ASG Law

Tag: Criminal Law

  • Rape of a Mentally Disabled Person: Knowledge of Disability as an Aggravating Circumstance

    This Supreme Court case clarifies that when a perpetrator is aware of the victim’s mental disability at the time of the rape, it constitutes qualified rape, warranting a higher penalty. Despite the abolition of the death penalty, the perpetrator is sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting vulnerable individuals and ensuring that those who exploit their disabilities face severe legal consequences. The decision also increases the financial compensation to the victim for the harm suffered.

    Exploitation of Vulnerability: When Awareness of Mental Disability Elevates Rape Charges

    This case revolves around the rape of AAA, a mute and mentally retarded woman, by GGG, who was aware of her condition. The central legal question is whether GGG’s knowledge of AAA’s mental disability elevates the crime to qualified rape, thereby increasing the severity of the punishment.

    The case began when CCC, AAA’s brother, witnessed GGG sexually assaulting AAA in their home. CCC reported the incident to his mother, BBB, who then filed a police report. Medical examinations confirmed that AAA had sustained injuries consistent with rape and that spermatozoa were present in her vagina. The prosecution argued that GGG took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability due to her mental condition, while the defense presented an alibi, claiming that GGG was at another location during the time of the incident. The trial court convicted GGG of rape, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision with modifications, including an increase in the damages awarded to AAA.

    The Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing the importance of the trial court’s assessment of the witnesses’ credibility. The Court noted that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and was therefore in the best position to determine the truthfulness of their testimonies. The Supreme Court reiterated the long-standing principle that denial and alibi are weak defenses, especially when faced with the positive identification of the accused by a credible witness. In this case, CCC’s testimony was deemed credible and persuasive, outweighing GGG’s alibi.

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted the significance of GGG’s knowledge of AAA’s mental disability. The Court emphasized that this knowledge elevated the crime to qualified rape under Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC). This provision specifically addresses situations where the offender is aware of the victim’s mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time of the crime. As the court pointed out, GGG admitted to knowing that AAA was mute and mentally retarded, which satisfied the conditions for qualified rape. The relevant portion of the RPC states:

    ART. 266-B. Penalties. – x x x

    x x x x

    The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

    x x x x

    10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court explained that while the death penalty would have been the appropriate punishment, Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. Therefore, GGG was sentenced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Supreme Court also increased the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000 each, aligning with prevailing jurisprudence concerning crimes of this nature.

    Moreover, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals from exploitation and abuse. The Court’s decision serves as a reminder that those who prey on the vulnerable will face severe legal consequences. The ruling also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that victims of sexual assault receive adequate compensation for the physical, emotional, and psychological harm they have suffered. The Court further stated that the damages awarded should earn interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of the Resolution until fully paid. This ensures that the victim receives just compensation in a timely manner.

    What constitutes qualified rape in the Philippines? Qualified rape occurs when the crime is committed under certain aggravating circumstances, such as when the offender knows of the victim’s mental disability at the time of the offense. This knowledge elevates the crime and results in a harsher penalty.
    What is reclusion perpetua? Reclusion perpetua is a prison sentence in the Philippines that typically lasts for at least 20 years and one day, up to a maximum of 40 years. It carries with it accessory penalties and does not allow for parole eligibility.
    What is the significance of the offender’s knowledge of the victim’s mental disability? If the offender knew about the victim’s mental disability, emotional disorder, or physical handicap at the time the crime was committed, it becomes a qualifying circumstance that escalates the crime to qualified rape, as stipulated in the Revised Penal Code.
    What damages are typically awarded to victims of rape in the Philippines? Victims of rape are typically awarded civil indemnity to compensate for losses, moral damages for pain and suffering, and exemplary damages to deter similar conduct. The Supreme Court in this case increased these amounts to P100,000 each.
    What is the effect of Republic Act No. 9346 on cases of qualified rape? Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. Therefore, even if qualified rape is committed, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, instead of the death penalty.
    What role does witness testimony play in rape cases? Witness testimony is crucial in rape cases, especially when the victim is unable to provide a clear account of the events. The credibility and reliability of the witnesses are carefully assessed by the court to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.
    Why are denial and alibi considered weak defenses in court? Denial and alibi are considered weak defenses because they are self-serving and easily fabricated. Unless supported by strong and credible evidence, they are unlikely to outweigh the positive identification of the accused by a reliable witness.
    How does the court determine the credibility of witnesses? The court assesses the credibility of witnesses by considering factors such as their demeanor, consistency of their testimony, any potential bias, and the overall plausibility of their account of the events. The trial court, having the opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand, is given great deference in this determination.

    This case emphasizes the grave nature of exploiting vulnerable individuals and serves as a stern warning against such reprehensible acts. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the importance of safeguarding the rights and well-being of mentally disabled persons, ensuring that perpetrators are held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. GGG, G.R. No. 224595, September 18, 2019

  • Rape of a Person with Mental Disability: Affirming Protection and Upholding Justice

    This Supreme Court decision affirms the conviction of GGG for the qualified rape of AAA, a woman with a known mental disability, reinforcing the legal protection afforded to vulnerable individuals. The Court underscored that exploiting the mental incapacity of a victim constitutes a severe violation, warranting the penalty of reclusion perpetua. This ruling serves as a critical reminder of the heightened responsibility to safeguard individuals with disabilities from abuse and exploitation, ensuring that justice is served and their rights are protected under the law. The decision clarifies the application of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, particularly concerning offenders who are aware of the victim’s mental state. This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the dignity and safety of all members of society.

    Exploiting Vulnerability: When Knowledge of Mental Disability Qualifies Rape

    The case of People of the Philippines vs. GGG revolves around the alleged rape of AAA, a woman with a profound mental disability, by GGG, who was aware of her condition. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that on March 1, 2005, GGG had carnal knowledge of AAA without her consent, an act witnessed by AAA’s brother, CCC. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether GGG’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and more specifically, whether his knowledge of AAA’s mental disability qualified the rape, thus warranting a harsher penalty under Philippine law. This case is not just about the act of rape, but also about the aggravating circumstance of knowingly exploiting a person with diminished capacity.

    The trial court initially convicted GGG of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision with modifications, upholding the trial court’s finding that GGG had carnal knowledge of AAA, who was proven to be mentally retarded. The CA emphasized the weakness of GGG’s alibi and denial compared to the positive identification by the victim’s brother. The CA also increased the civil indemnity and moral damages to P75,000 each and the exemplary damages to P30,000. It also imposed a 6% interest per annum on these damages from the finality of the decision.

    The Supreme Court, in its resolution, agreed with the lower courts’ findings regarding GGG’s guilt. The Court underscored the significance of the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, noting that it had the best opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses during the trial. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the principle that denial and alibi, being self-serving and easily fabricated, cannot outweigh the positive testimony of a credible witness. In this case, CCC’s testimony identifying GGG as the rapist was deemed credible and persuasive.

    A crucial aspect of the Supreme Court’s decision was its emphasis on Article 266-B, paragraph 10 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which addresses the specific circumstance where the offender is aware of the victim’s mental disability. This provision states:

    ART. 266-B. Penalties. – x x x

    x x x x

    The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

    x x x x

    10. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. (Boldfacing supplied)

    The Court noted that GGG himself admitted knowing that AAA was mute and mentally retarded. This admission, coupled with the other evidence presented, led the Court to conclude that GGG should be convicted of qualified rape under Article 266-B. While the provision prescribes the death penalty, the Court, citing Republic Act No. 9346 (which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines), reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. This adjustment reflects the evolving legal landscape in the Philippines regarding capital punishment.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of damages, increasing the amounts awarded to AAA in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The Court ordered GGG to pay AAA P100,000 as civil indemnity, P100,000 as moral damages, and P100,000 as exemplary damages. These amounts are intended to compensate AAA for the physical, psychological, and emotional harm she suffered as a result of the rape. The Court further stipulated that these damages would earn interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of the resolution’s finality until fully paid. This ensures that AAA receives just compensation for the violation she endured.

