8/13/2019 2010 Digest

1/31

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS DIONISIO CALONGE

G.R. No. 182793, July 5, 21

P!""#$#%&

F!$'()

Rosita A. Calonge was appellants legitimate wife, with whom he had three children. On December

1, 2001 at around !00 ocloc" in the morning, the #illa$erde %olice &tation recei$ed a radio call from the

barangay captain of Cabuluan that a massacre too" place in their localit'. Rositas bloodied bod' was

found l'ing on the ground about fifteen (1)* meters awa' from their house. +er right hand was loosel'

clasping a "nife. 'ing on his bac" near the stairs was appellant who was also wounded but still

conscious. -eside him were a bolo and a flashlight, both stained with blood. hile the windows of the

house were loc"ed with a piece of tie wire, the door was alread' opened. /nside the two bedrooms of

the house separated onl' b' a curtain, the' found the lifeless bodies of the two 'oung girls, imberl' and

Don' Rose. 3he other child, 4elod', was also bloodied but ali$e and conscious. 3he' brought 4elod' to

the #eterans Regional +ospital where she was treated and confined for se$enteen da's. 4elod's

grandparents said the' "new it was appellant because the' had heard Rosita shouting that appellant will"ill them. On the other hand, when appellant was as"ed what happened and who attac"ed him, he

answered he does not "now. Appellant was charged with parricide and frustrated parricide.

/ssue! /s the accused guilt' of the crime charged5

Ruling!67&. %arricide is committed when! (1* a person is "illed8 (2* the deceased is "illed b' the

accused8 (9* the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate

other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of accused. 3he "e' element in parricide isthe relationship of the offender with the $ictim. All the elements of the crime were clearl' and

sufficientl' pro$ed b' the prosecution. 7$en granting arguendothat 4elod' did not see the actual

stabbing of her mother and two (2* sisters, the attendant circumstances point to no one else but theappellant as the perpetrator. Direct e$idence of the actual "illing is not indispensable for con$icting an

accused when circumstantial e$idence can sufficientl' establish his guilt. 3he oft:repeated rule has been

that circumstantial e$idence is ade;uate for con$iction if there is more than one circumstance, the facts

from which the inferences are deri$ed ha$e been pro$en and the combination of all circumstances is such

as to produce a con$iction be'ond reasonable doubt. hile no general rule can be laid down as to the

;uantit' of circumstantial e$idence which will suffice in a gi$en case, all the circumstances pro$ed must

be consistent with each other, consistent with the h'pothesis that the accused is guilt', and at the same

time inconsistent with the h'pothesis that he is innocent, and with e$er' other rational h'pothesis e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

2/31

G.R. No. 18+172, !y 8, 29

P!""#$#%&

=acts!

On appeal is the 21 >anuar' 200? Decision of the Court of affirming the con$iction of appellantuis Antonio @architorena of the crime of parricide b' the Regional 3rial Court (R3C* of ueBon Cit'.

3he accusator' portion of the information reads!

3hat on or about the1th da' of August 2000, in ueBon Cit', %hilippines, the abo$e:named

accused, being then the legitimate husband of =ORD7/EA 3A-A @ARC+/3OR7FA, with intent to

"ill, did then and there, willfull', unlawfull' and feloniousl' attac", assault and emplo' personal

$iolence upon the person of said =ORD7/EA 3A-A @ARC+/3OR7FA, his wife, b' then and

there shooting her with a gun, hitting her on the head, thereb' inflicting upon her serious and mortal

wound, which was the direct and immediate cause of her untimel' death, to the damage and preGudice of

the heirs of said =ORD7/EA 3A-A @ARC+/3OR7FA.

/ssue! /s accused guilt' of parricide5

Ruling!

67&.3he elements of the crime of parricide are! (1* a person is "illed8 (2* the deceased is "illedb' the accused8 and (9* the deceased is the father, mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, of

the accused or an' of his ascendants or descendants, or his spouse.

All the abo$e elements were sufficientl' pro$en b' the prosecution. /t was stipulated during the pre:trial

that appellant and the $ictim are married on 2H August 1III. 3hat the appellant "illed the $ictim waspro$en specificall' b' circumstantial e$idence.

As aptl' stated b' the trial court!

