ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

RELATIONSHIP

PEOPLE vs. LAMBERTE

(Rape)
(Under Alternative Circumstances Relationship where the offended party is a niece of the
defendant)
FACTS:
In the afternoon of September 26, 1982, CLARISSA was sent by her father to Barangay
Washington of Catarman to buy salt and tanbark. Along the way, she met herein accused-
appellant Mansueto LAMBERTE, accompanied by one Romulo Solomon and Carlito Lamberte,
a thirteen-year-old boy. They asked her where she was going and where her father was. She
replied that she was on her way to Barangay Washington to buy some salt and tanbark and that
her father was in their farm. Even at that time CLARISSA knew who LAMBERTE was as the
latter's mother and her father's mother are sisters thus making him her uncle, and because
LAMBERTE is a resident of Barangay Washington where they have a farm. She was also aware
that LAMBERTE had just been recently released from Muntinglupa.
On her way back home, at around 3:00 o'clock p.m., CLARISSA again met LAMBERTE and his
two companions. Suddenly, while Carlito Lamberte merely watched, LAMBERTE and Solomon
held CLARISSA and dragged her to a clearing far from the trail, with LAMBERTE threatening
her with a small bolo locally known as "depang" and saying "If you will make noise I will kill you."
Then, in spite of her resistance they forced her to lie down. While Solomon held her hands and
kiss her on the face, LAMBERTE removed her T-shirt, skirt and panty, placed himself on top of
her, and had carnal knowledge of her.
The act consummated, they brought her to a nearby creek and LAMBERTE ordered her to wash
her vagina, which she did. Then LAMBERTE told her to go home but not to tell her father about
the incident, otherwise, he would kill her.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library
Ignoring the injunction, upon arriving home, CLARISSA immediately told her father of the
happening so the latter proceeded to Barangay Washington in search of LAMBERTE and his
companions. Failing to find them, he instead brought CLARISSA to a physician in Catarman for
medical examination.
ISSUE: WON the decision of the RTC is tenable.
RULING:
Lamberte and his co-accused Romulo Solomon, who is still at-large, was found guilty with the
crime of rape qualified by the circumstance that it was committed by two persons. Although the
use of a deadly weapon was proven during the trial, the Trial Court erroneously considered it a
generic aggravating circumstance in the light of the Garcia ruling. Absent any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance, the proper penalty, therefore, is the lesser penalty, or reclusion
perpetua.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

PEOPLE VS. PORRAS

(Rape)
(Under Alternative Circumstances Relationship where the offended party is a married woman
and daughter of the defendant)
FACTS:
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, convicting the appellant
of rape.
The complaint filed by the offended party is as follows:
Que en o hacia el 8 de mayo de 1932 y dentro la jurisdiccion de este Juzgado, a saber, en el
Municipio de Calinog, Provincia de Iloilo, Islas Filipinas, el referido acusado siendo padre de la
que suscribe, aprovechandose de la oscuridad de la noche para mejor realizar su proposito y
en un lugar despoblado, mediante fuerza, amenaza e intimidacion yacio con la que suscribe
contra su voluntad, sabiendo dicho acusado que la que suscribe es una mujer casada.
English translation:
That on or about May 8, 1932 and within the jurisdiction of this Court, namely, in the
Municipality of Calinog, Province of Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the aforementioned
defendant being the father of the undersigned, taking advantage of the obscurity of the
night to better perform his purpose and in a place depopulated, by force, threat and
intimidation lying with which he subscribes against his will, knowing the accused that
the undersigned is a married woman.
The court sentenced the defendant-appellant to seventeen years, four months and one day of
reclusion temporal.
RULING:
The accused was guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape. The crime rape is
penalized by article 335 of the RPC with reclusion temporal. In the present instance, the
aggravating circumstance of relationship (article 15 of the RPC) must be taken into
consideration.
The crime in this case was so monstrous that no punishment which it is in the power of this or
any other human tribunal to decree, could possibly be a sufficient expiation of the offense. The
court assesses the penalty at twenty years of reclusion temporal, and, as thus modified, affirm
the judgement of the lower court.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

