Lawyerly

GR No. 166441

2014-10-08

BERSAMIN, J.

Nonetheless, rape admits of an attempted stage. In this connection, the character of the overt acts for purposes of the attempted stage has been explained in People v. Lizada:[22]

GR No. 180914

2010-11-24

PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Lewdness is defined as an "obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous" act which signifies that form of immorality carried on a wanton manner.[40] It is morally inappropriate, indecent, and lustful for accused-appellant to undress himself and his own daughter (who was completely capable of dressing or undressing herself), while his wife was away and his other children were asleep; or doing the same acts in an isolated coconut farm where only the two of them were present.

GR No. 177747

2010-02-16

PEOPLE v. IGNACIO PORAS

BRION, J.

"Lewd" is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, or lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality related to moral impurity, or that which is carried on a wanton manner.[57]

GR No. 174065

2009-02-18

PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES

BRION, J.

People v. Lizada, [36] specifically involving the charge of rape, followed the above general principle; we stated that an information for rape is not rendered defective for failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed. The reason for this is plain: the precise date of the commission

GR No. 167756

2008-04-09

PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO

REYES, R.T., J.

The doctrine was reiterated with greater firmness in People v. Salalima[32] and in People v. Lizada.[33]

GR NO. 166326

2006-01-25

ESMERALDO RIVERA v. PEOPLE

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.[13] The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:(1) That there be external acts;

GR NO. 152589 & 152758

2005-01-31

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES

PER CURIAM

In this case, the series of appalling events which took place on the night of 18 March 1998 inside the humble home of private complainant and of accused-appellant, establish beyond doubt that the latter intended to ravish his very own flesh and blood. As vividly narrated by private complainant before the trial court, accused-appellant, taking advantage of the cover of darkness and of the absence of his wife, removed her (private complainant's) clothing and thereafter placed himself on top of her. Accused-appellant, who was similarly naked as private complainant, then proceeded to kiss the latter and he likewise touched her breasts until finally, he rendered private complainant unconscious by boxing her in the stomach.[8] These dastardly acts of accused-appellant constitute "the first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made."[9] Far from being mere obscenity or lewdness, they are indisputably overt acts executed in order to consummate the crime of rape against the person of private complainant.

GR NO. 152589 & 152758

2005-01-31

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES

PER CURIAM

In this case, the series of appalling events which took place on the night of 18 March 1998 inside the humble home of private complainant and of accused-appellant, establish beyond doubt that the latter intended to ravish his very own flesh and blood. As vividly narrated by private complainant before the trial court, accused-appellant, taking advantage of the cover of darkness and of the absence of his wife, removed her (private complainant's) clothing and thereafter placed himself on top of her. Accused-appellant, who was similarly naked as private complainant, then proceeded to kiss the latter and he likewise touched her breasts until finally, he rendered private complainant unconscious by boxing her in the stomach.[8] These dastardly acts of accused-appellant constitute "the first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made."[9] Far from being mere obscenity or lewdness, they are indisputably overt acts executed in order to consummate the crime of rape against the person of private complainant.

GR Nos. 140873-77

2004-02-06

PEOPLE v. LEVI SUMARAGO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The appellant may not even be convicted of attempted rape under Article 6 in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code because there is no evidence that the appellant commenced by overt acts the commission of the offense which had direct connection with the crime intended to be committed but did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.[14] There is no evidence that the appellant boxed Norelyn for the purpose of raping her. The testimony of Dr. Avenida Vista that she found an incomplete laceration on Norelyn's hymen when she examined the child on October 18, 1996 does not constitute proof that Norelyn sustained the laceration on March 5, 1998. It bears stressing that the appellant raped Norelyn four times after March 5, 1995. She was examined by Dr. Vista only after the said rapes. It is entirely possible that Norelyn sustained the laceration on the subsequent dates: on March 13, 1995, March 24, 1995, April 2, 1995 and on April 11, 1995.

GR Nos. 139751-52

2004-01-26

PEOPLE v. NOEL DARILAY

CALLEJO, SR., J.

We agree with the ruling of the trial court that the appellant is guilty of attempted murder for the injuries sustained by Ailyn. Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt to commit a felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony by direct acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In People v. Lizada,[34] we held:…The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of March 21, 1892, declared that for overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is necessary that their objective be known and established or such that acts be of such nature that they themselves should obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended, said objective and finality to serve as ground for designation of the offense.[35]

GR Nos. 152589 and 152758

2003-10-24

PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES

PER CURIAM

This of course does not mean that no crime was perpetrated in Crim. Case No. 6636-G. The criminal acts ascertained by the prosecution are that appellant went on top of Maricar while both were naked and then kissed his daughter and touched her breasts, at the same time threatening to kill her if she would shout or thereafter tell anybody of what he was then doing.v.Under these circumstances, while incestuous rape can be rationally ruled out since there is no evidence of the introduction of the penis of appellant into the aperture or within the pudendum of the vagina of private complainant,[37] accused-appellant is positive for having an intent to lie with his victim. He is guilty of attempted rape.

