TITLE EIGHT: CRIMES AGAINTS PERSONS
ARTICLE 246—PARRICIDE
People v Jumawan
Sept 23, 1982; P: Abad Santos; ~by Diana
Relationship must be alleged for murder to become PARRICIDE
FACTS:
1. On January 1974, Rodolfo Magnaye married Presentacion Jumawan (1 of
the accused)
2. They separated. Each left the conjugal abode.
3. Presentacion’s mother tried (a lot of times) to get Rodolfo to sign an
agreement that would let each of them remarry but failed
4. On June 19, 1976, Rodolfo went to meet Presentacion at the Sariaya public
market to talk “about their lives”
5. The meeting turned out to be their last one because he was killed at that
day.
6. According to a witness, Rodolfo was killed inside a store at the public
market by Presentacion, her 2 brothers, and her father.
 At Presentacion’s order he was stabbed to death by one of the
brother while the other brother and father were preventing
him from moving.
7. The next day, Rodolfo’s mother, who was looking for him, found his dead
body by the waters.
8. The trial court found the 4 accused guilty of the crime of murder under Art
248 of the RPC
ISSUE:
Since Presentacion is the victim’s wife, should she be held guilty for parricide
instead?
HELD: No. She stands convicted of MURDER.
- For her to be guilty of parricide, her relationship to the deceased should
have been alleged in the information.
- However, the aggravating circumstance of relationship may still be assigned
against the other accused. But, their penalty has been reduced to reclusion
perpetua for lack in number of votes.
*Their alibis are not credible because the places where they said they were at the
time of the crime are not that far from the scene of the crime.
DECISION: Judgment Affirmed
PEOPLE VS TOMOTORGO
BEL
FACTS:
1. Accused Jaime Tomotorgo y Alarcon is married to Magdalena de los Santos.
2. Magdalena persistently asked the accused to sell their conjugal home
located in Sitio Dinalungan Barangay Cabugai Cam Sur. She also asked him
that they transfer to the house of her husband’s in-law which is located in
the town of Tinamabac.
3. The accused refused to abide by her wife’s request because he does not like
to abandon theri home and he has many plants and improvements on the
land which he farms.
4. On June 23, 1977, at 7 am, the accused left home to go to farm and upon
return at 9 am he found his wife and three-month old baby already gone
5. He proceeded to look for them and on a trail of about 200 meters from their
home, he saw his wife with the infants together with a bundle of clothes.
6. He asked and pleaded for their return but she adamantly refused to do so
7. When accused sought to take child from his wife, the latter threw the baby
on the grassy portion of the trail and the baby started to cry.
8. This caused the accused to get furious and with anger beyond his control,
he picked up a piece of wood and started hitting his wife until she fell to the
ground and complained that she’s experiencing severe chest pains.
9. Realizing what he has done, picked up the wife and brought to home then
came back for the baby on the grass.
10. Magdalena died despite her husband’s effort to alleviate her pains.
11. Accused changed the dress of wife and reported incident to the Barangay
Captain who brought him to Policeman Arellosa to whom accused
surrendered. He also brought the piece of wood he used to beat his wife.
12. Charged of parricide. He first pleaded not guilty but changed it to guilty
upon being re-arraigned. He was permitted to establish the mitigating
circumstances which were invoked. A. voluntary surrender B. plea of guilty
c.he acted upon impulse so powerful as naturally to have produced passion
and obfuscation.
13. The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetual
14. On appeal, the accused contends:
o There’s lack of intent to kill
o Art 49 proper applicable penalty when crime committed different
from that intended.
o The court erred in on following mandatory sequence of procedures
for the correct applicable penalty
o It also erred in denying the accused of the benefits of the ISLAW.
15. He avers that the penalty for physical injuries only and not parricide should
be imposed on him
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of physical injuries only and not parricide since
there was no intent to kill on his part and that the result of the crime is different
from that intended
RULING:
The Court in complete accord with and sustained the ruling of the lower court and
that the accused is not entitled to the benefits of the ISLAW.
 Art. 49 does not apply to cases where more serious consequences not
intended by the offender result from his felonious act because under art. 4,
par 1 of the same Code, he is liable for all the direct and natural
consequences of his unlawful act. His lack of intention to commit so grave a
wrong is, at best, mitigating.
 The fact that appellant intended to maltreat the victim only or inflict
physical injuries does not exempt him from liability for the resulting more
serious crime.
 The RTC added a recommendation that executive clemency be extended to
the accused after his service of the minimum of the medium penalty of
prision mayor.
 The SolGen prays in the People’s Brief that in view of the circumstances,
recommends for the commutation of the penalty.
 The SC expresses hope that absolute or conditional pardon by President or
that there be a commutation of his sentence so that he may qualify and be
eligible for parole.
 There is a manifest repentant attitude of the accused and his remorse for
his act which the RTC made particular mention and the recommendation of
the SOL GEN as well as the number of years that the accused had been
imprisoned.
 The SC said that its recommendation should be promptly brought to the
attention of the President by the proper authority in whose custody the
accused has been placed.
PEOPLE vs PEDRO MALABAGO y VILLAESPIN
December 2, 1996; niLo
Proof of spouse relationship in parricide: marriage certificate or in its absence, oral
testimony of the accused.
Facts:
1. On January 5, 1994, at about 7:00 in the evening, Guillerma Romano was
tending her sari-sari store in Barangay Gulayon, Dipolog City.
2. Guillerma's daughter, Letecia Romano Malabago, arrived and sat on one of
the benches outside the store and was also joined by Allandel, Letecia's
fourteen-year old son.
3. A few minutes later, accused-appellant came and interrupted his wife and
mother-in-law's conversation. He and Letecia began arguing.
4. Guillerma turned away but heard the couple's altercation over money and
appellant's jealousy of someone.
5. Guillerma heard Letecia cried out "Agay! She saw Letecia's face bloodied
with a slash along her right ear. Appellant was facing Letecia, and with a
bolo in his hand, struck her again, this time hitting the lower left side of her
face, from the lips down to the neck. Letecia fell to the ground. Guillerma
rushed towards her daughter and shouted for help. She was lifeless.
6. Appellant fled to Dodong Opulentisima's house. Dodong Opulentisima later
called the police. They came, fetched appellant and brought him to their
station.
7. The trial court upheld the prosecution and on May 10, 1994 convicted
accused-appellant of parricide and sentenced him to death pursuant to
Republic Act No. 7659.
ISSUE: WON the accused should be convicted of parricide?
RULING: YES!
Parricide is committed when:
(1) a person is killed;
(2) the deceased is killed by the accused;
KEY ELEMENT- relationship: (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.
 In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the relationship
between the accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the
absence of it, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may be considered by
the court if such proof is not objected to.
- The testimony of the accused that he was married to the deceased is an
admission against his penal interest. It is a confirmation of presumption
that they are husband and wife.
 The essential elements of the crime of parricide like appellant's marriage to
Letecia, the cause of Letecia's death and appellant's participation therein
were facts already established by the prosecution to qualify the offense as
parricide.
 No aggravating circumstance of treachery because the appellant hacked his
wife in the midst of a sudden, unscripted heated argument and the
appellant was not carrying his bolo at that time.
 Mitigating circumstance: Appellant testified that he voluntarily surrendered
to the police when they fetched him at Dodong Opulentisima's house.
The penalty imposable to appellant is reclusion perpetua.
PEOPLE v IGNACIOI
March 26 1997; Vitug J.
Facts:
1. Rosaria Igancio,44 yrs old, lived with her husband Juan Ignacio, 67 yrs old
2. Living with them is Rosaria’s daughter , Milagros V. Cabanilla by previous
marriage
3. On the night of Feb 9 1992, Rosaria and Juan had a heated argument and
Milagros entreated them to stop but the argument still continued
4. Feb 10 1992- another quarrel took place and this time Milagros grudgingly
went upstairs and tried instead to put her child to sleep.
5. While Milagros was upstairs, she could hear that the quarrel had become
violent. As she peeped, she saw by the gas lamp that both are pulling a
piece of lawanti and each tried to take possession of it.
6. As Juan released the lawanti to get his bolo, Rosario picked up a palo-palo
and hit juan on the nape.
7. Rosaria then left straggling juan and surrendered to the police and
voluntarily disclose what happen before Rolando ( son of Juan by his 1 st
wife). The following day, Juan died
8. In TC, she was convicted with parricide and on appeal she prayed that he
she be acquitted on the basis of self-defense or in alternative that she be
held guilty only for homicide rather than of parricide.
