CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
ARTICLE 4
People vs. Villacorta
G.R. No. 186412. September 7, 2011
DOCTRINE:
1. Proximate cause has been defined as “that
cause, which, in natural and continuous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would not have occurred.”
2. Although the charge in the instant case is for
murder, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of
slight physical injuries may be made considering
that the latter offense is necessarily included in the
former since the essential ingredients of slight
physical injuries constitute and form part of those
constituting the offense of murder.
3. We still appreciate treachery as an aggravating
circumstance, it being sufficiently alleged in the
Information and proved during trial.
FACTS:
 Accused: ORLITO VILLACORTA
 Charge: Murder of Danilo Salvador CRUZ
Witness MENDEJA testified that she was tending her
sari-sari store and both CRUZ and VILLACORTA were her
regular customers. At 2AM, CRUZ while ordering bread was
suddenly stabbed by VILLACORTA with a sharpened
bamboo stick at the formers left side. The stick was broke
and was left in the body of CRUZ. She tried to chase
VILLACORTA but failed to catch him. Upon return he saw
ARON removing the stick and they brought CRUZ to
TONDO MEDICAL CENTER
DR. BELANDRES testified that CRUZ sustained stab
wounds and was treated as OUT-PATIENT. He did not
personally treat CRUZ as the latter died at SAN LAZARO
HOSPITAL. However, as per medical chart and diagnosis,
CRUZ died of “TETANUS STAGE III”
 RTC: VILLACORTA is guilty of MURDER
 CA: affirmed the RTC
 CLAIM/S: VILLACORTA claims that he could only
be liable for SLIGHT P/I
ISSUE:
WON VILLACORTA is merely liable for SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES.
HELD:
YES, he is liable only for SLIGHT P/I because the
proximate cause of the death is TETANUS INFECTION and
1
not the stabbed wound inflicted as shown by the
INCUBATION PERIOD and ONSET TIME.
We face the very same doubts in the instant case that
compel us to set aside the conviction of Villacorta for
murder. There had been an interval of 22 days between
the date of the stabbing and the date when Cruz was
rushed to San Lazaro Hospital, exhibiting symptoms of
severe tetanus infection. If Cruz acquired severe tetanus
infection from the stabbing, then the symptoms would
have appeared a lot sooner than 22 days later. As the
Court noted in Urbano, severe tetanus infection has a short
incubation period, less than 14 days; and those that exhibit
symptoms with two to three days from the injury, have one
hundred percent (100%) mortality.
Ultimately, we can only deduce that Cruz’s stab
wound was merely the remote cause, and its subsequent
infection with tetanus might have been the proximate
cause of Cruz’s death. The infection of Cruz’s stab wound
by tetanus was an efficient intervening cause later or
between the time Cruz was stabbed to the time of his
death.
However, Villacorta is not totally without criminal
liability. Villacorta is guilty of slight physical injuries under
Article 266(1) of the Revised Penal Code for the stab
wound he inflicted upon Cruz.
Although the charge in the instant case is for
murder, a finding of guilt for the lesser offense of slight
physical injuries may be made considering that the latter
offense is necessarily included in the former since the
essential ingredients of slight physical injuries constitute
and form part of those constituting the offense of murder.
We cannot hold Villacorta criminally liable for
attempted or frustrated murder because the prosecution
was not able to establish Villacorta’s intent to kill.
The inference that the intent to kill existed should not be
drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove
this fact beyond reasonable doubt. When such intent is
lacking but wounds were inflicted, the crime is not
frustrated murder but physical injuries only.
Evidence on record shows that Cruz was brought to Tondo
Medical Center for medical treatment immediately after
the stabbing incident. Right after receiving medical
treatment, Cruz was then released by the Tondo Medical
Center as an out-patient. There was no other evidence to
establish that Cruz was incapacitated for labor and/or
required medical attendance for more than nine days.
Without such evidence, the offense is only slight physical
injuries.
We still appreciate treachery as an aggravating
circumstance, it being sufficiently alleged in the
Information and proved during trial.
WHEREFORE, A new judgment is entered finding Villacorta
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of slight
physical injuries
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
ARTICLE 6
Baleros, Jr. vs. People
G.R. NO. 138033, February 22, 2006
DOCTRINE:
1. "the attempt which the Penal Code punishes is
that which has a logical connection to a
particular, concrete offense; that which is the
beginning of the execution of the offense by overt
acts of the perpetrator, leading directly to its
realization and consummation." (citing PEOPLE VS.
LAMAHANG)
2. Overt or external act 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 out 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
3. As aptly observed by then Justice Ramon C.
Aquino, there is no need to allege malice, restraint
or compulsion in an information for unjust
vexation. As it were, unjust vexation exists even
without the element of restraint or compulsion for
the reason that this term is broad enough to
include any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm,
would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent
person.
FACTS:
 ACCUSED: RENATO “CHITO” BALEROS, JR.
 CHARGE: ATTEMPTED Rape of Martina Lourdes
ALBANO (MALOU)
WITNESSES OF PROSECUTION:
1. MALOU was a medical student of UST. She was
renting ROOM 307 in CELESTIAL MARIE BUILDING.
Early morning of DEC 13, she was awakened by a
smell of chemical on a piece of cloth pressed on her face
and somebody was pinning her down on the bed. Her right
hand got free and she grab the sex organ of the assailant
and squeezed it.
The man let go of her and she saw that the
attacker fled from her room going to the left bedroom
window. She also testified that she has a classmate who
2
confined his feelings for her but she rejected it. It was
CHITO.