PEOPLE VS. SAYAT

(Statutory Rape)
(Under Alternative Circumstances Relationship where the offended party is a minor and half-
sister of the defendant)
FACTS:
Accused-appellant Godofredo Sayat, alias "Bobby" or "Buboy," was charged with five crimes of
rape in five separate criminal complaints subscribed by eight-year old Marites Sayat and
docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 85574, 85575, 85576, 85577 and 85578 of the Regional Trial
Court of Pasig, Metro Manila, Branch 156. Except for the dates of commission of each felony,
which is August 28, 1990 in Criminal Case No. 85578, August 29, 1990 in Criminal Case No.
85574, August 30, 1990 in Criminal Case No. 85575, August 31, 1990 in Criminal Case No.
85576 and September 1, 1990 in Criminal Case No. 85577, said complaints were identically
formulated, to wit:
"That on or about . . . in the Municipality of Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of threat, did then and
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal knowledge of the undersigned complainant,
Maritess (sic) P. Sayat, a minor of eight years old, (sic) against her will and consent."
Marites Sayat. Born on January 28, 1982, she was only nine years old when she was made to
recount at the witness stand on May 2, 1991 the sordid details on how at age eight she was
sexually violated five times by appellant, her half-brother (’kapatid sa ama’) 18 years her senior.
They, along with Maribel Halino, a relative, ‘were then the only occupants of their house at No.
12 Camia Street, Marville Subdivision, Barangay de la Paz, Pasig, Metro Manila. Their father
was abroad working as a seaman, while Marites’ mother, Elisa Palicdon, was also abroad, in
Hongkong, working as a domestic helper. On August 28, 1990, appellant ordered Marites, who
was in skirt and t-shirt to go to the second floor of their newly constructed house just behind
their old house. There, appellant instructed Marites to lie down and to remove her panty. Also
removing his shortpants and his underwear, appellant then proceeded to rape Marites. He
inserted his penis into the vagina of Marites. Marites felt pain. After achieving full penetration,
appellant pulled out his penis and then dressed up. He warned Marites not to tell anyone about
the incident.
"In the afternoon of the following day, August 31, 1990, appellant again ordered Marites to go to
the second floor of the newly constructed house. Thereat, appellant had sexual intercourse with
Marites for the fourth time that lasted for about four minutes.
"On September 1, 1990, appellant again ordered Marites to go to the second floor of the newly
constructed house. However, while having sexual intercourse with Marites, appellant heard
Maribel Halino calling for Marites. Whereupon, appellant hurriedly dressed up and went
downstairs.

RULING:
The accused were guilty of statutory rape. Marites Sayat, at the time of the commission of the
crimes, was only eight years of age. Under paragraph 3, Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
statutory rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age.
In this specie of rape, neither force by the man nor resistance from the woman forms an
element of the crime and apparent consent thereto will be of no avail, any more than in the case
of a child who may actually consent but who by law is conclusively held incapable of legal
consent. The law presumes that the victim on account of her tender years, does not and cannot
have a will of her own. The heart of the matter is the violation of a child’s incapacity to discern
evil from good.

PEOPLE VS. TOLENTINO

ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

(Attempted Rape)
(Under Alternative Circumstances Relationship, where the mother of the offended party is a
common-law-spouse of the defendant)
FACTS:
On May 1, 1995, at past noon, Rachelle Parco, 8 years old, was inside one of the two bedrooms
at the second floor of the house of her grandmother, which was located at San Nicolas,
Masantol, Pampanga. Rachelle was arranging the clothes while in the room. Suddenly, Abundio
Tolentino, the stepfather of Rachelle Parco, entered the same room and closed the door.
Abundio Tolentino ordered Rachelle Parco to stand up and lie down on the bed. When Rachelle
Parco was already on the bed, Abundio Tolentino removed his short pants and the short pants
of Rachelle Parco.
Abundio Tolentino placed his sex organ on Rachelle Parco’s genitals and bumped (binubundol-
bundol) hers with his (Ibid). At that moment, Rachelle Parco remained silent, because she was
afraid and did not know what Abundio Tolentino was doing to her. Abundio Tolentino’s carnal
act lasted only for three minutes, because Rachelle Parco’s brother knocked at the door and
ask money from Abundio. He told Rachelle’s brother to ask money from Lola Iding. Thereafter,
Abundio Tolentino put on his short pants and hers and went down the house.
Abundio Tolentino repeatedly did the same thing to Rachelle Parco at least three to four times a
week in May, June, and July 1995. Rachelle Parco was overcome by fear that she did not tell
anyone about what Abundio Tolentino was doing to her.
RULING:
Under the law, 11 there is an attempt when the offender commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the
felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In this
case, there is no doubt at all that TOLENTINO had commenced the commission of the crime of
rape by (1) directing RACHELLE to lie down, (2) removing his shorts and hers, and (3) "trying to
force his sex organ into" RACHELLE’s sex organ. But there is no conclusive evidence of the
penetration, however slight, of RACHELLE’s sex organ. The penetration was an essential act of
execution to produce the felony. Thus, in the absence of a convincing evidence thereof,
TOLENTINO should be given the benefit of the doubt and can be convicted of attempted rape
only.
Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for an attempted felony is the "penalty
lower by two degrees than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony." In this case, the
penalty for the rape if it had been consummated would have been death, pursuant to Article 335
of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659, since RACHELLE was eight years
old and TOLENTINO was the common-law spouse of RACHELLE’s mother.
Accused-appellant ABUNDIO TOLENTINO is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal
of the crime of attempted rape, under Article 335, in relation to Article 51, of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended; and, pursuant to the Indeterminate Sentence Law, he is hereby sentenced
to suffer an imprisonment penalty ranging from ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum, and to pay the
victim RACHELLE PARCO the sums of P50,000 as indemnity and P25,000 as moral damages.

