women who are on the fifth month of pregnancy. People of the Phil. vs. Robert Mostrales, G.R. No. 125937, August 28, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Docena, G.R. Nos. 131894-98, January 20, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

505

The essence of rape is the carnal knowledge of a woman against her consent. The victim's moral character in rape is immaterial where, as in this case, it is shown that intimidation was used to force the victim to have sex with the appellant. Settled is the rule that when there is no showing that private complainant was impelled by improper motive in making the accusation against the accused, her complaint is entitled to full faith and credence. People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Lacanieta, et al., G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Adelio Conde, G.R. No. 133647, April 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Baluya, G.R. No. 133005, April 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Roneto Degamo, G.R. No. 121211, April 30, 2003

Testimony of rape victim In rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things. People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel Flores, G.R. No. 130713, January 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Bayona, G.R. Nos. 133343-44, March 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Calimlim, G.R. No. 123980, August 30, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Delos Santos, G.R. No. 134525, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Genaro Biong, G.R. No. 144445-47, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo M. Fabian, G.R. Nos. 148368-70, July 8, 2003

Inasmuch as the crime of rape is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy, it is usually the victim alone who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced sexual intercourse. Therefore, in a prosecution for rape, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single and most important point to consider. Thus, if the victim's testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused can justifiably be convicted on the basis of this testimony; otherwise, the accused should be acquitted of the crime. People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 200508, September 4, 2013 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

506

In a prosecution for rape, the complainant’s credibility is the single most important issue. When her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 134288-89, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben H. Dalisay, G.R. No. No. 133926, August 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Layugan, G.R. Nos. 130493-98, April 29, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Santiago A. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 132125-26, June 3, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Federico Ortizuela, G.R. No. 135675, June 23, 2004

The peculiar nature of rape is that conviction or acquittal depends almost entirely upon the word of the private complainant People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Alitagtag, G.R. Nos. 124449-51, June 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Rene Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence Macapanpan, et al., G.R. No. 133003, April 9, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Grefaldia, G.R. No. 121637, April 30, 2003

because it is essentially committed in relative isolation or even secrecy and it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the act of forced coitus. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando M. Domingo, et al., G.R. No. 97921, September 8, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Romy Sagun, G.R. No. 110554, February 19, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Baltazar y Estacio @ "Joey", G.R. No. 115990, March 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence Macapanpan, et al., G.R. No. 133003, April 9, 2003

When the testimony of a rape victim is consistent with the medical findings sufficient basis exists to warrant a conclusion that essential requisites of carnal knowledge has thereby been established. People of the Phil. vs. Joel Galisim, G.R. No. 144401, November 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Somodio, G.R. Nos. 134139-40, February 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, January 22, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

507

People of the Phil. vs. Joel B. Gabawa, G.R. No. 139833, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Grefaldia, G.R. No. 121637, April 30, 2003

Hence, in adjudicating such issue, jurisprudence has established the following guidelines: (1) the victim's testimony must be scrutinized with extreme caution since an accusation of rape can be made with facility, but difficult for the accused to disprove it; and (2) when her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 134288-89, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ruben H. Dalisay, G.R. No. No. 133926, August 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Santiago A. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 132125-26, June 3, 2004

In resolving rape cases, the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons normally are involved, the testimony of the complainant must always be scrutinized with great caution, and the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and should not be allowed to gain validity from the lack of evidence for the defense. People of the Phil. vs. Emil Babera, G.R. No. 130609, May 20, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Manayan, G.R. Nos. 142741-43, October 25. 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, January 22, 2003 People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence Macapanpan, et al., G.R. No. 133003, April 9, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Roger Eliarda, G.R. No. 148394-96, April 30, 2003

Moreover, rape is a painful experience which is oftentimes not remembered in detail. It causes deep psychological wounds, often forcing the victim's conscience or subconscious to forget the traumatic experience, and casts a stigma upon the victim, scarring her psyche for life. [People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Cula, et al., G.R. No. 133146, March 28, 2000] A rape victim cannot thus be expected to keep an accurate account and remember every ugly detail of the appalling and horrifying outrage perpetrated on her especially since she might in fact have been trying not to remember them. Rape victims do not cherish in their memories an accurate account of when and Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

508

how, and the number of times they were violated. [People vs. Historillo, G.R. No. 130408, June 16, 2000] Error-free testimony cannot be expected most especially when a young victim of rape is recounting details of a harrowing experience, one which even an adult would like to bury in oblivion deep in the recesses of her mind, never to be resurrected. [People vs. Tumala, G.R. No. 122100, January 20, 1998] Moreover, a rape victim testifying in the presence of strangers, face to face with her tormentor and being cross-examined by his hostile and intimidating lawyer would be benumbed with tension and nervousness and this can affect the accuracy of her testimony. [People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 118332, March 26, 1997; People vs. Arafiles, G.R. No. 128814, February 9, 2000] Often, the answers to long-winded and at times misleading questions propounded to her are not responsive. However, considering her youth and her traumatic experience, ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to a young victim of a vicious crime like rape. People of the Phil. vs. Placido Luna, G.R. No. 135241, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Jackson, G.R. No. 131842, June 10, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Esperanza, G.R. Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003

It is a well-entrenched jurisprudential rule that the credibility of a rape victim is augmented when she has no motive to testify against the appellant or where there is absolutely no evidence which even remotely suggest that she could have been actuated by such motive. People of the Phil. vs. Senen Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Manallo, G.R. No. 143704, March 28, 2003

The cry of the victim during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience. People of the Phil. vs. Joel de Guzman, G.R. No. 132071, October 16, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, January 22, 2003

No woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, the humiliation and the dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished. The embarrassment and stigma she suffers in allowing an examination of her private parts and testifying in open court on the painfully intimate details of her ravishment effectively rule out the possibility of a false accusation of rape. Her account of her Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

509

horrible ordeal evidences sincerity and truthfulness. People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Ramirez, G.R. No. 97920, January 20, 1997, 334 Phil. 305 People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Pontilar Jr., G.R. No. 104865, July 11, 1997, 341 Phil. 333 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 142561-62, February 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003

The willingness of complainants to face police investigation and to undergo the trouble and humiliation of a public trial is eloquent testimony of the truth of their complaints. People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Melencio Bali-Balita, G.R. No. 134266, September 15, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Galigao, G.R. Nos. 140961-63, January 14, 2003

The determination of the outcome of every rape case hinges upon the credibility of the complainant's testimony. If the complainant testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous, and consistent manner, then she is considered a credible witness and her testimony is worthy of judicial acceptance. People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Perez, G.R. No. 118332, March 26, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Corral, G.R. Nos. 145172-74, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003

The assessment of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Pontilar Jr., G.R. No. 104865, July 11, 1997, 341 Phil. 333 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Corral, G.R. Nos. 145172-74, February 28, 2003

We have ruled on numerous occasions that minor inconsistencies in rape cases will not necessarily derail the testimony of the offended party, for rape victims cannot be Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

510

expected to be precise in recounting the details of a clearly harrowing experience. People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Aguero, Jr., G.R. No. 139410, September 20, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy S. Plurad, G.R. Nos. 138361-63, December 3, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003

As long as the testimony is consistent on material points, slightly conflicting statements will not undermine the witness' credibility nor the veracity of the testimony. People of the Phil. vs. Tacio Emilio, G.R. Nos. 144305-07, February 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003

When her testimony is straightforward and candid, unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points, it must be given full faith and credit. People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Gopio, G.R. No 133925, Nov. 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Genaro Biong, G.R. No. 144445-47, April 30, 2003

Young Victims It is well-settled that testimonies of victims who are young and of tender age deserve full credence and should not be so easily, dismissed as a mere fabrication [People vs. Atienza, G.R. No. 131820, February 29, 2000] especially where she has absolutely no motive to testify against the accused. [People vs. Arofo, et al., G.R. No. 139433, April 11, 2002, citing People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 133859, August 24, 2000) and People vs. Dabon, G.R. No. 102004, December 16, 1992] People of the Phil.vs. Marlon Sarazan, G.R. No. 123269-72, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Placido Luna, G.R. No. 135241, January 22, 2003

Established is the rule that testimonies of rape victims, especially child victims, are given full weight and credit. In a litany of cases, we have ruled that when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to prove that rape was committed. (People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Mariño, G.R. No. 132550, February 19, 2001) People of the Phil. vs. Joel Corea, G.R. No. 114383, March 3, 1997 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

511

People of the Phil. vs. Anastacio Malabago, G.R. No. 108613, April 18, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Cirilo Balmoria, G.R. Nos. 120620-21, March 20, 1998, 351 Phil. 188 People of the Phil. vs. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 124895, March 1, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Mariño, G.R. No. 132550, February 19, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Tadeo, G.R. Nos. 128884-85, December 3, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Faustino Dulay, G.R. Nos. 144082-83, April 18, 2002 People of the Phil.vs. Marlon Sarazan, G.R. No. 123269-72, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil vs. Benjamin M. Hilet, G.R. Nos. 146685-86, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Genaro Biong, G.R. No. 144445-47, April 30, 2003

Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. (People vs. Nardo, G.R. No. 133888, March 1, 2001) Courts usually give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, particularly in cases of incestuous rape, because no woman would be willing to undergo a public trial and put up with the shame, humiliation and dishonor of exposing her own degradation were it not to condemn an injustice and to have the offender apprehended and punished. (People vs. Adora, G.R. Nos. 116528-31, July 14, 1997) People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Nardo, G.R. No. 133888, March 1, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Lalingjaman, G.R. No. 132714, September 6, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Sailito Perez, G.R. Nos. 141647-51, March 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Felicito Silvano, G.R. Nos. 141105-11, March 8, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Galigao, G.R. Nos. 140961-63, January 14, 2003 People of the Phil.vs. Marlon Sarazan, G.R. No. 123269-72, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Noli Novio, G.R. No. 139332, June 20, 2003

In assessing the testimony of a young victim, it would be unfair to apply the standards used for adults. It should be viewed as a narration of a minor who barely Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

512

understands sex and sexuality. People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Asuncion, G.R. No. 136779, September 7, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jaime P. Gonzales, G.R. No. 140676, July 31, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003

We give greater weight to the testimony of a girl who is a victim of sexual assault, especially a minor, for it is most unnatural for a young and immature girl to fabricate a story as sordid as her own defilement, allow a medical examination of her genitalia, subject herself to a public trial and expose herself to public ridicule for no reason other than her thirst for justice. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando M. Domingo, et al., G.R. No. 97921, September 8, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Donato Lagrosa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 105956-57, February 23, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Allan Junio y Cortez, G.R. No. 110990, October 28, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Marieto Adora, G.R. Nos. 116528-31, July 14, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Erlindo Talo, G.R. No. 125542, October 25, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Montemayor, G.R. No. 124474, January 28, 2003

Indeed, no woman, especially one of tender age (or a young barrio lass inexperienced in the ways of the world), would concoct a story of defloration, allow the examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being subjected to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by an innate desire to have the culprit apprehended and punished for his dastardly acts. People of the Phil. vs. Donato Lagrosa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 105956-57, February 23, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Allan Junio y Cortez, G.R. No. 110990, October 28, 1994 People of the Phil. vs. Marieto Adora, G.R. Nos. 116528-31, July 14, 1997, 341 Phil. 441 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Bernaldez, G.R. No. 109780, August 17, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Segui, G.R. Nos. 131532-34, November 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Placido Luna, G.R. No. 135241, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito M. Marahay, G.R. Nos. 120625-29, January 28, 2003

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

513

People of the Phil. vs. Alex Manallo, G.R. No. 143704, March 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin P. Medina Sr., G.R. Nos. 127756-58, June 18, 2003

It bears emphasis that when the offended parties are young and immature girls from the ages of twelve to sixteen, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, considering not only their relative vulnerability but also the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by the trial if the matter about which they testified is not true. People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Ponsica, G.R. Nos. 137661-63 July 4, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Torellos, G.R. No. 143084, April 1, 2003

Parental punishment or disciplinary chastisement is not enough reason for a daughter in a Filipino family to falsely accuse her father of rape. She would not subject herself to an examination of her private parts, undergo the trauma and humiliation of a public trial and embarrass herself with the need to narrate in detail how she was raped if she was not in fact raped. People of the Phil. vs. Felizardo Gonzales, G.R. No. 133859, August 24, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Bertulfo, G.R. No. 143790, May 7, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 146464-67, November 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Solomon Purazo, G.R. No. 133189, May 5, 2003

Medical examination/certificate In any event, a medical examination is not essential in the prosecution of a rape case; a medical examination, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character. Such a report is not an indispensable requirement for conviction for what matters greatly is the clear, unequivocal and credible testimony of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Dominico Licanda, G.R. No. 134084, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ramon N. Logmao, G.R. Nos. 134831-32, July 31, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Ferrer, G.R. No. 142662, August 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dawisan, G.R. No. 122095, Sept. 13, 2001

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

514

People of the Phil. vs. Jose Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 142561-62, February 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rico B. Bagaua, G.R. No. 147943, December 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino J. Iluis, G.R. No. 145995, March 20, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Terencio Funesto, G.R. No. 143432, April 9, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003

Mother of victim No mother in her right mind would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape if she were not motivated solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for the child's defilement. [People vs. Perez, G.R. No. 129213, December 2, 1999] Courts are seldom, if at all, convinced that a mother would stoop so low as to subject her daughter to physical hardship and shame concomitant to a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings. [People vs. Marcelo, G.R. No. 126714, March 22, 1999] People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, March 5, 2003

It is unnatural for a mother to use her offspring as an instrument of malice, even for the purpose of avenging a personal slight, especially if it will subject her daughter to the embarrassment and stigma attendant to a rape trial. People of the Phil. vs. Armando Quilatan, G.R. No. 132725, September 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Randolph Jaquilmac, G.R. No. 139787, September 17, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin P. Medina Sr., G.R. Nos. 127756-58, June 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Redante C. Santos, G.R. No. 145305, June 26, 2003

Testimony of victim against her father Incestuous rape is a psycho-social deviance that inflicts stigma, not only on the victim but on the entire family as well. People of the Phil. vs. Federico A. Burce, G.R. Nos. 108604-10, March 7, 1997 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

515

People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Rodavia, G.R. Nos. 133008-24, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Manluctao, G.R. Nos. 143760-63, June 23, 2003

It would take the most senseless kind of depravity for a daughter to fabricate a story that would send her father to death, only because he had scolded her or because they did not see eye to eye. People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo Alvero, G.R. Nos. 134536-38, April 5, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dogaojo y Morante, G.R. Nos. 137834-40, December 3, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003

A child, innocent and naive to the ways of the world, is not likely to make an accusation of so serious a crime as incestuous rape if it was not the plain truth, or if her motive was not purely to bring the offender to justice. People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Nuñez y Dubduban, G.R. No. 128875, July 8, 1999, 369 Phil. 422 People of the Phil. vs. Arlengen Degala, G.R. Nos. 129292-93, June 20, 2001, 411 Phil. 650 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Balas, G.R. No. 138838, December 11, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Marcellana, G.R. Nos. 137401-03, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003