MALOU did not saw the attacker but she was able
to feel the shirt and the shorts, which are made of cotton
and silk, respectively
2. SECURITY GUARD: testified that he saw CHITO
arrived at 1:30 AM wearing t-shirt, and black
adidas shorts. He requested to go to ROOM 306.
He was not allowed to enter but later allowed even
without request letter from the tenant because he will be
soon a tenant the coming summer.
3. JOSEPH AFRICA was the one in ROOM 306 and
was awakened by the knock of CHITO. AFRICA
was awakened again due to knock of BAPTISTA
regarding what happened in the room of MALOU.
CHITO and AFRICA talked at 6-6:30AM and they went
to ROOM 310. CHITO followed with his gray bag.
CIS arrived and invited CHITO and AFRICA in camp
crame.
4. CHRISTIAN ALCALA testified that after his class on
DEC 13, the ROOM 310 occupants was asked by
the CIS to search for this that they do not own.
They found the gray bag of CHITO which contains
shirt, black adidas short, handkerchief, 3 white
shirts, underwear and socks
Upon chemical examination, the presence of
CHLOROFORM which matches the blue colors in the
handkerchief, and things of MALOU,
WITNESSES of DEFENSE: the witnesses of the defense are
CHITO, fraternity members. Their version was CHITO came
to the party of their fraternity at GREENHILLS, SAN JUAN.
He was fetched and returned by his fratmates at CELESTIAL
BUILDING at 1:00 AM. ---same with SECURITY GUARD ---. He
woke up at 6-6:30AM and he was already in uniform and
asked AFRICA why he was not yet ready and the latter
answered that there was something that happened to
MALOU last night and he just go to ROOM 310.
THEY were not allowed to go out of the building
until he and AFRICA was brought to CAMP CRAME. The
bag was also taken to them but he was not asked if those
things belong to him.
 RTC – convicted BALEROS of ATTEMPTED RAPE
 CA – affirmed the RTC
 Claim/s:
o OSG: The Solicitor General maintained
that petitioner, by pressing on Malou's
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
face the piece of cloth soaked in
chemical while holding her body tightly
under the weight of his own, had
commenced the performance of an act
indicative of an intent or attempt to rape
the victim. It is argued that petitioner's
actuation thus described is an overt act
contemplated under the law, for there
can not be any other logical conclusion
other than that the petitioner intended to
ravish Malou after he attempted to put
her to an induced sleep. The Solicitor
General, echoing what the CA said, adds
that if petitioner's intention was otherwise,
he would not have lain on top of the
victim
ISSUE:
WON BALEROS, JR. is guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE.
HELD:
NO, he is not guilty of attempted rape but only of
UNJUST VEXATION because his over acts shows no intent to
commit the crime of rape.
Expounding on the nature of an attempted felony, the
Court, speaking thru Justice Claro M. Recto in People vs.
Lamahang, stated that "the attempt which the Penal
Code punishes is that which has a logical connection to a
particular, concrete offense; that which is the beginning
of the execution of the offense by overt acts of the
perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and
consummation."
Absent the unavoidable connection, like the logical and
natural relation of the cause and its effect, as where the
purpose of the offender in performing an act is not certain,
meaning the nature of the act in relation to its objective is
ambiguous, then what obtains is an attempt to commit an
indeterminate offense, which is not a juridical fact from
the standpoint of the Penal Code.
HERE, Harmonizing the above definition to the facts of this
case, it would be too strained to construe petitioner's act
of pressing a chemical-soaked cloth in the mouth of Malou
which would induce her to sleep as an overt act that will
logically and necessarily ripen into rape.
As it were, petitioner did not commence at all the
performance of any act indicative of an intent or attempt
to rape Malou. It cannot be overemphasized that
petitioner was fully clothed and that there was no attempt
on his part to undress Malou, let alone touch her private
part.
At bottom then, the appellate court indulges in plain
speculation, a practice disfavored under the rule on
evidence in criminal cases
3
Lest it be misunderstood, the Court is not saying that
petitioner is innocent, under the premises, of any
wrongdoing whatsoever. The information filed against
petitioner contained an allegation that he forcefully
covered the face of Malou with a piece of cloth soaked
in chemical. And during the trial, Malou testified about the
pressing against her face of the chemical-soaked cloth
and having struggled after petitioner held her tightly and
pinned her down. Verily, while the series of acts committed
by the petitioner do not determine attempted rape, as
earlier discussed, they constitute unjust vexation
punishable as light coercion under the second paragraph
of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code.
In the context of the constitutional provision assuring an
accused of a crime the right to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation, it cannot be said that
petitioner was kept in the dark of the inculpatory acts for
which he was proceeded against. To be sure, the
information against petitioner contains sufficient details to
enable him to make his defense. As aptly observed by
then Justice Ramon C. Aquino, there is no need to allege
malice, restraint or compulsion in an information for unjust
vexation. As it were, unjust vexation exists even without the
element of restraint or compulsion for the reason that this
term is broad enough to include any human conduct
which, although not productive of some physical or
material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent
person.
ISSUE:
WON BALEROS, JR. is guilty of UNJUST VEXATION.
HELD:
YES, he guilty of unjust vexation. Because “That
Malou, after the incident in question, cried while relating
to her classmates what she perceived to be a sexual
attack and the fact that she filed a case for
attempted rape proved beyond cavil that she was
disturbed, if not distressed by the acts of petitioner.”
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals
affirming that of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, is
hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and a new one
entered ACQUITTING petitioner Renato D. Baleros, Jr. of
the charge for attempted rape. Petitioner, however, is
adjudged GUILTY of light coercion and is accordingly
sentenced to 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine
of P200.00, with the accessory penalties thereof and to
pay the costs.