PEOPLE VS. RAMIREZ

(Attempted Rape)
(Under Alternative Circumstances Relationship, where the offended party is step-daughter of
the defendant)
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

FACTS:
"Maribel Soriano, a 13 year old lass, naive and unschooled, is the eldest daughter of Angelita
De Guzman and Alfredo Soriano. Since July 1975, Angelita and Alfredo lived together as man
and wife, without the benefit of marriage, at Labores Street, Pandacan, Manila. Aside from
Maribel, they had other children: Alfredo, Jr., 10 years old and Mila, the youngest.
As fate would have it, Maribel did not grow up under the constant care and guidance of her
mother Angelita. Since the tender age of 2 years, she has been staying with her paternal
grandmother, Juanita Soriano, at Zamora Extension, Pandacan, Manila. Ostensibly, Maribel’s
mother gave her up to her mother-in-law, Juanita Soriano, because the latter kept bothering her
and her husband, Alfredo.
As the life story of Maribel unfolds, the four-year relationship of her father and mother was
turning sour and was growing worse and worse everyday. It was the usual case of a daughter-
in-law and a mother-in-law fighting for the attention of a husband and son. This animosity was
heightened by the fact that prior to his death, Alfredo was abandoned by Angelita sometime in
1979 to live with another man, herein appellant Enrique Ramirez. Her reason was simple:
Alfredo was a ‘Mama’s Boy’. She claimed that he did not want to separate from his mother and
usually gave his earnings to his mother, Juanita Soriano.

In any event, Angelita de Guzman cohabited with appellant Enrique Ramirez, a casual laborer
and a member of the notorious Sigue-Sigue Commando Gang. At that time, appellant Ramirez
was already separated from his lawful wife, Christine Somera, by whom he had a child. Since
1979, appellant Ramirez and Angelita de Guzman stayed and lived in a one-room shanty, a
place one can hardly call a house, in a squatter’s area in Tondo, Manila. As described by
Maribel Soriano, the one-storey room has two windows: one facing the street across which was
the house of Ate Laki, and the other window facing the river.
In December 1988, when Maribel turned 13 years of age, her mother Angelita fetched Maribel
from the house of her mother-in-law, Juanita Soriano, Maribel’s paternal grand-mother. Angelita
took Maribel to spend vacation in her house in Tondo, Manila where Angelita resides with her
live-in partner, Enrique Ramirez, appellant herein. After the Christmas season, Maribel went
back to her paternal grandmother’s house in Pandacan.
The offended party was violated several times by appellant during that holiday season as
follows:
"One day, shortly before Christmas, in 1988, at about 1:30 o’clock in the afternoon, the Accused
arrived home. Angelita de Guzman was not in their house at the time. Maribel Soriano and the
Accused, and the latter’s four (4) children were inside the house at the time. The Accused
ordered his children to leave the house and, once the children were out of the house, the
Accused closed the door and the windows of the house, took out his ‘29 balisong’ and poked
the same to Maribel Soriano. The Accused, thereupon, ordered Maribel Soriano to undress.
Afraid for her life, Maribel Soriano did as ordered. The Accused also ordered Maribel Soriano to
lie down on the floor, she did. The Accused, thereupon, went on top of Maribel Soriano, kissed
her on her cheeks and lips and mashed her breast to boot. The Accused warned Maribel
Soriano not to tell the police authorities and her mother about the incident otherwise he will kill
all of them. The Accused, thereafter, inserted his private organ into her privated (sic) parts and
had sexual intercourse with Maribel Soriano. After the Accused was through he then dressed
up. The Accused warned Maribel Soriano anew not to reveal the incident to the police
authorities and her mother. Since then, almost everyday the Accused had sexual intercourse
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