    This case carries significant implications for the legal protection of individuals with mental disabilities in the Philippines. By emphasizing the importance of Article 266-B, the Supreme Court sends a clear message that exploiting the vulnerability of individuals with mental disabilities will not be tolerated. The decision reinforces the duty of care owed to these individuals and underscores the severity of the crime when an offender knowingly takes advantage of their diminished capacity. The ruling serves as a deterrent to potential offenders and provides legal recourse for victims of such heinous crimes.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the accused’s knowledge of the victim’s mental disability at the time of the rape warranted a conviction for qualified rape under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, emphasizing the significance of the accused’s awareness of the victim’s mental state.
    What is the significance of Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code in this case? Article 266-B outlines the penalties for rape, including the death penalty when the offender knew of the victim’s mental disability. Although the death penalty was reduced to reclusion perpetua due to Republic Act No. 9346, the application of Article 266-B underscored the aggravating circumstance of exploiting the victim’s vulnerability.
    Why did the Supreme Court increase the amount of damages awarded to the victim? The Supreme Court increased the damages to P100,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to align with prevailing jurisprudence on rape cases. This adjustment ensures that the victim receives adequate compensation for the physical, psychological, and emotional harm suffered.
    What was the role of the witness testimony in this case? The testimony of the victim’s brother, who witnessed the rape, was crucial in positively identifying the accused as the perpetrator. The Supreme Court emphasized that credible and positive testimony outweighs the accused’s denial and alibi.
    How did the accused’s alibi affect the outcome of the case? The accused’s alibi was deemed weak because his location on the night of the crime was only 150 meters away from the victim’s house, making it possible for him to commit the crime. The court found that his alibi did not hold up against the other evidence presented.
    What is reclusion perpetua, and does it allow for parole? Reclusion perpetua is a sentence of imprisonment for life, with no eligibility for parole. In this case, the accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua without the possibility of parole due to the nature of the crime and the aggravating circumstance.
    What message does this ruling send regarding the protection of individuals with mental disabilities? This ruling sends a strong message that exploiting the vulnerability of individuals with mental disabilities will not be tolerated under the law. It reinforces the duty of care owed to these individuals and serves as a deterrent to potential offenders.
    What is the significance of Republic Act No. 9346 in this case? Republic Act No. 9346 prohibits the imposition of the death penalty in the Philippines. As a result, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty for qualified rape (which would have been death) to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.

    In conclusion, this Supreme Court decision serves as a landmark case in safeguarding the rights and welfare of individuals with mental disabilities. By affirming the conviction for qualified rape and emphasizing the significance of knowledge of the victim’s mental state, the Court has strengthened the legal framework protecting vulnerable members of society. This ruling sets a precedent for future cases and serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding justice and ensuring the safety and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their mental capacity.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GGG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 224595, September 18, 2019

  • Accountability in Kidnapping: Establishing Conspiracy and Accessory Liability in Heinous Crimes

    The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Wennie Idian and modified the conviction of Excel Gurro in connection with a kidnapping for ransom with homicide case. The Court found Wennie guilty as a principal by conspiracy, while Excel was found guilty as an accessory after the fact. This decision underscores the importance of circumstantial evidence in proving conspiracy and clarifies the distinction between principals and accessories in criminal law, particularly in heinous crimes like kidnapping.

    Last Seen With the Victim: Unraveling Conspiracy in a Kidnapping Case

    This case revolves around the kidnapping and subsequent death of a minor, AAA, and the involvement of Wennie, a relative of the child’s family, and Excel, a cousin of one of the perpetrators. The central legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of Wennie as a principal and Excel as an accomplice beyond a reasonable doubt. The case highlights how courts assess circumstantial evidence to determine conspiracy in kidnapping cases and how individuals are held accountable for their actions, whether as direct participants or accessories.

    The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Wennie was the last person seen with AAA before she went missing. Witnesses testified that Wennie left with AAA and returned alone. Following AAA’s disappearance, Wennie acted suspiciously, including secretly texting an unknown person using another’s cellphone and deleting contacts, including that of Joel, who later confessed to the crime.

    The Court scrutinized the evidence to determine if Wennie conspired with Joel in the kidnapping. Conspiracy, in legal terms, exists when two or more individuals agree to commit a felony and decide to pursue it. Once conspiracy is established, each conspirator is held equally liable for the actions of the others. The Supreme Court emphasized that direct proof of conspiracy is not always necessary; it can be inferred from the actions of the accused, demonstrating a joint purpose and shared interests.

    In this case, the circumstantial evidence pointed to Wennie’s involvement. Her suspicious behavior after AAA’s disappearance, her attempts to mislead the family about Joel’s contact information, and her sudden departure to Catbalogan City—where the ransom money was wired—all contributed to the Court’s finding of conspiracy. The Court rejected Wennie’s defense of denial, noting that such a defense carries little weight against positive testimony and convincing circumstantial evidence. The Court stated:

    alibi and denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of weight in law. They are considered with suspicion and always received with caution, not only because they are inherently weak and unreliable but also because they are easily fabricated and concocted.

    Turning to Excel, the Court assessed his role in the crime. Excel was initially convicted as an accomplice for assisting in the transfer of ransom money. However, the Supreme Court re-evaluated his participation and determined that he was an accessory after the fact, not an accomplice. According to Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code:

    [T]hose who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices, take part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manners:

    1. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
    2. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery.
    3. By harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principals of the crime, provided the accessory acts with abuse of his public functions or whenever the author of the crime is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or an attempt to take the life of the Chief Executive, or is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.

    The Court noted that Excel’s involvement occurred after the kidnapping was already completed. He retrieved the ransom money and forwarded it to Joel, knowing that it was proceeds from a crime. His actions, though reprehensible, did not contribute to the commission of the kidnapping itself. The Court found that his actions qualified him as an accessory, as he assisted the offender in profiting from the crime’s effects.

    The Court emphasized that to be considered an accomplice, it must be shown that the individual (i) knew the criminal design of the principal, (ii) cooperated in the execution of the offense, and (iii) their acts bore a direct relation to the acts done by the principal. Since Excel’s actions occurred after the kidnapping, he did not meet these criteria.

    Regarding the penalties, the Court imposed reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole on Wennie, considering the crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide. For Excel, as an accessory, the Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

    The Court also addressed the award of damages, granting P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. The liability for these damages was apportioned, with Wennie and Joel being solidarily liable as principals, and Excel bearing a smaller share corresponding to his role as an accessory. This apportionment reflects the varying degrees of culpability and participation in the crime.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of Wennie as a principal and Excel as an accomplice beyond a reasonable doubt in the crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide. The court clarified the roles of each individual in the crime.
    What is the legal definition of conspiracy? Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. Once conspiracy is established, the responsibility of the conspirators is collective, thereby rendering them all equally liable.
    What is the difference between an accomplice and an accessory? An accomplice cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, while an accessory takes part after the commission of the crime, such as by profiting from the effects of the crime or assisting the offender to escape. The timing and nature of involvement determine the distinction.
    How did the court determine Wennie’s guilt as a principal? The court relied on circumstantial evidence, including that Wennie was the last person seen with the victim, her suspicious behavior after the victim’s disappearance, and her attempts to mislead the family about Joel’s contact information. The totality of these actions established her conspiracy with Joel.
    Why was Excel’s conviction changed from accomplice to accessory? Excel’s participation was limited to actions committed after the kidnapping was already consummated. His retrieval and transfer of the ransom money occurred after the crime, which qualifies him as an accessory rather than an accomplice.
    What penalties were imposed on Wennie and Excel? Wennie received a penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, while Excel received an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum. The difference reflects their distinct roles in the crime.
    What damages were awarded in this case? The Court granted P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. These damages were apportioned based on the degree of liability of each individual.
    How were the damages apportioned among the accused? Wennie and Joel, as principals, were solidarily liable for the majority of the damages, while Excel, as an accessory, bore a smaller share corresponding to his lesser involvement in the actual kidnapping. This reflects the varying degrees of culpability.