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE 4
acc
People vs. Labiaga  CA – upheld the conviction
G.R. No. 202867. July 15, 2013  CLAIM/s:

DOCTRINE: ISSUE:
1. FRUSTRATED FELONY vs ATTEMPTED FELONY WON LABIAGA is liable for FRUSTRATED MURDER.
In SERRANO vs PEOPLE 623 SCRA 322: HELD:
FRUSTRATED ATTEMPTED NO, he is not because the SC note, however, that
Offender performed all Offender merely appellant should be convicted of ATTEMPTED MURDER, and
the acts of execution commences the not frustrated murder of GREGORIO.
which should produce the commission of a felony Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code defines the stages
in the commission of felonies:
felony as a consequence directly by overt acts and Art. 6. Consummated, frustrated, and
does not perform all acts attempted felonies.—Consummated felonies as
of execution well as those which are frustrated and attempted,
are punishable.
REASON FOR THE NON-ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE A felony is consummated when all the elements
CRIME is necessary for its execution and accomplishment
Some cause independent Cause or accident other are present; and it is frustrated when the offender
performs all the acts of execution which would
of the will of the than the offender’s own produce the felony as a consequence but which,
perpetrator spontaneous desistance. nevertheless, do not produce it by reason of causes
independent of the will of the perpetrator.
2. If the evidence fails to convince the court that There is an attempt when the offender
the wound sustained would have caused the commences the commission of a felony directly by
victim’s death without timely medical attention, overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of
the accused should be convicted of attempted execution which should produce the felony by
murder and not frustrated murder. reason of some cause or accident other than his
own spontaneous desistance.
FACTS:
See TABLE:
 ACCUSED: Regie LABIAGA and DEMAPANAG.
In frustrated murder, there must be evidence
 CHARGE: MURDER of JUDY Conde and showing that the wound would have been fatal were it not
FRUSTRATED MURDER of GREGORIO Conde. for timely medical intervention.
If the evidence fails to convince the court that the
wound sustained would have caused the victim’s death
FOR PROSECUTION: GREGORIO was with her 2 without timely medical attention, the accused should be
daughters, JUDY and GLENELYN in their house. GREGORIO convicted of attempted murder and not frustrated
murder.
stepped outside and he was shot by LABIAGA (5 meters
IN THE INSTANT CASE, it does not appear that the wound
away). He called JUDY for help but LABIAGA shot her in the sustained by Gregorio Conde was mortal.
abdomen. The two other companion of LABIAGA told him Since Gregorio’s gunshot wound was not mortal, we hold
that JUDY was already dead. THEY all fled. that appellant should be convicted of attempted murder
and not frustrated murder.
Upon arrival at the SARA DISTRICT HOSPITAL. JUDY was
pronounced dead on arrival and GREGORIO made full WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM the 18 October 2011 Decision
recovery after treatment of the Court of Appeals-Cebu in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No.
01000 with MODIFICATIONS. In Criminal Case No. 2002-
CAUSE OF DEATH of JUDY is CARDIOPULMUNARY ARREST
1777, we find that appellant Regie Labiaga is GUILTY of
due to gunshot wound. Attempted Murder and shall suffer an indeterminate
FOR THE DEFENSE: LABIAGA claims that he is merely sentence ranging from two (2) years, four (4) months and
one (1) day of prision correccional as minimum, to eight
acting in self-defense as GREGORIO challenged him to a
(8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum,
fight with a shotgun. GREGORIO tried to shoot him but the and pay P40,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as
gun jammed and when they wrestled, the gun fired. exemplary damages. In Criminal Case No. 2001-1555,
LABIAGA did not know if anyone was hit. appellant shall pay P75,000.00 as civil indemnity,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as
 RTC – acquitted DEMAPANAG and found exemplary damages.
LABIAGA guilty of both charges (MURDER and
FRUSTRATED MURDER)
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
People vs. Feliciano, Jr.
G.R. No. 196735. May 5, 2014
DOCTRINE:
1. Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved,
all of the conspirators are liable as co-principals
regardless of the extent and character of their
respective active participation in the commission
of the crime or crimes perpetrated in furtherance
of the conspiracy because in contemplation of
law the act of one is the act of all.
2. Verily, the moment it is established that the
malefactors conspired and confederated in the
commission of the felony proved, collective
liability of the accused conspirators attaches by
reason of the conspiracy, and the court shall not
speculate nor even investigate as to the actual
degree of participation of each of the perpetrators
present at the scene of the crime
3. It is, therefore, immaterial to distinguish between
the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the
victims to determine the respective liabilities of
their attackers. What is relevant is only as to
whether the death occurs as a result of that intent
to kill and whether there are qualifying,
aggravating or mitigating circumstances that can
be appreciated.
FACTS:
 ACCUSED: SCINTILLA JURIS Frat Members
 CHARGE: Murder of VENTURINA and ATTEMPTED
Murder of other SIGMA RHO FRATERNITY MEMBERS
It is undisputed that on December 8, 1994, at
around 12:30 to 1:00 in the afternoon, seven (7) members
of the Sigma Rho Fraternity were eating lunch at the
Beach House Canteen, near the Main Library of the
University of the Philippines, Diliman, when they were
attacked by several masked men carrying baseball bats
and lead pipes. Some of them sustained injuries that
required hospitalization. One of them, Dennis Venturina,
died from his injuries.
An information for murder was filed against
several members of the Scintilla Juris Fraternity
Separate informations were also filed against them for the
attempted murder of Sigma Rho Fraternity members (3 IN
TOTAL) and the frustrated murder of Sigma Rho Fraternity
members (2 MEMBERS)
On December 12, 1994, Lachica, Natalicio, Mangrobang,
Fortes, and Gaston executed their respective affidavits
before the National Bureau of Investigation and
underwent medico-legal examinations
with their medico-legal officer, Dr. Aurelio Villena.
