People vs.

Sultan
GR. 132470; April 27, 2000
Second Division | Bellosillo J.
FACTS
On June 2, 1997, around 9:00 in the evening, Juditha Bautista was on her way home from
visiting her cousin when she was accosted by the accused Fernando Sultan. Fernando pointed
a sharp instrument at her neck and told her that this was a hold-up. Fearing for her life, she let
him grab and bring her to his house. Through intimidation and her fear for her life, she was
robbed and twice raped.

After the second rape, he told her he loved her and in her effort to release herself, she agreed
to elope with him. Convinced, Fernando let her go home to get her things. She then went to her
cousin, Antonette and narrated everything that happened. Antonette then called her brother
SPO1 Bautista who advised Juditha to continue with the elopement so that he and his
companions could stage an arrest. This went successful and Fernando was apprehended.

On June 5, 1997, Fernando was charged with the complex crime of robbery and rape but he
merely brushed this aside as simply sex between consenting adults. On June 5, 1998, the trial
court found him guilty on the charge against him and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua as
well as actual and moral damage.

Fernando then appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that there is no convincing proof that
he is guilty of the crime charged.

ISSUES. HELD. RATIO DECIDENDI.
Whether or not a sole witness testimony could give Fernando guilty of the crimes charged
against him. YES. Judithas testimony about the robbery is evidence enough to sustain a
conviction since there is no finding of fault to assail her testimonys credibility. As to rape,
even if it was also only her testimony, it is held that credibility of witnesses is accorded the
highest respect and weight by the appellate courts. It is normally sustained unless evidence
proves otherwise, in which the case at bar, did not.

Whether or not there was consent to the sex. NO. Lack of resistance despite lack of threat is not
a basis for consent. There was intimidation involved that was sufficient enough to make
complainant (Judithat) submit herself for fear of life and personal safety.

[MAIN] Whether or not his penalty will increase due to the multitude of rape he
committed against her. NO. Although it should be noted that there are different rulings on
various similar cases on whether or not additional rapes would appreciate the penalty, the
Court realized there was no law providing that additional rape (or homicide) will be
considered as aggravating circumstances.

Aggravating circumstances are enumerated under Art. 14 of the RPC exclusively, so much
that what is not on the list is not considered aggravating. This is different compared to
mitigating circumstances enumerated under Art. 13 of the RPC where analogous cases may be
considered.

Thus, until a law is passed providing that additional rap is considered an aggravating
circumstance, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the accused
(Fernando). No person may be brought with a penal laws terms if he is not clearly
made so by the statute.

RULING
We find Fernando GUILTY of the special complex crime of robbery with rape, sentencing him
to reclusion perpetua, to pay Juditha Php 50,000 for moral damage, Php 5,180 for actual
damages represented from the valuables taken from her, Php 130 for the cash taken from her
and Php 50,000 for civil indemnity.


People vs Valdez
GR. 127663; March 11, 1999
En Banc | Melo, J.
FACTS
On September 17, 1995, around 8:00 in the evening, William, Randy, Jean, Willie,
Sandra, and Ramon were at the house of Randy in Manaoag, Pangasinan, discussing
how to go to a wedding party in Sitio Cabaoangan. After discussion, they rode in a
tricycle going to Cabaoangan with their position as follows:
Driver: Ramon
Back riders: Willy and Randy
Inside: Jean, Sandra and William
After making a turn, they met Valdez and his companions who were armed with guns.
This they recognized the faces because the tricycles headlight flashed on the faces of
the culprits. Without warning, they were fired at, then left by the accused thinking that
all of them were dead. Of the assault, Ramon, Jean, Willy and Sandra died while
William and Randy sustained fatal injuries.

The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of Multiple Murder with Double
Frustrated Murder (Art. 248, 48 and 6 of RPC, penalized under RA 7659) and Illegal
Possession of Firearms and Ammunitions (PD 1866). The trial court subsequently
found them guilty and was sentenced to DEATH by Lethal Injection (RA 8177) and
payment of indemnity to the heirs of the 4 deceased and actual and moral damages to
all 6 victims. The trial also found them guilty for possession of Illegal firearms and
sentenced them to RECLUSION PERPETUA.

Valdez then filed an appeal to the Supreme Court for reversal of judgment based on
the following arguments:

ISSUES. HELD. RATIO DECIDENDI.
Whether or not the trial court did not consider allegedly material, substantial,
important and significant discrepancies between affidavits of the witness, William
Montano:
William identified Bernardo Castro as the one who flagged down the tricycle in
his statement taken while he was at the hospital. However, in his testimony
during the trial, he identified Rolando Valdez as the one who flagged the tricycle.
NO. The lack of precision in which he distinguished the people who flagged down the
tricycle and whom he recognized because of the trike headlights cannot be considered
as inconsistency.

Whether or not, following the withdrawal of case against Castro, the witnesses
accusation against appellant was doubtful. NO. There were two other companions with
Bernard Castro that was present during the crime. It was proven that the accused was
one of the two other companions. Even though the accusation against Castro was
retracted, it does not follow that his was too. His conviction stands independently of
Castros prosecution.

