ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NGANO SUGAN, et.al

G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011

Facts:
At around 6:45 p.m. of February 8, 1998, Gaga, Saligo, Ngano Sugan, Nga Ben Latam and one alias Francing, all
armed with guns, entered Fortunato Delos Reyes’ residence Surallah, South Cotabato, and declared a hold up. Kamison
and Cosme Latam stayed outside and acted as lookouts.

Once inside, the armed men ordered Fortunato, his wife, Thelma, and their son, Nestor, to drop to the floor. The
armed men inquired from them where the money and other valuables were hidden; thereafter, they took cash, personal
belongings, and an air gun. Ngano then brought Nestor outside the house, and shot him. Reggie, another son of
Fortunato, rushed to the scene, but Kamison and Cosme prevented him from entering the house by pointing a knife and
a gun at him, respectively. Thereafter, all the seven (7) armed men fled together. Nestor was rushed to the hospital, but
died due to multiple gunshot wounds.

Issue:
Whether conspiracy is attendant to the crime thereby holding guilty all the accused as principals of robbery with
homicide although they did not take part in the homicide.

Held:
Yes. While it was only Ngano who shot Nestor, the appellants were found liable for robbery with homicide. Case
law establishes that whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those
who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide although they
did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the killing.

Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it. Conspiracy may be inferred from the acts of the accused – before, during and after the commission of the
crime – which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of action and community of
interest. For conspiracy to exist, it is not required that there be an agreement for an appreciable period prior to the
occurrence of the offense; it is sufficient that at the time of its commission, the malefactors had the same purpose and
were united in its execution.
 PEOPLE v. PECATO
June 18, 1987 | Automatic Review | Robbery with Homicide

FACTS:
1. Nov 1, 1971, 9:00 PM; Felix Larong and his family were preparing tosleep when several men called from
outside the house, requesting that they be allowed inside. Felix opened the door and thereupon, 4 armed men entered.
They then ordered the Larongs to face down on the floor and demanded money from Felix. When he replied that he had
none, he was ordered to produce his pistol which he said he did not have as well.
2. One of the intruders asked Felix if he knew them. He answered in the affirmative and said that they were still
his relatives. While lying face down, Arturo Pecato shot him, causing his death.
3. They next turned their attention on Felix’s daughter, Uldarica and demanded money from her. When she
refused, she was manhandled and hit with a gun butt on different parts of her body. Luciana, Felix’s wife, ordered
Uldarica to give them money, to which she gave 300. When they demanded for more, she gave an additional 50, after
which the intruders left.
4. Fearing that the men would come back, Luciana and Uldarica hid amongthe bushes nearby. True enough, the
men returned, but left after an hour when they found no one around.
5. The robbery was reported the morning after. The two positively identified
Arturo and Felix Pecato, VictorianoLeyros and EreneoPeruda as the criminals who robbed them and killed Felix. The
Pecatos and Peruda were arrested, while Leyros was nowhere to be found.

ISSUE: Whether or not accused are liable for robbery with homicide – YES.

RULING: AFFIRMED with Modifications. Indemnity increased to 30k.

RATIO:
1. As long as homicide resulted during or because of, the robbery, even if the killing is by mere accident robbery
with homicide is committed, - it is only the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the circumstances,
causes, modes or persons intervening in the commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration.
2. Further, whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of oron the occasion of a robbery, all
those who took part as principals in the commission of the crime are also guilty as principals in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually take part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that
they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
3. “Homicide” should be understood to be a generic term which includes murder.
4. Aggravating circumstances:1) Treachery: Felix shot while lying face down,
2) Band: all 4 were armed, 3) Abuse of superior strength: Felix was 70 years old while the accused are much younger, 4)
Nighttime: had flashlights which shows they sought nocturnity to facilitate the crime, 5) dwelling: committed inside
victim’s house. – Disregard of rank not appreciated: Robbery is primarily against property, not persons. With the death
penalty abolished, penalty is reclusion perpetua.
 PEOPLE V. ARMANDO REANZARES
G.R. NO. 130656

Facts: On 10 May 1994 at around 8:10 in the evening, the Gregorio Tactacan with his wife Lilia closed their store and
left for home on board their passenger-type jeepney. On their way home, they were robbed and Gregorio’s wife was
killed, by four unidentified men which one is later identified as Armando Reanzarez.
Accused was held guilty of highway robbery with homicide. Accused interposed alibi as defense. He questions
credibility of witness.

