UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA

COLLEGE OF LAW

CRIMINAL LAW 1
CASE DIGEST

Submitted by: John Kayle C. Borja

Submitted to: Fiscal Francis B. Reyes
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Table of Contents

Case 1: Rodolfo Conception vs. The People of the Philippines

Case 2: People of the Philippines vs. Gregorio Ramirez
Case 3: People of the Philippines vs. Eduardo Sampior
Case 4: People of the Philippine vs Mariano R. Marcos
Case 5: People of the Philippines vs. Rogelio Villanueva
Case 6: People of the Philippines vs Felipe Kalalo
Case 7: People of the Philippines vs. Daniel Pinto, Jr
Case 8: People of the Philippines vs. Mario Castro
Case 9: People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Suyu
Case 10: People of the Philippines vs. Dionisio Vincente
Case 11: Gemma T. Jacinto vs. People of the Philippines
Case 12: People of the Philippines vs. Lilia Gutierrez
Case 13: Aristotel Valenzuela vs. People of the Philippines
Case 14: People of the Philippines vs. Bienvenido Salvilla
Case 15: People of the Philippines vs. Primo Campuhan
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

RODOLFO CONCEPTION
vs.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 167135 | November 27, 2006

Facts:
Around 8:30 p.m. on November 14, 1995 in Bongabong, Oriental, Mindoro, Ramil Lopez,
Francisco Flores, Eduardo Flores and Nestor Bauson were drinking in Ramil's residence. The
session was abruptly interrupted when they heard footsteps coming from the direction of the
kitchen. Once Lopez turns on a flashlight in the direction of the footsteps, it is revealed that this
is the person pursuing this case, a Rodolfo Concepcion and it is revealed that the latter was
pointing a gun at him and then gunshots were drawn hitting both Lopez and Eduardo Flores in
quick succession as they sat next to each other.

Francisco Flores immediately turned on the light in the direction of the shots and saw the
appellant flee the scene with a weapon in his hand. Francisco immediately helped the injured
Lopez at the Bongabong hospital, while the next morning he was transferred to the provincial
hospital.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellant must be convicted of a crime of attempted murder.

Held:
Yes, because presence of an element of intent to kill determines whether the act causing the
injury should be punished as attempted murder or consummated murder. And as a mental
process, the intention to kill can be inferred from the weapon used, the extent of the injuries
sustained by the injured party and the circumstances of the assault.

Here, there is a lot of evidence that shows the clear intention of appellant to kill his victim. The
appellant attacked Ramil Lopez with a gun, a weapon capable of killing, the weapon was aimed
at Ramil's upper body, as evidenced by a bullet wound in his left arm. Ramil's attack could be
fatal if the bullet penetrated any of the vital parts of his body.

Even though case where the prosecution had reasonably determined the presence of intent to kill,
however, there is no indication that Ramil's injury was fatal and would result in the death of his
if immediate medical attention was not given were not lavished. The resulting crime, therefore, is
only attempted murder, the accused not having performed all the acts of execution that would
have brought about the victim’s death

Source:[Link]
40059004a/t/?o=False
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
GREGORIO RAMIREZ
G.R. NO L-10951 | October 23, 1958

Facts:
A religious institution known as "Iglesia ni Cristo" was holding an open-to-the-public devotional
service in the poblacion of San Teodoro, Oriental Mindoro, on the evening of April 29, 1955, at
around half past eight. The deceased Crisanto Manalo was one of the onlookers, his arms folded
as he listened to the Minister offer a sermon from a podium approximately thirty meters away.
Mariano Canovas, who was also at the gathering and was about five meters away from Manalo,
witnessed appellant Gregorio Ramirez move in front of Manalo, then position himself behind the
latter's left side, then quickly stab Manalo in the back with a double-edged nine-inch-long
dagger.
Evangelista approached appellant with the goal of separating him from Manalo and preventing
more harm; as a result, appellant stabbed Evangelista twice in the chest, inflicting two wounds,
and Evangelista fled, pursued by appellant. Evangelista was hospitalized for nine days as a result
of the two stab wounds.
Immediately after the incident and before Manalo was taken to the Calapan Provincial Hospital,
his statement was immediately brought to the attention of the police chief because, Dr. Sulit, one
of the witnesses for the stamping on the victim's thumb, urged the sheriff to hurry like Manalo.
could die at any time because he actually died early the next morning at the provincial hospital
where he was taken.
The appellant acknowledges to inflicting the stab wound that killed the deceased, but claims self-
defense.
Issue/s:
Whether or not motive is a substantial element of a crime.
Held:
No, because the question of motive is very important in cases where there is doubt as to whether
the defendant is or not the person committed the act, but when there is no doubt, as in the case at
bar that the defendant was the one who caused the death of the deceased, it is not so important to
know the exact reason for the deed. The appellant himself admitted that he was the one who
stabbed the person to death, so the prosecution did not need to search for his motive.
Source: G.R. No. L-10951 ([Link])
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
MARIANO R. MARCOS
G.R. NO. L-47388 | October 22, 1940

Facts:

On June 10, 1939, before the end of the trial, Mariano Marcos, Pio Marcos, Ferdinand Marcos
and Quirino Lizardo filed eight separate complaints before Justice of the Peace Ilocos Norte of
Laoag, pointing to Calixto Aguinaldo, the main prosecution evidence, who is still being
prosecuted. Cross-examined during the trial against Lizardo, on charges of perjury alleged in the
preliminary investigation of December 1938, and during the trial.

The defense has yet to complete his presentation of evidence and the prosecution is preparing
their counter-argument. At the request of the provincial fiscal office of Ilocos Norte, the court of
first instance ordered the temporary denial of the application. Fiscal Higinio Macadaeg also
asked the court to declare Marcos and Lizardo guilty of contempt of court, whereby the latter
were ordered to justify the denial of the claim.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of contempt of court for obstruction of justice.
Held:
It is clear that the allegations of false testimony by the four defendants mentioned above cannot
be decided until the main murder case is decided, since no sentence can be imposed on Calixto
Aguinaldo for the crime of false testimony without knowing the extent of the sentence in
advance imposed on Lizardo and Marcos (Revised Penal Code, article 180). Therefore, the latter
should have waited for the end of the main case before filing a complaint of false testimony
against Calixto Aguinaldo. In fact, we believe that Marcos and Lizardo's actions were calculated,
or at least tended, directly or indirectly, to obstruct the administration of justice and therefore the
trial court properly found them guilty of contempt.

Source: G.R. No. L-47388 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
EDUARDO SAMPIOR
G.R. No 117691 | March 1, 2000

Facts:
Around 10 a.m., the appellant returned home alone. He told the two girls to come down to play.
Both obeyed, leaving only the appellant, the private complainant, and the sleeping infant. After
the complainant privately placed the items in his crib, the appellant suddenly pulled her towards
him and began to remove his shirt and panties.

The private complainant retaliated and told her that she did not like what he was doing to her.
The appellant persisted in his efforts. He made her lie on the floor and took off her panties. The
accused then removed his pants and underwear and placed himself on top of his her. He took his
penis and inserted it into the complainant's vagina. Shortly thereafter, the appellant removed his
genitals, which were secreting fluid.

He then told the complainant to get dressed. Assuring her that he loves her, he warns her not to
tell anyone about the incident, or he will kill them all. Soon after, the appellant left the house.

At approximately 3:00 p.m. the same day, the appellant returned home smelling of alcohol. He
found the complainant alone in private and sexually assaulted her again.

The private complainant said that she did not report the rape immediately to the police because
she was confused and did not know what to do. She also faces exams at her school. She finally
revealed her ordeal to her mother. They agreed to report the incident to the police, but decided to
wait until the time was right.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not the theory of virgo intacta is necessary for conviction of rape.
2. Whether or not the crime of rape was qualified as consummated rape.

Held:
No, because laceration or broken hymen is not a prerequisite for a rape conviction. A medical
examination is also not required to prosecute rape, as long as the available evidence convinces
the court that the rape charge is appropriate. The victim's medical examination, as well as the
medical certificate, are merely corroborative in character.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

It is important, the trial court said, that the testimony of the

individual complainant on the case is clear, unambiguous and reliable. A girl wouldn't accuse her
biological father of an unspeakable crime like rape and incest if she wasn't truly heartbroken.

We now argue that the charge of frustrated rape does not exist in our criminal law. In rejecting
Erinia, the court declared that the act of touching the male organ on the lips of the pudendum, no
matter how slight, consummates the rape.

Source: G.R. No. 117691 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
REGELIO VILLANUEVA
G.R. No. 1142666 | December 4, 1996

Facts:

On November 12, 1992, at about 10:30 p.m., in Barangay Tagpuro, Tacloban Town, Diosdado
Meniano and his wife Gloria were awakened by a loud voice coming from outside their house,
prompting Diosdado to leave hide. Gloria Meniano easily recognized the voice of defendant
Mamerto Durana.

The challenge has been taken up by Durana on several occasions. He was at first unnoticed by
Diosdado until Durana threatened to go upstairs if the first didn't come down. In the end,
Diosdado decided to go down but not without having equipped himself with a small bolo. Gloria
is still in the house. She peeks through the bamboo slats that serve as the exterior wall of their
house. Because the moon was bright, she could clearly see that Durana was the intruder.

She also saw the accused Rogelio Villanueva in hiding near factories in San Francisco. As soon
as Diosdado left his house, he was immediately broken into by Villanueva. Despite the hack,
Durana continues to challenge Diosdado. He even mocked the victim, "You can't take a wound."
Villanueva and Durana then fled.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not Duran could be held liable of a crime of Murder even in the absence of
preliminary hearing.
2. Whether or not there was a conspiracy on the part of Duran and Villanueva.

Held:
1st
No, because the supreme court states that the absence of a preliminary investigation does not
affect the validity of the information or render it faulty; it also does not affect the jurisdiction of
the court over the case, nor does it constitute a ground for quashing the information.

If no preliminary investigation is held or if there is an error, the trial court may, at the request of
the defendant, order an investigation or a new trial and continue the proceedings in the case of
the criminal judgment. In the present case, the accused was not able to invoke such a right of
preliminary investigation before or at the time when he pleaded guilty before the investigating
authority. He can no longer invoke that right at this late stage of the proceedings.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

2nd
Yes, the trial court correctly concluded the existence of a conspiracy between the two defendants
in the murder of the deceased under the charge of treachery. Conspiracy can be inferred and
established by the defendant's own conduct when that conduct indicates a common purpose and
conception, coordinated action and a community of common interest.

In the present case, it is shown that while the appellant deliberately challenged the deceased to
leave his house, his accomplice secretly hid in the trees outside the house to wait for Diosdado
and when Villanueva appeared, Diosdado was surprised. Unannounced threw himself at the
victim and killed him with a knife. An agreement between the appellant and his accomplice is
established, the guilt or guilt of a person is attributed to both to the same extent.

Source: G.R. No. 114266 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs
FELIPE KALALO
G.R. Nos. L-39303-39305 | March 17, 1934

Facts:
On October 1, 1932, Isabela Holgado and her brother Arcadio Holgado, one of the deceased,
decided to order the plow of the said lands and hire some workers for this purpose. These men,
along with Arcadio Holgado, visited the said land early that day, but Marcelo Kalalo, who was
informed, arrived at the scene with his brothers Felipe and Juan Kalalo. His brother - Gregorio
Ramos and Alejandro Garcia, then Fausta Abrenica and Alipia Abrenica, mother and aunt of the
first three respectively. The first five were all equipped with bolos. Arrived on the said land, they
ordered the people who plowed it at the behest of Isabela and Arcadio Holgado to stop, which
they did due to the threatening attitude of those who had given them the orders.

Appellant Marcelo Kalalo approached Arcadio, while appellants Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and
Gregorio Ramos approached Marcelino Panaligan respectively. According to the following
comment from Fausta Abrenica, Kalalos' mother, “What is detaining you? all simultaneously
attacked with their firearms, appellant Marcelo Kalalo slashing Arcadio Holgado, while
appellants Felipe Kalalo, Juan Kalalo and Gregorio Ramos slash Marcelino Panaligan, inflicting
them with the injuries listed and description in the medical certificate.

Arcadio Holgado and Marcelino Panaligan died instantly from the injuries they received in the
presence of Isabela Holgado and Maria Gutierrez, not to mention the defendant. The plowmen
employed by Arcadio and Isabela have all fled.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the accused is criminally liable of a crime of murder.

Held:
No, the Supreme Court states that, while it is true that under Article 248 of the Revised Penal
Code, which defines murder, the circumstance of "abuse of superior power", if proven to have
been presented, would classified as murder; however, this tribunal is of the opinion that the
aforesaid circumstances may not have been properly considered in the two cases at the bar, nor
as a qualifying or as a generic circumstance, if it is found that the deceased was also armed, one
of them with a bolo, and the other with a revolver. The risk is even for the warring parties and
their powers are roughly equal as there is no doubt, but in circumstances similar to this one
revolver is effective, equal, if not more than three bolos. For this reason, this court considers that
the acts established in the case at bar, constitute only two homicides.

Source: G.R. Nos. L-39303-39305 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Vs.
DANIEL PINTO, JR
G.R. No. 39519 November 21, 1991

Facts:
A police operation to serve a search warrant on Francisco Bello's premises through police
officers Daniel Pinto, Jr. and Narciso Buenaflor, Jr. because the location is said to have rifles and
submachine guns. On the night of the execution to carry out the order, a shooting occurred. A
vehicle carrying members of the Tiongson family, a driver and a priest was dismissed by
officers.

Richard Tiongson died the next day while Marie-Thérèse was mortally wounded. Despite the
incident, the policeman continues his mission to haunt Francisco Bello. When they arrive at
Bello's parents' residence, they discover a variety of firearms. The sheriff then announced the
search was complete and the entire search team left for headquarters.

Bello and his party go to Daraga, Albay, and stay in the house of Inocencia Malbas. Early in the
morning, the continuous gunshots rang out, Bello, who was on the balcony, gradually fell down,
holding his head in both hands. He died from multiple gunshot wounds. Rosalio Andes was also
shot dead and is said to have been retaliated against by the authorities. He died from multiple
gunshot wounds.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the act done by the accused could justified in consonance of the performance of
their official duties.

Held:
No, because in order to suffice the requirements of the law under justifying circumstances article
11 paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines may successfully invoked, the
defense has to prove that these two requisites are present. 1) theacted in the performance of his
duty. 2) the injury of the offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance or lawful exercise of such duty.

In the absence of second requisites, the justifying becomes an incomplete one thereby converting
it into mitigating circumstances under Article 13 and 69 of the same code. Armed with on a
search warrant and verbal order to apprehend Bello, they went beyond the ambit of their mission
and deprive Bello and 2 other persons of their lives.

The fact that the victims are different from those whom the appellants intend to hurt cannot
prevent them from being convicted. Mistakes or confusions in the identity of the victim are as
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

serious as when the accused attacks his intended victim. The

main reason behind this conclusion is the fact that the accused acted with disregard for the life of
the victims without rechecking the identity of the victim to put himself in the same legal position
as another, killer, willful, illegal and criminal. Neither may the fact that the accused made a
mistake in killing one man instead of another be considered a mitigating circumstance.

Source: G.R. No. 39519 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs
MARIO CASTRO
G.R. No. 172874 | December 17, 2008

Facts:
On November 11, 1999, at around 11 a.m., the Appellant picked up [AAA] from her aunt's house
at PNR Compound, Taguig Metro Manila. He said his sister, [BBB], had collapsed and was in
the clinic. Believe the story, [AAA] went with the appellant.