Issue: 1. WON she should be acquitted ?
2. Is she guilty of parricide?
Held/ Rationale:
1. No, she should not be acquitted because there was no unlawful aggression
 The burden of proof in self defense is on the accused who must show
by strong, clear and convincing evidence that the killing is justified and
that therefore there is no criminal liability.
 Art 11 of the RPC provides the elements of self defense :(1) unlawful
aggression ( which is the condition sine qua non) (2) reasonable
necessity of means employed by the accused to prevent or repeal it
(3) and lastly is the lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
 By her own admission, the petitioner only thought that her husband
would strike her. In fact her own daughter Milagros belied Rosaria’s
testimony who declared that even before the victim could get his bolo,
the petitioner already picked up her palo-palo and hit him
2. Article 246 of the RPC defines and penalizes the crime of parricide.
 “ any person who shall kill his father , mother or child, legitimate or
illegitimate and or any of his ascendants or descendants or his spouse
shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death.”
 The phrase “whether legitimate or illegitimate” refers the relationship
between the accused and his victim. They may be his father ,mother
or child but not the spouse
 In this case, Rosaria declared in court that the victim was her 4 th
husband. Even Milagros testified that it was her mother’s husband.
Rolando on the other hand testified that indeed they are husband and
wife. Semper praesumitur matrimonion the presumption that a man
and a woman deporting them as husband and wife had verily entered
into a lawful contract of marriage.
People v. Genosa
September 29, 2000; J.Panganiban
Parricide
(Bon)
Facts:
1 This is a case as a resolution of an earlier case which involves Marivic
Genosa who was found Guilty of parricide aggravated by treachery
sentencing her of death.
2 It was noted that Marivic killed Ben Genosa, her legitimate husband,
with hard use of deadly weapon.
3 The Court did not accept the defense theory of Marivic.
4 In this case, Marivic claims that she did not lie in the manner of killing
her husband (by shooting him rather than smashing him) and that she
suffered abuse in the hands her husband. She also argues that under
the surrounding circumstances, her act of killing her husband was
equivalent to self defense.
5 Thus she prays for the following:
a. Exhumation of the body of the victim and the re-examination of
the cause of death of the husband
b. Submit the accused appellant for examination by qualified
psychologists and psychiatrist to determine the state of mind at
the time of killing the spouse and allowing the report of such
experts to be of the record of the case for purposes of automatic
review and allowing partial re-opening of the case to admit the
testimonies of the experts.
Issues:
1. Should there be exhumation and re-examination of the victim’s body?
2. Should the appellant be submitted to psychologists or psychiatrists to
determine her state of mind at the time of killing?
Held:
 1. No. The prayer for exhumation is immaterial since the act of proving of
manner of killing the victim should have been done in the trial court.
2. Yes. The court cannot deny the appellant of her opportunity to offer
defense for criminal conviction must be based on guilt beyond reasonable
doubt and that the accused is facing the possibility of death.
- The counsel of this case (Atty. Katrina Legarda) raised the Battered wife
syndrome as a viable plea within the concept of self defense. Finding that
there is legal and jurisprudential lacuna with respect to this, it could be a
possible modifying circumstance that could affect the criminal liability or the
penalty of the accused.
Decision: The case was remanded to the Trial court fot the reception of expert
psychological and/or psychiatric opinion on the “battered wife syndrome”
Note:
- This case is under parricide (Art.246) because the relationship of Marivic
and Ben comes within the purview of the said article.
- In the subsequent case, Genosa’s defense was not given merit because
there was failure to show the cycle of battered wife syndrome.
- Battered Wife Syndrome is described through its three phases namely:
tension building phase, acute battering incident and tranquil loving phase.
In the first stage, minor battery occurs and the woman tries to pacify the
batterer. However, she remains to allow herself to be abused in order not to
perpetuate the violence. On the second stage, brutal and at times fatal
battery occurs. The batterer takes domination and the woman only thinks
that she cannot reason with him and cannot resist him. On last stage, there
is already a profound relief from the husband and wife after the acute
battery. The man realizes his cruelty and tries to make up for it and asks
forgiveness. The woman on the other hand, convinces herself that such
battery will not happen anymore and that his partner changed. Note that
these three phases should occur at least twice.
People v. Abarca
September 14, 1987
<You can kill your unfaithful wife if you see her do it infront of you>
Facts:
1. July 15, 1984 – Francisco Abarka shot and killed Khingsley Paul Koh, and
shot Lina and Arnold Amparado.
2. Francisco got home after fetching his daughter from school
3. Found his wife and Khing in the act of love when he returned
4. The Khing got a gun and pointed it at Francisco.
5. Francisco ran away and got himself a gun aswell
6. Francisco returned home and did not find anyone
7. Francisco went to Khing’s majong hangout and shot him but accidentally
shot Lina and Arnold too (Khing’s neighbors)
8. RTC: Guilty of murder and double frustrated murder
Issues:
WON the court erred in making its decision.
Held:
Yes, the crime Francisco committed falls under Art. 247 of the revised penal code.
 ART. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. — Any legally married person who, having surprised his
spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person,
shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter,
or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty
of destierro.
 Article 247 prescribes the following elements:
o that a legally married person surprises his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person; and
o that he kills any of them or both of them in the act or immediately
thereafter.
 These elements are present in this case. The trial court, in convicting the
accused-appellant of murder, therefore erred.
 Though quite a length of time, about one hour, had passed between the
time the accused-appellant discovered his wife having sexual intercourse
with the victim and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must
be understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the
accused-appellant. 
 It only requires that the death caused be the proximate result of the
outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the
basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually motivated
by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by external
factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.
 Since the killing was without intent the court cannot decide that it was
murder and the shooting of Lina and Arnold should be understood as to
have no intent as well but is still punishable by physical injures via
negligence.
PEOPLE v BUENSUCESO
 September 28, 1984
FACTS:
1. April 21, 1967—between 5-6pm, witness Apolonio Salvador saw Patrolman
Rodolfo Aguilar & Pariseo Tayag conversing as they were walking side by
side, each resting his hand on the shoulder of the other, going towards the
municipal building.
2. Pat. Aguilar was trying to take the fan knife of Tayag, but could not take it
because Tayag prevented him from taking it. He didn’t want to the give
knife because he was not making any trouble.
3. Aguilar told Tayag to go to the office of the chief of police. Tayag agreed
4. Inside,a heated argument took place between Pat. Aguilar & Tayag when
the latter still refused to give his fan knife.
5. Pat. Fidel de la Cruz came too, but when Tayag was about to leave the
office, Chief of Police Adriano Canlas arrived & asked what was going on.
6. Aguilar said that the two of them (Aguilar & Canlas) had been cursed by
Tayag. But Tayag denied cursing the 2 & informed the chief that Aguilar was
forcing him to give up his knife.
7. Tayag hurriedly left the office but he was followed by Pat. Aguilar, Mallari &
De la Cruz. Since Mallari & Aguilar were holding guns, the latter fired his
upward.
8. Hearing the shot, Tayag turned about, retreated backwards until he reached
the fence of the plaza, but when Tayag was near the wooden fence about a
knee high, Aguilar shot him above the knee.
9. So, Tayag ran towards his house but was followed by de la Cruz without a
gun. However, Mallari & Aguilar went to the waiting shed to intercept Tayag
& took opposite sides of the road. Then there were several successive gun
shots, more or less nine in number.
10. After the commotion, Tayag was seen lying prostrate near the back of a jeep
parked about 60 meters away from the municipal building.
11. De la Cruz took the knife from Tayag & gave it to Pat. Jose Buensuceso, Pat.
Izon & Pat. Joson were there too.
12. Finding out that some police officers were involved, Sgt. Romualdo-Espiritu
proceeded to the municipal building and investigated on the crime.
13. The 4 police officers were charged of Murder, under Art 248 of the RPC.
ISSUE:
1. Was the conviction of Izon & Joson as co-principals in the crime of
Murder correct?
2. Was the court correct in holding that although there was no conspiracy
between the 4 police officers, they are guilty of Murder under Art. 248
of RPC?
3. Though he claimed to have acted independently, Was there treachery
on the part of Aguilar when he killed Tayag?
SUPREME COURT:
YES TO ALL. THE COURT FOUND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BACKED UP BY THE
CREDIBLE TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESS.
1. All 4 of the police officers were seen by the witness Salvador to have been
present at the crime scene at armed with .38 calibre service revolvers.
