CRIMINAL LAW 1
CASE DIGESTS, ARTICLES 16 – 20
PEOPLE v. DULAY
FACTS:
PROSECUTION
Complainant AAA was only 12 years old when the
incident happened. Her sister introduced her to Dina
Dulay (Dulay), which the former described as a nice
woman. Dulay convinced AAA to accompany her to the
wake at Parañaque, but before going there, they went to
casino to look for Dulay’s boyfriend. Since he was not
there, they went to a fish port and there they saw the
boyfriend. Thereafter, they proceeded to the KUBUHAN
located at the back of the fish port. Upon reaching the
place, Dulay suddenly pulled AAA inside a room where a
man known as “SPEED” was waiting. SPEED gave
money to Dulay and told the same to get her a younger
girl, as seen and heard by AAA. Afterwards, SPEED
wielded a knife, tied AAA to the papag and raped her.
AAA asked for Dulay’s help, but even upon seeing the
incident, no help was given. By the end of it all, SPEED
and Dulay told AAA not to tell anyone about the incident
or else she will be in trouble. AAA went to Laguna after
the incident and told her sister, who in turn told their
mother, who then filed a complaint at the Barangay. The
Barangay referred the complaint to a police station.
Asking the assistance of the Child Protection Unit of
PGH, a doctor conducted the interview and physical
examination upon AAA. It was evident from the
assessment that there was sexual abuse, and that there
were also abrasions on the back portion of the body.
CHARGE
Charged w/ rape as co-principals
DEFENSE
Dulay met AAA a few days beforehand when her
cousin, Eglay Akmad, introduced the latter to her during
the wake of a relative of AAA. The cousin of Dulay was
AAA's neighbor at Palanyag. Around 1:00AM on July 3,
2005, Dulay averred that she was at the fish port with
her cousin Eglay and stayed there for about 30 minutes.
They then proceeded to the house of Dulay’s cousin in
Palanyag. In the said house, appellant saw “Speed” and
two (2) other male persons. She also saw AAA who was
engaged in a conversation with “Speed” and his two (2)
companions. She asked AAA what she was doing there
and the latter said that it was none of her business.
Because of the response of AAA, appellant left the
house and went home to General Trias, Cavite.
RULING OF THE RTC
Dulay is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for rape
as a co-principal by indispensable cooperation. The
Court of Appeals AFFIRMED the ruling of the RTC.
RULING OF THE SC
The SC subscribes to another view. To be a
principal by indispensable cooperation, one must
participate in the criminal resolution, a conspiracy or
unity in criminal purpose and cooperation in the
commission of the offense by performing another act
without which it would not have been accomplished.
Nothing in the evidence presented by the
prosecution does it show that the acts committed by
appellant are indispensable in the commission of the
crime of rape. Anyone could have accompanied AAA
and offered the latter's services in exchange for money
and AAA could still have been raped. Even AAA could
have offered her own services in exchange for monetary
consideration and still end up being raped. Thus, this
disproves the indispensable aspect of Dulay in the crime
of rape. However, she is still guilty of violation of
Section 5 (a) of R.A. 7610, or the Special Protection
of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, because she acted as a procurer
of a child prostitute.
Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse. Thus, the act of Dulay in convincing AAA,
who was 12 years old at that time, to go with her and
thereafter, offer her for sex to a man in exchange for
money makes her liable under the above-mentioned law.
PEOPLE v. GAMBAO
FACTS:
PROSECUTION
Lucia Chan (Chan) was a fish dealer based in
Manila. She usually expected deliveries from her
suppliers in the provinces. In the afternoon of August 11,
1998, two persons, one of them being Dilangalen, went
to Chan’s residence to inquire about a certain passport
alleged to have been mistakenly placed inside a box of
fish to be delivered to her. Unable to locate such, the two
left. The following day, they came back. With two failed
attempts to retrieve said passport, Dilangalen went back
the same evening accompanied by an unidentified
person. Upon going inside the house, the companion
pointed his gun at Chan’s son (Levy) and the house
companions. The same person forcibly dragged Chan.
