Case # 76

Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong ,

G.R. No. 181409, February 11, 2011
October 12, 2016
by Rossville “Aeron” B. Violanta

Article 38 of Void and Voidable Marriages

Facts:

Mediatrix Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix of

petitioner intestate estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. De
Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her brother-in-law, William
Sato, a Japanese national. It was alleged that the said accused feloniously induced
Manolita Gonzales, the owner of the estate and herein deceased, to sign and thumb
mark a special power of attorney (in the pretense of presenting a document pertaining
to taxes) which authorized the sale, assignment, transfer and disposition of the latter’s
properties. In relation to this, the accused moved for the dismissal of the case.

As a defense against his arrant prosecution, the accused here applies Art 332 of the
Revised Penal Code. He cites that he falls under the enumeration of those relatives
who shall be exempt from criminal prosecution. Being a relative by affinity, he cannot
be held liable for the crime of estafa as stated in the law. He further counters that the
same law makes no distinction that the relationship may not be invoked in case of
death of spouse at the time the crime was allegedly committed. Thus, the death of his
spouse Zenaida Carungcong Sato though dissolved the marriage with the accused, did
not on the other hand dissolve the mother in-law and son-law relationship between
Sato and his wife’s mother, Manolita. He then cannot be removed from the protective
mantle of Art 332.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the death of William’s wife and Manolita’s daughter, Zenaida,
extinguished the relationship by affinity between William and Manolita.
2. Whether or not William should be exempt from criminal liability for reason of his
relationship to Manolita.

Held:

1. No. Relationship by affinity between the surviving spouse and the kindred of the
deceased spouse continues even after the death of the deceased spouse, regardless of
whether the marriage produced children or not.
2. No. The absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code only applies to
the felonies of theft, swindling and malicious mischief. Under the said provision, the
State condones the criminal responsibility of the offender in cases of theft, swindling
and malicious mischief. As an act of grace, the State waives its right to prosecute the
offender for the said crimes but leaves the private offended party with the option to
hold the offender civilly liable.

However, the coverage of Article 332 is strictly limited to the felonies mentioned
therein. The plain, categorical and unmistakable language of the provision shows that
it applies exclusively to the simple crimes of theft, swindling and malicious mischief.
It does not apply where any of the crimes mentioned under Article 332 is complexed
with another crime, such as theft through falsification or estafa through falsification.

Sato, the accused, could not avail of the beneficial application of ART 332
considering that the crime he committed falls under the nature of a complex crime
which is the crime estafa through falsification of public document and does not
anymore concern private relations of family members. He then can be held criminally
liable.
Case # 77

G.R. No. 139857 September 15, 2006

LEONILA BATULANON, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Facts:

Complainant Polomolok Credit Cooperative Incorporated (PCCI) employed Batulanon

as its Cashier/Manager. She was in charge of receiving deposits from and releasing
loans to the member of the cooperative.

During an audit conducted, certain irregularities concerning the release of loans were
discovered. Thereafter, four informations for estafa thru falsification of commercial
documents were filed against Batulanon, the amounts of which ranges from P3,500 to
P5,000. Batulanon even made it appear in one of the cases that the payee had
deposited a fixed deposit so that she could avail of the loan.

Batulanon herself forges the signatures on the documents and makes it appear that the
payees received the loans when in fact said persons were never granted a loan, never
received the same, and never signed the Cash/Check voucher issued in their names.

Issue:

Won petitioner may be convicted of estafa thru falsification of commercial documents.

Held:

No. Although the offense charged in the information is estafa through falsification of
commercial document, appellant could be convicted of falsification of private
document under the well-settled rule that it is the allegations in the information that
determines the nature of the offense and not the technical name given in the
preamble of the information. The subject vouchers are private documents and not
commercial documents because they are not documents used by merchants or
businessmen to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions nor are they
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other commercial law.
The elements of falsification of private document under Art 172, par 2 of the RPC
are: (1) that the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in
par 7, Art171; (2) that the falsification was committed in any private document; and
(3) that the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification
was committed with intent to cause such damage.

Batulanon's act of falsification is that she caused it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate. She
made it appear that they obtained a loan and received its proceeds when they did
not in fact secure said loan nor receive the amounts reflected in the cash vouchers to
the detriment of private complainant.

As there is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of private document, it is

important to ascertain whether the offender is to be charged with falsification of a
private document or with estafa. If the falsification of a private document is
committed as a means to commit estafa, the proper crime to be charged is
falsification. If the estafa can be committed without the necessity of falsifying a
document, the proper crime to be charged is estafa.

However, in the 3rd case, petitioner Batulanon did not falsify the signature of Dennis.
What she did was to sign: "by: lbatulanon" to indicate that she received the proceeds
of the loan in behalf of Dennis. She fraudulently used the name of her son who is
likewise disqualified to secure a loan from PCCI. The disturbance in property rights
caused by Batulaono's misappropriation is in itself sufficient to constitute injury
within the meaning of Article 315 which penalizes estafa and not falsification.
Case # 78
G.R. No. 87203 April 6,1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
GABRIEL DAWANDAWAN, accused-appellant.

The Office of the Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.

Citizens Legal Assistance Office for accused-appellant.

GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

Gabriel Dawandawan appeals from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of Davao del Sur,
Branch 18, finding him guilty of the crimes of Rape and Frustrated Homicide. The
dispositive portion of the decision reads:

WHEREFORE, with the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and

nighttime which was purposely sought by the accused which are hereby appreciated
against him, this Court finds Gabriel Dawandawan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
the crimes of Rape defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal
Code and hereby imposes upon him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and
Frustrated Homicide for which he is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate prison
term of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to twelve (12) years of
prision mayor as maximum, to suffer all the accessory penalties of the law, to
indemnify Maria Nedia Villafuerte in the amount of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00)
Pesos as moral damages and to pay the costs.

The filing fees corresponding to the civil liability awarded by this Court shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment award and no payment by execution or
otherwise may be made to the offended party without her first paying the amount of
such filing fees to the Clerk of Court. (Original Records, P. 85)

The information filed by the Provincial Fiscal charged Gabriel Dawandawan with the crime
of rape with frustrated homicide under Art. 335, allegedly committed as follows:

The undersigned accuses Gabriel Dawandawan of the crime of Rape with Frustrated
Homicide under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, committed as follows:

That on or about November 2, 1984, in the Municipality of Hagonoy, Province of

Davao del Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
said accused did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, by means of
force and intimidation, box Maria Nedia Villafuerte in the stomach and different parts
of her body thereby rendering her unconscious, and have carnal knowledge of her
 several times against her will; that on the same occasion the said accused, with
intent to kill, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously assault, attack and
slash and stab the throat of the said Maria Nedia Villafuerte with a knife, inflicting
upon the latter injuries which ordinarily would cause the death of said Maria Nedia
Villafuerte, thus performing all the acts of execution which should have produced the
crime of homicide as a consequence, but nevertheless, did not produce it by reason
of causes independent of his will, that is by the timely and able medical assistance
rendered to said Maria Nedia Villafuerte which prevented her death. (Original
Record, p. 1)

The facts upon which the finding of guilt was based are summarized by the Solicitor
General as follows:

On November 2, 1984, at about 11 o'clock in the evening, Gloria Vda. de Asis, her
children and her younger sister, Maria Nedia Villafuerte, the victim in this case, were
roused from their sleep. Somebody knocked at their door and contemporaneously
someone uttered "We are here together with our companions, the Commander of the
NPA" (pp. 30-32, tsn, Nov. 12, 1985).

Despite the fear that had engulfed Gloria Vda. de Asis and her companions, her
sister, Maria Nedia Villafuerte opened the door, whence, the intruder pointed his arm
at them (p. 32, tsn, Ibid.). Gloria Vda. de Asis was able to hold the object which was
pointed at them which turned out to be a knife (p. 36, tsn, Ibid.).

The intruder went upstairs but the occupant thereat failed to recognize the man as
he was wearing a black T-shirt mask (pp. 32, 33, 35, tsn, Ibid.).

While thereat, the intruder looked for Gloria Vda. de Asis and she was pointed at by
her sister, Maria Nedia Villafuerte. Because Gloria Vda. de Asis was afraid, she ran
out of the house and at that moment while running she heard the words "Gloria why
did you run?"( pp. 33, 34, Ibid.).

Gloria Vda. de Asis proceeded to their neighbor named Juaning Ignacio to seek help
(pp. 34, 36, Ibid.)

Nonoy, the husband of Juaning, together with four other companions went back to
the house of Gloria Vda. de Asis (p. 37, tsn, Ibid.).

Subsequently, at six o'clock in the morning of the following day, Gloria Vda. de Asis
was informed that her sister, Maria Nedia Villafuerte, was found wounded. She saw
her sister by the side of the road loaded in a pedicab. At the time she saw her sister,
Maria Nedia Villafuerte, she was already weak. She sustained wounds in her neck
and there were contusions in her body and her clothes removed from waist up (p.
43, Ibid.)

Gloria Vda. de Asis asked her sister if she was able to recognize the man
responsible for the predicament but Maria Nedia Villafuerte failed to answer because
she was nervous and trembling (pp. 43, 46, t.s.n. Ibid.).
The dress which Maria Nedia Villafuerte wore the night she was sexually and
physically molested was retrieved by her neighbors and subsequently turned over to
the police (pp. 41, 42, tsn, Ibid.). The description of Maria Nedia Villafuerte's outfit
tallied with what was retrieved. The dress was stained with blood (pp. 44, 45, tsn,
Ibid.).

On November 5, 1984, accused-appellant was brought to the hospital where Maria

Nedia Villafuerte was confined for treatment. While at the hospital and upon seeing
Maria Nedia Villafuerte, accused-appellant uttered "I thought she (referring to Maria
Nedia Villafuerte) was already dead." Upon seeing accused-appellant, Maria Nedia
Villafuerte trembled and tightly clenched her fist and cried (pp. 57, 58, tsn., Ibid.).

Maria Nedia Villafuerte testified that when she opened the door she saw a man
holding a knife. Since her sister ran away to seek help, she was left behind. The man
choked her and dragged her to a coconut drier (pp. 10, 11, 13, and 22 tsn, October
14, 1986). while being dragged to that coconut drier, she struggled to free herself.
But her effort was unsuccessful. On the way to the coconut drier, the man removed
his mask and revealed his identity. It was accused-appellant who was wearing mask
and while dragging Maria Nedia Villafuerte, accused-appellant identified himself as
being their neighbor and that he is the uncle of Maria Nedia Villafuerte's boyfriend,
Nestor Tan (pp. 20, 22, 23, tsn, Ibid.).

