1. G.R No.

263344
1. What are the elements of rape? Explain.
According to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, rape can occur under various circumstances,
including the use of force, threat, or intimidation, the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious, fraudulent
machination, or when the victim is under twelve years of age or demented. These circumstances include the
perpetrator using force, threats, or intimidation to make the victim engage in sexual intercourse. It also covers
situations where the victim is unconscious or unable to think clearly, making them unable to resist. Additionally,
rape can happen through deceit or abuse of power, where the perpetrator tricks or uses their authority to coerce
the victim.

Force used against the victim of rape must be sufficient to consummate the victim's purpose of
copulating with the victim. Intimidation, including moral kind, is not considered rape unless the woman
contributes to the act. When a girl is under 12 years of age, rape is committed even if she consented to the
sexual act or is a prostitute. If the offended woman is below 12 years of age, it is always rape, considering her
mental capacity. These elements highlight the importance of consent, the presence of force or coercion, and the
protection of vulnerable individuals in the legal framework for prosecuting rape. The element of force or
coercion emphasizes that any physical violence, threats, or intimidation used to obtain sexual intercourse
constitutes rape. Additionally, the concept of consent is central; if the victim did not agree to the sexual act
freely and willingly, it is considered rape regardless of the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.
Under Republic Act No. 8353, rape can be committed by any person, male or female. For the crime to be
consummated, there must be sufficient proof of penetration, even if slight, rather than mere external contact.

2. Was the accused guilty of rape? Why or why not?

The accused was guilty of rape due to its qualification for the elements of rape, thus the court found the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and imposed appropriate penalties. According to the facts of the
case, the accused was using force, threat, and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of the complainant, a fourteen (14) year old minor, against the latter's will
and consent. All the elements of rape were done to the plaintiff therefore the court’s rulings were just because
the plaintiff was able to narrate the incidents in which the accused, through force and intimidation, inserted his
penis into her vagina when she was 14 years old at the time.

The plaintiff's testimony was found credible, and consistent on the basic elements of rape, and her
identification of the accused was corroborated by the medico-legal report showing evidence of blunt penetrating
trauma to her hymen. The defense of denial put forth by the accused was deemed weak in light of the victim's
clear and straightforward account. The Court emphasized that when the victim is of tender age, her testimony
should be given full weight, considering her vulnerability and the shame she would be exposed to if her account
was not true. Ultimately, the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt on
all charges of rape, and the Court imposed the appropriate penalties under the law.

The Court emphasized the importance of respecting a child victim's testimony in cases of sexual abuse
and highlighted the victim's clear and consistent narration of the assaults. The accused's defense of denial was
deemed weak in light of the victim's identification and the medical report corroborating her account. The Court
found that all elements of both rape offenses were present, with the victim providing detailed and consistent
testimonies of the assaults. Moreover, having sexual intercourse with a minor under 12 years old or with
someone who is mentally incapacitated is considered rape, regardless of consent. The Court underscored the
significance of a child's testimony in cases of sexual abuse, considering their vulnerability and the potential
shame they may face if their account is not believed. Additionally, the victim's testimony was supported by
medical evidence, further strengthening the case against the accused. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the
accused's guilt on all charges of rape, highlighting the importance of respecting and believing victims,
especially in cases as sensitive and serious as sexual abuse.
2. G.R No. 259986
1. What are the elements of robbery? Explain.
The meaning of robbery according to Art. 293 of the revised penal code the elements of robbery is that any
person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, employing violence
against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery. The elements of
robbery include the presence of personal property that belongs to another person. This property must be taken
unlawfully, indicating that the act is done without the owner's consent and involves a wrongful appropriation.
The taking must also be driven by an intent to gain, meaning the perpetrator aims to benefit from the act.
Furthermore, the act of taking the property must involve violence or intimidation against a person or the use of
force on things, ensuring that the victim is coerced or overpowered in the process.

2. Was the accused guilty of robbery? Why or why not?

The case involves Edward Espíritu y Bermudez, who was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in
serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries, and damage to property following a collision between
his tricycle and a passenger jeepney. Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by
Republic Act No. 10951, Espíritu was found guilty. He was sentenced to three months of arresto mayor for the
serious injuries to Ma. Theresa Borromeo and the less serious injuries to Rowena Militante. Additionally, he
was fined PHP 15,000 for the damage to Ernie Tadeo's jeepney. The court also upheld civil liabilities, ordering
Espíritu to pay PHP 3,171 as actual damages, PHP 20,000 as moral damages, and PHP 20,000 as exemplary
damages to Borromeo, with a 6% annual legal interest from the finality of the ruling until full payment.