Levy tried to stop the man but when the latter pointed a
gun to his head, he released his grip. Levy proceeded to
the police to report the incident. Chan was forced to
board an FX van, travelled for about two hours, and
stopped at a certain house. Dukilman warned Chan not
to shout as he has a gun pointed to her mouth. Chan
was ordered to go with two women (Ronas and Evad),
and was made to lied down on a bed, guarded by the
three plus Macalinbol. Ronas and Evad threatened Chan
that she would be killed if she did not pay 20 million
pesos. Two days after, Chan was awakened and
commanded to board the FX van. Chan was brought to a
room on the second floor of the house, with Macalinbol,
Udal, and Gambao inside the said room. Perpenian
arrived thereafter. At about 9:00PM, Mandao asked
Chan why she told the police about what happened.
Karim ordered Mandao out of the room. Mandao
haggled with Chan as to how much money she has,
eventually reaching the amount of 400,000 pesos, which
her son was asked to deliver at Chowking at Buendia.
Inspectors Ouano and Mancao tailed a suspicious Red
Transport taxicab up to the Elizabeth Resort and
stopped in front of Cottage 1. Convinced that whom they
saw in the cottage was the victim, they sought clearance
from the task force to conduct a rescue operation. On
August 14, 1998, Inspector Arnado received information
of the transaction that is about to take place. As such,
they positioned themselves around the vicinity of the
restaurant. By 2:00am, there was an FX van with 4
people on board who took the ransom money and
headed towards SLEX. The team intercepted the van
and arrested the 4 men, identified as Karim, Abao,
Gambao, and Dukilman. They also recovered the
ransom. On the same day, the police team assaulted the
cottage and safely rescued Chan and apprehended the
seven abductors—Dilangalen, Udal, Macalinbol,
Mandao, Perpenian, Evad, and Ronas.
CHARGE
Charged w/ kidnapping for ransom
DEFENSE
Pleaded guilty
RULING OF THE RTC
Gambao, Karim, Dukilman, Abao, Udal,
Mandao, Dilangalen, Macalinbol, Ronas, Evan, and
Perpenian are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
kidnapping for ransom. CA AFFIRMED the decision.
RULING OF THE SC
(1) Accused-appellants Dukilman, Ronas and
Evad argue in their respective briefs that conspiracy,
insofar as they were concerned, was not convincingly
established. The court rules that there was conspiracy.
This Court has held before that to be a conspirator, one
need not participate in every detail of the execution; he
need not even take part in every act or need not even
know the exact part to be performed by the others in the
execution of the conspiracy. Once conspiracy is shown,
the act of one is the act of all the conspirators. The
precise extent or modality of participation of each of
them becomes secondary, since all the conspirators are
principals.
The testimonies, when taken together, reveal
the common purpose of the accused-appellants and how
they were all united in its execution from beginning to
end. There were testimonies proving that (1) before
the incident, two of the accused- appellants kept
coming back to the victim’s house; (2) during the
kidnapping, accused-appellants changed shifts in
guarding the victim; and (3) the accused appellants
were those present when the ransom money was
recovered and when the rescue operation was
conducted. Seeing that conspiracy among Gambao,
Karim, Dukilman, Abao, Udal, Mandao, Dilangalen,
Macalinbol, Ronas and Evad was established beyond
reasonable doubt based on the proffered evidence of the
prosecution, the act of one is the act of all the
conspirators.
(2) The trial court took note of the fact that
Perpenian, a minor at 17 years old, gave inconsistent
answers and lied several times under oath during the
trial. Perpenian lied about substantial details such as her
real name, age, address and the fact that she saw Chan
at the Elizabeth Resort. When asked why she lied
several times, Perpenian claimed she was scared to be
included or identified with the other accused-appellants.
The lying and the fear of being identified with people
whom she knew had done wrong are indicative of
discernment. She knew, therefore, that there was an
ongoing crime being committed at the resort while
she was there. It is apparent that she was fully aware
of the consequences of the unlawful act. As reflected
in the records, the prosecution was not able to proffer
sufficient evidence to hold her responsible as a principal.