2. The autopsy showed that Tayag died as a result of 4 gunshot wounds
inflicted by .38 cal. Revolvers. Specifically that the slug found from the knee
of Tayag was from the Revolver of Buensuceco.
3. The on-the-spot inspection by Sgt. Espiritu right after the incident, he found
that the service pistol of Aguilar had been fired & had 3 empty shells & 3
live ammunitions left, and that of Buensuceso’s had been fired as well & had
4 empty shells & 2 live ammunitions left.
4. The Ballistic examination proved that the empty shells of ammunition were
from the guns of BUENSUCESO & AGUILAR.
5. The Chemistry Reports on the paraffin tests of IZON and JOSON showed
positive results. Therefore confirming Salvador’s declaration that they were
in the vicinity of the crime at the time it happened.
6. AGUILAR's plea of self-defense is evidently unmeritorious. AGUILAR
followed the victim right after the latter hurriedly left the office of the Chief
of Police. If, as contended, the victim had thrust his knife at AGUILAR inside
the Municipal Building malting the former the unlawful aggressor, to be
sure, the incident would have happened there and then and not some 60
meters away from the building.
7. There is ample evidence establishing that AGUILAR, BUENSUCESO, IZON,
and JOSON had fired their guns at the victim hitting him on different parts of
his body.
8. Although it has not been established as to which wound was inflicted by
each accused the Court held that where the victim died as a result of
wounds received from several persons acting independently of each other,
but it has not been shown which wound was inflicted by each assailant, all
of the assailants are liable for the death of the victim.
9. The crime was qualified by TREACHERY hence it’s MURDER. Because:
a. The victim was already retreating backwards until he reached the fence
of the town plaza when AGUILAR fired his revolver at the former hitting
him above the right knee.
b. Despite the fact that he was already hit & wounded, & possibly
immobilized, he was still subjected to successive shots as shown by
the wounds that he had received, even at his back.
c. Evidently the means employed by the police tended directly & specially
to insure the execution of the crime without risk to themselves arising
from any defense which the victim might have made.
 10. Also, Tayag’s killing was aggravated by abuse of superior strength as shown
by the number of assailants, which was however, absorbed by treachery.
No other circumstances modify the commission of the crime.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
People v. Pugay
November 17, 1988; J.Medialdea
Homicide through reckless imprudence
(Bon)
Facts:
1. Miranda (deceased) was a retardate and is a friend of the accused
Pugay (accused).
2. During a town fiesta in a public plaza, Samson (another accused) and
Pugay saw Gabion (a friend) in the ferris wheel. The two with their
companions were drunk. When they saw Miranda walking nearby, they
made fun of him by making him dance.
3. Not contented of what they were doing, Pugay grabbed a can of
gasoline and poured such to Miranda. Gabion tried to stop Pugay but
the latter was already pouring the gasoline. Later, Samson lit Miranda
making a human torch out of him.
4. Miranda died although he was rushed to the hospital. Pugay in his
statement admitted that he poured the gasoline believing it was water
and then Samson set him on fire. Samson on the other hand argued
that Pugay did pour the gasoline but he did not see who set Miranda on
fire.
5. The trial court rendered that Pugay and Samson were guilty of the
crime of murder and availing Pugay a mitigating circumstance of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong.
Issue:
Did the trial Court erred in their decision?
Held:
Yes. The proper offense are Homicide through reckless imprudence for Pugay and
Homicide for Samson.
- Elements of Murder is that any person not falling in Art. 246 who kills
another person through the enumerated circumstances in Art. 248 (just see
Art.248 for the 6 circumstances). On the other hand, homicide is committed
by a person who is not falling under the provision of Art.246, kills another
without the attendance of the circumstances enumerated in Art.249
- For Pugay
o He just committed homicide through reckless imprudence. First
there was no attendant qualifying circumstance found.
o Pugay’s argument is untenable. The stench of gasoline could have
not skipped his notice which shows his negligence on his actions.
- For Samson:
o He just committed homicide since no qualifying circumstance was
proven. The act was mearly for purpose of making fun and thus
treachery cannot be deduced from such. Giving him benefit of the
doubt, Samson merely intended to burn the clothes. However,
although it was not what was intended, Article 4 applies where
criminal liability is still incurred although the wrongful act is
different from what was intended for. Also, note that burning
clothes may cause physical injuries, a felony defined in the RPC.
o Mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong may be given in his favour. Gabion testified that the two
(Pugay and Samson) were stunned when they saw the deceased
burning. Likewise, there was an absence of proof that accused has
reason to kill the deceased before the incident.
Decision: Pugay is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence sentenced a range
of 4 mo. of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 y. and 2 mo. of prision correccional as
maximum. Samson is guilty of Homicide sentenced of 8 years of prision mayor as
minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
People v. Pugay
November 17, 1988; J.Medialdea
Homicide through reckless imprudence
(Bon)
Facts:
6. Miranda (deceased) was a retardate and is a friend of the accused
Pugay (accused).
7. During a town fiesta in a public plaza, Samson (another accused) and
Pugay saw Gabion (a friend) in the ferris wheel. The two with their
companions were drunk. When they saw Miranda walking nearby, they
made fun of him by making him dance.
8. Not contented of what they were doing, Pugay grabbed a can of
gasoline and poured such to Miranda. Gabion tried to stop Pugay but
the latter was already pouring the gasoline. Later, Samson lit Miranda
making a human torch out of him.
9. Miranda died although he was rushed to the hospital. Pugay in his
statement admitted that he poured the gasoline believing it was water
and then Samson set him on fire. Samson on the other hand argued
 that Pugay did pour the gasoline but he did not see who set Miranda on
fire.
10. The trial court rendered that Pugay and Samson were guilty of the PEOPLE VS SALUFRANIA
crime of murder and availing Pugay a mitigating circumstance of lack of BEL
intent to commit so grave a wrong. FACTS:

Issue:
Did the trial Court erred in their decision?
Held:
Yes. The proper offense are Homicide through reckless imprudence for Pugay and
Homicide for Samson.
- Elements of Murder is that any person not falling in Art. 246 who kills
another person through the enumerated circumstances in Art. 248 (just see
Art.248 for the 6 circumstances). On the other hand, homicide is committed
by a person who is not falling under the provision of Art.246, kills another
without the attendance of the circumstances enumerated in Art.249
- For Pugay
o He just committed homicide through reckless imprudence. First
there was no attendant qualifying circumstance found.
o Pugay’s argument is untenable. The stench of gasoline could have
not skipped his notice which shows his negligence on his actions.
- For Samson:
o He just committed homicide since no qualifying circumstance was
proven. The act was mearly for purpose of making fun and thus
treachery cannot be deduced from such. Giving him benefit of the
doubt, Samson merely intended to burn the clothes. However,
although it was not what was intended, Article 4 applies where
criminal liability is still incurred although the wrongful act is
different from what was intended for. Also, note that burning
clothes may cause physical injuries, a felony defined in the RPC.
o Mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong may be given in his favour. Gabion testified that the two
(Pugay and Samson) were stunned when they saw the deceased
burning. Likewise, there was an absence of proof that accused has
reason to kill the deceased before the incident.
Decision: Pugay is guilty of homicide through reckless imprudence sentenced a range
of 4 mo. of arresto mayor as minimum to 4 y. and 2 mo. of prision correccional as
maximum. Samson is guilty of Homicide sentenced of 8 years of prision mayor as
minimum to 14 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
1. Filomeno Salufrania was charged with the crime of parricide with
intentional abortion
2. Pedro Salufrania, the son of the accused testified that at about 6pm off
December 3, 1974, his father and his mother Marciana Abuyo had a quarrel
3. During the said quarrel the accused box his pregnant wife on the stomache
and strangled her to death. Pedro saw blood ooze from the eyes and nose
of his mother.
4. Pedro testified that after killing his mother, the accused used a hammock to
cover the body of the deceased. He further allege that the accused
threatened to kill him and his sibling should he reveal the true cause of his
mother’s death
5. On the other hand, accused Filomeno Salufrania contends that his wife died
of stomach pain and that he tried native treatments to alleviate the pain.
6. The accused was convicted of the said crime and was sentenced to suffer
the penalty of death.
7. He contends that the trial court failed to determine Pedro’s incompetence
because he was only 13 years old when he testified and only 11 years old
when the offense was charged.
8. He further questions the competence of Dr. Dyquiangco as an expert
witness since it was his first time to conduct an autopsy on a cadaver which
had been buried for about a week.
ISSUE: Did the trial court erred in its decision?