The issue of whether Espíritu was guilty of robbery does not arise in this case. The charges and
subsequent conviction were strictly related to the consequences of a vehicular collision caused by his reckless
and intoxicated driving. Robbery involves the unlawful taking of personal property with intent to gain, which
was not an element or accusation in this incident. Therefore, Espíritu was not guilty of robbery; he was held
accountable solely for the injuries and damages resulting from his negligent driving.
3. G.R No. 238376
1. Compare and contrast theft and qualified theft.
Theft and qualified theft, both defined in the Revised Penal Code, involve the unlawful taking of another's
personal property but differ in circumstances and penalties. According to Article 308, theft occurs when
someone, with the intent to gain, takes another's property without using violence, intimidation, or force, and
without the owner's consent. Qualified theft, however, includes specific aggravating factors that warrant harsher
penalties. These factors include the crime being committed by a domestic servant, involving a grave abuse of
confidence, or the stolen property being large cattle, coconuts, or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery.
Consequently, qualified theft is punished by penalties one degree higher than those for simple theft, reflecting
the increased severity of the crime due to these aggravating circumstances.

2. Was the accused guilty of qualified theft? Why or why not?

Yes, the accused was found guilty of qualified theft. The court determined that the petitioner, who worked as a
housemaid for the private complainant Kathleen M. Encomienda, unlawfully took $3,000 from an unlocked
cabinet in Encomienda's master bedroom. The court based its decision on several pieces of circumstantial
evidence, such as the petitioner's exclusive access to the house, her sudden departure under false pretenses, and
the discovery of two $100 bills in her possession. The petitioner's denial and claim that she was coerced into
confessing were deemed insufficient to refute the presumption of her guilt.

The intent to gain, an essential element of theft, was presumed from the unlawful taking and was further
supported by the stipulated fact of the petitioner having the $200 bills. Although her extrajudicial confession
was inadmissible, the possession of the stolen money bolstered the case against her. Under the amended penal
provisions of Republic Act No. 10951, the court modified her sentence to four years, two months, and one day
of prision correccional to nine years, four months, and one day of prision mayor. The petitioner was also
ordered to pay the remaining stolen amount of $2,800 plus interest. Thus, the court affirmed her guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for the crime of qualified theft.

The court's decision was grounded in the application of both the circumstantial evidence and the legal
presumptions under the Revised Rules on Evidence. The petitioner had access to the master's bedroom where
the money was kept and was found in possession of a portion of the stolen amount shortly after the theft. Her
inconsistent statements and behavior, such as not returning to work and avoiding contact with Encomienda,
further implicated her. The legal presumption under Section 3(j) of Rule 131, which states that a person found in
possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is presumed to be the taker, was applied due to
the immediate discovery of the two $100 bills in the petitioner’s possession. The court also dismissed her claim
of being unable to access the money, considering the nature of her duties and the trust placed in her by the
complainant. Despite her denials and the inadmissibility of her extrajudicial confession, the weight of the
circumstantial evidence and the logical inferences drawn from her actions provided a robust foundation for the
court's ruling. Consequently, the penalty was adjusted in accordance with Republic Act No. 10951, which
redefined the penalties for theft based on the value of the stolen property, ultimately leading to her conviction
for qualified theft and the imposition of both imprisonment and restitution. This comprehensive analysis by the
court reaffirmed the principle that circumstantial evidence, when sufficiently convincing, can be as compelling
as direct evidence in establishing criminal guilt.
4. G.R No. 259986
1. Differentiate less serious physical injuries and serious physical injuries.
Serious physical injuries and less serious physical injuries are differentiated based on the severity of the
harm inflicted and its consequences. Serious physical injuries, as defined in Article 263 of the Revised Penal
Code, result in grave consequences such as insanity, impairment, or loss of bodily functions. The penalties for
serious physical injuries vary depending on the extent of the harm caused, ranging from imprisonment to arresto
mayor. For instance, if the injuries lead to insanity or severe impairment, the penalty is prisión mayor, while
imprisonment for less serious impairments is specified based on the duration of incapacity or illness.
On the other hand, less serious physical injuries, as outlined in Article 265, do not result in grave or
permanent harm but still incapacitate the victim for labor for ten days or more, requiring medical attention. The
penalty for less serious physical injuries is arresto mayor. However, if these injuries are inflicted with the intent
to insult or offend, or under circumstances that add ignominy to the offense, a fine may also be imposed in
addition to arresto mayor. Furthermore, certain aggravating circumstances, such as inflicting injuries on certain
individuals like parents, ascendants, guardians, teachers, or persons in authority, may elevate the penalty for less
serious physical injuries to prisión correctional in its minimum and medium periods. However, this provision
does not apply if the act constitutes assault upon a person in authority.