Issue: Whether or not the accused is properly convicted of the crime highway robbery with homicide.

HELD: No. The accused was guilty of Highway Robbery with Homicide under PD 532 was erroneous. As held in a
number of cases, conviction for highway robbery requires proof that several accused were organized for the purpose of
committing it indiscriminately. There is no proof in the instant case that the accused and his cohorts organized
themselves to commit highway robbery.
Consequently, the accused should be held liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Art. 294
of the Revised Penal Code as amended by RA 7659 as the allegations in the Information are enough to convict him
therefor. In the interpretation of an information, what controls is the description of the offense charged and not merely
its designation.
Article 294, par. (1), of the Revised Penal Code as amended punishes the crime of robbery with homicide
by reclusion perpetua to death. Applying Art. 63, second par., subpar. 2, of the Revised Penal Code which provides
that "[i]n all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be
observed in the application thereof: x x x 2. [w]hen there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the
commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied," the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua is imposed in the
absence of any modifying circumstance.

People vs. Buyagan

G.R. No. 187733, February 8, 2012
Facts: RTC found Teofilo Rey Buyagan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide sentencing him to suffer the death penalty. To the testimonies of the witnesses Ctistina Calixto and Melyn
Pastor saw Buyagan shot Jun Calixto as the latter was grappling with John Doe (appellant’s companion) at the back of his
head while Johnn Doe was the one who had robbed the WT Construction Supply. And other five witnesses all declared
Buyagan shot PO22 Osorio at the market while the latter was chasing him. RTC ordered the appellant to pay the heirs
Calixto and PO2 Osorio. The CA affirmed with the decision of RTC but modified the penalty imposed on the appellant
from death to reclusion perpetua.
Issue: Whether or not the appellant and John Doe acted in conspiracy with one another in committing the
special complex crime
Held: The lower court correctly ruled that the appellant and John Doe acted conspiracy with one another.
Conspiracy exists when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide
to commit it, it is sufficient that at the time of the commission of the offense, the malefactors had the same purpose and
were united in its execution the record shows that John Doe robbed out the WT Construction Supply Store, while he
walked casually away from the Store Calixto grabbed him while they were grappling with each other the appellant
appeared suddenly behind and shot Calixto. The two accused acted in concert to attain a common purpose, their
respective actions summed up to collective efforts to achieve a common criminal objective. The appellant clearly shot
Calixto to facilitate the escape of his robber companion, John Doe and to preserve the latter’s possession of the stolen
items. And affirmed the reduction to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of robbery with homicide.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ARNEL BALUTE Y VILLANUEVA
GR NO. 212932, JANUARY 21, 2015

FACTS:
Accused conspiring and confederating together with another, with intent to gain and by means of force, violence
and intimidation poked a gun at SPO1 Raymund B. Manaois, forcibly grabbing his phone valued at P6,000.00 against his
will. Thereafter shooting said SPO1 Manaois with an unknown caliber firearm, hitting him at the aback, and as a result
thereof, he sustained mortal gunshot wound which is the direct and immediate cause of his death.
Accused denied such, he maintained that he has an alibi that on the night of said event he was still at work to
which was corroborated by Leticia Nicol.
The RTC found Balute guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a crime of robbery with homicide with the aggravating
circumstance of treachery. Balute appealed such decision to the court of Appeals but the same was affirmed with
modification. Thus the present petition to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Balutes conviction for robbery with homicide—a special
complex crime?

RULING:
Yes, the RTC and CA correctly convicted Balute of the crime of robbery with homicide as defined and penalized
under Art. 294 of the RPC.

RATIO:
Citing the case of People v. Ibanez, the court exhaustively explained that “a.) special complex crime of robbery
with homicide takes place when a homicide is committed wither by reason, or on occasion, of the robbery.” A conviction
requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose , and the objective of the malefactor and the killing is merely
incidental to the robbery.
In the instant case, the CA correctly upheld the RTCs findings that the prosecution was able to establish the fact
the Balute poked his gun at SPO1 Manaois, took the latters mobile phone, and thereafter, shot him, resulting in his
death despite surgical and medical intervention.
Wherefore, instant appeal is denied.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. FABON
GR No. 133226, November 16, 2000

FACTS:
Accused-appellant LocsinFabon, alias “Loklok” was charged with the crime of robbery with homicide
accompanied by rape and intentional mutilation. Said accused, at the house of the victim did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously with intent to gain by means of force and violence against one BonifaciaLasquite, take and
carry away, sum of money consisting of bills of assorted denominations and coins amounting to P25,000.00 more or less,
and by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the same accused attacked and took the life of the victim with the use of a
bladed weapon.
Lower court convicted accused appellant of the crime of robbery with homicide and rape aggravated by
dwelling. The case is brought to Supreme Court n automatic review pursuant to Sec. 10 of Rule 122.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court was correct in convicting the accused of robbery with homicide and rape.