RULING
Yes. He should instead be convicted of the complex crime of parricide with
unintentional abortion
On Pedro’s competency as a witness:
 The trial court determined Pedro’s competency before he was allowed to
testify under oath
  He has a strong sense of moral duty to tell the truth even though it should
lead to his father’s conviction, this shows that he fully appreciate the
meaning of an oath
 As to Pedro’s change of answer when asked whether he was threatened by
his uncle to testify against his father, it only shows that Pedro was confused
with the question. Later on the affirmed his answer that he wasn’t
threatened at all.
 His testimony remains unruffled. Even if there were some discrepancies,
such are just minors and didn’t affect his credibility as a witness.
On Dr. Dyquiangco’s competence
 Although this was his first time to examine a cadaver that was buried for a
week, he had, however, conducted similar post-mortem examinations on 10
other occasions.
On Abortion:
There must be intent to cause the abortion to be guilty of intentional abortion; it
cannot be merely incidental to a killing
 Accused intent to cause abortion has not been sufficiently established.
 Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with the immediate strangling
of the victim in a fight, is not sufficient proof to show an intent to cause
abortion.
 The accused must have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily
to cause the abortion.
 The accused is liable for the complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion
PEOPLE vs CEILITO ORITA alias "Lito,"
April 3, 1990; niLo
<No frustrated crime of rape>
Facts:
1. Complainant Cristina S. Abayan was a 19-year old freshman student at the
St. Joseph's College at Borongan, Eastern Samar. Appellant was a Philippine
Constabulary (PC) soldier.
2. March 20, 1983, complainant arrived at her boarding house. Her classmates
had just brought her home from a party. After her classmates had left, she
knocked at the door of her boarding house. All of a sudden, somebody held
her and poked a knife to her neck. She then recognized appellant who was a
frequent visitor of another boarder.
3. With his left arm wrapped around her neck and his right hand poking a
"balisong" to her neck, appellant dragged complainant up the stairs (p. 14,
ibid). When they reached the second floor, he commanded her to look for a
room.
4. He ordered her to lie down on the floor and then mounted her. He made
her hold his penis and insert it in her vagina. She followed his order as he
continued to poke the knife to her. At said position, however, appellant
could not fully penetrate her. Only a portion of his penis entered her as she
kept on moving.
5. Appellant then lay down on his back and commanded her to mount him. In
this position, only a small part again of his penis was inserted into her
vagina. At this stage, appellant had both his hands flat on the floor she
escaped by dashing out to the next room and locked herself in. She fled to
another room and jumped out through a window, she darted to the
municipal building and went to the policemen.
6. The trial court convicted the accused of frustrated rape since there was no
conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the victim.
Issue: Is the trial court correct of convicting the accused of frustrated rape?
RULING:
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code defines and enumerates the elements of the
crime of rape:
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 Supreme Court was convinced that there was rape because:
- the victim's testimony from the time she knocked on the door of the
municipal building up to the time she was brought to the hospital was
corroborated by Pat. Donceras.
- Interpreting the findings as indicated in the medical certificate which is a
conclusive proof that there was struggle against force and violence exerted
on the victim.
NO FRUSTRATED RAPE:
The requisites of a frustrated felony are:
- that the offender has performed all the acts of execution which would
produce the felony and
 - that the felony is not produced due to causes independent of the
perpetrator's will.
a) 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.
b) 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 because not all acts of execution was performed. The
offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt
acts.
Was there penetration of genital organ of the victim?
 it is stated in the medical certificate that the vulva was erythematous (which
means marked by abnormal redness of the skin due to capillary congestion,
as in inflammation) and tender. It bears emphasis that Dr. Zamora did not
rule out penetration of the genital organ of the victim. He merely testified
that there was uncertainty whether or not there was penetration. Anent
this testimony, the victim positively testified that there was penetration,
even if only partially.
Accused found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape and sentenced
to reclusion perpetua as well as to indemnify the victim in the amount of
P30,000.00.
People v Campuhan
March 30 2000; Bellosillo J
Facts:
1. Primo Campuhan was found guilty of guitlty of statutory rape and was
sentenced to extreme penalty of death.
2. On April 25 1996, around 4pm, Ma. Corazon P. Pamintuan went down from
the 2nd floor of their house to prepare Milo for her two children where one
is Crysthel ( 4yrs old) .
3. At the ground floor, she saw Primo Campuhan, helper of Conrado Plata Jr.
( Corazon’s brother) who was then busy filling small plastic bags with water
to be frozen into ice
4. As she was busy preparing the drinks, she heard one of her daughters
crying and when she heard “Ayo’ko,ayo’ko!” she rush upstairs and saw
Primo Campuhan inside her children’s room kneeling before Crysthel
whose pajamas and panty were already removed, while Primo’s short pants
were down to his knees.
5. According to Corazan, Primo was trying to insert his penis into Crysthel’s
vagina. Horrified she cursed him.
6. Primo then push aside Corazon and ran while corazan called for help
7. Seconds later, Primo was apprehended by those who answered Corazon’s
call fro help
8. Primo now contends that Corazan’s testimony should not be given weight
or credence since it was punctured with implausible statements and
improbabilities so inconsistent with human nature and experience. He also
contends that it was impossible for him to commit rape as the sister of
Crysthel was with them playing and that the place was within the family
compound enough for him to deter from committing such act.
9. Lastly, Primo contends that it was impossible for Corazon to give vivid
description of the alleged sexual contact from where she stood during that
time and that the absence of any external signs of physical injuries or of
penetration of Crysthel’s private parts strengthen his innocents
Issue: is he guilty of rape?
Held: NO, he is guilty only of attempted rape as the prosecutor utterly failed to
prove that Primo’s penis was able to penetrate not matter how slight it is
Rationale:
 In concluding that carnal knowledge took place, full penetration of the
vaginal orifice is not an essential ingredient, nor is the rupture of the hymen
necessary
 The mere touching of the external genetalia by the penis capable of
consummating the sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.
 However the act of touchng should be understood here as inherently part of
the enrty of the penis into the labia of the female organ and not mere
touching alone of the mons pubis or the pudendum.
 Pudendum is a collective term for the female genital organs that are visible
in the perineal area. 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 inner surface. Directly beneath the Labia majora is
labia minora.
 Jurisprudence provides that in order for rape to be consummated the penis
must have entered the labia majora and not the mere stroke or touching of
the mons pubis of the pudendeum. In the absence of any showing that
 there was touching the crime could be attempted rape or acts of
lasciviousness.
 The prosecution utterly failed to prove that Primo’s penis was able to
penetrate not matter how slight it is.
 Crysthel testimony is in doubt because he was not able to explain her
position during the time of the commission of the crime that enabled her to
see clearly and sufficiently that there was indeed a contact and that from
her narration , it can easily be drawn that Primo’s kneeling position
rendered an unbridled observation impossible as Primo’s right hand was
blocking Corazon’s view.
 Corazon insist that the Primo did not restrain himself from pursuing his
wicked intention despite her timely appearance however the court is not
persuaded because it is inconsistent with man’s instinct of self-preservation
to remain where he is and persist in satisfying his lust even when he knows
well that his dastardly acts have already been discovered or witnesses by no
less than the mother herself
 The possibility of Primo’s penis entering the vagina is negated by the child’s
owen assertion that she resisted it by putting both her legs close together,
she did not feel any pain but just felt unhappy, she shouted “ayo’ko,ayo’ko”
instead of “aray ko, aray ko”
 Under art 6 in relation to art 335 of the RPC, rape is attempted when the
offender commences the commission of rape directly by overt acts and does
not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the crime of
rape by reason of some cause or accident other than his spontaneous
desistance. All the elements of attempted is present.
People vs. Mangalino
15 February 1990; J. Sarmiento
In Statutory Rape, Proof of intimidation or force used on the woman, or lack of it,
is immaterial
Facts:
1. Semion Mangalino was a 53 yr. old security guard, and residing at 1597-D
Honradez Street, Sampaloc, Manila. He was the neighbor of Tomas and Bernardine
Carlos.
2. Tomas and Bernardine had a 6 yr. old daughter, Marichelle.
2. 07 March 1984 - At 10 or 11 a.m., Marichelle was playing "takbuhan" alone at the
ground floor of the two-story apartment of Semion. His wife was in Batangas at the
time and his grandson, Ramil las Dulce and his wife’s nephew, Armando Ayroso were
playing chess in the sala of the apartment.
3. Semion called out to Marichelle to go inside his bedroom or "sleeping quarters" at
one end of the sala of the ground floor.