A rape victim's testimony against her father is entitled to great weight, since reverence and respect for elders is deeply ingrained in Filipino children and is recognized by law. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Panganiban, G.R. Nos. 138439-41, June 25, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Flores, G.R. Nos. 145309-10, April 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003

Indeed, it would be most unnatural for young and immature girls to fabricate a story of rape by their father; allow a medical examination of their genitalia, subject themselves to a public trial and expose themselves to public ridicule at the instigation of their mother in order that the mother can carry on an alleged illicit relation with a Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

516

paramour. People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Perez, G.R. No. 113265, March 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Galigao, G.R. Nos. 140961-63, January 14, 2003

It is against human nature for a girl to fabricate a story that would expose herself as well as her family to a lifetime of dishonor, especially when her charge could mean the death of her own father. People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Manlod, G.R. Nos. 142901-02, July 23, 2002 People of the Philippines vs. Gerry H. Ebio, G.R. No. 147750, October 14, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito M. Marahay, G.R. Nos. 120625-29, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Antonio, G.R. No. 145726, March 26, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003

In short, it is most improbable for innocent and guileless girls such as complainants to brazenly impute a crime so serious as rape to any man, let alone their father, if it were not true. People of the Phil. vs. Willy Marquez, G.R. No. 137408-10, December 8, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Roberto Segovia, G.R. No. 138974, September 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Galigao, G.R. Nos. 140961-63, January 14, 2003

It should be emphasized that no member of a rape victim's family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose the dishonor to the family unless the crime was in fact committed, more so in this case where the victim and the offender belong to the same family. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santos, G.R. No. 137993, April 11, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Flores, G.R. Nos. 145309-10, April 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Esperanza, G.R. Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003

It is inconceivable for a daughter to fabricate the charge of rape against her father, which may be punishable by death, if her sole purpose is to separate him from his mistress. Family resentment, revenge or feud have never swayed the Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a complainant for rape, especially a minor, who remained steadfast in her testimony, throughout the direct and Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

517

cross-examinations, that she was sexually abused. People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Batoon, G.R. No. 134194, October 26, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Eloy Miclat, Jr., G.R. No. 137024, August 7, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003

Conduct of victim The conduct of the victim immediately following the assault was of utmost importance to establish the truth or falsity of the charge of rape. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Mariano, G.R. No. 134309, November 17, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Amador Bismonte y Beringuela, G.R. No. 139563, November 22, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Moralde, G.R. No. 131860, January 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence Macapanpan, et al., G.R. No. 133003, April 9, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Cultura, G.R. No. 133831, February 14, 2003

The initial reluctance of a rape victim to publicly reveal the assault on her virtue is neither unknown nor uncommon. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Dagpin, G.R. No. 136254, December 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003

The vacillation of a rape victim in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair her credibility as a witness. People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Edem, G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003

The silence of the offended party in a case of rape, or her failure to disclose her defilement without loss of time to persons close to her and to report the matter to the authorities, does not perforce warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Yambao, G.R. No. 77778, February 6, 1991

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

518

People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Bertulfo, G.R. No. 143790, May 7, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Tacio Emilio, G.R. Nos. 144305-07, February 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe G. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 147656-58, May 9, 2003

Delay in reporting the crime neither diminishes her credibility nor undermines her charges, particularly when the delay can be attributed to a pattern of fear instilled by the threats of one who exercises moral ascendancy over her. People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Marcellana, G.R. Nos. 137401-03, February 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003

If delay in making a criminal accusation is satisfactorily explained, it does not impair the credibility of a witness. People of the Phil. vs. Efren Narido, G.R. No. 132058, October 1, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Tanail, G.R. No. 125279, January 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Tacio Emilio, G.R. Nos. 144305-07, February 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Francisco, G.R. No. 141631, April 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe G. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 147656-58, May 9, 2003

AAA's delay in filing a complaint against the accused-appellant is not an indicia of consent to the latter's sexual design. Delay in reporting an incident of rape does not create any doubt over the credibility of the complainant nor can it be taken against her. That it took several months before AAA was able to file a complaint against the accused-appellant does not tarnish her credibility and the veracity of her allegations. The threat made by the accused-appellant against her life and that of her siblings is sufficient reason to cow AAA into silence, especially considering that she was just a minor then. People v. Frias, G.R. No. 203068, September 18, 2013

Moreover, the delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render such charge unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

519

People v. Frias, G.R. No. 203068, September 18, 2013

The victim’s conduct of simply going home after the commission of the rape should not be taken against her. The non-revelation of the first and succeeding incidents of rape can be attributed to the fear created in her mind by the threats appellant made against her. Rape victims, especially child victims, should not be expected to act the way mature individuals would when placed in such a situation. It is not proper to judge the actions of children who have undergone traumatic experience by the norms of behavior expected from adults under similar circumstances. "The range of emotions shown by rape victims is yet to be captured even by the calculus. It is thus unrealistic to expect uniform reactions from rape victims". People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Sta. Ana, G.R. Nos. 115657-59, June 26, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo G. Dizon, G.R. No. 129236, October 17, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Montemayor, G.R. No. 124474, January 28, 2003

This Court has often ruled that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of threats of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Arthur De Leon, G.R. Nos. 124338-41, May 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Wilson G. Salvador, G.R. Nos. 136870-72, January 28, 2003

Failure or delay in reporting a carnal violation committed by a father against his daughter due to threats is hardly unjustified. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Guiwan, G.R. No. 117324, April 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar A. Calamlam, G.R. Nos. 137414-15, May 29, 2003

For the father's moral ascendancy can lead the daughter to suffer in silence. People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Traya, G.R. No. 129052, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Oscar A. Calamlam, G.R. Nos. 137414-15, May 29, 2003

Rape victims prefer to suffer in private than reveal their ordeal to the public and suffer the humiliation and simultaneously risk the rapists' making good the threat to hurt them. People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Ardon, G.R. Nos. 137753-56, March 16, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Alvero, G.R. No. 132364, May 23, 2001 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

520

People of the Phil. vs. Wilson G. Salvador, G.R. Nos. 136870-72, January 28, 2003

When a rape victim is paralyzed with fear, she cannot be expected to think and act coherently. Her failure to immediately take advantage of an opportunity to escape does not automatically vitiate the credibility of her account. People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Balora, G.R. No. 124976, May 31, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Manalo, G.R. Nos. 144989-90, January 31, 2003

To be sure, there is no standard human reaction to an experience that may be so traumatic as to make a victim suffer the onslaught on her honor in silence, rather than reveal her story. People of the Phil. vs. Miguel S. Lucban, G.R. No. 119217, January 19, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Manalo, G.R. Nos. 144989-90, January 31, 2003

Indeed, there is no standard form of behavior that can be expected of rape victims after they have been defiled because people react differently to emotional stress. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in many ways by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Tahop, G.R. No. 125330, September 29, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Francisco, G.R. No. 141631, April 4, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003

The victim's act of crying during her testimony bolsters the credibility of the rape charge with the verity born out of human nature and experience. People of the Phil. vs. Bryan Ferdinand Dy, et al., G.R. Nos. 115236-37, January 29, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Sorongon, G.R. No. 142416, February 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Frivaldo L. Besmonte, et al., G.R. Nos. 137278-79, February 17, 2003 People of the Phil vs. Benjamin M. Hilet, G.R. Nos. 146685-86, April 30, 2003

The fact that she immediately reported the incident to her sister and then to the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

521

authorities which led to the filing of the complaint bolster her charge of rape. Indeed, if a young girl had voluntarily submitted herself to an intimate relationship with a man, her most natural reaction would have been to conceal it as this would bring disgrace to her honor and shame to her family. People of the Phil vs. Renato T. Ramirez, G.R. No. 136848, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, January 22, 2003

Date or time The rule is well settled that in rape cases, the date or time of the incident is not an essential element of the offense and therefore need not be accurately stated… Date is not an essential element of the crime of rape, for the gravamen of the offense is carnal knowledge of the woman. The phrase "on or about July 4, 1998" stated in the information gives the prosecution sufficient latitude to prove any date which is not so remote as to surprise and prejudice the defendant. [US v. Dichao, 27 Phil. 421 (1914), cited in Francisco, Criminal Procedure, 1996 Ed., p. 70] Thus, the precise date need not be alleged in the Information. People of the Phils. vs. Daniel Mauricio, G.R. No. 133695, February 28, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Perez, G.R. No. 113265, March 5, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Salalima, G.R. Nos. 137969-71, August 15, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Espejon, G.R. No. 134767, February 20, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Roque, G.R. Nos. 130659 and 144002, August 14, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Victor T. Taperla, G.R. No. 142860, January 16, 2003 People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Tacio Emilio, G.R. Nos. 144305-07, February 6, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Mauro, G.R. Nos. 140786-88, March 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil vs. Benjamin M. Hilet, G.R. Nos. 146685-86, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Solomon Purazo, G.R. No. 133189, May 5, 2003 — Enumerates examples of complaints and informations allowed by the Court as sufficient with respect to allegations of date and time

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

522

People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin P. Medina Sr., G.R. Nos. 127756-58, June 18, 2003

Conviction on indirect evidence There can be conviction for rape based on indirect evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Santiago, G.R. No. 46132, May 28, 1991 People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Abiera, G.R. No. 93947, May 21, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Ulili, G.R. No. 103403, August 24, 1993 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Tabarangao, G.R. Nos. 116535-36, February 25, 1999 People of the Phil.vs. Marlon Sarazan, G.R. No. 123269-72, January 22, 2003

Intact hymen The rule is well-settled that the absence of lacerations on the vagina does not necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not belie rape, for a broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim has remained a virgin negate the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Jenelito Escober, G.R. No. 122980-81, November 6, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Quiñanola, et al., G.R. No. 126148, May 5, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Bernabe y Rafol, G.R. No. 141881, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil.vs. Marlon Sarazan, G.R. No. 123269-72, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Evina, G.R. Nos. 124830-31, June 27, 2003

There could be a finding of rape even if despite repeated intercourse over a period of four years, the complainant still retained an intact hymen without injury. plpecdtai

People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Gabayron, G.R. No. 102018, August 21, 1997 People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003

A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Llamo, G.R. No. 132138, January 28, 2000

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

523

People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003

Whether or not the hymen of private complainant was still intact has no substantial bearing on accused-appellant's commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Cabingas, et al., G.R. No. 79679, March 28, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003

Standing alone, a physician's finding that the hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not prove rape. It is only when this is corroborated by other evidence proving carnal knowledge that rape may be deemed to have been established. People of the Phils. vs. Bernardino Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Bon, G.R. No. 149199, January 28, 2003

Lacerations in the hymen Lacerations in the hymen whether healed or fresh are the best physical evidence of forcible defloration. People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Bayona, G.R. Nos. 133343-44, March 2, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Dominico Licanda, G.R. No. 134084, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Bernabe y Rafol, G.R. No. 141881, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Ventura Belen, G.R. Nos. 137991-92, June 10, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Placido Luna, G.R. No. 135241, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Montemayor, G.R. No. 124474, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo C. Gavino, G.R. No. 142749, March 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Manallo, G.R. No. 143704, March 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin P. Medina Sr., G.R. Nos. 127756-58, June 18, 2003

Vaginal canal Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

524

The tightness of the vaginal canal does not negate rape. The complainant's vagina was found to be elastic, given her age. Thus even with the insertion of an object like the penis in the vaginal canal, the examining physician concluded that the same would still return to its normal size. People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Avergonzado, G.R. No. 127152, February 12, 2003

Genital contact/penetration Parameters of genital contact in rape cases: In People v. De la Peña, we clarified that the decisions finding a case for rape even if the attacker's penis merely touched the external portions of the female genitalia were made in the context of the presence or existence of an erect penis capable of full penetration. Where the accused failed to achieve an erection, had a limp or flaccid penis, or an oversized penis which could not fit into the victim's vagina, the Court nonetheless held that rape was consummated on the basis of the victim's testimony that the accused repeatedly tried, but in vain, to insert his penis into her vagina and in all likelihood reached the labia of her pudendum as the victim felt his organ on the lips of her vulva, or that the penis of the accused touched the middle part of her vagina. Thus, touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis, as in this case. There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, for an accused to be convicted of consummated rape. As the labias, which are required to be "touched" by the penis, are by their natural situs or location beneath the mons pubis or the vaginal surface, to touch them with the penis, is to attain some degree of penetration beneath the surface, hence, the conclusion that touching the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum constitutes consummated rape. The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the female genital organs that are visible in the perineal area, e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, the hymen, the clitoris, the vaginal orifice, etc. The mons pubis is the rounded eminence that becomes hairy after puberty, and is instantly visible within the surface. The next layer is the labia majora or the outer lips of the female organ composed of the outer convex surface and the inner surface. The skin or the outer convex surface is covered with hair follicles and is pigmented, while the inner surface is a thin skin which does not have any hair but has many sebaceous glands. Directly beneath the labia majora are Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

525

the labia minora. Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be consummated, and not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to constitute consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e., touching of either labia of the pudendum by the penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness. Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the oft-quoted "touching of the female organ," but also progressed into being described as "the introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, or the "bombardment of the drawbridge." But, to our mind, the case at bar merely constitutes a "shelling of the castle of orgasmic potency," or as earlier stated, a "strafing of the citadel of passion." As can be drawn from the above ruling, the mere introduction of the male organ into the labia majora of the pudendum is sufficient to consummate rape. People of the Phil. vs. vs. Alfonso Balgos, G.R. No. 126115, January 26, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Brigildo, G.R. No. 124129, January 28, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Primo Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio Villarama, G.R. No. 139211, February 12, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino J. Iluis, G.R. No. 145995, March 20, 2003

Even, the slightest penetration of the labia by the male organ or the mere entry of the penis into the aperture constitutes consummated rape. It is sufficient that there be entrance of the male organ within the labia of the pudendum. People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Borja, G.R. No. 114183, February 3, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Jose Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 142561-62, February 15, 2002 People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Flores, G.R. Nos. 145309-10, April 4, 2003

The touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act should be understood as inherently part of the entry of the penis into the labia of the female organ and not mere touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

526

People of the Phil. vs. Primo Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Bon, G.R. No. 149199, January 28, 2003

Presence or absence of sperm The presence of motile sperm cells in the victim's violated organ affirms her charge more than words and anger alone could prove. People of the Phil. vs. Mario Gomez, G.R. No. 112074, September 29, 1997 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Manallo, G.R. No. 143704, March 28, 2003

The absence of spermatozoa in the sex organ of private complainant does not disprove rape. People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quinones, G.R. No. 102719, June 16, 1995 People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Ferrer, G.R. No. 142662, August 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Placido Luna, G.R. No. 135241, January 22, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Avergonzado, G.R. No. 127152, February 12, 2003