As the events unfolded, the appellant took [AAA] not to the clinic but to the TEMIC factory, an
old abandoned building located in Western Bicutan, Taguig, Metro Manila. When they reached a
dark, narrow alley, the appellant suddenly stopped and held [AAA] 's left arm. Surprised and
scared, [AAA] yelled for help but no one seemed to hear the outcry. Without wasting time, the
appellant strangled her, threatening to shut up for fear he would kill her. [AAA] fell silent. She
felt helpless knowing that the caller had already killed someone.

The appellant rushed [AAA] to the side of a building and told her to undress. When she refused,
the appellant undressed her, after which he undressed. Appellant pressed her against the wall of
the building and blocked her way. When they were both naked, he kissed her on different parts
of her body and immediately, squeezed his penis into her vagina until it satisfied her desire.

When satisfied, the Appellant told [AAA] to get dressed and warned her not to tell anyone. The
appellant took her to the bus stop and the jeepney first, but then changed his mind. He told
[AAA] that they had to go to Kuya Manny's workplace. Still overwhelmed and scared, [AAA]
couldn't resist. When the appellant learned that Kuya Manny was not at work, he again took
[AAA] to the dark alley next to the Temic factory. However, this time, they went through a
different path near "Pepsi".

As before, the appellant asked [AAA] to undress. When she refused, he himself took off her
clothes, including her intimate clothes. He's also not wearing any clothes. Then he kissed her on
different parts of her body and made her lie down. Meanwhile she is very scared and helpless.
All she could do was beg, "Wag na po Kuya Mar." Overwhelmed by her bestiality, the appellant
ignored her; he was free on her body as he thrust his penis into her vagina. Once again, he
satisfies his desire.

Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the crime of rape was consummated even in the absence of the testimony
of a medical practitioner.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Held:
Yes, the Supreme Court states that in countless cases, full or deep penetration is not necessary
for conviction of rape. The slightest penetration of the male organ into the female genitals is
enough. It is enough to touch the vulva of a woman to the private part of a man to complete the
rape. It was therefore consummated rape which accused-appellant committed. In addition, courts
often take the testimony of a sexually assaulted girl, especially a minor, more seriously, as in this
case, as no woman is willing to stand a public trial and endure the shame, the humiliation and
humiliation of exposing one's own degradation is not to condemn an injustice and to have the
offender arrested and punished.
Verily, it is well entrenched in our jurisprudence that a medical examination of the victim is not
indispensable in a prosecution for rape inasmuch as the victim`s testimony alone, if credible, is
sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. In fact, a medical certificate is only an
endorsement of character, not a necessary requirement to prove rape.

Source: G.R. No. 172874 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
RODOLFO SUYU
G.R. NO. 170191 | August 16, 2006

Facts:
At approximately 7:15 p.m. on January 13, 1996, in Tuguegarao, Cagayan, Clarissa Angeles and
her boyfriend, William Ferrer, parked their car on a vacant lot and inside the latter's truck about
15 meters away from the highway. Clarissa was in the passenger seat while William was in the
driver's seat. Suddenly, they saw the silhouette of a man approaching their car. A man named
Rommel Macarubbo kept them and claimed a burglary. Then another man, named Willy Suyu,
got into the truck after lifting the lock from William's side. Then Francis Cainglet appeared and
took the couple's valuables. Willy Suyu then hit William and pulled him out of the truck.
William was able to escape Willy and immediately went to the police station to report the
assault.

At the same time, Willie Suyu opened the truck next to Clarissa. Makarubo then opened the
door. The two of them and Cainlet dragged the girl to a mountainous area not far away.
Makarubo and Willie Suyu put their arms around her and Cainlet prodded her with a fan knife.
When they took her to a house near a muddy place, she begged for forgiveness. At this moment,
a man, who happened to be Willie Suyu's half-brother Rudolf Suyu, walked out of the house.
Willy Suyu, Cainglet and Macarubbo pushed Clarissa to Rodolfo Suyu. The latter pushed
Clarissa and said, "You stay there because I will be the first." Rodolfo Suyu then began to hug
and kiss Clarissa and stroke her breasts.

When Rudolf Suyu took off his pants, the ring that he had hidden in his pants fell to the ground.
He felt a knife, a flashlight, and pliers behind the killer. Pretending to obey him, she suddenly
reached for the knife. They struggled briefly and Clarissa kicked him in the groin. Cursing,
Rudolf Suyu loosened his grip. She tried to escape but tripped and was caught by her hair. Then
he punched him twice in the stomach. He asked the other three for help, but they did nothing.

Later, Cainglet and Rodolfo Suyu took her to the top of the hill near the Capitol. She tried to
scream, but she was afraid for her life because a knife stabbed her. They forced her to lie on her
back. Willie Suyu and Makarubo acted as vigilantes and Cainglet punched him in the thigh.
When Rudolf Suyu took off his pants and underwear, Cainglet pressed her hand to the ground.
Rodolfo Suyu then spread her legs, took off her pants and underwear and squeezed her. Rodolfo
Suyu then tried to insert his fully erected penis into her vagina, but the girl kicked him. He
continued to harass her. Clarissa said: "You better kill me and don't rape me." Rodolfo Suyu
insisted, "Ipitem (sic) met Lang e. Anyway, it was only a few minutes." When he stuck his
tongue into her mouth at that time, Clarissa bit so badly that her teeth were torn.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

Rudolf Su Yu inserted two fingers into her body. Then she

commented to Cainglet, who was still pressing on her, "Stop, this is still a virgin." After that, he
inserted his penis into her vagina with two fingers.