According to Feliciana Feliciano, accused-appellant
Danilo Feliciano, Jr.’s mother, her son was in Pampanga to
visit his sick grandfather at the time of the incident. She
alleged that her son went to Pampanga before lunch that
day and visited the school where she teaches to get their
house key from her.
5
According to Robert Michael Beltran Alvir, he had not
been feeling well since December 5, 1994. He said that he
could not have possibly been in U.P. on December 8, 1994
since he was absent even from work
According to Julius Victor Medalla, he and another
classmate, Michael Vibas, were working on a school
project on December 8, 1994. He also claimed that he
could not have participated in the rumble as he had an
injury affecting his balance.
Christopher Soliva, on the other hand, testified that he
was eating lunch with his girlfriend and another friend in
Jollibee, Philcoa, on December 8, 1994. They went back to
U.P. before 1:00 p.m. and went straight to their fraternity
hang-out where he was told that there had been a rumble
at the Main Library
 RTC - Robert Michael Alvir, Danilo Feliciano, Jr.,
Christopher Soliva, Julius Victor Medalla, and
Warren Zingapan were guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of murder and attempted murder
 Court of Appeals, in a Special First Division of Five,
affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court
 In the decision of the trial court, all of the accused-
appellants were found guilty of the murder of
Dennis Venturina and the attempted murder of
Mervin Natalicio, Cesar Mangrobang, Jr., Leandro
Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and Cristobal Gaston, Jr.
The appellate court, however, modified their
liabilities and found that the accused-appellants
were guilty of attempted murder only against
Natalicio and Fortes, and not against
Mangrobang, Lachica, and Gaston.
 It is the appellate court’s reasoning that because
Lachica and Mangrobang “were no longer
chased by the attackers,” it concluded that
accused-appellants “voluntary desisted from
pursuing them and from inflicting harm to them,
which shows that they did not have the intent to
do more than to make them suffer pain by slightly
injuring them.” It also pointed out that the wound
inflicted on Gaston “was too shallow to have
been done with an intent to kill.” Thus, it
concluded that the accused-appellants would
have been guilty only of slight physical injuries.
ISSUE:
WON CA is correct in ruling that the crime
committed against FORTES and NATALICIO is ATTEMPTED
MURDER, and against GASTON was SP/I and NONE for
LACHICA and MANGROBANG.
HELD:
NO, they are all liable for MURDER and ATTEMPTED
MURDER because of conspiracy proven by the
prosecution.
This is erroneous.
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE 6
acc
It should be remembered that the trial court found Mangrobang, Jr., Leandro Lachica, Arnel Fortes, and
that there was conspiracy among the accused-appellants Cristobal Gaston, Jr.
and the appellate court sustained this finding.
Conspiracy, once proven, has the effect of attaching
liability to all ofthe accused, regardless of their degree of WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-
participation G.R. CR No. 01158 dated November 26, 2010
is AFFIRMED insofar as the accused-appellants Danilo
Once an express or implied conspiracy is proved, all
Feliciano, Jr., Julius Victor Medalla, Christopher Soliva,
of the conspirators are liable as co-principals regardless of
the extent and character of their respective active Warren L. Zingapan, and Robert Michael Beltran Alvir are
participation in the commission of the crime or crimes found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder in
perpetrated in furtherance of the conspiracy because in
Criminal Case No. Q95-61133 with the MODIFICATION that
contemplation of law the act of one is the act of all.
The foregoing rule is anchored on the sound principle they be found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of
that “when two or more persons unite to accomplish a Attempted Murder
criminal object, whether through the physical volition of
one, or all, proceeding severally or collectively, each
individual whose evil will actively contributes to the wrong-
doing is in law responsible for the whole, the same as
though performed by himself alone.” Although it is
axiomatic that no one is liable for acts other than his own,
“when two or more persons agree or conspire to commit
a crime, each is responsible for all the acts of the others,
done in furtherance of the agreement or conspiracy.”
Verily, the moment it is established that the
malefactors conspired and confederated in the
commission of the felony proved, collective liability of the
accused conspirators attaches by reason of the
conspiracy, and the court shall not speculate nor even
investigate as to the actual degree of participation of each
of the perpetrators present at the scene of the crime. x x x

The liabilities of the accused-appellants in this case

arose from a single incident wherein the accused-
appellants were armed with baseball bats and lead pipes,
all in agreement to do the highest amount of damage
possible to the victims. Some were able to run away and
take cover, but the others would fall prey at the hands of
their attackers. The intent to kill was already present at the
moment of attack and that intent was shared by all of the
accused-appellants alike when the presence of
conspiracy was proven
It is, therefore, immaterial to distinguish between the
seriousness of the injuries suffered by the victims to
determine the respective liabilities of their attackers. What
is relevant is only as to whether the death occurs as a result
of that intent to kill and whether there are qualifying,
aggravating or mitigating circumstances that can be
appreciated.
The appellate court, therefore, erred in finding the
accused-appellants guilty only of slight physical
injuries. It would be illogical to presume that despite the
swiftness and suddenness of the attack, the attackers
intended to kill only Venturina, Natalicio, and Fortes, and
only intended to injure Lachica, Mangrobang, and
Gaston. Since the intent to kill was evident from the
moment the accused-appellants took their first swing, all
of them were liable for that intent to kill.
For this reason, the accused-appellants should be
liable for the murder of Dennis Venturina and the
attempted murder of Mervin Natalicio, Cesar
Cruz vs. People
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
G.R. No. 166441. October 8, 2014
DOCTRINE:
1. Rape is consummated once the penis
capable of consummating the sexual act
touches the external genitalia of the female.
