People of the Philippines vs.

Floro Barcela

G.R. No. 208760 April 23, 2014

Mendoza, J.:

Facts:

The victims AAA and BBB lived with stepfather Barcela in one room together with
their mother, grandmother and step-sister. In 2002, the accused had carnal knowledge
of AAA, who was only 7 years old and threatened her not to tell anyone otherwise he
would kill her. In 2004, 14 years old BBB also suffered similar assault. Prior to 2004, BBB
testified that the accused had been regularly touching her private part. The RTC found
the accused guilty with the crime of Rape, violation of Article 266-A in relation to R.A.
7610 and violation of R.A. 7610 (Acts of Lasciviousness). The decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Whether or not the circumstance of relationship can be considered as an

ordinary aggravating circumstance to increase the imposable penalty?

Ruling:

No, Barcela being the common-law husband of BBB’s mother cannot be

considered as an ordinary aggravating circumstance. While it is true that the alternative
circumstance of relationship is always aggravating in crimes against chastity, regardless
of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree of the offended party, it
is only taken into consideration under Article 15 of the Revised Penal Code “when the
offended party is the spouse, ascendant, descendant, legitimate, natural or adopted
brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.” The
relationship between Barcela and BBB is not covered by any of the relationships
mentioned. The Supreme Court affirms with modification considering that no
aggravating or mitigating circumstance is present, the penalty should be imposed in its
medium period.
 People of the Philippines vs. Joel Abat

G.R. No. 202704 April 2, 2014

Leonardo – De Castro, J.:

Facts:

On September 2001, 15 years old AAA was home with her family when her uncle
Abat brought her to the town to buy some medicine. Instead of taking her home, the
accused drove the tricycle to Malayas Bridge where he forced her to jump from the
bridge. She ran and shouted for help but the accused chased her and forced her to
board the vehicle. The accused brought her to her grandfather’s nipa hut where he
undressed AAA, the latter tried to fight back but she was slapped and punched by the
former. He successfully had carnal knowledge of AAA and he threatened to kill her
family if she reported. She kept silent not until November 2001 when the accused
forced her to go to his house, thus, in the evening, she informed her parents about the
rape incident. Because of rape, AAA gave birth to a baby girl. The RTC found the accused
guilty with the crime of rape. It was affirmed by the CA, modifying only the award of
damages.

Issue:

Whether or not the circumstance of minority and relationship can be considered

as an aggravating circumstance?

Ruling:

Yes, both minority of AAA and her relationship to Abat were sufficiently alleged in
the Information and proved by the prosecution. The accused should be convicted of
qualified rape under Article 266-B of the RPC. However, in view of the provisions of
Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, is the proper penalty to be imposed.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the decision of the CA.
 People of the Philippines vs. Erwin Lalog

G.R. No. 196753 April 21, 2014

Del Castillo, J.:

Facts:

Gain, Mercado, Rey and Manzo were strolling at the Park when they were
blocked by four men, the group of Lalog. The latter angrily talked to Gain but his friend
Mercado intervened and apologized. Gain was being ganged up by the group of the
accused while Mercado who feared for his life fled the scene but returned after the
defendants left. He brought the victim to the hospital but was declared dead on arrival.
The accused admitted stabbing victim on self-defense while his three companions
denied involvement. The RTC found the four accused guilty as principals of the crime of
murder qualified by treachery. The CA affirmed the full decision of the RTC. Hence, this
appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the appellate court erred in disregarding Lalog’s claim of self-
defense?