2. Was the accused guilty of less serious physical injuries and serious physical injuries? Explain.
Yes, the accused was found guilty of causing both serious and less serious physical injuries due to
reckless imprudence. This case stemmed from an incident on March 20, 2019, where the petitioner, intoxicated,
drove a tricycle and collided with a parked passenger jeepney. The collision resulted in injuries to two
passengers, Ma. Theresa Borromeo and Rowena Militante, and caused damage to the jeepney. The Municipal
Trial Court (MTC) found the petitioner guilty, sentencing him to three to four months in prison and imposing a
fine of PHP 15,000, along with damages to the victims.
Borromeo sustained serious physical injuries requiring over 30 days of medical attention, while
Militante suffered less serious physical injuries needing 15 days of medical attention. The petitioner's reckless
driving, influenced by alcohol, was the proximate cause of the accident. The MTC's decision was upheld by
both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), with the CA reducing the moral damages
awarded to Borromeo. The Supreme Court reaffirmed these findings, emphasizing that the petitioner's
intoxication led to his lack of attention while driving, directly causing the collision and subsequent injuries.
Under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, reckless
imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries warrants penalties ranging from arresto mayor in its minimum
to medium periods. For Borromeo's serious injuries, the court imposed three months of arresto mayor. In
Morales v. People, the Supreme Court clarified that quasi-crimes should be prosecuted in one charge but
penalized separately for each consequence. Applying this to the case of petitioner Edward Espíritu y Bermudez:
 1. For the serious physical injuries to Ma. Theresa Borromeo, which required over 30 days of
medical attention, the penalty under Article 365 is arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods. The court sentenced the petitioner to three months of arresto mayor.
2. For the less serious physical injuries to Rowena Militante, which required 15 days of medical
attention, the penalty is similarly arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods. The court
also sentenced the petitioner to three months of arresto mayor.
3. For the damage to Ernie Tadeo's jeepney, the court imposed a fine of PHP 15,000.

The court upheld that for Militante's less serious injuries, the same penalty was applied. Additionally, the
court fined the petitioner PHP 15,000 for the property damage. Civil liabilities included PHP 3,171 as actual
damages, PHP 20,000 as moral damages, and PHP 20,000 as exemplary damages to Borromeo, with legal
interest of 6% per annum from the finality of the ruling until full payment. The petition against these rulings
was denied, affirming the lower courts' decisions with slight modifications.
5. G.R No. 256700
1. Explain the crime of libel/online libel.
Libel, as defined under Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code, involves the public and malicious imputation of
a crime, vice, or defect, or any act or circumstance that dishonors or discredits a person. When committed
through writing, printing, or other similar means, it falls under Article 355 and is punishable by imprisonment
or a fine, or both, along with potential civil liability. Online libel, or cyber libel, involves maliciously publishing
false statements on digital platforms, damaging an individual's reputation and potentially leading to legal
penalties and civil liability.

2. Was the accused guilty of online libel? Explain.

In this case, the accused, Jomerito S. Soliman, was charged and found guilty of online libel for making
defamatory statements against Waldo R. Carpio on Facebook. Soliman's posts were deemed to have been made
with malicious intent to damage Carpio's reputation by accusing him of corruption and delays in the issuance of
sanitary and phytosanitary clearances. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found that these statements were false
and had caused significant harm to Carpio’s reputation, fulfilling the elements of online libel under Section
4(c)(4) of Republic Act No. 10175, the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.
The RTC imposed a fine of ₱50,000 on Soliman, choosing not to impose imprisonment, in line with
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008, which allows judges the discretion to impose a fine instead of
imprisonment in libel cases, considering the circumstances. The court noted that Soliman had deleted the posts
and apologized, suggesting remorse. The penalty, although challenged by the petitioner who sought a harsher
punishment, was upheld by both the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Supreme Court, which found no grave
abuse of discretion in the RTC's decision.
Ultimately, the courts affirmed that the penalty of a fine within the prescribed range for online libel was
appropriate. They clarified that under RA 10175, the penalties for online libel can include either imprisonment
or a fine, and the increase by one degree does not necessarily mandate imprisonment. The decision to impose a
fine rather than imprisonment was deemed just and in accordance with both the letter and spirit of the law,
thereby upholding Soliman's conviction and the penalty imposed.