Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alternative Circumstance First Ten Cases Digested
Alternative Circumstance First Ten Cases Digested
FACTS: Mansueto Lamberto raped his niece, Clarissa Arnino, 13 yrs old,
with the help of Romulo Solomon. After the consummation of rape, 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.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the crime of rape committed by Lamberte falls under the
alternative circumstance by the circumstance of closely-knit family relations.
RULING:
That during the period from May 1, 1995 to July 1995, in Masantol,
Pampanga, and within the Jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused
ABUNDIO TOLENTINO, step father of nine (9) year old Rachelle Parco, the
former being the common-law spouse of the latter's mother, Teresa David,
by taking advantage of his moral ascendancy over Rachel Parco, then eight
(8) years old, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously thru
force and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the said minor Rachel
Parco, against her will and consent.
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 (TSN, January 22,
1997). Rachelle was arranging the clothes while in the room (Ibid, p. 7).
Abundio Tolentino placed his sex organ on Rachelle Parco's genitals and
bumped (binubundol-bundol) hers with his. 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 (Ibid, p. 9). Abundio Tolentino told Rachelle's
brother to ask money from Lola Iding (ibid). Thereafter, Abundio Tolentino
put on his short pants and hers and went down the house (Ibid).
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
overc[o]me by fear that she did not tell anyone about what Abundio
Tolentino was doing to her.
ISSUE:
Whether or not alternative circumstance of relationship between the victim
and the accused can be considered in the case.
HELD:
NO.
The information specifically alleges that RACHELLE was eight years old
when the crime was committed and TOLENTINO was "the stepfather...
being the common-law spouse of [RACHELLE's] mother, Teresa David."
That allegation is inaccurate. TOLENTINO was not RACHELLE's step-
father, for that relationship presupposes a legitimate relationship, i.e., he
should have been legally married to Teresa David. A step-father is the
husband of one's mother by virtue of a marriage subsequent to that of which
the person spoken of is the offspring; [12] or, a stepdaughter is a daughter of
one's spouse by a previous marriage or the daughter of one of the spouses
by a former a marriage.[13] Nevertheless, since the information specifically
alleges that TOLENTINO was the common-law-spouse of RACHELLE's
mother and that RACHELLE was under eighteen years of age, we shall
appreciate these special qualifying circumstances.
ISSUE:
HELD:
The attorney de oficio submits five assignments of error all of which relate
to issues of fact. We have carefully examined the entire record and concur
with the court below that the guilt of the appellant has been established
beyond any reasonable doubt. The crime of rape is penalized by article 335
of the Revised Penal Code withreclusion temporal. In the present instance,
the aggravating circumstance of relationship (article 15 of the Revised Penal
Code) 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. we assess the penalty at twenty years of reclusion temporal, and,
as thus modified, affirm the judgment of the court below.
The decision of the court stated therein that the accused was found guilty of
the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt and was imposed for the penalty
of RECLUSION PERPETUA and condemns him to pay to Maribel Soriano the
amount of P30,000.00 as and by way of moral and exemplary damages and
to pay the costs of suit
Since 1979, appellant Ramirez and Angelita de Guzman stayed and lived in
a one-room shanty, a place one can hardly call a house.
During the holiday season on the year 1988, when Maribel was at the house
of the accused, she was raped by the said accused and also on one other
occasion, she was raped again.
ISSUE:
bar. HELD:
The appeal is DISMISSED and the Decision of the trial court finding
appellant Enrique Ramirez y Antonio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of rape committed against his own stepdaughter Maribel Soriano and
imposing on him the penalty of reclusion perpetua is hereby AFFIRMED
subject to the modification that he shall indemnify the victim in the amount of
eighty thousand pesos (P80,000.00) broken down as follows: fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000.00) by way of indemnity; plus thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000.00) as moral and exemplary damages.
George F. Ott, a private in the United States Army, with two other American
soldiers, took Consolacion Noble, a widow, 50 years old; Corazon Apacible,
Consolacion's daughter, single, 32 years old; and Paz Fores, a doctor of
medicine, single, 25 years of age, to see a cinema showing in an Army camp
in Batangas early in the evening of October 22, 1945. After the show, the
three ladies invited the three Americans to come into the house. There, the
two companions of George F. Ott seated themselves in a sofa in the drawing
room, while Ott fetched from his jeep a phonograph which he placed on a
table in the ante-room and while the ladies are preparing the foods and
drinks. As Ott was fixing the phonograph with one of the ladies standing near
him. 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.
The appellant says that the lady was his sister, Consolacion Noble who was
with the deceased in the ante-room. He states that after making four or five
steps from the top of the stairs he saw Ott holding Consolacion's hands and
trying by force to embrace and kiss her; that he drew his revolver and fired a
shot that missed its mark; that, as the American started to pick a chair,
perhaps to hurl at him, he fired various other shots; that all he knew
afterwards was that Ott had fallen down and he threw away his gun.
But there is a deeper reason why he shot in cold blood the deceased in the
way he killed him.
