PEOPLE v TORREFIEL

Facts:
December 17, 1942, 5:00 p.m. Torrefiel and Ormeo were on their way to the USSAFE headquarters
in the mountains. They passed by Eadys residence and talked to him at the balcony to ask for khakis.
Ceferina Cordero also came to the balcony and inquired about their mission. She scolded Torrefiel
and Ormeo because all their belongings have been looted by USSAFE soldiers.
Torrefiel threatened her with slapping; brought out revolver. Eady and Cordero were charged with
being fifth communists as they refused to give aid to them. Subsequently they were taken to the
USSAFE headquarters to explain their accusations.
Torrefiel: Eady and Ormeo: Cordero. Their hands were free but they were blindfolded.
Cordero called to Eady every now and then to know if he was following. After a while Eady did not
respond anymore so they stopped to wait for them. Torrefiel had taken the wrong way so he went
back to a guardhouse & left Eady there. He tried to find a way to overtake Ormeo and Cordero but
was unsuccessful.
At the guardhouse, he discovers Eady had escaped. Torrefiel followed a different route enabling him
to find Ormeo and Cordero. Ormeo rushed back to the guardhouse upon discovering that Eady had
escaped; Cordero was left with Torrefiel.
As Cordero was about to urinate, Torrefiel pushed her and carried her to a log and laid her on it and
raped her.
Torrefiel began to unbutton his pants and wound cogon leaves around his genitals. It was visible to
Cordero as her blindfold had fallen down a little. Pressing her neck so she would remain silent,
Torrefiel proceeded to have intercourse with her. Ormeo taking advantage, also had sex with her.
The soldiers desisted from bringing Cordero to their headquarters and returned her to their house.
Servant informed Cordero that Eady had gone away. Upon Eadys return, Cordero informed him that
she was abused by Torrefiel.
IGNOMINY is present.
o The novelty of the act of winding cogon grass on his genitals before raping the victim augmented the
wrong done by increasing its pain and adding moral disgrace thereto.
 People vs. Jose, 37 SCRA 450
Facts:
- Magdalena Maggie de la Riva. 25, single, actress. Maggie was driving home with her maid 4:30am in
June 26, 1967 when the appellants car bump her car. Accused were Jaime Jose y Gomez, Basilio Pineda,
Jr., Eduardo Aquino y Payumo, and Rogelio Caal y Sevilla, principals, with accomplices Wong Lay
Pueng, Silverio Guanzon y Romero and Jessie Guion y Envoltario.
- Pineda went to her car, he tried to force her out, she screamed together with the maid but the other 3
helped Pineda. They took her to their car, left the maid and sped away. She was seated in the backseat
between Jose and Aquino. She pleaded for them to release her but they replied with abusive language and
threats (shoot her and throw acid at her face). Jose and Aquino busied themselves by kissing and touching
her. They exchange knowing glances. When they were at Makati she was blindfolded, told not to shoot
otherwise theyd kill her. They entered the Swanky Hotel (Pasay).
- When they were inside the room they removed her blindfold and she was told to undress but she refused.
They undressed her and feasted their eyes. They left the room with her clothes. This time, Jose entered the
room, undressed himself, she defended herself but he hit her and raped her. He left. Aquino entered the
room and did the same thing.
- When she got into a state of shock, they poured water and slapped her to revive her. Pineda took his turn
on her. She got into a state of shock again but they revived her again so that she would know whats
happening. Canal was the last to rape her. While each of them take their turns the others are outside the
room just behind the door threatening her and telling her to give in because she cant escape anyway.
When they were done they asked her to tidy herself up and that when she gets home tell her mom that a
she was mistaken as a hostess but was released after knowing that she is an actress. They threatened her
not to tell anyone. She was so weak that they had to carry her to the car. Jose held her head down to his
lap for other people not to see her. They stopped near channel 5 to make it appear that she just came from
a taping.
- Pineda told Jose to hail a taxi from a not well known company. Canal accompanied her to the cab. In the
cab she burst in tears. The appellants didnt follow her. She came back home at about 630 am. There are
police and media in their house.
She told her mom what happened. Her mom told her to clean up and douche to avoid infection and
pregnancy. She was treated by the family doctor but they didnt tell him about the sexual assault.
- On June 29, they finally decided to file the complaint. Jose was apprehended. He said that they waited
for her in abs cbn, followed and abducted her. He named the other three but only Aquino and Pineda
criminally assaulted her. The other three were apprehended. Canal and Pineda confirmed that they
abducted her. But they said that Maggie yielded her body on the condition that she will be released. When
they took the witness stand the three (except Pineda) said that they just took Maggie for a striptease which
she agreed to for 1000 pesos. The court did not buy it for it was apparent from medical exams that
Maggie was physically and sexually assaulted and she is earning a lot as an actress.
- Pineda pled guilty of the crime
RTC: Forcible abduction with rape done in conspiracy; Death penalty
Issue:
1. WON PINEDA should get a lighter sentence because of his plea of guilty
2. Whether the aggravating circumstances should be appreciated
Use of a motor vehicle.
Night time sought purposely to facilitate the commission of the crime and to make its discovery
difficult;
Abuse of superior strength;
That means were employed or circumstances brought about which added ignominy to the natural
effects of the act; and
That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately augmented by causing other
wrong not necessary for the commission (cruelty)
Held:
1. No
2. YES except cruelty.
Ratio:
1. While a plea of guilty is mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an admission of all the material facts
alleged in the information, including the aggravating circumstances, and it matters not that the offense is
capital, for the admission (plea of guilty) covers both the crime and its attendant circumstances qualifying
and/or aggravating the crime
- Since he pleaded guilty his presence in court for evidence is not required.
- The situation would be different if he asked to prove mitigating circumstances. He was advised by his
counsel of the effects of the plea of guilty.
- The voluntary plea of guilty does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed,
for the reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining. As a result, appellants
should likewise be made to suffer the extreme penalty of death in each of these three simple crimes of
rape. (Art. 63, par. 2, Revised Penal Code.)
2. a) nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of
these crimes; (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in
conspiracy with one another (Cf. People vs. De Guzman, et al., 51 Phil., 105, 113); (c) ignominy, since
the appellants in ordering the complainant to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for about ten
minutes, before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime
more humiliating; and (d) use of a motor vehicle.
SC: Forcible abduction and 3 crimes of rape
3. Multiple death penalties are not impossible to serve because they will have to be executed
simultaneously.The imposition of multiple death penalties, far from being a useless formality, has
practical importance. The sentencing of an accused to several capital penalties is an indelible badge of his
extreme criminal perversity, which may not be accurately projected by the imposition of only one death
sentence irrespective of the number of capital felonies for which he is liable.
People vs. Butler, 120 SCRA 281
Facts:
- Accused-appellant Michael Butler and the victim, Enriquita Alipo alias Gina Barrios were together at
Colonial Restaurant in Olongapo City.
- They were seen together by Lilia Paz, an entertainer and friend of the victim, who claimed to have had a
small conversation with the accused and one Rosemarie Suarez.
- The accused left the restaurant with the victim together with Rosemarie.
- Emelita Pasco, housemaid of the victim testified that Gina came home with Michael. They immediately
went into the formers bedroom. Shortly thereafter, the victim left the room with a paper containing the ff.
words: MICHAEL BUTLER, 44252-8519 USS HANCOCK.
- She then rushed back to her room after instructing Pasco to wake her up in the morning. But before
retiring. Rosemarie arrived and had a small conversation with her.
- Pasco, in the morning, knocked at the door. She found that the victim was lying on her bed, facing
downward, naked up to the waist, with legs spread apart with a broken figurine beside her head. She
immediately called the landlord and the authorities.
- An investigation was conducted by the authorities. After being located and identified as a crew member
of USS Hancock, the accused was brought to the legal office of the ship. The accused was searched,
handcuffed and was brought to the Naval Investigation Services Resident Agency office.
- The result of the NISRA investigation was a document taken from the accused consisting of 3 pages
signed and initialed on all pages by him and containing a statement that he was aware of his constitutional
rights and a narration of the facts of the case.
- Dr. Roxas testified that the anal intercourse happened after the victims death. He also testified that the
victim died of asphyxia due to suffocation when extreme pressure was exerted on her head pushing it
downward, thereby pressing her nose and mouth against the mattress.
- After trial, the accused was found guilty of murder.
- A motion for new trial was filed by the accused-appellant alleging that he was a minor at the time the
offense was committed. The motion was denied. A motion for reconsideration was subsequently filed
which was also denied. Hence, a petition for mandamus.
Issues:
1. WON the trial court erred in giving full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness
- As a matter of established jurisprudence, the findings of the trial court on credibility of a witness are not
disturbed on
appeal unless there is a showing that it failed to consider certain facts and circumstances which would
change the same.
- There were three persons who identified the accused. The finger print examination showed that one of
the three prints lifted from the cellophane wrapping of the figurine was identical with the accused finger;
and the accused failed to present clear and positive evidence to overcome the scientific and specific
finding and conclusion of the medico-legal officer.
2. WON the trial court erred in admitting in evidence the alleged extra-judicial admission of the accused
and appreciating it against him
Contrary to what the counsel for the accused-appellant contends, there is no evidence showing that the
accused was
roughly handed from the very start. Neither is there any evidence to prove that he was first handcuffed
and informed that he was first handcuffed and informed that he was a suspect in a murder case before he
was warned of his rights.
- While it may be true that a considerable span of time elapsed from the moment the accused was brought
to the NISRA office to the time the interrogation was begun and reduced to writing, there is no competent
evidence presented to support the allegation that the statement made by the accused was a result of
pressure and badgerings.
3. WON the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty of the crime of murder qualified by abuse of
superior strength
- The Court holds that there was an abuse of superior strength attending the commission of the crime. It is
not only the notorious advantage of height that the accused had over the hapless victim, but also his
strength which he wielded in striking her with the figurine on the head and in shoving her head and
pressing her mouth and nose against the bed
mattress.
4. WON the trial court erred in appreciating treachery and abuse of superior strength simultaneously and
separately
- The evidence on record, however, is not sufficient to show clearly and prove distinctly that treachery
attended the commission of the crime since there was no eyewitness account of the killing.
5. WON the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Dr. Roxas, the medico-legal Officer, that
asphyxiation by suffocation was the cause of death of the victim
- The Court sustains the finding of the lower court that the aggravating circumstance of outraging or
scoffing at the corpse of the deceased applies against the accused since it is established that he mocked or
outraged the person or corpse of his victim by having an anal intercourse with her after she was already
dead.
- The fact that the muscles of the anus did not close and also the presence of spermatozoa in the anal
region as testified to by Dr. Roxas and confirmed to be positive in the Laboratory Report clearly
establishes the coitus after death.
6. WON the trial court erred in denying the accused the benefits of Sec. 192 of PD 603 before its
amendment by PD 1179 on Aug. 15, 1977
- At the time of the commission of the offense, the trial and rendition of judgment, the applicable law was
PD 603. The Court does not agree with the reasoning of the trial court that the accused did not invoke the
law because the records manifestly show the vigorous plea of the accuse for its application. The accused
was below 21 years at the time of his trial and even at the time judgment was promulgated to him on
December 3, 1976 (he was then 19 years, 3 months and 3 days old)
- The Court likewise holds that the penalty of death was not justified. The accused is a minor and he is
entitled to the mitigating circumstance of minority.
- The amendment to keep away from its beneficient provision cases of conviction of a minor when
penalty imposed is death cannot prejudice the accused whose case was pending appeal when the
amendment took effect.
Disposition: The case against the accused is DISMISSED. Civil liability imposed upon him by the lower
court shall remain.