Criminal Law II Digest

Case# 253 | Beltran v People 334 SCRA 106 | GR# 137567 | Jun 20, 2000 | | Tan
Law: Articles 333 to 346 RPC
Facts:
● Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E. Felix were married on June 16, 1973; however, after 24 years of
marriage, petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the
Family Code.
● Charmaine Felix, the wife, alleged that it was petitioner who abandoned the conjugal home and lived with a certain woman
named Milagros Salting. Charmaine subsequently filed a criminal complaint for concubinage under Article 334 of the
Revised Penal Code.
● A motion to defer proceedings was filed by petitioner arguing that the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of
his marriage posed a prejudicial question to the determination of the criminal case.
● RTC: Denied the motion filed by petitioner.
Issue:
● W/N the pendency of action of the civil case is a prejudicial question to the criminal case of concubinage. NO.
Ruling:
● The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of petitioner's marriage is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage
case. For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final
determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the
criminal prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action,
the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
● The court clarified that even if the marriage is subsequently declared null and void, it is not a defense to the charge of
concubinage.
● So long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists for all intents and purposes. Therefore, he
who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage assumes the risk of being
prosecuted for concubinage.
Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

● WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant petition is DISMISSED.
Case #254 | Tibong v People | GR#191000 | September 15, 2010 | Carpio-Morales, J. | Zubiri
Crimes Against Chastity: Art. 333 - 346
Facts:
● Tibong and AAA are cousins [her father and his mother are siblings]. 18yo AAA was at Tibong’s house because she was
boarding in their basement. Tibong’s wife left the house because of a fight. AAA fell asleep on their sofa and woke up at
midnight as she felt someone undressing her. She saw Tibong on top of her wearing only briefs, he was pulling down her
pajamas and panties. She resisted and pulled up her panties and pajamas but he pulled them down to her knees and mashed
her breasts. He told her they would watch a “bold” movie. He forced her to lie down and covered her mouth. When he
walked to the CD player, she grabbed her cellphone and ran outside the house. She sought refuge at her brother’s house,
BBB.
● Tibong denied. He said he got drunk because he and his wife had a fight. He fell asleep in another room.
● RTC: guilty of attempted rape. 3 years and 4 months to 8 years and 6 months.
● CA: affirmed
Issue:
● W/N the crime is attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness - attempted rape
Ruling:
● Tibong cited Perez v CA saying that absent any showing that he actually commenced to force his penis into her vagina, the
acts he committed constitute acts of lasciviousness only. Insisting that there was no attempted rape, petitioner argues that
AAA merely testified that he told her that they would have sexual intercourse; and that "this is not equivalent to carnal
knowledge, or even an attempt to have carnal knowledge,"
● While rape and acts of lasciviousness have the same nature, they are fundamentally different. For in rape, there isthe intent to
lie with a woman, whereas in acts of lasciviousness, this element is absent. During the defense’s cross examination of AAA,
the existence of petitioner’s overt acts showing his intent to lie with her was put to light.

● Petition is denied. CA decision is affirmed. Attempted rape.
Notes:
● Art. 6, RPC - there is an attempt to commit a felony when the offender commences its commission directly by overt acts but
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.
● Art. 336, RPC - Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon the other person of either sex, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in the preceding article [referring to Article 335 on rape], shall be punished by prision correccional.
Case #255 | People vs Amaro | GR#199100 | July 18, 2014 | Perez, J. | Adajar
Law: Crimes Against Chastity Articles 333 to 346
Facts:
● AAA, 7yo, was asked by Rosendo Amaro to buy cigarettes. After handing over the cigarettes, Amaro gave her bread and
banana cue. When she regained consciousness, she was in Amaro’s house and she saw him naked. He undressed, kissed, and
raped her. AAA was detained for 6 days and was raped 5 rimes. On cross-examination, AAA admitted that she voluntarily
went with appellant because the latter promised to bring her home. On the last day of her detention, AAA and Amaro went
out of the house. On their way to San Jose, a certain Aunt Ruthie saw AAA walking and immediately picked her up and
brought her to the police station. Amaro did nothing. In the police station, AAA’s mother, BBB, observed that AAA was still
in shock and could not walk properly so she was brought to the doctor on the following day. She only learned that her
daughter was raped after the medical examination.
● RTC: guilty of Forible Abduction with Rape. CA affirmed
Issues:
1. W/ N all the elements of forcible abduction and rape were established. – YES
2. W/N Amaro properly charged of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. – YES
Ruling:
1. The prosecution was able to prove all these elements in this case. The victim, AAA was a seven year-old girl who was taken
against her will by Amaro who told her that he knew her mother and that he would bring her home. At her tender age, AAA
could have easily been deceived by Amaro. The employment of deception suffices to constitute the forcible taking, especially
since the victim is an unsuspecting young girl. It is the taking advantage of their innocence that makes them easy culprits of
deceiving minds. The presence of lewd designs in forcible abduction is established by the actual rape of the victim.
Additionally, the fact of sexual intercourse is corroborated by the medical findings that AAA suffered from laceration.
2. AAA's abduction was a necessary means to commit rape. Sexual intercourse with AAA was facilitated and ensured by her
abduction.

● WHEREFORE, premises considered, the of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Doctrine:
● The employment of deception suffices to constitute the forcible taking, especially since the victim is an unsuspecting young
girl.
Notes:
● Elements of Forcible abduction:
(1) that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation;
(2) that she is taken against her will; and
(3) that the abduction is with lewd designs.
● Rape under Article 266-A is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by: (1) force or intimidation, or (2) when
the woman is deprived of reason or is unconscious, or (3) when she is under twelve years of age.
Case # 256| People vs. Collado | GR# 135667-70| March 1,2001 | Bellosillo, J. | Almero
Law: Art. 336 Acts of Lasciviousness
Facts:
● Messeah is the 9-year-old daughter of Jose Noli Dumaoal, a seaman. His household was composed of his wife Julie, and their
3 children: Reggie, Messeah and Metheor. The accused Jessie Ventura Collado, son of Jose Noli's cousin Benjamin, was
living with them since 1989. While waiting for an opportunity to become a seaman himself like his uncle Jose, Jessie served
as the family driver. Aside from driving Julie, Jessie would also drive the school service vehicle operated by the Dumaoal
spouses. Since Jose was almost always at sea and having no househelp, their children were oftentimes left in the care of
Jessie. But, instead of taking care of them as their surrogate father, he took advantage of Messeah by sexually molesting her
at home, and worse, even in the presence of her 6-year-old brother.
THERE WERE FOUR INSTANCES WHERE JESSIE MOLESTED MESSEAH
FIRST INSTANCE
● Messeah was resting in her bedroom upstairs when Jessie suddenly barged into her room. Jessie went to the room with a
straw rope in his hand. Messeah asked him why he was holding the rope, and Jessie told her to keep quiet and not to ask
questions or else he would hurt her. Metheor went up to her room and discovered that Jessie had tied Messeah's hands to the
bed and was about to tie her feet down. Metheor asked, "What are you doing to my Ate?" Messeah screamed to her brother to
call for help from the neighbors, but Jessie threatened to hurt him if he left the room. Jessie then moved the bed to block the
way to the door. At some point, he also punched Messeah on her right cheek. Jessie then parted her legs and tied them apart,
pulling down her garterized shorts and panties until her ankles. He tried forcing his penis into her vagina, but when he failed
in his attempt, he inserted it into her anus instead. Messeah felt pain in her anus and something sticky "like paste" flowed out
from his penis. Her vagina ached from Jessie's earlier attempt to defile her. She saw Jessie close his eyes as though he was
enjoying himself.
SECOND INSTANCE
● Messeah was resting on the sofa while Metheor was in the garage when Jessie grabbed Messeah and dragged her upstairs.
She screamed and Jessie tried to cover her mouth. She was crying as Jessie told her to take off her shorts and panties, took off
his shorts, pressed her legs apart with his two 2 legs, and rubbed his penis against her thighs, until it touched a her vagina.
The intimate encounter went on for some 10 to 15 minutes. Metheor heard her screams for help, went upstairs and saw what
Jessie was doing. He told Jessie to let his sister go, but Jessie merely ignored him. Metheor went downstairs and got a 7 to 8
inch bread knife.
THIRD INSTANCE
● Metheor was upstairs sleeping while Messeah was resting on the sofa when Jessie suddenly entered the living room armed
with a knife. He then forced her to walk backwards to the kitchen where he told her again to remove her shorts and panties.
He forced Messeah to sit on a steel chair and told her to spread her legs. Jessie then told Messeah to sit at the edge of the steel
chair. Then he rubbed his penis against her thighs for some 3 to 5 minutes until it touched her vagina. She could then feel
something sticky coming out from his penis and reaching her vagina.
FOURTH AND LAST INSTANCE
● As Messeah was changing her clothes after coming from the party, Jessie again entered her room, told her to remove her
panty, and inserted his smallest finger (kalingkingan) into her vagina while telling her to keep silent. He then removed his
pants and briefs and went on top of her. This time, he was not able to touch her vagina with his penis because Messeah cried
and screamed and called for Metheor who again went up and told Jessie to get away.
● RTC: 3 counts of Acts of Lasciviousness and 1 count of Statutory Rape
● CA: N/A
Issue:
● W/N the lower court erred in finding accused appellant guilty of three counts of acts of lasciviousness and one count of
statutory rape? YES. ALL SHOULD BE ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Ruling:
● The trial court was correct in finding accused-appellant guilty of 3 counts of acts of lasciviousness. We take exception
however to its finding that statutory rape was committed by him on 5 June 1993. A thorough evaluation of the records will
show that accused-appellant Jessie Ventura Collado should only be convicted for acts of lasciviousness and not for
consummated rape.
FIRST INSTANCE – ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
● The accused-appellant tried forcing his penis into her vagina, but when he failed in his first attempt, he inserted it into her
anus instead. This could have been attempted rape, or even consummated rape but the Complaint filed was only for acts of
lasciviousness. Thus, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of attempted or consummated rape. Noteworthy is that the
victim was already in a spread-eagle position yet he was unsuccessful in his attempt to defile her. By then he must have
realized that it was difficult to penetrate his victim's sex organ such that during the second incident, he merely "rubbed his
penis between her thighs" although in the process "touched her vagina."
SECOND INSTANCE – ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS (statutory rape in lower court)
● Nowhere can we find from the foregoing any indication that accused-appellant successfully penetrated at least the labia of the
victim; neither can we glean therein any grain of intent on his part to invade Messeah's privities. The victim only said in her
testimony that Jessie initially "pressed her legs apart with his 2 legs, and rubbed his penis against her thighs, until it touched
her vagina." Further, Messeah might have told the accused-appellant to "stop because she was hurting" yet she did so only
because "he was pressing his legs on her legs." She did not mention having felt pain in her vagina. As narrated by Messeah,
"the intimate encounter went on for some 10-15 minutes." If accused-appellant was penetrating her or trying to penetrate her
for such a considerable period, she should have likewise cried out in anguish for the pain in her sex organ. To compare, she
cried out in pain when accused-appellant tried forcing his penis into her vagina and anus during the first incident.
THIRD INSTANCE – ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
● During the third incident, accused-appellant "inserted his penis between her thighs and used his legs to press her thighs
together, then he rubbed his penis against her thighs for some three (3) to five (5) minutes until it touched her vagina and she
felt something sticky coming out of his penis." As in the second incident, there was no showing he inserted his penis into her
labias, much less tried to do so. This recourse to a "simulated means" of achieving orgasm is another manifestation of his
realization of, or resignation to, the difficulty of penetrating his prey's sex organ.

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the RTC Pasig finding accused-appellant JESSIE VENTURA COLLADO guilty of Statutory
Rape and 3 counts of Acts of Lasciviousness is MODIFIED as follows:
In Crim. Case No. 106257, accused-appellant is found guilty of Acts of Lasciviousness (instead of Statutory Rape) under Art.
336 of The Revised Penal Code. Accused-appellant is likewise found guilty of three (3) counts of Acts of Lasciviousness
under the same Art. 336.
Doctrine:
People v. Campuhan
● Touching when applied to rape cases does not simply mean mere epidermal contact, stroking or grazing of organs, a slight
brush or a scrape of the penis on the external layer of the victim's vagina, or the mons pubis. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and not merely stroked the external
surface thereof for the accused to be convicted of consummated rape.
● Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e. touching of either the labia of the pudendum by the
penis, there can be no consummated rape; at most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of lasciviousness.
● AOL vs Attempted Rape - The difference lies in the intent of the perpetrator deducible from his external acts. Thus when the
"touching" of the vagina by the penis is coupled with the intent to penetrate, attempted rape is committed. Otherwise, it is
merely acts of lasciviousness.
Case # 257| People v. Cayanan | GR#200080 | September 18, 2013 | REYES, J. | Calub
Abduction, Forcible Abduction with Rape
Facts:
● On February 2001, Cayanan (married to AAA’s older sister) took advantage of 15-year old AAA while she was alone inside
her house in Bulacan. AAA was asleep when she felt someone caressing her and it turned out to be Cayanan.
● He told her to remove her shorts and when she refused, Cayanan forcibly took it off and after he took off his own
undergarment, he inserted his organ into AAA’s genitalia.
● Cayanan, who had a knife with him, threatened to kill AAA if she resisted and informed anybody of the incident.
● On February 26, 2001, AAA was about to enter the school campus with her friend Armina Adriano when Cayanan arrived on
a tricycle driven by his uncle, Boy Manalastas. Cayanan pulled AAA towards the tricycle and they alighted somewhere and
boarded a jeep.
● He brought her to a dress shop in Bulacan where he asked someone to give her a change of clothes as she was in her school
uniform and later to a Jollibee outlet.
● He then brought her to his sister's house where he raped her inside a bedroom. Afterwards, a certain couple Putay and Tessie
talked to Cayanan and she was brought to the barangay office where she was asked to execute a document stating that she
voluntarily went with Cayanan. It was Cayanan’s mother and sister-in-law who brought her home later that evening.
● AAA told her mother and brother of the incidents only after her classmate Adriano informed her family of what happened in
school and of the rape incidents.
● AAA testified that she did not immediately tell her family because she was still in a state of shock.
● Adriano and AAA’s mother corroborated her testimony. A resident psychiatrist at the National Center for Mental Health also
testified that AAA was suffering from mental depressive symptoms/chronic symptoms and presence of sexual abuse.
● Cayanan interposed the sweetheart defense.
● RTC: Did not give credit to Cayanan’s defense, ruling that it is a weak defense and does not rule out the use of force given
the prosecution's evidence. He also failed to establish the genuineness and authenticity of the love letters written by AAA.
● CA: Sustained the ruling of the RTC
Issue:
● Whether or not Cayanan is guilty of Forcible Abduction with Qualified Rape - No.
Ruling:
● The Court, however, finds that Cayanan should be convicted only of Qualified Rape.
● Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim.
● In this case, circumstances show that the victim's abduction was with the purpose of raping her. Thus, after Cayanan dragged
her into the tricycle, he took her to several places until they reached his sister's house where he raped her inside the bedroom.
● Under these circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.

● Marvin Cayanan is found guilty of Qualified Rape.
Doctrine:
● Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim.
Notes:
● Cayanan’s claim that they were sweethearts does not justify the commission of the crimes. For the Court to even consider
giving credence to the sweetheart defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present
testimonial evidence in support of the theory.
● Independent proof is required — such as tokens, mementos, and photographs. And while Cayanan produced two love letters
allegedly written by AAA, the CA correctly sustained the finding of the RTC that these letters were unauthenticated and
therefore, bereft of any probative value.
Case # 258 | People v Pascua | GR# 128159-62 | July 14, 20023 | Corona, J. | Castasus
Law: Rape
Facts:
● Hipolito Pascua was charged with 4 counts of rape under separate informations, involving 12-year-old twin girls named Liza
and Anna Paragas.
● The incidents occurred in Pascua’s house in Calvo, Mangatarem, Pangasinan, with Pascua being a neighbor whom the girls
considered as their grandfather.
● The rapes were alleged to have occurred on multiple occasions between August 1995 and January 1996.
○ On August 6, 1995, Liza and Ana were playing near the house of Pascua when the latter called Liza and instructed
her to buy juice at the store. Liza obeyed. After she returned from the store, Pascua ordered Liza to go inside his
house and lie down on the floor. Pascua then raped Liza. Liza tried to scream but Pascua threatened to kill her. After
the sexual intercourse, Pascua gave Liza P10 and warned her not to reveal the incident to her mother. Liza then went
home but did not tell her mother what happened for fear that her mother would punish her. The same thing happened
on January 27, 1996. After her ordeal, Pascua gave Liza P5.
○ Liza's twin sister, Anna, suffered the same fate at the hands of Pascua. Sometime in August 1995, while Anna was
playing with her cousins, Pascua called her and asked her to go inside his house. As soon as Anna entered his house,
Pascua closed the door, removed Anna's pants and underwear, and made her lie down on the floor. Thereafter,
Pascua raped Anna. Anna felt pain but could not shout as Pascua threatened to kill her. Pascua also warned her not
to tell her mother about the incident. Thus, when Anna went home, she did not tell her mother what appellant had
done to her. On January 20, 1996, when Anna was on her way home after buying charcoal, the same thing happened.
● Private complainants' mother, Leticia Paragas, learned of her daughters' ordeal through her older daughter, Rosalina, who, in
turn, came to know of the rape incidents from the appellant's granddaughter. Apparently the granddaughter witnessed the
appellant as he was raping Liza and told Rosalina about it.
● Liza and Ana initially kept silent about the abuse due to threats from Pascua, but eventually disclosed the incidents to their
mother after being questioned.
● Leticia wasted no time in reporting the matter to their barangay chairman and to the police before whom she filed criminal
complaints against the appellant. Thereafter, they proceeded to the Mangatarem District Hospital where the victims were
examined by Dr. Athena Merrera. Medical examinations revealed injuries consistent with sexual abuse on both victims.
● The trial court found Pascua guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in
each case, as well as to pay moral damages.
● Pascua and his granddaughter, Joy Javier, testified for the defense. Pascua claimed that the sexual acts were consensual, or at
most, amounted to simple seduction.
Issue: Whether or not Pascua’s guilt for rape is established beyond reasonable doubt, and whether or not the penalties imposed by
the trial court are appropriate?
Ruling:
● Yes, Pascua's guilt for rape is established beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented, including the victims' credible
testimonies, medical findings, and the lack of credible defense, firmly establish his guilt.
● The court rejected Pascua’s defense that the sexual acts were consensual, finding it preposterous given the age of the victims
(12-year-old minors) and the threats made by the appellant. It emphasized that even without physical resistance, rape can still
be established if force or intimidation was used to compel the victim’s submission, which was evident in this case.
● The court affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the victim’s testimony credible reluctance to fabricate such serious
accusations. As for the penalties imposed by the trial court, they are appropriate. Reclusion perpetua, the penalty imposed for
each count of rape, reflects the severity of the crimes committed. Additionally, the court noted the failure of the trial court to
award civil indemnity, which is mandatory in rape cases. It modified the decision to include civil indemnity of P100,000.00
for each victim.

● The court affirmed the trial court’s decision. It upheld the penalty of reclusion perpetua and awarded additional civil
indemnity.
Doctrine:
● In case of rape, the absence of physical resistance does not negate the crime if force or intimidation was used to overpower
the victim’s will. A victim is not required to resist to the point of death; submission due to fear of harm is sufficient to
establish rape. Moreover, when minors are involved, courts are inclined to lend credence to their testimony, considering their
vulnerability and the public humiliation they would face if their accusations were false.
Notes:
· “Equally untenable is the argument of the appellant that, if he is at all liable for anything, it should only be for simple
seduction. Under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, to constitute seduction, there must in all cases be some deceitful
promise or inducement. The woman should have yielded because of this promise or inducement. The evidence for the
prosecution was more than enough to show that the element of voluntariness on the part of private complainants was
totally absent.”
Case # 259 | People v. Shareff Ali El Akhtar | GR# 130640 | June 21, 1999 | Quisumbing, J. | CHU
Law: Rape
Facts:
● Shareff and Gina became acquainted when the latter stayed with her aunt, who was neighbors with the former. Not long after,
Shareff moved into a different house.
● While Gina was walking to the post office, by chance, she saw Shareff walking behind her, who then immediately dragged
her inside a tricycle.
● Gina was overcome by nervousness and was unable to shout for help. Upon arriving at his house, he pushed her inside and
forced her to drink a drugged soft drink that caused her to fall asleep.
● When she woke up the following morning, she saw herself completely naked in bed, feeling weak, her vagina in pain and
plenty of blood on the bed sheet.
● This happened again for two more times until her aunt started to worry about her disappearance and became suspicious of
Shareff after remembering seeing him suspiciously looking at their house prior thereto.
● When Shareff came to know that the police were alerted, he released Gina after making her copy love letters.
● Despite feeling very weak, Gina still narrated her ordeal to her relatives. Then, they went to the NBI for her medical
examination and filed Forcible Abduction with Rape against Shareff.
● RTC: Charged Shareff guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of DEATH by lethal
injection.
Issue:
● Whether or not the RTC erred in convicting Shareff the crime of rape and imposing death penalty.
Ruling:
● SC affirmed the ruling of the RTC but reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua for each of the three counts of
rape.

● Citing the case of People v. Santiago, the court rejected the appellant's contention that the victim's lack of resistance or outcry
during her abduction and subsequent rape should absolve him of guilt. The victim's claim that she was drugged after
consuming the lemon juice provided by the appellant clarifies why she couldn't effectively resist or raise an outcry. Although
no chemical test was conducted to confirm the presence of drugs, the appellant's failure to refute the claim raised substantial
doubts about his innocence. In a rape of a woman deprived of reason or who is unconscious, the victim has no will.
Therefore, it is not necessary that she should offer real opposition or constant resistance to sexual intercourse.
Moreover, the appellant's reliance on love letters exchanged with the victim as a defense strategy – commonly known as the
"sweetheart defense" – was dismissed by the court. It emphasized that even if a romantic relationship between the appellant
and the victim existed, it could never justify the heinous crime of rape, particularly when coercion or incapacitation was
involved.
While appellant was charged with the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape, he was convicted by the RTC of rape under
Article 335 as forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the main objective of the appellant is to rape the victim.
The death penalty imposed by the RTC was reduced to reclusion perpetua for the appellant was convicted under Article 335,
No. 2 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, wherein the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua.
Appellant used the knife not to consummate the crime of rape but to threaten Gina not to leave the bedroom where she was
locked up. Hence, we find appellant herein guilty of three (3) counts of simple rape.
Doctrine:
ARTICLE 335. When and How Rape is Committed.
— Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next
preceding paragraphs shall be present.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusión temporal.
Section 3 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court

— Judgment for two or more offenses.
● When two or more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information, and the accused fails to object to it before trial,
the court may convict the accused of as many offenses as are charged and proved, and impose on him the penalty for each
and everyone of them setting out separately the findings of fact and law in each case.
Notes:
● You may include the elements of the crime, procedural steps, or concepts introduced
Case 261 | People vs Lining | G.R. No. 138401 July 11, 2002 | Kapunan | Dela Peña
Law: Abduction with rape
Facts:
● 15 year old Emelina was on the way home from a party when Lining and Salvacion threatened with a knife and dragged her
to the ricefields into the empty house of Mila Salvacion. There they took turns Raping Emelina while they were looking for a
vehicle to transport her somewhere else she escaped. Then she confided with her friend about it then reported it to the chief of
police. The accused defense was they were drinking somewhere else but alibi loses to positive identification
● RTC: Abduction with Rape and another count of Rape
● CA: N/A
Issue:
● W/N it was abduction with rape or rape. Its rape
● W/N it is 2 counts of Rape. Its 2 counts for both accused because of conspiracy
Ruling:
● Accused-appellant could only be convicted for the crime of rape, instead of the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape. Indeed, it would appear from the records that the main objective of the accused when the victim was taken to the
house of Mila Salvacion was to rape her. Hence, forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape.
● She only recalled that the accused took turns in raping her and that one would hold her hands while the other would perform
the act of rape. For this reason, accused-appellant is deemed a co-conspirator for the act of rape committed by his co-accused
Lian Salvacion and should accordingly be penalized therefor.