2. As the evolving case law on rape stands,
rape in its frustrated stage is a physical
impossibility, considering that the requisites of
a frustrated felony under Article 6 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) are that: (1) the
offender has performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony;
and (2) that the felony is not produced due
to causes independent of the perpetrator’s
will. Obviously, the offender attains his
purpose from the moment he has carnal
knowledge of his victim
3. In attempted rape, the concrete felony is
rape, but the offender does not perform all
the acts of execution of having carnal
knowledge.
4. As a rule, preparatory acts are not
punishable under the Revised Penal Code
(RPC) for as long as they remained equivocal
or of uncertain significance, because by their
equivocality no one could determine with
certainty what the perpetrator’s intent really
was.
5. Acts of Lasciviousness; Attempted Rape; It is
obvious that the fundamental difference
between attempted rape and acts of
lasciviousness is the offender’s intent to lie
with the female.
FACTS:
 ACCUSED: Norberto CRUZ y BARTOLOME
 CHARGE: Attempted Rape of a 15 yr old girl
and Acts of Lasciviousness of another minor.
PROSECUTION:
CRUZ and his wife were engage in business of
selling PLASTIC and GLASS WARES. They employed
AAA and BBB to sell their wares in LA UNION during a
fiesta. CRUZ, HIS WIFE, AAA, BBB, RODRIGUEZ and
JESS used a passenger jeepney in going to LA
UNION. The wife and RODRIGUEZ went back to
MANILA to get more goods after they unloaded and
set-up tents.
The alleged ATTEMPTED RAPE happened when
AAA was awakened when she felt that somebody
was on top of her and mashing her breast and
touching her private parts. He was threatened not to
7
scream or else she will be killed. She fought back and
kicked CRUZ twice. She went outside and tried to
awaken JESS but to no avail. She returned to the
tend and she saw CRUZ touching BBB but when she
entered the tent CRUZ left.
CRUZ offered her money and told not to tell her
mother or else he will kill the mother.
AAA and BBB narrated the incident to JESS. They
also went to the municipal hall and told a policeman
regarding the sexual advances of CRUZ. CRUZ was
summoned at the police station and his wife had an
argument with them
AAA and BBB was still able to work until end of
DECEMBER and went back to PANGASINAN. They
returned to LA UNION where they executed their
statements
DEFENSE:
CRUZ claims that it was impossible for him to
commit the imputed acts because there were many
people around preparing for simbang gabi. He
believes that the reason for the complaints was
solely for extortion of money.
 RTC – CRUZ is guilty of ATTEMPTED RAPE and
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
 CA – guilty of Attempted Rape but acquitted
for Acts of Lasciviousness
ISSUE:
WON the petitioner’s climbing on top of the
undressed AAA such that they faced each other,
with him mashing her breasts and touching her
genitalia with his hands, constituted attempted
rape.
HELD:
NO, such overt acts does not show any intent
to lie with AAA. As such CRUZ is liable only for acts of
lasciviousness
In People v. Lamahang, the Court, speaking
through the eminent Justice Claro M. Recto,
eruditely expounded on what overt acts would
constitute an attempted felony, to wit:
 It is our opinion that the attempt to commit
an offense which the Penal Code punishes is
that which has a logical relation to a
particular, concrete offense; that, which is
the beginning of the execution of the offense
by overt acts of the perpetrator, leading
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
directly to its realization and consummation.
The attempt to commit an indeterminate
offense, inasmuch as its nature in relation to
its objective is ambiguous, is not a juridical
fact from the standpoint of the Penal Code.
 “It must be borne in mind (Groizard I, p. 99)
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 of
execution (accion medio). Hence, the
necessity that these acts be such that by
their very nature, by the facts to which they
are related, by the circumstances of the
persons performing the same, and by the
things connected therewith, they must show
without any doubt, that they are aimed at
the consummation of a crime. Acts
susceptible of double interpretation, that is,
in favor as well as against the culprit, and
which show an innocent as well as a
punishable act, must not and cannot furnish
grounds by themselves for attempted or
frustrated crimes. The relation existing
between the facts submitted for
appreciation and the offense of 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 instance of
injustice, that the mind be able to directly
infer from them the intention of the
perpetrator to cause a particular injury. This
must have been the intention of the legislator
in requiring that in order for an attempt to
exist, the offender must commence the
commission of the felony directly by overt
acts, that is to say, that the acts performed
must be such that, without the intent to
commit an offense, they would be
meaningless.”
As the evolving case law on rape stands,
therefore, rape in its frustrated stage is a physical
impossibility, considering that the requisites of a
frustrated felony under Article 6 of the Revised Penal
Code are that: (1) the offender has performed all
the acts of execution which would produce the
felony; and (2) that the felony is not produced due
to causes independent of the perpetrator’s will.
Obviously, the offender attains his purpose from the
moment he has carnal knowledge of his victim,
8
because from that moment all the essential
elements of the offense have been accomplished,
leaving nothing more to be done by him.
In attempted rape, therefore, the concrete
felony is rape, but the offender does not perform all
the acts of execution of having carnal knowledge. If
the slightest penetration of the female genitalia
consummates rape, and rape in its attempted stage
requires the commencement of the commission of
the felony directly by overt acts without the offender
performing all the acts of execution that should
produce the felony, the only means by which the
overt acts performed by the accused can be shown
to have a causal relation to rape as the intended
crime is to make a clear showing of his intent to lie
with the female.