    This case reinforces the principle that individuals involved in heinous crimes will be held accountable to the full extent of the law, whether as principals or accessories. It also highlights the judiciary’s role in carefully evaluating evidence to ensure that convictions align with the level of participation and culpability of each defendant.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: EXCEL GURRO Y MAGA v. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 237216, September 18, 2019

  • Spontaneous Utterances: Admissibility of ‘Res Gestae’ in Identifying Criminals

    In the Philippines, statements made during or shortly after a startling event can be used as evidence, even if they are considered hearsay. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified that a victim’s identification of an assailant, made three days after a shooting, can be admissible as part of res gestae if the statement was spontaneous and made before the victim had time to fabricate a false story. This means that even if a victim cannot speak immediately after a crime due to injuries, their later statements identifying the perpetrator can still be used in court, provided certain conditions are met. This ruling underscores the importance of spontaneous statements in criminal investigations, especially when the victim’s condition limits immediate communication.

    From Victim’s Bedside to Courtroom: Can Delayed Identification Stand as Truth?

    The case revolves around the murder of Miguel Belen, a radio station reporter, who was shot by a woman riding a motorcycle driven by Eric Vargas. Belen, though initially unable to speak due to his injuries, identified Vargas as the driver three days after the incident through gestures and writing. The central legal question is whether Belen’s delayed identification of Vargas, made in a question-and-answer format while hospitalized, is admissible as part of res gestae, an exception to the hearsay rule.

    The admissibility of Belen’s statement hinged on Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which addresses res gestae. This rule allows statements made during or immediately after a startling event to be admitted as evidence, specifically if they concern the circumstances of the event and are made spontaneously. The law states:

    SEC. 42. Part of res gestae. — Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance may be received as part of the res gestae.

    To determine whether a statement qualifies as part of res gestae, the courts apply a three-pronged test. First, the principal act must be a startling occurrence. Second, the statements must be made before the declarant has time to contrive or devise a false narrative. Third, the statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately attending circumstances. All three elements were deemed present in Belen’s case.

    The Supreme Court considered the unique circumstances of Belen’s situation. Although three days had passed, the Court noted that Belen had been undergoing extensive surgery and treatment for his gunshot wounds. He was unable to speak and had difficulty breathing. Given these factors, the Court reasoned that Belen did not have the opportunity to fabricate a false story. His statements, made through writing and gestures, were considered spontaneous reactions to the startling event.

    The Court also relied on two tests to evaluate the admissibility of statements under the res gestae rule: the statement must be interwoven with the principal fact or event, and the evidence must negate any premeditation or purpose to manufacture testimony. In Belen’s case, the Court found that his identification of Vargas was directly related to the shooting incident, and the circumstances surrounding his statement indicated that it was made spontaneously, without any deliberate design.

    Moreover, the court highlighted several factors in determining spontaneity, including the time lapse between the event and the statement, the location where the statement was made, the declarant’s condition, any intervening events, and the nature of the statement itself. Applying these factors to Belen’s case, the Court concluded that his statement was indeed spontaneous and admissible.

    Furthermore, Vargas’ defense of alibi was deemed weak and unsubstantiated. He claimed to have been at a drinking session at the time of the incident, but this was not corroborated by any other evidence. The Court reiterated that for alibi to be valid, it must be demonstrated that the accused was not only somewhere else when the crime was committed, but that it was physically impossible for him to have been present at the scene.

    The Court also affirmed the lower courts’ finding of conspiracy between Vargas and the female assailant. Conspiracy exists when there is unity of purpose and intention in the commission of a crime. Since Vargas drove the motorcycle used in the shooting, the court inferred that he shared a common intent with the shooter to harm Belen. Their combined acts indicated a close association and a concurrence of sentiment.

    Regarding the qualifying circumstances, the Court agreed with the lower courts on the presence of treachery but not on evident premeditation. Treachery exists when the offender employs means to ensure the crime’s execution without risk to themselves and without giving the victim an opportunity to defend themselves. The suddenness of the attack and the wounds sustained by Belen indicated that he had no chance to retaliate. The court quoted:

    (1) the gun was fired not in succession but intermittently, meaning that there was sufficient time for the assailant to have observed the condition of Belen after each and every fire; (2) the quantity of bullets indicates the intent of the assailant to kill the victim; and (3) the locations of the wounds – with two coming from the back – show that it is possible that Belen was already lying down when the shots were fired.

    However, the Court found no evidence to support a finding of evident premeditation. The prosecution failed to prove when the plan to kill Belen was hatched or how much time elapsed before it was carried out. Evident premeditation requires proof of deliberate planning and reflection upon the consequences of the act. Therefore, the Court modified the award of damages, as the absence of evident premeditation affected the determination of aggravating circumstances.

    In light of this modification, the Court adjusted the damages awarded to the victim’s family. Following the guidelines set forth in People v. Jugueta, the Court awarded P75,000.00 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages. Additionally, since no evidence was presented regarding medical, burial, and funeral expenses, the Court awarded P50,000.00 as temperate damages.

    FAQs

    What is ‘res gestae’? ‘Res gestae’ refers to statements made during or immediately after a startling event, admissible as evidence despite being hearsay because they are considered spontaneous and reliable.
    Why was Belen’s statement considered part of ‘res gestae’? Despite the three-day delay, the court considered Belen’s statement as part of ‘res gestae’ because he was recovering from severe injuries, unable to speak, and thus unlikely to fabricate a story.
    What is the significance of ‘spontaneity’ in ‘res gestae’? Spontaneity is critical because it suggests the statement was made without reflection or fabrication, making it more likely to be truthful and reliable as evidence.
    What is alibi, and why was it not accepted in this case? Alibi is a defense claiming the accused was elsewhere when the crime occurred. It was rejected because Vargas failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.
    What is conspiracy, and how was it proven in this case? Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. It was proven by Vargas driving the shooter to and from the crime scene, indicating a shared purpose.
    What is treachery, and why was it considered a qualifying circumstance? Treachery is a means of attack that ensures the crime’s execution without risk to the offender, giving the victim no chance to defend themselves. It qualified the crime as murder due to the sudden and unexpected nature of the shooting.
    What is evident premeditation, and why was it not considered? Evident premeditation requires proof of deliberate planning and reflection before committing the crime. It was not considered because the prosecution did not prove when the plan to kill Belen was formed.
    How did the Court modify the damages awarded? The Court reduced the damages to P75,000 each for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, and P50,000 for temperate damages, reflecting the absence of evident premeditation.

    The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of spontaneous statements in criminal investigations and the nuances of applying the res gestae rule. While delayed statements are generally treated with caution, the Court recognized the unique circumstances of this case and admitted Belen’s identification of Vargas as evidence. This ruling serves as a reminder of the Court’s commitment to justice and its willingness to consider all relevant evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of an accused.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People of the Philippines vs. Eric Vargas y Jaguarin, G.R. No. 230356, September 18, 2019

  • Diminished Liability: When Forewarning Reduces Murder to Homicide

    In Philippine law, a murder charge can be reduced to homicide if the element of treachery is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified that if the victim is forewarned of an impending attack, the element of surprise, critical for establishing treachery, is negated. This means the accused may only be convicted of homicide, which carries a lesser penalty than murder. This distinction is important because it directly impacts the length of imprisonment and the severity of the legal consequences faced by the accused.