● Accused-appellant GERRY LINING is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape and is sentenced to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua in each case. Accused-appellant is likewise ordered to pay Emelina Ornos the sum of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape. Costs against accused-appellant.
Doctrine:
● Rape may absorb forcible abduction if the main objective was to rape the victim.
Notes:
You may include the elements of the crime, procedural steps, or concepts introduced
Case # 262| People v Sabadlab| GR#175924 | March 14, 2012| Bersamin, J.| Entila
Crimes Against Chastity:
Facts:
● Erland Sabadlab was guilty of forcible abduction with rape committed against AAA, a 16-year old domestic helper.
● In March 2002, AAA was on her way to fetch her employer’s son in school when Sabadlab grabbed her by the shoulder and
ordered her to go with him. AAA recognized him to be the man who’s been persistently greeting her every time she bought
pandesal at 5am near her employer’s house.
● AAA refused but Sabadlab poked a gun at her throat. Two other men (who she did not recognize) joined Sabadlab, forced her
into the backseat of a car, and blindfolded her. The car moved forward and stopped every twenty minutes.
● Later on, while blindfolded, she was brought out of the car. Sabadlab removed her clothes, leaving only the blindfold. One of
them tied her hands behind her back, and Sabadlab began kissing her body from the neck downwards. Although blindfolded,
she knew it was Sabadlab because his cohorts were calling out his name while kissing her body. Afterwards, Sabadlab raped
her and the others took turns. They also stuffed her mouth with crumpled newspapers to prevent her from shouting for help.
● The three ravished her again and again – that she could not remember the number of times they did so. They let her go on the
same day with a stern warning that they would kill her if she told anyone about the rape.
● When AAA arrived at her employer’s house after fetching the latter’s son, AAA’s employer noticed the kiss marks on her
neck. AAA lied but ultimately disclosed the rapes because her irritated employer slapped and boxed her on the stomach to
force her to disclose. Her employer brought AAA to the police station the next day to report the rapes. She underwent
medico-legal examination (conclusion: compatible with recent loss of virginity).
● AAA and the policemen went to where she usually buys pandesal and there they apprehended Sabadlab.
● RTC: GUILTY of forcible abduction with rape
● CA: Affirmed
Issue:
● W/N Sabadlab was guilty of forcible abduction with rape? NO. Only simple rape.
Ruling:
● Sabadlab has not tendered any clear and persuasive reasons that may warrant the reversal of the findings of both lower courts.
Inconsistencies in AAA’s testimony were minor and SC ruled that it did not adversely affect the substance of the witness’
declaration, veracity, or weight of testimony. None of the inconsistencies pertained to the elements of the crime.
● AAA’s recollection of the occurrence and her positive identification of the rapists, particularly Sabadlab, were firm.
● AAA’s failure to shout for help and her failure to escape were not factors that should diminish credibility because her mouth
was stuffed, thus preventing her from making any outcry.
● Sabadlab’s allegation that AAA did not sustain any bodily injuries was contrary to the medical certification showing her
several physical injuries and the penetration of her female organ.
● Art. 266-D: Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or
where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in
the prosecution of the acts punished under Art. 266-A.
● Sabadlab and his cohorts’s principal objective in abducting AAA and in bringing her to another place was to rape and ravish
her. This became evident from the successive acts of Sabadlab immediately after she had alighted from the car in completely
undressing her as to expose her whole body, in kissing her body from neck down, and in having carnal knowledge of her.
Although forcible abduction was seemingly committed, he cannot be held guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape when the objective of the abduction was to commit rape. Under the circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible
abduction.

● Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Simple Rape under Art. 266-A. Reclusion perpetua.
Case # 263| People v Rapisora | GR# 138086 | Jan 25, 2001 | VITUG, J. | Go
Law: Crimes against Chastity article 333 to 346
Facts:
● At 11:30 am, 17 y/o Irene, a household helper of Susana was walking in Mandaluyong after buying vegetables from Aling
Naty`s store.
● While walking, Rapisora approached her and told her that he is her Tito Andy and she was still small when she was in his
care, that's why she can't remember him.
● Few minutes later, Rapisora called a taxi then dragged and forced Irene to board, she did not resist because a knife was poked
on her side. (even inside the taxi, the knife was poked her side)
● Irene then noticed that they alighted in Sta mesa near a motel, but she thought that it was Rapisora`s house.
● Upon entering, he poked his knife at her and told her not to shout and resist.
● Rapisora ordered her to remove clothes but she resisted, so he undressed her. He forced his penis into her vagina but could
not insert it as she was moving. He inserted his finger instead and when his penis hardened he rammed it into her vagina.
● Irene stated that Rapisora inserted his penis to her vagina 6 times and did other acts of lasciviousness (forcing his penis in her
mouth and licking different parts of her body).
● Irene also stated that she was shouting but Rapisora placed a towel on her mouth.
● Thereafter, the roomboy knocked and told Rapisora that it was already time.
● When they got dressed Irene hurriedly left the place, Rapisora tried to chased her telling her he would bring her home but
declined and ran to take a jeep.
● RAPISORA`S DEFENSE: Irene consented to it.
● RTC: Forcible abduction with rape
● CA:
Issue:
● W/N Rapisora is guilty of forcible abduction with rape. NO only rape
Ruling:
● SC held that Rapisora is guilty of the crime of rape as the crime committed is not a complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape. Therefore, forcible abduction is absorbed in rape if the the objective is to rape the victim.
● The information charged Rapisora with multiple rapes, he can be made responsible for as many rapes. Therefore, SC found
him guilty of 6 counts of rape, reclusion perpetua for each counts.
● SC also emphasized that Physical resistance, in any case need not be established in rape cases when threats and intimidation
are employed and the victim ultimately gives up to the unwanted embrace of her rapist. Even when a man lays, no hand on a
woman, yet if by the array of physical forces he so overpowers her mind that she does not resist or she ceases resistance
through fear of greater harm, the consummation of unlawful intercourse by the man would still be nothing less than rape. In
the case at bar, Rapisora used a knife to intimidate Irene to prevent her from resisting.
● WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, in Criminal
Case No. 115-H-MD finding accused-appellant Conde Rapisora y Estrada guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six counts of
rape but MODIFIES the death penalty imposed by it on said accused-appellant by reducing it to reclusion perpetua for each
count and to pay the victim, Irene Hermo y Cajipe, the amount of P50,000.00, by way of moral damages, in addition to the
P50,000.00 civil indemnity awarded by the trial court, for each count of rape, or a grand total of P600,000.00 damages.
Case # 264| People vs. Falucarno 43 OG 1721| Date | Felix J. | Lim
Law: Art. 336 - Acts of Lasciviousness
This is a CA case. Me and Luis cant find the full text online. He allowed me to base this off online digests and from ID120’s
digest. Doctrine is from Reyes book
Facts:
● Fernando Famulacarno, accused herein, was a driver of Camp John Hay Motor Pool in Baguio.
● One night, he was taking a group of workers in a weapons carrier. Dionisia Navarro was one of the passengers.
● The defendant then stopped the truck and informed Navarro that it was out of gas
● She was also ordered by the defendant to get out of the truck.
● When she started walking, the defendant followed her then proceeded to hug her. The front part of her dress were torn, from
the collar down to the waistline, due to the attempts of the defendant to touch her breast. Navarro struggled against
Famulacarno and succeeded in escaping.
● Defendant did not follow her anymore and she stayed the night at her friend’s house.
● Famulacarno admitted to Navarro’s allegations but contended that he assaulted Navarro as revenge for what Navarro’s father
did to his wife. He learned that Navarro was the daughter of a Filipino Japanese spy who also committed acts of
lasciviousness against Famulacarno’s wife.
● The lower court convicted him of frustrated acts of lasciviousness aggravated by nocturnity.
Issue:
● W/N the accused is guilty of frustrated acts of lasciviousness?
Ruling:
● Accused is found GUILTY of consummated acts of lasciviousness. Defendants cannot be convicted of frustrated acts of
lasciviousness because under the terms of the law, such frustration can never take place.
● It is an undisputed fact that the defendant forcibly held and hugged the offended party, and though he did not succeed in his
intention of kissing her, or of touching her private parts, he must have touched her bosom. (Dress was torn.) Even if there was
no touching of the breast, the acts of taking the offended party by the waist, of holding her to his breast and hugging her with
intention of kissing her and touching her breast and private parts, are in themselves an abuse directed by the former against
the chastity of the latter.
● Art. 336 of the RPC includes all acts of lasciviousness upon a person of either sex short of lying with a woman and anything
leading up to it, independently of the intention of the wrongdoer.
● The act of taking the offended party by the waist, of holding her to his breast and hugging her with intention of kissing her
and touching her breast and private parts, which the appellant did by force and against her will, are by themselves an abuse
directed against her chastity. It is not a defense that appellant was motivated not by lewdness but by a desire to avenge the
fact that her father committed a criminal attack on appellant's wife during the Japanese occupation.

● Defendant is guilty of consummated acts of lasciviousness. The lower cort erred in convicting him of frustrated acts of
lasciviousness
Doctrine:
● The act of taking the offended party by the waist, of holding her to his breast and hugging her with intention of kissing her
and touching her breast and private parts, which the appellant did by force and against her will, are by themselves an abuse
directed against her chastity. It is not a defense that appellant was motivated not by lewdness but by a desire to avenge the
fact that her father committed a criminal attack on appellant's wife during the Japanese occupation.
Case # 265 | People vs Fontanilla | GR# L-25354 | June 28, 1968 | CASTRO, J| Lonzaga
Law: Qualified Seduction
Facts:
● A complaint was charged by Fe Castro(Castro) against Mariano Fontanilla(Fontanilla) in the justice of peace
court(Municipal court) for qualified seduction.
● In Sept. 1960,Castro , then 15 Y.O., was brought to the house of Fontanilla by her mother and Magdalene Copio,2nd wife of
Fontanilla, to serve a helper. Fontanilla was then already 52 Y.O. The Fontanillas spouses were childless despite being
married for 2 years but accused had children from first marriage but not living with them. Castro said that during her 3
months stay with Fontanilla, he had carnal knowledge with her repeatedly in which the number of times she could not recall
anymore but the first sexual intercourse with the accused happened during her first week of stay. This happened in her room
that had a wooden bar as a lock but can be easily opened from outside. Fontanilla entered her room, placed himself on top of
her and fondled her nipples. Prior to said first intercourse, Fontanilla had made advances against Castro. Fontanilla repeatedly
promised to abandon his wife to live with Castro. Castro said that she yielded to the carnal desires of accused by his promises
of marriage and by his acts of intimidation. The made love during the day and night when the wife of Fontanilla was away
from the house or she was sound asleep. This ended when the wife caught them in flagrante on the kitchen floor which
prompted Castro to go home to her parents the following day.
● In his defense Fontanilla said that Castro did not stay as a helper but as his niece wherein he treated her as his own child. He
denied having carnal knowledge with her. There was no occasion for him to have such act since he was in the field all day
and the room of Castro was locked in the night. Another reason why it was not possible for him to seduce Castro was that his
sexual capabilities had waned considering his age and can only made love to his wife once a week despite the allegation of
Castro of them copulating “day and night”. His wife corroborated this allegation and that there were no unusual incident that
happened between Castro and Fontanilla. She also denied having caught them in the kitchen in the act and that she was a light
sleeper and that any noise that could have been made in the night would wake her up. She declared that her husband sleeps
with her in the same bed every night. Fontanilla also alleges that Castro was only instigated to file the charges by her uncle,
one Avelino Gaspin who had strong influence over her and that Castro was envious of his children who received salary from
their employment. This was corroborated by a mayor who proposed to settle the case with P50 which as due to Castro in the
production of Tobacco but this was refused by Gaspin stating that it should be P2000 as this would be sufficient for the
reparation of the honor destroyed.
● Fontanilla among other things challenged the jurisdiction of justice of peace court, saying that said court should have not
tried and decide on the case and that the court of first instance should have been the appropriate body to hear the case.
● JPC/MTC: guilty and sentenced with 4m of arresto mayor to 2y4m of prision correccional + P500 as moral damages
● CA: affirmed
Issue:
● W/N Fontanilla is guilty of qualified seduction anent the allegation that there was no evidence of the promise of marriage
amounting to deceit which is an essential element in cases of simple seduction? - YES
Ruling:
● Fontanilla claims that there is no evidence of any promise of marriage to Castro. The SC stated that, granting that this to be
correct, it is nevertheless settled that even if deceit is an essential element in ordinary or simple seduction, it is needed to be
proven ro established by the prosecution when the crime being charged is qualified seduction. It is replaced by abuse of
confidence. When the offender is a public officer, a priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor, teacher, or under any title is
in charge of the education or keeping of the offended woman, as in the present case, the act is punishable although fraud or
deceit may not have been used or, if employed, has not been proved. Under Art 337, any seduction of a virgin over 12 and
under 18 Y.O. committed by any of the persons listed is constitutive of the crime of seduction even though no deceit
intervenes or even when such carnal knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin. In such a case, the law takes for
granted the existence of deceit as an integral element of the said crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does
simple seduction taking into account the abuse of confidence on the part of the cuplrit, an abuse of confidence which implies
deceit or fraud.
● Regarding Jurisdiction: When the criminal complaint was lodged on February 28, 1961, the relevant statutory provision was
Section 87(c), paragraph 3, of the Judiciary Act, as amended by Republic Act 2613. This provision granted justices of the
peace in provincial capitals equivalent jurisdiction to the court of first instance for trying offenses occurring within the
province where the penalty prescribed by law did not exceed prision correccional. Consequently, it is indisputable that the
justice of the peace of San Fernando - the capital of La Union - held concurrent jurisdiction over the offense of qualified
seduction committed in the municipality of San Juan, La Union, as the punishment stipulated by Article 337 of the Revised
Penal Code for such an offense ranged simply from prision correccional's minimum to medium terms.
● The SC found that the testimony of Castro to be credible and convincing. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of Castro
were attributed to her hvaign lack of education, having only finished grade 3, and her perceptibly low intelligence.
● From testimony of the physician that examined Castro, it is clear that she had experience numerous distinct acts of sexual
intercourse affirming her claim that accused had carnal knowledge of her repeatedly during her stay. Her virginity before she
was seduced must be presumed. This presumption must arise when a woman is shown that she is single and continues until
overthrown by proof to the contrary. This is in accord with the presumption of innocence which "includes, also, that of
morality and decency, and, as a consequence, of chastity."
● Judgment of lower court is affirmed and modified to pay moral damages amounting to P2500
Doctrine:
● In cases of qualified seduction within criminal law, the traditional requirement of deceit, which is fundamental in simple
seduction cases, is replaced by the concept of abuse of confidence. Unlike simple seduction, where deceit must be
established, in charges of qualified seduction, the focus shifts to abuse of confidence. Article 337 of the Revised Penal Code
delineates that the seduction of a virgin aged twelve to eighteen by individuals in positions of authority such as public
officials, priests, household servants, guardians, teachers, or anyone entrusted with the education or care of the seduced
woman, constitutes qualified seduction, irrespective of the absence of deceit or even if the sexual engagement was consensual
on the part of the virgin.
Notes: ○ If the woman is married and the offender