GR No. 143842

2003-10-13

PEOPLE v. MANGI ADAM Y LUMAMBAS

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the intended crime by showing the substance to PO3 Lucido. The sale was aborted when PO3 Lucido identified himself as a police officer and placed the appellant under arrest.[17]

GR No. 142856-57

2003-08-25

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO NEGOSA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

We agree with the appellant's contention that he is guilty only of simple statutory rape and not of rape in its qualified form under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The prosecution was burdened to prove the allegation in the Information that the appellant was the stepfather of the victim. However, the prosecution failed to prove the same. The evidence on record shows that the appellant was merely the common-law husband of the victim's mother. This special qualifying circumstance, that the appellant was the common-law husband of the mother of the victim, was not alleged in the Information. Even if such special qualifying circumstance was proved, it cannot be appreciated against the appellant in order to qualify the crime; otherwise, the appellant would be deprived of his right to be informed of the charge lodged against him. This was the ruling of the Court in People vs. Lizada,[41] thus:We agree with the accused-appellant that he is guilty only of two counts of simple rape, instead of qualified rape. The evidence on record shows that the accused-appellant is the common-law husband of Rose, the mother of the private complainant. The private complainant, as of October 1998, was still 13 years old, and under Article 335 as amended by Republic Act 7659, the minority of the private complainant, concurring with the fact that the accused-appellant is the common-law husband of the victim's mother, is a special qualifying circumstance warranting the imposition of the death penalty. However, the said circumstance was not alleged in the Informations as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which was given retroactive effect by this Court because it is favorable to the accused. Hence, even if the prosecution proved the special qualifying circumstance of minority of the private complainant and relationship, the accused-appellant being the common-law husband of her mother, accused-appellant is guilty only of simple rape. Under the given law, the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua.[42] Thus, the appellant is guilty only of simple statutory rape for which the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659.

GR No. 127756-58

2003-06-18

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN MEDINA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Sec. 11. Date of commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. (11a). The precise date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of said crime. Failure to specify the exact dates when the rapes were committed does not render the complaints defective. Allegations in the Complaints in Criminal Cases Nos. 7099 and 7100 that the crimes charged were committed in 1990 and 1994 are sufficient compliance with the requirements of the said rule. Indeed, in People v. Lizada,[25] this Court ruled:Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994," "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter," "sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

GR No. 149893

2003-04-02

PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RABAGO

PER CURIAM

In reviewing rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy but to disprove it is difficult although the accused may be innocent; (2) considering the nature of things, and that only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[17]

GR Nos. 140786-88

2003-03-14

PEOPLE v. EDGARDO MAURO

CALLEJO, SR., J.

The Court held in People vs. Lizada[14] that the precise date of the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not render the information ipso facto defective. After all, the gravamen of the crime is carnal knowledge of private complainant under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Court ruled that as long as it is alleged in the Information that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed, an information is sufficient. Citing its ruling in People vs. Salalima,[15] the Court held:Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994," "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter," "sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

GR No. 122275

2001-12-14

MA. CONSOLACION LAZARO v. CA AND SPS. TERESITA AND JOSEFINO BORJA

QUISUMBING, J.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision (dated December 27, 19[91]) of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 172) in Valenzuela, Metro Manila in Civil Case No 3468-V-90 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the appellant.