    From Threat to Tragedy: Did the Victim See It Coming?

    The case of People v. Ronald Jaurigue revolves around the fatal shooting of Charles Nabaza. Ronald Jaurigue was initially convicted of murder, but the Supreme Court re-evaluated the circumstances surrounding the crime. The central legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the existence of treachery or evident premeditation, which are qualifying circumstances that elevate a killing to murder. The events leading up to the shooting—a series of loud confrontations and threats—became crucial in determining the accused’s final culpability.

    The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Ronald, along with others, confronted Charles at his residence, issuing threats and challenges. Aquiles, one of Ronald’s companions, even shouted threats at Charles, attempting to lure him out of his unit. Subsequently, Ronald fired a fatal shot through the partially opened door of Charles’ residence. The lower courts convicted Ronald of murder, finding the presence of treachery. However, the Supreme Court took a closer look at these facts.

    The Supreme Court carefully examined the events leading up to the shooting. It noted that there were two distinct episodes of confrontation. First, Aquiles initiated a disturbance by loudly demanding that Charles come out and threatening him. Second, after being driven away, the group returned and Aquiles repeated his challenge. The court emphasized that treachery requires the attack to be sudden and unexpected, leaving the victim with no chance to defend themselves. Here, the prior confrontations served as a warning to Charles. As stated in the decision:

    There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its execution, without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.

    Building on this principle, the Court highlighted that the element of surprise, critical for establishing treachery, was missing. Charles had been forewarned of the potential danger, negating the possibility of a treacherous attack. The Court also considered whether evident premeditation existed, another qualifying circumstance for murder. Evident premeditation requires a deliberate plan and sufficient time for reflection before committing the crime. The requisites for evident premeditation are: (a) the time when the accused determined to commit the crime; (b) an act manifestly indicating that the accused had clung to his determination to commit the crime; and (c) the lapse of a sufficient length of time between the determination and execution to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.

    However, the Court found no evidence to suggest that Ronald had meticulously planned the killing. The records did not show when and how the plan to kill Charles was conceived, nor did they indicate a period of reflection sufficient to constitute evident premeditation. Lacking these critical elements, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the existence of evident premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, with the absence of both treachery and evident premeditation, the Supreme Court modified Ronald’s conviction from murder to homicide.

    The distinction between murder and homicide is crucial in Philippine law, primarily due to the significant difference in penalties. Murder, qualified by circumstances like treachery or evident premeditation, carries a heavier sentence. Homicide, on the other hand, is the unlawful killing of another person without these qualifying circumstances, and thus carries a lighter penalty. The Revised Penal Code distinguishes these crimes:

    Article 248. 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…

    Article 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of simple homicide and punished by reclusion temporal.

    In light of its determination, the Supreme Court reclassified the crime and adjusted Ronald’s sentence accordingly. The Court sentenced Ronald to an indeterminate prison term, ranging from eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The Supreme Court also adjusted the monetary awards to the victim’s heirs. While the actual damages proven were minimal (P6,466.00), the Court awarded P50,000 as temperate damages, recognizing the anomaly of awarding less to those who presented evidence compared to those who did not.

    Furthermore, the Court awarded P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages, in line with prevailing jurisprudence. These monetary awards aim to compensate the victim’s family for the loss and suffering caused by the crime. Finally, the Court mandated that all monetary awards would accrue legal interest at a rate of six percent per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid. This ensures that the compensation keeps pace with the time value of money and provides a measure of justice to the victim’s family.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the prosecution proved treachery or evident premeditation, qualifying circumstances for murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court ultimately found these elements lacking.
    What is the difference between murder and homicide? Murder is the unlawful killing of another person with qualifying circumstances like treachery or evident premeditation, while homicide is the unlawful killing without these circumstances. The presence of these circumstances significantly impacts the severity of the penalty.
    What is treachery? Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that directly ensure its execution without risk to themselves, arising from the defense the offended party might make. It requires the attack to be sudden, unexpected, and leaving the victim defenseless.
    What is evident premeditation? Evident premeditation requires that the commission of the crime be preceded by cool thought and reflection, with a clear resolution to carry out the criminal intent over a sufficient period. There must be a clear plan and adequate time for the perpetrator to consider the consequences of their actions.
    Why was the accused’s conviction reduced from murder to homicide? The conviction was reduced because the Supreme Court found that the victim had been forewarned of the attack, negating the element of surprise necessary for treachery. Additionally, there was no evidence of a premeditated plan to kill the victim.
    What was the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court sentenced Ronald to an indeterminate prison term of eight years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen years and four months of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The court also ordered him to pay civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the victim’s heirs.
    What are temperate damages? Temperate damages are awarded when actual damages cannot be proven with certainty. They serve as a reasonable substitute when the court acknowledges that some pecuniary loss has been suffered but the exact amount cannot be determined.
    What is the significance of the legal interest imposed? The legal interest of six percent per annum ensures that the monetary awards keep pace with the time value of money. It accrues from the finality of the decision until full payment, providing additional compensation to the victim’s heirs.

    This case underscores the importance of proving each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, especially when qualifying circumstances can significantly increase the penalty. The Supreme Court’s careful analysis of the facts highlights how prior warnings can negate the element of treachery, leading to a reduction in the severity of the conviction.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Jaurigue, G.R. No. 232380, September 04, 2019

  • Superior Strength in Criminal Law: Weapon Disparity and Victim Vulnerability

    In the Philippine legal system, the presence of superior strength as a qualifying circumstance in murder cases can significantly impact the outcome. This principle was underscored in People v. Pespenian, where the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of an accused based on the finding that the accused and his accomplice took advantage of their superior strength against an unarmed victim. The Court emphasized that the inequality of forces, evidenced by the use of weapons against an unarmed individual, constituted a deliberate act to ensure the commission of the crime. This decision highlights the judiciary’s focus on protecting vulnerable individuals from perpetrators who exploit their physical advantage, ensuring that justice is served when such power imbalances lead to fatal consequences.

    Armed and Dangerous: Did Numerical and Weapon Superiority Lead to Murder?

    The case of People v. Wennie Pespenian revolves around the tragic death of Brigido Colminas, who was fatally stabbed by Wennie Pespenian while Ireneo Salili stood guard with a pistol. The central legal question is whether the presence of two armed assailants against an unarmed victim constitutes taking advantage of superior strength, a qualifying circumstance that elevates the crime to murder. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted Pespenian of murder, a decision that the Court of Appeals (CA) later affirmed with modifications regarding the damages awarded. Pespenian then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn his conviction, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove that he purposely sought or deliberately used superior strength in the attack.

    The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimonies of Alejandro Pilota and Neri Valenzona, both companions of the victim, who witnessed the attack. Pilota testified that Pespenian stabbed Colminas multiple times with an eight-inch knife, while Salili held a pistol, preventing any intervention. Valenzona corroborated this account, stating that Pespenian stabbed Colminas while Salili pointed a gun at the victim. Dr. Eufemia P. Maratas, who conducted the post-mortem examination, confirmed that Colminas suffered eighteen wounds all over his body, leading to massive bleeding and ultimately, his death. In contrast, Pespenian claimed that he and Salili encountered Colminas, who was holding a knife, and a struggle ensued between Salili and Colminas. He stated that he fled out of fear and was later wrongly accused of the crime.