Cainglet then climbed onto Clarissa, and Rodolfo Suyu held her hand. He again asked Willy
Suyu and Macarubbo for help. But all his requests fell on deaf ears. He kicked Cainglet, and then
Cainglet let go of one of his hands. Cainglet continued to move on her. On the other side, two
watchmen Willie Suyu and Makarubbo shouted, "They are here." Rodolfo Suyu then helped her
sit up. Cainglet was able to insert half an inch of his penis into her vagina.

Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the appellants were guilty of the crime of robbery with rape.
2. Whether or not there was a conspiracy on the part of the appellant.

Held:
1st
Yes, the Supreme Court in a catena of cases, firmly decided that, to be convicted of rape and
robbery you must have the following elements: (1) the taking of personal property is committed
with violence or intimidation against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the
taking is characterized by an intent to gain or animus lucrandi; (4) the robbery is accompanied by
rape.

The intent to rob must precede the rape. In robbery with rape, the intent of the felony is robbery
and the felony is accompanied by rape. The violation must occur at the same time as the robbery
is committed. We note that in addition to the rape victim, appellant Rudolf Suyu inserted his
finger into her sexual organ. Therefore, Complainant Suyu carried out sexual assault as defined
and sanctioned in Aricle 266-A, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 8353. In addition, to Rudolf
Suyu, Cainglet also raped the victim. Nevertheless, there is only one single and indivisible felony
of robbery with rape and any crimes committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery are
merged and integrated into a single and indivisible felony of robbery with rape.

2nd
The court of first instance also correctly recognized the crime of conspiracy. In fact, "When the
crime was committed, accused acted in concert, and everyone did their part to complete their
common plan to rob the victim. Although only two of them used force and intimidation, they
raped Clarissa, Macarubbo and Willy Suyu failed to avoid their crimes even if they were able,
which would make their actions the behavior of everyone. We have previously ruled that once
the crime of robbery was committed, a conspiracy between the defendants was established.
Everyone is liable for any illegal act committed by either of them due to robbery, unless one of
them shows that they have tried to prevent the other from committing the illegal act
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
DIONISIO VINCENTE

Facts:
On or about May 30, 1998, in the evening thereof, at barangay Gueguesangen, municipality of
Mangaldan, province of Pangasinan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, armed with a bladed weapon, with intent to kill, with treachery.

Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. He invoked self-defense, thus, a reverse trial
ensued.

On May 30, 1998, at 8:30 p.m., while the appellant was dining at his home in Gueguesangen,
Mangaldan, Pangasinan, his brothers Anoy and Sonny had an argument. Anoy always berates
Sonny for smoking and gambling. That makes the latter scream at the top of his lungs. The
victim, then President Sangguniang Kabataan, responded to Sonny's unusual cry. He entered the
appellant's house and suddenly pushed Anoy, causing him to fall to the ground.

The victim went home and got a steel pipe. When he returned, he hit the tip of apellant left arm
with an appeal drug and shouted at him: "you are shit, vulva of your mother, I will kill you
today. But the appellant was able to grab the victim's steel pipe, causing the victim to retreat and
return home.

When the appellant and the victim met with Kagawad Fernadez, the victim showing remorse by
offering a shake hand to the appellant but appellant seems to be angry from what happened, he
stab the victim in the chest causing a would that cause his death.

Issue/s:
1. Whether or not there was an unlawful aggression on the part of the accused.
2. Whether or not there was a qualified treachery committed by the accused.
3. Whether or not the accused must be accorded of mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender.

Held:
1st
Yes, because apparently the appellant manifested all the necessary elements of an unlaw
aggression. The attack was sudden and unexpected. For a person to be considered an unlawful
aggressor, it must be shown that he has committed outward acts that clearly show intent to cause
and harm the other. Therefore, based on the circumstances of this case, we believe that the
appellant is the unlawful aggressor.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

The rule is that when the unlawful aggression ceases, the

defender no longer right to kill or injure the former aggressor, otherwise retaliation and not self-
defense is committed. More importantly, what convinced us to affirm the trial's conclusion was
that the presence of guilty badges renders the appellant's self-defense statement questionable and
unreliable. First, the victim suffered a fatal stab wound to the chest. He tore his vital organs. The
location of the wound covers and negates the claim of self-defense. This represents a criminal
mind determined to end the victim's life. Second, the appellant did not inform the authorities that
he was acting on his own behalf. And third, he did not turn the knife over to the authorities. We
have ruled that failure to inform the authorities of the unlawful aggression on the part of the
victim and to surrender the knife used in stabbing him militates against the claim of self-defense.

2nd
Yes, because there is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against persons,
employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to
ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party
might make. The fact that the attack was frontal doesn’t render the fact that there was no
treachery committed on the part of the appellant.