RULING:
No, the trial court inaccurately designated the crime as “robbery with homicide and rape”.

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 maximum penalty of death. Citing the case of PP v. Lascuna, the proper designation is robbery with
homicide aggravated by rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, it is the 1st paragraph of
Art. 294 of the RPC which applies, the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
 PEOPLE VS MANALILI
G.R. NO. 121671
AUGUST 14, 1998

Facts

Version of the Prosecution

On February 1, 1990, a passenger bus of Ballesteros Liner bound for Manila left its terminal at Ballesteros,
Cagayan. When the bus reached Caquilingan, Cordon, Isabela, appellant Danilo Reyes fired a gun and announced that
they [were] staging a hold-up. The companions of Reyes stood up and likewise announced a hold-up. Reyes shot and
killed the bus helper Sonny Quintua. The driver stopped the bus. Appellant Willy Manalili pointed a gun at Marcelino
Liberato. Manalili took money from the passenger in seat No. 34. Suddenly, there was an exchange of gunfire between
the robbers and one of the passengers. One of the robbers was shot and killed while Manalili was shot on the right
shoulder. The passenger who shot it out with the robbers jumped out of the bus. Reyes shot and killed the bus driver,
Alfredo Tango. Nestor Agustin, a passenger, was also shot and died as a consequence thereof. While the robbers were on
board a car, the police arrived and fired their guns. The vehicle used by the robbers turned turtle. The robbers ran
towards the southern direction.
Version of the Defense
DANILO REYES, one of the accused herein, testified that he had nothing to do with the robbery incident. In the
afternoon of February 1, 1990 he was at the house of Willy Manalili at San Ricardo, Isabela, Nueva Ecija to ask the latter
to accompany him to see his girlfriend at Isabela. He spent the night at Manalilis house. The following day, the two of
them decided to seek permission from Manalilis wife who was then at General Ricarte, likewise in Llanera. However, it
was only Manalili who went to see his wife as he waited for the latter at the road junction.Therafter, they proceeded to
Cabanatuan City in order to take a ride for Alicia, Isabela. When they reached Alicia, Isabela at 7:00 oclock in the evening
his girlfriends auntie informed them that [his] girlfriend was in Vigan, Cordon. The two decided to spen[d] the night at
Alicia[,] Isabela. The following morning they left for Cordon, Isabela. When they alighted at the town proper of Cordon
they were apprehended by armed men. They were brought to the Municipal Hall for investigation.

Issue:

Whether or not the accused is guilty of special complex crime

Held:

The appealed Decision must be modified. The trial court erred in convicting appellants of the special complex
crime of attempted robbery with homicide. Under the three pieces of information filed in this case, appellants should be
convicted of attempted robbery and double murder, but acquitted of frustrated murder.
It is not disputed that a Ballesteros Liner bus on its way to Manila from Ballesteros, Cagayan, was held up in Caquilingan,
Cordon, Isabela, in the evening of February 1, 1990. How the holdup was done was not also controverted by the
defense. There is nothing incredible about the story that would inspire disbelief. Thus it was satisfactorily established
that four armed men who boarded the bus at Santiago, Isabela, drew out their guns and announced a holdup when the
bus reached Caquilingan, Cordon at about the same time that a car suddenly overtook the bus which had to stop. One of
the armed men in front initially fired a shot. A passenger, supposedly a military man who was not identified, drew out his
gun and exchanged fire with the robbers and then broke the window of the bus and jumped out. The robbers must have
lost heart and they also left. There were four persons killed. One [was] their companion who was not identified. The
three others were Nestor Agustin who was hit on the back, the driver Alfredo Tango who was shot in the abdomen and
the bus helper Sonny Quintua who was shot in the head. It is admitted that these three died as a result of the gunshot
wounds they suffered.
It was not shown who shot Nestor Agustin. The witnesses did not see. On this matter something can be said of those
who investigated the crime. For some unexplained reason they did not deem it important to interview the passenger
who fought with the robbers. They did not also subject the firearms, both that of the passenger and those recovered
during the investigation, to ballistic examination. Had they done so, they would have determined what firearm killed
Nestor Agustin. Certainly our crime laboratory ha[s] ballistic experts for that purpose. Without any evidence to show
who shot Nestor Agustin, the only inference is that he was shot in the exchange of fire most probably by the robbers
based on the place where he was at the time. It was shown that he was sitted [sic] immediately behind the passenger
who exchanged fire with the robbers, indicated as Exhibit A-10 in the sketch. On the other hand the robbers were on the
left side slightly behind the passenger and Nestor Agustin.
How Sonny Quintua was shot was seen by Wilfredo Cando. He positively stated that the robber who was in front of the
bus shot Sonny Quintua.
There were also other passengers who were injured. Only one was identified. He is William Sinampan, the operations
manager of the Ballesteros Liner. Sinampan was shot on the left ear.The extent and gravity of his injuries were not
established. Sinampan himself did not testify. Neither was a medical certificate presented as evidence.
Because of the active resistance of one of the passengers, the holduppers fled before they were able to rob the
passengers except that the witness Marcelino Liberato saw that one of them took money from one of the
passengers. This passenger was not presented as witness to attest that she was robbed of her money. Perhaps the
prosecution did not think it necessary because the passenger did not complain so that what was charged [was] only
attempted robbery. Definitely the intention of the holduppers was to rob the bus. This is shown by their own
declarations when they announced Hold-up ito. If they were not able to attain their purpose, it was only because a
passenger resisted and fought with them.
What is contested by the accused is the accusation that they were the holdup men. They denied that they robbed or
held up the bus and shot and killed the passengers.

PEOPLE v. DIO
June 29, 1984 | Certiorari | Robbery with Homicide

FACTS:
CrispuloAlegais a civil engineer working at the Sugar Construction Company with a salary of more than P500 a
month. He went to Southeastern College to fetch his girlfriend, RemediosManiti, a third year high school student. While
walking, Remedios, who was walking in front, suddenly heard the dropping of her folders and other things being carried
by Crispulo.
When she looked back, Tobias was twisting the neck of Crispulo while Dio was holding Crispulo’s hands. Crispulo
resisted and fought the robbers so Tobias stabbed him on the left side of his chest. Crsipulo was able to run but died in
front of the Pasay Commercial Bank. At the time of Crispulo’s death, the Seiko watch was still strapped to his wrist.
Danilo Tobias (Danny Kulot) and Hernando Dio (Way Kaon), with intent to gain, conspired together to rob
CrispuloAlega of his Seiko brand men’s wrist watch. They robbed Crispulo with the use of a ‘balisong’ and used force,
threats, and intimidation.

ISSUE/HELD:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the defendant of the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.

DECISION:
Yes, the crime committed by the appellant is attempted robbery with homicide and the penalty prescribed by
the law for that is reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
The evidence shows that the appellant was unsuccessful in divesting the victim of his watch so as to constitute the
consummated crime of robbery. The killing of Crispulo may be considered merely accidental to and an offshoot of the
plan to carry out the robbery, which was not consummated because of the resistance of the victim.
There were no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, so the penalty should be applied in its medium period.
(The Indeterminate Sentence Law has also to be applied)
 People of the Philippines vs. Elizalde Faco y Fabiana
G.R. No. 115215, September 16, 1999