    The RTC, in its decision, emphasized the inequality of forces between the armed assailants and the unarmed victim. The court noted that Pespenian and Salili were armed with a knife and a gun, respectively, while Colminas had no means to defend himself. This disparity, the RTC argued, was purposely selected to facilitate the commission of the crime. Aggrieved, Pespenian appealed to the CA, which affirmed the RTC’s decision with modifications, increasing the awards for moral, exemplary, and temperate damages. Unsuccessful in the CA, Pespenian then appealed his conviction before the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether the CA erred in affirming his conviction for murder.

    The Supreme Court, in affirming the conviction, highlighted several key points. First, the Court noted Pespenian’s admission that he and Salili encountered Colminas on the road, which contradicted his claim that the prosecution witnesses could not identify him due to darkness. Second, the Court emphasized that the crime scene was not entirely dark, as the witnesses used a flashlight and were only four meters away from the victim. Additionally, the witnesses knew the accused, as they lived nearby. The Court cited excerpts from the trial transcripts, where Pilota and Valenzona clearly identified Pespenian as the one who stabbed Colminas and Salili as the one who pointed a gun at him.

    The Supreme Court then delved into the critical element of whether the killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength. Pespenian argued that the prosecution failed to prove that he purposely sought the advantage or deliberately used it during the attack. He also claimed that Colminas was not defenseless, as he had two companions who could have protected him. However, the Court rejected these arguments, citing the findings of both the RTC and the CA. The RTC emphasized that the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of superior strength is considered whenever there is a notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors, which is plainly and obviously advantageous to the aggressors and purposely selected or taken advantage of to facilitate the commission of the crime.

    The CA further elaborated on this point, stating that there is an abuse of superior strength when the perpetrators of a crime deliberately use excessive force, thereby rendering the victim incapable of defending himself. The court noted that Pespenian and Salili armed themselves with deadly weapons, with Pespenian using a knife to inflict eighteen wounds on Colminas, while Salili held a gun pointed at the victim. The fact that Colminas was unarmed and his companions were similarly unarmed and overwhelmed by fear further underscored the exploitation of superior advantage by the assailants. The Supreme Court also observed that Pespenian and Salili chased the witnesses after the stabbing, demonstrating their awareness of their upper hand due to being armed.

    The Court also emphasized the importance of respecting the findings of fact of the trial court, particularly when affirmed by the CA, as these are generally binding upon the Supreme Court. The Court found no compelling reason to reverse the conviction, as both the trial court and the appellate court were unanimous in their findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were based on evidence on record, law, and jurisprudence. Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, upholding Pespenian’s conviction for murder. This ruling reinforces the principle that the deliberate exploitation of superior strength, especially through the use of weapons against an unarmed victim, constitutes a qualifying circumstance that elevates the crime to murder.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the act of two armed individuals attacking an unarmed person constitutes taking advantage of superior strength, which qualifies the crime as murder. The court examined the disparity in force and the deliberate use of weapons to incapacitate the victim.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling? The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, convicting Wennie Pespenian of murder. The Court found that Pespenian and his accomplice took advantage of their superior strength by using weapons against an unarmed victim.
    What evidence did the prosecution present? The prosecution presented eyewitness testimonies from two companions of the victim, who identified Pespenian as the one who stabbed Brigido Colminas while his accomplice pointed a gun. They also presented a post-mortem examination report confirming the cause of death.
    What was the accused’s defense? Pespenian claimed that he and Salili encountered Colminas, who was holding a knife, and a struggle ensued between Salili and Colminas. He stated that he fled out of fear and was wrongly accused of the crime.
    What is “taking advantage of superior strength”? Taking advantage of superior strength is an aggravating circumstance in criminal law where there is a clear inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors. This advantage must be purposely sought or deliberately used to facilitate the commission of the crime.
    How did the presence of a weapon affect the ruling? The presence of a knife and a gun in the hands of the accused, while the victim was unarmed, was a critical factor in the Court’s determination that superior strength was exploited. This disparity made the victim vulnerable and unable to defend himself.
    Why were the testimonies of the witnesses considered credible? The testimonies were deemed credible because the witnesses were close to the victim during the attack, had a clear view due to a flashlight, and knew the accused personally. The Court found no inconsistencies that would cast doubt on their accounts.
    What damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs? The Court awarded civil indemnity, moral damages, exemplary damages, and temperate damages to the victim’s heirs. The amounts were modified by the Court of Appeals and affirmed by the Supreme Court, with interest accruing from the date of finality of the decision.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Pespenian serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring equal protection under the law, particularly for those who are vulnerable. By upholding the conviction, the Court sends a clear message that the exploitation of superior strength will not be tolerated and that perpetrators will be held accountable for their actions. This case underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights and lives of individuals, reinforcing the principles of justice and fairness in the Philippine legal system.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. WENNIE PESPENIAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 242413, September 04, 2019

  • Consent and Intimidation in Rape Cases: Clarifying the Burden of Resistance

    In People v. Allan Nievera, the Supreme Court affirmed that a rape conviction can stand even without proof of strong physical resistance from the victim, emphasizing that the essence of rape lies in the lack of consent and the presence of force or intimidation. This decision clarifies that a victim’s failure to strenuously resist does not imply consent, especially when fear or intimidation is present. This ruling underscores the importance of understanding the psychological impact on victims and reinforces that the absence of explicit consent, coupled with a reasonable fear for one’s safety, is sufficient to establish the crime of rape.

    When Silence Doesn’t Mean Yes: Examining Consent in Vulnerable Circumstances

    The case revolves around Allan Nievera’s appeal against his conviction for raping AAA, a 14-year-old girl. The prosecution presented evidence indicating that Nievera, taking advantage of his position as a neighbor, lured AAA into his apartment under false pretenses and subsequently raped her. The central legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of rape, specifically the use of force or intimidation, given AAA’s testimony that she did not physically resist the assault. This question directly addresses the complex issue of consent and the extent to which a victim must resist in order to prove that a sexual act was non-consensual.

    The Supreme Court, in affirming the lower courts’ decisions, emphasized that the two crucial elements of rape are: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of the girl, and (2) such act was accomplished through the use of force or intimidation. The Court highlighted that AAA’s testimony provided a clear and believable account of how Nievera committed the rape. Moreover, the Court reiterated the established principle that in rape cases, a conviction can be based on the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the victim, provided that it is clear, convincing, and consistent with human nature. This underscores the importance of according weight to the victim’s testimony, especially when the trial court has had the opportunity to assess the witness’s demeanor and credibility.

    Nievera’s defense centered on the argument that AAA’s testimony was improbable because she did not strongly resist the assault, thus allegedly failing to establish the element of force or intimidation. However, the Court dismissed this argument, pointing to AAA’s testimony where she stated that she did not resist because she knew Nievera had a bladed weapon in his room. The Court emphasized that while AAA did not offer strong resistance, she communicated her lack of consent by saying “ayoko po” (I don’t want to) and attempting to push Nievera away. According to the court’s decision,

    Clear from the foregoing testimony of AAA is that while she admittedly did not offer strong resistance against the advances of Nievera, she communicated to him that she was not giving her consent to what was being done to her. This absence of consent was shown by (1) her saying “ayoko po,” and (2) using one of her hands to shove Nievera’s body away from her. The sexual acts were, therefore, done to her against her will and without her consent.

    This absence of consent, the Court reasoned, was sufficient to establish the crime of rape. It is critical to consider that the presence of a weapon, even if not directly used, can create an atmosphere of intimidation that effectively coerces the victim into submission.

    The Court referenced the case of People v. Joson, stressing that “the gravamen of the crime of rape under Art. 266-A (1) is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.”

    We are not persuaded by the accused-appellant’s insistence that the absence of any resistance on the part of AAA raised doubts as to whether the sexual congress was without her consent. The failure of the victim to shout for help or resist the sexual advances of the rapist is not tantamount to consent. Physical resistance need not be established in rape when threats and intimidation are employed and the victim submits herself to her attackers of because of fear.