with Maribel Soriano. After New Year, Juanita Soriano took Maribel Soriano to her house where
Maribel Soriano stayed until March 15, 1989, when Angelita de Guzman took Maribel Soriano
anew because she wanted Maribel Soriano to study. Maribel Soriano did not divulge to her
grandmother what the Accused did to her."
Subsequently, the appellant again took advantage of and raped the offended party as follows:
"In the second week of March 1989, at about 3:45 p.m., Maribel was in appellant’s house in
Tondo together with Alfredo, Jr., her 10 year old brother and her stepbrothers, stepsister and
her stepfather, appellant Ramirez. At that time, her mother Angelita de Guzman, was out selling
her wares. Appellant then ordered the children to look for Botchoy, his eldest son, saying in the
vernacular. ‘Labas kayo, hanapin si Botchoy.’ As soon as the children left the shanty, appellant
Ramirez closed the door and locked it. He also closed the window facing outside house. A few
minutes later, Maribel saw appellant already naked. With a fan knife (’veinte nueve’ balisong) in
his right hand poked at the right chest of Maribel, appellant ordered her to undress. Appellant
Ramirez then started kissing Maribel and afterwards got on top of her and ravished her on the
floor of the shanty.
He warned Maribel not to complain to the police because he would kill her and her family. After
consummating his lustful desires on Maribel and reiterating his threat, appellant stepped out of
the shanty. The following morning, Maribel approached her mother, Angelita, to report the
dastardly act of appellant Ramirez. She was with Alfredo, Jr. who told their mother, thus:
‘Nanay, akala mo sina Ate nakita ko nagpapatungan.’ Instead of getting mad at her common-
law-husband, Angelita surprisingly slapped Maribel and defended appellant.
Angered by their mother’s reaction, Maribel and her younger brother Alfredo Soriano, Jr.
decided to go to the police station, with the help of a man and a woman, both unidentified.
However, they got lost along the way.
RULING:
The accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against his step-
daughter and sentenced him reclusion perpetua and has to pay indemnity and for exemplary
and moral damages. The allegation of appellant Ramirez that the complaint against him was
false and made only because complaint Maribel Soriano was instigated and used by her
paternal grandmother Juanita Soriano as an instrument of revenge against Ramirez is bereft of
merit.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

INTOXICATION

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ISABELO NOBLE G.R. No. L-288             August
29, 1946

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for murder

FACTS:

 George F. Ott, a SOLDIER, with two other American soldiers, took Consolacion Noble,
a widow, 50 years old; Corazon Apacible, Consolacion's daughter, Paz Fores, to see a
cinema showing in an Army camp early in the evening of October 22, 1945. Consolacion
Noble rode alone with George F. Ott in a jeep driven by the latter, while the two younger
ladies were accommodated in another jeep with the other two American. When the party
got back to town, the three ladies invited the three Americans to come into the house.
while Ott fetched from his jeep a phonograph which he placed on a table in the ante-
room and while the ladies busied themselves to prepare food and drinks for their guests.
As Ott was fixing the phonograph with one of the ladies standing near him Dr. Isabelo
Noble, brother of Consolacion Noble, came up the stairs and shot the American
several times with a .45 caliber pistol. From the effects of his wounds Ott died shortly
after, on the way to an Army hospital.
 The defendant defense was that he killed the soldier because the latter was harassing
his sister (consolacion)
 Testimony of Consolacion Noble corroborated his brothers(accused) testimony

However,

 Testimony of Corazon states that she was with George ott, that the soldier was fixing the
phonograph, when the accused went up the stairways walk towards the deceased and
said "George, this is your end," and fired. The testimony of Corazon was corroborated by
Paz.
 Judged by this testimony, the crime committed was murder characterized by treachery.

ISSUE:

 Is there a presence of three mitigating circumstances is urged: first, intoxication; second,

voluntary surrender; and third, an offer to plead guilty for a minor offense.

Held:

 the amount of liquor the accused had taken, if he had taken any, was not of sufficient
quantity to affect his mental faculties to the extent of entitling him to a mitigation of his
offense. His Honor correctly reasons that "if the accused was thoughtful enough not to
neglect giving Don Vicente Noble his injection, the inference would be that his
intoxication was not to such a degree as to affect his mental capacity to fully understand
the consequences of his act."
 The mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender has not been established. Granting,
for the sake of argument, When municipal policemen came, he was already under arrest
by military police.
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES

 The benefit of the mitigating circumstances of voluntary confession of guilt is unavailable

to the appellant. An offer to enter a plea of guilty to a lesser offense cannot be
considered as a mitigating circumstance under the provisions of article 13 of the Revised
Penal code.
 We find, in conclusion, that the judgment of conviction appealed from, sentencing the
defendant to reclusion perpetua with the accesories of law, to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased in the amount of P2,000, and to pay the costs, is in accordance with law and
the evidence, and that it should be, and the same is hereby, affirmed, with costs against
the appellant.