Even a frontal attack can be treacherous if sudden and unexpected and the victim was unarmed.
Here, the victim was suddenly stabbed when reaching out to the appellant. Given his condition,
the victim cannot suspect that there is a danger to his life when he approaches the appellant.

3rd
Yes, because for voluntary surrender to be considered as a mitigating circumstance, the
following requisites must concur: (1) the offender has not been actually arrested; (2) he
surrenders himself to a person in authority; and (3) the surrender is voluntary. In here, the
appellant voluntary place himself in the disposition ok Kagawad Fernandez who, in turn, bought
him to the police station. Being a local official Kagawad Fernadez falls within the ambit of
person in authority. Hence, mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender is manifested here.

Source: G.R. No. 137296 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DIONISIO VICENTE Y
QUINTO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library ([Link])
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

GEMMA T. JACINTO
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 162540 | July 13, 2009

Facts:
In June 1997, Isabelita Aquino Milabo, also known as Baby Aquino, transferred to the petitioner
Banco De Oro (BDO) check number 0132649 dated July 14, 1997, for an amount of 10,000.00.
The check is payment for purchases of Baby Aquino from Mega Foam Int`l., Inc., and the
claimant is subsequently the purchaser of Mega Foam.

Meanwhile, Rowena Ricablanca, another Mega Foam employee, received a phone call from one
of their clients, Jennifer Sanalila. The client wanted to know if she could issue a check for Mega
Foam, instead of issuing a CASH check. The customer said it appeared to have been instructed
by Jacqueline Capitle to pay by check for Mega Foam to be paid in CASH. Around this time,
Ricablanca also received a call from an employee of Land Bank, Valenzuela branch, who was
looking for Generoso Capitle. The reason for the appeal was to notify Capitle that the BDO test
question submitted to his account had been declined.

Ricablanca called Valencia asking the latter to relay the message to Jacqueline Capitle about the
bouncing check. Valencia then told Ricablanca that the check came from Baby Aquino, and
instructed Ricablanca to ask Baby Aquino to replace the check with cash. Valencia also informed
Ricablanca of its plan to take the money and also split it into four: for herself, Ricablanca, the
petitioner Jacinto, and Jacqueline Capitle. Ricablanca, on the advice of Mega Foam's accountant,
reported the matter to Mega Foam owner Joseph Dyhengco.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of qualified theft.

Held:
No, although the prosecution established all the elements of qualified theft under the Revised
Penal Code article 308 in relation to article 310 that 1) the taking of personal property, 2) said
property belonged to another, 3) the taking was done with intent to gain, 4) it is done without the
owner’s consent, 5) it was accomplished without the use of violence or intimidation against
persons, nor force upon things, and 6) it was done with grave abuse of confident.

Clearly all the elements of qualified theft enumerated in here are present. However, the
aforementioned articles also provides that the personal property subject to theft must have some
value, as the intention of the accused is to gain from the thing stolen. This is further supported by
Article 309 of the Revised Penal Code, which provides that penalty to be imposed on the accused
is dependent on the value of the thing stolen.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

In this case, the petitioner illegally obtained a postdated

check belonging to Mega Foam, but the check appeared to be void as it was subsequently
dishonored. Therefore, there being no value was physically taken from the victim the crime
committed is an impossible crime.

Source: G.R. No. 162540 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
LILIA GUTIERREZ
G.R. No. 81020 | March 28, 1991

Facts:
On the morning of July 13, 1984, the appellant went to the home of his sister-in-law, Lourdes
Elpedes, at Nichols Air Force Base in Pasay City, and obtained the latter's permission to take
young son, Hazel 2.5 years old because the husband of the appellant, Maximiano Mariano,
wanted to spend time with his grandson at their residence in Paco, Manila. The two women
agreed that the child would be returned at 4pm. same day.

When the appellant arrived at her residence, she discovered that her husband and their
belongings were gone. The appellant sat there for a while and cried. Then she went to the homes
of her former owners, Grandpa and Grandma. Abraham Felipe, in Intramuros. They signed an
"Agreement" whereby the appellant cedes guardianship to Hazel Elpedes, her alleged fatherless
son, in favor of the couple. Appellant received P250.00 from this couple as evidenced by receipt.

On July 15, 1984, Frank Elpedes discovered the appellant in a telephone booth along the
aforementioned street and reported her. The Elpedes took her to the West Police Station along
United Nations Avenue in Manila. The appellant then drove Frank Elpedes and at least one
policeman, the patroller Diosdado Deotoy, to Felipe's mansion in Intramuros. But the group did
not find the couple Felipe and the child there. Having received information from President
Barangay where the child is in Cogeo, Antipolo, the Rizal group returns to the police station and
then goes to Antipolo. Here, they recovered Hazel from the Felipe couple's residence. During
this time, the appellant confessed to the group that she had "sold" the child to get revenge on her
husband, Lourdes Elpedes' brother, who abandoned her. On the evening of July 15, 1984, the
group returned to the police station where the appellant was investigated and placed under house
arrest. She has been in custody ever since.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the appellant is guilty of a crime of kidnapping.

Held:
Yes, because under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code offense of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor consist of 2 elements. 1) the offender has been entrusted with the custody of a
minor person, and 2.) the offender deliberately fails to restore said minor to his parents or
guardians.