● Meaning of Seduction knows it, having sexual intercourse with her
○ Enticing a woman to unlawful sexual is adultery.
intercourse by promise of marriage or other ○ If the victim is less than 12, the crime is
means of persuasion without use of force. rape.
● Two kinds of seduction: ● Offended party need not be physically virgin
○ Qualified seduction ● Meaning of virginity
○ Simple seduction ○ Not to be understood in so material a sense
● Two classes of qualified seduction as to exclude the idea of abduction of a
○ Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and virtuous woman of good reputation.
under 18 years if age by certain persons, ● Sexual intercourse
such as, a person in authority, priest, teacher, ○ There must be sexual intercourse in
etc. AND qualified seduction. If there are none, the
○ Seduction of a sister by her brother, or crime is act of lasciviousness.
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of ● Who could be the offenders in qualified seduction?
her age or reputation ○ Those who abused their authority
● Elements of qualified seduction of a virgin ■ Person in public authority
○ That the offended party is a virgin which is ■ Guardian
presumed if she is unmarried and of good ■ Teacher
reputation ■ Person who, in any capacity, is
○ That she must be over 12 and under 18 entrusted with the education or
○ That the offender has sexual intercourse custody of the woman seduced
with her ○ Those who abused confidence reposed in
○ That there is abuse of authority, confidence them
or relationship on the part of the offender ■ Priest
● The offended party must be a virgin, over 12 and ■ House servant
under 18 ■ Domestic
○ Virginity is presumed if the woman is ○ Those who abused their relationship
unmarried and of good reputation. It is the ■ Brother who seduced his sister
accused who must prove otherwise and the ■ Ascendant who seduced his
proof must be convincing, not just descendant
insinuations or conjectures.
Case # 266 | Babanto vs Zosa | G.R. No. L-32895 | February 28, 1983 | Melegrito
Law: Qualified Seduction
Facts:
● Eusebio Babanto, a policeman, was charged of the offense for rape against the 13 year old victim, Leonida Dagohoy.
However, the trial court convicted him of Qualified Seduction, a lesser offense. The trial court contended that Babanto could
not be convicted of rape because there was no violence or intimidation when Babanto had sexual intercourse with the victim
other than holding her down and covering her mouth while she screamed in pain.
● However, the Solicitor General opined that he cannot be convicted of Qualified Seduction either since the essential element
of virginity was not alleged in the complaint. Virginity is presumed if the girl is over 12 years and under 18 years old,
unmarried and of good reputation. The presumption notwithstanding, virginity is still an essential element of the crime of
qualified seduction and must be alleged in the complaint. A conviction for the crime of qualified seduction without the
allegation of virginity would violate the petitioner's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him.
● Leonida was not a normal 13 year old girl because, while she was able to reach Grade One, she was of considerably low
mentality. She also had a peculiar trait of going out during nighttime without her parents' consent. As a child, her mother said
that "she used to go out during night just to pick up some fruits falling from our neighbors. When she is already matured she
used to go with me to the public market alleging that she will help me watch my store. She would escape from their house
from 2:00 o'clock AM until dawn. Because of this peculiarity, her mother built a cage for Leonida to prevent her from going
out. (The crime was committed at dawn, October 24, 1969 at ABC Hall, an annex to the municipal building wherein the
victim was supposed to be brought by the accused to protect her since she was found sitting leisurely at the park during the
unlikely hour of dawn. As a result, the victim got pregnant. She had her first menstruation barely a month before the
incident.)
Issue:
● W/N a conviction of qualified seduction was incorrect - YES
Ruling:
● It is a doctrine well settled by the courts that in order to consider the existence of the rape it is not necessary that the force
and/or intimidation employed in accomplishing it to be so great or of such character; it is only necessary that the force and
intimidation used by the culprit be sufficient to consummate the purpose which he had in mind. ...
● In the instant case, considering the age, mental abnormality, and deficiency of the complainant plus the fact that the
accused-petitioner was at the time of the incident in uniform and with a side arm, there was sufficient intimidation to convict
for rape. The fact that the complainant kicked the accused- petitioner while the latter was lifting her dress and removing her
panty and that she cried afterwards negate any consent on her part to the sexual intercourse.

● Accused is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
Case #267 | Perez v. CA | G.R. No. 80838 | November 29, 1988 | Cortes, J. | Ngan
Article 337 - Qualified Seduction
Facts:
● Yolanda Mendoza filed a criminal case against Euleterio Perez for Consented Abduction in 1974.
● Perez was tried and convicted for Consented Abduction in 1980.
● On appeal, the CA revered Perez’s conviction, and acquitted him of Consented Abduction but noting that he seduced
Mendoza into false promises of marriage.
● Subsequently, Mendoza filed another criminal complaint against Perez, but this time for Qualified Seduction.
● Perez filed a motion to quash invoking double jeopardy and waiver/estoppel by Mendoza, but it was denied.
● Perez filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the SC, which referred the case to the Intermediate Appellate Court.
● The Intermediate Appellate Court dismissed the petition and advised Perez to file it in the proper RTC.
● Perez complied, but his petition for certiorari and prohibition with the RTC was dismissed.
● Perez then filed a petition for review with the CA, which was denied on procedural grounds, stating that the decision had
become final and executory.
● Perez filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied.
● Perez now seeks review of the CA decision.
Issue:
● W/N the subsequent filing of Qualified Seduction against Perez, after his acquittal for Consented Abduction constitutes
double jeopardy. -NO
Ruling:
● The rule on double jeopardy is that “No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.”
● The term “same offense” means identical offense or any attempt to commit the ame, frustration thereof, or any other offense
necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information.
● An examination of the elements of the two crimes, shows that Consented Abduction and Qualified Seduction are distinct
offenses with different elements.
● While both offenses may arise from the same set of facts, they require proof of additional elements not present in the other.
● Therefore, the subsequent filing of a complaint for Qualified Seduction against Perez, after his acquittal for Consented
Abduction, does not constitute double jeopardy.

● Petition is denied, the decision of the CA is affirmed.
Doctrine:
●
Notes:
● Elements of Consented Abduction
a. Offended party must be a virgin
b. She must be over 12 and under 18 years of age
c. Taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender
d. Taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs
● Elements of Qualified Seduction
a. Offended party is a minor, sixteen and over but under 18 years of age
b. Offender has sexual intercourse with her
c. Such offense was committed in abuse of authority, confidence or relationship
d. Offender is any person in public authority, priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in
any capacity, shall be entrusted with the education or custody of the minor seduced.
Case #268 | People v Sunpongco | G.R. No. L-42665 June 30, 1988 | CORTES, J. | NICDAO
Facts:
● In 1964, Juanita Angeles, a 43-year-old pharmacist and rice merchant, and her companion Benita Fabian were driving a
passenger jeep to get rice from the RCA warehouse in Guiguinto Bulacan. As they approached Tabang Bridge, a car drove by
Arsenio Calayag stopped in front of their jeep, forcing them to stop. The passengers were Silvestre Sunpongco, Herminigildo
Sunpongco, and Benjamin Gabriel. Silvestre tried to pull the offended party out of the jeep, but she fought back. He ordered
Benjamin Gabriel to help him, and they eventually forced her into the car with a gun.
● They went to Manila and then to the Hilltop Hotel in Tagaytay City, owned by Federico Suntay, defendant Silvestre's first
cousin. Silvestre embraced and kissed her, taking liberties while she cried and fought back. He then removed his pants,
pushed her, and forced her to lie down on the bed. Silvestre hit her on the stomach, causing her to lose consciousness.
Silvestre had his first sexual intercourse with her, and he locked the room.
● As she woke up, Silvestre was on top of her again, and she struggled and tried to resist him. Silvestre Sunpongco
consummated the second sexual intercourse. Dr. Jose Angeles and some CIS agents were present, and she rushed to him after
hearing her brother's voice calling her name.
● She was physically examined the next day containing the findings as follows: lacerations in the complainant's vagina at 9 and
11 o'clock positions, which must be due to the insertion of a penis; vaginal smears are positive for spermatozoa; contusions at
the posterior cervical and anterolateral aspect middle third of the right hip, all of which are compatible with recent sexual
contact. During the trial, defendants Calayag and Herminigildo Sunpongco admitted having seen Juanita crying and resisting
as she was forced to board the car.
● SILVESTRE’S ALIBI: According to defendant Silvestre, he and Juanita “eloped”. He courted Juanita a few weeks after the
death of his first wife and she accepted and agreed to get married.When defendant went to Malolos, he saw Juanita in a jeep
going to Guiguinto and he followed her. At Tabang, he alighted from the car and complainant alighted from the jeep and they
talked. Accused Silvestre told her: "If you really love me, you will come with mean we will get married." They agreed to go
to Manila to get married, but they later changed their minds and instead proceeded to Cavite. Then they proceeded to Hilltop
Hotel at Tagaytay.
● CFI: guilty as principals of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape (Art 335 and 342 in relation to Art 48 of RPC)
● SC: affirmed CFI
Issue:
● W/N trial court erred in holding that the crime of forcible abduction with rape was committed and that the appellants are
guilty beyond reasonable doubt. - NO
Ruling:
● The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of physical evidence in a case, stating that it speaks more eloquently than a
hundred witnesses. The complainant's conduct after the incident, including her abduction and rape, further strengthened her
case. She lost no time to have herself examined, testified, and filed her complaint, unlike the accused-appellants, particularly
Silvestre Sunpongco, who jumped bail during the trial and was not arrested after six years.
● The court should examine the motive Juanita Angeles could have had in filing the criminal complaint against the
accused-appellants had she not been wronged, considering her age, status, reputation, and educational attainment. The
appellants argue that the complainant was merely threatened and forced by her brother, Dr. Jose Angeles, to file the complaint
against them.
● The accused-appellants refuted the testimony of accused-turned state witness Benjamin Gabriel, who claimed that they met
with accused Silvestre Sunpongco, Herminigildo Sunpongco, and Arsenio Calayag at a "glorietta" in Hagonoy, Bulacan, and
planned to abduct her. However, she failed to appear, and they met again on October 20, 1964, and again on October 23,
1964, to rape her.
● The court found the appellants' stance as implausible based on the presented evidence. The court also questioned the motives
of the accused-appellants, who argued that the complainant was merely threatened and forced by her brother, Dr. Jose
Angeles, to file the complaint against them.
● The accused-appellants in a case involving a conspiracy claim have questioned Benjamin Gabriel's discharge as a state
witness. They argue that his testimony cannot be substantially corroborated in its material points. An indicium of conspiracy
is when defendants aimed at the same object, with their acts being concerted and cooperative, indicating closeness of
personal association, concerted action, and concurrence of sentiments. The court agrees with the prosecution's contention that
the testimonies of Juanita Angeles and Benita Fabian provide sufficient corroboration of Benjamin Gabriel's testimony on
conspiracy.
● The court also questions Benjamin Gabriel's discharge to become a state witness, arguing that he appears to be the least guilty
based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court states that the law requires that the defendant whose exclusion
is required does not appear to be the most guilty, not necessarily that he is the least guilty.
● In summary, the court agrees with the prosecution's contention that Benjamin Gabriel's testimony on conspiracy is
sufficiently corroborated by the testimonies of Juanita Angeles and Benita Fabian.