The important consideration in rape is not the presence of semen or spermatozoa, but the penetration of the male penis into the female genitalia. People of the Phil. vs. Guilbert Arcillas, G.R. No. 126817, Dec. 27, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Terencio Funesto, G.R. No. 143432, April 9, 2003

Presence of people nearby The presence of people nearby is no guarantee that rape will not be committed, for lust is no respecter of time and place. [People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Rodavia, G.R. Nos. 133008-24, February 6, 2002, p. 17, citing People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Losano, G.R. No. 127122, July 20, 1999] Rape has been committed in places where People congregate, like parks or school premises and even in a house where there are other occupants. [People vs. Sanchez, G.R. No. 124393, Jan. 31, 2002, p. 12, citing People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Alitagtag, G.R. No. 124449-51, June 29, 1999] There is no rule or norm that a woman can only be raped in seclusion. [People of the Phil. vs. Armando Tagud, Sr., G.R. No. 140733, January 30, 2002, p. 16, citing People of the Phil. vs. Felizardo Gonzales, G.R. No. 133859, August 24, 2000] It has been Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

527

committed in a room adjacent to where other members of the family stay or in a room, which the victim shared with others. [People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Abala, G.R. Nos. 135858-61, July 23, 2002, p. 19, citing People of the Phil. vs. Carmelito S. Abella, G.R. No. 131847, September 22, 1999] We have more than once observed that rape could take place in the same room where other members of the family were sleeping. [People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 134288-89, January 15, 2002, p. 12, citing People of the Phil. vs. Petronillo Castillo, G.R. No. 130205, July 5, 2000 and People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998] In the instant cases, both rapes complained of were committed in the middle of the night. It is of judicial notice that it is at this time when children are in deep slumber and could not be easily awakened. People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 134288-89, January 15, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Frivaldo L. Besmonte, et al., G.R. Nos. 137278-79, February 17, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Guihama, G.R. No. 126113, June 25, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Evina, G.R. Nos. 124830-31, June 27, 2003

The fact that the mother, who was beside private complainant in bed during the rape, was not awakened is not improbable. It is a common judicial experience that rapists are not deterred from committing their odious act by the presence of people nearby. We have frequently held that rape is not impossible even if committed in the same room where the rapist's spouse or other family members are sleeping. People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Rebato, G.R. No. 139552, May 24, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Evina, G.R. Nos. 124830-31, June 27, 2003

Rape need not be committed in an isolated place. (People vs. Catoltol Sr., 332 Phil. 883, Nov. 28, 1996) That there are other people sleeping in the same room will not guarantee that it cannot be committed. (Ibid.) This observation is totally consistent with the fact that rape can be committed even in places where people congregate — in parks, within school premises, inside a house where there are other occupants, and even in the same room where other family members are sleeping. (People vs. Tabanggay, People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Tabanggay, G.R. No. 130504, June 29, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

528

2000; People of the Phil. vs. David Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999, 368 Phil. 676; People vs. Escala, 354 Phil. 46, July 8, 1998) Lust is no respecter of time, place or kinship. (People of the Phil. vs. Henry Lagarto, et al., G.R. Nos. 118828 & 119371, February 29, 2000; People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo San Juan, G.R. No. 105556, April 4, 1997, 337 Phil. 375; People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alimon, G.R. No. 87758, June 28, 1996, 327 Phil. 447) There is no rule that rape can be committed only in seclusion. (People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sangil, Sr., G.R. No. 113689, July 31, 1997, 342 Phil. 499; People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Leoterio, G.R. Nos. 119405-06, November 21, 1996, 332 Phil. 668; People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Papa Talaboc, G.R. No. 103290, April 23, 1996, 326 Phil. 451) People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado R. Corial, G.R. No. 143125, June 10, 2003

While it has been held that lust is no respecter of time and place and rape can be committed in the unlikeliest of places such as in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises and even inside a house where there are other occupants or where other members of the family are also sleeping, those cases mostly involve minors whose rapists are those who have moral ascendancy over them. In the present case, it is unbelievable that a 20-year-old woman would easily succumb to a simple threat from someone who does not have any moral ascendancy over her when she could have easily shouted for help and aroused her brother who was sleeping nearby. People of the Phil. vs. Alsher L. Bermejo, G.R. No. 195307, August 6, 2012

This Court recognizes that rape victims have no uniform reaction to the sexual assault; while some may offer strong resistance, others may be too intimidated to offer any at all. It must be stressed though, that AAA's failure to resist the alleged assault indubitably casts doubt on her credibility and the veracity of her narration of the incident. Her behavior after the incident, also contributes to the said doubt. . . . People of the Phil. vs. Alsher L. Bermejo, G.R. No. 195307, August 6, 2012

Sweethearts theory It does not necessarily follow that no rape can be committed against one's sweetheart. Such a relationship provides no license to explore and invade that which every virtuous woman holds so dearly and trample upon her honor and dignity. That relationship is held sacred by many . . . . A sweetheart cannot be forced to engage in Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

529

sexual intercourse against her will. As a matter of fact, proof even of a prior history of a common-law marital relationship will not prevail over clear and positive evidence of copulation by the use of force or intimidation. People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Padrigone, G.R. No. 137664, May 9, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Sorongon, G.R. No. 142416, February 11, 2003

Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust. People of the Phil. vs. Joey Barcelona, G.R. No. 125341, February 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Alex Manallo, G.R. No. 143704, March 28, 2003

The "sweethearts theory" he proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. 05plpe

People of the Phil. vs. Hector Baldosa, G.R. No. 138614, May 7, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003

The sweetheart defense is an affirmative defense that must be supported by convincing proof. As correctly ruled by the CA, such defense is "effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on accused-appellant the burden of proving the alleged relationship by substantial evidence." Independent proof is required. People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 200508, September 4, 2013, citing People v. Cabanilla, G.R. No. 185839, November 17, 2010

To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence. People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Sabredo, G.R. No. 126114, May 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003

As a rule, bare invocation of sweetheart theory cannot stand alone. To be credible, it must be corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence. Usually, these are letters, notes, photos, mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers. . . . At any rate, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, a love affair does not justify rape. As repeatedly stressed by the Court, a man does not have the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

530

unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires. People v. Bacatan, G.R. No. 203315, September 18, 2013

A "sweetheart defense" should be substantiated by some documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship. [People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Sabredo, G.R. No. 126114, May 11, 2000] Other than his self-serving assertions and those of his biased stepson, there is no support to appellant's claim that he and complainant were lovers. The appellant failed to adduce in evidence any mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, or any concrete proof of a romantic nature. Moreover, even if we were to assume that the appellant and the private complainant were indeed lovers, this fact would not have precluded rape, as it did not necessarily mean there was consent. A love affair could not have justified what the appellant did — subjecting Rizalyn to his carnal desires against her will. [People of the Phil. vs. Renato Flores, G.R. No. 141782, December 14, 2001] The Court has previously taken judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas in this country, young ladies by custom and tradition act with circumspection and prudence, and that great caution is observed so that their reputation remains untainted. People of the Phil. vs. Emiliano Capareda, G.R. No. 128363, May 27, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio De La Cruz, G.R. No. 136158, August 6, 2002

Court's review of rape cases In reviewing rape cases, this Court is guided by three well entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is difficult to prove but more difficult for the person accused though innocent to disprove; (2) in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the private complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; (c) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the accused. 05plpe

People of the Phil. vs. Joey Barcelona, G.R. No. 125341, February 9, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Renato Flores, G.R. No. 141782, December 14, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes D. Platilla, G.R. No. 140723, March 6, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Ylanan, G.R. No. 131812, August 22, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Nexiel Ortega, G.R. No. 137824, September 17, 2002 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

531

People of the Phil. vs. Ventura Peligro, G.R. No. 148899, October 28, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Angel Amante, G.R. Nos. 149414-15, November 18, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Artemio D. Ochea, G.R. Nos. 146452-53, December 10, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Rico B. Bagaua, G.R. No. 147943, December 12, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Zainudin Dalandas, G.R. No. 140209, December 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Placido Luna, G.R. No. 135241, January 22, 2003 People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Carlito M. Marahay, G.R. Nos. 120625-29, January 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence Macapanpan, et al., G.R. No. 133003, April 9, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Sambrano, G.R. No. 143708, February 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Delos Santos, G.R. No. 134525, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Corral, G.R. Nos. 145172-74, February 28, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ricky Sodsod, et al., G.R. Nos. 141280-81, June 16, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin P. Medina Sr., G.R. Nos. 127756-58, June 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Noli Novio, G.R. No. 139332, June 20, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Redante C. Santos, G.R. No. 145305, June 26, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Albert Sayana, G.R. Nos. 142553-54, July 1, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Dizon, G.R. No. 133237, July 11, 2003

Moral damages Moral damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further proof other than the fact of its commission. It is assumed that a rape victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

532

People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Manalo, G.R. Nos. 144989-90, January 31, 2003

Moral damages in rape cases are given without need of showing that the victim suffered the trauma of mental, physical and psychological sufferings that constitute the bases thereof. People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Cultura, G.R. No. 133831, February 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Ben Gajo, G.R. No. 127749, March 9, 2000

Moral damages are granted in recognition of the victim's injury necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Tabanggay, G.R. No. 130504, June 29, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Armando Alvarado, G.R. No. 145730, March 19, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Eloy Miclat, Jr., G.R. No. 137024, August 7, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003

Unfounded charges Unfounded charges of rape have frequently been proffered by women actuated by sinister, ulterior or undisclosed motives. United States vs. Pantaleon Ramos, G.R. No. 10832, December 11, 1916, 35 Phil. 671 People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence Macapanpan, et al., G.R. No. 133003, April 9, 2003

Death penalty To justify the imposition of the death penalty in a rape committed by a father on a daughter, the minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender, which are special qualifying circumstances, must be alleged in the complaint or information and proved by the prosecution during the trial by the quantum of proof required for conviction. People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Invencion, G.R. No. 131636, March 5, 2003

To warrant the imposition of the death penalty, two circumstances must be present: (1) the minority of the victim; and (2) her relationship with the offender. Both must not only be properly alleged in the complaint or information but must also be Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

533

established during the trial. People of the Phil. vs. Dominico Licanda, G.R. No. 134084, May 4, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Felix Hermosa, G.R. Nos. 140439-40, June 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Manluctao, G.R. Nos. 143760-63, June 23, 2003

Qualified rape For appellant to be convicted of qualified rape, the information must allege the minority of the victim and the relationship of the latter and appellant. Absent such allegation, appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape but only of simple rape. People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel Flores, G.R. No. 130713, January 20, 2000 People of the Phils. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Mauro, G.R. Nos. 140786-88, March 14, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Redante C. Santos, G.R. No. 145305, June 26, 2003

In an incestuous rape, the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during trial; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed. People of the Phil. vs. Eriberto Maglente, G.R. Nos. 124559-66, April 30, 1999, 366 Phil. 221 People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Ilao, G.R. No. 129529, September 29, 1998, 357 Phil. 656 People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Lasola, G.R. No. 123152, November 17, 1999 People of the Phil. vs. Lodrigo Bayya, G.R. No. 127845, March 10, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Tundag, G.R. Nos. 135695-96, October 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Padilla, G.R. No. 137648, March 30, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003

Qualifying circumstance of relationship Relationship is a qualifying circumstance in rape. Therefore, it must not only be alleged in the information, but must also be proved beyond reasonable doubt in the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

534

same way as the crime itself. People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Corral, G.R. Nos. 145172-74, February 28, 2003

A common-law husband is subject to punishment by death if he commits rape against his common-law wife's daughter by another man. People of the Phil. vs. Redante C. Santos, G.R. No. 145305, June 26, 2003

The concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship to the accused must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt. People of the Phil. vs. Geronimo Boromeo, G.R. No. 150501, June 3, 2004

The circumstances of relationship and minority must be jointly alleged in the Information and proved during trial. In this case, the prosecution failed to allege in the Information the relationship between the offender and the offended party although it was proven and established during the trial that the appellant was the victim's step-father. People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Guambor, G.R. No. 152183, January 22, 2004

Where the life of another human being is hanging on the balance, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which the accused is charged must be established in order for the corresponding penalty thereto to be upheld. 15 To justify the imposition of the death penalty in cases of incestuous rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitutes one special qualifying circumstance which must be both alleged and proved with moral certainty. PLPE05

People of the Phil. vs. Eloy Miclat, Jr., G.R. No. 137024, August 7, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Ancheta, G.R. No. 142431, January 14, 2004

We, however, do not agree with the Solicitor General's opinion that relationship should be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of imposing the death penalty. People v. Baldino, the case invoked by the Solicitor General, appreciated relationship as an aggravating circumstance but only for the purpose of assessing exemplary damages against the accused and not for the purpose of imposing the death penalty. Two recent cases, People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Sagarino, G.R. Nos. 135356-58, September 4, 2001 and People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003 squarely address the issue raised by Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

535

the Solicitor General. In People v. Sagarino and People v. Umbaña, the information specifically alleged the use of a deadly weapon and the prosecution proved the same. The information also specifically alleged relationship between the accused and the victim, and the prosecution proved the same: son and mother in People v. Sagarino, and father and daughter in People v. Umbaña. However, these two cases did not impose the death penalty. The "circumstances pertinent" to the relationship mentioned in People v. Sagarino and People v. Umbaña must be alleged in the information and duly proven in the trial. In the present case, the Amended Information did not allege the "circumstances pertinent" to the relationship of appellant and Remilyn and the prosecution did not prove these circumstances during the trial. The "circumstances pertinent" to the relationship cited in People v. Sagarino and People v. Umbaña are aggravating circumstances listed in paragraph 3 of Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code enumerates the aggravating circumstances. Unlike mitigating circumstances under Article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, Article 14 does not include circumstances "similar in nature" or analogous to those mentioned in paragraphs 1 to 21 of Article 14. The term "aggravating circumstances" is strictly construed, not only because what is involved is a criminal statute, but also because its application could result in the imposition of the death penalty. The list of aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is thus exclusive 51 for the purpose of raising a crime to its qualified form. Article 14 does not include relationship as an aggravating circumstance. Relationship is an alternative circumstance under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004

While it is true that the alternative circumstance of relationship is always aggravating in crimes against chastity, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party, it is only taken into consideration under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code "when the offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender." The relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationships mentioned.