Ruling:

No, the appellate court properly sentenced the accused. To avail of self-defense
as a justifying circumstance so as not to incur any criminal liability, it must be proved
with certainty by satisfactory and convincing evidence which excludes any vestige of
criminal aggression on the part of the person invoking it. The fact that the deceased was
not armed all the more negates self-defense. The appeal is dismissed. The Supreme
Court affirmed with modification, sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
 People of the Philippines vs. Hermenigildo Delen

G.R. No. 194446 April 21, 2014

Leonardo – De Castro, J.:

Facts:

12 years old AAA was the child of the accused Delen. Her parents were
separated, she lived with her aunt until her father took her in. On January 17, 2005, the
accused had carnal knowledge of AAA against her will and threatened to cut her tongue
and kill her if she reported the incident. Few days later, the accused violently struck
AAA’s head with a hammer, kicked her and smashed her head on a wooden post causing
her physical injuries. The RTC found the accused guilty with the crimes of child abuse
under Section 10 (a), Article 6 of RA 6710 and Qualified Rape under Article 266-A,
paragraph 1 in relation to Article 266-B of the RPC. The CA affirmed the decisions. Delen
seeks reversal through this petition.

Issue:

Whether or not the RTC and CA erred in convicting Delen of Child Abuse and
Rape?

Ruling:

No, the RTC and CA did not err in convicting the accused. Under Section 3(b),
Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, the term "child abuse" is defined as the maltreatment
of a child, whether habitual or not, which includes the physical abuse of a child, among
other acts. In this case, AAA positively identified the accused-appellant as the person
who kicked her in the buttocks, hit her head with a hammer, and smashed her head on
the wall. With regards to rape, the RTC found credible and convincing AAA’s testimony
which was corroborated by medical findings, the "eloquent testimony of the victim,
coupled with the medical findings attesting to her non-virgin state, should be enough to
confirm the truth of her charges." The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications as to
penalties.
 People of the Philippines vs. Sonny Gatarin and Eduardo Quisayas

G.R. No. 198022 April 7, 2014

Peralta, J.:

Facts:

A witness saw Juanario Castillo being mauled by two men, who later on were
running away. Two policemen were patrolling when they met the two men, they chased
them but were unsuccessful in catching them. Then they saw the victim lying on the
street, severely injured. On their way to the hospital, they asked the victim who hurt
him and he said it was Jay-R Gatarin and his uncle Quisayas stabbed him and took his
wallet. He obtained fatal wounds causing his death. The RTC found the accused guilty of
robbery with homicide. The CA found the accused guilty of robbery with murder.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior

strength which attended the commission of the crime?

Ruling:

Yes, the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength attended the

commission of the crime. Two assailants younger than the victim, armed with a bladed
weapon and inflicting multiple mortal wounds on the victim, there is definitely abuse of
superior strength deliberately taken advantage of by appellant and his co-accused in
order to consummate the offense. Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code provides:
Murder. – Any person who, not falling within the provisions of article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion perpetua to death
if committed with any of the following attendant circumstances: 1. With treachery,
taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means
to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity. The
Supreme Court modify the decision and find the accused guilty with the crime of
Murder.
 People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Abaigar

G.R. No. 199442 April 7, 2014

Del Castillo, J.:

Facts:

Gabuya was opening the front door of his house when the appellant Abaigar shot
him from behind hitting at the back of his head causing his death. The appellant claims
that he returned to sleep immediately after hearing bursts of gunshots near his house
and his disavowal of any knowledge about the death of Gabuya whose house is just 30
arms length away from his house. The RTC found Abaigar guilty with the crime of
murder. It was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals.

Issue:

Whether or not treachery attended the commission of the crime of murder?

Ruling:

Yes, treachery attended the commission of the crime. The victim was about to
enter his house when he was shot from behind by the appellant. Considering the
qualifying circumstance of treachery, appellant was correctly found guilty of murder;
there being no aggravating circumstance other than the qualifying circumstance of
treachery, both the trial court and the appellate court correctly sentenced appellant to
reclusion perpetua pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. However, he is
not eligible for parole. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the CA with
modifications as to damages.
 People of the Philippines vs. Roy San Gaspar

G.R. No. 180496 April 2, 2014

Del Castillo, J.:

Facts:

Imelda and her two children Joramel and Cherme were already fast asleep when
her husband Roy San Gaspar returned home and pounded their front door. He was mad
because nobody immediately opened the door for him and got even more furious when
he entered the house and saw Imelda sleeping side-by-side with their grown-up
children. He kicked her on the leg while she was still lying on the floor and started a
heated altercation between them. The accused went upstairs and returned with a
shotgun. He shot Imelda on the head and in front of their children. The RTC found the
accused guilty with the crime of Parricide. The CA affirmed with modification as to
damages.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of Parricide?