Upon reaching the coconut drier, accused-appellant boxed Maria Nedia Villafuerte at
her mid-section causing her to lose consciousness. Upon regaining her
consciousness, she realized that accused-appellant had sexually molested her as
she had felt pain in her sex organ (pp. 25, 27, 28 & 29, tsn, Ibid.). After sexually
molesting her, accused-appellant slashed Maria Nedia Villafuerte's neck. He slapped
her and boxed her in several parts of her body and stabbed her on the left side of
her breast (pp. 38, 39, 40 tsn, Ibid.). And she again lost her consciousness.

At the time of the incident, accused-appellant was wearing a fatigue jacket and only
a brief (pp. 30, 32, 33, 35, tsn, Ibid.).

Further, Maria Nedia Villafuerte testified that she was brought to the hospital and
that accused-appellant was brought to her by a certain Sosing Fernandez. At the
hospital, accused-appellant asked for forgiveness from Maria Nedia Villafuerte which
the latter refused as she was angry (pp. 37, 40, tsn, Ibid.).

Jesus Fernandez, a member of the Civil Home Defense Force (CHDF) in the locality
of Liling, Hagonoy, Davao del Sur, testified that on November 2, 1984, somebody
sought her assistance by the name of Gloria Vda. de Asis who informed him what
took place in her house (pp. 9, 10, tsn, June 3, 1986). Jesus Fernandez, together
with his companions, roamed around the vicinity to locate for (sic) Maria Nedia
Villafuerte. Failing to locate her, they stopped the search and rescue operation but
resumed the same on the following day (p. 13, tsn, Ibid.).

At nine o'clock the following morning, they were able to locate Maria Nedia
Villafuerte naked, her neck, breast and hand slashed and her body bathed with
 blood. They called for a pedicab and requested certain individuals to bring her to the
regional hospital at Digos, Davao del Sur (pp. 13, 14, 15, tsn, Id.). Jesus Fernandez
made some verifications and inquiries. Three days after or on November 5, 1984,
Jesus Fernandez asked permission from the Chief of Police to apprehend accused-
appellant which was granted (pp. 16, 17, tsn, Id.).

He was successful as he was able to arrest accused-appellant in Kulungan, Sta.

Maria, Davao del Sur and was (sic) brought to Digos, Davao del Sur barracks.
Accused-appellant was brought to the municipal jail of Hagonoy and subsequently
brought to the hospital where Maria Nedia Villafuerte was confined. Thereat,
accused-appellant was pointed to by Maria Nedia Villafuerte as the perpetrator of the
crime against her (pp. 24, 25, 27 & 28, tsn, Id.).

Dr. Francisco Tongcos, a surgeon at the Davao del Sur Provincial Hospital, testified
that he treated a certain Maria Nedia Villafuerte (pp. 4, 5, tsn, Nov. 12, 1985). He
identified the medical certificate he prepared and issued pertaining to Maria Nedia
Villafuerte.

His findings as to the injuries sustained by the victim are as follows:

1. Multiple incised wounds on:

1) the neck anterior lateral areas

2) right mandibular area deep penetrating

3) submandibular area.

2. Multiple contusions all over the back and chest areas.

3. Lacerations 1.7 o'clock hymen admits 1 finger with ease.

4. Multiple lacerations superficial right hand dorsum, left breast.

5. Subcutaneous emphysema, minimal right scapular area. (Exh. "A", Folder of

Exhibits, Record). (Appellee's Brief, pp. 4-12)

On arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty. Trial on the merits followed and a judgment
of conviction was rendered.

The appellant's version of the facts consists of denial and alibi. He states:

Accused Gabriel Dawandawan testified that on Nov. 2, 1984, he was at San Agustin,
Sta. Maria. He was weeding at the farm. He started at 7 a.m. and went home at
12:00 noon. He went back to the farm later and went home at 5:00 p.m. At 5:30 p.m.,
he went to the house of his in-laws because he would attend church the following
morning. The church is 30 meters from the home of his in-laws. He was with his 2
children. He was arrested at 8:00 a.m. of Nov. 3.
 On the night of Nov. 2, he slept in the house of his in-laws. He does not know the
time when he slept because he had no watch but it was already late at night. Before
he slept, he was conversing with Pastor Paulino Comonos. They took dinner at 7:30
p.m. After that he waited for his brother-in-law who was a fisherman because he
would help him carry the banca from the sea to the shore. Sosing Fernandez, Gloria
de Asis and the victim are liars. (Appellant's Brief, p. 7)

Feeling aggrieved with the decision rendered, the accused interposes this appeal and
assigns the following errors:

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE INCREDIBLE

TESTIMONY OF THE COMPLAINANT AND IN DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCE
FOR THE DEFENSE.

II

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT.

III

ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT ACCUSED IS GUILTY, HE IS ONLY GUILTY OF

THE COMPLEX CRIME OF RAPE WITH FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE AND NOT OF
THE SEPARATE CRIMES OF RAPE AND FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE. (Appellant's
Brief Rollo p. 34)

The accused-appellant assails the credibility of the complainant's testimony on the ground
that it is unnatural for a person who is about to rape a girl to divulge his identity because,
then, the risk of his being arrested becomes greater. We find nothing unnatural about the
statements of the accused because the extent of the physical injuries he inflicted manifests
his intention to extinguish the life of the victim, in which case he would have no fear of
exposure. As the trial court put it, "He was certain of the victim's death which would have
sealed her lips foreigner." In fact, during the confrontation in the hospital, he uttered the
words, "I thought she was already dead." Dawandawan denied that there was such a
confrontation in the hospital but the victim herself, Gloria de Asis and Sosing Fernandez
testified that there really was such a confrontation.