● Decision of CFI is affirmed – Guilty as principals of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape (Art 335 and 342 in
relation to Art 48 of RPC)
Doctrine:
● Elements of Art 342 Forcible Abduction and Rape:
a. that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation;
b. that the abduction is against her will; and
c. that the abduction is with lewd designs.
● Elements of Art 335 Rape:
a. that the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and
b. that such act is accomplished by using force or intimidation.
Notes: Penalty imposed by the trial court is erroneously designated "life imprisonment". The correct term is reclusion perpetua.
Case #273 | Pilapil v Ibay-Somera | GR#80116 | June 30, 1989 | Regalado, J. | Zubiri
Prosecution of Private Offenses
Facts:
● Imelda, a Filipina, married Erich, a German, in Germany in Sept. 7, 1979. They had one child and lived together in Manila.
Erich initiated a divorce proceeding against Imelda in Germany in January 1983. Imelda, on the other hand, filed for legal
separation, support, and separation of property in Manila. On January 15, 1986, the divorce decree was granted.
● On June 27, 1986, five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Erich filed two complaints for adultery against Imelda
saying that she had affairs with William Chia and Jesus Chua while still married to him.
Issue:
● W/N Erich may still initiate an adultery case against Imelda despite obtaining a valid divorce decree - NO
Ruling:
● Under Art. 344 of the RPC, adultery cannot be prosecuted upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse.
Corollary to such exclusive grant of power to the offended spouse to institute the action, it necessarily follows that such
initiator must have the status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal action. In these
cases, therefore, it is indispensable that the status and capacity of the complainant to commence the action be definitely
established and, as already demonstrated, such status or capacity must indubitably exist as of the time he initiates the action.
● In the present case, the fact that Erich obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted.
Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as Erich is concerned in view of the nationality
principle in our civil law on the matter of status of persons. Erich, no longer the husband of Imelda, had no legal standing to
commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.

● Criminal case against Imelda is dismissed.
Notes:
● Erich’s allegation that he could not have brought this case before the decree of divorce for lack of knowledge, even if true, is
of no legal significance or consequence in this case. When said respondent initiated the divorce proceeding, he obviously
knew that there would no longer be a family nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the marriage is decreed.
Neither would there be a danger of introducing spurious heirs into the family, which is said to be one of the reasons for the
particular formulation of our law on adultery, since there would henceforth be no spousal relationship to speak of.
Case #274 | Torres vs People | GR#175074 | August 31, 2011 | Peralta, J. | Adajar
Law: Crimes Committed Against Public Officers
Facts:
● [PROSECUTION] Jesus Torres was the principal of Viga Rural Development High School (VRDHS). He directed Edmundo
Lazado, the school's collection and disbursing officer, to prepare the checks representing the teachers' and employees'
salaries, salary differentials, additional compensation allowance (ACA), and personal emergency relief allowance (PERA) for
the months of January to March, 1994. Lazado prepared 3 checks in the total amount of P196,654.54, all dated Apr. 26, 1994.
Torres and Head Teacher III Amador Borre signed the checks. Lazado endorsed the checks and handed them to Torres. It was
the custom in the school for Lazado to endorse the checks representing the teachers' salaries and for Torres to encash them
and deliver the cash to Lazado for distribution to the teachers. The following day, Torres encashed the checks but he never
returned to the school to deliver the money to Lazado.
● [DEFENSE] Torres admitted that he encashed the subject checks but instead of going back to the school, he proceeded to the
airport and availed of the flight to Manila to seek medical attention for his chest pain. Two days after, 3 armed men held him
and his nephew up and took his bag containing his personal effects and the proceeds of the subject checks. He reported the
incident to the police authorities, but he failed to recover the money.
● Torres was charged with the crime of Malversation of Public Funds. RTC found him guilty. CA dismissed the appeal (should
have timely appealed to Sandiganbayan)
Issues:
1. W/N Torres, as a school principal, is an accountable officer within the contemplation of Article 217. – YES
2. W/N Torres can be convicted of malversation through negligence, which was the nature of malversation for which he was
convicted by TC, even if he was charged with intentional malversation. – YES
Ruling:
1. An accountable public officer, within the purview of Article 217 of the RPC, is one who has custody or control of public funds
or property by reason of the duties of his office. The nature of the duties of the public officer or employee, the fact that as part
of his duties he received public money for which he is bound to account and failed to account for it, is the factor which
determines whether or not malversation is committed by the accused public officer or employee. Hence, a school principal of
a public high school, such as petitioner, may be held guilty of malversation if he or she is entrusted with public funds and
misappropriates the same.
2. To sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be criminal intent or criminal negligence, and while the prevailing facts
of a case may not show that deceit attended the commission of the offense, it will not preclude the reception of evidence to
prove the existence of negligence because both are equally punishable under Article 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
Malversation is committed either intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is only a
modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode charged differs from mode proved, the same offense of
malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper

● WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is DENIED.
Case #269 | People v. Cayanan | GR#200080 | September 18, 2013 | Reyes, J. |Regio
Forcible Abduction with Qualified Rape
Facts:
● [Prosecution] A 15-year-old girl, AAA, was raped by her brother-in-law named Cayanan in Bulacan while she was alone at
home. Cayanan forced AAA to undress and have intercourse, threatening to kill her if she told anyone. He took AAA to his
sister’s house, changed her clothes, and later raped her in a bedroom. A couple named Putay and Tessie spoke to Cayanan and
AAA was asked to sign a document indicating that she willingly accompanied him. AAA only informed her family about the
incident after her classmate, Adriano, shared what happened in school.
● [Defense] Cayanan interposed the sweetheart defense.
● RTC: Did not give credit to the defense of Cayanan and that it is a weak defense which does not rule out the use of force
given the prosecution’s evidence. He also failed to establish the authenticity of the love letters allegedly written by AAA.
● CA: Sustained the ruling of RTC.
Issue:
● Whether or not Cayanan should be convicted of Forcible Abduction with Qualified Rape – NO
Ruling:
● The Court held that he should be convicted only of Qualified Rape and that forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of
rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim. SC held that the circumstances show that the victim’s abduction
was with the purpose of raping her. After Cayanan dragged her into the tricycle, he took her to several places until they
reached his sister’s house, where he raped her inside the bedroom. Hence, under these circumstances, the rape absorbed the
forcible abduction.

● Found guilty of Qualified Rape.
Notes:
● Elements of Qualified Rape:
a. Sexual Congress;
b. With a woman;
c. Done by force and without consent;
d. The victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and
e. The offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) of the victim, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
victim.
● Elements of Forcible Abduction
a. That the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age, civil status, or reputation
b. That the abduction is against her will
c. That the abduction is with lewd designs
Case #270 | People v. Jose | GR#L-28232 | 1971| Per Curiam| Luis Reyes
Forcible Abduction with Rape
Facts:
● Accused: Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda, Edgardo Aquino, and Rogelio Canal
● Maggie de la Riva is a 25-years-old actress. She performed in movies, radio broadcasts, television shows, etc.
● Maggie was driving home from ABS Studio with her maid. Near her home, her car was hit by the offenders’ car. Maggie
stopped the car by her house. She got mad and was approached by Pineda, who then grabbed her. Maggie screamed and held
onto the steering wheel but Pineda was stronger. The maid tried to help by pulling Maggie's arm but Pineda successfully
dragged Maggie away. The other three offenders helped move Maggie into the Pontiac convertible when Pineda was near.
● In the car, Maggie was between Jose and Aquino. She begged to be released but they began kissing her, lifting her skirt,
making fun of her, etc. Maggie begged to be released since no one could take care of her mom since her dad died. Aquino
said that this is better since no dad would be there to chase after them. Accepting defeat, Maggie prayed instead.
● Maggie was then blindfolded with a handkerchief and was told not to scream or else she'd get stabbed or shot with a
Thompson. She was then brought to a room in Swanky Hotel in Pasay. Maggie was then told to sit on the bed. Pineda then
said "Magburlesque ka para sa amin". She slowly and reluctantly stripped, pressured by the threats of being shot at or having
acid thrown at her face. Soon after, she was fully naked. The men stared for 10 minutes, took her clothes, and left her alone.
● The four accused took turns with Maggie. The order was Jose, Aquino, Pineda, and Canal. They were each alone with
Maggie, and each hit her, abused her, and raped her. She was in a state of shock twice and they woke her up with water. They
wanted her awake so that she would know what was happening.
● After the rapes, the accused gave Maggie her clothes back and let her wash up and fix herself, to make it seem as if nothing
happened. The accused then told her to tell her mom that they thought she was a hostess and upon learning that she was an
actress, let her free. She was also told not to tell the police, or else they would burn her face with acid after they posted bail.
They then brought her to a Channel 5 studio, so it would seem that she came from a shoot, and hailed a taxi for her.
● When Maggie arrived home, her house had police officers and she told them what happened. Her family filed a complaint.
● Maggie was then called to check a group of people in the police station, where she identified Jose. Jose named the three other
offenders. Soon, Maggie picked out Aquino, Pineda, and Canal from a group of people in the police station. She picked out
Canal from a tattoo he had on his butt.
● Jose, Pineda, and Canal all made sworn statements that they planned to abduct and rape Maggie.
● (Defense) The four were driving home when Maggie almost hit them with her car. Angry, Pineda chased Maggie with his car.
When she stopped, Pineda took Maggie into the car and drove her around to scare her. The others didn't help Maggie nor did
they help Pineda. As Maggie pleaded, Pineda asked if she could strip for them in exchange for Php. 1000. Maggie agreed and
she did the show in the Swanky Hotel. They paid Php. 100 and stripped down too. Later, they returned her to ABS Studio.
The offenders were worried about how they would be able to pay her the full amount. Shortly after, they were apprehended.
The rape charges were then made by Maggie because the accused did not pay her the remaining Php. 900.
● RTC: All are GUILTY of Forcible Abduction with Rape, Sentenced to Death
Issue:
● W/n the complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape absorbs all rapes after- NO
Ruling:
● The SC ruled that in the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, it shall be subject to Art. 48 of the RPC. However,
the rape would only be for one count. As such, any subsequent rape would be its own charge. In the case at bar, the four
accused conspired to commit forcible abduction and four acts of rape. The forcible abduction was necessary to commit the
first act of rape, making it a complex crime. As such, forcible abduction and rape would be complexed. However, the
subsequent acts of rape are considered detached from the forcible abduction and are therefore independent of it. As such, it
cannot be complexed with forcible abduction and the three counts of rape would be charged separately.