Ruling:

Yes, the accused is guilty of the crime of Parricide. Under Article 246 of the RPC,
any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. The
appellate court correctly observed that anent the relationship of the accused and the
victim as legitimate husband and wife has been sufficiently established by the San
Gaspar’s admission and by a copy of their Marriage Certificate presented during trial.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications that the accused is not eligible for
parole and the award of exemplary damages is increased.
 People of the Philippines vs. Rodrigo Gutierez

G.R. No. 208007 April 2, 2014

Leonen, J.:

Facts:

AAA, a 10-year old Grade 2 student went home from school when she met the
accused Gutierez. He brought her to his room, removed her panties and inserted his
penis into her vagina and stayed on top of her for a long time then white liquid came
out. He gave her 5 pesos before going back the school. AAA being tardy was asked by
her teacher and she told her that she came from “Uncle Rod” to ask for money. She was
brought to the principal where her panties were inspected and it was confirmed that
she was touched as her organ was swelling. AAA disclosed during trial that the accused
had done the same to her about 10 times on separate occasions, and after each act, he
would give her 10 or 5 pesos.

Issue:

Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused-appellant was guilty of statutory rape?

Ruling:

Yes, the victim was only 10 years old and her consent is immaterial due to
presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. Under the RPC, statutory rape is
committed when (1) the offended party is under 12 years of age and (2) the accused has
carnal knowledge of her. It is enough that the age of the victim is proven and that there
was sexual intercourse. The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications as to damages.
 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Lujeco

G.R. No. 198059 April 7, 2014

Del Castillo, J.:

Facts:

In the morning of June 29, 2002, 7-year old AAA was playing with her friends near
the old market which was about 20 meters away from her house. After her playmates
left, the accused Antonio Lujeco grabbed her and dragged her to the house of his
granddaughter which was located nearby. He undressed her, poked a knife at her and
had carnal knowledge of her and told her to go home after satisfying his lust. The RTC
found the accused guilty of the crime of rape. The decision was affirmed by the CA.
Hence this appeal.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime of rape?

Ruling:

Yes, it is clear that the appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim who was
under twelve (12) years old. AAA’s testimony was corroborated by the medical findings.
Under Article 266-A of the RPC, “The elements of [statutory rape] are: (1) that the
accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of
age or is demented.”[27] In this case, the prosecution satisfactorily established that
appellant had carnal knowledge of “AAA.” It was also established beyond reasonable
doubt that “AAA” was below 12 years of age. The appeal is dismissed. The decision of CA
is affirmed with modifications that the accused is not eligible for parole.
 People of the Philippines vs. Rene Santiago

G.R. No. 196970 April 2, 2014

Del Castillo, J.:

Facts:

Rene Santiago was charged with two counts of rape. The incidents happened on
December 25, 2004 and January 21, 2005. The victim AAA testified that during the first
rape incident, the accused threatened to hurt her if she would report the incident to
anyone. As regards the second rape incident, “AAA” declared that accused
consummated the dastardly act by pointing an “ice pick” at her. Both the RTC and CA
found the accused guilty of simple rape. The victim was 13 years old when the rape
incidents happened, as her Certificate of Birth showed that she was born on March 10,
1991.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime committed is statutory rape?

Ruling:

No, the crime committed is simple rape. As stated in the RPC, “The elements of
statutory rape are: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) that
the woman is below 12 years of age. The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications
that the accused is not eligible for a parole and the amount of exemplary damages is
increased to 30,000 for each case.