Dawandawan further contends that the identification made by the victim was
uncorroborated, that Gloria could not identify the owner of the voice of the man who
knocked at the door and called out her name. This Court has oft-repeated the ruling that the
accused could be convicted solely on the basis of the victim's testimony if credible. (People
v. Serna, G. R. No. 78530, March 6, 1990)

As earlier stated, the accused interposed alibi as his defense. This court when confronted
with the defense of alibi in rape cases with circumstances similar to the one now before us
has invariably found it unconvincing and unsatisfactory (See People v. Dadaeg, 137 SCRA
500 [1985]). In the case at bar, alibi is unavailing because although Eddie Carr saw the
accused at 5:30 p.m. of the day of the incident, and Pedro Comonos at up to about 7:30
p.m., nobody could account for the whereabouts of the accused at 11:00 p.m. He explained
his whereabouts by saying that he slept in his in-laws' house to attend church service the
following morning. We do not see any particular need for his staying in his in-laws' place to
be able to attend the church service considering that the distance between his house and
his in-laws' is only 1/2 kilometer and the distance from his in-laws' house to the church is 30
meters giving a total of 530 meters only — a distance which is easily manageable.

Anent the other assigned error, the accused-appellant alleges that the crime committed is a
complex crime of Rape with Frustrated Homicide and not the separate crimes of Rape and
Frustrated Homicide.

Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code states: "A complex crime may occur when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other . . . .

To categorize the crime as a complex one, the appellant would like this Court to believe that
the stabbing preceded the rape — that it was necessary for the accused to stab the victim
before she could be raped because she was resisting. There is no merit to this contention.
The victim herself testified that she was boxed, thus causing her to lose consciousness.
And while unconscious Dawandawan started to rape her after which she regained
consciousness again only to lose it once more when her neck was slashed. The victim
testified, thus:

xxx xxx xxx

Q. before you were abused, what did the accused do, if he did anything?

A. he boxed me once at my mid section, sir.

Q. what happened to you when you were boxed at your mid section?

A. I lost consciousness. (TSN, October 14, 1986, p. 149)

xxx xxx xxx

the Court:

court's question.

what else happened or what else can you remember aside from that incident where
you were boxed by the accused in your mid section, according to you?

A. after he boxed me, he abused me and then slashed my neck in order that I cannot
tell the incident, I cannot relate the incident.

the court:
 a while ago you said that you lost consciousness after you were boxed by the
accused, will you please tell us how you knew that your neck was slashed by the
accused and you were abused by the accused?

A. when he slashed my neck I regained consciousness again and after that, after
slashing my neck, I again lost my consciousness and I regained it again at the
hospital already. (TSN, October 14, 1986, pp. 150-151)

The physical injuries which could have caused the victim's death were not the result of the
rape committed; neither was the slashing a necessary means for committing the rape.
Independently of the slashing of the victim's neck and the stabbing, the accused was able to
consummate the rape. The physical injuries were inflicted after the rape and were not a
necessary means to commit the same. Hence, the crimes committed are the two separate
crimes of Rape and Frustrated homicide.

Finally, we reiterate in this case the fundamental rule that the findings of fact of the trial
court should be accorded great weight and respect since the Judge had the inestimable
advantage of observing the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying. (People v. Dalinog,
G.R. No. 74952, March 12, 1990; People v. Rafanan, G.R. No. 48362, February 28, 1990).

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, we find the accused-appellant guilty of the crimes
of Rape and Frustrated Homicide. The decision of the trial court is hereby AFFIRMED in all
respects.
Case # 79

G.R. No. 179943 June 26, 2009

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,

vs.
MARLON ALBERT DE LEON y HOMO, Appellant.

DECISION

PERALTA, J.:

This is an appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA), affirming with modification the
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal, finding appellant Marlon
Lambert De Leon y Homo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.

The factual and procedural antecedents are as follows:

According to the prosecution, in the early morning, around 2 o'clock of January 7, 2000, Eduardo
Zulueta and Fortunato Lacambra III, both gasoline boys; Julieta Amistoso, cashier; and Edralin
Macahis, security guard; all employees of Energex Gasoline Station, located at Barangay Guinayan,
San Mateo, Rizal, were on duty when a mint green-colored Tamaraw FX arrived for service at the
said gasoline station.3

Eduardo Zulueta was the one who attended to the said vehicle. He went to the driver’s side in order
to take the key of the vehicle from the driver so that he could open the gas tank. He saw through the
lowered window shield that there were about six to seven persons aboard the vehicle. He proceeded
to fill up ₱50.00 worth of diesel in the gas tank. After doing this, he returned the key to the driver.
While returning the key, the driver told him that the engine of the vehicle would not start. 4 Eduardo
Zulueta offered to give the vehicle a push. While Eduardo Zulueta and fellow gasoline boy Fortunato
Lacambra III were positioned at the back of the vehicle, ready to push the same, the six male
passengers of the same vehicle, except the driver, alighted and announced a hold-up. They were
armed with a shotgun and .38 caliber pistol. 5

Fortunato Lacambra III was ordered to lie down, 6 while Eduardo Zulueta was directed to go near the
Car Wash Section.7 At that instance, guns were poked at them.8

Appellant, who guarded Eduardo Zulueta, poked a gun at the latter and took the latter's wallet
containing a pawnshop ticket and ₱50.00, while the companion of the former, hit the latter on his
nape with a gun.9