Jealousy and disappointment drove the defendant to his rash act, Paz Fores
testimony that she was engaged to Ott and the defendant is in love with her
and that the accused had courted her but she was not interested. (in short
busted ((: ). Not only also that the deceased was his rival suitor but he was
also the one who introduced the deceased to her.
The defendant alleges that on that faithful night, he felt distressed because he failed to meet the girl
he loved. He went to his clinic and after treating a patient he took and drink a glass of wine until
he got drunk. As he was about to go home he saw the house of her sister was still lit and he went
there and he saw his old uncle who has a heart ailment and he gave his uncle an injection for
the his heart, after that he got arrested by one Consorcio Noche, the policeman.
Consorcio Noche, the policeman, testifies that when Isabelo Noble and he
"were about to reach the Municipal Building," the accused told him "that he
will sit down and then he vomited"; and that "he smelled wine.
ISSUE: Whether or not the alternative circumstance of intoxication in this
case can be considered as mitigating or aggravating.
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 his uncle 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."
HELD:
appellee,
vs.
MANUEL FLORES, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
This is an appeal from the judgment entered in the Court of First Instance of
Bataan, convicting the defendants and appellants Manuel Flores, Irineo de
la Cruz, Domingo de los Santos, Doroteo de los Santos, and Lorenzo
Orozco of the crime of assassination marked with various aggravating
circumstances, and sentencing each and all of them to found guilty as an
accessory and sentenced to cedena temporal in its medium degree.
The principal witness for the prosecution was one Pedro Flores, a self-
confessed accomplice, He testified that the murder was planned by the
appellant Lorenzo Orozco, with whose wife the deceased had been having
an illicit relation with, and that he himself as well as the other appellants
had joined the party which committed the crime at the invitation the
appellant, who gave small sums of money as a sign of saying that he
was thankful of their participation (gratificacion). The account of the
incident that took place and the participation and how they buried the
deceased and its manner on how they did it was fully corroborated by the
law and medical officers who found the body of the deceased buried at
the place and in the manner indicated by him in his extrajudicial
confession.
A review of all the records of this case shows that all the defendants are
men of a low order of intelligence, with but little "instruction or education."
ISSUE: Whether or not the defendants who are men of a low order of
intelligence, with but little "instruction or education" can be considered as an
alternative circumstance.
HELD:
The court held that in imposing the penalty upon the four defendants and
appellants convicted as principals in the commission of the crime these
aggravating circumstances should have been compensated by the
extenuating circumstances set forth in subsection 7 of article 9 of the Penal
Code and in article 11 as amended by Act No. 2142. A review of the whole
record convinces us that all these defendants are men of a low order of
intelligence, with but little "instruction or education." It also affirmatively
appears that the investigator of the crime had been aroused to a high
degree of passion and "obfuscation" by the discovery of the fact that the
deceased was carrying on illicit relations with his wife and had recently
come into the community for the express purpose of continuing those illicit
relations; while his accomplices, who appear to have been ignorant friends,
neighbors and defendents, were also aroused by him to a high pitch of
anger against the betrayer of the family of their friend.
On June 11, 1966, about 9:00 o'clock in the evening, testified Danilo
Nicolas, a 14-year old boy, while at the corner of Lope de Vega and
Misericordia Streets, Manila, scavenging ingarbage cans for scraps of paper
to sell, he saw a Chinaman, Chan Siak, walking. He was met by 4 men, who
were the accused, and another not in Court. The 4th man was Celso Puzon
who is charged with the same offense before the Juvenile & Domestic
Relations Court, he being only 15 years of age. Casillar and Puzon held the
Chinaman's hands while Armalda and Amita pointed a "balisong" at him; the
former being then to the right of their victim and the latter in front of him.
Armalda thereafter stabbed the Chinese in his right side whilst Amita
stabbed him in his neck, after which Armalda took Chan's wallet from the hip
pocket of his trousers. This done, the four fled.
ISSUE:
HELD:
On the day of the crime the defendant Francisco Balaba was living in the
house of his brother Agapito Balaba, The defendant took care of fighting
cocks. On February 20, 1916, he fell out with his sister-in-law, the deceased
Fortunata Cabasagan, wife of Agapito Balaba, because she had tethered
the defendant's cocks, which were injuring the corn plantings. On the 29th of
the same month, in the morning, while the defendant was feeding this cocks,
he saw one rooster which it was not his, catched and ate it. This rooster
belonged to the deceased Claudia Ligao. In the morning of that same day,
the 29th, Donato Duero, second husband of Claudia Ligao, ask the latter to
look for the cock that had disappeared and made inquiry about it to the
defendant, whom he suspected of having stolen it. In reply to the inquiry,
defendant admitted in killing it and will exchange it to one of his cocks.
Duero chose one but the defendant would not give it to him for it was not
his. Then Duero, backed up by Sergio Daguplo, obliged the defendant to
follow him for the consideration of just paying the cock that was eaten but it
appears that the defendant was hesitant in neither to make payment nor
exchange for the cock butchered by him. To make the story short, he killed
three persons.
ISSUE: