CRIMINAL LAW I

PEOPLE v. VELASQUEZ
G.R. No. 137383-84
345 SCRA 728
November 23, 2000
FACTS:
On January 1, 1997, around 6:00 in the morning, while walking home, a girl,
15 years old, was approached by accused who asked where she was going. Accused
then poked a gun to the side of the girl and held her arms. Accused and the girl rode
a taxi which brought them to the house of the formers grandmother. There,
accused ravished the girl as he held her at gunpoint. As the accused sexually
assaulted the helpless girl a second time, the girl pulled out a screwdriver she hid in
her pocket and stabbed accused on the neck. The accused retaliated by boxing her.
It was later discovered that the weapon used by accused was merely a short toy
pellet gun. While inside the room of accuseds grandmother, the girl found the
opportunity to escape and run towards a neighbors house where she reported to a
man what accused did to her who then called the barangay tanods. Accused was
apprehended after his voluntary surrender. The RTC rendered its decision finding the
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court erroneously convicted accused of two counts of
simple rape only.
HELD:
Yes, the trial court erroneously convicted accused of two counts of simple
rape only.
RATIO:
In sentencing accused, the trial court overlooked the fact that he was
charged with simple rape in Crim. Case No. 97-0035 and forcible abduction with
rape in Crim. Case No. 97-0036 and erroneously convicted accused of two counts of
simple rape only. Considering that the prosecution was able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that Velasquez forcibly abducted the minor and raped her twice,
he should be convicted of the complex crime of rape and simple rape. The penalty
for complex crimes is the penalty for the most serious crime which shall be imposed
in its maximum period. Rape is the most serious crime of the two crimes and is
punishable with reclusion perpetua under Art. 335 of the RPC and since it is a single
indivisible penalty, it shall be imposed as is. The subsequent rape committed by
Velasquez can no longer be considered as a separate complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape but only as a separate act of rape punishable by reclusion
perpetua.

PEOPLE v. FABON
G.R. No. 133226
328 SCRA 302
March 16, 2000
FACTS:
In an information filed before the Regional Trial Court of Hilongos, Leyte
docketed as Criminal Case No. H-642, accused-appellant Locsin Fabon alias Loklok
was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide accompanied by rape and

CRIMINAL LAW I
intentional mutilation committed on April 23, 1995 in the municipality of Hilongos,
Province of Leyte at the house of the victim Bonifacia Lasquite. Using a bladed
weapon, accused-appellant took the life of Lasquite and pilfered money consisting
of bills of assorted denominations and coins amounting to Php 25,000.00 more or
less.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court inaccurately designated the crime committed
as robbery with homicide and rape.
HELD:
Yes. The trial court inaccurately designated the crime committed by accusedappellant as robbery with homicide and rape. Accused-appellant found guilty of only
robbery with homicide, a special complex crime.
RATIO:
When the special complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by
another offense like rape or intentional mutilation, such additional offense is treated
as an aggravating circumstance which would result in the imposition of the supreme
penalty of death. The proper designation of the crime committed by accusedappellant is robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. When rape and homicide
co-exist in the commission of robbery, it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code which applies, the rape is considered as an aggravating
circumstance.

PEOPLE v. EMPANTE
G.R. Nos. 130665 & 137996-97
306 SCRA 251
April 21, 1999
FACTS:
The Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental Branch 12
found accused-appellant Pedro Balliao Empante guilty of three (3) counts of rape
against his daughter Elvie Empante, then below eighteen (18) years of age, and
sentenced him to death, to indemnify his daughter and to pay her moral damages.
At the trial, accused-appellant admitted having raped his daughter. The latter,
however, claimed that her father was drunk at the time of the commission of rape.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellant can invoke the alternative circumstance of
intoxication to mitigate the penalty by one degree lower from death to reclusion
perpetua.
HELD:
No. Accused-appellant cannot invoke the alternative circumstance of
intoxication to mitigate the penalty imposed upon him from death to reclusion
perpetua. SC affirmed the penalty of death.
RATIO:

CRIMINAL LAW I
The trial court was right in rejecting the claim of intoxication as a mitigating
circumstance. For even if accused-appellant was intoxicated, the intoxication must
be shown to have impaired his willpower that he did not know what he was doing or
could not comprehend the wrongfulness of his acts. In the case at bar, not only did
complainant deny that her father was drunk when he raped her, but the fact that
accused-appellant himself could recall details of the rape incidents, is the best proof
that he knew what he was doing on those occasions.