Seeing that the only evidence the prosecution had was
the testimony of Chan to the effect that on August 13,
1998, Perpenian entered the room where the victim was
detained and conversed with Evad and Ronas regarding
stories unrelated to the kidnapping, this Court opines
that Perpenian should not be held liable as a co-
principal, but rather only as an accomplice to the
crime.
ELEMENTS OF ACCOMPLICE
(1) That there be community of design; that is knowing
the criminal design of the principal by direct participation,
he concurs with the latter in his purpose;
(2) That he cooperates in the execution by previous or
simultaneous act, with the intention of supplying
material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in
an efficacious way; and
(3) That there be a relation between the acts done by the
principal and those attributed to the person charged as
accomplice.
The defenses raised by Perpenian are not
sufficient to exonerate her criminal liability. Assuming
arguendo that she just came to the resort thinking it was
a swimming party, it was inevitable that she acquired
knowledge of the criminal design of the principals when
she saw Chan being guarded in the room. A rational
person would have suspected something was wrong
and would have reported such incident to the police.
Perpenian, however, chose to keep quiet; and to add
to that, she even spent the night at the cottage. It has
been held before that being present and giving moral
support when a crime is being committed will make a
person responsible as an accomplice in the crime
committed. It should be noted that the accused-
appellant’s presence and company were not
indispensable and essential to the perpetration of the
kidnapping for ransom; hence, she is only liable as an
accomplice. Moreover, this Court is guided by the ruling
in People v. Clemente, et al., where it was stressed that
in case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be
considered as that of an accomplice rather than that of a
principal.
 ONG v. PEOPLE
Guano was the owner of 44 Firestone truck tires.
He acquired the same for the total amount of 223,401.81
pesos from Philtread Tire and Rubber Corporation, a
domestic corporation engaged in the manufacturing and
marketing of Firestone tires. The acquisition was shown
by S.I. No. 4565 dated November 10, 1994 and an
Inventory List acknowledging receipt of the tires
specifically described by their serial numbers. He, using
a piece of chalk before storing them inside a warehouse
own by his relative named Guano, marked the tires
using a piece of chalk. The caretaker of the warehouse
was in charge of the tires. Guano sold 6 tires, and 38
remained in the warehouse. Guano learned one day that
38 truck tires were stolen from the warehouse, the gate
of which were forcibly opened. This was reported to the
police district, and they canvassed multiple
establishments in an attempt to locate the stolen tires.
The tires were then located at Jong’s Marketing, and
were reported to Chief Inspector Mariano Fegarido of the
police district. A buy-bust operation team was formed,
and on February 27, 1995, at around 3:00PM, Atienza,
the poseur-buyer, bought one tire of the kind that was
stolen, and was told to bring out 12 of the same kind.
Upon doing such, found that they were the same tires
which were stolen from him, based on their serial
numbers. Private complainant then gave the
prearranged signal to the buy-bust team confirming that
the tires in appellant's shop were the same tires stolen
from the warehouse. Thereafter, the team went inside
the store. Ong insisted that his arrest and the
confiscation of the truck tires be witnessed by
representatives from the barangay and his own lawyer. It
was already past 10:00 in the evening when the
appellant, together with the tires, was brought to the
police station for investigation and inventory.
Ong denied that he had any knowledge that he
was selling stolen tires in Jong Marketing. A certain
Ramon Go, according to him, offered to sell 13 tires from
Caloocan for 3,500 each. Ong bought all the tires, for
which he was issued a Sales Invoice with the letterhead
Gold Link Hardware & General Merchandise.
CHARGE: Fencing
RTC: Guilty beyong reasonable doubt of fencing
(violation of P.D. 1612).
CA: Affirmed the findings.
SC
The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as
follows:
(1) A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
(2) The accused, who is not a principal or on accomplice
in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys,
receives, possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or
disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in
any article, item, object or anything of value, which has
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery
or theft;
(3) The accused knew or should have known that the
said article, item, object or anything of value has been
derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft; and
(4) There is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain
for oneself or for another.