    Besides, physical resistance is not the sole test to determine whether a woman voluntarily succumbed to the lust of an accused. Rape victims show no uniform reaction. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. After all, resistance is not an element of rape and its absence does not denigrate AAA’s claim that the accused-appellant consummated his bestial act.

    This highlights the understanding that victims of sexual assault may react differently due to fear, trauma, or other psychological factors, and that the absence of physical resistance should not be interpreted as consent. The Court also pointed out that it is not the victim’s burden to prove resistance; rather, it is the prosecution’s responsibility to demonstrate that the sexual act was committed against the victim’s will.

    Furthermore, the Court addressed the issue of intimidation, emphasizing that it must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the crime. Given AAA’s age, her knowledge of Nievera’s weapon, and the fact that she was alone with him in a locked room, the Court found that there was sufficient intimidation to justify her submission to the sexual act.

    The Court did not find merit in Nievera’s argument that AAA’s actions after the rape, such as going to her classmate’s house and accepting Nievera’s company, were inconsistent with the behavior of a rape victim. The Court acknowledged that victims of trauma may react in unexpected ways and that AAA’s actions could be attributed to confusion and fear. Additionally, the Court rejected Nievera’s attempt to introduce evidence of AAA’s subsequent relationship with an older man to undermine her credibility. Such evidence is inadmissible under the Rule on Examination of Child Witness, specifically Section 30, which protects child victims of sexual abuse from having their past sexual behavior used against them in court.

    Finally, the Court dismissed Nievera’s defenses of alibi and denial, citing the well-established principle that these defenses cannot outweigh the positive and credible testimony of the victim. Moreover, the Court noted that Nievera’s alibi was weak because he was still within the immediate vicinity of the crime scene at the time of the incident, making it physically possible for him to commit the crime. This ruling reinforces the importance of the victim’s testimony in rape cases and clarifies the conditions under which a lack of physical resistance does not equate to consent.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of rape, specifically force or intimidation, given the victim’s testimony that she did not physically resist the assault.
    Can a person be convicted of rape if the victim didn’t physically resist? Yes, physical resistance is not the sole determinant of consent. If the victim was subjected to force, threats, or intimidation that coerced them into submission, a rape conviction can stand, even without physical resistance.
    What does the court consider as intimidation in rape cases? Intimidation is assessed based on the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the crime. Factors like age, the presence of a weapon, and being alone with the perpetrator in a confined space can contribute to a finding of intimidation.
    Is the victim’s testimony enough to convict someone of rape? Yes, the accused may be convicted based on the lone, uncorroborated testimony of the victim, provided that her testimony is clear, convincing, and consistent with human nature.
    Why did the court dismiss the evidence about the victim’s later relationships? The court dismissed the evidence about the victim’s subsequent relationships as inadmissible under the Rule on Examination of Child Witness. This rule protects child victims from having their past sexual behavior used against them in court.
    What is the significance of saying “ayoko po” in this case? Saying “ayoko po” (I don’t want to) demonstrated the victim’s lack of consent, even in the absence of strong physical resistance. This verbal expression of non-consent was considered a crucial factor in the court’s decision.
    How does the Philippine legal system view reactions of rape victims? The legal system recognizes that rape victims may react differently due to fear, trauma, or psychological factors. Therefore, the absence of a standard reaction should not discredit the victim’s testimony.
    What is the effect of the accused’s alibi in this case? The accused’s alibi was not given weight because he was within the immediate vicinity of the crime scene. Thus, it was physically possible for him to commit the crime.

    In conclusion, People v. Allan Nievera reinforces the principle that consent must be freely and unequivocally given, and that the presence of force or intimidation can negate consent even without explicit physical resistance. This decision provides important guidance for understanding the elements of rape and the complexities of victim behavior in sexual assault cases.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Nievera, G.R. No. 242830, August 28, 2019

  • Unwavering Identification: Conviction Stands in Kidnapping for Ransom Case

    In a kidnapping for ransom case, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Elmar Santos y Del Carmen, emphasizing the reliability of the victim’s positive identification. The Court reiterated that a clear and unwavering identification of the accused, coupled with the opportunity for the victim to observe their captors, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This ruling underscores the importance of eyewitness testimony and the weight it carries when presented with certainty and consistency.

    Held Captive: Can a Victim’s Memory Secure a Conviction?

    The case stemmed from the kidnapping of Roman Pugeda, who was abducted at gunpoint and held for ransom. Pugeda recounted the harrowing experience, detailing how his captors demanded money in exchange for his release. He later identified Elmar Santos y Del Carmen as one of the perpetrators. The defense challenged the reliability of this identification, arguing that it was suggestive and influenced by the circumstances of the arrest. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Santos, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The core legal question revolved around whether the prosecution adequately proved Santos’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly considering the defense’s challenge to the victim’s identification.

    The Supreme Court meticulously examined the elements of kidnapping as defined under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove the following to secure a conviction: (a) the offender is a private individual; (b) they kidnap or detain another, or in any manner deprive the latter of their liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (d) the crime involves specific circumstances like prolonged detention, simulation of public authority, infliction of physical injuries, or extortion of ransom. In this case, the element of demanding ransom was central to the charge. The Revised Penal Code states:

    ART. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:

    The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.

    The Court found that all these elements were convincingly proven. Santos, a private individual, unlawfully deprived Pugeda of his freedom, holding him against his will until a ransom was arranged. The victim’s identification of Santos as one of the kidnappers was a crucial piece of evidence. The Court gave significant weight to the victim’s testimony, underscoring the importance of direct and credible eyewitness accounts in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the Court cited People v. Ali, emphasizing that positive identification pertains to proof of identity and must be impervious to skepticism due to its distinctiveness.

    xxx Positive identification pertains essentially to proof of identity. In order that identification be deemed with moral certainty enough to overcome the presumption of innocence, it must be impervious to skepticism on account of its distinctiveness. Such distinctiveness is achieved through identification evidence which encompass unique physical features or characteristics like the face, voice or any other physical facts that set the individual apart from the rest of humanity. In the case at bar, it is unquestionable that Ali was identified with moral certainty. Oliz was able to distinguish and identify accused considering their proximity inside the vehicle and the duration of the captivity. Thus, she was intimately familiar with Ali’s facial features and voice-enough to lend credibility to her identification of the accused. xxx

    The defense argued that the identification process was flawed and suggestive, but the Court dismissed this claim. The defense failed to provide concrete evidence of any suggestive practices by the police. The Court also referenced the rules for out-of-court identifications through photographs as enunciated in People v. Pineda:

    The first rule in proper photographic identification procedure is that a series of photographs must be shown, and not merely that of the suspect. The second rule directs that when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect.

    The Court noted that the defense did not prove that police officers presented only Santos’ picture or unduly emphasized it. Moreover, the Court emphasized that Pugeda was able to identify Santos from a series of photos, reinforcing the credibility of his identification. The Court further applied the totality of circumstances test, as articulated in People v. Lugnasin, to assess the admissibility and reliability of the out-of-court identification.

    xxx Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru line-ups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. Since corruption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification during the trial of the case, courts have fashioned out rules to assure its fairness and its compliance with the requirements of constitutional due process. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz.: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure. xxx

    The Court found that all factors weighed in favor of the prosecution. Pugeda had ample opportunity to observe his captors, displayed a high degree of attention during the abduction, consistently identified Santos, and made the identification shortly after the incident. Furthermore, the Court noted that there was no evidence of improper suggestion by the police. The Court also addressed the civil liabilities arising from the crime. Referencing People v. Gambao, the Court increased the civil indemnity to P100,000.00 and awarded moral damages of P100,000.00 and exemplary damages of P100,000.00. Additionally, Santos was held liable for P20,000.00, representing the amount extorted from Pugeda’s ATM account.