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

536

People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February 23, 2004

Qualifying circumstance of insanity of victim We now turn to the issue as to whether or not the qualifying circumstance of insanity of the victim by reason or on occasion of the rape, committed against complainant should likewise be considered in the imposition of the proper penalty. Republic Act No. 7659 expressly provides that when by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be death. People of the Phil. vs. Roneto Degamo, G.R. No. 121211, April 30, 2003

Whether the rape resulted in the insanity of the victim shall have to be resolved by the courts on a case to case basis. Suffice it to be stated that the resultant insanity of the victim in rape cases must at least be manifest at the time of filing the complaint or information or at any time thereafter before judgment is rendered, in which case, the information may accordingly be amended. Conrado Melo, vs. The People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-3580, March 22, 1950, 85 Phil. 766 People of the Phil. vs. Roneto Degamo, G.R. No. 121211, April 30, 2003

Acts of lasciviousness included in rape Although the information charged the crime of rape, accused-appellant can be convicted of acts of lasciviousness because it is included in rape. People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Bon, G.R. No. 149199, January 28, 2003 Nicanor Dulla, vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 123164, February 18, 2000

Article 266-A, Paragraph 1 (d) People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Pascual, G.R. No. 171089, October 17, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Dela Paz, G.R. No. 177294, February 19, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Bagos, G.R. No. 177152, January 6, 2010

Article 266-A, Paragraph 2 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

537

People of the Phil. vs. Roger Dela Cruz Mendoza, G.R. No. 180501, December 24, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Regino Tormis, G.R. No. 183456, December 18, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Michael V. Lindo, G.R. No. 189818, August 9, 2010 People of the Phil. vs. Efren Alfonso, G.R. No. 182094, August 18, 2010

Art. 266-A (1) (a), Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353 In a long line of cases, the Court has consistently held that full penile penetration of the penis into the vagina is not required for the commission of rape, as mere penile entry into the labia of the pudendum of the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the hymen, is enough to justify a conviction for rape. People of the Phil. vs. Elmer Barberos, G.R. No. 187494, December 23, 2009

Art. 266-B – Penalties for Rape The fact that the victim in this case was only ten years old when the rape occurred does not by itself warrant the penalty of death. Article 266-B, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997," provides that the death penalty shall be imposed only when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. In this case, although the minority of the victim was alleged and proven, such allegation and proof of the minority of the victim, without any allegation and proof of her relationship to the appellant, would not qualify rape as a capital crime. Moreover, as previously held, minority of the offended party, by itself, is not an aggravating circumstance that can increase the penalty to death. People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Edem, G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002 People of the Phil. vs. Henry Jusayan, G.R. No. 149785, April 28, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mangubat, G.R. No. 172068, August 7, 2007

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

538

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 8353, the penalty for rape committed by two or more persons, using force, threat or intimidation is reclusion perpetua to death... It must be emphasized that the same penalties were imposed under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 8353. It is clear therefore that R.A. No. 8353 did not downgrade the applicable penalties to petitioner's case. In Re: Rogelio Ormilla, et al. vs. Director, Bureau of Corrections, et al., G.R. No. 170497, January 22, 2007

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, rape is punished with death when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Alarcon, G.R. No. 174199, March 7, 2007

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, "(w)henever rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons," the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same statute instructs us that in the event the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall be applied. People of the Phil. vs. Simeon Suyat, G.R. No. 173484, March 20, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Lito Bejic, G.R. No. 174060, June 25, 2007

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, rape is qualified when the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law-spouse of the parent of the victim, in which case the death penalty shall be imposed. People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mangubat, G.R. No. 172068, August 7, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Felix O. Ortoa, G.R. No. 176266, August 8, 2007

The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any aggravating/qualifying circumstances enumerated thereunder, one of which is when the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

539

People of Phil. vs. Rogelio B. Pelagio, G.R. No. 173052, December 16, 2008

Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed "when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime." People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Veluz, G.R. No. 167755, November 28, 2008

Legally speaking, the term "stepparent" refers to "an accused who is legally married to one of the parents of the victim." People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Aguilar, G.R. No. 185206, August 25, 2010

Art. 266-B (6) (1) - Penalties for Rape Article 266-B paragraph 6(1) of the Revised Penal Code provides that the death penalty shall be imposed upon the accused if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Ardel Canuto, G.R. No. 166544, July 27, 2007

Art. 266-C - Effect of Pardon

In relation to Article 89 and Article 344 On several occasions, we applied these provisions to marriages contracted between the offender and the offended party in the crime of rape, as well as in the crime of abuse of chastity, to totally extinguish the criminal liability of and the corresponding penalty that may have been imposed upon those found guilty of the felony. . . . [P]rior to the case at bar, the last case bearing similar circumstances was decided by this Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

540

Court in 1974, or around 36 years ago. People of the Phil. vs. Ronie De Guzman, G.R. No. 185843, March 3, 2010

Art. 267 – Serious Illegal Detention and Kidnapping Last Paragraph Amended by RA 7659 Elements Extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances

Last Paragraph Amended by RA 7659 RA 7659, however, amended the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code on serious illegal detention and kidnapping to read: When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. PLPE05

Under this provision, when the person kidnapped or illegally detained is raped, the offense committed is the special complex crime of serious illegal detention or kidnapping with rape, punishable with the maximum penalty of death. The last paragraph of Article 267 applies only to instances where the person illegally detained or kidnapped is raped. It does not provide for a complex crime of rape with serious illegal detention. As the Court ruled in Lactao, there is no complex crime of illegal detention with rape under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. There is also no complex crime of kidnapping with attempted rape under Article 48 because there is no single act which results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. Neither is illegal detention a necessary means for committing rape. People of the Phil. vs. Severino Gonzales, G.R. No. 129894, August 11, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, January 21, 2004

This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of 'special complex crime' of kidnapping with murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the accused, and those where the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought. Consequently, the rule Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

541

now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA No. 7659." People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Juan Larrañaga, et al., G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004

Emphatically, the last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, states that when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. This provision gives rise to a special complex crime. As the Court explained in People v. Larrañaga (466 Phil. 324 (2004)), this arises where the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011

Elements The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. People of the Phil. vs. Michael U. Pagalasan, et al., G.R. Nos. 131926 & 138991, June 18, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Alma Bisda, et al., G.R. No. 140895, July 17, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, January 21, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Juan Larrañaga, et al., G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Elizabeth Castillo, et al., G.R. No. 132895 March 10, 2004

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

542

People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Saldaña, et al., G.R. No. 148518, April 15, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Rosalinda Trapago Tan, et al., G.R. No. 177566, March 26, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Venancio A. Roxas, G.R. No. 172604, August 17, 2010

The essence of illegal detention is the deprivation of the victim's liberty. The prosecution must prove actual confinement or restriction of the victim, and that such deprivation was the intention of the appellant. The accused must have acted purposely or knowingly to restrain the victim because what constitutes the offense is taking coupled with intent to restrain. People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, January 21, 2004

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it. It includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. And liberty is not limited to mere physical restraint but embraces one's right to enjoy his God-given faculties subject only to such restraints necessary for the common welfare. People of the Phil. vs. Raga Sarapida Mamantak, et al., G.R. No. 174659, July 28, 2008

Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping is committed with the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) that the offender is a private individual; (2) that he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) that the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (4) that in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) that the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than five (5) days; or (b) that it is committed simulating public authority; or (c) that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. People of the Phil. vs. Elvie Ejandra, et al., G.R. No. 134203, May 27, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Saldaña, et al., G.R. No. 148518, April 15, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Juan Larrañaga, et al., G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Roque G. Garalde, G.R. No. 173055, April 13, 2007

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

543

People of the Phil. vs. Judith P. Jatulan, G.R. No. 171653, April 24, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Raul Cenahonon, G.R. No. 169962, July 12, 2007

The original Spanish version of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code used the term "lock up" (encarcerar) rather than "kidnap" (sequestrator or raptor) which "includes not only the imprisonment of a person but also the deprivation of his liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time." People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Baldogo, G.R. Nos. 128106-07, January 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Marasigan, et al., 55 OG 829 (1959) People of the Phil. vs. Judith P. Jatulan, G.R. No. 171653, April 24, 2007

The crime (of kidnapping) has the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; not either of the parents of the victim 7 or a public officer who has a duty under the law to detain a person; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public official. People of the Phil. vs. Raga Sarapida Mamantak, et al., G.R. No. 174659, July 28, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Rosalinda Trapago Tan, et al., G.R. No. 177566, March 26, 2008

The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; or (c) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. People of the Phil. vs. Egap Madsali, et al., G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010

As to the second element of the crime, the deprivation required by Article 267 of the RPC means not only the imprisonment of a person, but also the deprivation of his Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

544

liberty in whatever form and for whatever length of time. It involves a situation where the victim cannot go out of the place of confinement or detention or is restricted or impeded in his liberty to move. If the victim is a child, it also includes the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the custody of the child. In other words, the essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation. People of the Phil. vs. Joel N. Baluya, G.R. No. 181822, April 13, 2011

Regarding the award of damages in cases of kidnapping, People v. Bautista is instructive, viz.: [P]revailing jurisprudence dictates the following amounts to be imposed: PhP75,000 as civil indemnity which is awarded if the crime warrants the imposition of death penalty; PhP75,000 as moral damages because the victim is assumed to have suffered moral injuries, without need of proof; and PhP30,000 as exemplary damages. Even though the penalty of death was not imposed, the civil indemnity of PhP75,000 is still proper because the said award is not dependent on the actual imposition of the death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the offense. People v. Jose, G.R. No. 200053, October 23, 2013, citing People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 188601, June 29, 2010

Extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances As the law now stands, extra-judicial killings and enforced disappearances in this jurisdiction are not crimes penalized separately from the component criminal acts undertaken to carry out these killings and enforced disappearances and are now penalized under the Revised Penal Code and special laws. [Perpetrators of enforced disappearances may be penalized for the crime of arbitrary detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code or kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.] The simple reason is that the Legislature has not spoken on the matter; the determination of what acts are criminal and what the corresponding penalty these criminal acts should carry are matters of substantive law that only the Legislature has the power to enact under the country's constitutional scheme and power structure. Avelino I. Razon, Jr., et al. vs. Mary Jean B. Tagitis, G.R. No. 182498, December 3, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

545

2009

Art. 270 - Kidnapping and Failure to Return a Minor While one of the essential elements of this crime is that the offender was entrusted with the custody of the minor, what is actually being punished is not the kidnapping but the deliberate failure of that person to restore the minor to his parents or guardians. . . Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code must imply something more than mere negligence — it must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong. People of the Phil. vs. Aida Marquez, G.R. No. 181440, April 13, 2011

For kidnapping to exist, it is not necessary that the offender kept the victim in an enclosure or treated him harshly. Where the victim in a kidnapping case is a minor, it becomes even more irrelevant whether the offender forcibly restrained the victim. As discussed above, leaving a child in a place from which he did not know the way home, even if he had the freedom to roam around the place of detention, would still amount to deprivation of liberty. For under such a situation, the child's freedom remains at the mercy and control of the abductor. People of the Phil. vs. Joel N. Baluya, G.R. No. 181822, April 13, 2011

Art. 282 - Grave Threats Article 282 of the RPC holds liable for Grave Threats "any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person . . . of the latter or his family of any wrong amounting to a crime[.]" This felony is consummated "as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened." Santiago Paera vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181626, May 30, 2011

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

546

Art. 286 - Grave Coercions For grave coercion to lie, the following elements must be established: 1) that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats, or intimidation; and 3) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right. Jorge B. Navarra vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 176291, December 4, 2009

It is elementary that in no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto, and that he who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing must invoke the aid of the competent court if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. Jorge B. Navarra vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 176291, December 4, 2009

Art. 287 - Light Coercions Renato Baleros, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 138033, January 30, 2007

Art. 287, 2nd paragraph - Unjust Vexation The second paragraph of this provision is broad enough to include any human conduct that, although not productive of some physical or material harm, could unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent person. The paramount question to be considered is whether the offender's act caused annoyance, irritation, torment, distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it was directed. People of the Phil. vs. Salvino Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

547

Article 293 - Who are Guilty of Robbery The elements of the crime of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) the unlawful taking (b) of personal property belonging to another (c) with intent to gain, and (d) with violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe R. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin R. Gayeta, G.R. No. 171654, December 17, 2008

Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code defines robbery to be one committed by any "person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything . . ." Robbery may thus be committed two ways: (a) with violence against, or intimidation of persons and (b) by the use of force upon things. (People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gungon, et al., G.R. No. 119574, March 19, 1998) This is distinguished from the crime of theft where the taking is accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. Antonio Avecilla, vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 46370, June 2, 1992 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Alcantara, et al., G.R. No. 157669, April 14, 2004

Robbery is the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything. "Fencing", upon the other hand, is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft. 05plpe

The crimes of robbery and fencing are clearly then two distinct offenses. The law on fencing does not require the accused to have participated in the criminal design to commit, or to have been in any wise involved in the commission of, the crime of robbery or theft. Neither is the crime of robbery or theft made to depend on an act of fencing in order that it can be consummated. True, the object property in fencing must Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

548

have been previously taken by means of either robbery or theft but the place where the robbery or theft occurs is inconsequential. It may not be suggested, for instance, that, in the crime of bigamy which presupposes a prior subsisting marriage of an accused, the case should thereby be triable likewise at the place where the prior marriage has been contracted. PLPE05

Jesus Ganchero vs. Hon. Anacleto Bellosillo, G.R. No. L-26340, June 30, 1969

The elements of the crime of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code are: (a) the unlawful taking (b) of personal property belonging to another (c) with intent to gain, and (d) with violence against or intimidation of person or force upon things. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe R. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Edwin R. Gayeta, G.R. No. 171654, December 17, 2008

When more than three armed malefactors take part in the commission of robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. People of the Phil. vs. Felipe R. Dela Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 168173, December 24, 2008

Art. 294 – Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons Article 294 (1) - Robbery with Homicide Article 294 (2) - Robbery with Rape Article 294 (5) - Robbery with Physical Injuries

Article 294 - Robbery with Violence and Intimidation of Persons; Dwelling as Aggravating Circumstance In robbery with violence and intimidation against persons, dwelling is aggravating because in this class of robbery, the crime may be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity of the offended party's house. It is considered an aggravating circumstance primarily because of the sanctity of privacy that the law accords to the human abode. He who goes to another's house to hurt him or do him wrong is more guilty than he who offends him elsewhere. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

549

People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011

Article 294 (1) - Robbery with Homicide A conviction needs certainty that the robbery is the central purpose and objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Manuel Uy, G.R. No. 174660, May 30, 2011

To warrant the conviction (for the crime of robbery with homicide), the prosecution was burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential elements: (a) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed. People of the Phil. vs. Rolly C. Flora, et al., G.R. No. 181594, August 28, 2008

To warrant conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, one that is primarily classified as a crime against property and not against persons, the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, is committed. People of the Phil. vs. Rudy B. Buduhan, et al., G.R. No. 178196, August 6, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro S. Sorila, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 178540, June 27, 2008

Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it is committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Toribio Jabiniao, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 179499, April 30, 2008

To warrant conviction for the crime of robbery with homicide, one that is primarily Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