It is clear that the applicant acknowledged the existence of the first element because she did not
contest the testimony of the circumstances in which she obtained the custody of Hazel Elpedes
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

on the morning of 13 July 1984. Furthermore, as pointed out

by the trial court, it was perfectly in consonance with human experience that Lourdes Elpedes
should have readily allowed the appellant to take Hazel temporarily because she is a relative by
affinity who, until then, had not exhibited any conduct which might impair the trust normally
reposed on a sister-in-law.

Secondly, the Supreme Court believes that the second element has been established by the
prosecution’s evidence. From the mere fact that the appellant deliberately failed to return the
minor to his parents constitute the crime of kidnapping.

Source: G.R. No. 81020 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

ARISTOTEL VALENZUELA
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 160188 | June 21, 2007

Facts:
The essential facts are no longer in dispute before our eyes. The case arises out of the fact that an
information petitioner, Aristotel Valenzuela and Jovy Calderon guilty of theft.

On May 19, 1994, at approximately 4.30 p.m., the appellant and Calderon were seen outside the
Super Sale Club, a supermarket in the ShoeMart (SM) complex along North EDSA, by Lorenzo
Lago, a security guard was in charge at the time and his post was in the open parking lot of the
supermarket. Lago saw the petitioner, who bore an identification tag labeled “Receipt
Coordination Unit (RDU)”, carrying a cart containing containers of the famous “Tide” brand
detergent. The accused unloaded these crates in an open parking lot where Calderon was waiting.
The petitioner then went back inside the supermarket and after five minutes came out with more
boxes of Tide Ultramatic and again unloaded the boxes in the same area of the open parking lot.

The petitioner then left the parking lot and took a taxi. He got into a cab and led it to the parking
lot where Calderon was waiting. Calderon loaded boxes of Tide Ultramatic into the cabin, then
got into the car. All of this behavior was observed by Lago, who proceeded to stop the taxi as it
left the open parking lot. When Lago demanded that the petitioner receive the goods, the
petitioner and Calderon responded by walking away, but Lago fired a warning shot to alert his
security guards to the incident. Petitioner and Calderon were apprehended at the scene, and the
stolen merchandise recovered.8 The filched items seized from the duo were four (4) cases of
Tide Ultramatic, one (1) case of Ultra 25 grams, and three (3) additional cases of detergent, the
goods with an aggregate value of ₱12,090.00.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the accused must be convicted of consummated theft.

Held:
No, because the Supreme Court states that there is no such crime as frustrated theft. From the
mere fact that the property was taken away, the said property belonged to another, with intent to
gain, that the taking done without the consent of the owner, and the taking be accomplished
without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things already
constitutes consummated theft. The Supreme Court further explain that theft is already produced
upon taking of personal property of another without the latter’s consent. In addition, there is a
consummated theft when there is animus lucrandi, animus revertendi, and apoderamiento.

Source: G. R. No. 160188 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
BIENVENIDO SALVILLA
G.R. No. 86163 | April 26, 1990

Facts:
On April 12, 1986, a robbery was organized by four defendants at New Iloilo Lumber Yard at
around noon. The plan had been drawn up about two days earlier. The accused was armed with a
homemade pistol and a grenade. When they entered the facility, they encountered Rodita
Hablero, an employee who was about to go out for a lunch break, and informed her that this was
a hold-up. He was told to return to the office and there the appellant Salvilla pointed a gun at the
owner, Severino Choco, and his two daughters, Mary and Mimie, who were 15, and told him that
all they had needed was money.

Hearing that, Severino told his daughter, Mary, to take a paper bag in which he put P20,000.00 in
cash (according to the plea) and hand it over to the 'appellant. Severino then begged the four
defendants to leave the premises because they had money, but they ignored it. Instead, defendant
Simplicio Canasares took Severino's wallet and watch, after which Severino, his two daughters,
and Rodita were taken to the office and held hostage there.

Around 2 o’clock on the same day, the hostages were allowed to eat. The four defendants also
took turns eating while the rest stood guard. The appellant then tells Severino to deliver
P100,000 so that he and the other hostages can be released. Severino replied that he could not do
it because it was Saturday and the banks were closed.

Meanwhile, the police and army surrounded the wood factory premises. Major Melquiades B.
Sequio, commander of the INP station of Iloilo city, negotiated with the accused on a whim and
urged them to surrender with the assurance that no harm would be done to them as he would
target them. himself accompanied them to the police. station. The defendant refused to surrender
and released the hostages.

Then the mayor of the OIC, Rosa Caram, of the city of Iloilo arrived and joined the negotiations.
During her dialogue with the defendant, which lasted about four hours, the appellant asked for P
100,000.00, a jacket and a raincoat. Instead, she offered them P50,000.00, explaining the
difficulty of raising more because it was a Saturday. The defendant then agreed to accept it and
released Rodita with Mary Choco from the office.

Mayor Caram, Major Sequio, and even volunteer radio hosts kept calling for the accused to go
peacefully, but they refused. In the end, the police and military authorities decided to launch an
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

attack and stormed the place. This resulted in injuries to the

girls, Mimie and Mary Choco as well as defendants Ronaldo and Reynaldo Canasares.