    FAQs

    What were the key elements the prosecution needed to prove to convict Elmar Santos y Del Carmen? The prosecution needed to prove that Santos was a private individual who illegally detained Roman Pugeda, depriving him of his liberty, and that the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.
    What is the “totality of circumstances test” and how was it applied in this case? The “totality of circumstances test” is used to assess the reliability of out-of-court identifications. It considers the witness’s opportunity to view the criminal, their degree of attention, the accuracy of prior descriptions, the level of certainty in the identification, the time between the crime and identification, and the suggestiveness of the identification procedure; all factors weighed favorably in the victim’s identification.
    Why did the Court emphasize the victim’s identification of the accused? The Court emphasized the victim’s identification because it provided direct evidence linking Santos to the crime. A clear and unwavering identification, especially when the victim had ample opportunity to observe the perpetrator, is considered strong evidence.
    What was the significance of the photographic identification procedure? The photographic identification procedure was important because it allowed the victim to identify the accused outside of the courtroom setting. The Court scrutinized the procedure to ensure it was not unduly suggestive.
    What damages were awarded to the victim, and why? The victim was awarded civil indemnity (P100,000), moral damages (P100,000), exemplary damages (P100,000), and compensation for the extorted money (P20,000). These damages were awarded to compensate the victim for the harm suffered due to the kidnapping.
    What is the penalty for kidnapping for ransom in the Philippines? Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, kidnapping for ransom is punishable by reclusion perpetua to death. Due to Republic Act No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty imposed in this case was reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
    What was the defense’s main argument, and why did it fail? The defense argued that the victim’s identification was unreliable and suggestive. This argument failed because the defense did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate suggestiveness, and the victim’s identification was deemed credible and consistent.
    What is the practical implication of this Supreme Court ruling? The ruling reinforces the importance of positive identification by victims in criminal cases. It also highlights the Court’s willingness to uphold convictions based on strong eyewitness testimony, especially when corroborated by other evidence and when the identification process is deemed fair and reliable.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in this case affirms the importance of eyewitness testimony and the rigorous standards applied when evaluating the reliability of identifications. The ruling provides clarity on the elements necessary to prove kidnapping for ransom and reinforces the gravity with which the Philippine legal system treats such offenses.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ELMAR SANTOS Y DEL CARMEN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT, G.R. No. 229658, August 28, 2019

  • Treachery in Criminal Law: The Element of Surprise and Defenselessness

    In the case of People vs. Cromwell Torres y Palis, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused for murder, emphasizing the importance of treachery as a qualifying circumstance. The Court reiterated that for treachery to be appreciated, the means of execution must deprive the victim of any opportunity to defend themselves, and this method must be deliberately adopted by the assailant. This decision underscores the gravity of attacks that are sudden, unexpected, and leave the victim utterly defenseless, ensuring the perpetrator is held accountable for the heightened culpability of murder.

    Sudden Attack: Did the Shooter’s Actions Constitute Treachery?

    Cromwell Torres y Palis was convicted of murder for the death of Kim Kenneth Palumbarit. The prosecution presented evidence that on August 15, 2009, Torres shot Palumbarit from behind with an improvised shotgun while the victim was starting his motorcycle. Two eyewitnesses, Richard Gemao and Lalaine De Vera, testified to seeing the event unfold. The defense, however, argued that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and questioned the appreciation of treachery as a qualifying circumstance.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Torres guilty, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). Both courts emphasized the presence of treachery, noting that the suddenness of the attack deprived Palumbarit of any chance to defend himself. Torres appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating his arguments against the legality of his arrest, the credibility of the witnesses, and the existence of treachery.

    The Supreme Court addressed the procedural issue of Torres’s arrest, stating that any objection to an arrest must be made before entering a plea. By voluntarily submitting to the court’s jurisdiction and participating in the trial, Torres waived his right to question the legality of his arrest. The Court cited People v. Alunday, which states:

    The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.

    Turning to the substantive issues, the Supreme Court outlined the elements of murder as defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC):

    ART. 248. 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 Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person was killed, the accused killed them, the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance such as treachery, and the killing was neither parricide nor infanticide. In this case, the death of Palumbarit and the absence of parricide or infanticide were undisputed. The critical point was whether the prosecution sufficiently proved that Torres was the killer and that the killing was committed with treachery.

    The Supreme Court found the testimonies of Gemao and De Vera credible and consistent. They both identified Torres as the person who shot Palumbarit. The Court reiterated the importance of the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility, stating that the trial court is in the best position to evaluate testimonies and demeanor. The Court noted, “the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses, having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.”

    Crucially, the Supreme Court affirmed the presence of treachery, elaborating on its requirements. To establish treachery, the prosecution must prove that the accused employed means of execution that gave the victim no opportunity to defend themselves, and that the means of execution was deliberate or consciously adopted. The Court highlighted the testimony indicating that Palumbarit was shot from behind without warning, leaving him no chance to retaliate or escape. Torres’s actions were deemed a deliberate strategy to ensure the success of the attack without risk to himself.

    The defense pointed to alleged inconsistencies between Gemao’s affidavit and his testimony. However, the Court dismissed these concerns, citing People v. Dayaday:

    x x x [T]his Court had consistently ruled that the alleged inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and his sworn statement before the investigators are not fatal defects to justify a reversal of judgment. Such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are almost always incomplete.

    The Court found that Gemao’s affidavit and testimony were consistent, with the testimony merely providing additional details not specified in the affidavit. Minor inconsistencies do not undermine the credibility of a witness when the core facts remain consistent. The failure to establish the exact number of people present during the commission of the crime was deemed a minor detail that did not weaken the prosecution’s case.

    Considering all factors, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder, finding no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The penalty imposed was reclusion perpetua, and the Court adjusted the award of exemplary damages to P75,000.00 to align with current jurisprudence. The decision reinforces the principle that treachery significantly elevates the culpability of a crime when the attack is sudden, unexpected, and leaves the victim defenseless.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the qualifying circumstance of treachery was correctly appreciated in the killing of Kim Kenneth Palumbarit by Cromwell Torres y Palis. The Court examined whether the attack was sudden and unexpected, depriving the victim of any means of defense.
    What is treachery according to Philippine law? Treachery exists when the offender employs means, methods, or forms in the execution of the crime that tend directly and specially to ensure its execution, without risk to the offender arising from the defense which the offended party might make. The essence of treachery is the sudden and unexpected attack on an unsuspecting victim.
    Why was the legality of the arrest questioned? The defense questioned the legality of the arrest, arguing it did not fall under permissible warrantless arrests. However, the Supreme Court ruled that the accused waived this objection by entering a plea and participating in the trial without raising the issue beforehand.
    What damages were awarded to the victim’s heirs? The heirs were awarded civil indemnity (Php 75,000.00), moral damages (Php 75,000.00), exemplary damages (increased to Php 75,000.00 by the Supreme Court), and actual damages (Php 78,612.50). All damages were subject to a 6% legal interest from the finality of the judgment until fully paid.
    How did the court address inconsistencies in witness testimonies? The court acknowledged minor inconsistencies between the witness’s affidavit and testimony but deemed them not fatal to the prosecution’s case. Affidavits are often incomplete, and the court gives more weight to testimonies given in open court where witnesses are subject to cross-examination.
    What is the significance of ‘reclusion perpetua’ in this case? Reclusion perpetua is the penalty imposed for murder when there are no mitigating or aggravating circumstances. It is a severe punishment, signifying imprisonment for life, although subject to certain conditions like parole eligibility after a certain period.
    What must the prosecution prove to establish murder? The prosecution must establish that a person was killed; the accused committed the killing; the killing was attended by a qualifying circumstance such as treachery; and the killing was not parricide or infanticide. All these elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
    How does this case affect future criminal proceedings? This case reinforces the importance of timely objections to arrests and clarifies the elements required to prove treachery in murder cases. It serves as a reminder that voluntary submission to the court’s jurisdiction waives objections to the legality of an arrest.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Cromwell Torres y Palis reaffirms the critical role of treachery in determining the severity of criminal liability in murder cases. The ruling underscores the necessity of ensuring that attacks are not only proven but also that the circumstances surrounding them demonstrate the deliberate and unexpected nature that constitutes treachery.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People of the Philippines vs. Cromwell Torres y Palis, G.R. No. 241012, August 28, 2019