He cannot be held liable for attempted rape
without such overt acts demonstrating the intent to
lie with the female. In short, the State, to establish
attempted rape, must show that his overt acts,
should his criminal intent be carried to its complete
termination without being thwarted by extraneous
matters, would ripen into rape
HERE, The petitioner climbed on top of the naked
victim, and was already touching her genitalia with
his hands and mashing her breasts when she freed
herself from his clutches and effectively ended his
designs on her. Yet, inferring from such
circumstances that rape, and no other, was his
intended felony would be highly unwarranted
This was so, despite his lust for and lewd designs
towards her being fully manifest. Such circumstances
remained equivocal, or “susceptible of double
interpretation,” as Justice Recto put in People v.
Lamahang, supra, such that it was not permissible to
directly infer from them the intention to cause rape
as the particular injury.
Verily, his felony would not exclusively be rape
had he been allowed by her to continue, and to
have sexual congress with her, for some other felony
like simple seduction (if he should employ deceit to
have her yield to him) could also be ultimate felony.
We clarify that the direct overt acts of the
petitioner that would have produced attempted
rape did not include equivocal preparatory acts.
The former would have related to his acts directly
connected to rape as the intended crime, but the
latter, whether external or internal, had no
connection with rape as the intended crime.
Perforce, his perpetration of the preparatory acts
would not render him guilty of an attempt to commit
such felony.27 His preparatory acts could include his
putting up of the separate tents, with one being for
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE 9
acc
the use of AAA and BBB, and the other for himself
and his assistant, and his allowing his wife to leave for
Manila earlier that evening to buy more wares. Such
acts, being equivocal, had no direct connection to
rape. As a rule, preparatory acts are not punishable
under the Revised Penal Code for as long as they
remained equivocal or of uncertain significance,
because by their equivocality no one could
determine with certainty what the perpetrator’s
intent really was.

 If the acts of the petitioner did not constitute

attempted rape, did they constitute acts of
lasciviousness?
It is obvious that the fundamental difference
between attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness
is the offender’s intent to lie with the female. In rape,
intent to lie with the female is indispensable, but this
element is not required in acts of lasciviousness.
Attempted rape is committed, therefore, when
the “touching” of the vagina by the penis is coupled
with the intent to penetrate. The intent to penetrate
is manifest only through the showing of the penis
capable of consummating the sexual act touching
the external genitalia of the female
Without such showing, only the felony of acts of
lasciviousness is committed. The information
charged that the petitioner “remove[d] her panty
and underwear and la[id] on top of said AAA
embracing and touching her vagina and breast.”
With such allegation of the information being
competently and satisfactorily proven beyond a
reasonable doubt, he was guilty only of acts of
lasciviousness, not attempted rape. His embracing
her and touching her vagina and breasts did not
directly manifest his intent to lie with her. The lack of
evidence showing his erectile penis being in the
position to penetrate her when he was on top of her
deterred any inference about his intent to lie with
her.

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and PRONOUNCES

petitioner NORBERTO CRUZ y BARTOLOME guilty
of ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS, and, ACCORDINGLY,
PENALIZES him with the indeterminate sentence of
three (3) months of arresto mayor, as the minimum,
to two (2) years, four (4) months and one day
of prisión correccional, as the
maximum; ORDERS him to pay moral damages of
P30,000.00 and civil indemnity of P20,000.00 to the
complainant, with interest of 6% per annum on such
awards reckoned from the finality of this decision
until full payment; and DIRECTS him to pay the costs
of suit.
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
People vs. Lamahang
No. 43530. August 3, 1935
DOCTRINE:
1. The attempt which the Penal Code punishes is
that which has a logical relation to a particular,
concrete offense; that, which is the beginning of
the execution thereof by overt acts of the
perpetrator leading directly to its realization and
consummation. The attempt to commit an
indeterminate offense, inasmuch as its nature in
relation to its objective is ambiguous, is not a
juridical fact from the standpoint of the Penal
Code.
2. It is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing
penal sanction, that an act objectively performed
should constitute a mere beginning of execution;
it is necessary to establish its unavoidable relation,
like the logical and natural relation of the cause
and its effect, to the deed which, upon its
consummation, will ripen into one of the crimes
defined and punished by the Code; it is necessary
to prove that such 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 perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.
3. In order that a simple act of entering by means of
force or violence another person's dwelling may
be considered as attempted robbery, it must be
shown that the offender clearly intended to take
possession, for the purpose of gain, of some
personal property belonging to another
FACTS:
At early dawn on March 2, 1935, policeman Jose
Tomambing, who was patrolling his beat on Delgado and
C. R. Fuentes streets of the City of Iloilo, caught the
accused in the act of making an opening with an iron bar
on the wall of a store of cheap goods located on the last
named street. At that time the owner of the store, Tan Yu,
was sleeping inside with another Chinaman.
The accused had only succeeded in breaking one board
and in unfastening another from the wall, when the
policeman showed up, who instantly arrested him and
placed him under custody.
FISCAL, TRIAL JUDGE and SOLGEN – considered the act as
ATTEMPTED ROBBERY.
ISSUE:
WON there is an ATTEMPTED ROBBERY.
HELD:
NO, there is no ATTEMPTED ROBBERY because
10
It is our opinion that the attempt to commit an offense
which the Penal Code punishes is that which has a logical
relation to a particular, concrete offense; that, which is the
beginning of the execution of the offense by overt acts of
the perpetrator, leading directly to its realization and
consummation. The attempt to commit an indeterminate
offense, inasmuch as its nature in relation to its objective is
ambiguous, is not a juridical fact from the standpoint of the
Penal Code.
HERE, it was the intention of the accused to enter Tan Yu's
store by means of violence, passing through the opening
which he had started to make on the wall, in order to
commit an offense which, due to the timely arrival of
policeman Tomambing, did not develop beyond the first
steps of its execution.