550

classified as a crime against property and not against persons, the prosecution has to firmly establish the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against the person; (2) the property thus taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, is committed. In Robbery with Homicide, so long as the intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. The original design must have been robbery; and the homicide, even if it precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, must have a direct relation to, or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate, the robbery. The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought, which arose subsequently to the killing. People of the Phil. vs. Rudy B. Buduhan, et al., G.R. No. 178196, August 6, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Lara, G.R. No. 171449, October 23, 2006

Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it is committed to (a) facilitate the robbery or the escape of the culprit; (b) to preserve the possession by the culprit of the loot; (c) to prevent discovery of the commission of the robbery; or (d) to eliminate witnesses to the commission of the crime. 13 In Robbery with Homicide, so long as the intention of the felon is to rob, the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. It is immaterial that death would supervene by mere accident, or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed. Once a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide. People of the Phil. vs. Toribio Jabiniao, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 179499, April 30, 2008

To warrant conviction for the crime of Robbery with Homicide, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animo lucrandi; and (4) by reason of the robbery or on the occasion thereof, homicide is Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

551

committed. People of the Phil. vs. Juan Cabbab, Jr., G.R. No. 173479, July 12, 2007

Under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide are: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) on occasion of or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, used in the generic sense, is committed. People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Daniela, G.R. No. 139230 April 24, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Sumalinog, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 128387, February 5, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, April 13, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo De Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, May 27, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Werba, G.R. No. 144599, June 9, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Cabbab, Jr., G.R. No. 173479, July 12, 2007

The accused must be shown to have the principal purpose of committing robbery, the homicide being committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. [People of the Phil. vs. Melvin Mendoza, G.R. No. 115809, January 23, 1998] The homicide may precede robbery or may occur thereafter. What is essential is that there is a nexus, an intrinsic connection between the robbery and the killing. The latter may be done prior to or subsequent to the former. However, the intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of the victim's life. [People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence S. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991] Furthermore, the constituted crimes of robbery and homicide must be consummated. People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Nang, et al., G.R. No. 107799, April 15, 1998

A homicide is considered as having been committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery when the motive of the offender in killing the victim is to deprive the latter of his property, to eliminate an obstacle to the crime, to protect his possession of the loot, to eliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended or to insure his escape from the scene of the crime. People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Reyes, G.R. No. 153119, April 13, 2004

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

552

People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Werba, G.R. No. 144599, June 9, 2004

The complex crime of robbery with homicide arises when, by reason of or on the occasion of a robbery, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, a person is killed. (People of the Phil. vs. Guiamad Mantung, G.R. No. 130372, July 20, 1999) To sustain a conviction for this special complex crime, the original criminal design of the culprit must be robbery (originally, there must be intent to gain), and the homicide is perpetrated with a view to the consummation of the robbery (by reason or on the occasion of the robbery). People of the Phil. vs. Marcos Manalang, G.R. No. 67662, February 9, 1989 People of the Phil. vs. Juan Alcantara, et al., G.R. No. 157669, April 14, 2004

In robbery with homicide, the original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. [People of the Phil. vs. Domingo S. Salazar, et al., G.R. No. 99355, August 11, 1997; People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Abuyen, G.R. No. 77285, September 4, 1992] The intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. [People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence S. Ponciano, G.R. No. 86453, December 5, 1991] The homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances, causes or modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. [People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Mangulabnan, et al., G.R. No. L-8919, September 28, 1956, 99 Phil. 992] There is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated. It is immaterial that the death would supervene by mere accident; or that the victim of homicide is other than the victim of robbery, or that two or more persons are killed or that aside from the homicide, rape, intentional mutilation, or usurpation of authority, is committed by reason or on the occasion of the crime. Likewise immaterial is the fact that the victim of homicide is one of the robbers; the felony would still be robbery with homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed is robbery with homicide. All the felonies committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into one and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide. The word "homicide" is used in its generic sense. Homicide, thus, includes murder, parricide, and infanticide. Intent to rob is an internal act but may be inferred from proof of violent unlawful Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

553

taking of personal property. When the fact of asportation has been established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of the robbery is not presented in court. After all, the property stolen may have been abandoned or thrown away and destroyed by the robber or recovered by the owner. [People of the Phil. vs. William O. Puloc, et al., G.R. No. 92631, September 30, 1991] The prosecution is not burdened to prove the actual value of the property stolen or amount stolen from the victim. Whether the robber knew the actual amount in the possession of the victim is of no moment because the motive for robbery can exist regardless of the exact amount or value involved. People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Corre, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 137271, August 15, 2001

When homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery would also be held liable as principals of the single and indivisible felony of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the same. People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Verzosa, et al., G.R. No. 118944, August 20, 1998 People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Carrozo, et al., G.R. No. 97913, October 12, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo de Jesus, G.R. No. 134815, May 27, 2004 People of the Phil. vs. Lito Hernandez, G.R. No. 139697, June 15, 2004

Article 294 (2) - Robbery with Rape For a conviction of the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown that the rape was committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery and not the other way around. This special complex crime under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code contemplates a situation where the original intent of the accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging to another and rape is committed on the occasion thereof or as an accompanying crime. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011

The Court gathers, however, that from the evidence for the prosecution, robbery was the main intent of appellant, and AAA's death resulted by reason of or on the occasion thereof. Following Article 294 (1) and Article 62 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, rape should have been appreciated as an aggravating circumstance instead. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

554

People of the Phil. vs. Michael A. Hipona, G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010

Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code does not distinguish whether the rape was committed before, during or after the robbery. It suffices that the robbery was accompanied by rape. People of the Phil. vs. Herson Naag, G.R. No. 136394, February 15, 2001

[T]he elements of [the complex crime of robbery with rape] are as follows: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. People of the Phil. vs. Joseph R. Amper, G.R. No. 172708, May 5, 2010

Under paragraph 2, Section 294 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements necessary to sustain a conviction for the complex crime of robbery with rape are: (1) the taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi; and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape. People of the Phil. vs. Edwin R. Gayeta, G.R. No. 171654, December 17, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson H. Palma, G.R. No. 189279, March 9, 2010

Article 294 (5) - Robbery with Physical Injuries The variance in the assigned nomenclatures may give rise to the false impression that robbery with physical injuries under Article 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code is distinct from robbery with intimidation as well as robbery with violence against persons. The title or heading of Article 294 reads "Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons." Said heading is clearly the general nomenclature given to all five (5) types of robbery enumerated thereunder. Nomer Ocampo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 163705, July 30, 2007

Art. 308 - Theft

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

555

The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (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 intimidation of persons or force upon things. People of the Phil. vs. Luisito D. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004 Alfonso D. Gaviola vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 163927, January 27, 2006 Aristotel Valenzuela vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007 Eduardo B. Gulmatico vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 146296, October 15, 2007 Rose Aoas vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 155339, March 3, 2008

Theft is qualified when any of the following circumstances is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. People of the Phil. vs. Luisito D. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004 San Miguel Corp. vs. Bartolome Puzon, Jr., G.R. No. 167567 , September 22, 2010

Under Article 308 of the Revised Penal Code, theft cannot have a frustrated stage. Theft can only be attempted or consummated. Aristotel Valenzuela vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007

In Relation to R.A. No. 6539 (Carnapping) On the other hand, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6539, as amended defines "carnapping" as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking is without the consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done with intent to gain. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

556

People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Calabroso, et al., G.R. No. 126368, September 14, 2000

Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized vehicle, [People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Danilo Lobitania, G.R. No. 142380, September 5, 2002] the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and carnapping being the same. People of the Phil. vs. Noel Santos, et al., G.R. No. 127500, June 8, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Rosauro Sia, et al., G.R. No. 137457, November 21, 2001 People of the Phil. vs. Isaias Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. 132788, October 23, 2003

In the 2000 case of People of the Phil. vs. Alvin Tan, G.R. No. 135904, January 21, 2000 where the accused took a Mitsubishi Gallant and in the later case of People of the Phil. vs. SPO1 Danilo Lobitania, G.R. No. 142380, September 5, 2002 which involved the taking of a Yamaha motorized tricycle, this Court held that the unlawful taking of motor vehicles is now covered by the anti-carnapping law and not by the provisions on qualified theft or robbery. It is to be noted, however, that while the anti-carnapping law penalizes the unlawful taking of motor vehicles, it excepts from its coverage certain vehicles such as roadrollers, trolleys, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, amphibian trucks and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles which run only on rails and tracks, and tractors, trailers and tractor engines of all kinds and used exclusively for agricultural purposes. By implication, the theft or robbery of the foregoing vehicles would be covered by Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and the provisions on robbery, respectively. People of the Phil. vs. Luisito D. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004

Theft requires the physical taking of another's property without violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. The elements of the crime under this Article are: 1. Intent to gain; 2. Unlawful taking; 3. Personal property belonging to another; 4. Absence of violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things. People of the Phil. vs. Teresita Puig, et al., G.R. Nos. 173654-765, August 28, 2008

The essential elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) that there be a 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 or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

557

intimidation against persons or force upon things. Rose Aoas vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 155339, March 3, 2008 Ernesto Pideli vs. People of Phil., G.R. No. 163437, February 13, 2008

Considering that the second element [of Theft] is that the thing taken belongs to another, it is relevant to determine whether ownership of the subject check was transferred to petitioner. . . . Note however that delivery as the term is used in the aforementioned provision (Sec. 12 of Act 2031) means that the party delivering did so for the purpose of giving effect thereto. Otherwise, it cannot be said that there has been delivery of the negotiable instrument. Once there is delivery, the person to whom the instrument is delivered gets the title to the instrument completely and irrevocably. . .. The evidence proves that the check was accepted, not as payment, but in accordance with the long-standing policy of SMC to require its dealers to issue postdated checks to cover its receivables. The check was only meant to cover the transaction and in the meantime [respondent] was to pay for the transaction by some other means other than the check. This being so, title to the check did not transfer to SMC; it remained with [respondent]. The second element of the felony of theft was therefore not established. San Miguel Corp. vs. Bartolome Puzon, Jr., G.R. No. 167567 , September 22, 2010

Art. 309 - Penalties for Theft Cielito R. Gan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 165884, April 23, 2007

To prove the amount of the property taken for fixing the penalty imposable against the accused under Article 309 of the RPC, the prosecution must present more than a mere uncorroborated "estimate" of such fact. In the absence of independent and reliable corroboration of such estimate, courts may either apply the minimum penalty under Article 309 or fix the value of the property taken based on the attendant Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

558

circumstances of the case. Sesinando Merida vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 158182, June 12, 2008

Art. 310 - Qualified Theft Aristotel Valenzuela vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 160188, June 21, 2007

The elements of the crime of theft are the following: (1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs to another; (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or force upon things. Under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, theft is qualified when it is, among others, committed with grave abuse of confidence. . . Ferdinand A. Cruz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 176504, September 3, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Teresita Puig, et al., G.R. Nos. 173654-765, August 28, 2008 Ferdinand A. Cruz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 176504, September 3, 2008

To fall under the crime of Qualified Theft, the following elements must concur: 1. Taking of personal property; 2. That the said property belongs to another; 3. That the said taking be done with intent to gain; 4. That it be done without the owner's consent; 5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; 6. That it be done with grave abuse of confidence. People of the Phil. vs. Teresita Puig, et al., G.R. Nos. 173654-765, August 28, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo R. Bayon, G.R. No. 168627, July 2, 2010

As defined, theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against, or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take the personal property of another without the latter's consent. If committed with grave abuse of confidence, the crime of theft becomes qualified. In précis, qualified theft punishable under Article 310 in relation to Articles 308 and 309 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is committed when the following elements are present: 1. Copyright 2014

Taking of personal property;

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

559

2.

That the said property belongs to another;

3.

That the said taking be done with intent to gain;

4.

That it be done without the owner's consent;

5. That it be accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against persons, nor of force upon things; and 6.

That it be done with grave abuse of confidence.

PNB vs. Amelio Tria, et al., G.R. No. 193250, April 25, 2012

The check in question was a manager's check. A manager's check is one drawn by a bank's manager, Tria in this case, upon the bank itself. We have held that it stands on the same footing as a certified check, which is deemed to have been accepted by the bank that certified it, as it is an order of the bank to pay, drawn upon itself, committing in effect its total resources, integrity and honor behind its issuance. By its peculiar character and general use in commerce, a manager's check is regarded substantially to be as good as the money it represents. In fact, it is obvious from the PNB affidavits that the MWSS C/A was deducted upon the issuance of the manager's check and not upon its encashment. Indeed, as the bank's own check, a manager's check becomes the primary obligation of the bank and is accepted in advance by the act of its issuance. . . . The felony of qualified theft started with the use of the now missing falsified letter-request and supporting documents for the issuance of the manager's check and the re-activation of the MWSS C/A. It was the pretense of an authority from MWSS that deprived PNB the liberty to either withhold or freely give its consent for the valid reactivation of the account and issuance of the check. . . . As standard banking practice intended precisely to prevent unauthorized and fraudulent withdrawals, a bank manager verifies with the client-depositor to authenticate and confirm that he/she has validly authorized such withdrawal. Such failure of Tria as bank manager to verify the legitimacy of the requested withdrawal lends credence to the accusation that he colluded with Atty. Reyes to feloniously take money from PNB, and his complicity includes depriving the bank of its opportunity to deny and withhold the consent for the necessary issuance of Manager's Check No. 1165848. It cannot, therefore, be gainsaid that PNB did not consent to the issuance of the check and its eventual encashment — which both constitute the taking of personal property — as respondents had made sure that the bank was rendered Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

560

inutile and incapable to give its consent. The fourth element of the crime clearly exists. PNB vs. Amelio Tria, et al., G.R. No. 193250, April 25, 2012

[T]he penalty prescribed in Article 310 would apply only if the theft was committed under any the following circumstances: a) by a domestic servant, or with grave abuse of confidence, or b) if the stolen property is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle, or consists of coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or c) if the property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance. None of these circumstances is present in the instant case. Thus, the proper imposable penalty should be that which is prescribed under Article 309. Efren S. Almuete vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 179611, March 12, 2013

Art. 315 - Swindling (Estafa) Dionisio Aw vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 182276, March 29, 2010 Judith P. Ortega vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 177944, December 24, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Beth Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008

Since these transactions are not trust receipts, an action for estafa should not be brought against the respondents, who are liable only for a loan. In passing, it is useful to note that this is the threat held against borrowers that Retired Justice Claudio Teehankee emphatically opposed in his dissent in People v. Cuevo, restated in Ong v. CA, et al.: The very definition of trust receipt . . . sustains the lower court's rationale in dismissing the information that the contract covered by a trust receipt is merely a secured loan. The goods imported by the small importer and retail dealer through the bank's financing remain of their own property and risk and the old capitalist orientation of putting them in jail for estafa for non-payment of the secured loan (granted after they had been fully investigated by the bank as good credit risks) through the fiction of the trust receipt device should no longer be permitted in this day and age. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