Whether or not motive is needed in proving him guilty of the crime. NO. Proof of motive
is only necessary when there is doubt to the identity of the accused. However, in the
case, he was positively identified.



Whether or not there was deliberate and intentional failure to present affidavits of the
investigating police officers, that if taken would merit his acquittal. NO. The evidence
the accused was asking for (Exhibit 7) was actually presented. It even confirms that
there was more than one perpetrator of the crime.

Whether or not the case falls under Complex Crimes. NO. In a Complex Crime, a single
act constitutes two or more grave felonies. In the case, the crimes of murder resulted
not from a single act (one bullet) but from several individual and distinct acts.

[MAIN] Whether or not Illegal Possession of Firearms is to be taken as an
aggravating circumstance. YES. RA 8294 states, If homicide or murder is committed
with the use of unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. This statute took effect on July 6, 1997
while the crime was committed way back in September 17, 1995. Generally, penal
statutes are given retroactive effects is it is favorable to the accused. HOWEVER, since
the original case was Complex Crime of Multiple Murder, it will only aggravate the
crime, increasing the penalty of the accused. Hence, it is not beneficial to him and is
not given retroactive application.

DISPOSITIVE
Decision is MODIFIED. Found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of four counts of
murder and hereby sentenced to suffer FOUR SENTENCES OF RECLUSION PERPETUA.
Also found guilty of two counts of frustrated murder and hereby sentenced to two
indeterminate sentences, each, ranging from 6 YEARS AND 1 DAY OF PRISON MAYOR
(minimum) to 12 YEARS AND 1 DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL (maximum).
Case on Illegal Possession of Firearms is DISMISSED.



People vs. Formigones
GR. L-3246; November 29, 1950
Montemayor, J.
FACTS
On November 1946, Abelardo Formigones and his wife Julia Formigones was living in
his farm in Bahao in the Municipality of Sipicot, Camarines Sur together with their 5
kids. After sometime, they moved to the barrio of Abelardo's half brother, Zacarias, in
Binahian to be harvesters of palay.

On December 28, 1946, Julia was sitting on the head of the stairs when all of a sudden
she was stabbed in the right lung by Abelardo from a bolo that he got from the wall.
Abelardo picked her up after she fell from the stairs and carried her up to the living
room and laid beside her for hours until he was found. Irene Formigones, the
daughter, witnessed the stabbing.

Abelardo, in a written statement, admitted that he killed Julia due to jealousy since he
saw her in the company of his half-brother, Zacarias. He thought she was cheating on
him. During the preliminary investigation, he pleaded guilty. However, during the trial
in the CFI, he pleaded not guilty but he didn't testify. His council brought in two guards
from the prison and they said that he would run around stark naked, he would remain
silent and indifferent to his surroundings, he would sing in chorus or lame even if no
one asked him, he would refuse to take baths and clean his clothes unleashed forced,
and darted from inside into the prison compound (in an effort to escape?). He was
then found guilty of parricide and so the petition.

ISSUE. HELD. RATIO DECIDENDI.
Whether or not the defendant, Abelardo Formigones, can be regarded as an imbecile and
hence, be exempted from criminal liability pursuant to Article 12 of RPC. NO. Abelardos
action after his act was not due to imbecility, as evidenced of his normal actions before
the act (a hardworking husband and a caring father), but rather as his expression of
remorse and guilt of committing such a crime.

Whether or not mitigating circumstances are in play. YES. Pursuant to Article 13 of the
RPC, paragraphs 8 or 9, and 6 apply to the case. It should also be noted that no
aggravating circumstances were present to offset the mitigating ones.

Whether or not Article 64, paragraph 5 of RPC would apply (penalty lower than Art. 246
prescribes for parricide). NO. Article 64 applies to penalties containing three periods
while the case at hand for parricide only consists of two indivisible penalties. Instead,
it is Article 63 that applies.

DISPOSITIVE
We find the appellant guilty parricide and affirm the judgement of the lower court
with the modification that the appellant will be credited with 1/2 of any preventive
imprisonment he has undergone. Appellant will pay costs. The chief executive will
reduce the penalty next to reclusion perpetua to death (Ira said reclusion perpetua is
60 years) or execute executive clemency in the manner he sees fit.



People vs. Veneracion
GR. 119987-88; October 12, 1995
En Banc | Kapunan, J.
FACTS
On August 2, 1994, the body of Angel Alquiza, 7 years old, was found floating along Del
Pan St. in Binondo, Manila. She was seen with gaping wounds on her body (left side of
the face, left chin, left ear, lacerations on her genitalia and with her head bashed in.

On the basis of sworn statements of witnesses, the accused were: Abundio Lagunday
(dead already after attempting to shoot the police officer), Henry Lagarto, and Jeofrey
Cordero. They were charged with Rape with Homicide.

The Regional Trial Court of Manila found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and
sentenced both accused to Reclusion Perpetua. City Prosecutor of Manila filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, praying that the Decision be modified and that death
penalty be imposed against the respondents. The Judge refused to act on the merits of
the Motion, saying he had lack of jurisdiction and cannot take cognizance of the
Motion, and that Lagarto and Cordero have complied with the legal requirements for
the perfection of an appeal.