Meanwhile, four members of the group went to the cashier's office and took the money worth
₱3,000.00.10 Those four robbers were also the ones who shot Edralin Macahis in the stomach. 11
Thereafter, the same robbers took Edralin Macahis' service firearm. 12

After he heard successive gunshots, Eduardo Zulueta saw appellant and his companions
immediately leave the place.13 The robbers boarded the same vehicle and proceeded toward San
Mateo, Rizal.14 When the robbers left, Eduardo Zulueta stood up and found Julieta Amistoso, who
told him that the robbers took her bag and jewelry. He also saw that Edralin Macahis had a gunshot
wound in the stomach. He immediately hailed a vehicle which transported the injured Edralin
Macahis to the hospital.15 Later on, Edralin Macahis died at the hospital due to the gunshot wound.16
The following day, Eduardo Zulueta identified appellant as one of the robbers who poked a gun at
him.17

However, according to appellant, from January 4 to 6, 2000, he stayed at the house of his Tita
Emma at Pantok, Binangonan, Rizal, helping the latter in her canteen. On the evening of January 6,
at approximately 9 o'clock, appellant asked permission from his Tita Emma to go to Antipolo.
Catherine Homo, appellant's cousin and the latter's younger brother, accompanied appellant to the
terminal. While waiting for a ride, the vehicle, a Tamaraw FX, of a certain Christian Gersalia, a
relative of appellant and Catherine Homo, passed by. Catherine Homo asked Christian Gersalia if he
would allow appellant to hitch a ride on his vehicle. Christian Gersalia agreed. Aside from Christian
Gersalia, there were other passengers in the said vehicle. 18

When the vehicle reached Masinag, where appellant was supposed to alight, he was not allowed to
do so; instead, he was asked by the other passengers to join them in their destination. While on the
road, appellant fell asleep. When he woke up, they were in a gasoline station. He then saw Christian
Gersalia and the other passengers conducting a hold-up. He never left the vehicle and was not able
to do anything because he was overwhelmed with fear. After he heard the gunshots, Christian
Gersalia and the other passengers went to the vehicle and proceeded towards Marikina. On their
way, they were followed by policemen who fired at them. The other passengers fired back at the
policemen. It was then that the vehicle hit a wall prompting the other passengers to scamper in
different directions leaving him behind. When the policemen arrived, he was immediately arrested.19

As a result of the above incident, four Informations for Robbery with Homicide were filed against
appellant, Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy
Servantes, an alias "Rey," an alias "Jonard," an alias "Precie," and an alias "Renato," which read as:

Criminal Case No. 4747

That on or about the 7th day of January 2000, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela,
Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias " Precie" and Alias
"Renato" whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and still at-large,
and conspiring and mutually helping and assisting one another, while armed with unlicensed
firearms and acting as a band, with intent of gain with aggravating circumstances of treachery,
abuse of superior strength and using disguise, fraud or craft and taking advantage of nighttime, and
by means of motor vehicle and by means of force, violence and intimidation, employed upon
ENERGEX GASOLINE STATION, owned by Regino C. Natividad, and represented by Macario C.
Natividad, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob, steal and carry away its cash
earnings worth ₱3,000.00, to the damage and prejudice of said Energex Gasoline Station in the
aforesaid amount of ₱3,000.00 and on the occasion of the said robbery, the above-named accused,
while armed with unlicensed firearms with intent to kill, conspiring and confederating together with
Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias
"Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias "Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose true names, identities and present
whereabouts are still unknown and still at-large, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously attack, assault and shoot one EDRALIN MACAHIS, a Security Guard of Energex
Gasoline Station, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on his trunk which directly caused his
death.

Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. 4748

That on or about the 7th day of January 2000 in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
and confederating , together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan
Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias " Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose
true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and still at-large and conspiring
and mutually helping and assisting one another, while armed with unlicensed firearms and acting as
a band, with intent of gain, with aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength
and using disguise, fraud or craft and taking advantage of nighttime, and by means of a motor
vehicle and by means of force, violence and intimidation, employed upon the person of JULIETA A.
AMISTOSO, the Cashier of Energex Gasoline Station, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously rob, steal and carry away the following, to wit:

a) One (1) ladies ring with sapphire stone valued at ₱1,500.00

b) One (1) Omac ladies wristwatch valued at ₱2,000.00

c) Guess black bag valued at ₱500.00

d) Leather wallet valued at ₱150.00

e) White T-Shirt valued at ₱175.00

to her damage and prejudice in the total amount of ₱4,325.00 and on the occasion of the said
robbery, the above-named accused while armed with unlicensed firearms with intent to kill,
conspiring and confederating together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela,
Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias "Precie" and Alias
"Renato," whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and still at-large,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one EDRALIN
MACAHIS, a Security Guard of Energex Gasoline Station, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot
wound on his trunk which directly caused his death.

Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. 4749

That on or about the 7th day of January 2000, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
and confederating together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan
Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias "Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose
true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and still at-large, and conspiring
and mutually helping and assisting one another, while armed with unlicensed firearms and acting as
a band, with intent of gain, with aggravating circumstances of treachery, abuse of superior strength
and using disguise, fraud or craft and taking advantage of nighttime, and by means of a motor
vehicle and by means of force, violence and intimidation, employed upon EDRALIN MACAHIS, a
Security Guard of Energex Gasoline Station, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
rob, steal, and carry away his service firearm .12 gauge shotgun with serial number 13265 valued at
₱12,000.00 owned by Alert and Quick (A-Q) Security Services Incorporated represented by its
General Manager Alberto T. Quintos to the damage and prejudice of said Alert and Quick (A-Q)
Security Services Incorporated in the aforesaid amount of ₱12,000.00 and on the occasion of the
said robbery the above-named accused, while armed with unlicensed firearms, with intent to kill
conspiring and confederating together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela,
Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey", Alias "Jonard", Alias " Precie" and Alias
"Renato", whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and still at-large,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one EDRALIN
MACAHIS, thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on his trunk which directly caused his death.

Contrary to law.

Criminal Case No. 4750

That on or about the 7th day of January 2000, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
conspiring and confederating together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon Brenvuela,
Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias "Precie" and Alias
"Renato," whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still unknown and still at-large
and conspiring and mutually helping and assisting one another, while armed with unlicensed
firearms and acting as a band, with intent of gain, with aggravating circumstances of treachery,
abuse of superior strength and using disguise, fraud or craft and taking advantage of nighttime, and
by means of a motor vehicle and by means of force, violence and intimidation, employed upon the
person of EDUARDO ZULUETA, a gasoline boy of Energex Gasoline Station, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously rob, steal and carry away the following to wit:

a) Pawnshop Ticket from M. Lhuiller Pawnshop for one (1) black Citizen men's watch
(automatic) valued at ₱2,000.00

b) Cash money worth ₱50.00

to his damage and prejudice in the total amount of ₱2,050.00 and on the occasion of the said
robbery, the above-named accused, while armed with unlicensed firearms with intent to kill,
conspiring and confederating together with Rudy Gersalia, Christian Gersalia, Dondon
Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias "Jonard," Alias
"Precie" and Alias "Renato," whose true names, identities and present whereabouts are still
unknown and still at-large, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack,
assault and shoot one EDRALIN MACAHIS, a Security Guard of Energex Gasoline Station,
thereby inflicting upon him gunshot wound on his trunk which directly caused his death.

Contrary to law.

Upon arraignment on March 23, 2000, appellant, with the assistance of counsel de parte, entered a
plea of not guilty on all the charges. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented five witnesses, namely: Macario C. Natividad, 20 then officer-in-charge of
Energex Gasoline Station where the incident took place; Edito Macahis, 21 a cousin of the deceased
security guard Edralin Macahis; Fortunato Lacambra III,22 a gasoline boy of the same gas station;
Eduardo Zulueta,23 also a gasoline boy of the same gas station, and Alberto Quintos, 24 general
manager of Alert and Quick Security Services, Inc., where the deceased security guard was
employed.

The defense, on the other hand, presented two witnesses, namely: Catherine Homo, 25 a cousin of
appellant and the appellant26 himself.

On December 20, 2001, the RTC rendered its Decision27 convicting appellant beyond reasonable
doubt of all the charges against him, the dispositive portion of which reads:
 1. In Criminal Case No. 4747, finding accused Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, as defined and penalized under
No. 1 of Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 9 of R.A. 7659, in relation
to Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866, as further amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 8294, having acted in
conspiracy with other malefactors who have, to date, remained at-large, and sentencing the
said Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo to the penalty of Death, taking into consideration the use
of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime as an aggravating circumstance; to
pay Energex Gasoline Station owned by Regino Natividad and represented by Macario C.
Natividad the amount of ₱3,000.00 as compensatory damages and to pay the costs;

2. In Crim. Case No. 4748, finding accused Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, as defined and penalized under
No. 1 of Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 9 of R.A. 7659, in relation
to Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866, as further amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 8294, having acted in
conspiracy with other malefactors who have, to date, remained at-large, and sentencing the
said Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo to the penalty of Death, taking into consideration the use
of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime as an aggravating circumstance, and
to pay the costs;

3. In Crim. Case No. 4749, finding accused Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo guilty beyond
reasonable ground of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, as defined and penalized under
No. 1 of Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 9 of R.A. 7659, in relation
to Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866, as further amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 8294, having acted in
conspiracy with other malefactors who have, to date, remained at-large, and sentencing the
said Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo to the penalty of Death, taking into consideration the use
of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime as an aggravating circumstance; to
indemnify the heirs of Edralin Macahis in the amount of ₱50,000.00 as death indemnity; to
pay ₱12,000.00 as compensatory damages for the stolen service firearm if restitution is no
longer possible and ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and to pay the costs;

4. In Crim. Case No. 4750, finding accused Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, as defined and penalized under
No. 1 of Art. 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 9 of R.A 7659, in relation
to Sec. 1 of P.D. 1866, as further amended by Sec. 1 of R.A. 8294, having acted in
conspiracy with other malefactors who have, to date, remained at-large, and sentencing the
said Marlon Albert de Leon y Homo to the penalty of Death, taking into consideration the use
of an unlicensed firearm in the commission of the crime as an aggravating circumstance and
to pay Eduardo Zulueta, victim of the robbery, in the amount of ₱2,050.00 as compensatory
damages for the stolen properties if restitution is no longer possible and to pay the costs.

As against accused Rudy Gersalia and Christian Gersalia, who have, to date, remained at-large, let
a warrant of arrest be issued against them and let these cases be, in the meantime, sent to the
archives without prejudice to their reinstatement upon apprehension of the said accused.