	GR No. 166441 2014-10-08	NORBERTO CRUZ Y BARTOLOME v. PEOPLE BERSAMIN, J.
Nonetheless, rape admits of an attempted stage. In this connection, the character of the overt acts for purposes of the attempted stage has been explained in People v. Lizada:[22]
	GR No. 180914 2010-11-24	PEOPLE v. DOMINGO DOMINGUEZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Lewdness is defined as an "obscene, lustful, indecent, and lecherous" act which signifies that form of immorality carried on a wanton manner.[40] It is morally inappropriate, indecent, and lustful for accused-appellant to undress himself and his own daughter (who was completely capable of dressing or undressing herself), while his wife was away and his other children were asleep; or doing the same acts in an isolated coconut farm where only the two of them were present.
	GR No. 177747 2010-02-16	PEOPLE v. IGNACIO PORAS BRION, J.
"Lewd" is defined as obscene, lustful, indecent, or lecherous. It signifies that form of immorality related to moral impurity, or that which is carried on a wanton manner.[57]
	GR No. 174065 2009-02-18	PEOPLE v. ROLLY CANARES Y ALMANARES BRION, J.
People v. Lizada, [36] specifically involving the charge of rape, followed the above general principle; we stated that an information for rape is not rendered defective for failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed. The reason for this is plain: the precise date of the commission
	GR No. 167756 2008-04-09	PEOPLE v. JERRY NAZARENO REYES, R.T., J.
The doctrine was reiterated with greater firmness in People v. Salalima[32] and in People v. Lizada.[33]
	GR NO. 166326 2006-01-25	ESMERALDO RIVERA v. PEOPLE CALLEJO, SR., J.
The non-performance of all acts of execution was due to cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance.[13] The first requisite of an attempted felony consists of two elements, namely:(1) That there be external acts;
	GR NO. 152589 & 152758 2005-01-31	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
In this case, the series of appalling events which took place on the night of 18 March 1998 inside the humble home of private complainant and of accused-appellant, establish beyond doubt that the latter intended to ravish his very own flesh and blood. As vividly narrated by private complainant before the trial court, accused-appellant, taking advantage of the cover of darkness and of the absence of his wife, removed her (private complainant's) clothing and thereafter placed himself on top of her. Accused-appellant, who was similarly naked as private complainant, then proceeded to kiss the latter and he likewise touched her breasts until finally, he rendered private complainant unconscious by boxing her in the stomach.[8] These dastardly acts of accused-appellant constitute "the first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made."[9] Far from being mere obscenity or lewdness, they are indisputably overt acts executed in order to consummate the crime of rape against the person of private complainant.
	GR NO. 152589 & 152758 2005-01-31	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
In this case, the series of appalling events which took place on the night of 18 March 1998 inside the humble home of private complainant and of accused-appellant, establish beyond doubt that the latter intended to ravish his very own flesh and blood. As vividly narrated by private complainant before the trial court, accused-appellant, taking advantage of the cover of darkness and of the absence of his wife, removed her (private complainant's) clothing and thereafter placed himself on top of her. Accused-appellant, who was similarly naked as private complainant, then proceeded to kiss the latter and he likewise touched her breasts until finally, he rendered private complainant unconscious by boxing her in the stomach.[8] These dastardly acts of accused-appellant constitute "the first or some subsequent step in a direct movement towards the commission of the offense after the preparations are made."[9] Far from being mere obscenity or lewdness, they are indisputably overt acts executed in order to consummate the crime of rape against the person of private complainant.
	GR Nos. 140873-77 2004-02-06	PEOPLE v. LEVI SUMARAGO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The appellant may not even be convicted of attempted rape under Article 6 in relation to Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code because there is no evidence that the appellant commenced by overt acts the commission of the offense which had direct connection with the crime intended to be committed but did not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony.[14] There is no evidence that the appellant boxed Norelyn for the purpose of raping her. The testimony of Dr. Avenida Vista that she found an incomplete laceration on Norelyn's hymen when she examined the child on October 18, 1996 does not constitute proof that Norelyn sustained the laceration on March 5, 1998. It bears stressing that the appellant raped Norelyn four times after March 5, 1995. She was examined by Dr. Vista only after the said rapes. It is entirely possible that Norelyn sustained the laceration on the subsequent dates: on March 13, 1995, March 24, 1995, April 2, 1995 and on April 11, 1995.
	GR Nos. 139751-52 2004-01-26	PEOPLE v. NOEL DARILAY CALLEJO, SR., J.
We agree with the ruling of the trial court that the appellant is guilty of attempted murder for the injuries sustained by Ailyn. Under Article 6 of the Revised Penal Code, there is an attempt to commit a felony when the offender commences the commission of a felony by direct acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution by reason of some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance. In People v. Lizada,[34] we held:…The Supreme Court of Spain, in its decision of March 21, 1892, declared that for overt acts to constitute an attempted offense, it is necessary that their objective be known and established or such that acts be of such nature that they themselves should obviously disclose the criminal objective necessarily intended, said objective and finality to serve as ground for designation of the offense.[35]
	GR Nos. 152589 and 152758 2003-10-24	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO MENDOZA Y BUTONES PER CURIAM