● All accused are guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape and three charges of rape. Sentenced to death.
Doctrine:
● If forcible abduction was necessary for rape, then it would be a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. However,
subsequent acts of rape are not absorbed into the complex crime.
Notes:
● Regarding the Defense: The Defense was unbelievable because no woman would have easily accepted the offer to do a
striptease for a fee. Furthermore, she would not have done it without full payment. She had no idea who these men were and
would have no way to collect the Php. 900 after. The striptease was also not mentioned in any prior interview. There was also
no reason for the men to strip down. Their contention that it was hot is devoid of decency. Finally, the injuries sustained by
Maggie show physical and sexual assault, which is contrary to the story of the accused.
Case #271 | People v. Alburo | GR#L-50691 | April 26, 1990| Melencio-Herrera | Sison
Facts
● Evelyn Cantina was accompanied by two of her classmates when she was walking to Colon Street, Cebu City to buy
medicine after class when Ronilo Alburo invited the three girls to board his jeepney. The three accepted the invitation, with
Evelyn taking the front seat beside Alburo.
● Upon reaching the corner of Jones Avenue and Colon Street, Evelyn’s classmates disembarked. As Evelyn was about to alight
from the jeepney, she was prevented from doing so by Alburo. The classmates tried to help pull her out of the jeepney but the
jeepney sped off. Anticipating a u-turn from the jeepney, the classmates posted themselves beside the corner where the red
light signal would stop the jeepney. They tried to get Evelyn out again but were stopped by Zaldy Rodriguez who had
transferred to the front seat beside Evelyn. The jeepney sped off again. Evelyn’s friends informed her mother, Lourdes, of
what happened and the latter formed a search party with family and neighbors.
● Evelyn was taken to an isolated area. She was held at knifepoint so she could not scream. Alburo pushed Evelyn’s head
against the steering wheel which rendered her unconscious. When she woke up, she found herself without her panties. Blood
was on her vagina and she felt pain on her stomach. She saw Alburo with his face close to hers, getting up from her then
raising his pants.
● The next morning, Alburo drove Evelyn back to town when they were spotted by Lourdes, and Ester Dakay, a neighbor.
Evelyn told Lourdes what had happened. When confronted, Alburo denied everything. Lourdes persuaded Alburo to take
Evelyn and Ester to the hospital after telling him that he had nothing to be afraid of if he was telling the truth. As Alburo
drove Evelyn and Ester, he changed his mind and parked the jeepney before leaving with his cash collections. When he was
gone, Evelyn recounted what happened to Ester.
● Defense: Alburo claimed that Evelyn was his sweetheart and that if ever there was sexual intercourse between the two, it was
consensual. A defense witness testified that on several occasions they saw Evelyn riding the jeepney driven by Alburo and
even spotted her in the latter’s rented room a number of times.
● RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape
Issue:
● Whether or not Alburo is guilty of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape - YES
Ruling:
● If they had been lovers then Alburo would not have jeopardized their relationship by accusing him of having raped her and
filed a criminal charge against him. There was no other evidence to substantiate this claim besides a picture of Evelyn which
had actually belonged to her boyfriend who had given the same to Alburo. Moreover, if they had been lovers then Evelyn
would have boarded the jeep voluntarily without the company of her two classmates. The two would have not shown so much
concern for her welfare and safety. Lastly, Evelyn would have attempted to cover up for Alburo if she had such a relationship.
● In reviewing the evidence adduced by the prosecution for this crime of Rape, the Court has likewise been guided by three
well-known principles, namely, (1) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more
difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape
where only two persons are usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and
(3) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weaknesses of the evidence for the defense (Reyes, Revised Penal Code, Book II, 1981 ed., p. 850). The factual milieu of this
criminal charge before the court gives them no reason to depart from these established rules.
● The SC finds that Alburo had taken Evelyn away against her will, with lewd designs, subsequently forced her to submit to his
lust and rendering her unconscious in the process, thereby justifying his conviction for the complex crime of Forcible
Abduction with Rape under Article 48 in relation to Articles 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code, with which he has
herein been charged.
● Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua with all the accessories of the law; to indemnify Evelyn Cantina in the sum of P10,000.00 as moral
damages, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and to pay the costs.
Notes: There was also a John Doe who assisted Alburo and Zaldy but no other details about him and his involvement.
Case # 272 | People v Godines 196 SCRA 765 | G.R. No. 93410 | May 7, 1991 | GANCAYCO, J | TAN
Law: Abduction, Forcible Abduction with Rape
Facts:
● In an information filed with the trial court on September 28, 1988, the provincial prosecutor of Masbate accused the
defendants-appellants Rolando Godines and Danny Moreno of having conspired in the commission of the crime of forcible
abduction with rape as penalized under the Revised Penal Code.
● During one evening, while victim was sleeping, an altercation occured at the next room, which awoke victim Ancajas. When
victim Ancajas witnessed the altercation, she tried to escape with her child. The appellants, however, saw her and grabbed
her. The two men dragged Ancajas and the child out of the house and forcibly brought them to a nearby vacant lot with tall
grasses, about 600 meters away from the house.
● RTC:held that the crime of forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the main purpose of the accused is to rape
the victim.
Issue:
● W/N the accused was correctly convicted with the crime of rape only. YES.
Ruling:
● The SC held that as to the crime committed by the appellants, the trial court correctly held that forcible abduction is
absorbed in the crime of rape if the main objective of the appellant is to rape the victim.
● No doubt the evidence show the appellants through force and intimidation and conspiring with each other successfully raped
the victim by taking turns in raping her while the other held the child of the victim and threatened her against resisting.

● WHEREFORE, the Court hereby modifies the appealed judgment by finding each of the appellants guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two (2) rapes, so each of them is hereby imposed the penalty of life imprisonment for each rape and each to
indemnify the offended party P50,000.00 with costs against defendants-appellants.
Case #276 | De Vera v. Pelayo | GR#137354 | July 6, 2000 | PARDO, J. | CALUB
Facts:
● The case is a petition for certiorari and mandamus assailing the Evaluation Report of the Evaluation and Investigation Office,
Office of the Ombudsman referring De Vera's complaint to the Supreme Court and its Memorandum denying the petitioner's
motion for reconsideration.
● Salvador De Vera is not a member of the bar. Possessing some awareness of legal principles and procedures, he represents
himself in this petition.
● On August 28, 1996, De Vera instituted with the RTC of Pasig City a special civil action for certiorari, prohibition, and
mandamus to enjoin the municipal trial court from proceeding with a complaint for ejectment against him.
● When the Judge originally assigned to the case inhibited himself, the case was re-raffled to Judge Benjamin V. Pelayo.
● On July 9, 1998, the trial court denied De Vera's application for a temporary restraining order.
● He moved for reconsideration. The court denied the same on September 1, 1998.
● On September 23, 1998, De Vera filed with the Office of the Ombudsman an affidavit-complaint against Judge Pelayo,
accusing him of violating Articles 206 and 207 of the Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 3019.
● On October 2, 1998, Associate Graft Investigation Officer, Erlinda S. Rojas submitted an Evaluation Report recommending
referral of De Vera' complaint to the SC. Assistant Ombudsman Abelardo L. Apotadera approved the recommendation.
● We quote the decretal portion of the report: "FOREGOING CONSIDERED, and in accordance with the ruling in Maceda vs.
Vasquez,221 SCRA 464, it is respectfully recommended that the instant complaint be referred to the Supreme Court for
appropriate action. The same is hereby considered CLOSED and TERMINATED insofar as this Office is concerned."
● On October 13, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman referred the case to the Court Administrator, Supreme Court.
● On November 6, 1998, De Vera moved for the reconsideration of the Evaluation Report
● On January 4, 1999, the Ombudsman denied the motion for reconsideration.
● De Vera criticizes the jurisprudence cited by the Office of the Ombudsman as erroneous and not applicable to his complaint.
He insists that since his complaint involved a criminal charge against a judge, it was within the authority of the Ombudsman
not the Supreme Court to resolve whether a crime was committed and the judge prosecuted therefor.
Issue:
● Whether or not the Ombudsman has jurisdiction to entertain criminal charges filed against a judge of the RTC in connection
with his handling of cases before the court.
Ruling:
● SC found that the Ombudsman acted in accordance with law and jurisprudence when he referred the cases against Judge
Pelayo to the Supreme Court for appropriate action.
● The Ombudsman did not exercise his power in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal
hostility. There was no evasion of positive duty. Neither was there a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined by law.
● In the case of In Re: Joaquin Borromeo, it was laid down that before a civil or criminal action against a judge for a violation
of Art. 204 and 205 (knowingly rendering an unjust judgment or order) can be entertained, there must first be "a final and
authoritative judicial declaration" that the decision or order in question is indeed "unjust." The pronouncement may result
from either:
(a) an action of certiorari or prohibition in a higher court impugning the validity of the judgment; or
(b) an administrative proceeding in the SC against the judge precisely for promulgating an unjust judgment or order.
● To repeat, no other entity or official of the Government, not the prosecution or investigation service of any other branch,not
any functionary thereof, has competence to review a judicial order or decision — whether final and executory or not — and
pronounce it erroneous so as to lay the basis for a criminal or administrative complaint for rendering an unjust judgment or
order. That prerogative belongs to the courts alone.

● No grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction committed by Judge Pelayo, SC DISMISS the
petition and AFFIRM the Evaluation Report of the Evaluation and Investigation Office and its memorandum.
Doctrine:
● The determination of whether a judge has maliciously delayed the disposition of the case is an exclusive judicial function.
Case # 277 | Vuitton v Villanueva | A.M. No. MTJ-92-643 | November 27, 1992 | Campos, Jr., J. | Castasus
Law: Art. 204 – (dismissed)
Facts:
● Louis Vuitton, S.A. lodged a complaint against Judge Francisco Diaz Villanueva of the MTC of Quezon City, alleging that he
knowingly rendered a manifestly unjust judgment in a Criminal Case.
● In the aforementioned case, Louis Vuitton, S.A. accused Jose V. Rosario, proprietor of Manila COD Department Store, of
unfair competition under Article 189 of the Revised Penal Code. Rosario was accused of manufacturing, distributing, and
selling leather goods bearing Louis Vuitton trademarks without authorization, thus deceiving consumers and infringing upon
Louis Vuitton's trademark rights.
● The prosecution submitted evidence including testimonies, purchases made at Rosario's store, and the execution of a search
warrant resulting in the seizure of alleged counterfeit goods.
● Despite the evidence presented, Judge Villanueva acquitted Rosario. The court's decision rested on several grounds: (1)
Insufficient evidence linking Rosario directly to the seized goods, (2) Lack of resemblance between the seized articles and
genuine Louis Vuitton products, and (3) Rosario's status as a stockholder and executive vice president of the store, rather than
its owner, absolving him of personal liability.
● Louis Vuitton, S.A. challenged Judge Villanueva's decision, alleging procedural irregularities and failure to properly consider
evidence and legal arguments.The complaint highlighted Judge Villanueva's purported failure to address motions filed by the
prosecution which sought Rosario's conviction on alternative grounds if not for unfair competition.
● Louis Vuitton, S.A. contended that Judge Villanueva's decision overlooked established legal principles, such as the doctrine
of corporate personality, and failed to apply relevant precedents in unfair competition cases.
● In response to the complaint, Judge Villanueva asserted that his decision was based on a thorough assessment of the evidence
presented during trial and emphasized his obligation to render judgment in accordance with the law and established
jurisprudence.
Issue: Whether or not Judge Francisco Diaz Villanueva knowingly rendered a manifestly unjust judgment (under Art. 204 of
RPC) in the criminal case filed by Louis Vuitton, S.A. against Jose V. Rosario?
Ruling:
● No, Judge Francisco Diaz Villanueva did not knowingly render a manifestly unjust judgment in the criminal case filed by
Louis Vuitton, S.A. against Jose V. Rosario.
● The court dismissed the complaint against Judge Francisco Diaz Villanueva. The decision rested on legal grounds: lack of
evidence for unfair competition and the distinction between Rosario's individual liability and that of the corporation. The
court found that the seized articles did not closely resemble genuine Louis Vuitton products and lacked evidence linking
Rosario to their manufacturing or selling. Rosario's role in the corporation, COD Department Store, did not warrant holding
him personally liable.
● The complainant argued that the judge's failure to consider certain motions and the delay in promulgating the decision
constituted a manifestly unjust judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, stating that judicial immunity protects
judges from liability for their official acts as long as they act in good faith. The failure to consider certain motions or delay in
promulgating the decision does not by itself establish the judgment as unjust. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (which shifts
the burden of proof onto the defendant by demonstrating that the injury would not have occurred without negligence, and that
the defendant had control over the situation) does not apply unless there is clear evidence of gross ignorance of the law or
grave misconduct.
● To establish liability, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is unjust and made with conscious and
deliberate intent to do injustice. The importance of proving malice and bad faith was emphasized, which the complainant
failed to do. Judge Villanueva provided a credible explanation for his actions, justifying his absolution from the charge.