As against accused Dondon Brenvuela, Jonathan Brenvuela, Pantoy Servantes, Alias "Rey," Alias
"Jonard," Alias "Precie and Alias "Renato," whose true names, identities and present whereabouts
are still unknown and are still at-large, let these cases be, in the meantime, sent to the archives
without prejudice to their reinstatement upon the identification and apprehension of the said
accused.

SO ORDERED.
The cases were appealed to this Court, however, on September, 21, 2004, 28 in conformity with the
Decision dated July 7, 2004 in G.R. Nos. 147678-87 entitled The People of the Philippines v. Efren
Mateo y Garcia, modifying the pertinent provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, more
particularly Sections 3 and 10 of Rule 125 and any other rule insofar as they provide for direct
appeals from the RTCs to this Court in cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, as well as the Resolution of this Court, en banc dated September 19,
1995, in "Internal Rules of the Supreme Court" in cases similarly involving the death penalty,
pursuant to the Court's power to promulgate rules of procedure in all courts under Article VII, Section
5 of the Constitution, and allowing an intermediate review by the CA before such cases are elevated
to this Court. This Court transferred the cases to the CA for appropriate action and disposition.

The CA, on June 29, 2007,29 affirmed with modification, the Decision of the RTC, with the dispositive
portion reading:

WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused Marlon Albert
de Leon y Homo is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Homicide of only one count.

Given the passage of Republic Act 9346 which took effect on 24 June 2006, the penalty imposed
upon Marlon de Leon y Homo is hereby reduced or commuted to reclusion perpetua.
Case #80

G.R. No. 109266 December 2, 1993

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. JUSTICE FRANCIS GARCHITORENA, SANDIGANBAYAN (First Division) and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
Facts:
Petitioner was charged in the Sandiganbayan with violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019, Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act, allegedly committed by her favoring “unqualified” aliens with the
benefits of the Alien Legalization Program. Petitioner filed this case to enjoin Sandiganbayan
from proceeding with the case, on the ground that it was intended solely to harass her as she was
then a presidential candidate. After her petition was dismissed, she then filed a motion for
inhibition of Presiding Justice Garchitorena.

[A lot of procedural issues and controversies were discussed, but for the purpose of limiting this
digest to Criminal Law 1, the author did not include it.]

Petitioner next claims that the Amended Informations did not charge any offense punishable
under Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 because the official acts complained of therein were
authorized under Executive Order No. 324 and that the Board of Commissioners of the Bureau of
Investigation adopted the policy of approving applications for legalization of spouses and
unmarried, minor children of “qualified aliens” even though they had arrived in the Philippines
after December 31, 1983. She concludes that the Sandiganbayan erred in not granting her motion
to quash the informations.

In a motion to quash, the accused admits hypothetically the allegations of fact in the Information.
Therefore, petitioner admitted hypothetically in her motion that: 1) she was a public officer; 2)
she approved the application for legalization of the stay of aliens, who arrived in the Philippines
after January 1, 1984; 3) those aliens were disqualified; 4) she was cognizant of such fact; and 5)
she acted in evident bad faith and manifest partiality in the execution of her official functions;
thereby constituting the elements of the offense defined in Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019.

It bears noting that the public prosecutors filed a total of 32 Informations against the petitioner
for the violation of such law.

Issue:
How is the violation of Sec. 3(e) of RA 3019 committed?
Held:
There are two ways of violating Section 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019. These are: (a) by causing undue
injury to any party, including the Government; and (b) by giving any private party any
unwarranted benefit, advantage or preference.
Issue #2:
Whether or not the filing of 32 Amended Informations against petitioner was proper.
Held #2: NO.
Only one crime was committed in petitioner’s case, and hence, there should only be one
Information to be filed against her.

The 32 Amended Informations charge what is known as delito continuado or “continued crime”
and sometimes referred to as “continuous crime.” A delito continuado consists of several crimes
but in reality there is only one crime in the mind of the perpetrator. See full text for the
discussion and examples of delito continuado as discussed by SC.

In the case at bench, the original information charged petitioner with performing a single
criminal act — that of her approving the application for legalization of aliens not qualified under
the law to enjoy such privilege. The original information also averred that the criminal act : (i)
committed by petitioner was in violation of a law — Executive Order No. 324 dated April 13,
1988, (ii) caused an undue injury to one offended party, the Government, and (iii) was done on a
single day, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The 32 Amended Informations reproduced in
verbatim the allegation of the original information, except that instead of the word “aliens” in the
original information each amended information states the name of the individual whose stay was
legalized.

The 32 Amended Informations aver that the offenses were committed on the same period of
time, i.e., on or about October 17, 1988. The strong probability even exists that the approval of
the application or the legalization of the stay of the 32 aliens was done by a single stroke of the
pen, as when the approval was embodied in the same document. Likewise, the public prosecutors
manifested at the hearing the motion for a bill of particulars that the Government suffered a
single harm or injury.

SC ordered the Ombudsman to consolidated the 32 Amended Informations into one Information
charging only one offense.
 CASE #81

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus -

CONRADO LAOG y RAMIN, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 178321 October 5, 2011

Facts:

AAA testified that she and her friend were walking on their way to apply. Suddenly, appellant, who was holding an
ice pick and a lead pipe, waylaid them and forcibly brought them to a grassy area.Without warning, appellant
struck AAA in the head with the lead pipe causing her to feel dizzy and to fall down. When Jennifer saw this, she
cried out for help but appellant also hit her on the head with the lead pipe, knocking her down. Appellant stabbed
Jennifer several times with the ice pick and thereafter covered her body with thick grass. Appellant then turned to
AAA. He hit AAA in the head several times more with the lead pipe and stabbed her on the face. While AAA was in
such defenseless position, appellant pulled down her jogging pants, removed her panty, and pulled up her blouse
and bra. He then went on top of her, sucked her breasts and inserted his penis into her vagina. After raping AAA,
appellant also covered her with grass. At that point, AAA passed out. When AAA regained consciousness, it was
nighttime and raining hard. She crawled until she reached her uncle’s farm at daybreak.When she saw him, she
waved at him for help. Her uncle, BBB, and a certain Nano then brought her to Hospital. She later learned that
Jennifer had died.