  • The Burden of Proof in Rape Cases: Evaluating Testimony and Physical Evidence

    In a split decision, the Supreme Court addressed the conviction of XXX for multiple counts of qualified rape. The Court affirmed the conviction for one count (Criminal Case No. 4793) based on the victim’s straightforward testimony and corroborating medical evidence. However, it acquitted XXX on two other counts (Criminal Case Nos. 4792 and 4794), finding the prosecution’s evidence insufficient to prove the elements of rape beyond reasonable doubt. This case underscores the importance of detailed testimony and the stringent burden of proof in rape cases, particularly when multiple charges arise from separate incidents.

    When Silence Fails: Assessing Credibility in Rape Allegations

    The case of People v. XXX revolves around allegations of rape brought against the accused by his sister-in-law. The legal question at the heart of this case is whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to prove each instance of rape beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the inconsistencies and lack of detail in the complainant’s testimony regarding some of the alleged incidents. This decision highlights the complexities involved in evaluating testimonial evidence and the critical role it plays in determining guilt or innocence in sexual assault cases.

    The prosecution presented the testimony of AAA, the victim, along with corroborating medical evidence from Dr. Evelyn Noche, who testified to finding a fresh hymenal laceration. For Criminal Case No. 4793, the Court found AAA’s testimony regarding the incident on April 16, 2000, to be detailed and credible. AAA recounted how the appellant, armed with a knife, threatened her before the assault. The trial court gave full credence to AAA’s testimony, noting its straightforward and spontaneous nature, a determination that appellate courts generally defer to unless there is a clear indication of misapprehension of facts.

    “Noon pong ika 16 ng Abril 2000 na ang oras ay humigit kumulang sa ika 3:00 ng hapon habang ako po ay nasa loob ng aming bahay ay pumanhik ang kuya (XXX) at nautang ng pera sa akin at noong hindi ko pinautang ay sinarahan nito ang pinto, nagbukas ng balisong at ako ay tinutukan sa leeg at sinabi na ako ay huwag magsusumbong at ako ay kanyang papatayin at pagkatapos ako ay kanyang inihiga sa papag at pagkatapos ako ay kanyang hinubuan ng panty at siya ay nag-hubo din at pilit po niyang ipinasok ang matigas niyang titi sa aking puki at wala na apo (sic) akong magawa kundi ang umiyak na lamang.”

    Importantly, the medical findings supported her account. People v. Mabalo reinforces this point, stating that such medical evidence corroborates the victim’s testimony. In contrast, the defense presented an alibi, claiming that the appellant was elsewhere at the time of the incident. The court, however, found this alibi unconvincing, especially since the distance between the alleged location of the appellant and the crime scene was not so great as to make his presence at the scene impossible. The alibi was further weakened by the fact that it was corroborated by relatives, who are often seen as partial witnesses.

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that mere denial and alibi are insufficient to outweigh the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness. The established doctrine holds that a categorical testimony with a ring of truth prevails over a simple denial. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court highlighted in People v. Malate, for alibi to be a viable defense, it must be physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime. This was not the case here, as the locations were within the same municipality and within walking distance.

    This approach contrasts sharply with the assessment of evidence in Criminal Case Nos. 4792 and 4794. In these cases, the Court found AAA’s testimony to be lacking in specific details regarding the acts of force and intimidation employed by the appellant. AAA testified that appellant threatened her with a long knife and raped her on April 18 and 23, 2000. She did not specifically state how appellant threatened her with a long knife and how he supposedly “raped” her on these two (2) occasions.

    We, however, find that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the elements of rape as defined and penalized under paragraph 1(a) of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, viz: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) such act was accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.

    The Court cited People v. Matunhay to emphasize that each charge of rape must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The victim’s testimony must state evidentiary facts, specifically that the appellant’s penis, at the very least, touched the labia of the victim’s private part. A witness is not permitted to make her own conclusions of law; her testimony must state evidentiary facts, specifically in rape cases, that the appellant’s penis, at the very least, touched the labia of the victim’s private part. AAA could not simply claim that she had been raped without elaborating on how the appellant had perpetrated his lustful act. Therefore, the Court acquitted the appellant on these two counts due to the lack of sufficient evidentiary details demonstrating force and intimidation.

    The penalty for qualified rape, as defined under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353 (RA 8353), is reclusion perpetua when the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. The court correctly sentenced the appellant to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, in light of Republic Act No. 9346 (RA 9346) which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.

    The Supreme Court upheld the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, setting each at Php 100,000.00, aligning with prevailing jurisprudence. Furthermore, these amounts are subject to a six percent (6%) interest per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid, ensuring that the victim receives appropriate compensation and that the offender is held fully accountable under the law. This dual approach—affirming one conviction while acquitting on others—highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that each charge is independently substantiated with concrete evidence and detailed accounts, upholding the principles of justice and fairness.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the prosecution provided sufficient evidence to prove each count of rape beyond a reasonable doubt, especially concerning the details of force and intimidation. The court carefully assessed the victim’s testimony and corroborating evidence for each alleged incident to determine if the legal requirements were met.
    Why was the accused acquitted on two of the rape charges? The accused was acquitted on two charges (Criminal Case Nos. 4792 and 4794) because the court found the victim’s testimony lacked specific details about how the accused used force or intimidation. Without sufficient evidentiary facts, the prosecution failed to prove these charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
    What is the legal definition of qualified rape in this case? Qualified rape, as defined by Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, occurs when the victim is under 18 years old, and the offender is a relative within the third civil degree. In this case, the accused was the victim’s brother-in-law, meeting the criteria for qualified rape.
    What penalty was imposed for the qualified rape conviction? The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, which is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. This penalty aligns with the legal provisions for qualified rape when the death penalty cannot be imposed due to Republic Act No. 9346.
    What role did the medical evidence play in the court’s decision? The medical evidence, particularly the finding of a fresh hymenal laceration, corroborated the victim’s testimony in Criminal Case No. 4793. This evidence supported the claim that a sexual assault had occurred, bolstering the victim’s account of the incident.
    How did the court assess the accused’s alibi? The court found the accused’s alibi unconvincing because he failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The distance between his claimed location and the victim’s house was not so great as to preclude his presence during the incident.
    What is the significance of straightforward testimony in rape cases? Straightforward and spontaneous testimony is given significant weight by the courts, particularly in cases where the victim is young. Such testimony is seen as more credible, especially when it aligns with other evidence like medical findings.
    What damages were awarded to the victim? The victim was awarded Php 100,000.00 as civil indemnity, Php 100,000.00 as moral damages, and Php 100,000.00 as exemplary damages. These amounts are subject to a six percent (6%) interest per annum from the finality of the decision until fully paid.

    This case illustrates the nuanced approach courts take in evaluating evidence in rape cases, emphasizing the necessity of detailed, credible testimony and corroborating evidence to meet the high burden of proof. The differing outcomes across the charges underscore the importance of independently substantiating each allegation with concrete facts.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 230334, August 19, 2019