ISSUES. HELD. RATIO DECIDENDI.
Whether or not Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion acted with grave abuse of discretion and in
excess of jurisdiction when he failed and/or refused to impose the mandatory penalty of
death under RA No. 7659, after finding the accused guilty of rape with homicide? YES.
The law plainly says that under Art. 335 of the RPC, "when by reason or on the
occasion of rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death." RA 7659
punishes cases of ordinary rape with the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua, and allows
judges the discretion to impose either Reclusion Perpetua or the death penalty, but
ONLY IN THREE INSTANCES. However, the case at bar does not cover ordinary rape. It
is RAPE WITH HOMICIDE, thus leaving no room for the exercise of discretion on Judge
Veneracion's part to impose any other penalty aside from death.

This is a case where a judge, fully aware of the appropriate provisions of law, refuses
to impose a penalty to which he disagrees. In doing so, he acted without or in excess of
his jurisdiction with grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack of jurisdiction.
Rules of Court mandates that the judge should impose the PROPER penalty and civil
liability provided for by the law on the accused.

DISPOSITIVE
Petition GRANTED. The case is remanded to the RTC for the imposition of the death
penalty.



Robinson vs. California
370 US 660; June 25, 1962
Stewart, J.
FACTS
A California statute makes it a criminal offense for a person to 'be addicted to the use
of narcotics.' This appeal draws into question the constitutionality of that provision of
the state law, as construed by the California courts in the present case.

The appellant Robinson was convicted by the jury under a California statute making it
a criminal offense to be addicted to the use of narcotics. The evidence against him was
given by two Los Angeles police officers.

Officer Brown testified that he had had occasion to examine the appellant's arms one
evening on a street in Los Angeles some four months before the trial. The officer
testified that at that time he had observed 'scar tissue and discoloration on the inside'
of the appellant's right arm, and 'what appeared to be numerous needle marks and a
scab which was approximately three inches below the crook of the elbow' on the
appellant's left arm. The officer also testified that the appellant under questioning had
admitted to the occasional use of narcotics.

Officer Lindquist testified that he had examined the appellant the follow morning. The
officer stated that at that time he had observed discolorations and scabs on the
appellant's arms, and he identified photographs which had been taken of the
appellant's arms shortly after his arrest the night before. Based upon more than ten
years of experience as a member of the Narcotic Division of the Los Angeles Police
Department, the witness gave his opinion that 'these marks and the discoloration
were the result of the injection of hypodermic needles into the tissue into the vein that
was not sterile.' He stated that the scabs were several days old at the time of his
examination, and that the appellant was neither under the influence of narcotics nor
suffering withdrawal symptoms at the time he saw him.

ISSUES. HELD. RATIO DECIDENDI.
Whether or not addiction to narcotics is constitutional as a crime; thereby, convicting
the appellant guilty. NO. It is in violation of the 8th and 14th Amendment in the US
Constitution. The statute makes the status of being addicted to narcotics illegal at
any time before he reforms. Since addiction can properly be termed a disease, the
United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) likens this statute to making it a crime
to be mentally ill or to have a venereal disease. That addiction is involuntary conduct
that cannot be punished as someone like Robinson cannot stop being an addict
without medical assistance, Punishment must be for the past, not future conduct.
Being an addict implies the desire or propensity to commit punishable acts in the
future. Certainly, criminalizing having the disease would be universally thought to be
cruel and unusual punishment.

DISSENT
The Defendant was not convicted for having an illness, but rather, he was convicted
for the regular, repeated or habitual use of narcotics immediately prior to his arrest.



People vs. Sylvestre and Atienza
GR. 35748; December 14, 1931
Villa-Real, J.
FACTS
Romana Silvestre is married to Domingo Joaquin (Second marriage) but was
cohabiting with Martin Atienza in Masocol, Paombong, Bulacan since March 1930.
Domingo eventually files for adultery on May 16 1930 but after the promise from
Martin Atienza that they will discontinue cohabitation, he withdraws the complaint on
May 20.

However, Romana and Martin continue to sleep together. On November 25, Romana,
having dinner with Nicolas de la Cruz (Romanas son from her first husband), his wife,
and Martin Atienza, Atienza tells them to bring out the furniture b/c he was going to
set the house on fire. This, for the revenge against the people of Masocol for instigating
the adultery case and driving him out of Bulacan.

Martin was armed with a pistol, so no one dared to resist, even Romana. Nicolas and
wife went out to communicate what Atienza plans to do, but by that time the houses
were already on fire. An arson case was charged against Silvestre (accomplice) and
Atienza (principal).

ISSUES. HELD. RATIO DECIDENDI.
Whether or no Romana Silvestre is an accomplice to the crime. NO. Because there is no
law that punishes a person who does not report to the authorizes the commission of a
crime he witnessed, the omission to do so is not a felony. Mere passive presence at the
scene of anothers crime, mere silence and failure to give the alarm, without evidence
of agreement or conspiracy, is not punishable. Romana Silvestre is acquitted.



People vs. Talingdan
GR. L-32126; July 6, 1978
En Banc |