● The complaint against Judge Villanueva is dismissed for lack of merit. While he is absolved of guilt, he is reprimanded for
the delay in promulgating the decision, contrary to the litigants' right to a speedy disposition of their cases.
Doctrine:
● Art. 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment. – Any judge who shall knowingly render an unjust judgment in any
case submitted to him for decision, shall be punished by prision mayor and perpetual absolute disqualification
● Judges are liable for knowingly rendering unjust judgments, but to establish liability, it must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt that the judgment is unjust and made with conscious and deliberate intent to do injustice. Good faith serves as a
defense against accusations of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.
Note:
The doctrine of corporate personality is a legal concept that recognizes corporations as separate legal entities distinct from
their shareholders, officers, and directors. This means that corporations have their own legal rights, obligations, and liabilities
independent of the individuals who own or manage them.
Case #280 | Diego vs Castillo|| A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673 August 11, 2004 | AZCUNA, J. | Dela Pena
Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment Art. 204
Facts:
● Eduardo Diego is saying Judge Castillo rendered an unjust judgment and for gross ignorance of the law.
● The case Eduardo Diego is talking about is that he filed a bigamy charged against his wife Lucena. Lucena obtained a divorce
decree in Texas and then proceeded to marry the brother of Eduardo. From this even Eduardo filed the bigamay charge which
was acquitted on the grounds of good faith because of the divorce decree.
Issue:
● W/N Judge should be held administratively liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and/or gross ignorance of the
law. Just gross ignorance
Ruling:
● In, People v. Schneckenburger. It has been held that the accused who secured a foreign divorce, and later remarried in the
Philippines, in the belief that the foreign divorce was valid, is liable for bigamy. Therefore there was gross ignorance
● However on the grounds of rendering an unjust judgment there was no basis.
● Malice or bad faith on the part of the judge in rendering an unjust decision must still be proved and failure on the part of the
complainant to prove the same warrants the dismissal of the administrative complaint. (Unjust Judgement)

● WHEREFORE, Regional Trial Court Judge Silverio Q. Castillo is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
Doctrine:
●
Notes:
● Elements of unjust judgment
● (a) the offender is a judge; (b) he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision; (c) the judgment is unjust; (d)
he knew that said judgment is unjust.
Case # 281 | Layola v Judge Gabo | A.M. No. RTJ-00-1524 | January 26, 2000 | Purisima, J. | Entila
Dereliction of Duty: Art. 206 - Unjust Judgment
Facts:
● In June 1996, Layola filed a complaint with the Office of the Deputy of the Ombudsman for the Military, charging SPO2
German and PO2 Gagui, with homicide for the death of her son. In January 1997, a resolution was handed down by the
Ombudsman Investigator recommending the indictment for murder. In March 1997, a petition to take custody of accused
SPO2 German was filed. Judge Gabo relying on the provisions of law cited in the petition for custody, resolved to grant the
petition.
○ PD 917, PD 1184, EO106: a police officer charged with any crime may be placed under the custody of the
immediate superior officers upon request and these superior officers shall be responsible for the appearance of the
accused during trial.
● Judge Gabo stands charged with a violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 for issuing an unjust interlocutory order, and with gross
ignorance of the law. According to Layola, Judge Gabo directed that SPO2 German be held in the custody of his immediate
superior, the Chief of Police of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, an order sans any legal and factual basis, instead of ordering the arrest of
the said accused being indicted for murder.
● Office of the Court Administrator found the charges of violating Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 and of issuing an unjust interlocutory
order devoid of merit, but found Judge Gabo guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
● OCA Recommendations
○ Judge Gabo be fined for granting bail in a capital offense without a hearing
○ Charges of violation of Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 and issuance of an unjust interlocutory order be dismissed for lack of
merit.
Issue:
● W/N Judge Gabo knowingly rendered an unjust judgment? - NO.
Ruling:
● For a judge to be held liable for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, it must be established beyond cavil that the
judgment adverted to is unjust, contrary to law or unsupported by the evidence, and that the same was rendered with
conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice. Quantum of proof for alleged violations of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 and RPC
206 is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
● Allegations of the complaint-affidavit are unsubstantiated. Judge Gabo cannot be pronounced guilty on the basis of bare
allegations. There has to be evidence on which conviction can be anchored.
● Judge Gabo was acting upon a case of murder punishable by reclusion perpetua. Murder being a capital offense, respondent
judge should have been mindful that bail cannot be allowed as a matter of right.
● That the prosecutor interposed no objection to the release of the accused to the custody of the petitioner Chief of Police, on
the ground that from the records of the case, accused's "indictment was based on circumstantial evidence," did not and should
not excuse respondent judge from his judicial duty to conduct a summary proceeding to determine the strength of evidence
against the accused, as to entitle him to post bail. What is more, as the Information itself categorically states that no bail is
recommended for accused,the respondent judge should have been alerted to conduct a summary hearing.
● Doctrine of res ipsa loquitor: he Court may impose its authority upon erring judges whose actuations, on their face, would
show gross incompetence, ignorance of the law, or misconduct

● GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law. DISMISSED ⇒ Sec 3(e) of RA 3019 and of issuing unjust interlocutory order.
Case # 283 | Marifosque vs. People| GR#156685 | July 27, 2004 | Ynares-Santiago, J. | Lim
Law: Art. 210 Direct Robbery
Facts:
● Hian Hian Yu Sy and her husband, Arsenio Sy, went to the office of Captain Alberto Salvo, to report the robbery of Shellane
tanks at the gasoline station of her father, Yu So Pong and the alleged extortion attempt by petitioner, Police Sergeant Narciso
Marifosque, in exchange for the recovery of the lost items.
● Captain Salvo and his men set up a plan to entrap Marifosque. Marifosque then arrived at Golden Grace Department Store
which was owned by Yu So Pong.
● He went inside and demanded the money from Yu So Pong and her daughter. Yu So Pong gave him the marked money which
was wrapped in a newspaper.
● The arresting operatives swooped down and arrested Marifosque upon his exit.
● The Sandiganbayan rendered a decision convicting the petitioner of direct robbery. Marifosque’s motion for reconsideration
is denied, hence, the present appeal.
Issue:
● W/N the accused is guilty for the crime of direct robbery under Article 210 of the RPC?
Ruling:
● Yes, petitioner cannot feign innocence and profess good faith since all the indicia point to his guilt and malicious intent.
● First, the petitioner did not introduce his asset or mention his name to Yu So Pong or his daughter at the time of the illegal
transaction. Instead, he accepted his arrest and investigation with an air of resignation, which is characteristic of a culprit who
is caught red- handed.
● Second, as shown in the testimony of prosecution witness Hian Hian Yu Sy, the petitioner met with Yu So Pong for no
apparent reason than to demand money. There was no mention of any attempt by him to investigate, much less encourage the
victims to file charges against the malefactors.
● Third, He did not apprehend Edgardo Arnaldo or invite him for investigation although the cylinder tanks were found in his
possession. His flimsy excuse that the latter promised to deliver additional cylinder tanks is unworthy of credence
considering that, as a police officer with years of experience, he should have known that the proper action, under the
circumstances, was to at least invite him to the police precinct for investigation. Curiously, the prime suspect Edgardo
Arnaldo turned out to be the brother of petitioner’s police asset who, we recall, directed the police officers to the location of
the stashed articles. This strange coincidence may well indicate a conspiracy between the petitioner and the thieves to steal
from the victim and later cash in on the recovery of the lost items.
● There is no question that petitioner was a public officer within the contemplation of Article 203 of the Revised Penal Code.
● At the time of the incident, petitioner was a police sergeant assigned to the Legazpi City Police Station. He directly received
the bribe money from Yu So Pong and his daughter Hian Hian Yu Sy in exchange for the recovery of the stolen cylinder
tanks, which was an act not constituting a crime within the meaning of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.
● The act of receiving money was connected with his duty as a police officer.
● The instant case falls within the second paragraph of Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code.

● The decision of the Sandiganbayan in convicting Marifosque of Direct Robbery under Article 210 is affirmed.
Notes:
● The crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code consists of the following elements: (1) that
the accused is a public officer; (2) that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise; (3) that
such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not constituting a
crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do; and (4) that the crime or act relates to the
exercise of his functions as a public officer.
Case # 284| Balderama v. People | GR# 147578-85 | January 28, 2008| SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J| Lonzaga
Law: Art. 210- Direct Bribery
Facts:
● Rolando Balderama (Balderama) and Rolando Nagal(Nagal) are employees of LTO under Field Enforcement Division Law
Enforcement Services while the respondent Juan Armamento (Armamento) owns a taxi business with 10 taxi units. There
were complaints that taxi drivers in the NAIA Airport would only take on passengers on a “contract” basis hence LTO
created a team, “Flying squad”, to look into the complaints. Balderama and Nagal were part of this squad along with
Cipriano Lubrica and Cresencio De Jesus. In July 1992, the team flaggeed down a taxi owned by Armamento on the grounds
that the taxi meter was defective but later on under the testing of LTO inspection division it showed that the meter was
functioning normally. After 3 days the taxi unit was released to Armamento. Aggrieved by the malicious impounding,
Armamento filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for bribery and violations of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019. He alleged that the
team had been collecting “protection money” from him. A couple of months prior to impounding the flying team went to his
office and proposed that if he would pay P400 bi-monthly to them they would in turn not apprehend his drivers and taxi.
They later agreed on a price of P300 instead. 9 informations were filed by the Ombudsman with Sandiganbayan(SB). De
Jesus died and the hearing proceeded against remaining petitioners. They filed separate petitions for review on certiorari upon
the denial of SB of their motion for reconsideration.
● Sandiganbayan: Guilty 7 out of the 9 informations
Issue:
● W/N Balderama, Nagal & Lubrica are guilty of direct bribery as defined under Art. 210 of the RPC? - YES
Ruling:
● Elements of direct bribery under Art. 210 of RPC:
○ that the accused is a public officer;
○ that he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise;
○ that such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not
constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do; and
○ that the crime or act relates to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.
● SC stated that the SB found all of the elements above were present and it was duly established that the accused demanded and
received the P300 “protection money”. The accused was only able to proffer alibi and denial which were the weakest of
defenses.
● Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 is the “Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government, or giving any private party
any unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his official administrative or judicial functions through
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.”. The following are the
elements needed by the prosecution to hold a person liable under the provision:
○ that the accused is a public officer or a private person charged in conspiracy with the former;
○ that the said public officer commits the prohibited acts during the performance of his or her official duties or in
relation to his or her public positions;
○ that he or she causes undue injury to any party, whether the government or a private party; and
○ that the public officer has acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
● SB found that the petitioners had direct participation in the malicious apprehension and impounding of the taxi. Settled is the
rule that findings of SB are binding and conclusive unless they come under established exceptions:
○ 1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises and conjectures;
○ 2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken;
○ 3) there is a grave abuse of discretion;
○ 4) the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts;
○ 5) said findings of facts are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; and,
○ 6) the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised on the absence of evidence on record.
○ None of the exceptions are present in the case at bar.
● Petition is denied and the SB decision is affirmed
Notes:
● Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy, as it may be shown by acts and circumstances from which may logically be
inferred the existence of a common design, or may be deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was
perpetuated
Case #286 | Manipon v. Sandiganbayan | G.R. No. L-58889 | July 31, 1986 | Fernan, J. | Ngan
Article 210 - Direct Bribery
Facts:
● Nathaniel Manipon Jr, served as a deputy sheriff of the Court of First Instance of Baguio CIty and Benguet, was tasked with
executing a labor arbiter’s decision against Harry Dominguez, a building contractor and then-municipal mayor of Tadian.
● Manipon was assigned to enforce an order from the Minister of Labor, directing the sheriff or his deputy to execute the labor
arbiter’s decision in an NLRC Case, involving a dispute between Longog Tabek and other judgment creditors against Harry
Dominguez.
● On November 9, 1979, Manipon sent a notice to the Commercial Bank and Trust branch in Baguio, garnishing Dominguez’
bank accounts. However, Manipon did not inform the labor arbiter of the garnishment nor did he exert efforts to immediately
satisfy the judgment under execution.
● Dominguez sought the help of Mnaipon in the withdrawal of the garnished account. Manipon told Dominguez that the money
could not be withdrawn.
● However, later on the two met again at the Office of the National Intelligence and Security Authority (NISA). Manipon told
Dominguez that he can remedy the withdrawal for a consideration, suggesting bribery. Dominguez agreed and they arranged
to meet at the bank later.
● Dominguez informed NISA Sub-Station COmmander Sanchez about Manipon’s offer. They planned an entrapment operation
and prepared marked bills totaling P700 pesos for the operation.
● On the day of the entrapment, Manipon went to Comtrust with two companions, Dominguez prepared a withdrawal slip for
P2,500. After receiving the money from the teller, Dominguez handed P1,000, including marked bills, to Manipon.
● As Manipon left the bank with his companions, he was accosted by PC and NISA operatives, who seized the P1,000 from
him. Manipon was then brought to Camp Dangwa for questioning
●
Issue:
● W/N Manipon is guilty of direct bribery - YES
Ruling:
● The elements of Direct Bribery as defined in Article 210 of the RPC:
○ That the accused is a public officer
○ That he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer or promise
○ That such gift, present or promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime, or any act not
constituting a crime, or to refrain from doing something which it is his official duty to do
○ That the crime or act relates to the exercise of this functions as a public officer
● The court found that Manipon, as a deputy sheriff tasked with executing a labor arbiter's decision to garnish Dominguez's
bank accounts, received P1,000 from Dominguez after lifting the garnishment order. Manipon claimed that the money was a
partial payment of a judgment debt, but the court deemed this defense incredible due to inconsistencies in Manipon's story
and lack of evidence supporting his claim.
● Furthermore, Manipon's conduct during the execution process was marked by irregularities, including failure to promptly
inform the labor arbiter about the garnishment and not making efforts to satisfy the judgment under execution. These
irregularities suggested that Manipon had planned to solicit a bribe from Dominguez.
● Therefore, evidence presented, along with Manipon’s questionable conduct, led the court to conclude that he is guilty of
direct bribery.