The court agrees with the RTC and the CA that
the prosecution has met the requisite quantum of
evidence in proving that all the elements of fencing are
present in this case. First, the owner of the tires,
private complainant Francisco Azajar (Azajar),
whose testimony was corroborated by Jose Cabal -
the caretaker of the warehouse where the thirty-eight
(38) tires were stolen – testified that the crime of
robbery had been committed on Feb. 17, 1995. Azajar
was able to prove ownership of the tires through Sales
Invoice No. 4565 dated Nov. 10, 1994 and an Inventory
List. Witnesses for the prosecution likewise testified that
robbery was reported as evidenced by their Sinumpaang
Salaysay taken at the Southern Police District at Fort
Bonifacio. The report led to the conduct of a buy-bust
operation at Jong Markerting, Paco, Manila.
Second, although there was no evidence to
link Ong as the perpetrator of the robbery, he never
denied the fact that thirteen (13) tires of Azajar were
caught in his possession. The facts do not establish
that Ong was neither a principal nor an accomplice in the
crime of robbery, but thirteen (13) out of thirty-eight (38)
missing tires were found in his possession. This Court
finds that the serial numbers of stolen tires corresponds
to those found in Ong’s possession. Ong likewise
admitted that he bought the said tires from Go of Gold
Link in the total amount of ₱45,500 where he was issued
Sales Invoice No. 980.
Third, the accused knew or should have known
that the said article, item, object or anything of value has
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery
or theft. The words “should know” denote the fact
that a person of reasonable prudence and
intelligence would ascertain the fact in performance
of his duty to another or would govern his conduct
upon assumption that such fact exists. Ong, who
was in the business of buy and sell of tires for the
past twenty-four (24) years, ought to have known the
ordinary course of business in purchasing from an
unknown seller. Admittedly, Go approached Ong and
offered to sell the thirteen (13) tires and he did not even
ask for proof of ownership of the tires. The entire
transaction, from the proposal to buy until the delivery of
tires happened in just one day. His experience from
the business should have given him doubt as to the
legitimate ownership of the tires considering that it
was his first time to transact with Go and the manner
it was sold is as if Go was just peddling the thirteen
(13) tires in the streets. Dela Torre v. COMELEC states
that “mere possession of any goods . . . object or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery
or thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing” — a
presumption that is, according to the Court, “reasonable
for no other natural or logical inference can arise from
the established fact of . . . possession of the proceeds of
the crime of robbery or theft.”
 Moreover, Ong knew the requirement of the law
in selling second hand tires. Section 6 of P.D. 1612
requires stores, establishments or entities dealing in the
buying and selling of any good, article, item, object or
anything else of value obtained from an unlicensed
dealer or supplier thereof to secure the necessary
clearance or permit from the station commander of the
Integrated National Police in the town or city where that
store, establishment or entity is located before offering
the item for sale to the public. In fact, Ong has
practiced the procedure of obtaining clearances
from the police station for some used tires he
wanted to resell but, in this particular transaction, he
was remiss in his duty as a diligent businessman
who should have exercised prudence.
In his defense, Ong argued that he relied on the
receipt issued to him by Go. Logically, and for all
practical purposes, the issuance of a sales invoice or
receipt is proof of a legitimate transaction and may be
raised as a defense in the charge of fencing; however,
that defense is disputable. In this case, the validity of
the issuance of the receipt was disputed, and the
prosecution was able to prove that Gold Link and its
address were fictitious. Ong failed to overcome the
evidence presented by the prosecution and to prove the
legitimacy of the transaction. Thus, he was unable to
rebut the prima facie presumption under Section 5 of
P.D. 1612.
Finally, there was evident intent to gain for
considering that during the buy-bust operation, Ong was
actually caught selling the stolen tires in his store, Jong
Marketing.

DULAY v. PEOPLE

FACTS: It was testified that in December 2000,

Delgado’s wife, Sonia, bought from accused Dimat a
1997 Nissan Safari. The deed of sale gave the vehicles
its respective engine number and chassis number. On
March 07, 2001, PO Ramirez and fellow officers of the
Traffic Management Group spotted the Nissan Safari on
E. Rodriguez Avenue, bearing a suspicious plate
number. After stopping and inspecting the vehicle, they
found out that it was on the list of stolen vehicles, and as
such it was brought to Camp Crame. Apparently, it was
stolen from its original owner, Mantequilla.
CRIMINAL LAW 1
CASE DIGESTS, ARTICLES 16 - 48
PEOPLE v. QUIACHON
FACTS: Rowel testified for the prosecution, saying
initially that he refuses to use his father’s last name
because he is a bad name. He narrated that on the night
of May 21, 2001, he saw his father on top of his sister
(Rowena) and they were covered by a blanket. He saw
the buttocks of his father move up and down and he
could hear his sister crying. He did not do anything
because he is afraid of his father. The following morning,
he told the incident to his mother’s sister, Carmelita, who
then came with him to the police to report the incident.
Rowena, through sign language, testified that her father
had sexual intercourse with her and even touched her
breasts against her will. She was only eight years old at
the time. The medical examination revealed that her
genitals have suffered injuries and she has a kiss mark
on her left breast. The defense claims that he was
shocked to learn of the report because he was close to
his daughters, in effect, denying the allegations against
him. The only possible reason as to why he could have
been reported is that Carmelita as well as his son holds
a grudge against him. Apparently, his common-law wife
died of cancer and her relatives were allegedly
interested in their properties.
CHARGE: Qualified Rape
RTC: Rape, DEATH PENALTY
CA: Affirmed RTC, DEATH PENALTY
SC: Affirmed CA and RTC, R.A. No. 9346 provides
that in lieu of death penalty, it should be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
⁃ Retroactive effect of penal laws. – Penal laws
shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they favor the
persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal,
as this term is defined in Rule 5 of Article 62 of this
Code, although at the time of the publication of such
laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the
convict is serving the same.
⁃ However, appellant is not eligible for parole
because Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides that
“persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion
perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to
reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be
eligible for parole.”
PEOPLE v. PUNZALAN
FACTS: In August 2002, 1st Class of Navy Personnel
were sent for school at at the Naval Education Training
Center in Zambales. At around 5-6PM, they proceeded
to a canteen to have a drink. By 10PM, they transferred
to Aquarius, a karaoke bar, where they continued their
drinking session. A heated argument ensued between
SN1 Barcosa and Punzalan because of a flickering light
bulb, with the latter hearing that Barcosa wants him
dead, when in fact, Barcosa just wanted to turn off the
lights. SN1 Cuya tried to pacify the two, but Punzalan’s
anger was still apparent. To avoid further trouble, they
proceeded to their camp. After they passed the sentry
gate, two SN1s flagged down a rushing maroon Nissan
van, approached it, and recognized Punzalan who was
reeking of alcohol. He was verbalizing his anger at the
time. Before he was given the signal to proceed, the van
rushed away and swerved to the right, hitting the group
of walking navy personnel. As a result, Duclayna and
Andal died, while Kuya, Bacosa, and Bundang were
injured. Defense argues that the navy personnel laughed
at him as he sang out of tune. He was offered to make
peace but he was suddenly punched by Bacosa. When
they left, they used the Nissan van and upon passing the
sentry gate, somebody threw stones at the van. Upon
alighting the vehicle and inspection, he saw Bacosa and
another man approaching him so he want back inside
the van but the duo boxed him repeatedly through the
van’s open window. When he saw four other personnel
coming towards him, he accelerated the van.
CHARGE: MURDER
RTC: MURDER qualified by treachery with
ATTEMPTED MURDER w/ the aggravating
circumstance of use of motor vehicle.
CA: Appellant used justifying circumstance of avoidance
of greater evil and that there was no treachery. Was not
appreciated by CA because it did not match the facts
and that the information read that the victims were
“unsuspecting”, thus, treachery was rightly appreciated.
AFFIRMED RTC DECISION.
SC: COMPLEX CRIME OF DOUBLE MURDER WITH
MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED MURDER
⁃ Avoidance of greater evil should be taken as last
resort. Not considered because the elements are not
present.
⁃ Treachery as qualifying circumstance was
correct, because the victims were just walking inside the
camp and they were not given any warning regarding the
assault.
⁃ Penalty should be death, however, in view of the
enactment of Republic Act No. 9346,57 prohibiting the
imposition of the death penalty, the penalty for the killing
of each of the two victims is reduced to reclusion
perpetua without eligibility for parole.
PEOPLE v. SALOME
FACTS: Sometime in July of 1997, Sally Idanan, who
was only 13 years old at the time, was sleeping with her
three-year old brother inside their house when Salome
entered the house. She was awakened by the presence
of Salome who poked a knife at the base of her neck.
While doing this, Salome undressed Sally and
threatened that she would kill her and her family is she
told anyone of the incident. He inserted his genitals to
Sally’s, who only closed her eyes because calling for
help would be futile since the next house was about 800
meters away. Paying no mind that she might be
pregnant, she left her province to work as a domestic
helper. By November, she has undergone an ultrasound
which confirmed that she was indeed pregnant. The
medical assessment even showed that her hymen has a
deep healed laceration. The defense argued that he was
just fishing during the time.
CHARGE: RAPE
RTC: RAPE w/ USE OF A DEADLY WEAPON and
DWELLING; Penalty is DEATH
CA: AFFIRMED RTC DECISION
SC: SC: Affirmed CA and RTC, R.A. No. 9346
provides that in lieu of death penalty, it should be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Dulay is guilty of frustrated murder. The requisites of a
frustrated felony are: (1) that the offender has performed
all the acts of execution which would produce the felony;
and (2) that the felony is not produced due to causes
independent of the perpetrator’s will.”
⁃ Applying the foregoing to the case at bar, Dulay
has performed all acts of execution in throwing the
grenade which could have caused Junior’s death as a
consequence, but because of immediate medical
assistance, a cause independent of Dulay’s will, Junior
survived.

⁃ RAPE was indeed committed. Rape is

committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman
under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using
force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the
woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The
crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
When there is use of deadly weapon, penalty shall be
death.
⁃ Aggravating circumstance of dwelling is also
present as it was committed in the house of the victim.
⁃ Appellant is not eligible for parole because
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides that “persons
convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua,
or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion
perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for
parole.”

PEOPLE v. DULAY

FACTS: In the evening of Dec. 30, 2002, Junior, a child

about 6 years old, was outside the kitchen of their
house. His father, Orlando Sr., was also somewhere in
the yard and was asking Junior to hand him a chair.
Because the dog was barking loudly, Mrs. Legaspi
peeped from inside the kitchen and noticed Dulay’s dog
in the vicinity. She thought that Dulay was also nearby.
Melanie, Junior’s elder sister, went out to look for the
leash of the dog to transfer it to another area. Using a
flashlight, Junior directed a beam towards the grassy
area and saw Dulay whom he recognized due the
mumps below his left ear. Melanie also saw Dulay
staring at their father. Dulay then threw something that
resembled a ball which turned out to be a grenade.
When this exploded, Junior was hurt in the pelvic area
while Orlando Sr., was fatally hit by a shrapnel, and so
even though he was rushed to the hospital. Dulay’s
defense merely consists in narrations saying that he
could not have been in the area and as such he did not
commit the crime.

CHARGE: MURDER w/ ATTEMPTED MURDER

RTC: COMPLEX CRIME OF MURDER WITH
ATTEMPTED MURDER
CA: AFFIRMED RTC, but stated that he should be liable
for frustrated murder because Junior would have died
without timely medical assistance.
SC: AFFIRMED CA
⁃ As regards the crime committed against Junior,
the Court is in accord with the CA’s conclusion that