/n the instant case, the totalit' of the circumstances warrant a finding that accused is guilt' be'ond

reasonable doubt of the crime charged. 3he fact that accused and the deceased were the onl' persons inthe bedroom when the shooting incident occurred is undisputed. &econdl', there was an argument

between the spouses, as narrated b' the accused to the police in$estigator and during trial. 3hirdl',

accused, gi$ing no logical e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

3/31

P&o-l& (. Gu'#&""&/

G.R. No. 18802, F&"u!"y +, 21

u"%&", S&l%&&4(&

F!$'()

On August 1), 2009, fi$e ()* separate /nformations for murder, frustrated murder and three (9*

counts of attempted murder were filed against appellant.

hen arraigned, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilt' to the

charges. 3rial on the merits then ensued.

Fot finding credence in appellantJs claim of self:defense, the R3C con$icted him of murder, frustrated

murder and attempted murder on three (9* counts.

Appellant assails the trial court and the CA for gi$ing credence to the prosecutions e$idence. +e admits

ha$ing "illed Regis and wounding Dalit, but insists that he did so in self:defense.

I((u&)

Did the accused act in self:defense5

Rul#4)

Fo. &elf:defense is an affirmati$e allegation and offers e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

4/31

the other hand, the sur$i$ing $ictims were unanimous that appellant suddenl' fired at them, without an'

pro$ocation on their part. 3he credibilit' of the prosecution witnesses had been weighed b' the trial court,

and it found their testimonies to be more con$incing. As a rule, the appellate court gi$es full weight and

respect to the determination b' the trial court of the credibilit' of witnesses, since the trial Gudge has the

best opportunit' to obser$e their demeanor. hile this rule admits of e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

5/31

u"%&" 6u!l##&% y T"&!$&"y

F!$'()

/n an /nformation filed on August 11, 2009, accused:appellant eoBar Dela CruB ' -alobal wasindicted for the crime of murder of #incent %imentel under Article 2H? of the Re$ised %enal Code. Kpon

arraignment, he pleaded not guilt' to the charge.

On &eptember ), 200, the R3C rendered its Decision, finding eoBar guilt' be'ond reasonable doubt of

murder attended b' treacher' and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. On =ebruar' 2L, 200?, the CA

rendered the appealed decision, affirming the findings of the R3C and the con$iction of eoBar but

modif'ing the award of damages.

Accused raises the same assignment of errors as in his -rief, to wit! first, that the courts a quoerred in

appreciating the ;ualif'ing aggra$ating circumstance of treacher'8 and second, that the courts a quo

gra$el' erred in con$icting him of murder instead of homicide.

I((u&)

as there treacher'5

Rul#4)

6es. 3he fact that eoBar and #incent did not ;uarrel prior to the "illing is indicati$e of the

treacher' emplo'ed b' eoBar. After #incent paid eoBar some mone', he left and went inside the alle'.

hen #incent came bac" to 4oc"ingbird &t. from the alle', eoBar deliberatel' emplo'ed means withtreacher' affording #incent no opportunit' to defend himself, i.e., eoBar draped his arm around #incent

and slashMslit his nec" using a 2H:inch bladed samurai. 3he fatal nec" wound caused #incents death,

described in his death certificate as Nhemorrhagic shoc" secondar' to an incised wound of the nec".N All

told, the $ictim was unaware of the imminent attempt on his life, and was not in a position to defend

himself. Clearl', treacher' was present in this "illing.

3here is treacher' when the offender commits an' of the crimes against persons, emplo'ing

means, methods, or forms in the e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

6/31

S&l%&&4(&, Volu4'!"y Su""&4%&"

F!$'()

3his is an appeal from the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA:@.R. CR.:+.C. Fo. 0002L dated April

2I, 200). /n said Decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the August 2I, 2002Decision of the Regional 3rial Court (R3C*, -ranch L? of 4alolos, -ulacan, in Crim. Case Fo. ???:4:

2000, con$icting herein appellants Alberto 3abarnero (Alberto* and @ar' 3abarnero (@ar'* of the crime

of 4urder.

Apellants contended that the court a ;uo gra$el' erred in not considering the Gustif'ing circumstance of

self:defense and the mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender interposed b' accused:appellant @ar'

3abarnero.

I((u&)

Are the contentions meritorious5

Rul#4)

Fo. 3he Gustif'ing circumstance of self:defense on the part of @ar' cannot be considered

3he re;uisites for self:defense are! 1* unlawful aggression on the part of the $ictim8 2* lac" of sufficient

pro$ocation on the part of the accused8 and 9* emplo'ment of reasonable means to pre$ent and repelaggression.

3he defense in$o"es the said Gustif'ing circumstance, claiming that all of the abo$e three elements are

present in the case at bar. 3here was allegedl' unlawful aggression on the part of 7rnesto when the latter

deli$ered the first blow with the lead pipe. According to the defense, the means @ar' used to defend

himself was reasonable, and the shouting shouted professions of his feelings for about 4ar' >ane could

not be considered pro$ocation sufficient for 7rnesto to ma"e the unlawful aggression.

Knlawful aggression is an indispensable re;uirement of self:defense of self:defense. As ruled b' the

Court of Appeals, the e$idence presented b' @ar' to pro$e the alleged unlawful aggression, namel', his

own testimon', is insufficient and self:ser$ing. 3he alleged sudden appearance of 7rnesto and his first

attac" with the lead pipe the $er' moment @ar' decided to lea$e seems to this Court to be all toocon$enient, considering that there was no one around to witness the start of the fight.

/t also bears to emphasiBe that b' in$o"ing self:defense, @ar', in effect, admitted "illing 7rnesto, thus,

shifting upon him the burden of e$idence to pro$e the elements of the said Gustif'ing circumstance. A plea

of self:defense cannot be Gustifiabl' appreciated where it is not onl' uncorroborated b' independent and

competent e$idence, but also e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

7/31

3he defense further argues that assuming that @ar' is not ;ualified to a$ail of the Gustif'ing circumstance

of self:defense, he would ne$ertheless be entitled to the mitigating circumstance of incomplete self:

defense under Article 19(1* of the Re$ised %enal Code.

@ar' is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender

3he first assignment of error presents another issue for the consideration of this Court. 3he defense argues

that @ar's 'ielding to Alarma should be credited as a mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender.

3he &olicitor @eneral agreed with the defense on this point. 3he Court of Appeals, howe$er, disagreed,

and held that the dela' of si< months before surrendering negates spontaneit', a re;uisite for $oluntar'

surrender to be considered mitigating.

e agree with the Court of Appeals.

/n order that the mitigating circumstance of $oluntar' surrender ma' be credited to the accused, the

following re;uisites should be present! (a* the offender has not actuall' been arrested8 (b* the offender

surrendered himself to a person in authorit'8 and (c* the surrender must be $oluntar'. A surrender, to be

$oluntar', must be spontaneous, i.e., there must be an intent to submit oneself to authorities, either

because he ac"nowledges his guilt or because he wishes to sa$e them the trouble and eanuar' I, 2000 onl' 4rs. ee was left in the house, accompanied b' three

housemaids, and the accused 7rnesto Andagao, a gardener:housebo'. 3he' all slept in aneanuar' 10, 2000, after opening the door of her room to let her puppies out,4rs. ee was surprised to see a stranger, a man, standing a few meters from her door. &he immediatel'

went bac" in and tried to shut her door close but the man succeeded in pushing the door open and pulling

her out of the room Gust as another man appeared. &omeone struc" 4rs. ee with a gun on both shoulders

and "ic"ed her on the ribs. hen she fell down, she recei$ed a "ic" on her buttoc"s.

Although she cannot recogniBed the faces of her abductors because she was blindfolded and co$ered b'

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

8/31

blac" cloth, she noticed that the' left Eamboanga Cit'. After tra$eling three to four hours, the' arri$ed in

a house which she later "new that it belonged to a certain &uod +ussain. On >anuar' 10, 2000, 4rs. ee

met accused 4adum @anih. &he was held for 20 da's and during that time she communicated her

husband with the order of @anih to prepare a ransom of %1),000,000. 4r. ee as"ed the "idnappers to

lower the amount since he could onl' raise an amount of %1,000,000. Calling her famil' a third time, the"idnappers reduced their demand to %H million and threatened to cut off 4rs. ees head unless this was

paid.

/n the e$ening of 4a' ), 2000, @anih told 4rs. ee that the' would release her the ne

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

9/31

imposition of such penalt', the CA was correct in lowering the penalt' to reclusion perpetua

without eligibilit' for parole under the /ndeterminate &entence aw.

P&o-l& o '& P#l#--#4&( (. I4!$#o Po"!(

G.R. No. 1777+7, F&. 10, 21

R!-& lo;&"&% 'o A$'( o L!($##ou(4&((

=acts!

3he $ictim was made to drin" coffee (which was drugged* b' the accused which caused her to

sleep. hen she wo"e up, she saw the accused mo$ing on top of her and touching her pri$ateparts. &he also noticed that the strap of her bra had been remo$ed, and her pant' alread' lowered

to her "nees. hen she pushed the appellant, the latter raised his brief and went to his room,

threatening to "ill her if she would disclose the incident to an'one. &he did not call for helpbecause she felt wea". On the witness stand, she also said that she felt pain in her $agina. 3he

trial court found the accused guilt' of rape.

/ssue!

Do the facts show be'ond reasonable doubt that the crime of rape was committed5

+eld!

Fo. e find that the prosecution failed to pro$e the appellants guilt be'ond reasonable

doubt of the crime of rape. e con$ict him instead of the lesser of acts of

lasci$iousness, included in rape, as the e$idence on record shows the presence of all the elementsof this crime. /n the present case, the lower courts con$icted the appellant of rape based on the

following circumstances! (a* the appellant made #/C3/4 drin" coffee which made her fall

asleep8 (b* #/C3/4 saw the appellant l'ing beside her, mo$ing on top of her, and touching her

pri$ate parts when she woke up8 (c* #/C3/4s pant' had been lowered to her "nees, and the

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

10/31

strap of her bra had been remo$ed8 (d* the appellant put on his briefs and shorts after #/C3/4

pushed her8 (e* #/C3/4 felt pain in her pri$ate parts, and saw blood stains on her pant'8 (f* the

appellant threatened to "ill #/C3/4 if she disclosed the incident to an'one8 and (g* thee

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

11/31

e cannot e;uate #/C3/4s testimon' of pain in her pri$ate parts with rape. Carnal

"nowledge, not pain, is the element of consummated rape and we belie$e that it would be a

dangerous proposition to e;uate a $ictims testimon' of pain, in the absence of an' othere$idence, with carnal "nowledge. 3he peril lies in the facilit' of asserting pain. %ain, too, can

come from $arious reasons other than carnal "nowledge8 it is also subGecti$e and is eas' to feign.

Finally, we cannot help but obser$e that #/C3/4, in her direct testimon', re$ealed that she

merel' came to the conclusion that the appellant had raped her afterbeing told b' the e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

12/31

pendant were also reco$ered from the crime scene. On the same da', the appellant was found

near the seashore ofBarangayND1N. +e was drun" and $iolent. +e resisted arrest and had to be

bodil' carried to the motorboat that would ta"e him to the municipal building in Almagro,&amar. 3he arresting team made the appellant ta"e off his clothes since the' were wet. hen he

complied, his briefs re$ealed bloodstains.

3he police brought appellant to Calba'og Cit' for medical e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

13/31

G.R. No. 17351 !"$ 15, 21

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,$s. ERPASC*AL DIEGA y PAJARES

R!-& ;#' Ho:#$#%&

FACTS) 3he $ictim, NAAAN, was a 19:'ear old girl residing with her famil' in RodrigueB,

RiBal. &he was a 1st 'ear high school student and would usuall' lea$e her home at H!00 ocloc"

in the morning and wal" for about a "ilometer to a terminal where she could ta"e a ride toschool. 3he path towards the terminal passes a farm within a )0:hectare plantation located at

Kpper Ciudad Real, Araneta, &an >ose Del 4onte, -ulacan, where the appellant was emplo'ed

as a sta':in securit' guard. NAAAN uses the same route on her wa' home.

On 4arch 1L, 1II), NAAAN failed to return home at the usual time. +er parents franticall'

searched for her, but it was onl' on the neuanito fled from the scene, hewas seen b' 4artin @ailan (4artin* and Arnel Alminana (Arnel* who were also pri$' to the

death threats made b' the appellant. 3he police in$estigation also re$ealed that prior to the

commission of the crime, NAAAN and her aunt used to pass b' the plantation and e$er' time the

appellant would see them, especiall' when he was drun", he would whistle at NAAAN and e$entouch her upper arm. At one time, the appellant uttered to NAAAsN aunt, N4isis, ingatan mo ang

i'ong pamang"in.N %ending trial, appellant absconded and remained at:large until his arrest in

his hometown in -a'ba' @ama' in Forthern &amar

ISS*E)Can the guilt be pro$en b' circumstantial e$idence5

R*LING)6es. /n a special comple< crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must

concur! (1* the appellant had carnal "nowledge of a woman8 (2* carnal "nowledge of a woman

was achie$ed b' means of force, threat or intimidation8 and (9* b' reason or on occasion of such

carnal "nowledge b' means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant "illed a woman.-oth

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

14/31

rape and homicide must be established be'ond reasonable doubt.

Considering that there were no witnesses to the commission of the crime charged herein, theweight of the prosecutions e$idence must then be appreciated in light of the well:settled rule

that an accused can be con$icted e$en in the absence of an e'ewitness, as long as sufficient

circumstantial e$idence is presented b' the prosecution to pro$e be'ond reasonable doubt thatthe accused committed the crime.

Circumstantial e$idence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which thee

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

15/31

witnessed appellant burning some clothes and bo

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

16/31

G.R. No. 187+9 !y +, 21

R!-&

FACTS) At around L!90 a.m. on December L, 1III, AAA, a student of 7astern &amar &tateAgricultural College, was wal"ing on the feeder road of -aranga' , &alcedo, 7astern &amar

going to the waiting shed where she was to ta"e a ride to school. &he was )0 to 0 meters awa'

from the waiting shed when the appellant, wearing a ma"eshift s"i mas" and armed with a

bladed weapon locall' "nown assundang, grabbed her hair. Appellant po"ed thesundang onher side and pulled her towards a grass' area. &he tried to free herself and pleaded for merc',

but to no a$ail.

hen the' reached a nearb' stream, appellant sho$ed AAA towards an uninhabited house with the"nife. /nside, appellant told her to undress, but AAA did not obe'. &he as"ed appellant to remo$e

his mas" so she could identif' him. Appellant acceded and remo$ed his mas". 3hen, he orderedher anew to remo$e her dress. hen she refused, appellant grabbed her s"irt and forcibl'

remo$ed the buttons to open her s"irt. Appellant then pushed her to the floor where he remo$ed

her pant'. +e mounted her and succeeded in ha$ing intercourse with her. After satisf'ing hislust, appellant allowed AAA to put on her dress with a warning that he would "ill her if she tells

an'one about what happened.

hen AAA saw plent' of people on the road, she shouted for help. Appellant then stabbed herat the bac" and fled. AAA was brought to the &outhern &amar @eneral +ospital where she was

confined for nine (I* da's.

On the third da' of AAAs confinement, the' suspected that something more had happened to

AAA, but she merel' cried and did not answer their ;uestions. On her si

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

17/31

situation or t'pe of situation and there is no standard form of human beha$ioral response when

one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

18/31

R!-&

FACTS)Appellant is legall' married to ---, AAAs mother, and that he is the father of AAA,

his and ---s onl' child.

3he first incident happened sometime in 1II? when AAA was onl' a I:'ear old grade ///

schoolgirl. On the fateful da' of that 'ear, appellant tric"ed AAA into going with him to acamalig to pla'. Once inside, appellant laid her on the bamboo floor and remo$ed her

garments. /n all her innocence, AAA as"ed wh' she is being undressed onl' to be told b' the

appellant not to report an'thing, else he would "ill her and ---. After ta"ing off his clothes,

appellant parted AAAs legs, went on top of her, inserted his se< organ to hers and made theusual push:and:pull routine.

One da' the following 'ear, appellant again se

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

19/31

R*LING)Rape is essentiall' an offense of secrec' in$ol$ing onl' two persons and not

generall' attempted sa$e in secluded places far from pr'ing e'es. -' the intrinsic nature of rape

cases, the crime usuall' commences solel' upon the word of the offended girl herself andcon$iction in$ariabl' turns upon her credibilit', as the %eoples single witness of the actual

occurrence.=oremost of these! an offended womans testimon' hurdling the e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

20/31

mo$ement. AAA felt pain in her $agina but could not cr' out as accused:appellant threatened to

maul and bo< her as he had pre$iousl' done. After ha$ing carnal "nowledge of AAA, accused:

appellant then went to sleep.

AAA e$entuall' re$ealed accused:appellants lecher' to one of her teachers, who accompanied

her to -anta' -ata A-&:C-F to as" for help. AAA then ga$e the police a statement of what hadhappened to her. %M&/nsp. &abino testified in her capacit' as 4edico:egal Officer of the

%hilippine Fational %olice (%F%* omens Crime and Child %rotection Center. +er ano:genital

e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

21/31

As this Court has pre$iousl' ruled, accused:appellant can still be con$icted of rape on the sole

basis of the testimon' of the $ictim. +ence, e$en if the medical findings are disregarded, in the

end, the prosecution has successfull' pro$ed the case of rape against accused:appellant on thebasis of AAAs testimon'.

3he Re$ised %enal Code punishes statutor' rape with reclusion perpetua.

G.R. No. 177138 J!4u!"y 20, 21

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,$s. JOEL G*ILLERO

R!-&

FACTS) AAA testified that when she was 19 'ears of age, she and appellant, who is her first

cousin, li$ed at her grandparents house. &he, with her siblings, slept in thesalailluminated b' a

"erosene lamp. On three separate occasions, she wo"e up in the middle of the night to find theappellant wielding a "nife and remo$ing her clothes and blan"et. +e subse;uentl' forced her to

engage in se

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

22/31

ISS*E)/s the defense of the accused tenable5

R*LING)Fo. 3he Nsweetheart theor'N is an admission of carnal "nowledge of the $ictim and

conse;uentl' places on the accused the burden of pro$ing the supposed relationship b'

substantial e$idence. Appellant presented no e$idence to substantiate his claim.

=urthermore, the Court does not loo" with fa$or on affida$its of retraction. Recanted testimon'

is highl' ;uestionable because it can be secured through monetar' considerations. /t is dangerousfor courts to reGect testimonies solemnl' gi$en before the courts of Gustice simpl' because the

witnesses who made them change their minds later on. &uch a rule would ma"e solemn trials a

moc"er' and place the in$estigation of truth at the merc' of unscrupulous witnesses. +ere, the

affida$it of retraction was precisel' e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

23/31

li$ed in the same neighborhood. &he narrated that sometime at around 1!00 ocloc" in the

afternoon while she was alone at home the appellant entered their house and started molesting

her. Appellant pulled down her shorts with his left hand while co$ering her mouth with his righthand. Appellant then placed himself on top of her and inserted his penis into her $agina. At that

time, she did not shout as the appellant was holding a "nife. AAA recalled that when appellant

inserted his penis into her $agina, she had felt pain. Afraid for her life, she did not tell herparents about the rape incident. ---, AAAs mother, on the other hand, testified that the

appellant is the cousin of her husband. &he claimed that she noticed her daughter becoming pale

and thinner. &he also noticed that AAAs stomach was getting bigger and thus decided to bringher to a doctor, who in turn informed her that her daughter might be pregnant. An ultrasound

e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

24/31

identified without uncertaint' the accused:appellant as her attac"er and related distinctl' that he

forcibl' laid her down, held her at "nifepoint, and seanuar' 9,2009, while the' were sleeping, petitioner inserted his two (2* fingers into ---s $agina. ---

did not attempt to stop petitioner because of fear. --- suffered the same ordeal the following

night. On =ebruar' ?, 2009, --- $isited petitioner. Again, petitioner held her $agina, pla'edwith it and inserted his fingers, which caused her pain. 3he same incident allegedl' too" place

on August 9, 2009. On October 2, 2009, while --- was with petitioner, the latter committed

the same dastardl' act. On Fo$ember 1 and 2, 2009, -- spent two nights with her father and,

during those nights and she e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

25/31

2009. --- did not re$eal her ordeal to an'bod' because of fear for her life and that of her

mother. AAA and --- had the chance to re$eal their horrif'ing e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

26/31

part' is another person of either se

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

27/31

RK/F@!

67&. 3he accuseds use of a fan "nife po"ed at the complainant before and during the

se

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

28/31

3he confluence of the following established facts and circumstances sustains the appellate

courts affirmance of appellants con$iction!First" appellant was fre;uentl' $isiting the $ictim

prior to her death, hence, his familiarit' with the la'out of the house8second"appellant admittedto his relati$es and the media that he was present during commission of the crime, albeit onl' as

a loo":out8 third, appellant was in possession of $ictims nec"lace at the time he was arrested8

andfourth"appellant e

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

29/31

/ssue! Does dela' in filing of a criminal case diminish the credibilit' of the witness5 &hould thecrime committed be absorbed in the crime of rebellion5

Ruling! 3he dela' did not greatl' wea"en the credibilit' of the testimonies of the prosecution

witnesses. /n the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, we belie$e that the dela'in reporting to the police authorities the attendant facts of the crime for which the petitioners

ha$e been charged is consistent with normal human beha$ior considering that after a tragic

incident, the last thing that the berea$ed would want is to pro$o"e further reprisals from the

perpetrators of the felonious act. Although there is a natural tendenc' to see" the ends of Gusticefor the treacherous "illing of a dearl' departed, personal safet' ta"es priorit' as dictated b' our

culture. 4oreo$er, considering pri$ate complainants honest belief that petitioners are "nown to

be members of the F%A, the fear of reprisal from them was e$er present which caused her

momentar' silence. After all, dela' in reporting the occurrence of a crime or other unusual e$entin rural areas is well "nown. 3he fact of dela' attributed to the prosecution witnesses cannot be

ta"en against them. hat is important is that their testimonies regarding the incident bear theearmar"s of truth and dependabilit'.

%etitioners were steadfast in their position that the crime was committed in furtherance of

rebellion, ob$iousl' to escape criminal liabilit' for the present charge. 3his is Gudicial admission

that the' indeed committed the crime. A Gudicial admission conclusi$el' binds the part' ma"ingit. +e cannot thereafter ta"e a position contradictor' to or inconsistent with his pleading. Acts or

facts admitted do not re;uire proof and cannot be contradicted unless it is shown that the

admission was made through palpable mista"e or that no such admission was made. hen apart' adopts a certain theor' in the court below, he is not allowed to change his theor' on appeal,

for to allow him to do so would not onl' be unfair to the other part' but would also be offensi$e

to the basic rules of fair pla', Gustice and due process.

3he testimonies of the prosecution witnesses thus established be'ond reasonable doubt theelements of robber' with homicide, namel'! 1* the ta"ing of personal propert' was committed

with $iolence or intimidation against persons8 2* the propert' ta"en belongs to another8 9* the

ta"ing was done with ani'o lucrandi8 and H* b' reason of the robber' or on the occasion thereof,the crime of homicide which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

30/31

PEOPLE (. JONJIE ESO=, ROLANDO CIANO ROGER

8/13/2019 2010 Digest

31/31

Accused:appellant Obina was con$icted of Robber' with Rape while RamireB and -alagbis were

charged with Robber'. Obina and -alagbis barged in the door of $ictims house b' destro'ing itand demanded for mone'. 3he $ictim ga$e them %hp?00.00, thereafter, the husband was ordered

to "neel Obina while he molested the wife. RamireB then shouted from outside that the' will

onl' ta"e care of the wife after the' ha$e "illed the husband. hen the husband had anopportunit' to flee, he left the house and sought for help lea$ing behind his wife and Obina,

while RamireB and -alagbis ran after him. 3hereafter, Obina had carnal "nowledge with the wife

against her will.

/ssue! Appellants assail their con$iction and submits errors on the imposition of penalt' andaward for moral damages to the rape $ictim.

Ruling! As to the penalt' imposed, the R3C correctl' sentenced appellant Obina to reclusion

perpetua in accordance with Article 2IH of the Re$ised %enal Code. 3he CA, li"ewise,committed no error in affirming the penalt' imposed on appellant RamireB and accused -alagbis.

As to the award of moral damages, the ci$il indemnit' and moral damages are separatel'granted in rape cases without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Ci$il

indemnit' is mandatoril' awarded to the rape $ictim on the finding that rape was committed. /t is

in the nature of actual or compensator' damages. 4oral damages are automaticall' awarded to

rape $ictims without need of pleading or proof8 it is assumed that a rape $ictim actuall' sufferedmoral inGuries, entitling her to this award. 3hat the $ictim suffered trauma, with mental, ph'sical,

and ps'chological suffering, is too ob$ious to still re;uire recital at the trial b' the $ictim, since

we assume and ac"nowledge such agon' as a gauge of her credibilit'.