But it is not sufficient, for the purpose of imposing penal
sanction, that an act objectively performed constitute a
mere beginning of execution; it is necessary to establish its
unavoidable connection, like the logical and natural
relation of the cause and its effect, with the deed which,
upon its consummation, will develop into one of the
offenses defined and punished by the Code; it is 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 perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.
Thus, in case of robbery, in order that the simple act of
entering by means of force or violence another person's
dwelling may be considered an attempt to commit this
offense, it must be shown that the offender clearly
intended to take possession, for the purpose of gain, of
some personal property belonging to another.
HERE, there is nothing in the record from which such
purpose of the accused may reasonably be inferred. From
the fact established and stated in the decision, that the
accused on the day in question was making an opening
by means of an iron bar on the wall of Tan Yu's store, it may
only be inferred as a logical conclusion that his evident
intention was to enter by means of force said store against
the will of its owner. That his final objective, once he
succeeded in entering the store, was to rob, to cause
physical injury to the inmates, or to commit any other
offense, there is nothing in the record to justify a concrete
finding.
"It must be borne in mind (I Groizard, p. 99) that in offenses
not consummated, as the material damage is wanting,
the nature of the action intended (acción fin) cannot
exactly be ascertained, but the same must be inferred
from the nature of the acts executed (acción medio).
Hence, the necessity that these acts be such that by their
very nature, by the facts to which they are related, by the
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE 11
acc
circumstances of the persons performing the same, and
by the things connected therewith, they must show
without any doubt, that they are aimed at the
consummation of a crime.
Acts susceptible of double interpretation, that is,
in favor as well as against the culprit, and which show an
innocent as well as a punishable act, must not and can
not furnish grounds by themselves for attempted nor
frustrated crimes.
Viada (Vol. I, p. 47) holds the same opinion when
he says that "the overt acts leading to the commission of
the offense, are not punishable except when they are
aimed directly to its execution, and therefore they must
have an immediate and necessary relation to the offense."
"Considering—says the Supreme Court of Spain in
its decision of March 21, 1892—that in order to declare that
such and such overt acts constitute an attempted offense
it is necessary that their objective be known and
established, or that said 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 the designation of the offense”

In view of the foregoing, we are of the opinion,

and so hold that the fact under consideration does not
constitute attempted robbery but attempted trespass to
dwelling

Wherefore, the sentence appealed from is revoked and

the accused is hereby held guilty of attempted trespass to
dwelling, committed by means of force, with the aforesaid
aggravating and mitigating circumstances and
sentenced to three months and one day of arresto
mayor, with the accessory penalties thereof and to pay
the costs.
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
People vs. Quiñanola
G.R. No. 126148. May 5, 1999
DOCTRINE:
1. While the evidence may not show full penetration
on both occasions of rape, the slightest
penetration is enough to consummate the
offense.
2. 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
3. It is unbelievable that a young barrio lass would
concoct a tale of defloration, publicly admit
having been ravished and her honor tainted,
allow the examination of her private parts, and
undergo all the trouble and inconvenience, not to
mention the trauma and scandal of a public trial,
had she not in fact been raped and truly moved
to protect and preserve her honor, as well as to
obtain justice, for the wicked acts committed
against her.
FACTS:
 ACCUSED: Agapito QUIÑANOLA and Eduardo
ESCUADRO
 CHARGE: FRUSTRATED RAPE of Catalina
CARCILLER [using PEOPLE VS ERIÑIA] (10 years
after SC pronounced that there is no ATTEMPTED
RAPE in PEOPLE vs. ORITA)
The story of prosecution was:
Catalina Carciller, her cousin 15-year-oldGinto and
another male companion named Diaz, went to attend a
dance at around ten o’clock in the evening of 05 March
1994
Catalina, born on 09 November 1978,4 was just then
fifteen (15) years and four (4) months old. She was a
student at the Bito-on National Vocational School at
Dumanjug, Cebu.
About an hour later, they left the party and were soon
on their way home. The three unsuspecting youngsters
stopped momentarily to rest at a waiting shed beside the
Tangil Elementary School. Accused Agapito Quiñanola
a.k.a. “Petoy,” and accused Eduardo Escuadro a.k.a.
“Botiquil” who were both armed with guns suddenly turned
up.
Quiñanola instructed Escuadro to take care of the
male companions of Catalina while he (Quiñanola) held
the latter at gunpoint.
Escuadro brought Diaz and Ginto outside the waiting
shed area. He ordered the duo to lie face down on the
ground and then urinated at them. While Escuadro was
fixing the zipper of his pants, Diaz and Ginto were able to
escape and ran away.
Meanwhile, Quiñanola, with his gun pointed at
Catalina, forcibly brought her towards the nearby school.
When Escuadro again showed up, Catalina asked about
12
her two friends. Quiñanola replied that he had ordered
them to go home. Catalina begged that she herself be
allowed to leave. Pretending to agree, they walked the
path towards the road behind the school.
Then, unsuspectingly, Quiñanola forced Catalina to sit
on the ground. She resisted but Quiñanola, pointing his gun
at her, warned her that if she would not accede to what
he wanted, he would kill her. Catalina started to cry.
Quiñanola told Escuadro to remove her denim pants.
Catalina struggled to free herself from Escuadro’s hold but
to no avail. Escuadro ultimately succeeded in undressing
her.
Quiñanola unzipped his pants and laid on top of her
while Escuadro held her legs. Quiñanola “started to pump,
to push and pull”5 even as Catalina still tried desperately
to free herself from him. She felt his organ “on the lips of
(her) genitalia.”6 When Quiñanola had satisfied his lust,
Escuadro took his turn by placing himself on top of
Catalina. Catalina could feel the sex organ of Escuadro
“on the lips of (her) vulva”7 while he made a push and pull
movement. Quiñanola, who stood by, kept on smoking a
cigarette.