4. Once inside the bedroom, Semion handed Marichelle a P2 bill and told her not to
tell anybody about his calling her to his bedroom. She agreed.
5. Semion then laid Marichelle down, removed her jogging pants, and placed them
beside her feet. He kissed her and fondled her breasts. He inserted his finger into the
her vagina and then forcibly and repeatedly introduced his penis into her vagina, but
failed.
6. Michael, Marichelle’s 4 yr. old cousin, called out to her to fetch her.
7. When Marichelle heard Michael calling, she put on her garments, and on the way
home noticed that her jogging pants were wet. She narrated what happened to her
to Bernardine.
8. Bernardine had Marichelle undergo a physical exam. NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr.
Roberto V. Garcia certified that there Marichelle had no hymeneal lacerations but
there was genital trauma and it was caused by an accident.
9. Semion was charged with statutory rape and convicted of reclusion perpetua.
10. Semion appealed that it was impossible for him to rape Marichelle because it was
broad daylight and many people were in the ground floor when the alleged rape
happened.
Issue: Is the conviction of Semion by the trial court correct?
Held: Yes, the conviction of Semion by the trial court is correct.
1. Under Article 335 (3) Revised Penal Code, Statutory Rape is the carnal
knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Proof of intimidation or force used
on the woman, or lack of it, is immaterial.
2. While the penetration of Semion’s penis can only go as deep as Marichelle’s labia
because of her age, Rape was still consummated because It is enough that there is
proof of entrance of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female
organ.
3. The medical examination proves that the trauma on Marichelle’s vagina cannot be
caused by an accident.
4. The absence of hymeneal laceration adequately explains why Marichelle did not
feel any pain during the attempted sexual intercourse
5. The argument that Marichelle should have cried out or struggled is untenable. She
was not aware of the wrongfulness of what was being done to her was rape.
6. Chess requires concentration. Ramil and Armando were engrossed with their
game that it was possible for Semion to rape Marichelle.
7. It is possible for an experienced man like Semion in just one minute, without
attracting the attention of the people inside the apartment, to rape Marichelle.
Marichelle's complete innocence may have facilitated the perpetration of the clime,
and the divider, although "butas-butas," was sufficient to conceal the commission of
the bestial act.
Conviction affirmed, damages decreased to P20,000 from P50,000.
People v. Villapana
Facts: ii. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
1. Eduardo (20+) and Maria (middle aged widow with four children) lived in complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
the same building and
2. Eduardo was convicted of the crime of raping Maria iii. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its
3. Maria alleges that on April 16, 1976 own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from
a. While she was sleeping with her 7 year old daughter when she the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
noticed someone trying to enter the room, so she sat down and b. "While we have frequently held that the uncorroborated
Eduardo entered the room and poked a knife on to her. testimony of the offended party in cases of this kind may be
b. Eduardo then brought her to the kitchen and threatened her and sufficient under certain circumstances to warrant conviction, yet
she was able to utter “tulungnan mo ko nanay ko” while Eduardo from the very nature of the charge and the ease with which it may
was raping her be made and the difficulty which surrounds the accused in
c. After Eduardo left she stayed and rested then went to Eduardo’s disproving it where the point is as to whether the cohabitation was
aunt to report it that same night with or without the use of force or threats, it is imperative that
4. Eduardo alleges that such testimony should be scrutinized with the greatest caution."
a. He and Maria were sweethearts c.  "in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured woman
b. Maria initiated the intercourse infact she invited me! should not be received with precipitate incredulity; and when the
c. They had sex but it was with consent conviction depends at any vital point upon her uncorroborated
5. RTC: guilty of rape testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and
6. Eduardo says candor are free from suspicion,"
a. The judge made a mistake because there were different judges d. In the case at bar numerous circumstances detract from the
who looked took charge of the case. One on the evidence and one credibility of Maria's version of what happened on the night of
on the decision. April 16, 1976. Thus, the Court has no option but to declare that
b. During trial Maria’s testimonies were inconsistent hence should the prosecution has failed to meet the exacting test of moral
not be believed. certainty and proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt. A reversal of the trial court's guilty verdict is inevitable.
Issues:

WON the change of the judge matters? i. Sleeping with her seven-year old daughter, she was
awakened when a person was trying to pry open her
WON the presumption that when a woman says she was raped is true may be over window. That person failed in his attempt to open the
turned? window, so he forced open the door to her room, which
is one of three, small rooms on the ground floor of a
Held: two-storey apartment.

1. No. The court in this case should just exert extra effort in hearing the case 1. The normal reaction of any person under such
and looking at the evidences. circumstances would have been to call for help
2. or make an outcry to awaken her neighbors
3. Yes. and/or call their attention, or do something to
a. (3) settled principles to guide an appellate court in reviewing the repel the intruder, and protect her home, herself
evidence in rape cases: and her daughter from any harm.
i. An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is
difficult to prove it but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove it;
 ii. The accused covered her mouth with his own lips so
that she could not shout, and yet she was able to shout,
"Aray ko po, nanay ko po, tulungan po ninyo ako."
1. Covering the mouth of another with one's own
lips is certainly not an effective way of
preventing the former from shouting
a. "a woman's most precious asset is the
purity of her womanhood. She will resist
to the last ounce of her strength any
attempt to defile it."
b. It seems more likely that, as appellant
claims, they were kissing each other as
they were engaged in the sexual act.
iii. Comadre Miling testified that when complainant went to
her room at 2 'clock in the morning of April 17, 1976, she
confessed that they "lost control of themselves”
iv. That accused went to bed after the sexual intercourse.
1. Unlikely that someone who rapes a person
returns to his own room in the sae house
e. The prosecution was not able to prove properly that the
intercourse happened without consent
PEOPLE v BALBUENA
April 27, 1984
FACTS:
1. August 28, 1975; 10pm—Elvira Polintan was in an apartment with friend
Juanito Torres. Torres’ friends agreed to drink & invited Elvira.
2. They held the drinking party at the apartment of Abelardo Balbuena, which
was a former billiard hall & they drank Gin with other persons.
3. After drinking a half glass of Gin, Elvira felt dizzy & so she asked permission
from the group to rest, then she laid down in the bench inside the billiard
hall.
4. Balbuena undressed Elvira while Torres is holding her hand, and despite her
resistance, he was able to rape her on the Billiard table. Balbuena also kept
on threatening her life & her family.
5. After Balbuena, Torres also raped Elvira, while Balbuena was covering her
mouth. After she was raped, Elvira sat down in the corner & cried. Balbuena
threatened her not to tell or she’ll be killed.
6. Elvira was able to escape and ran away home.
7. October 19, 1975—Elvira finally told her mother about what happened.
8. October 20, 1975—Elivira together with her mother reported the incident &
filed a complaint.
9. Elvira was subjected to medical examination & the results concluded that
there were no signs of extragenital physical injury but she could have had
sexual intercourse with a man on the alleged date.
10. The accused denied the allegations & gave their alibis. They said they were
in different places doing different things. They also contended that she was
a Tomboy & that she hated Torres for telling his cousin not to maintain their
same sex relationship.
11. August 6, 1976—both were found guilty of Rape sentenced to Reclusion
Perpetua.
ISSUE: WON the Balbuena & Torres committed the said rape despite the fact that the
Medical examination showed no injuries, her clothes were not torn & that she only
complained after one month.
SUPREME COURT: YES. the court affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
1. It’s not easy for a Filipina to come out in the open in a situation where
public contempt & ridicule would possibly result in the prosecution of the
Rape case. So the very fact that she came forward is enough persuasion.
2. The court considered the innate womanhood of the accused 7 the inherent
reluctance of the Filipino family to be exposed to the trial scandalizing the
Family’s name.
3. Elvira stands to gain nothing with her revelation & the consequent
punishment of the accused.
4. Elvira’s delay on the filing of the complaint may result from the fact that she
was afraid of the threats done by the rapists and she’s worried about her on
going classes. The fear & shock she felt was more than sufficient to restrain
her from filing a case right away.
5. Elvira is also no an incredible witness considering that she’s a “tomboy”.
That fact does not make it improbable for the two drunken appellants to
violate her. It’s improbable to say that physical appearance of the woman
would not bar these persons from committing the rape.
 6. The absence of injury nor the dress no being torn does not prove that the Issues:
rape was not committed. Aside from the fact that the test was conducted
one month after the incident, there was not enough struggle on her part for WON the change of the judge matters?
she was too weak to do so considering she was also intoxicated.