561

LBP vs. Lamberto C. Perez, et al., G.R. No. 166884, June 13, 2012

Art. 315 (1) (b) – Estafa with Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence In general, the elements of estafa are: (1) that the accused defrauded another (a) by abuse of confidence or (b) by means of deceit; and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused the offended party or third person. Deceit is not an essential requisite of estafa with abuse of confidence, since the breach of confidence takes the place of the fraud or deceit, which is a usual element in the other estafas. The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. All the aforesaid elements were amply and clearly established in the case at bar. It is well-settled that when the money, goods, or any other personal property is received by the offender from the offended party in trust or on commission or for administration, the offender acquires both material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing received. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. Gina J. Diaz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 171121, August 26, 2008

The elements of estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d) there is demand by the offended party to Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

562

the offender. Jorge Salazar vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149472, August 18, 2004 Manuel S. Isip vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 2007 Antonio Nepomuceno vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 166246, April 30, 2008

The essence of estafa under Article 315 (1)(b) of the Revised Penal Code is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received, to the prejudice of the owner thereof. It takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of another for his own benefit, use and enjoyment. The failure to account, upon demand, for funds or property held in trust is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. (George L. Tubb vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-9811, April 22, 1957, 101 Phil 114 [1957]; Salvador Panlilio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-16955, May 30, 1962; People of the Phil. vs. Venancio Sullano, G.R. No. L-18209, June 30, 1966) For example, in an agency for the sale of jewelry, it is the agent's duty to return the jewelry upon demand of the owner and the failure to do so is evidence of conversion of the property by the agent. (United States vs. Tomas Zamora, G.R. No. 1319, October 9, 1903, 2 Phil 582 [1903]) In other words, the demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. However, this presumption is rebuttable. If the accused is able to satisfactorily explain his failure to produce the thing delivered in trust, he may not be held liable for estafa. Filadams Pharma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132422, March 30, 2004

The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence under subdivision No. 1, par. (b) of Art. 315 are as follows: 1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; 2. That there be misrepresentation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; 3. That such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and 4. That there is a demand made by the offended party to the offender. Mila G. Pangilinan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117363, December 17, 1999 Vincent E. Omictin vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 148004, January 22, 2007 Tony Tan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 153460, January 29, 2007 Vicia D. Pascual vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 160540, March 22, 2007 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

563

Manuel S. Isip vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 170298, June 26, 2007 Marissa Ceniza-Manantan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 156248, August 28, 2007

The essence of estafa under this paragraph is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received, to the prejudice of the owner thereof. It takes place when a person actually appropriates the property of another for his own benefit, use and enjoyment. Marissa Ceniza-Manantan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 156248, August 28, 2007

The offense of estafa committed with abuse of confidence has the following elements under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same[;] (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt[;] (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and (d)

there is demand by the offended party to the offender.

Elsa Macandog Magtira vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 170964, March 7, 2012

Misappropriation is defined as: [A]n act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To "misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or benefit [includes] not only conversion to one's personal advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without a right. The demand for the return of the thing delivered in trust and the failure of the accused to account for it are circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. In this case, Gomba, as common area administrator, received the collections in trust for the association. The association made a demand upon Gomba to remit his collections. He failed to do so, despite several opportunities given to him. This was evidence that he misappropriated the money, bolstered by the fact that he merely submitted reports Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

564

without the corresponding remittances on various occasions. Bienvenido Gomba vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 150536, September 17, 2008

The elements of estafa under said provision are: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender; or denial on his part of such receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another. Arnold Sta. Catalina vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 167805, November 14, 2008 Flora Bautista vs. Felicidad C. Mercado, G.R. No. 174405, August 26, 2008 Belen Real vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 152065, January 29, 2008

The elements of estafa under Article 315 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that money, goods, or other personal properties are received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return, the same; (2) that there is a misappropriation or conversion of such money or property by the offender or denial on his part of such receipt; (3) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the prejudice of another; and, (4) that there is a demand made by the offended party on the offender. Antonio Nepomuceno vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 166246, April 30, 2008 Hilario P. Soriano vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 162336, February 1, 2010

The essence of Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 1 (b) is the appropriation or conversion of money or property received to the prejudice of the owner. The words "convert" and "misappropriate" connote an act of using or disposing of another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To misappropriate for one's own use includes not only conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another without right. Dionisio Aw vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 182276, March 29, 2010 Burgundy Realty Corp. vs. Josefa C. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 181021, December 10, 2012

In order that the respondents "may be validly prosecuted for estafa under Article Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

565

315, paragraph 1 (b) of the Revised Penal Code, in relation with Section 13 of the Trust Receipts Law, the following elements must be established: (a) they received the subject goods in trust or under the obligation to sell the same and to remit the proceeds thereof to [the trustor], or to return the goods if not sold; (b) they misappropriated or converted the goods and/or the proceeds of the sale; (c) they performed such acts with abuse of confidence to the damage and prejudice of Metrobank; and (d) demand was made on them by [the trustor] for the remittance of the proceeds or the return of the unsold goods." LBP vs. Lamberto C. Perez, et al., G.R. No. 166884, June 13, 2012 citing Heirs of Federico C. Delgado v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 184337, August 7, 2009

Art. 315 (2) - Estafa Through False Pretenses or Fraudulent Acts Estafa, under Article 315, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name; or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud. Ramon L. Uy vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 174899, September 11, 2008

The elements of the crime of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2 of the RPC are: (1) the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (2) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. Dennis Mangangey, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 147773-74, February 18, 2008

Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, is committed by any person who defrauds another by using fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

566

People of the Phil. vs. Charlie Comila, et al., G.R. No. 171448, February 28, 2007

Paragraph 2 (a) Swindling or estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is committed by "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits. Judith P. Ortega vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 177944, December 24, 2008

The elements of estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. Betty Gabionza, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 161057, September 12, 2008 Ramon L. Uy vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 174899, September 11, 2008 Rizza Lao vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 159404, June 27, 2008

Under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, swindling or estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is committed by "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits." The elements of estafa under this penal provision are: (1) the accused defrauded another by means of deceit and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third party. Elvira Joson vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 178836, July 23, 2008

The elements of estafa by means of deceit as defined under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) that there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) that such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

567

commission of the fraud; (3) that the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; and (4) that as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. Betty Gabionza, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 161057, September 12, 2008

Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another; or by which another is unduly and unconscientiously taken advantage of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth; and includes all forms of surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any other unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of fraud. And deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations; or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it, to his legal injury. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud, it being essential that such false statement or representation constitutes the very cause or the only motive which induces the offended party to part with his money. In the absence of such requisite, any subsequent act of the accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it might appear, cannot serve as basis for prosecution for estafa under the said provision. Ramon L. Uy vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 174899, September 11, 2008

Under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, swindling or estafa by false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is committed by "using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits." The elements of estafa under this penal provision are: (1) the accused defrauded another by means of deceit and (2) damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or third party. Elvira Joson vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 178836, July 23, 2008

Petitioner's claim that she did not benefit from the US$20,000.00 she received from Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

568

Juinio will not exonerate her. As this Court has previously held in cases of estafa falling under paragraph 2 (a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, inability to benefit from the money obtained from the private complainant does not relieve the accused of criminal responsibility. As early as 1910, it has been held that estafa committed by the accused for the purpose of benefiting a third party rather than himself does not relieve him of criminal responsibility. For these reasons, the fact that only Acapulco and not petitioner signed the promissory note for the US$20,000.00 will not exculpate petitioner. Petitioner failed to demonstrate why credence should not be given to the prosecution's explanation that petitioner did not sign the promissory note because she had already left the premises when the signing was done. United States vs. Tomas Umali, G.R. No. 5283, January 15, 1910 Rizza Lao vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 159404, June 27, 2008

There are three ways of committing estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code: (1) by using a fictitious name; (2) by falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions; and (3) by means of other similar deceits. Under this class of estafa, the element of deceit is indispensable. People of the Phil. vs. Marlene Olermo, G.R. No. 127848, July 17, 2003 People of the Phil. vs. Crispin Billaber, G.R. Nos. 114967-68, January 26, 2004

Regardless of whether petitioner is charged or convicted under either par. 1(b) or par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the Revised Penal Code, he would still be guilty of estafa because damage and deceit, which are essential elements of the crime, have been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. False pretenses or fraudulent acts were committed prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud by falsely pretending to possess property. In this case, false pretenses or fraudulent acts were employed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud by falsely pretending to possess the 1997 Nissan Pathfinder, where damage and deceit have been established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

569

or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Deceit is a species of fraud. Swindling or estafa by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud is committed "[b]y using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by other similar deceits." The elements of estafa under Art. 315, par. 2(a) are: (1) There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (2) Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; (4) As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. Augusto Sim, Jr., vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 159280, May 18, 2004 Miguel Cosme, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149753, November 27, 2006 Lilibeth Aricheta vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 172500, September 21, 2007

The elements of estafa by means of deceit, whether committed by false pretenses or concealment, are the following — a. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means. b. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. c. That the offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced to part with his money or property because of the false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means. d. That as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. R.R. Paredes, et al. vs. Tarciso S. Calilung, G.R. No. 156055, March 5, 2007

The gravamen of the felony is an intent to deceive, or fraudulent intent. Intent, being a state of the mind, may be proved by words or by the conduct of the accused before, during, and after the transaction, subject of the case, independent of and distinct from the non-compliance with the promise or representation of the accused. Augusto C. Caesar vs. Romeo M. Gomez, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2059, August 10, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Gallo, G.R. No. 185277, March 18, 2010

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

570

Danilo D. Ansaldo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 159381, March 26, 2010

The elements of the crime are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. Here, it has been sufficiently proven that petitioner represented herself to private complainants as capable of sending them to Italy for employment, even if she did not have the authority or license for the purpose. Undoubtedly, it was this misrepresentation that induced private complainants to part with their hard-earned money in exchange for what they thought was a promising future abroad. The petitioner's act clearly constitutes estafa under the above-quoted provision. Angelita Delos Reyes Flores vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 185614, February 5, 2010

The elements of the crime of estafa, under Article 315 (2) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent representations as to his or her power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business, or imaginary transactions; (2) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations were made prior to or simultaneous with the commission of the fraud; (3) such false pretenses or fraudulent representations constitute the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his or her money or property; and (4) as a result of those acts, the offended party suffered damage. Adela B. Delgado vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 161178, February 5, 2010

Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Rafael H. Galvez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 187919, 187979 & 188030, April 25, 2012

We emphasize that fraud in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal duty or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another. It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can device and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

571

cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated. Rafael H. Galvez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 187919, 187979 & 188030, April 25, 2012

Lest it be misunderstood, we reiterate that this Court's finding of probable cause is grounded on fraud committed through deceit which surrounded Gilbert Guy, et al. transaction with AUB, thus, violating Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code; it is neither their act of borrowing money and not paying them, nor their denial thereof, but their very act of deceiving AUB in order for the latter to part with its money. As early as the Penal Code of Spain, which was enforced in the Philippines as early as 1887 until it was replaced by the Revised Penal Code in 1932, the act of fraud through false pretenses or similar deceit was already being punished. Article 335 of the Penal Code of Spain punished a person who defrauded another "by falsely pretending to possess any power, influence, qualification, property, credit, agency or business, or by means of similar deceit." Rafael H. Galvez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 187919, 187979 & 188030, April 25, 2012

Illegal recruitment and estafa Well-settled is the rule that a person convicted for illegal recruitment under the Labor Code may, for the same acts, be separately convicted for estafa under Article 315, par. 2 (a) of the RPC. The elements of estafa are: (1) the accused defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit; and (2) the offended party or a third party suffered damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation. The same evidence proving appellant's criminal liability for illegal recruitment also established her liability for estafa. People of the Phil. vs. Beth Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008

Neither do any of the estafa cases bar a prosecution for illegal recruitment, since they are entirely different offenses and neither one necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may, in addition be convicted of estafa under Article 315 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code. There is no problem of jeopardy because illegal recruitment is malum prohibitum, in which the criminal intent is not necessary, whereas estafa is malum in se in which the criminal intent of the accused is necessary. The claim of double jeopardy, therefore, is patently without merit. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

572

People of the Phil. vs. Benzon Ong, G.R. No. 119594, January 18, 2000 People of the Phil. vs. Crispin Billaber, G.R. Nos. 114967-68, January 26, 2004

A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment may also be convicted of estafa under Article 315 (2) (a) of the Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are present. Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by using a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means of the accused and as a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage. People of the Phil. vs. Nida R. Adeser, G.R. No. 179931, October 26, 2009

Paragraph (2) (d) Before an accused can be held liable for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, the following elements must concur: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof. John Dy vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 158312, November 14, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Norma Booc, G.R. No. 143959, February 19, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Virginia Baby P. Montaner, G.R. No. 184053, August 31, 2011

By settled jurisprudence, the elements of the crime of estafa, as defined in the above quoted provision of law, are as follows: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; and (3) the payee has been defrauded. Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction, while the false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to, or simultaneous with, the issuance of the bad check. The drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check, otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

573

Jude Joby Lopez vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 166810, June 26, 2008

Under paragraph 2 (d), if there is no proof of notice of dishonor, knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed, and unless there is a priori intent, which is hard to determine and may not be inferred from mere failure to comply with a promise, no Estafa can be deemed to exist. Goretti Ong vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 165275, September 23, 2008

Notice of dishonor is required under both par. 2(d) Art. 315 of the R[evised] P[enal] C[ode] and Sec. 2 of BP 22. While the RPC prescribes that the drawer of the check must deposit the amount needed to cover his check within three days from receipt of notice of dishonor, BP 22, on the other hand, requires the maker or drawer to pay the amount of the check within five days from receipt of notice of dishonor. Under both laws, notice of dishonor is necessary for prosecution (for estafa and violation of BP 22). Without proof of notice of dishonor, knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed and no crime (whether estafa or violation of BP 22) can be deemed to exist. People of the Phil. vs. Cora Abella Ojeda, G.R. Nos. 104238-58, June 3, 2004

By settled jurisprudence, the elements of the crime of estafa, as defined in the above quoted provision of law, are as follows: (1) the offender has postdated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating or issuance; (2) at the time of postdating or issuance of said check, the offender has no funds in the bank or the funds deposited are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check; and (3) the payee has been defrauded. Damage and deceit are essential elements of the offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant conviction, while the false pretense or fraudulent act must be committed prior to, or simultaneous with, the issuance of the bad check. The drawer of the dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to cover the amount of the check, otherwise, a prima facie presumption of deceit arises. Further it is settled that it is criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and not the nonpayment of a debt. Deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or conduct by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. Concealment which the law denotes as fraudulent implies a purpose or design to hide facts which the other party ought to have. The postdating or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