● The court affirmed Manipon's conviction for direct bribery, ruling that the evidence presented proved his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
Notes:
● The promise of a public officer to perform an act or to refrain from doing it may be expressed or implied.
Case # 300 | Ambil v Sandiganbayan | GR#175457 | July 6, 2011| Villarama, J. | Entila
Art. 212: Corruption of Public Officials
RA 3019 see also RA6173 and RA 1379
Facts:
● Atty. Loste, Pres. of Eastern Samar IBP, wrote a letter to the Ombudsman, praying for an investigation into the alleged
transfer of them Mayor Adalim, an accused for murder, from the provincial jail of Eastern Samar to the residence of Ambil Jr.
He recommended the filing of criminal charges against petitioner for violation of Sec.3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act). Atty. Loste dropped the case, but a year later, it was reopened, and after a reinvestigation, the
petitioners were charged for violation Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019.
● At pre-trial, Ambil admitted to the allegations in the Information but reasoned that Adalim’s transfer was justified
considering the threats upon his person and the dangers posed by his detention at the provincial jail. Ambil acted upon the
advice of Adalim’s lawyers to transfer Adalim’s detention to his home. Apelado also described the jail to be dilapidated and
undermanned.
● Sandiganbayan found petitioners guilty. Ambil did not personally verify any imminent threat on Adalim’s life and lied simply
on his lawyers. Sandiganbayan also said that an isolation cell and nipa huts were available within the jail and they could have
used this to separate Adalim from other prisoners. Furthermore, a house is too comfortable for a detainee to enjoy.
Issue:
1) W/N Ambil Jr. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019. - YES
2) W/N Ambil Jr. is entitled to the justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty under RPC 11(5).
Ruling:
1) In order to hold a person liable under Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, the following elements must concur:
a) The accused must be a public officer discharging administrative, judicial or official functions
b) He must have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
c) His action caused any undue injury to any party, including the government, or gave any private party
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his functions.
First element: Petitioners are public officers and jurisdiction over them lay with the Sandiganbayan. Apelado, Sr.
was charged as a co-principal with Gov. Ambil, Jr. over whose position Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
Second element: petitioners displayed manifest partiality and evident bad faith in transferring the detention of Mayor
Adalim to Ambil Jr.’s house. There is no merit to petitioner Ambil Jr.’s contention that he is authorized to transfer
the detention of prisoners by virtue of his power as the “Provincial Jailer” of Eastern Samar. Significantly, it is the
provincial government and not the governor alone which has authority to exercise control and supervision over
provincial jails. Ambil Jr. cited Sec. 1731, Art. III of the Administrative Code of 1917 but nowhere did said
provision designate the provincial governor as the “provincial jailer,” or even slightly suggest that he is empowered
to take personal custody of prisoners. The law only cited that the provincial governor’s duty as a jail keeper is
confined to the administration of the jail and the procurement of food and clothing for the prisoners. The power to
order the release or transfer of a person under detention by legal process is vested in the court, not in the provincial
government, much less the governor.
Third element: established beyond reasonable doubt. The Information specifically accused petitioners of giving
unwarranted benefits and advantage to Mayor Adalim, a public officer charged with murder, by causing his release
from prison and detaining him instead at the house of Ambil Jr. The latter argues that RA 3019 is inapplicable to him
allegedly because the last sentence thereof provides that the “provision shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations charged with the grant of licenses, permits or other concessions” and he is not
such government officer or employee. SC said prosecution for violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 will lie regardless
of whether or not the accused public officer is “charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.”
Moreover, when petitioners transferred Mayor Adalim from the provincial jail and detained him at Ambil Jr.’s
residence, they accorded such privilege to Adalim, not in his official capacity as a mayor, but as a detainee charged
with murder. Adalim, applying therefore the provisions of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, was a private party. Petitioners also
gave Adalim unjustified favor or benefit because when they transferred and detained him, Adalim was housed in
much more comfortable quarters, provided better nourishment, was free to move about the house and watch
television. Petitioners readily extended these benefits to Adalim on the mere representation of his lawyers that the
mayor’s life would be put in danger inside the provincial jail. Of course, it was not proven that there was imminent
peril on his person.
2) Cannot apply justifying circumstance of obedience to a superior order. The following requisites must be present: a)
an order has been issued by a superior; b) such order must be for a lawful purpose; and c) the means used by the
subordinate to carry out said order is lawful. Only the first requisite is present in this case. Neither said order nor the
means employed was lawful. In fact, Apelado is liable as a principal by direct participation. Conspiracy was
sufficiently demonstrated by Apelado’s willful cooperation .

● Both Ambil Jr. and Apelado are guilty of violating Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019.
Case #302 | Estrada v. Sandiganbayan| GR#148560 | November 21, 2001 | Bellosillo, J. | LIM
Law: RA 7080 Anti-Plunder Act as amended
Facts:
● Petitioner Joseph Ejercito Estrada is to be prosecuted under RA7080 (An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Plunder)
as amended by RA 7659 whereby accused Joseph Ejercito Estrada, then a president of the Republic of the Philippines, by
himself and/or in connivance/conspiracy with his co-accused, who are members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates, and/or other persons, by taking undue advantage of his official position,
authority, relationship, connection, or influence, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally amass, accumulate
and acquire by himself, directly or indirectly, ill-gotten wealth in the aggregate amount or total value of four billion ninety
seven million eight hundred four thousand one hundred seventy three pesos and seventeen centavos.
● Petitioner herein wishes to impress the Court that the assailed law is so defectively fashioned that it crosses that thin but
distinct line which divides the valid from the constitutionality infirm.
● Petitioner assails the constitutionality of the Plunder Law or RA7080 on the following grounds: it suffers from the vice of
vagueness, it dispenses with “reasonable doubt” in criminal prosecutions and it abolishes the element of mens rea in crimes
punishable under the RPC, contending that there was a clear violation of the fundamental rights of the accused to
Issue:
● W/N RA 7080 is void for being vague and overbreadth? NO
● W/N Plunder as defined in RA 7080 is a malum prohibitum? NO
Ruling:
On the issue of void for vagueness and for being overbreadth

● The Plunder Law contains ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enable the accused to determine
the nature of his violation. Section 2 is sufficiently explicit in its description of the acts, conduct and conditions required or
forbidden, and prescribes the elements of the crime with reasonable certainty and particularity.
● As long as the law affords some comprehensible guide or rule that would inform those who are subject to it what conduct
would render them liable to its penalties, its validity will be sustained. It must sufficiently guide the judge in its application;
the counsel, in defending one charged with its violation; and more importantly, the accused, in identifying the realm of the
proscribed conduct. Indeed, it can be understood with little difficulty that what the assailed statute punishes is the act of a
public officer in amassing or accumulating ill-gotten wealth of at least P50,000,000.00 through a series or combination of
acts enumerated in Sec. 1, par. (d), of the Plunder Law.
● We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or ambiguous — as there is obviously none — that will confuse petitioner
in his defense. Although subject to proof, these factual assertions clearly show that the elements of the crime are easily
understood and provide adequate contrast between the innocent and the prohibited acts. Upon such unequivocal assertions,
petitioner is completely informed of the accusations against him as to enable him to prepare for an intelligent defense.
● The tests for being vague and overbreadth does not apply to penal statutes.
● Criminal statutes have general in terrorem effect resulting from their very existence, and, if facial challenge is allowed for
this reason alone, the State may well be prevented from enacting laws against socially harmful conduct. In the area of
criminal law, the law cannot take chances as in the area of free speech.
● The overbreadth and vagueness doctrines then have special application only to free speech cases. They are inapt for testing
the validity of penal statutes.
On whether plunder is a malum prohibitum crime

● The legislative declaration in R.A. No. 7659 that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is a malum in se. For when the
acts punished are inherently immoral or inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter that such acts are
punished in a special law, especially since in the case of plunder the predicate crimes are mainly mala in se. Indeed, it would
be absurd to treat prosecutions for plunder as though they are mere prosecutions for violations of the Bouncing Check Law
(B.P. Blg. 22) or of an ordinance against jaywalking, without regard to the inherent wrongness of the acts.
● Furthermore, whether the crime of plunder is a malum in se is deemed resolved in the affirmative by the decision of the
Congress in 1993 to include it among the heinous crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death.
● Heinous crimes are defined in People v. Echegaray (first&last case of death penalty before its prohibition):
○ There are crimes, however, in which the abomination lies in the significance and implications of the subject criminal
acts in the scheme of the larger socio-political and economic context in which the state finds itself to be struggling to
develop and provide for its poor and underprivileged masses.
○ Reeling from decades of corrupt tyrannical rule that bankrupted the government and impoverished the population,
the Philippine Government must muster the political will to dismantle the culture of corruption, dishonesty, greed
and syndicated criminality that so deeply entrenched itself in the structures of society and the psyche of the
populace. [With the government] terribly lacking the money to provide even the most basic services to its people,
any form of misappropriation or misapplication of government funds translates to an actual threat to the very
existence of government, and in turn, the very survival of the people it governs over.
○ Viewed in this context, no less heinous are the effects and repercussions of crimes like qualified bribery, destructive
arson resulting in death, and drug offenses involving government officials, employees or officers, that their
perpetrators must not be allowed to cause further destruction and damage to society

● RA 7080 otherwise known as the Plunder Law, as amended by RA 7659, is CONSTITUTIONAL.
Notes:
● Combination — the result or product of combining; the act or process of combining. To combine is to bring into such close
relationship as to obscure individual characters.
● Series— a number of things or events of the same class coming one after another in spatial and temporal succession.
a. Thus when the Plunder Law speaks of "combination," it is referring to at least two (2) acts falling under different
categories of enumeration
Example:
■ Sec. 1, par. (d), e.g., raids on the public treasury in Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and fraudulent conveyance
of assets belonging to the National Government under Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (3).
b. On the other hand, to constitute a "series" there must be two (2) or more overt or criminal acts falling under the same
category of enumeration
Example:
■ Sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation, malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which fall under
Sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1).
● Verily, had the legislature intended a technical or distinctive meaning for "combination" and "series," it would have taken
greater pains in specifically providing for it in the law.

Criminal Law II Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law II Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case# 253 | Beltran v People 334 SCRA 106 | GR# 137567 | Jun 20, 2000 | | Tan

Law: Articles 333 to 346 RPC

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusión temporal.

Section 3 of Rule 120 of the Rules of Court

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Notes: ○ If the woman is married and the offender

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

On the issue of void for vagueness and for being overbreadth

On whether plunder is a malum prohibitum crime

Summary of SC Dispositive Portion:

You might also like