7. The testimony of Elvira was credible enough to prove that she was violated, WON the presumption that when a woman says she was raped is true may be over
she relayed the information in a straight and convincing manner despite the turned?
lengthy investigation.
Held:
8. There’s nothing in the defense evidence that would point out convincingly
why Elivira should lie & jeopardize the 2 accused. 4. No. The court in this case should just exert extra effort in hearing the case
9. The court found that the essential elements constitutive of the crime rape and looking at the evidences.
had been duly established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 5.
The defense of the accused is relatively weak against the complainant for 6. Yes.
the evidence is clear that the two rapists employed force in consummating a. (3) settled principles to guide an appellate court in reviewing the
the crime of rape, when they took turns in violating her & each participated evidence in rape cases:
in holding her hands & covering her mouth. i. An accusation for rape can be made with facility; it is
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. difficult to prove it but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove it;
People v. Villapana ii. In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where
two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the
Facts: complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
and
7. Eduardo (20+) and Maria (middle aged widow with four children) lived in
iii. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its
the same building
own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from
8. Eduardo was convicted of the crime of raping Maria
the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
9. Maria alleges that on April 16, 1976
b. "While we have frequently held that the uncorroborated
a. While she was sleeping with her 7 year old daughter when she
testimony of the offended party in cases of this kind may be
noticed someone trying to enter the room, so she sat down and
sufficient under certain circumstances to warrant conviction, yet
Eduardo entered the room and poked a knife on to her.
from the very nature of the charge and the ease with which it may
b. Eduardo then brought her to the kitchen and threatened her and
be made and the difficulty which surrounds the accused in
she was able to utter “tulungnan mo ko nanay ko” while Eduardo
disproving it where the point is as to whether the cohabitation was
was raping her
with or without the use of force or threats, it is imperative that
c. After Eduardo left she stayed and rested then went to Eduardo’s
such testimony should be scrutinized with the greatest caution."
aunt to report it that same night
c.  "in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured woman
10. Eduardo alleges that
should not be received with precipitate incredulity; and when the
a. He and Maria were sweethearts
conviction depends at any vital point upon her uncorroborated
b. Maria initiated the intercourse infact she invited me!
testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity and
c. They had sex but it was with consent
candor are free from suspicion,"
11. RTC: guilty of rape
d. In the case at bar numerous circumstances detract from the
12. Eduardo says
credibility of Maria's version of what happened on the night of
a. The judge made a mistake because there were different judges
April 16, 1976. Thus, the Court has no option but to declare that
who looked took charge of the case. One on the evidence and one
the prosecution has failed to meet the exacting test of moral
on the decision.
certainty and proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
b. During trial Maria’s testimonies were inconsistent hence should
doubt. A reversal of the trial court's guilty verdict is inevitable.
not be believed.
 i. Sleeping with her seven-year old daughter, she was
awakened when a person was trying to pry open her
window. That person failed in his attempt to open the
window, so he forced open the door to her room, which
is one of three, small rooms on the ground floor of a
two-storey apartment.
1. The normal reaction of any person under such
circumstances would have been to call for help
or make an outcry to awaken her neighbors
and/or call their attention, or do something to
repel the intruder, and protect her home, herself
and her daughter from any harm.
ii. The accused covered her mouth with his own lips so
that she could not shout, and yet she was able to shout,
"Aray ko po, nanay ko po, tulungan po ninyo ako."
1. Covering the mouth of another with one's own
lips is certainly not an effective way of
preventing the former from shouting
a. "a woman's most precious asset is the
purity of her womanhood. She will resist
to the last ounce of her strength any
attempt to defile it."
b. It seems more likely that, as appellant
claims, they were kissing each other as
they were engaged in the sexual act.
iii. Comadre Miling testified that when complainant went to
her room at 2 'clock in the morning of April 17, 1976, she
confessed that they "lost control of themselves”
iv. That accused went to bed after the sexual intercourse.
1. Unlikely that someone who rapes a person
returns to his own room in the sae house
e. The prosecution was not able to prove properly that the
intercourse happened without consent
People v Atento
April 26, 1991; P: Cruz; ~by Diana
Having sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mentally retarded and have the
mentality of a 12 year old IS RAPE
FACTS:
1. Glenda Aringo(victim) is a 16 year old mental retardate
2. Cesar Atento (accused) is a 39 year old store-keeper, with wife and 8
children
3. Sometime in April 1986, Cesar was able to persuade her to come to his
house and succeeded in deflowering her. Afterwards, she was given P5.00
4. Glenda said that there were 4 other succeeding occasions were similar
incidents occurred
i. There was a later incident where she described the said
incident to be “masarap” or “ticklish”
5. 5 months later into her pregnancy, she confessed that it was Cesar who is
the father of her baby
6. On December 1987, she gave birth to a child
7. The trial court found Cesar to be guilty of the crime of rape under p3 of Art
355.
 Glenda is considered to have the mentality of a 9-12 year old,
so there is rape. (P-v-Asturias)
ISSUE:
In this case, Glenda willingly let Cesar deflower her. Did the TC made the right
decision of convicting him of rape?
HELD: YES. This is because the elements of rape can still be found in the said
instance, regardless of whether it falls under p2 or p3 of Art 355.
1. Art 335, RPC: Rape can be committed under any of the ff circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When woman is deprived of reason OR is otherwise unconscious
c. When woman is under 12 years of age, even though neither of
the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding
paragraphs shall be present
2. Glenda was founded to have a mentally defective intellectual functioning
 She has the intellectual capacity of a child between 9 to 12
years old
o She prefers playing with small children
 SHE IS CAPABLE OF TELLING THE TRUTH
Application:
1. Cesar is guilty of the crime of rape under Art. 335, p2 (deprived of reason)
 a. P-v-Atutubo: It’s not required for the offender to be the one who 9. He also contends that it was just revenge on the part of the owner of the
deprive the victim of reason before committing the crime house because he warned Merma that the owner has a pending rape case.
b. P-v-Palma: . Copulation with a woman known to be mentally 10. He also contends that he was just framed-up Mercedes’ niece because she
incapable of giving even an imperfect consent is rape
was indebted to him.
c. Chief Justice Tolentino: The absence of will determines the
11. He avers that he rarely gets erections and that based on the medico-legal
existence of rape. Lack of will may exist under the ff conditions
where woman is: findings, there was no laceration of the hymen.
i. Unconscious 12. Also he said that there was a delay in the submission of the child to a
ii. Totally deprived of reason medical examination. It was unusual for family members to wait for 3 days
iii. Suffering mental deficiency since the usual reaction is to subject a victim to a medical examination
*Carnal knowledge of a woman so weak in intellect as to be immediately.
incapable of legal consent constitutes rape.
13. The trial court found the accused guilty of 6 counts of rape and sentenced
* The deprivation of reason need not be complete. Mental
abnormality or deficiency is enough.g1 him to suffer death for raping a girl under 18 and the offender is her
guardian.
DECISION: Decision Affirmed
ISSUE: Is the ruling of the trial court correct?
PEOPLE VS DELA CUESTA
The ruling was partly correct.
BEL
 The rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina is not an essential
FACTS: element of rape.
 Mere knocking of the pudenda by the accused’s penis suffices to constitute
1. Merma Basabas, a 9 year old girl lived with her mother Mercedes in one of 3 rape.
rooms for rent on the 2nd floor of a house located in Makati.  The frame-up allegation was too shallow to be believed. The niece was not
2. The accused Joven dela Cuesta is a 64-year old man who has been staying at the type of woman to concoct a rape charge against an old man and
the room rented by Mercedes for about 2 months because his house was neighbour for a flimsy reason.
being renovated.
3. When Mercedes left for Davao, she left her child in the care of her niece and Regarding the physical incapacity due to old age.
the accused.
 There was no evidence presented to substantiate his alleged dysfunction.
4. When alone in a room, the accused started to kiss Merma and sucked her
 Old age does not mean that sexual intercourse is no longer possible, as age
mouth and tongue. He touched her breast and inserted his finger inside her
is not a criterion taken alone in determining sexual interest and capability of
vagina.
middle-aged and older people.
5. The accused even asked the child to touch his penis and later on, he
inserted it for about an inch deep inside Merma’s vagina.
6. After the said incident, floor 5 consecutive nights, from January 12 to 23
1996, the accused repeatedly did the same act.
7. He threatened the child not to report anything to her mother and gave her
20pesos. Regarding the 3-day delay in considering the medical examination.
8. The accused denied the charges and contend that he looked after the child
as his own granddaughter.
  A medical examination is not an indispensible requirement and an absence
of such does not affect the verdict of conviction of sufficient evidence is
presented.