574

issuing of a check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is a false pretense or a fraudulent act. Jude Joby Lopez vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 166810, June 26, 2008

Deceit and damage are the essential elements of estafa. Deceit to constitute estafa under above-quoted Article 315 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code must be the efficient cause of the defraudation. There must be concomitance: the issuance of the check should be the means to obtain money or property from the payer. People of the Phil. vs. Aloma Reyes, G.R. No. 154159, March 31, 2005 Gemma Ilagan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. Nos. 166873, 168069 & 168543, April 27, 2007

The elements of the offense as defined and penalized by Article 315, paragraph 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, are: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) lack of or insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) the payee was not informed by the offender and the payee did not know that the offender had no funds or insufficient funds. People of the Phil. vs. Aloma Reyes, G.R. No. 154159, March 31, 2005 Anicia Ramos-Andan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 136388, March 14, 2006 Alfonso Firaza vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 154721, March 22, 2007

Before an accused can be held liable for estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 4885, the following elements must concur: (1) postdating or issuance of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was issued; (2) insufficiency of funds to cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee thereof. John Dy vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 158312, November 14, 2008

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 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

575

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 of the Phil. vs. Dolores Ocden, G.R. No. 173198, June 1, 2011, citing People v. Yabut, 374 Phil. 575 (1999) People of the Phil. vs. Rosario Ochoa, G.R. No. 173792, August 31, 2011

Penalty People of the Phil. vs. Beth Temporada, G.R. No. 173473, December 17, 2008 Flora Bautista vs. Felicidad C. Mercado, G.R. No. 174405, August 26, 2008 Gina J. Diaz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 171121, August 26, 2008 Aurora Tamayo vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 174698, July 28, 2008

Art. 315 (3) (a) - Inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document The elements of the offense of estafa punished under Article 315 (3[a]) of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: (1) the offender induced the offended party to sign a document; (2) deceit was employed to make the offended party sign the document; (3) the offended party personally signed the document; and (4) prejudice is caused to the offended party. While in estafa under Article 315 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, the law does not require that the document be falsified for the consummation thereof, it does not mean that the falsification of the document cannot be considered as a necessary means to commit the estafa under that provision. The phrase "necessary means" does not connote indispensable means for if it did, then the offense as a "necessary means" to commit another would be an indispensable element of the latter and would be an ingredient thereof. In People v. Salvilla, the phrase "necessary means" merely signifies that one crime is committed to facilitate Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

576

and insure the commission of the other. When the offender commits in a public document any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code as a necessary means to commit another crime, like estafa, theft or malversation, the two crimes form a complex crime under Article 48 of the same Code. The falsification of a public, official or commercial document may be a means of committing estafa because, before the falsified document is actually utilized to defraud another, the crime of falsification has already been consummated, damage or intent to cause damage not being an element of the crime of falsification of a public official or commercial document. In other words, the crime of falsification was committed prior to the consummation of the crime of estafa. Actually utilizing the falsified public, official or commercial document to defraud another is estafa. The damage to another is caused by the commission of estafa, not by the falsification of the document. Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010

Art. 316 (2) - Other forms of swindling - disposing encumbered real property For petitioners to be convicted of the crime of swindling under Article 316 (2) of the Revised Penal Code, the prosecution had the burden to prove the confluence of the following essential elements of the crime: 1.

that the thing disposed of be real property;

2.

that the offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or not;

3.

that there must be express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance; and

4.

that the act of disposing of the real property be made to the damage of another.

Sps. Francisco and Carmelita Llamas vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 149588, August 16, 2010

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

577

Art. 318 - Other Deceits Simon Fernan, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007

Art. 320 - Destructive Arson Dante Buebos, et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 163938, March 28, 2008

The lower courts found appellant liable under Article 320 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 7659. It may not be amiss to point out that there are actually two categories of arson, namely: Destructive Arson under Article 320 of the Revised Penal Code and Simple Arson under Presidential Decree No. 1316. Said classification is based on the kind, character and location of the property burned, regardless of the value of the damage caused. Article 320 contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military, government or commercial establishments by any person or group of persons. On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 1316 covers houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and other industrial establishments. People of the Phil. vs. Jessie Villegas Murcia, G.R. No. 182460, March 9, 2010

Art. 332 - Persons Exempt from Criminal Liability Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause in the crimes of theft, estafa (or swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits the responsibility of the offender to civil liability and frees him from criminal liability by virtue of his relationship to the offended party. Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

578

In connection with the relatives mentioned in the first paragraph, it has been held that included in the exemptions are parents-in-law, stepparents and adopted children. By virtue thereof, no criminal liability is incurred by the stepfather who commits malicious mischief against his stepson; by the stepmother who commits theft against her stepson; by the stepfather who steals something from his stepson; by the grandson who steals from his grandfather; by the accused who swindles his sister-in-law living with him; and by the son who steals a ring from his mother. Affinity is the relation that one spouse has to the blood relatives of the other spouse. It is a relationship by marriage or a familial relation resulting from marriage. It is a fictive kinship, a fiction created by law in connection with the institution of marriage and family relations. If marriage gives rise to one's relationship by affinity to the blood relatives of one's spouse, does the extinguishment of marriage by the death of the spouse dissolve the relationship by affinity? Philippine jurisprudence has no previous encounter with the issue that confronts us in this case. That is why the trial and appellate courts acknowledged the "dearth of jurisprudence and/or commentaries" on the matter. In contrast, in the American legal system, there are two views on the subject. As one Filipino author observed: In case a marriage is terminated by the death of one of the spouses, there are conflicting views. There are some who believe that relationship by affinity is not terminated whether there are children or not in the marriage (Carman vs. Newell, N.Y. 1 [Denio] 25, 26). However, the better view supported by most judicial authorities in other jurisdictions is that, if the spouses have no living issues or children and one of the spouses dies, the relationship by affinity is dissolved. It follows the rule that relationship by affinity ceases with the dissolution of the marriage which produces it (Kelly v. Neely, 12 Ark. 657, 659, 56 Am Dec. 288). On the other hand, the relationship by affinity is continued despite the death of one of the spouses where there are living issues or children of the marriage "in whose veins the blood of the parties are commingled, since the relationship of affinity was continued through the medium of the issue of the marriage" (Paddock vs. Wells, 2 Barb. Ch. 331, 333). The first view (the terminated affinity view) holds that relationship by affinity terminates with the dissolution of the marriage either by death or divorce which gave rise to the relationship of affinity between the parties. Under this view, the relationship by affinity is simply coextensive and coexistent with the marriage that Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

579

produced it. Its duration is indispensably and necessarily determined by the marriage that created it. Thus, it exists only for so long as the marriage subsists, such that the death of a spouse ipso facto ends the relationship by affinity of the surviving spouse to the deceased spouse's blood relatives. The first view admits of an exception. The relationship by affinity continues even after the death of one spouse when there is a surviving issue. The rationale is that the relationship is preserved because of the living issue of the marriage in whose veins the blood of both parties is commingled. The second view (the continuing affinity view) maintains that relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse, regardless of whether the marriage produced children or not. Under this view, the relationship by affinity endures even after the dissolution of the marriage that produced it as a result of the death of one of the parties to the said marriage. This view considers that, where statutes have indicated an intent to benefit step-relatives or in-laws, the "tie of affinity" between these people and their relatives-by-marriage is not to be regarded as terminated upon the death of one of the married parties. After due consideration and evaluation of the relative merits of the two views, we hold that the second view is more consistent with the language and spirit of Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal Code. First, the terminated affinity view is generally applied in cases of jury disqualification and incest. On the other hand, the continuing affinity view has been applied in the interpretation of laws that intend to benefit step-relatives or in-laws. Since the purpose of the absolutory cause in Article 332 (1) is meant to be beneficial to relatives by affinity within the degree covered under the said provision, the continuing affinity view is more appropriate. Second, the language of Article 332 (1) which speaks of "relatives by affinity in the same line" is couched in general language. The legislative intent to make no distinction between the spouse of one's living child and the surviving spouse of one's deceased child (in case of a son-in-law or daughter-in-law with respect to his or her parents-in-law) can be drawn from Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal Code without doing violence to its language. Third, the Constitution declares that the protection and strengthening of the family as a basic autonomous social institution are policies of the State and that it is the duty Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

580

of the State to strengthen the solidarity of the family. Congress has also affirmed as a State and national policy that courts shall preserve the solidarity of the family. In this connection, the spirit of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. The view that relationship by affinity is not affected by the death of one of the parties to the marriage that created it is more in accord with family solidarity and harmony. Fourth, the fundamental principle in applying and in interpreting criminal laws is to resolve all doubts in favor of the accused. In dubio pro reo. When in doubt, rule for the accused. This is in consonance with the constitutional guarantee that the accused shall be presumed innocent unless and until his guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. Intimately related to the in dubio pro reo principle is the rule of lenity. The rule applies when the court is faced with two possible interpretations of a penal statute, one that is prejudicial to the accused and another that is favorable to him. The rule calls for the adoption of an interpretation which is more lenient to the accused. Lenity becomes all the more appropriate when this case is viewed through the lens of the basic purpose of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to preserve family harmony by providing an absolutory cause. Since the goal of Article 332 (1) is to benefit the accused, the Court should adopt an application or interpretation that is more favorable to the accused. In this case, that interpretation is the continuing affinity view. Thus, for purposes of Article 332 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, we hold that the relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of either party to the marriage which created the affinity. (The same principle applies to the justifying circumstance of defense of one's relatives under Article 11 [2] of the Revised Penal Code, the mitigating circumstance of immediate vindication of grave offense committed against one's relatives under Article 13[5] of the same Code and the absolutory cause of relationship in favor of accessories under Article 20 also of the same Code.) Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010

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 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

581

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. Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010

The question may be asked: if the accused may not be held criminally liable for simple estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, should he not be absolved also from criminal liability for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents? No. True, the concurrence of all the elements of the two crimes of estafa and falsification of public document is required for a proper conviction for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document. That is the ruling in Gonzaludo v. People. It means that the prosecution must establish that the accused resorted to the falsification of a public document as a necessary means to commit the crime of estafa. However, a proper appreciation of the scope and application of Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code and of the nature of a complex crime would negate exemption from criminal liability for the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public documents, simply because the accused may not be held criminally liable for simple estafa by virtue of the absolutory cause under Article 332. Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010

The absolutory cause under Article 332 is meant to address specific crimes against property, namely, the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Thus, all other crimes, whether simple or complex, are not affected by the absolutory cause provided by the said provision. To apply the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code to one of the component crimes of a complex crime for the purpose of negating the existence of that complex crime is to unduly expand the scope of Article 332. In other words, to apply Article 332 to the complex crime of Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

582

estafa through falsification of public document would be to mistakenly treat the crime of estafa as a separate simple crime, not as the component crime that it is in that situation. It would wrongly consider the indictment as separate charges of estafa and falsification of public document, not as a single charge for the single (complex) crime of estafa through falsification of public document. 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. The purpose of Article 332 is to preserve family harmony and obviate scandal. Thus, the action provided under the said provision simply concerns the private relations of the parties as family members and is limited to the civil aspect between the offender and the offended party. When estafa is committed through falsification of a public document, however, the matter acquires a very serious public dimension and goes beyond the respective rights and liabilities of family members among themselves. Effectively, when the offender resorts to an act that breaches public interest in the integrity of public documents as a means to violate the property rights of a family member, he is removed from the protective mantle of the absolutory cause under Article 332. Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales vda. de Carungcong vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2010

Art. 334 - Concubinage Sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances is, following Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code, an element of the crime of concubinage when a married man has Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

583

sexual intercourse with a woman elsewhere. Joselano Guevarra vs. Jose Emmanuel Eala, A.C. No. 7136, August 1, 2007

Art. 335 - When and How Rape is Committed The elements of rape under the aforequoted provision are: 1) The offender is a man; 2) The offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and 3) The said act was committed with the use of force or intimidation, or the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or the woman is under 12 years of age or is demented. People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Buban, G.R. No. 166895, January 24, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020, March 14, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Filomino Lizano, G.R. No. 174470, April 27, 2007

The crime of rape with homicide is punishable with death under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659. People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Gumimba, et al., G.R. No. 174056, February 27, 2007

Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, "(w)henever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon," the penalty to be imposed shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Article 63 of the same statute instructs us that in the event the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties and there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the offense, the lesser penalty shall be applied. People of the Phil. vs. Paterno Oliquino, G.R. No. 171314, March 6, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo P. Noveras, G.R. No. 171349, April 27, 2007

This Court indeed has not laid down any rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after she has been abused. This experience is relative and may be dealt with in any way by the victim depending on the circumstances, but her credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt. . . . . People of the Phil. vs. Lito E. Macapanas, G.R. No. 187049, May 4, 2010, citing People vs. Rustum Luzorata, G.R. No. 122478, February 24, 1998 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

584

How the victim comported herself after the incident was not significant as it had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape. Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses are expected in the proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is settled that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience. People of the Phil. vs. Lito E. Macapanas, G.R. No. 187049, May 4, 2010

Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. People of the Phil. vs. Lito E. Macapanas, G.R. No. 187049, May 4, 2010

In a special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. Both rape and homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. Erpascual P. Diega vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 173510 & 174099, March 15, 2010

In the context in which it is used in the Revised Penal Code (RPC), carnal knowledge, unlike its ordinary connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or that the hymen be ruptured. The crime of rape is deemed consummated even when the man's penis merely enters the labia or lips of the female organ or, as we had declared in a case, by the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act. Where the victim is a child, the fact that there was no deep penetration of her vagina and that her hymen was still intact does not negate the commission of rape. Furthermore, the absence of fresh lacerations in the hymen cannot be a firm indication that she was not raped. Hymenal lacerations are not an element of rape. People of the Phil. vs. Anacito Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600, March 9, 2010

In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

585

woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman. When the victim is a minor, however, it is sufficient that the evidence proves that the appellant had sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Victor M. Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010

The allegation in the Information that appellant is an uncle of the victim did not sufficiently satisfy the requirements of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, i.e., it must be succinctly stated that appellant is a relative within the 3rd civil degree by consanguinity or affinity. It is immaterial that appellant admitted that the victim is his niece. In the same manner, it is irrelevant that "AAA" testified that appellant is her uncle. People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Estrada, G.R. No. 178318, January 15, 2010

Article 335, Paragraph 3 Considering that private complainant was 9 years old at the time the first rape was allegedly committed and was 10 years old during the second and third rape incidents, the three counts of rape fall under paragraph 3 of Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code. Carnal knowledge of a girl under 12 years old is statutory rape. Consent of the offended party is immaterial as she is presumed not to have any will of her own, being of tender age. The fact that the offended party is under 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime is an essential element of the crime and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In statutory rape, violence or intimidation is not required, and the only subject of inquiry is whether carnal knowledge took place. People of the Phil. vs. Luis Aycardo, G.R. No. 168299, October 6, 2008 People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Paculba, G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010

What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation, and physical evidence of injury are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern evil from good. People of the Phil. vs. Romar V. Teodoro, G.R. No. 172372, December 4, 2009 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

586

We have repeatedly held that the date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime. It is not necessary to state the precise time when the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. In statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the victim was a minor below twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. People of the Phil. vs. Romar V. Teodoro, G.R. No. 172372, December 4, 2009

In Article 344, the inclusion of the guardian is only to invest him with the power to sign a sworn written complaint to initiate the prosecution of four crimes against chastity, while his inclusion in the enumeration of the offenders in Article 335 is to authorize the imposition of the death penalty on him. With much more reason, therefore, should the restrictive concept announced in De la Cruz, that is, that he be a legal or judicial guardian, be required in the latter article. People of the Phil. vs. Isidro L. Flores, G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010, citing People vs. Garcia, 346 Phil. 475 (1997)

Guidelines in appreciating the victim's age The matter of appreciating the age of the victim, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, was settled when the Court, in the case of People vs. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471 [Oct. 10, 2002], laid down the following guidelines: 1. The best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of such party. 2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the victim would suffice to prove age. 3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 7 years old; Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

587

b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 12 years old; c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is that she is less than 18 years old. 4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. 5. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him. 6. The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. People of the Phil. vs. Terencio L. Funesto, G.R. No. 182237, August 3, 2011

Art. 336 - Acts of Lasciviousness For an accused to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential elements: "1. lewdness. 2.

That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or

That it is done under any of the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age." People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, December 5, 2012 People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

588

"Lewd" is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality which has relation to moral impurity; or that which is carried on a wanton manner. (People of the Phils. vs. Danilo Tayag, G.R. No. 132053, March 31, 2000) People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003

The elements of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC are the following: (1) The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) It is done under any of the following circumstances: a. By using force or intimidation; or b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and (3) The offended party is another person of either sex. Clement John Ferdinand M. Navarrete vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 147913, January 31, 2007 People of the Phil. vs. Nelson B. Balunsat, G.R. No. 176743, July 28, 2010

A charge of acts of lasciviousness is necessarily included in a complaint for rape. The elements of acts of lasciviousness are: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation, (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age; and (3) that the offended party is another person of either sex. "Lewd" is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, or lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality related to moral impurity, or that which is carried on a wanton manner. People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Poras, G.R. No. 177747, February 16, 2010

While rape and acts of lasciviousness have the same nature, they are fundamentally different. For in rape, there is the intent to lie with a woman, whereas in acts of lasciviousness, this element is absent. Jaren C. Tibong vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191000, September 15, 2010

Art. 342 -Forcible abduction Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

589

Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code spells out the elements of the crime of forcible abduction, thus: (a) that the person abducted is a woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation; (b) that the abduction is against her will; and (c) that the abduction is with lewd designs. People of the Phil. vs. Egap Madsali, et al., G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010

Art. 344 - Prosecution of the Crimes of Adultery, Concubinage, Seduction, Abduction, Rape, and Acts of Lasciviousness It is patent that this provision was enacted out of consideration for the offended woman and her family who might prefer to suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with the scandal of a public trial. People of the Phil. vs. Nasario Castel, G.R. No. 171164, November 28, 2008 Apolinario Samilin vs. CFI of Pangasinan, G.R. No. 37376, October 15, 1932

In Article 344, the inclusion of the guardian is only to invest him with the power to sign a sworn written complaint to initiate the prosecution of four crimes against chastity, while his inclusion in the enumeration of the offenders in Article 335 is to authorize the imposition of the death penalty on him. With much more reason, therefore, should the restrictive concept announced in De la Cruz, that is, that he be a legal or judicial guardian, be required in the latter article. People of the Phil. vs. Isidro L. Flores, G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010, citing People vs. Garcia, 346 Phil. 475 (1997)

Art. 345 - Civil Liability of Persons Guilty of Crimes Against Chastity People of the Phil. vs. Paterno Oliquino, G.R. No. 171314, March 6, 2007

Article 345 of the Revised Penal Code provides for three different kinds of civil Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

590

liability that may be imposed on the offender: a) indemnification, b) acknowledgement of the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing, and c) in every case to support the offspring. With the passage of the Family Code, the classification of acknowledged natural children and natural children by legal fiction was eliminated and they now fall under the specie of illegitimate children. Since parental authority is vested by Article 176 of the Family Code upon the mother and considering that an offender sentenced to reclusion perpetua automatically loses the power to exercise parental authority over his children, no 'further positive act is required of the parent as the law itself provides for the child's status'. Hence, [Victor] should only be ordered to indemnify and support the victim's child. Victor Rondina vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 179059, June 13, 2012 citing People v. Glabo, 423 Phil. 45, 53-54 (2001)

Art. 349 – Bigamy

Elements Under Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of the crime of Bigamy are: (1) that the offender has been legally married; (2) that the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (3) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. Veronico Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004

Petitioner makes much of the judicial declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, invoking Article 36 of the Family Code. What petitioner fails to realize is that a declaration of the nullity of the second Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

591

marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of absolutely no moment insofar as the State's penal laws are concerned. As a second or subsequent marriage contracted during the subsistence of petitioner's valid first marriage, petitioner's second marriage would be null and void ab initio completely regardless of petitioner's psychological capacity or incapacity. Since a marriage contracted during the subsistence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of this second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of criminal liability for bigamy. Pertinently, Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code criminalizes "any person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper proceedings". A plain reading of the law, therefore, would indicate that the provision penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage. Veronico Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004

The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void. The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code Revision Committee which drafted what is now the Family Code of the Philippines took the position that parties to a marriage should not be allowed to assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again. In fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage, the person who marries again cannot be charged with bigamy. In numerous cases, this Court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, reprehensible and immoral. Cenon R. Teves vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 188775, August 24, 2011

The elements of the crime of bigamy are: (a) the offender has been legally married; (b) the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

592

the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code; (c) that he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and (d) the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity. The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second marriage or subsequent marriage. It is essential in the prosecution for bigamy that the alleged second marriage, having all the essential requirements, would be valid were it not for the subsistence of the first marriage. Merlinda Cipriano Montañez vs. Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012

Art. 353 - Definition of Libel The malicious and public imputation in writing by one of a crime on another is libel under Article 353, in relation to Article 355, of the Revised Penal Code. Jeffrey O. Torreda vs. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc., et al., G.R. No. 165960, February 8, 2007

The crime of libel, as defined in Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, has the following elements: (1) imputation of a crime, vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance; (2) publicity or publication; (3) malice; (4) direction of such imputation at a natural or juridical person, or even a dead person and (5) tendency to cause the dishonor, discredit or contempt of the person defamed. Nicasio I. Alcantara vs. Vicente C. Ponce, et al., G.R. No. 156183, February 28, 2007 Cristinelli S. Fermin vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008

For an imputation to be libelous, the following requisites must be present: (a) it must be defamatory; (b) it must be malicious; (c) it must be given publicity; and (d) the victim must be identifiable. Novicio v. Aggabao, G.R. No. 141332, December 11, 2003 Alonzo v. Court of Appeals, 241 SCRA 51 (1995) Ogie Diaz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 159787, May 25, 2007 Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. vs. Manuel M. Serrano, G.R. No. 163255 Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

June 22, 593

2007

Art. 354 - Requirement for Publicity Erwin Tulfo vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 161032 & 161176, September 16, 2008

Libel is published not only when it is widely circulated, but also when it is made known or brought to the attention or notice of another person other than its author and the offended party. Alfonso T. Yuchengco vs. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., et al., G.R. No. 184315, November 25, 2009

The exceptions provided in Article 354 are also known as qualifiedly privileged communications. The enumeration under said article is, however, not an exclusive list of qualifiedly privileged communications since fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged. They are known as qualifiedly privileged communications, since they are merely exceptions to the general rule requiring proof of actual malice in order that a defamatory imputation may be held actionable. In other words, defamatory imputations written or uttered during any of the three classes of qualifiedly privileged communications enumerated above — (1) a private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; (2) a fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their functions; and (3) fair commentaries on matters of public interest — may still be considered actionable if actual malice is proven. This is in contrast with absolutely privileged communications, wherein the imputations are not actionable, even if attended by actual malice. Alfonso T. Yuchengco vs. Manila Chronicle Publishing Corp., et al., G.R. No. 184315, November 25, 2009

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

594

Art. 358 - Slander Slander is libel committed by oral (spoken) means, instead of in writing. The term oral defamation or slander as now understood, has been defined as the speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood. Noel Villanueva vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 160351 April 10, 2006 Jeffrey O. Torreda vs. Toshiba Information Equipment (Phils.), Inc., et al., G.R. No. 165960, February 8, 2007

Art. 359 - Slander by Deed Slander by deed is a crime against honor, which is committed by performing any act, which casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. The elements are (1) that the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor, (2) that such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons, and (3) that such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party. Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by deed of a serious nature or not, depends on the social standing of the offended party, the circumstances under which the act was committed, the occasion, etc. It is libel committed by actions rather than words. The most common examples are slapping someone or spitting on his/her face in front of the public market, in full view of a crowd, thus casting dishonor, discredit, and contempt upon the person of another. Noel Villanueva vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 160351, April 10, 2006

Art. 360 - Persons Responsible Francisco I. Chavez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125813, February 6, 2007

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

595

Art. 360 of the Revised Penal Code does not use the term "domicile" in providing for venue in the filing of the criminal case and the civil action for damages. The applicable clause of Art. 360 in this case states that "where any of the offended parties actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense . . . (emphasis supplied)." It is thus essential to determine where the offended parties…actually resided . . . (at) the time of the commission of the offense. Ang Kek Chen vs. Sps. Eleazar and Leticia Calasan, G.R. No. 161685, July 24, 2007

In People v. Topacio and Santiago, reference was made to the Spanish text of Article 360 of the Revised Penal Code which includes the verb "publicar." Thus, it was held that Article 360 includes not only the author or the person who causes the libelous matter to be published, but also the person who prints or publishes it. Based on these cases, therefore, proof of knowledge of and participation in the publication of the offending article is not required, if the accused has been specifically identified as "author, editor, or proprietor" or "printer/publisher" of the publication, as petitioner and Tugas are in this case. Cristinelli S. Fermin vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008 People of the Phil. Islands vs. Jose Topacio, et al., G.R. No. 38021, January 16, 1934

The claim that they had no participation does not shield them from liability. The provision in the RPC does not provide absence of participation as a defense, but rather plainly and specifically states the responsibility of those involved in publishing newspapers and other periodicals. It is not a matter of whether or not they conspired in preparing and publishing the subject articles, because the law simply so states that they are liable as they were the author. Neither the publisher nor the editors can disclaim liability for libelous articles that appear on their paper by simply saying they had no participation in the preparation of the same. They cannot say that Tulfo was all alone in the publication of Remate, on which the subject articles appeared, when they themselves clearly hold positions of authority in the newspaper, or in the case of Pichay, as the president in the publishing company. Cristinelli S. Fermin vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008 Erwin Tulfo vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 161032 & 161176, September 16, 2008

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

596

Venue is jurisdictional in criminal actions such that the place where the crime was committed determines not only the venue of the action but constitutes an essential element of jurisdiction. This principle acquires even greater import in libel cases, given that Article 360, as amended, specifically provides for the possible venues for the institution of the criminal and civil aspects of such cases. Wonina M. Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010

In order to obviate controversies as to the venue of the criminal action for written defamation, the complaint or information should contain allegations as to whether, at the time the offense was committed, the offended party was a public officer or a private individual and where he was actually residing at that time. Whenever possible, the place where the written defamation was printed and first published should likewise be alleged. That allegation would be a sine qua non if the circumstance as to where the libel was printed and first published is used as the basis of the venue of the action. Wonina M. Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010, citing Agbayani v. Sayo, G.R. No. L-47880, April 30, 1979

It becomes clear that the venue of libel cases where the complainant is a private individual is limited to only either of two places, namely: 1) where the complainant actually resides at the time of the commission of the offense; or 2) where the alleged defamatory article was printed and first published. Wonina M. Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010

Before article 360 was amended, the rule was that a criminal action for libel may be instituted in any jurisdiction where the libelous article was published or circulated, irrespective of where it was written or printed. Under that rule, the criminal action is transitory and the injured party has a choice of venue. Experience had shown that under that old rule the offended party could harass the accused in a libel case by laying the venue of the criminal action in a remote or distant place. Wonina M. Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010, citing Chavez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125813, February 6, 2007

If the circumstances as to where the libel was printed and first published are used by the offended party as basis for the venue in the criminal action, the Information must allege with particularity where the defamatory article was printed and first published, as evidenced or supported by, for instance, the address of their editorial or Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

597

business offices in the case of newspapers, magazines or serial publications. This pre-condition becomes necessary in order to forestall any inclination to harass. The same measure cannot be reasonably expected when it pertains to defamatory material appearing on a website on the internet as there would be no way of determining the situs of its printing and first publication. Wonina M. Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010

These limitations imposed on libel actions filed by private persons are hardly onerous, especially as they still allow such persons to file the civil or criminal complaint in their respective places of residence, in which situation there is no need to embark on a quest to determine with precision where the libelous matter was printed and first published. Wonina M. Bonifacio, et al. vs. RTC of Makati, et al., G.R. No. 184800, May 5, 2010, citing Chavez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125813, February 6, 2007

Art. 365 – Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide Appellant is guilty of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide defined in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. In United States vs. Luciano Maleza, G.R. No. 5036, November 17, 1909, 14 Phil. 468, 470 we explained the rationale behind this crime as follows: A man must use common sense, and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is his duty to be cautious, careful, and prudent, if not from instinct, then through fear of incurring punishment. He is responsible for such results as anyone might foresee and for acts which no one would have performed except through culpable abandon. Otherwise his own person, rights and property, all those of his fellow-beings, would ever be exposed to all manner of danger and injury. In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in negligence or imprudence, what is principally penalized is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care or foresight, the imprudencia punible. (Francisco Quizon vs. Justice of the Peace of Pampanga, et al., G.R. No. L-6641, July 28, 1955, 97 Phil. 342) Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, states that reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

598

from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing such act. Compared to intentional felonies, such as homicide or murder, what takes the place of the element of malice or intention to commit a wrong or evil is the failure of the offender to take precautions due to lack of skill taking into account his employment, or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time, and place. People of the Phil. vs. Eutiquia Carmen, G.R. No. 137268, March 26, 2001

Appellant showed an inexcusable lack of precaution when he disregarded a traffic sign cautioning motorists to slow down and drove his vehicle in full speed despite being aware that he was traversing a school zone and pedestrians were crossing the street. He should have observed due diligence of a reasonably prudent man by slackening his speed and proceeding cautiously while passing the area. People of the Phil. vs. Renato Garcia Y Romano, G.R. No. 153591, February 23, 2004

Copyright 2014

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc.

Philippine Law Encyclopedia 2013

599