Appellant, on the other hand, denied the charges against him. Appellant testified that he was at home cooking
dinner around the time the crimes were committed. With him were his children, Ronnie, Jay, Oliver and Conrado,
Jr. and his nephew, Rey Laog. At around seven o’clock, he was arrested by the police officers of San Rafael,
Bulacan. He learned that his wife had reported him to the police after he “went wild” that same night and struck
with a lead pipe a man whom he saw talking to his wife inside their house. When he was already incarcerated, he
learned that he was being charged with murder and rape.

The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes rape and murder. The CA affirmed with
modification for damages.

Issue:

Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes charged despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt
Ruling:

It must be underscored that the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony and
not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a
prosecution for rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. Thus we have ruled that a
medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not
an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant
about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible.

In People v. Larrañaga, this Court explained the concept of a special complex crime, as follows:

A discussion on the nature of special complex crime is imperative. Where the law provides a single penalty for two
or more component offenses, the resulting crime is called a special complex crime. Some of the special complex
crimes under the Revised Penal Code are (1) robbery with homicide, (2) robbery with rape, (3) kidnapping with
serious physical injuries, (4) kidnapping with murder or homicide, and (5) rape with homicide. In a special complex
crime, the prosecution must necessarily prove each of the component offenses with the same precision that would
be necessary if they were made the subject of separate complaints. As earlier mentioned, R.A. No. 7659 amended
Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code by adding thereto this provision: “When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed;” and that this provision gives rise to a special complex crime. In the cases at bar, the Information
specifically alleges that the victim Marijoy was raped “on the occasion and in connection” with her detention and
was killed “subsequent thereto and on the occasion thereof.” Considering that the prosecution was able to prove
each of the component offenses, appellants should be convicted of the special complex crime of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with homicide and rape.

Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, provides only a single penalty for the composite acts of
rape and the killing committed by reason or on the occasion of the rape.

ART. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.

When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
Considering that the prosecution in this case was able to prove both the rape of AAA and the killing of Jennifer
both perpetrated by appellant, he is liable for rape with homicide under the above provision. There is no doubt
that appellant killed Jennifer to prevent her from aiding AAA or calling for help once she is able to run away, and
also to silence her completely so she may not witness the rape of AAA, the original intent of appellant. His carnal
desire having been satiated, appellant purposely covered AAA’s body with grass, as he did earlier with Jennifer’s
body, so that it may not be easily noticed or seen by passersby. Appellant indeed thought that the savage blows he
had inflicted on AAA were enough to cause her death as with Jennifer. But AAA survived and appellant’s barbaric
deeds were soon enough discovered.

The facts established showed that the constitutive elements of rape with homicide were consummated, and it is
immaterial that the person killed in this case is someone other than the woman victim of the rape. An analogy
may be drawn from our rulings in cases of robbery with homicide, where the component acts of homicide, physical
injuries and other offenses have been committed by reason or on the occasion of robbery.

In the special complex crime of rape with homicide, the term “homicide” is to be understood in its generic sense,
and includes murder and slight physical injuries committed by reason or on occasion of the rape. Hence, even if
any or all of the circumstances (treachery, abuse of superior strength and evident premeditation) alleged in the
information have been duly established by the prosecution, the same would not qualify the killing to murder and
the crime committed by appellant is still rape with homicide. As in the case of robbery with homicide, the
aggravating circumstance of treachery is to be considered as a generic aggravating circumstance only.

In this case, as personally witnessed by AAA, appellant struck Jennifer in the head with a lead pipe then stabbed
her repeatedly until she was dead. Clearly, the manner by which appellant had brutally slain Jennifer with a lethal
weapon, by first hitting her in the head with a lead pipe to render her defenseless and vulnerable before stabbing
her repeatedly, unmistakably showed that appellant intentionally used excessive force out of proportion to the
means of defense available to his unarmed victim. As aptly observed by the appellate court:

It has long been established that an attack made by a man with a deadly weapon upon an unarmed and
defenseless woman constitutes the circumstance of abuse of that superiority which his sex and the weapon used
in the act afforded him, and from which the woman was unable to defend herself. Unlike in treachery, where the
victim is not given the opportunity to defend himself or repel the aggression, taking advantage of superior strength
does not mean that the victim was completely defenseless. Abuse of superiority is determined by the excess of
the aggressor’s natural strength over that of the victim, considering the momentary position of both and the
employment of means weakening the defense, although not annulling it. By deliberately employing deadly
weapons, an ice pick and a lead pipe, accused-appellant clearly took advantage of the superiority which his
strength, sex and weapon gave him over his unarmed victim. The accused-appellant’s sudden attack caught the
victim off-guard rendering her defenseless.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. Accused-appellant Conrado Laog y Ramin is hereby found
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape With Homicide under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by R.A. No. 8353, and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without
eligibility for parole.