THE SENTENCE IMPOSED WAS WRONG
 The mere fact that the mother asked the accused to look after her child
while she was away did not constitute relationship of guardian-ward as
contemplated by the law.
 The restrictive definition of a guardian, that of a legal or judicial guardian,
should be used in construing the term “guardian” for the purpose of
imposing death penalty.
 The accused was just a mere custodian or caretaker of the child over whom
he exercised a limited authority for a temporary period.
 Even assuming that he is a guardian, he still may not be sentenced to death
because the information filed against him does not specify qualifying
circumstance.
PEOPLE vs. JIMMY SABREDO y GARBO
May 11, 2000; niLo
Complex crime of forcible abduction with rape: prove the presence of all the
elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape.
FACTS:
1) Appellant is the uncle of complainant. He is the younger brother of her
father. He stayed with Judeliza's family in Cebu for more than a year.
2) On June 27, 1994, Judeliza went to the well near their house, to take a bath.
There, Jimmy grabbed and forcibly dragged her at knife's point, to the
highway where he made her board a truck for Bogo, Cebu.
3) He brought her to Masbate, where they stayed at the house of Conchita,
Jimmy's sister then they moved to his nephew in Cagba, Masbate where
stayed from June 29 to July 5, 1994, with Jimmy closely guarding Judeliza.
4) On July 4, 1994, at around midnight, Jimmy, armed with a blade, sexually
assaulted Judeliza. Jimmy inserted three fingers into her vaginal orifice and
cruelly pinched it. Then, he brought her to the house of his sister, Nilda.
5) On July 8, 1994, Nilda brought her to the police where Judeliza reported her
ordeal.
6) Prosecutor filed an information and Jimmy admitted having sexual relations
with Judeliza, but insisted that:
- it was consensual or that they were lovers.
- Judeliza had revealed to him that she was not really her father's daughter
but boxed and kicked her when she confided that she really was his niece.
- He pinched the victim's vagina, but only to punish her for deceiving him
about their kinship.
7) Trial Court found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under Article 48 in relation to
Article[s] 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code and is meted the extreme
penalty of death.
ISSUE:
WON the accused should be convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape?
RULING: NO, the elements of rape and sexual assault were not all proven.
General Rule: 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.
Her sworn affidavit and her testimony in open court establish the basic elements of
rape. These are: the commission of sexual intercourse, by the accused against
complainant, with the use of force and intimidation, without her consent and against
her will.
The elements of forcible abduction are:
- that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of age, civil status, or
reputation;
- that the abduction is against her will;
- that the abduction is with lewd designs.
Application: The prosecution's evidence clearly shows that the victim was forcibly
taken at knifepoint from Borbon, Cebu by appellant and through threats and
intimidation brought to various towns in Masbate, where he passed her off as his
"wife". That appellant was moved by lewd designs was shown in regard to rape by
his having carnal knowledge of private complainant, against her will, on July 4, 1994
at Cagba, Tugbo, Masbate.
In this case, there was no complex crime of forcible abduction with rape:
- While it may appear at first blush that forcible abduction, as defined and
penalized by Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code was also committed, we
are not totally disposed to convict appellant for the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape. We note that while the information
sufficiently alleges the forcible taking of complainant from Cebu to
 Masbate, the victims fails to allege "lewd designs" of the accused. When
appellant, using a blade, forcibly took away complainant for the purpose of
sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape may then absorb
forcible abduction. Hence, the crime committed by appellant is simple rape
only.
R.A. No. 7659 which imposes the death penalty cannot be made to apply in the
instant case for two reasons:
- at the time the rape was committed, private complainant was already more
than eighteen years of age.
- the information did not allege that offender and offended party were
relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
The accused is declared guilty beyond reasonable doubt of simple rape only as
defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The penalty
imposed on him is reclusion perpetua.
People v Arillas
June 19 2000; Puno J.
Facts:
1. Two cases were consolidated.
2. In the morning of Dec. 23 1995, Amor Arillas was sweeping their backyard,
then her father called to prepare for breakfast. At that time her brothers
were grazing their carabao in the mountains, her sisters were washing
clothers in the creek about 300-400 meters away from their house and her
mother was selling soft drink and bread in the rice field.
3. While doing Amor was doing her chore, her father embraced her and
forcibly kissing her. Amor resisted but her father kick her on the right
buttocks and successfully had carnal knowledge with her. It was Amor’s 1 st
time.
4. The appellant then threatened not tell anyone or something bad would
happen. She was afraid of her father and did not want her family broken so
she didn’t tell anyone and hope that the bestial act will not happen.
5. However on Feb 10 1996, while preparing for lunch her father again forcibly
rape her despite the resistance of Amor.
6. After the 2nd incident, the father again threaten her not to tell anyone.
7. On April 1 1996, she finally found the courage to report the incident. Amor
then underwent medical examination and it was learned from Dr Mylene
Chavez Milla that she has 5 old lacerations. She even testified that Amor’s
hymen admits two fingers with ease which indicates that penetration was
made more than once.
8. Romeo Decena, Assistant Local Civil Registrar, testified that Amor was under
18 yrs old.
9. In defense, Romeo Arillas said that on Dec 23 1995 he was in the farm and
that on Feb 10 1996 he was repairing an irrigation pump in San Jose,
Minalabac, Camarines Sur. He also reason the it was due to the ill-motive of
his in-laws because he left his brother-in-law drunk during a fiesta in Bula
10. The trial court found Romeo Arillas guilty
11. On appeal, Romeo contends that even if his defense is merely denial and
alibi,reasonable doubt exist as to his guilt
Issue: Is he guilty of rape?
Held: yes, Romeo Arillas was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the commission of the crime as he was just in the rice field. The positive
assertions of his daughter that he raped her are given a greater weight.
Rationale:
 The contention of Romeo that the case filed against him were out of ill-
feeling will not stand. Aside from the fact that he failed to prove this, it is
highly unbelievable for Amor to falsely accused his father just to advance
the ill-feeling of her uncle.
 The Trial Court is correct in convicting him but they were wrong on
sentencing him to death.
 TC imposed the penalty of death because Amor was under 18 yrs old at the
time of the commission of the crime. However, in people v Garcia ,it was
held that for age as a special qualifying circumstances it must be alleged in
the information and if it is not alleged but proven it will be considered as an
aggravating circumstances since the latter may be proven even if not
alleged .
 It is the fundamental rule that every element of an offense must be alleged
in the complaint. The purpose of the rule is ti enable the accused to prepare
his defense.
 The penalty should be reclusion perpetua.
 The TC was also wrong on awarding P 100 000 as actual damage and moral
damages because the prosecution failed to present any evidence regarding
actual damages. However Amor is entitled to P50K moral damages as it
requires no proof of mental and physical suffering , P25k as exemplary
damages for each raped and P50k as civil indemnity for each count of rape.
People v Arillas
June 19 2000; Puno J.
Facts:
12. Two cases were consolidated.
13. In the morning of Dec. 23 1995, Amor Arillas was sweeping their backyard,
then her father called to prepare for breakfast. At that time her brothers
 were grazing their carabao in the mountains, her sisters were washing
clothers in the creek about 300-400 meters away from their house and her
mother was selling soft drink and bread in the rice field.
14. While doing Amor was doing her chore, her father embraced her and
forcibly kissing her. Amor resisted but her father kick her on the right
buttocks and successfully had carnal knowledge with her. It was Amor’s 1 st
time.
15. The appellant then threatened not tell anyone or something bad would
happen. She was afraid of her father and did not want her family broken so
she didn’t tell anyone and hope that the bestial act will not happen.
16. However on Feb 10 1996, while preparing for lunch her father again forcibly
rape her despite the resistance of Amor.
17. After the 2nd incident, the father again threaten her not to tell anyone.
18. On April 1 1996, she finally found the courage to report the incident. Amor
then underwent medical examination and it was learned from Dr Mylene
Chavez Milla that she has 5 old lacerations. She even testified that Amor’s
hymen admits two fingers with ease which indicates that penetration was
made more than once.
19. Romeo Decena, Assistant Local Civil Registrar, testified that Amor was under
18 yrs old.
20. In defense, Romeo Arillas said that on Dec 23 1995 he was in the farm and
that on Feb 10 1996 he was repairing an irrigation pump in San Jose,
Minalabac, Camarines Sur. He also reason the it was due to the ill-motive of
his in-laws because he left his brother-in-law drunk during a fiesta in Bula
21. The trial court found Romeo Arillas guilty
22. On appeal, Romeo contends that even if his defense is merely denial and
alibi,reasonable doubt exist as to his guilt
Issue: Is he guilty of rape?