This of course does not mean that no crime was perpetrated in Crim. Case No. 6636-G. The criminal acts ascertained by the prosecution are that appellant went on top of Maricar while both were naked and then kissed his daughter and touched her breasts, at the same time threatening to kill her if she would shout or thereafter tell anybody of what he was then doing.v.Under these circumstances, while incestuous rape can be rationally ruled out since there is no evidence of the introduction of the penis of appellant into the aperture or within the pudendum of the vagina of private complainant,[37] accused-appellant is positive for having an intent to lie with his victim. He is guilty of attempted rape.
	GR No. 143842 2003-10-13	PEOPLE v. MANGI ADAM Y LUMAMBAS CALLEJO, SR., J.
The appellant intended to sell shabu and commenced by overt acts the commission of the intended crime by showing the substance to PO3 Lucido. The sale was aborted when PO3 Lucido identified himself as a police officer and placed the appellant under arrest.[17]
	GR No. 142856-57 2003-08-25	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO NEGOSA CALLEJO, SR., J.
We agree with the appellant's contention that he is guilty only of simple statutory rape and not of rape in its qualified form under Article 335, paragraph 3 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The prosecution was burdened to prove the allegation in the Information that the appellant was the stepfather of the victim. However, the prosecution failed to prove the same. The evidence on record shows that the appellant was merely the common-law husband of the victim's mother. This special qualifying circumstance, that the appellant was the common-law husband of the mother of the victim, was not alleged in the Information. Even if such special qualifying circumstance was proved, it cannot be appreciated against the appellant in order to qualify the crime; otherwise, the appellant would be deprived of his right to be informed of the charge lodged against him. This was the ruling of the Court in People vs. Lizada,[41] thus:We agree with the accused-appellant that he is guilty only of two counts of simple rape, instead of qualified rape. The evidence on record shows that the accused-appellant is the common-law husband of Rose, the mother of the private complainant. The private complainant, as of October 1998, was still 13 years old, and under Article 335 as amended by Republic Act 7659, the minority of the private complainant, concurring with the fact that the accused-appellant is the common-law husband of the victim's mother, is a special qualifying circumstance warranting the imposition of the death penalty. However, the said circumstance was not alleged in the Informations as required by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which was given retroactive effect by this Court because it is favorable to the accused. Hence, even if the prosecution proved the special qualifying circumstance of minority of the private complainant and relationship, the accused-appellant being the common-law husband of her mother, accused-appellant is guilty only of simple rape. Under the given law, the penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua.[42] Thus, the appellant is guilty only of simple statutory rape for which the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659.
	GR No. 127756-58 2003-06-18	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN MEDINA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Sec. 11. Date of commission of the offense. - It is not necessary to state in the complaint or information the precise date the offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense. The offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near as possible to the actual date of its commission. (11a). The precise date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of said crime. Failure to specify the exact dates when the rapes were committed does not render the complaints defective. Allegations in the Complaints in Criminal Cases Nos. 7099 and 7100 that the crimes charged were committed in 1990 and 1994 are sufficient compliance with the requirements of the said rule. Indeed, in People v. Lizada,[25] this Court ruled:Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994," "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter," "sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
	GR No. 149893 2003-04-02	PEOPLE v. MELCHOR RABAGO PER CURIAM
In reviewing rape cases, we are guided by the following principles: (1) to accuse a man of rape is easy but to disprove it is difficult although the accused may be innocent; (2) considering the nature of things, and that only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.[17]
	GR Nos. 140786-88 2003-03-14	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO MAURO CALLEJO, SR., J.
The Court held in People vs. Lizada[14] that the precise date of the commission of the crime of rape is not an essential element of the crime. Failure to specify the exact date when the rape was committed does not render the information ipso facto defective. After all, the gravamen of the crime is carnal knowledge of private complainant under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The Court ruled that as long as it is alleged in the Information that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed, an information is sufficient. Citing its ruling in People vs. Salalima,[15] the Court held:Failure to specify the exact dates or time when the rapes occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. The reason is obvious. The precise date or time when the victim was raped is not an element of the offense. The gravamen of the crime is the fact of carnal knowledge under any of the circumstances enumerated under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. As long as it is alleged that the offense was committed at any time as near to the actual date when the offense was committed an information is sufficient. In previous cases, we ruled that allegations that rapes were committed "before and until October 15, 1994," "sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter," "sometime in November 1995 and some occasions prior and/or subsequent thereto" and "on or about and sometime in the year 1988" constitute sufficient compliance with Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
	GR No. 122275 2001-12-14	MA. CONSOLACION LAZARO v. CA AND SPS. TERESITA AND JOSEFINO BORJA QUISUMBING, J.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision (dated December 27, 19[91]) of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 172) in Valenzuela, Metro Manila in Civil Case No 3468-V-90 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs against the appellant.

PEOPLE v. FREEDIE LIZADA