Escuadro and Quiñanola scampered immediately
after Catalina’s ordeal. Failing to find her pair of pants and
panty, Catalina was left wearing only her T-shirt and
brassieres. Catalina just then sat down, not knowing what
to do, until she finally started to run home fearing that she
might be followed.
Baffled by Catalina’s strange behavior, her mother
and her elder sister took turns in interrogating her. Catalina
finally said that she was raped but she would not reveal
the names of the persons who had committed the
dastardly act because of their threat.
Guillermo Zozobrado learned from his wife, Catalina’s
sister, that Catalina had been raped. He promptly
repaired to the municipal hall of Dumanjug to report the
crime. Policemen were immediately dispatched to the
Carcillers’ residence. Still in a state of shock, Catalina
initially kept mum about it; later, when the police officers
returned at daytime, she was able to respond to questions
and to disclose that “Petoy,” referring to Agapito
Quiñanola, and “Botiquil,” the other accused Eduardo
Escuadro, were the persons who ravished her.
Dr. Tomas P. Refe, medico-legal officer of the National
Bureau of Investigation (“NBI”) who conducted the
physical examination of Catalina showed that there was
“no evidence of extragenital physical injury noted on the
body of the Subject.” The report concluded that the
hymenal orifice, about 1.8 cms. in diameter, was “so small
as to preclude complete penetration of an average-size
adult penis in erection without producing laceration.”
Accused Agapito Quiñanola, a member of the
Philippine National Police stationed at Naga, Cebu,
testified that it was his day-off, he and his wife, Leticia, who
had just arrived in Naga from Cebu City to attend to the
construction of their unfinished house.
Quiñanola helped Vidal Lañojan and Nicasio Arnaiz in
cementing the kitchen floor of their house. The work was
finished at around 11:00 o’clock in the evening. After Vidal
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE
acc
and Nicasio had gone home, Quiñanola went to bed with
his wife around midnight until the following morning
He denied having been in the company of his co-
accused, Escuadro a.k.a. “Botiquil,” at any time during the
whole day and night
According to him, Guillermo Zozobrado, Catalina’s
brother-in-law, concocted the rape charge to get even
with him because of an incident at a fiesta dance when
George Camaso, the husband of his sister Jinga, got into
trouble with Samuel Escuadro. Leticia Quiñanola, the wife
of accused Agapito Quiñanola, corroborate his testimony.
Accused Eduardo Escuadro a.k.a. “Botiquil” declared
that at about seven o’clock in the evening, he and Pablito
Cuizon, Jr., went fishing until about ten o’clock that
evening. After partaking of supper at around 11:30 p.m.,
they had a drinking spree and went to bed at 12:00
midnight waking up at 6:30 a.m. the following day.
He denied having been in the company of Quiñanola
and insisted that the rape charge had been the result of a
mere mistaken identity.
 RTC – convicted QUIÑANOLA of frustrated rape.
 Appeal to SC.
 CLAIM/S:
ISSUE:
WON QUIÑANOLA and co-accused was liable for
FRUSTRATED RAPE.
HELD:
NO, they are not liable of FRUSTRATED RAPE but
CONSUMMATED RAPE because slight penetration of the
vagina constitute the crime of rape (thus, there is no
FRUSTRATED RAPE) and proof that there is no laceration of
the vagina does not negate the crime.
In the context it is used in the Revised Penal Code,
“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 once so said in a case, by the “mere
touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of
consummating the sexual act.”
In People vs. Escober, in convicting a father of
having raped twice his 11-year-old daughter, the Court
has said:
“While the evidence may not show full
penetration on both occasions of rape, the
slightest penetration is enough to consummate
the offense. In fact, there was vulva penetration in
both cases. 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. What is fundamental is
that the entrance or at least the introduction of
the male organ into the labia of the pudendum is
proved.
13
The accused may be convicted on the
sole basis of complainant’s testimony if credible
and the findings of the medico-legal officer do
not disprove the commission of rape.
There are no half measures or even
quarter measures nor is their gravity graduated by
the inches of entry. Partial penile penetration is as
serious as full penetration. The rape is deemed
consummated in either case in a manner of
speaking, bombardment of the drawbridge is
invasion enough even if the troops do not
succeed in entering the castle.”
The trial court, in convicting appellants only of
frustrated rape, ruled that there was no “conclusive
evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the
offended party” in that (a) Catalina had admitted that she
did not spread her legs and (b) the medico-legal officer’s
findings showed she did not sustain any extragenital injuries
and her hymenal orifice was so small that an erect
average-size penis would not have completely
penetrated it without causing laceration.
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 vs. Orita, “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.
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
because not all acts of execution was performed. The
offender merely commenced the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts.
Each appellant is liable for two counts of
consummated rape on account of a clear conspiracy
between them shown by their obvious concerted efforts to
perpetrate, one after the other, the crime. Each of them,
therefore, is responsible not only for the rape committed
personally by him but also for the rape committed by the
other as well.
WHEREFORE, appellants Agapito Quiñanola y
Escuadro and Eduardo Escuadro y Floro are each found
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of
consummated rape and accordingly, sentenced to the
penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case. Said
appellants are ordered to pay jointly and severally
Catalina Carciller the sum of P100,000.00 by way of
indemnity ex delictu for the two counts of consummated
rape plus P60,000.00 moral damages. Costs against
appellants.
CRIMREV: 3RD WAVE 14
acc

DOCTRINE:

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD: