*** and in that case, it becomes part and parcel of that

COMPLEX CRIME PROPER second crime, as if there will be no First crime to speak
of…
Complex Crime Proper - When an offense is a
necessary means for committing another.
Example:
RPC - Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a 1. If X deliberately sought to kill Y by setting fire to the
single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave house where Y was sleeping, that is, the used of fire
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means was primarily chosen by X to kill Y. Then what could
for committing the other, the penalty for the most have also been a crime of Arson becomes absorbed as a
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied qualifying circumstance in murder. The crime is only
in its maximum period. “murder”, not two separate crimes nor a complex crime
of “murder through arson”.
*** The underscored portion of the provision, is being
referred to Complex Crime Proper. “ When an offense is *** The intent of X here is to kill Y, only that the way he
a necessary means for committing the other”. wants to kill Y is by means or used of fire.
*** If X deliberately sought to kill Y, by burning his
Requisites: house while he was sleeping at that time, the crime of
1. There be at least 2 offenses are committed arson was being absorbed already as a qualifying
2. One or some of the offenses must be necessary to circumstance of murder.
commit the other
3. Both or all the offenses must be punished under *** As being enumerated in the Article 248 of the
the same statute revised penal code, Setting up a fire or arson is one of
those qualifying circumstances, which qualifies a killing
 There be at least 2 offenses are committed into one of murder instead of homicide.
Example:
1. Malversation through Falsification of Public Document: 2. X, a member of the NPA, ambushed a military vehicle
killing 8 soldiers.
a. Malversation is the act of public officer who, having
custody of public funds or property for which he is There is no complex crime of rebellion with murder
accountable, misappropriates the same. because the murder committed by X is considered as
“absorbed” in rebellion.
b. Falsification is the act of fabricating of document or
changing the contents thereof or imitating the signature
of another. Note: Common offenses like murder, arson, robbery and
etc…for as long as committed in Furtherance of the
rebellion are deemed absorbed in the said crime.
2. Forcible Abduction with Rape:
However, a rebel who commits these common crimes
‘a. Forcible Abduction is the taking of the woman
for some independent or personal motive, (not in
against her will and with lewd designs. furtherance of the rebellion) will be separately
‘b. Rape is having carnal knowledge of a woman prosecuted for such crimes.
through force, threat or Intimidation.
3. X, with lewd designs, forcibly abducted Y for the
3. Estafa through Falsification: purpose of raping her.
‘a. Estafa is committed by defrauding another with (1st Crime) - Forcible abduction was committed to insure
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence or through deceit or facilitate the commission of rape.
or false pretense.
(2nd Crime) - Rape by itself can exist even without the
B. Falsification is a willful perversion of facts forcible abduction for the simple reason that the latter is
not an element of the former.
 One or some of the offenses must be necessary to
commit the other. Abduction and Rape is separate and totally distinct from
*** By Far, this is the most important requisite with each other. Both crimes can exist independently, or
respect to complex crime proper. either of the crime is not an element of each other.

- “Necessary Means”, “Should not mean”, Indispensable - An offense is a necessary means to commit the
Means”, because if the First crime is an indispensable other.
ingredient of the second, then the first crime will be
regarded merely as an element of the second.
 Both or all the offenses must be punished under
the same statute.
- A felony under the RPC cannot be complexed with an Special Complex Crime / Composite Crime
offense under a Special Law. This is the rule even if; - The law specifically fixes a single penalty for two or
1. A single act produces both a felony and an offense. more crimes committed.
2. A felony/offense is a necessary means of committing - Special complex crimes are component crimes
the other. constituting a single indivisible offense, and are
- In such case, the prosecutor can only charge one penalized under one article of the RPC.
crime over the other. - Only a single penalty is imposed for each of such
composite crimes although composed of two or
Example: more offenses.
1. X, raped Y, a minor. Here the single act of rape - In a special complex crime, the prosecution must
produces both the felonsiy of rape punishable by the necessarily prove each of the component offenses with
RPC, and the offense of sexual abuse under RA the same precision that would be necessary if they
7610. The prosecution in their discretion can choose to were made the subject of separate complaints
file a case for Rape or Sexual Abuse. X, cannot be
charged of both crimes for the same act because it Characteristic of Special Comlex Crime:
will violate his constitutional right against double 1. They are treated as single indivisible crimes, even if
jeopardy. A person cannot be punished twice for a they are made up of more than one crime.
single criminal act.
2. Since they are treated as single indivisible crime,
there is only one penalty imposed.
2. X, with the use of an unlicensed firearms, killed Y. 3. Article 48 of the RPC does not apply because the law
Hence, the offense of “ Illegal possession of firearms” itself (RPC or SPL) defines and penalizes them.
under RA 10591 will only be considered an aggravating
circumstance to the felony of homicide or murder, as
the case may be. No complex crime is thus produced. Examples of Special Complex Crimes in the RPC:
 Rape with Homicide ( Article 266 - A)
 Other instances where the commission of  Kidnapping with homicide/rape/serious physical
two crimes will not result to a complex crime injuries (Article 267)
proper.  Robbery with homicide/rape/mutilation/serious
physical injuries (Article 294)
3. X, was caught in the act of killing Y with the use of a  Arson with homicide (Article 320)
bladed weapon for which reason he was immediately
arrested. As the result of the search incidental to his Examples of Special Complex Crimes in the SPL:
lawful arrest, he was also caught in possession of an  Cattle rustling with homicide/serious physical
unlicensed pistol. Here, two separate crimes are injuries (Sec. 8, PD 533)
committed - Homicide and illegal possession of firearms.
 Carnapping with homicide/rape (Sec. 3, RA 10883)

4. A crime to conceal another crime: If a cashier at the

Distinctions between Special Complex Crimes and
City treasurer’s office merely resorted to falsification of a
Complex Crime in Article 48
certain documents to hide the taking of public funds,
but he could have malversed the funds just the same
even without the falsification, the falsification and SSCs / Composit Crimes
malversation are two separate crimes.
1. The combination of crimes is fixed by law.
PLURALITY OF CRIMES: 2. The penalty is already specified.
1. Compound Crime - A single act that produces 2 or 3. There is only one composite crime to be charged
more grave or less grave felonies. even if; for example, there be several homicides or
2. Complex Crime Proper - When an offense is a rapes accompanying the kidnapping. The excess crimes
necessary means for committing the other. will be absorbed. (e.g. X, kidnapped and then raped Y.
3. Special Complex Crime/Composite Crime - The law Thereafter, X raped Y 5 more times. Only 1 crime of
specifically fixes a single penalty for two or more crimes kidnapping with rape will be charged. The rest of the
committed. rapes will be absorbed).
4. Continued Crime - The offender, impelled by a single 4. Since there is only one composite crime to be
criminal impulse, commits a series of overt acts at about charged, all the other accompanying (related)
the same time in about the same place and all the overt committed against the victim/s will be absorbed.
acts violate one and the same law. In the SSC of; Kidnapping with homicide for example,
5. Continuing Crime - Refers to a crime which is the number of victims killed is immaterial. There is only
continuing in time. E.g. rebellion. one SSC that will be charged and all other deaths will be
absorbed.
- But if other persons were killed, let’s say the kidnapper given to him by an American soldier in exchange for two
who was killed by his co-kidnapper after an argument bottles of whisky. The accused stood on the chair he
over the ransom money, then the killing is a separate had been sitting on and hurled the grenade at the
crime. President when the latter had just closed his speech. A
general who was on the platform saw the smoking
5. There are special complex crimes which are grenade and kicked it away from the platform towards
an open space where he thought the grenade was likely
specifically provided both in the RPC and SPLs.
to do the least harm. The grenade exploded in the
middle of a group of persons standing close to the
Complex Crimes in Article 48 platform and grenade fragments seriously injured
Simeon Varela, who died the next day due to the mortal
1. The combination of crimes is determined by Article 48 wounds caused, and several other persons. Guillen was
arrested and he readily admitted his responsibility.
2. The penalty to be applied is for the more or most
serious offense in the maximum period.
ISSUE:
3. The first shall be complexed while the other counts WON the accused was guilty only of homicide through
will be treated as separate crimes. (e.g. X, with lewd reckless imprudence in regard to the death of Simeon
designs, forcibly abducted Y and then raped her. Varela and of less serious physical injuries in regard to
Thereafter, X raped Y 5 more times. The 1st rape will be the other injured persons.
complexed with forcible abduction, and the 5 counts of
rape will be treated as separate crimes. HELD:
4. Only the felonies/crimes subject to Art. 48 will be The facts do not support the contention of the counsel
compounded or complexed. The excess crimes will be for the appellant. In throwing the hand grenade at the
treated as separate crimes. President with the intention of killing him, the appellant
5. There is no complex crime of offenses, e.g. Child acted with malice and is therefore liable for all the
Abuse (RA 7610) cannot be complexed with the Anti- consequences of his wrongful act. As provided by Art. 4
Trafficking in Persons (RA 9208). There is also no of the Revised Penal Code, criminal liability is incurred
complex crime involving a felony and an offense. by any person committing a felony although the wronful
act done be different from that which he intended. In
criminal negligence, the injury caused to another should
Take note:
be unintentional, it being simply the incident of another
In Article 48, the law specifically uses the term “ Offense” act performed without malice. As held by thie Court, a
when referring to complex crime proper - that an deliberate intent to do an unlawful act is essentially
offense is a necessary means for committing the other. inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence.
This means that the can be a complex crime proper Where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in
involving two “offenses” so long as they are punished the identity of the intended victim cannot be considered
under the same statute. reckless imprudence.

*** In contrast, “ a compound crime” refers only to The sentence of the trial court is affirmed by unanimous
“grave or “less grave” felonies. vote and death sentence shall be executed in
accordance with article 81 of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Guillen GR No. L-1477, January 18,
1950
People v. Comadre (G.R. No. 153559)
FACTS:
Complex Crime
The accused Julio Guillen, was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of murder and multiple
Facts: At around 7:00 o’clock in the evening of August 6,
frustrated murder after his attempt to assassinate the
1995, Robert Agbanlog, JimmyWabe, Gerry Bullanday,
President of the Philippines, Manuel Roxas on March 10,
Rey Camat and Lorenzo Eugenio were having a drinking
1947.
spree on the terrace of the house of Robert’s father,
Jaime Agbanlog. Jaime was seated on the banister of
During the 1946 Presidential Elections, Guillen voted for
the terrace listening to the conversation of the
the opposing candidate of Manuel Roxas. According to
companions of his son. As the drinking session went on,
the accused, he was disappointed with the latter for
Robert and the others noticed appellants Antonio
failing to redeem and fulfill promises made by President
Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano walking.
Roxas during the elections. Consequently, the accused
The three stopped in front of the house. While his
determined to assassinate the President and found the
companions looked on, Antonio suddenly lobbed an
oppoturnity to do so on the night of March 10, 1947
object which fell on the roof of the terrace. Appellants
when the President attended a popular meeting by the
immediately fled by scaling the fence of a nearby school.
Liberal Party at Plaza de Miranda, Quiapo, Manila.
The object, which turned out to be a hand grenade,
Guillen first intended to use a revolver to accomplish his
exploded ripping a hole in the roof of the house. Robert
goal but he had previously lost his licensed firearm, so
Agbanlog and his companions were hit by shrapnel and
he thought of using two hand grenades which were
slumped unconscious on the floor. They were all rushed the south from where he was. He also saw Oscar Ibao,
to the hospital for medical treatment. However, Robert another son of Warlito, striding towards Dulay’s hut. As
Agbanlog died before reaching the hospital for wounds soon as he reached the hut Oscar lifted the sawali mat
sustained which the grenade explosion inflicted. Robert’s near the wall and hurled something inside. Oscar then
companions sustained shrapnel injuries. The appellants scurried off towards the nearby creek with Roche
were arrested the following day but denied any following him. Seconds later, a loud explosion shook the
participation in the incident, claimed they were entire neighborhood and Teresita Dulay’s screams broke
elsewhere when the incident occurred and that they had into the night.
no animosity towards the victims whatsoever. Ruben rushed outside and ran towards Florentino’s hut
where he saw the bloodied Florentino, Norwela and
The trial rendered a judgment finding accused Antonio Nissan lying side by side, both doused in blood, and a
Comadre, George Comadre and Danilo Lozano GUILTY motionless Norma whose head was oozing with blood.
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of On their way to the hospital, Norwela who had injuries
Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder and sentencing on her chest and lower appendage died. Nissan who
them to suffer the imposable penalty of death; was five years old, also died later. Noemi luckily
survived.
ISSUE: The trial Court gave full credit to the testimony of Ruben
and convicted Carpo et al. It accepted his
Whether or not the complex crime of complex straightforward testimony. Accordingly, in accordance
crime of Murder with Multiple Attempted Murder can be with Sec. 6, RA 7659, and Art. 48 of The RPC the trial
appreciated in the case. court imposed upon all of the accused the supreme
penalty of death and ordered them to solidarily
HELD: indemnify the heirs of the deceased.

Yes. Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes. When a ISSUE:

single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave What was the crime/s committed?
felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means of
committing the other, the penalty for the most serious RULING:
crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its Consistent with giving due deference to the observations
maximum period. of the trial court on credibility of witnesses, we agree
with the court a quo when it believed Ruben Meriales
The single act by appellant of detonating a hand more than the defense witnesses. Indeed, the trial court
grenade may quantitatively constitute a cluster of is best equipped to make an assessment of witnesses,
several separate and distinct offenses, yet these and its factual findings are generally not disturbed on
component criminal offenses should be considered only appeal unless it has overlooked, misunderstood or
as a single crime in law on which a single penalty is disregarded important facts, which is not true in the
imposed because the offender was impelled by a single present case.
criminal impulse which shows his lesser degree of The defense proffered by the accused is alibi. But this is
perversity. futile.
Under the aforecited article, when a single act The trial court also correctly ruled that accused-
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies the appellants conspired in perpetrating the offense charged.
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the From the detailed account of Ruben, Jaime and Warlito
same to be applied in its maximum period irrespective of positioned themselves near the hay barn while Roche
the presence of modifying circumstances, including the casually stood by the mango tree. As observed by the
generic aggravating circumstance of treachery in this trial court, the presence of Jaime, Warlito and Roche
case. Applying the aforesaid provision of law, the inescapably gave encouragement and a sense of
maximum penalty for the most serious crime (murder) is security to Oscar, the group’s preceptor. Surely, the
death. The trial court, therefore, correctly imposed the latter was emboldened to commit the crime knowing
death penalty. that his co-conspirators were not far behind.
Under the doctrine enunciated in People v. Tayo,the
Antonio Comadre was found guilty of the crime crime committed may otherwise be more approriately
committed while the other two accused Gegorio and denominated as murder qualified by explosion rather
Danilo was acquitted. than by treachery. However, since it was treachery that
is alleged in the Information and appreciated by the trial
court, the explosion of the grenade which resulted in the
People v. Carpo death of Florentino, Norwela and Nissan, and the
G.R. No. 132676. April 4, 2001 wounding of Noemi can only be multiple murder
complexed with attempted murder.
FACTS: The crime committed against Noemi Dulay was correctly
Ruben Meriales testified that in the evening of 25 denominated by the trial court as attempted murder
August 1996, he saw Jaime Carpo together with Warlito considering that none of her injuries was fatal. Her
Ibao and his son Roche all looking in the direction of attending physician even made conflicting statements in
Florentino Dulay’s house which was about a meter to the assessment of her wounds, to wit: although he said
that Noemi could have died from the shrapnel wound in The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kapatagan, Lanao del
her head, he specifically ruled out the possibility of Norte, Branch 21, found the testimonies of the
“intercerebral hemorrhage” and despite the seriousness prosecution witnesses, most of whom were victims of
of the possible complications of her injuries she would the ambush, to be credible, categorical, straightforward,
suffer from physical incapacity for only ten (10) to spontaneous and consistent, coupled with their positive
fourteen (14) days. identification of the appellants as among the
As none of her wounds was severe as to cause her perpetrators of the crime and their lack of ill-motive to
death, accused-appellants not having performed all the falsely testify against them, vis-à-vis the defense of
acts of execution that would have brought it about, the denial and alibi proffered by the latter and thus, decided
crime is only attempted murder. that the appellants were guilty beyond reasonable doubt
Since the three (3) murders and attempted murder were of double murder with multiple frustrated murder and
produced by a single act, namely, the explosion caused double attempted murder and imposing upon them the
by the hurling of a grenade into the bedroom of the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The same decision of the
Dulays, the case comes under Art. 48 of The Revised RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
Penal Code on complex crimes. Article 48 provides that
the penalty for the more serious crime, which in the ISSUE:
present case is reclusion perpetua to death, should be Whether or not the affirmed penalty of double murder
applied in its maximum period. As the crime was with multiple frustrated murder and double attempted
complexed, the death penalty was properly imposed by murder were, indeed, the crimes committed by the
the trial court. appellants in light of penalty of complex crimes under
Article 48 of Revised Penal Code?
RULING:
People VS. Nelmida No. Article 48 states that when a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies, the penalty for
FACTS: the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be
Wenceslao Nelmida and Ricardo Ajok, with 10 other applied in its maximum period. To apply the first half of
accused, allegedly ambushed the vehicle of Mayor Article 48, there must be singularity of criminal act;
Tawan-tawan of Salvador, Lanao del Norte. Together singularity of criminal impulse is not written into the law.
with the Mayor are his security escorts, 2 of which died From its factual backdrop, it can easily be gleaned that
due to the ambush while the others have been injured, the killing and wounding of the victims were not the
although not severely, but needed to be hospitalized. In result of a single discharge of firearms by the appellants
the conduct of the said alleged ambush, appellants and and their co-accused. To note, appellants and their co-
their co-accused brought Samuel (whose task was to accused opened fire and rained bullets on the vehicle
identify the vehicle) to a waiting shed where a pick-up boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his group.
service vehicle boarded by Mayor Tawan-tawan and his Obviously, appellants and their co-accused performed
group would pass. Appellants and their co-accused, not only a single act but several individual and distinct
thereafter, assembled themselves on both sides of the acts in the commission of the crime. Thus, Article 48
road and surreptitiously waited for the vehicle. The would not apply for it speaks only of a "single act."
moment it passed by the waiting shed, appellants and
their co-accused opened fire and rained bullets thereon The Court instead held the appellants to be liable for the
resulting in the killing and wounding of the victims. separate crimes of two (2) counts of murder and seven
Immediately, appellants and their co-accused fled to (7) counts of attempted murder. As to penalty. Under
escape. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty
The prosecution presented their witnesses. Samuel, who imposed for the crime of murder is reclusion perpetua to
became a witness, categorically pointed to Nelmida and death. There being neither aggravating nor mitigating
Ajok as two of the people who participated in the circumstance, the penalty to be imposed upon
commission of the ambush as well as named all the appellants is reclusion perpetua.
other co-accused. The same was given as testimony by
other witnesses, including the other surviving victims of Sanchez vs. People
the ambush as they were, accordingly, of the vantage
point where they saw the perpetrators of the offense.
In their defense, both herein accused interposed their FACTS:
respective alibis corroborated by testimonies of their
respective relatives, and being that they both left their Appellant was charged with the crime of Other Acts
respective domiciles after the incident, posed their of Child Abuse in an Information[6] dated August 29,
separate explanations. In the case of Nelmida, that such 2001 which reads:
was prompted by the fear and restlessness of his wife
so that she wanted to go to an environment further The undersigned, Second Assistant Provincial
from the place of the ambush; and for Ajok, that such Prosecutor, hereby accuses Leonilo Sanchez alias
was prompted by fear of being harassed as what he said Nilo of Lajog, Clarin, Bohol of the crime of Other
was happening to the others with the same political Acts of Child Abuse, committed as follows:
affiliation as him.
That on or about the 2nd day of September, 2000 in petitioner’s assertion, an accused can be prosecuted
the municipality of Clarin, province of Bohol, and be convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four
Honorable Court, acting as a Family Court, the acts therein. The prosecution need not prove that
above-named accused, with intent to abuse, exploit the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child
and/or to inflict other conditions prejudicial to the exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the
child's development, did then and there willfully, child because an act prejudicial to the development
unlawfully and feloniously abuse physically one of the child is different from the former acts.
[VVV],[7] a sixteen (16) year old minor, by hitting
her thrice in the upper part of her legs, and which Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that
acts are prejudicial to the child-victim's development the word “or” is a disjunctive term signifying
which acts are not covered by the Revised Penal dissociation and independence of one thing from
Code, as amended, but the same are covered by Art. other things enumerated. It should, as a rule, be
59, par. 8 of P.D. No. 603 as amended; to the construed in the sense which it ordinarily implies.
damage and prejudice of the offended party in the Hence, the use of “or” in Section 10(a) of Republic
amount to be proved during the trial. Act No. 7610 before the phrase “be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child’s
The appellant argues that the injuries inflicted by development” supposes that there are four
him were minor in nature that it is not prejudicial to punishable acts therein. First, the act of child abuse;
the child-victim’s development and therefore P.D. No. second, child cruelty; third, child exploitation; and
603 is not applicable and he should be charged fourth, being responsible for conditions prejudicial to
under the Revised Penal Code for slight physical the child’s development. The fourth penalized act
injuries. cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a
qualifying condition for the three other acts, because
ISSUE: an analysis of the entire context of the questioned
provision does not warrant such construal.
Whether or not P.D. 603 as amended is applicable to
the case at hand. Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should
not be considered as child abuse but merely as slight
physical injuries defined and punishable under
HELD: Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant
conveniently forgets that when the incident
In this case, the applicable laws are Article 59 of P.D. happened, VVV was a child entitled to the protection
No. 603 and Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. Section extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the
10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 provides: Constitution. As defined in the law, child abuse
includes physical abuse of the child, whether the
same is habitual or not. The act of appellant falls
squarely within this definition. We, therefore,
cannot accept appellant's contention.
SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty
or Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to
the Child's Development. — Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section
10(a) in relation to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) No. 1 of
Rep. Act No. 7610 and Sec. 59(8) of PD 603,
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts
amended.
of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the
child's development including those covered by People Vs. Adriano
Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as
amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal FACTS
Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum period. “This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for
treason by the People’s Court sentencing the
As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision accused to life imprisonment, Php 10,000 fine, and
punishes not only those enumerated under Article 59 the costs.”
of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct
acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child That between January and April, 1945 or thereabout,
exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions during the occupation of the Philippines by the
prejudicial to the child’s development. The Rules and Japanese Imperial Forces, in the Province of Nueva
Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and Ecija and in the mountains in the Island of Luzon,
separately defined child abuse, cruelty and Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,
exploitation just to show that these three acts are the above-named accused, Apolinario Adriano, who
different from one another and from the act is not a foreigner, but a Filipino citizen owing
prejudicial to the child’s development. Contrary to
allegiance to the United States and the appellant. Those who gave evidence that the
Commonwealth of the Philippines, in violation of said accused took part in raids and seizure of personal
allegiance, did then and there willfully, criminally property, and performed sentry duties and military
and treasonably adhere to the Military Forces of drills, referred to acts allegedly committed on
Japan in the Philippines, against which the different dates without any two witnesses coinciding
Philippines and the United States were then at war, in any one specified deed. There is only one item on
giving the said enemy aid and comfort as a member which the witnesses agree: it is that the defendant
of the Makapili, a military organization established was a Makapili and was seen by them in Makapili
and designed to assist and aid militarily the uniform carrying arms. Yet, again, on this point it
Japanese Imperial forces in the Philippines in the cannot be said that one witness is corroborated by
said enemy’s war efforts and operations against the another if corroboration means that two witnesses
United States and the Philippines. have seen the accused doing at least one particular
thing, it a routine military chore, or just walking or
The court below, however, said these acts had not eating.
been established by the testimony of two witnesses,
and so regarded them merely as evidence of By extension, the lawmakers who introduced that
adherence to the enemy. provision into the Philippine statute books must be
understood to have intended that the law should
But the court did find established under the two- operate with the same inflexibility and rigidity as the
witness rule, so we infer, “that the accused and American forefathers meant.The judgment is
other Makapilis had their headquarters in the enemy reversed and the appellant acquitted with costs
garrison at Gapan, Nueva Ecija; that the accused charged de oficio .
was in Makapili military uniform; that he was armed
with rifle; and that he drilled with other Makapilis PEOPLE VS. JUGUETA
under a Japanese instructor; . . . that during the
same period, the accused in Makapili military Facts:
uniform and with a rifle, performed duties as sentry On June 06, 2002, The family of Norberto Divina were
at the Japanese garrison and Makapili headquarters all lying down side by side about to sleep at around
in Gapan, Nueva Ecija;” “that upon the liberation of 9:00 o’clock in the evening, when suddenly their wall
Gapan, Nueva Ecija, by the American forces, the made of sack was stripped off by accused-appellant
accused and other Makapilis retreated to the Ireneo Jugueta, Roger San Miguel and Gilberto Alegre.
mountains with the enemy;” and that “the accused, They ordered him to go out of their house and when he
rifle in hand, later surrendered to the Americans.” refused despite his plea for mercy, they fired at them
having hit and killed his two daughters. The family of
ISSUE Norberto Divina were unarmed and his children were at
very tender ages. Mary Grace Divina and Claudine who
were shot and killed were 13 years old and 3 1⁄2 years
Whether or not the two-witness rule is required in old respectively.
establishing the guilt of the accused in the crime of The Court finds accused-appellant guilty beyond
treason. reasonable doubt for double murder defined and
punished under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code
RULING and is hereby sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua for
the death of Mary Grace Divina and to indemnify her
Yes. heirs in the amount of Php50,000.00 and another to
suffer reclusion perpetua for the death of Claudine
Divina and accused is further ordered to indemnify the
The Philippine law on treason is of Anglo-American
heirs of Claudine Divina in the sum of Php50,000.00. In
origin and so we have to look for guidance from
addition, he is hereby ordered to pay the heirs of the
American sources on its meaning and scope –
victims actual damages in the amount of Php16,150.00
judicial interpretation has been placed on the two-
and to pay for the costs.Aggrieved by the trial court's
witness principle by American courts.
and Court of Appeal’s judgments, appellant appealed to
the Supreme Court.
The two-witness rule required for conviction for Hence, this appeal
treason is that no person shall be convicted thereof
unless on the testimony of two-witnesses to the Issue:
same overt act. If the overt act is separate, two (2) Whether or not the lower court imposed proper award
witnesses must also testify to each part of overt act of damages on the accused-appellant
for conviction.
Held:
In the case at bar, the findings of the court are not No. The lower court failed to take into account dwelling
borne out by the proof of two witnesses. No two of as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. In view of the
the prosecution witnesses testified to a single one of attendant ordinary aggravating circumstance, the Court
the various acts of treason imputed by them to the must modify the penalties and award of damages
imposed on accused-appellant. In the case at bar, the 2. Accused HERMOGENES FLORA conspiring and
crimes were aggravated by dwelling, and the murders confederating with accused Erwin [Edwin] Flora, and
committed were further made atrocious by the fact that mutually helping one another, while conveniently armed
the victims are innocent, defenseless minors – one is a then with a caliber .38 handgun, with intent to kill, by
mere 31⁄2-year-old toddler, and the other a 13-year-old means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did
girl. The increase in the amount of awards for damages then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
is befitting to show not only the Court's, but all of assault and shoot with the said firearm one IRENEO
society's outrage over such crimes and wastage of lives. GALLARTE y VALERA, thereby inflicting upon the latter
gunshot wounds on his chest which caused his
PEOPLE VS. FLORA immediate death, to the damage and prejudice of his
surviving heirs.
FACTS:
On the evening of January 9, 1993, a dance party was 3. Accused Hermogenes Flora, conspiring and
held to celebrate the birthday of Jeng-jeng Malubago in confederating with accused Erwin [Edwin] Flora, and
Sitio Silab, Barangay Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna. mutually helping one another, while conveniently armed
Appellant Hermogenes Flora, allegedly a suitor of Jeng- then with a caliber .38 handgun, with intent to kill, by
jeng Malubago, attended the party with his brother and means of treachery and with evident premeditation, did
co-appellant Edwin Flora, alias "Boboy". Also in then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
attendance were Rosalie Roma, then a high school assault and shoot with the said firearm one FLOR
student; her mother, Emerita Roma, and her aunt, Flor ESPINAS y ROMA, hitting the latter on her shoulder, and
Espinas. Ireneo Gallarte, a neighbor of the Romas, was inflicting upon her injuries which, ordinarily, would have
there too. The dancing went on past midnight but at caused her death, thus, accused performed all the acts
about 1:30, violence erupted. On signal by Edwin Flora, of execution which could have produced the crime of
Hermogenes Flora fired his .38 caliber revolver twice. Murder as a consequence but which, nevertheless did
The first shot grazed the right shoulder of Flor Espinas, not produce it by reason of a cause independent of their
then hit Emerita Roma, below her shoulder. The second will, that is, by the timely and able medical attendance
shot hit Ireneo Gallarte who slumped onto the floor. given the said Flor Espinas y Roma, which prevented her
Rosalie, was shocked and could only utter, "si Bodoy, si death, to her damage and prejudice." During
Bodoy", referring to Hermogenes Flora. Edwin Flora arraignment, both appellants pleaded not guilty. Trial
approached her and, poking a knife at her neck, thereafter ensued. Resolving jointly Criminal Cases Nos.
threatened to kill her before he and his brother, SC-4810, SC-4811 and SC- 4812, the trial court
Hermogenes, fled the scene. The victims of the gunfire convicted both appellants for the murder of Emerita
were transported to the Rural Health Unit in Roma and Ireneo Gallarte, and the attempted murder of
Longos, Kalayaan, Laguna, where Emerita and Ireneo Flor Espinas.
died. Early that same morning of January 10, 1993, the
police arrested Edwin ISSUE: W/N the trial court erred in convicting the two
Flora at his rented house in Barangay Bagumbayan, accused-appellants despite the failure of the prosecution
Paete, Laguna. Hermogenes Flora, after learning of the to morally ascertain their identities and guilt for the
arrest of his brother, proceeded first to the house of his crimes charged.
aunt, Erlinda Pangan, in Pangil, Laguna but later that
day, he fled to his hometown in Pipian, San Fernando, HELD: When Hermogenes Flora suddenly shot Emerita
Camarines Sur. The autopsy conducted by the medico- and Ireneo, both were helpless to defend themselves.
legal officer, Dr. Ricardo R. Yambot, Jr., revealed the Their deaths were murders, not simply homicides since
following fatal wounds sustained by the deceased: the acts were qualified by treachery. Thus, we are
compelled to conclude that appellant Hermogenes Flora
On February 26, 1993, Prosecution Attorney Joselito D.R. is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of double murder for
Obejas filed three separate informations charging the deaths of Emerita Roma and Ireneo Gallarte, and
appellants as follows: That on or about January 10, guilty of attempted murder of Flor Espinas.Edwin Flora,
1993, at around 1:30 o’clock in the morning thereof, in equally guilty as his brother, in conspiracy between
Sitio Silab, Barangay Longos, municipality of Kalayaan, appellants for murder of Ireneo Gallarte. For conspiracy
Honorable Court, to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement
for an appreciable period prior to the occurrence. It is
1. Accused Hermogenes Flora conspiring and sufficient that at the time of the commission of the
confederating with offense, the accused and co-accused had the same
accused Edwin Flora , and mutually helping one another, purpose and were united in execution. Edwin Flora
while conveniently armed then with a caliber .38 demonstrated not mere passive presence at the scene
handgun, with intent to kill, by means of of the crime. He stayed beside his brother Hermogenes,
treachery and with evident premeditation, did then and right behind the victims while the dance party drifted
there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault late into the night till the early hours of the morning the
and shoot with the said firearm one EMERITA ROMA y following day. All the while, he and his brother gazed
DELOS REYES, thereby inflicting upon the latter gunshot ominously at Ireneo Gallarte, like hawks waiting for their
wounds on her chest which caused her immediate death, prey. And then Edwin’s flick of that lighted cigarette to
to the damage and prejudice of her surviving heirs. the ground signaled Hermogenes to commence shooting
at the hapless victims. If ever Edwin appeared appear to have agreed to perform an act not constituting a
acquiescent during the carnage, it was because no crime, in connection with the performance of his (Marcial
similar weapon was available for him. And he fled from Apolonio y Santos)duties, which was to expedite the issuance
the crime scene together with his brother but not after of a birth certificate, thereby directly incriminating or
violently neutralizing any obstacle on their way. While imputing to said Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission
getting away, Edwin grabbed Rosalie Roma and poked a of the crime of bribery."
knife at her neck when the latter hysterically shouted "si Defendants filed a motion to quash saying that
Bodoy, Si Bodoy," in allusion to Hermogenes Flora, (1)the facts charged in the information do not constitute
whom she saw as the gunwielder. All told, Edwin, by his an offense (because the two crimes cannot be complexed);
conduct, demonstrated unity of purpose and design with and (2) the court trying the case has no jurisdiction over the
his brother Hermogenes in committing the crimes offense charged-CFI granted motion to dismiss agreeing with
charged. He is thus liable as co-conspirator. defendants-MFR was denied-appeal by fiscal before SC
ISSUE: WON the CFI erred in granting motion to quash
However, we cannot find Edwin Flora similarly HELD: YES
responsible for the death of Emerita Roma and the It is very apparent that by the use of the phrase
injury of Flor Espinas. The evidence only shows "thru unlawful arrest" in the information an idea is conveyed
conspiracy to kill Ireneo Gallarte and no one else. For that the unlawful arrest was resorted to as a necessary
acts done outside the contemplation of the conspirators means to plant evidence in the person of the offended party,
only the actual perpetrators are liable. And the rule has thereby incriminating him. From a reading of the info the SC
always been that co-conspirators are liable only for acts finds a close connection between the act of the accused in
done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts done first unlawfully arresting the offended party and then
outside the contemplation of the co-conspirators or investigating him; and it was during that investigation that
which are not the necessary and logical consequence of they plated incriminatory evidence against him. SC agrees
the intended crime, only the actual perpetrators are with the Solicitor General in his contention that the accused
liable. Therefore, Appellants Hermogenes Flora and first had to resort to unlawful arrest in order to be able to
Edwin Flora are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt plant the P1.00 bill among the money taken from the
of the MURDER of Ireneo Gallarte. Hermogenes Flora is offended party. Also the court a quo has jurisdiction to
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the MURDER try the accused of the offense charged in the information.
of Emerita Roma and the ATTEMPTED MURDER of Flor The crime of unlawful
Espinas. Appellant Edwin Flora is ACQUITTED of the arrest is punishable with arresto mayor or imprisonment of
murder of Emerita Roma and the attempted murder of from one month and one day to six months, and a fine not
Flor Espinas. exceeding P500.00; 5 and the crime
of incriminatory machinations is punishable with arresto
mayor, or imprisonment of from one month and one day to
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs MARTIN ALAGAO, et al six months.
The order appealed from is reversed and set aside
NATURE: This is an appeal by the City Fiscal of Manila from
an order of the Court of First Instance of Manila sustaining
the motion to quash the information. PEOPLE v SABADLAB

Facts: City Fiscal of Manila filed an information against the Doctrine: The task of assigning values to the testimonies of
defendants-appellees charging them of the complex crime of witnesses and of weighing their credibility is
incriminatory machinations thru unlawful arrest, as follows: best left to the trial judge by virtue of the first-hand impressions
"That on or about the 28th day of February, 1961, in the City he derives while the witnesses testify before
him.
of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, being then members
Summary: AAA was raped by Sabadlab and two other men.
of the Manila Police Department, conspiring and Although she did not know the names of the 3 men, She
confederating together and helping one another, did then recognized one (Sabadlab) to be the man who had persistently
and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously incriminate or greeted her every time she bought pandesal. On the strength
impute to one Marcial Apolonio y Santos the commission of of AAA’s testimony and identification, Sabadlab was convicted
the crime by bribery thru unlawful arrest, in the following of forcible abduction with rape by the RTC which the CA
affirmed. Sabadlab now questions the credibility of AAA’s
manner, to wit: the said accused, on the aforesaid date, testimony. SC upheld its credibility but changed the crime to
without reasonable ground therefor and for the purpose of simple rape.
delivering said Marcial Apolonio y Santos to the proper
authorities, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and Facts:
feloniously arrest said Marcial Apolonio y Santos; that after  March 12, 2002 (noon): AAA (16 y/o domestic helper) was
the said Marcial Apolonio y Santos had been arrested in the on her way to pick up her employer’s son
manner aforestated, and while the latter was supposedly from school. Suddenly, a man (Sabadlab) grabbed her and
being investigated by the said accused, the said accused did ordered her to go with him. She refused but
then and there place on commingle a marked P1.00 bill Sabadlab poked a gun at her throat.
together with the money taken from said Marcial Apolonio y  She recognized him to be the man who had persistently
Santos, supposedly given to the latter by one Emerita Calupas greeted her every time she had bought
de Aresa, so that he (Marcial Apolonio y Santos), then an pandesal at 5 AM
employee of the Local Civil Registrar's Office of Manila, would
 Two other men joined Sabadlab at that point. They forced element of judicial adjudication because it can draw the line
her into a car, and blindfolded her. After 20 between fact and fancy. Their forthright answers or hesitant
min of travel, she was brought out of the car, still blindfolded, pauses, their quivering voices or angry tones, their flustered
undressed, had her hands tied and was looks or sincere gazes, their modest blushes or guilty
raped. blanches - all these can reveal if the witnesses are telling the
 Although blindfolded, she knew that it was Sabadlab who truth or lying in their teeth. As the final appellate reviewer in
raped her first because his cohorts were this case, then, we bow to the age-old norm to accord the
calling out his name as he was kissing her body. utmost respect to the findings and conclusions on the
 The others took their turns in raping her after Sabadlab. She credibility of witnesses reached by the trial judge on account
could not remember how many times they of his unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses and
raped her. on account of his personal access to the various indicia
 Around 3PM: AAA was released after she was warned that available but not reflected in the record.
they would kill her if she told anyone.
 AAA lied about the incident but was forced (slapped and  AAAs recollection of the principal occurrence and her
boxed) by her employer to disclose what had positive identification of the rapists, particularly Sabadlab,
happened. were firm. It is reassuring, too, that her trustworthiness in
 Her employer took her to the police station and a medico- identifying Sabadlab as one of the rapists rested on her
legal examination was conducted. recognition of him as the man who had frequently flirted with
 AAA and the police went to where AAA bought pandesal and her at the store where she had usually bought pandesal for
Sabadlab was arrested. The City her employers table.
Prosecutor filed an information charging Sabadlab and two
John Does with forcible abduction with  AAAs failure to shout for help and her failure to escape were
rape. not factors that should diminish credibility
 RTC convicted Sabadlab based on AAA’s positive due to their being plausibly explained, the first by the fact
identification, observing that her physical injuries that her mouth had been stuffed by Sabadlab
and fresh hymenal lacerations were consistent with her with crumpled newspaper, preventing her from making any
account of the rapes. outcry, and the second by the fact that the
 CA sustained the conviction. culprits had blindfolded her and had also tied her hands
behind her back.
Issues:
 Sabadlabs allegation that AAA did not sustain any bodily
injuries (that she did not resist) was actually contrary to the
WoN RTC and CA erred in giving Weight and Credence to medical certification showing her several physical injuries
AAA’s testimony - NO and the penetration of her female organ. Also, her resistance
to Sabadlabs order for her to go with him was immediately
 The supposed inconsistencies dwelled on minor details or stifled by his poking of the gun at her throat and by
collateral matters that the CA precisely held appearance of his two cohorts.
to be badges of veracity and manifestations of truthfulness
due to their tendency of demonstrating that WoN the crime was Forcible Abduction with Rape – NO
the testimony had not been rehearsed or concocted.  The principal objective of Sabadlab and his two cohorts in
abducting AAA from Dapitan Street and in
 It is also basic that inconsistencies bearing on minor details bringing her to another place was to rape and ravish her.
or collateral matters should not adversely  Although forcible abduction was seemingly committed, we
affect the substance of the witness declaration, veracity, or cannot hold him guilty of the complex crime of forcible
weight of testimony. The only inconsistencies that might have abduction with rape when the objective of the abduction was
discredited the victims credible testimony were those that to commit the rape.
affected or related to the elements of the crime. Alas, that was
not true herein  Under the circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible
abduction.
 The supposed inconsistencies were inconsequential to the
issue of guilt. For one, the matter of who of the three rapists WoN exemplary damages should be awarded – YES
had blindfolded and undressed AAA was trifling, because her  Although the CA deleted the RTCs award of exemplary
confusion did not alter the fact that she had been really damages because of the absence of aggravating circumstance
blindfolded and rendered naked. Nor did the failure to (sic), we reinstate the award in view of the attendance of the
produce any torn apparel of AAA disprove the crime charged, aggravating circumstance of use of a deadly weapon in the
it being without dispute that the tearing of the victims commission of the crime.
apparel was not necessary in the commission of the crime
charged. In fact, she did not even state that her clothes had  The Civil Code provides that exemplary damages may be
been torn when Sabadlab had forcibly undressed her. Verily, imposed in a criminal case as part of the civil liability when
details and matters that did not detract from the commission the crime was committed with one or more aggravating
of the crime did not diminish her credibility. circumstances. The Civil Code allows such damages to be
awarded by way of example or correction for the public good,
 We hardly need to remind that the task of assigning values in addition to the moral, temperate, liquidated or
to the testimonies of witnesses and of weighing their compensatory damages.
credibility is best left to the trial judge by virtue of the first-
hand impressions he derives while the witnesses testify  Present here was the need for exemplarity. Thus, the CA
before him. The demeanor on the witness chair of persons should have recognized the entitlement to exemplary
sworn to tell the truth in judicial proceedings is a significant damages of AAA on account of the attendance of use of a
deadly weapon. It was of no moment that the use of a deadly Mirandilla and was brought to Gallera de Legazpi where she
weapon was not specifically alleged in the information. was raped.
 The morning after, on the same house, Mirandilla pointed a
Disposition: WHEREFORE, we AFFIRM decision of the Court gun at AAA and then forced his penis inside AAA’s mouth.
 Mirandilla, along with AAA, drove to Bogtong, Legazpi, and
of Appeals promulgated on April 26, 2006, with the reached a nipa hut where AAA was thrown inside and got
MODIFICATION that ERLAND SABADLAB BAYQUEL is: (a) raped again.
DECLARED GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of  The following evening, AAA suffered the same fate.
SIMPLE RAPE Mirandilla and his gang detained her at daytime, and moved
her back and forth from one place to another where she was
raped allegedly 27 times.
People v Amaro  One afternoon, AAA was able to escape and ran to a house
of a certain Evelyn Guevarra who brought her to the police
FACTS: station on January 11, 2001.
 Mirandilla’s contention was that he and AAA were
On March 26, 1998, the accused-appellant ,Rosendo lovers/live-in partners and they eloped. He said that the
sexual encounters were consensual.
Amaro, by means of deceit at the beginning and of
force and intimidation later and with lewd designs, did ISSUES & RATIO.
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously 1.WON Mirandilla is guilty of the special complex crime
abduct one [AAA], a seven (7) year old girl, by forcing of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape. – YES.
her and took her to his house and without any justifiable Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had sexual
reason, accused detained and deprived her of her liberty intercourse with AAA, which happened almost nightly during
for a period of twenty eight (28) days; that while she is their cohabitation. He contended that they were live-in
being detained accused ROSENDO AMARO had carnal partners, entangled in a whirlwind romance, which intimacy
knowledge of said AAA all committed against her will. they expressed in countless passionate sex, which headed
ironically to separation mainly because of AAAs intentional
The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of
abortion of their first child to be a betrayal in its gravest
forcible abduction with rape. form which he found hard to forgive. In stark contrast to
Mirandillas tale of a love affair, is AAAs claim of her horrific
The accused- Appellant pleaded not guilty for the crime ordeal and her flight to freedom after 39 days in captivity
charged. during which Mirandilla raped her 27 times.

ISSUE: Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had been

committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with
Whether or not the accused-appellant should be rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape.
This is because these composite acts are regarded as a
convicted of the complex crime of forcible abduction
single indivisible offense as in fact R.A. No. 7659 punishes
with rape. these acts with only one single penalty. In a way, R.A. 7659
depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter how
HELD: many times the victim was raped, like in the present case,
there is only one crime committed the special complex crime
Yes, The elements of the crime of forcible abduction, as of kidnapping with rape.
defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal Code, are: (1)
that the person abducted is any woman, regardless of WON AAA is a credible witness. – YES.
her age, civil status, or reputation; (2) that she is taken The trial judge, who had the opportunity of observing AAAs
manner and demeanour on the witness stand, was
against her will; and (3) that the abduction is with lewd
convinced of her credibility: AAA appeared to be a simple
designs. On the other hand, rape under Article 266-A is and truthful woman, whose testimony was consistent,
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman by: steady and firm, free from any material and serious
(1) force or intimidation, or(2) when the woman is contradictions. The record nowhere yields any evidence of ill
deprived of reason or is unconscious, or (3) when she is motive on the part of AAA to influence her in fabricating
under twelve years of age. criminal charges against Felipe Mirandilla, Jr. The absence of
ill motive enhances the standing of AAA as a witness.
In the case at bar, At her tender age, AAA could have
easily been deceived by appellant. The employment of WON Mirandilla’s sweetheart theory is tenable? – NO.
Accused’s bare invocation of sweetheart theory cannot alone,
deception suffices to constitute the forcible taking,
stand. To be credible, it must be corroborated by
especially since the victim is an unsuspecting young girl. documentary, testimonial, or other evidence. Usually, these
It is the taking advantage of their innocence that makes are letters, notes, photos, mementos, or credible
them easy culprits of deceiving minds.11 The presence testimonies of those who know the lovers. The sweetheart
of lewd designs in forcible abduction is established by theory as a defense, however, necessarily admits carnal
the actual rape of the victim. knowledge, the first element of rape. Effectively, it leaves
the prosecution the burden to prove only force or
intimidation, the coupling element of rape. Love, is not a
license for lust. This admission makes the sweetheart theory
PEOPLE v. MIRANDILLA
more difficult to defend, for it is not only an affirmative
defense that needs convincing proof; after the prosecution
FACTS.
has successfully established a prima facie case, the burden
 On Decemer 2, 2000, in the eve of the barangay fiesta, AAA
was grabbed with a knife pointed at her thrust by Felipe
 of evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce In the case at bar, the information sufficiently alleged
evidence that the intercourse was consensual. the elements of forcible abduction, i.e., the taking of
complainant against her against her will and with lewd
DECISION.
design. It was likewise alleged that accused-appellant
Petition denied. CA and RTC decision affirmed with
and his three co-accused conspired, confederated and
modifications on damages.
mutually aided one another in having carnal knowledge
of complainant by means of force and intimidation and
PEOPLE V. GARCIA against her will.

RELEVANT LAWS: ART. 48 Penalty for complex crime- Aside from alleging the necessary elements of the
When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less crimes, the prosecution convincingly established that the
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means carnal knowledge was committed through force and
for committing the other, the penalty for the most intimidation. Moreover, the prosecution sufficiently
serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant
in its maximum period. succeeded in forcibly abducting the complainant with
lewd designs, established by the actual rape. Hence,
FACTS: On July 14, 1998, the victim Cleopatra accused-appellant is guilty of the complex crime of
Changlapon, 19 years old left school at 6:30 pm to go forcible abduction with rape.
home to km 3, La Trinidad Benguet. As she was
crossing Bonifacio street, a white van suddenly stopped However, as correctly held by the trial court, there can
in front of her, the rear doors slid open and she was only be one complex crime of forcible abduction with
pulled inside. Inside the van one of the perpetrators rape. The crime of forcible abduction was only
sprayed some mist on her face causing her to lose her necessary for the first rape. Thus, the subsequent acts
consciousness. She was brought in Tam-Awan village of rape can no longer be considered as separate
Baguio City, she woke up naked inside the room complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape. They
together with the four abductors. While one of them should be detached from and considered independently
mounted her, the other three held her arms and legs. of the forcible abduction. Therefore, accused-appellant
They also burned her face and extremities with lighted should be convicted of one complex crime of forcible
cigarettes to stop her from warding off her aggressor. abduction with rape and three separate acts of rape.
The four molesters succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her. After they finished, they again The penalty for complex crimes is the penalty for the
sprayed something on her face and she was left lying on most serious crime which shall be imposed in its
the roadside somewhere in between Tam-Awan and maximum period. Rape is the more serious of the two
Longlong. She was crying when she boarded the taxi on crimes and, when committed by more than two persons,
her way home. The next day she went to the police is punishable with reclusion perpetua to death under
station and was examined by the medico-legal which Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
confirmed the existence of burns found on her face, Republic Act No. 8353. Thus, accused-appellant should
chest, thighs and the contusions found on her body be sentenced to the maximum penalty of death for
were said to be caused by a blunt instrument like a forcible abduction with rape.
closed fist. The findings on her genitals namely the
gaping labia majora, the congested and abraded labia Lagman vs Medialdea
minora, and the lacerations all suggest the entry of a
foreign object, such as a fully erect male organ and the ISSUE: Whether or not there is a sufficient factual
presence of spermatozoa inside her cervix further basis for the proclamation of martial law or the
confirms that the complainant recently had sexual suspension of the privelege of writ of habeas corpus
intercourse.
FACTS: On May 23, 2017, President Rodrigo Duterte
ISSUE: Whether there is a complex crime of Forcible issued Proclamation No. 216, declaring Martial Law in
Abduction with Rape the whole island of Mindanao and the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus therein. On May
HELD: The trial court, therefore, did not err in convicting 25, the president submitted a written report to Congress
accused-appellant of the complex crime of forcible on the factual basis of the Martial Law declaration (as
abduction with rape. The two elements of forcible required by the Constitution). The main basis of the
abduction, as defined in Article 342 of the Revised Penal declaration was the attack of the Maute terrorist group
Code, are: (1) the taking of a woman against her will in Marawi City. According to the report, the Maute group
and (2) with lewd designs. The crime of forcible is an affiliate of ISIS which is aiming to establish an
abduction with rape is a complex crime that occurs Islamic caliphate in Marawi City (and might spread its
when there is carnal knowledge with the abducted control in all the other parts of Mindanao). It also cited
woman under the following circumstances: (1) by using the ongoing rebellion and lawless violence that has
force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of plagued Mindanao for decades.
reason or otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the DECISION: Yes
woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. ​
RATIO DECIDENDI: In reviewing the sufficiency of
the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension, the  After the said meeting, appellant wanted to see Tan
Court considers only the information and data available but was unable to find the latter and he cannot even
to the President prior to or at the time of the contact him. He asserts that the said written statement
declaration. The determination by the Court of the
was taken in violation of his rights under Section 12,
sufficiency of factual basis must be limited only to the
Article III of the Constitution, particularly of his right to
facts and information mentioned in the Report and
Proclamation. The Court held that the President, in remain silent, right to counsel, and the right to be
issuing Proclamation No. 216, had sufficient factual informed of the first two rights.
bases tending to show that actual rebellion exists. The
President only has to ascertain if there is probable cause  Hence, the same should not have been admitted in
for a declaration of Martial Law and the suspension of evidence against him.
the writ of habeas corpus. The petitioners’ counter-
evidence were derived solely from unverified news Issue:
articles on the internet, with neither the authors nor the
sources shown to have affirmed the contents
 Whether or not the written statement executed by
thereof. As the Court has consistently ruled, news the appellant is admissible in evidence?
articles are hearsay evidence, twice removed, and are
thus without any probative value, unless offered for a Held:
purpose other than proving the truth of the matter  Yes. Petitioner’s written statement is admissible as
asserted. The alleged false and/or inaccurate evidence. Here, petitioner’s written statement was
statements are just pieces and parcels of the Report; given during an administrative inquiry conducted by his
along with these alleged false data is an arsenal of other employer in connection with an anomaly or irregularity
independent facts showing that more likely than not,
he allegedly committed in the course of his
actual rebellion exists.
employment. No error can therefore be attributed to
the courts below in admitting in evidence and in giving
Carlos L. Tanenggee vs People of the Philippines due consideration to petitioner’s written statement as
June 26, 2013 there is no constitutional impediment to its
Facts: admissibility.
 There were five separate information for estafa
through falsification of commercial documents were  Petitioner’s written statement was given voluntarily,
filed against petitioner. The said information portray knowingly and intelligently. His attempts to convince us
the same mode of commission of the crime as in that he signed, under duress and intimidation, an
Criminal case No. 98-163806 but differ with respect to already prepared typewritten statement. However, his
the numbers of the checks and promissory notes claims lacks sustainable basis and his supposition is just
involved and the dates and amounts. an afterthought for there is nothing in the records that
would support his claim of duress and intimidation.
 In January 1998, two Metrobank auditors conducted
an audit of the Commercio Branch for more than a Ratio:
week. Therefore, an appellant was asked by Elvira Ong-  It is settled that a confession or admission is
Chan, senior vice president of Metrobank, to report to presumed voluntarily until the contrary is proved and
the Head Office on the following day. the confessant bears the burden of proving the
contrary.
 In his surprise, there were seven other people present
in the said office: two senior branch officers, two bank  Petitioner’s failed to overcome this presumption. His
lawyers, two policemen, and a representative of the written statement was found to have been executed
internal affairs unit of the bank, Valentino Elevado. freely and consciously. The pertinent details he
narrated in his statement were of such nature and
 Appellant claimed that Elevado asked him to sign a quality that only a perpetrator of the crime could finish.
paper in connection with the audit investigation; that
he inquired what he was made to sign but was not
offered any explanation; that he was intimidated to sign People vs Esugon y Avila, G.R. No. 195244, June
and was threatened by the police that he will be 22, 2015
brought to the precinct if he will not sign; that he was DOCTRINE: Every child is presumed qualified to be a
not able to consult a lawyer since he was not apprised witness. The party challenging the child’s competency as
of the purpose of the meeting; and that just to get it a witness has the burden of substantiating his challenge.
over with he signed the paper which turned out to be a
FACTS:
confession.
On or about the 22nd day of October 2003, in the City
of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named upstairs when they were roused from their sleep at
accused, with intent to gain, with the use of a bladed around 2 a.m. of October 22, 2003 by Dennis’ cry for
weapon, by means of force and violence, did, then and help. She saw that there was blood on the victim’s chest.
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, steal and After the victim was brought to the hospital, she noticed
carry away cash money amounting to P13,000.00 that the victim’s children were trembling in fear and
belonging to JOSEPHINE CASTRO y BARRERA, to the were crying. They got outside and went to the billiard
damage and prejudice of the latter; that by reason or on hall in front of their house. She took Carl and had him
occasion of said robbery, accused did, then and there sit on her lap. Then Carl said, “Tita, sya pasok bahay
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and namin” pointing to someone but she did not see who it
stab with the said bladed weapon said JOSEPHINE was since there were many people passing by. Later,
CASTRO y BARRERA, thereby inflicting upon her physical the police asked Carl whether he saw somebody enter
injuries which directly caused her death. Carl or Muymoy, their house and he answered yes and demonstrated
5-year old son of the victim, testified that on the night how his mother was stabbed. Carl also said that the
of the incident, he, his younger sister Cheche, and his person who stabbed his mother was present in the
mother and father, were sleeping on the ground floor of vicinity. He then pointed to appellant and said ” siya po
their house. He saw appellant, whom he calls “Nonoy,” yung pumaso k sa bahay namin.” As a resident there,
enter their house and stab her mother with a knife, appellant often goes to the billiard hall and sometimes
while he (Carl) peeped through a chair. Although there watches the television at the house of the victim. On
was no light at the ground floor, there was light upstairs. appeal, the appellant argued that the RTC erred in
After his mother got stabbed, his father chased the finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
appellant. Carl saw blood come out of his mother’s composite crime of robbery with homicide based solely
lower chest. His father then brought her to the hospital. on the testimony of Carl, a 5-year old witness whose
Carl positively identified the appellant, a neighbor who recollections could only be the product of his
often goes to their house, as the one who stabbed his imagination. On July 23, 2010, however, the CA, giving
mother. On cross-examination, he related that the credence to the child witness, and opining that his
assailant took money from his father’s pocket. He inconsistencies did not discredit his testimony, affirmed
likewise admitted that he did not see very well the the conviction of the appellant.
perpetrator because there was no light. Upon being
asked by the trial court, Carl stated that although there ISSUES: W/N the adverse testimony of the 5-year old
was no light when his mother was stabbed, he was sure Carl, being filled with inconsistencies, was credible.
of what he saw since there was light at their second
floor, which illumined the ground floor through the HELD:
stairway. Insp. Marquez, who autopsied the body,
related that the cause of the victim’s death was The most important task of the State in the successful
hemorrhagic shock due to stab wound. The wound was prosecution of the accused is his credible and competent
located at the epigastric region, measuring 2.8 x 0.5 cm, identification as the perpetrator of the crime. Hence,
4 cm from left of the anterior midline, 13 cm deep, this appeal turns on whether or not the identification of
directed posterior and upward, piercing the right the appellant as the perpetrator of the robbery with
ventricle of the hear t, thoracic aorta and lower lobe of homicide was credible and competent considering that
the left lung. Next to testify was Dennis, husband of the the identifying witness was Carl, a 5-year old lad, whose
victim. He narrated that he and the victim were married sole testimony positively pointed to and incriminated the
for nine years before the incident and that they have appellant as the person who had entered their home,
four children: Monica, 11 years old; Mary Joy, 9 years robbed the family, and killed his mother.
old; Carl, 5 years old; and Cherry Ann, 7 months old. At
about 9 p.m. on October 21, 2003, he and his wife were The qualification of a person to testify rests on the
sleeping downstairs in their sala, with their baby, while ability to relate to others the acts and events witnessed.
their other children slept upstairs. Their sala measures 3 Towards that end, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court makes
by 3 meters. At around 2 a.m., his son Carl woke up clear who may and may not be witnesses in judicial
crying and went downstairs to sleep with them. Fifteen proceedings, to wit:
to thirty minutes later, he heard someone shout
“magnanakaw!” [H]e turned on the light and saw that Section 20. Witnesses; their qualifications. – Except as
their door was open. He got their bolo and ran outside. provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who
When he did not see anybody, he returned and heard can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their
his wife moaning. He embraced and carried her and saw perception to others, may be witnesses.
blood on her back. He shouted for help and his brother-
in law helped him bring the victim to the hospital where Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of
she eventually died. He spent P23,000.00 for the funeral the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise
and P44,500.00 for the wake and burial. On cross- provided by law, shall not be a ground for
examination, he admitted that he has no personal disqualification. (l8 a)
knowledge as to who stabbed his wife since he did not
actually see the perpetrator and that it was his son who Section 21. Disqualification by reason of mental
saw the appellant. Sharon, sister-in-law of the victim, incapacity or immaturity. – The following persons cannot
testified that she and her husband were sleeping be witnesses:
(a) Those whose mental condition, at the time of their PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NGANO SUGAN,
production for examination, is such that they are G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011
incapable of intelligently making known their perception
to others; Facts:
At around 6:45 p.m. of February 8, 1998, Gaga, Saligo,
(b) Children whose mental maturity is such as to render Ngano Sugan, Nga Ben Latam and one alias Francing,
them incapable of perceiving the facts respecting which all armed with guns, entered Fortunato Delos Reyes’
they are examined and of relating them truthfully. (19a) residence Surallah, South Cotabato, and declared a hold
up. Kamison and Cosme Latam stayed outside and acted
As the rules show, anyone who is sensible and aware of as lookouts.
a relevant event or incident, and can communicate such
awareness, experience, or observation to others can be Once inside, the armed men ordered Fortunato, his wife,
a witness. Age, religion, ethnicity, gender, educational Thelma, and their son, Nestor, to drop to the floor. The
attainment, or social status are not necessary to qualify armed men inquired from them where the money and
a person to be a witness, so long as he does not other valuables were hidden; thereafter, they took cash,
possess any of the disqualifications as listed the rules. personal belongings, and an air gun. Ngano then
The generosity with which the Rules of Court allows brought Nestor outside the house, and shot him. Reggie,
people to testify is apparent, for religious beliefs, another son of Fortunato, rushed to the scene, but
interest in the outcome of a case, and conviction of a Kamison and Cosme prevented him from entering the
crime unless otherwise provided by law are not grounds house by pointing a knife and a gun at him, respectively.
for disqualification. Thereafter, all the seven (7) armed men fled together.
Nestor was rushed to the hospital, but died due to
That the witness is a child cannot be the sole reason for multiple gunshot wounds.
disqualification. The dismissiveness with which the
testimonies of child witnesses were treated in the past Issue:
has long been erased. Under the Rule on Examination of Whether conspiracy is attendant to the crime thereby
a Child Witness (A.M. No. 004-07-SC 15 December holding guilty all the accused as principals of robbery
2000), every child is now presumed qualified to be a with homicide although they did not take part in the
witness. To rebut this presumption, the burden of proof homicide.
lies on the party challenging the child’s competency.
Only when substantial doubt exists regarding the ability Held:
of the child to perceive, remember, communicate, Yes. While it was only Ngano who shot Nestor, the
distinguish truth from falsehood, or appreciate the duty appellants were found liable for robbery with homicide.
to tell the truth in court will the court, motu proprio or Case law establishes that whenever homicide has been
on motion of a party, conduct a competency committed by reason of or on the occasion of the
examination of a child. robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery
The appellant did not object to Carl’s competency as a with homicide although they did not take part in the
witness. He did not attempt to adduce evidence to homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent
challenge such competency by showing that the child the killing.
was incapable of perceiving events and of
communicating his perceptions, or that he did not Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an
possess the basic qualifications of a competent witness. agreement concerning the commission of a felony and
After the Prosecution terminated its direct examination decide to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from
of Carl, the appellant extensively tested his direct the acts of the accused – before, during and after the
testimony on cross-examination. All that the Defense did commission of the crime – which indubitably point to
was to attempt to discredit the testimony of Carl, but and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action
not for once did the Defense challenge his capacity to and community of interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is
distinguish right from wrong, or to perceive, or to not required that there be an agreement for an
communicate his perception to the trial court. appreciable period prior to the occurrence of the offense;
Consequently, the trial judge favorably determined the it is sufficient that at the time of its commission, the
competency of Carl to testify against the appellant.The malefactors had the same purpose and were united in
appellant points to inconsistencies supposedly incurred its execution.
by Carl. That is apparently not disputed. However, it
seems clear that whatever inconsistencies the child The foregoing circumstances prove beyond reasonable
incurred in his testimony did not concern the principal doubt that the appellants acted in concert to attain a
occurrence or the elements of the composite crime common purpose. The evidence does not show that any
charged but related only to minor and peripheral of the appellants sought to avert the killing of Nestor. As
matters. As such, their effect on his testimony was in People of the Philippines v. Nonoy Ebet, it was ruled
negligible, if not nil, because the inconsistencies did not that once conspiracy is shown, the act of one is the act
negate the positive identification of the appellant as the of all. The precise extent or modality of participation of
perpetrator.
each of them becomes secondary, since all the when such point to a joint design and community of
conspirators are principals. interest. The appellants’ actions showed that they had
the same objective to kidnap and detain the Chiong
People vs. Larrañaga sisters. The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that
G.R. Nos. 138874-75. February 3, 2004 the appellants indeed conspired in the commission of
the crimes charged.
FACTS: 2) Yes. The rule is that when the law provides a single
On the night of July 16, 1997, victims Marijoy and penalty for two or more component offenses, the
Jacqueline Chiong failed to come home on the expected resulting crime is called a special complex crime. Article
time. Two days after, a young woman was found dead 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section
at the foot of a cliff. Her pants were torn, her t-shirt was 8 of R.A. 7659, provides that in the crime of kidnapping
raised up to her breast and her bra was pulled down. and serious illegal detention, when the victim is killed or
Her face and neck were covered with masking tape and dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or is
attached to her left wrist was a handcuff. The woman subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
was identified as Marijoy. After almost ten months, maximum penalty shall be imposed. Thus, the resulting
accused Davidson Rusia surfaced and admitted before crime will change from complex crime to special
the police having participated in the abduction of the complex crime. In the present case, the victims were
sisters. He identified appellants Francisco Juan raped and subjected to dehumanizing acts. Thus, the
Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto Court held that all the appellants were guilty of the
Caño, Ariel Balansag, James Anthony Uy, and James special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
Andrew Uy as co-perpetrators in the crime. Rusia detention with homicide and rape in the case where
provided the following before the trial court: Marijoy is the victim; and simple kidnapping and serious
1) That at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, he met illegal detention in the case of Jacqueline.
Rowen and Josman and told him to ride with them in a 3) Yes. Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code provides
white car. Following them were Larrañaga, James that by reason of minority, the imposable penalty to the
Anthony and James Andrew who were in a red car. offender is one degree lower than the statutory penalty.
Josman stopped the white car in front of the waiting James Anthony was only 16 years old when the crimes
shed where the sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline were were committed. As penalty for the special complex
standing and forced them to ride the car. Rusia taped crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
their mouths while Rowen handcuffed them jointly. homicide and rape is death, the correct penalty to be
2) That after stopping by a safe house, the group imposed should be reclusion perpetua. On the other
thereafter headed to the South Bus Terminal where they hand, the penalty for simple kidnapping and serious
met Alberto and Ariel, and hired the white van driven by illegal detention is reclusion perpetua to death. One
the former. They traveled towards south of Cebu City, degree lower from the said penalty is reclusion temporal.
leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal. There being no aggravating and mitigating circumstance,
3) That after parking their vehicles near a precipice, the penalty to be imposed on him should be reclusion
they drank and had a pot session. Later, they started to temporal in its medium period. Applying the
rape Marijoy inside the vehicle, and thereafter raped Indeterminate Sentence Law, he should be sentenced to
Jaqueline. suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years of prision mayor
4) That Josman instructed Rowen and Ariel to bring in its maximum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17)
Marijoy to the cliff and push her into the ravine. years of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as
The claims of Rusia were supported by other witnesses. maximum. With regard to the rest of the appellants, the
He was discharged as an accused and became a state statutory penalty as provided above should be imposed.
witness. Still, the body of Jacqueline was never found. Therefore, trial court erred in merely imposing “two (2)
The trial court found the other appellants guilty of two reclusion perpetua”.
crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention and
sentenced each of them to suffer the penalties of two (2)
reclusion perpetua. The appellants assailed the said People v. Bacyaan
decision, arguing inter alia, that court erred in finding G.R. No. 238457
that there was conspiracy. James Anthony was also September 18, 2019
claimed to be only 16 years old when the crimes were
committed. FACTS:
ISSUES: The RTC and CA convicted Jojo Bacyaan y Sabaniya,
1) Whether or not there was conspiracy. Ronnie Fernandez y Gonzales and Ryan Guevarra y
2) Whether or not the trial court erred in characterizing Sipria for the crime of Robbery with Homicide under Art.
the crime. 294 (1) of the RPC. Giovanni Cuadro testified that on
3) Whether or not the trial court erred imposing the May 31, 2017 he boarded the JMK bus along Ayala
correct penalty. Avenue, Makati City. When the bus reached EDSA, 6
men armed with guns and a grenade, declared a hold-
HELD: up. He identified Bacyaan as the one who announced
1) Yes. Conspiracy may be deduced from the mode and the hold-up. Thereafter, appellants grabbed a passenger
manner by which the offense was perpetrated, or may to use as a shield. They saw a Mitsubishi Adventure van
be inferred from the acts of the accused themselves, and boarded it and took the NLEX for an exit route.
 WN there is proof beyond reasonable doubt that
ISSUE: appellant is guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide,
Whether or not the CA correctly convicted the accused- attended by the aggravating circumstances of
appellants employment of disguise and abuse of superior strength.

HELD: Held:
Yes. It is settled that “when the decision hinges on the
credibility of witnesses and their respective testimonies, Appellants were properly convicted of robbery with
the trial court’s observations and conclusion deserve homicide. Concerning the legal characterization of the
great respect and are often accorded finality,” unless it crime, the Court finds that its proper designation is not
appears that the lower courts had overlooked, robbery with homicide and frustrated homicide, as
misunderstood or misappreciated some fact or inaccurately labelled by the prosecution and unwittingly
circumstance of weight, which, if properly considered, adopted by the trial court, but is simply one of robbery
would alter the result of the case. Elements for robber with homicide. It has been jurisprudentially settled that
with homicide are as follows: 1.) the taking of personal the term homicide in Article 294, paragraph 1, of the
property belonging to another 2.) with intent to gain or Revised Penal Code is to be used in its generic sense, to
animus lucrandi 3.) with the use of violence or embrace not only acts that result in death, but all other
intimidation against a person 4.) on the occasion or by acts producing any bodily injury short of death. It is
reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in thus characterized as such regardless of the number of
its generic sense, was committed. homicides committed and the physical injuries inflicted.

We also agree with the CA when it corrected the trial

People vs VALLAR court’s appreciation of the aggravating circumstances
GR No. 196256, 2016; December 5, 2016 present at that time. While both lower courts properly
appreciated the aggravating circumstance of
Facts: employment of disguise, the commission of a crime by a
band was not established because only Willy, Danny and
According to the prosecution, the robbery incident Oracleo were proven to have carried arms. Nevertheless,
occurred around seven o’clock in the evening of 21 June the CA properly appreciated the aggravating
1989. At the time, Cipriano Opiso was sitting on a bench circumstance of superior strength, considering the
alongside the store of Eufracio Bagabaldo, when the number of malefactors and the kind of weapons used in
following persons arrived, all wearing masks: Willy, facilitating the commission of the crime.
Danny, Oracleo and Edgardo. Willy pointed his M14 rifle
to the left side of the body of Opiso and said, “Don’t
move because this is a robbery.” The latter managed to PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs.
stand up, hold the muzzle of the gun and raise it JEFFREY MACARANAS y FERNANDEZ, Accused-
upward, after which it exploded hitting the top of his Appellant
head. Opiso continued to grapple for possession of the G.R. No. 226846
rifle and, in the process, unmasked Willy. Suddenly, Facts:
accused Oracleo moved toward Opiso and stabbed the • Frank Karim Langaman and his girlfriend Kathlyn Irish
latter in the stomach. Willy pushed Opiso, who fell to Mae Cervantes were at Meyland Village, Meycauayan,
the bench, pleading “Do not kill me because I will die Bulacan, aboard Frank's motorcycle.
with this wound already.” Willy and Danny left Opiso
and proceeded into the store. Edgardo and Oracleo • When they were about to leave the place, 2 men
remained on the roadside and served as lookouts. suddenly approached them, followed by a third man
Once inside, Danny and Willy pointed their weapons at who was earlier standing at a post.
the spouses Eufracio and Pedrita Bagabaldo. Danny fired
his pistol into the air and declared, “Money, this is a • One of the three men held Frank by the neck and shot
robbery.” Meanwhile, Pedrita begged for their lives and Frank causing the latter to fall down. The same man
placed P15,000 cash on the table upon which Danny put pointed his gun at Kathlyn and demanded that she give
the cash inside a bag. him her cellphone. After Kathlyn gave her cellphone, the
same man hit her on the back.
RTC found Willy, Danny, Oracleo, and Edgardo guilty of
the crime of robbery with homicide and frustrated • Thereafter, Kathlyn pretended to be unconscious and
homicide attended by the aggravating circumstance of saw that the men searched the body of Frank for any
employment of disguise and commission of the crime by valuables. While the incident was taking place, the
a band. CA found accused-appellants guilty of the crime second man took Frank's motorcycle, while the third
of robbery with homicide only, attended by the man, herein appellant, just stood to guard them and
aggravating circumstances of employment of disguise acted as the look-out.
and abuse of superior strength.
• Afterwards, the three men left together riding Frank's
Issue: motorcycle. It was then that Kathlyn was able to seek
help and Frank was taken to the hospital.
 intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things;
• Eventually, Frank died and
4) That the offender intends to gain from the taking of
• Information was then filed against appellant, Richard the vehicle
Lalata and a certain John Doe charging them of violation
of R.A. No. 6539, In this particular case, all the elements are present as
the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution
• Appellant pleaded "not guilty" during his arraignment show that there were two (2) men both wearing jackets
and after the pre-trial ended, the trial ensued. and bonnets, together with the appellant who
approached the victim and the witness Kathlyn and
• The RTC, in its decision, found appellant guilty beyond employed force and intimidation upon them and
reasonable doubt of the offense charged and disposed thereafter forcibly took the victim's motorcycle and then
the case shot the victim on the neck causing his death.

• On appeal, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC

with modification – increased the indemnity for the
death of Frank, increased the damages and indicated
that the damages shall earn 6% interest per annum

• Hence, the present appeal.

Issue: WON Macaranas is guilty of the crime of

Carnapping? YES

Held:
R.A. No. 6539, or the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972, as
amended, defines carnapping as the taking, with intent
to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without
the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation against persons, or by using force upon
things Three amendments have been made to the
original Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act: (1) the
penalty of life imprisonment was changed to reclusion
perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3) the change
of the phrase "in the commission of the carnapping" to
"in the course of the commission of the carnapping or
on the occasion thereof" This third amendment clarifies
the law's intent to make the offense a special complex
crime, by way of analogy vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 to 4 of
the Revised Penal Code on robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons. Thus, under the last clause of
Section 14 of the Anti-Carnapping Act, the prosecution
has to prove the essential requisites of carnapping and
of the homicide or murder of the victim, and more
importantly, it must show that the original criminal
design of the culprit was carnapping and that the killing
was perpetrated "in the course of the commission of the
carnapping or on theoccasion thereof" Consequently,
where the elements of carnapping are not proved, the
provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act would cease to be
applicable and the homicide or murder (if proven) would
be punishable under the Revised Penal Code.

Thus, the elements of carnapping as defined and

penalized under R.A. No. 6539, as amended are the
following:

1) That there is an actual taking of the vehicle;

2) That the vehicle belongs to a person other than the
offender himself;
3) That the taking is without the consent of the owner
thereof; or that the taking was committed by means of
violence against or