Issue/s:
1. Whether or not the accused correctly convicted of consummated robbery.
2. Whether or not the accused must be accorded of mitigating circumstances of voluntary
surrender.
3. Whether or not the accused must be charged of serious illegal detention.

Held:
1st
Yes, because the crime is consummated when the robber acquires possession of the property,
even if for a short time, and it is not necessary that the property be taken into the hands of the
robber, or that he should have actually carried the property away, out of the physical presence of
the lawful possessor, or that he should have made his escape with it. Contrary to Appellant's
submission, therefore, a conviction for consummated and not merely attempted Robbery is in
order.

2nd
No, because surrender to be considered as mitigating circumstances must have the following
requisites: 1) that the offender had not been actually arrested; 2) that the offender surrender
himself to the person in authority or to his agent; and 3) that the surrender was voluntary.

In here, the appellant refused to surrender when they were asked to do so, only until much later
when they knew they can no longer escape because they were being surrounded by the law
enforcement and they realized that there’s no way out. Their surrender was not spontaneous as it
was motivated more by an intent to secure their own safety. Therefore, there’s no mitigating
circumstances must be accorded to the accused.

3rd
Appellant and his co-accused were charged in the Information with "Robbery with Serious
Physical Injuries and Serious Illegal Detention ("Art. 295, par. 3, in conjunction with Art. 267,
RPC ) and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. We agree with the Trial Court that a complex crime
under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code has been committed such that the penalty for the
more serious offense of Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267, Revised Penal Code), or "reclusion
perpetua to death," is to be imposed instead of the penalty prescribed for Robbery with Serious
Physical Injuries (Art. 294 (p3), which is reclusion temporal.
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

According to article 48, a complex offense occurs “when

one offense is a necessary means for the commission of the other”. The term "necessary means"
does not mean indispensable if it had already taken place then the offense as "necessary means"
for the commission of another act would form an integral part of the following act and will form
part of it. The expression "necessary means" simply indicates that a crime is committed to
facilitate and secure the other. In that case, the crime of serious unlawful arrest is a “necessary
measure” because it is chosen by the appellant and his accomplices to more smoothly and
effectively carry out his scheme of organizing the robbery.

Source: G.R. No. 86163 ([Link])

 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

vs.
PRIMO CAMPUHAN
G.R. No. 129433 | March 30, 2000

Facts:
As can be deduced from the evidence in the record, on April 25, 1996, at around 4 p.m., Ma.
Corazon P. Pamintuan, mother of four (4) year old Crysthel Pamintuan, came down from the
second floor of their house to prepare Milo chocolate drinks for his two (2) children. Downstairs,
she met Primo Campuhan, who was busy filling small plastic bags with water to freeze in the
freezer on the second floor. Primo is the assistant of Conrado Plata Jr., Corazon's brother. While
Corazon was busy making drinks, she heard one of her daughters exclaim, “Ayo`ko, ayo`ko! 7
urged Corazon to rush upstairs. Soon after, she found Primo Campuhan in her children's
bedroom kneeling in front of Crysthel in pajamas or "jogging pants" and her shorts removed,
while her shorts reached her knees.

According to Corazon, Primo was pressing her penis into Crysthel's vagina. Terrified, she cursed
at the defendant: "P t ng ina mo, anak ko iyan!" and boxed him over and over again. He dodged
her blows and pulled up his pants. He pushed Corazon aside as she tried to get in his way.
Corazon then ran outside and called for help, prompting his brother, a cousin and an uncle who
lived on their property, to pursue the accused. Eight seconds later, Primo was captured by those
who answered Corazon's call for help. They kept the accused behind their compound until
neighbors advised them to call barangay officials instead of detaining him for his misconduct.
The victim's physical examination was negative. Medical staff on Crysthel's body noticed no
obvious signs of extracorporeal physical damage as his hymen was intact and the hole was only
0.5cm in size. by diameter.

Issue/s:
Whether or not the accused is guilty of a crime of consummated rape.

Held:
No, because jurisprudence dictates that the labia must be entered for rape to be consummated and
not merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the female organ. Therefore, grazing of the
surface of the female organ or touching the mons pubis of the pudendum is not sufficient to
constitutes consummated rape. Absent any showing of the slightest penetration of the female
organ doesn’t not consummate rape, at most it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of
lasciviousness.

Judicial depiction of consummated rape has not been confined to the oft-quoted "touching of the
female organ," but has also progressed into being described as "the introduction of the male
organ into the labia of the pudendum," or "the bombardment of the drawbridge." But, to our
 UNIVERSITY OF PERPETUAL HELP SYSTEM LAGUNA
COLLEGE OF LAW

mind, the case at bar merely constitutes a "shelling of the

castle of orgasmic potency," or as earlier stated, a "strafing of the citadel of passion.

A review of the files clearly showed that the prosecutor was completely unable to resolve the
grounds that Primo's penis was able to penetrate even slightly into Crysthel's vagina. Even
though we assume that Corazon saw Primo sexually harass his daughter, we seriously doubt the
veracity of his claim that she saw the genital contact between Primo and Crysthel. When asked
what she saw when she entered her child's bedroom, Corazon rushed over to say that she saw
Primo stick his penis into Crysthel's vagina without explaining his position to them. relative to
help him see clearly and fully, in automotive language, the contact point.

Source: G.R. No. 129433 ([Link])