Held: yes, Romeo Arillas was not able to prove that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the commission of the crime as he was just in the rice field. The positive
assertions of his daughter that he raped her are given a greater weight.
Rationale:
 The contention of Romeo that the case filed against him were out of ill-
feeling will not stand. Aside from the fact that he failed to prove this, it is
highly unbelievable for Amor to falsely accused his father just to advance
the ill-feeling of her uncle.
 The Trial Court is correct in convicting him but they were wrong on
sentencing him to death.
 TC imposed the penalty of death because Amor was under 18 yrs old at the
time of the commission of the crime. However, in people v Garcia ,it was
held that for age as a special qualifying circumstances it must be alleged in
the information and if it is not alleged but proven it will be considered as an
aggravating circumstances since the latter may be proven even if not
alleged .
 It is the fundamental rule that every element of an offense must be alleged
in the complaint. The purpose of the rule is ti enable the accused to prepare
his defense.
 The penalty should be reclusion perpetua.
 The TC was also wrong on awarding P 100 000 as actual damage and moral
damages because the prosecution failed to present any evidence regarding
actual damages. However Amor is entitled to P50K moral damages as it
requires no proof of mental and physical suffering , P25k as exemplary
damages for each raped and P50k as civil indemnity for each count of rape.
People vs.Mahinay
01 February 1999; Per Curiam
If a woman over 12 years old was raped, she has to prove there was sexual
intercourse and it was done through force, violence, intimidation or threat
Facts:
1. 20 November 1993 – Larry Mahinay started working as a houseboy to Maria Isip.
He was in charge of taking care of Isip’s house which was under construction
adjacent to her old residence situated inside a compound at No. 4165 Dian Street,
Gen. T. de Leon, Valenzuela , Metro Manila. But he stayed and slept in an apartment
also owned by Isip, located 10 meters away from the unfinished house.
2. Ma. Victoria Chan was 12 year old girl who was Isip’s neighbor.
3. 25 June 1995 - at 8 a.m., Mahinay joined Gregorio Rivera in a drinking spree.
Around 10 a.m., Mahinay, who was already drunk, left Rivera and asked permission
from Isip to go out with his friends.
4. 25 June 1995 – Elvira Chan, Victoria’s mother, noticed her daughter was missing
5. 26 June 1995 – a certain Boy found Victoria’s body inside a septic tank in the
compound.
6. It was found that Victoria died of asphyxiation by manual strangulation. It was also
found that she had traumatic head injury and lacerations on her hymen.
7. Isip informed SPO1 Arsenio Nacis and SPO1 Arnold Alabastro were by that Larry
Mahinay was missing. She said that it was unlikely for Mahinay to just disappear
from the apartment since whenever he would go out, he would normally return on
the same day or early morning of the following day.
8. At the second floor of the house under construction, Victoria’s clothes were
retrieved.
9. Mahinay’s underwear, leather wallet, pair of dirty long pants and pliers were
found in the yard three arms length away from the septic tank.
10. SPO1 Virgilio Villano retrieved the Victoria's underwear from the septic tank.
11. Mahinay was arrested in Barangay Obario Matala, Ibaan, Batangas.
12. 07 July 1995 – Mahinay, with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes, executed b. the rape was done through force, violence, intimidation or threat
an extra-judicial confession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and killed 4. If a woman under 12 years old was raped, proof of force and consent becomes
the victim. immaterial because:
13. 10 July 1995 - Mahinay was charged with rape with homicide. a. force is not an element of statutory rape
14. Mahinay was convicted and sentenced to death. b. the absence of a free consent is presumed when the woman is below such age
15. Upon automatic appeal to the Supreme Court, Mahinay argues that the 5. Sexual intercourse was proven by the examination of the doctor and extra-judicial
circumstantial evidence to prove his guilt are insufficient to prove his guilt and his confession of Mahinay.
confession was acquired because he was threatened that he would be “salvaged”. 6. Force and violence was proven by the wounds, contusions and abrasions found on
the victim’s body and Mahinay’s account that he pushed Victoria, causing her to hit
Issue: Is the conviction of Mahinay by the trial court correct? her head on the table and become unconscious after which he raped her.
7. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty
Held: Yes, the conviction of Mahinay by the trial court is correct. shall be death (Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A.
1. conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence provided that the following 7659)
requisites concur:
a. there is more than one circumstance Conviction affirmed, indemnity increased from P50,000 to P75,000 plus P50,000
b. the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven moral damages.
c. the combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt
2. Circumstantial evidence: People v. Quinanola
a. Testimony of Norgina Rivera, sister-in-law of Isip, that Mahinay was uneasy, May 5, 1999
worried, drunk, in deep thought and walking in a zigzag manner when he came < Partial penetration is as good as full penetration >
to her store at 9:00 p.m. on 25 June 1995 to buy lugaw. <Presumption is barrio lass won’t lie about being raped>
b. Testimony of Sgt. Roberto G. Suni that he met Mahinay between 6-7 p.m. on 25 Facts:
June 1995 while walking to his in-laws which is about 50 to 75 meters away to
the unfinished big house of Isip and that he saw Maria Victoria Chan standing at 1. May 5, 1994 (10pm) Catalina (15) and her two friends (male) went to a
the gate of the unfinished big house of Maria Isip between 8:00 and 9:00 in the dance party
same evening 2. 11pm they were going home
c. Testimony of Isip that Mahinay left on the morning of 25 June 1995 and did not 3. On the way home they stopped to rest on a shed beside the school
come back until he was arrested. 4. Agapito Quinanola (member of the PNP) and Eduardo Escudero suddenly
d. Testimony of Fernando Trinidad, a passenger jeepney driver, that Mahinay was appeared with a gun
one of his passengers on June 26, 1995 at 2:00 early morning and alighted on 5. Agapito forcibly took Catalina pointing the gun at her
top of the overpass of the North Expressway 6. Eduardo took the 2 boys, but the two boys were able to escape
e. Victoria’s personal belongings were found in the unfinished big house of Isip 7. Agapito and Eduardo tricked Catalina into going at the back of the school
where Mahinay slept on the night of the incident 8. Agapito with the aid of Eduardo raped Catalina
f. Mahinay gave his confession willingly. There was no evidence of maltreatment a. Eduardo held Catalina’s legs
and he was apprised of his rights by the assisting counsel in Tagalog. b. Agapito inserted his penis in Catalina’s organ
g. Mahinay’s testimony in court is incredible. He testified that he was sleeping in c. They took turns in raping her
the second floor of the unfinished house when Zaldy, a co-worker and Boyet 9. Catalina felt the penis in her organ
arrived in his house carrying the corpse of Victoria and that they threatened him 10. Agapito and Eduardo left and Catalina ran home
with a knife to rape the dead body of Victoria but he refused. 11. Catalina’s mom and sister found out and told told Guillermo (Catalina’s
h. Mahinay would have professed his innocence to Col. Maganto, a high ranking brother-in-law)
police officer or the lady reporter who interviewed him if he was truly not guilty. 12. They reported the incident to the police
3. If a woman over 12 years old was raped, she has to prove: 13. Catalina was examined by the doctor
a. there was sexual intercourse
 a.But the doctor said that the hymen was not broken and that the
diameter of her orifice was too small to preclude complete
penetration of an average-size adult penis in erection without
producing laceration
14. Agapito claims that he was in Naga with his wife fixing the house
15. Eduardo contends that
a. Catalina made up the story due to her in-law’s grudges against him
b. He went fishing that day and then went on a drinking spree till
midnight
16. RTC: Guilty of Frustrated Rape

Issue:

1. WON the Catalina’s Credibility is doubtful?

2. WON the court erred in declaring them guilty of frustrated rape?

Held:

1. NO.

a. 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.
b. The court finds no reason for Catalina to lie.
2. Yes
a. As declared in People v. Orita there is no such crime of frustrated
rape.

b. The medical examination merely stated that the smallness of the

vaginal orifice only precludes COMPLETE penetration. This does not
mean that rape has not been committed.
c. Carnal knowledge need not require the vagina be penetrated or
the hymen to rupture.
d. The crime of rape is consummated the moment the penis enters
the labia or the lips of the female organ or merely touching of the
external genetalia by the penis.
e. A broken hymen is not a requirement in fact sometimes women
get pregnant without it getting broken.
f. Partial penetration is as good as full penetration.