Facts: On August 8, 1993, the victim failed to come home and remit the sales of the bakery to its owner, Roger Gallega.
Alarmed, Gallega went to the bakery but found it closed. He learned from Cris Villarisco, one of the two tricycle drivers
that it was appellants turn to fetch the victim that night. Gallega’s wife told him that the tricycle owner was also looking
for appellant who failed to remit his earnings for the day. Gallega then sent for the parents of the victim to tell them
that she was missing.
According to Villarisco, at around 10:30 in the evening of August 8, appellant requested him to bring him and
his wife to Lonoy, Capiz., Villarisco noticed scratches on the arms and hands of appellant, and when asked about it,
appellant explained that those were marks of a knife.
When Chief-designate Nicasio Lopez of Dumalag arrived at the police station, he received a report that appellant
was requesting for police assistance. Acting upon accused Elizalde Faco’s request for police assistance, Police Chief-
designate Nicasio Lopez ordered his men to pick up accused and thereafter escort him to the Roxas City Police Station.
Upon their arrival in Roxas City, accused asked for PO3 Junie June Hervias and manifested his desire to confide only to
said officer the details of the disappearance of a certain Lenny Catalan. When Hervias arrived, accused gave his
confession. Hours later, true to what accused had confided Hervias, Lenny’s body was found in Sitio Nipa, bloodied and
naked from the waist down with legs spread apart.
On February 24, 1994, the trial court rendered its judgment finding accused Elizalde Faco y Fabiana guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of Robbery with Homicide defined and punishable under Art. 294, par. 1
of the Revised Penal Code, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Hence, this appeal.

Issue: Whether or not Faco is guilty of the crime robbery with homicide, or only homicide?

Held: The totality of the circumstantial evidence adduced led to the indubitable conclusion that appellant should be held
liable not just of simple homicide but the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. Among others, accused
admitted to his own confidant PO3 Hervias that he planned with one Danny to hold-up the victim. Likewise, accused
knew the location of the body of the victim which could not have been found without his assistance.
Robbery with Homicide as a special complex crime is primarily a crime against property, homicide being
incidental to the robbery, which is deemed the main purpose and object of the criminal.
In a case for Robbery with Homicide, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that: “(a) the taking of
personal property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property thus taken belongs to
another; (c) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by
reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is therein used in a generic sense, was committed.” Although there was no
witness as to the hold-up and actual taking of the money carried by the victim, the bakery owner, Mr. Gallega, testified
as to the amount which the victim failed to remit that fateful night. It was placed at P1,500.00, based on the remaining
items in the bakery. That amount was never recovered, but from the circumstances proved the taking of said amount
from Lenny occasioned her killing. As admitted by appellant, he had planned with “Danny” to hold-up the victim,
although he tried to impress on the trial court that he did not want her killed. In our view, the essential nexus of this
special complex crime, the “direct relation, and intimate connection between robbery and the killing, whether the latter
be prior or subsequent to the former or whether both crimes be committed at the same time,” has been proved by the
prosecution. Appellant himself admitted there was a hold-up which, as it turned out, occasioned the victim’s death.
To recapitulate, the totality of the circumstantial evidence adduced in this case leads to the indubitable
conclusion that appellant should be held liable for the crime not just of simple homicide but the special complex crime
of Robbery with Homicide penalized under Article 294, No. 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
 People of the Philippines vs. Dennis Legaspi y Cusi, Emilio Franco y Faderan
G.R. No. 117802. April 27, 2000

Facts:
As early as five in the afternoon of 28 November 1992, Ramon Tulod, a store helper of the Devezas, was already
waiting for the arrival of his Kuya Carlos (SPO3 Carlos Deveza), in front of CDS Stall owned by the latter. Carlos arrived at
the Market to fetch his wife, Estella Deveza, who was then closing the family chain of stalls for the day.
Upon arrival, Carlos parked his Toyota Tamaraw vehicle. Estella immediately approached Carlos, who was still at
the driver's seat, and handed him a black leather bag which contained P300,000.00 cash, pieces of jewelry and checks
while Ramon Tulod loaded the rotten vegetables at the back of the Tamaraw. Benjamin de Leon, also a helper of the
Devezas, stayed near a post in front of the store, facing the side of the vehicle. As Estella left to make a phone call,
Carlos alighted from the Tamaraw and stood on the left side of the vehicle.
As an eyewitness to the crime, Ramon Tulod testified that while he was then loading the rotten vegetables at
the back of the Tamaraw, with his Kuya Carlos in view, he saw Legaspi, donning white short pants, approach Deveza
from behind. Thereafter, Tulod saw Legaspi position himself two and a half (2 1/2) meters away from Deveza, level and
poke a gun at Deveza's nape and eventually pull the trigger. According to Tulod, Legaspi shot the victim with a gun
wrapped in a piece of cloth or towel.
Fatally wounded, Deveza fell on the pavement, his head positioned toward the rear portion of the vehicle. The
gunman then picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag and casually walked away from the scene of the crime. After
regaining lost composure, Tulod ran away from the scene of the crime, to inform the victim's brother, Junie Deveza, of
the shooting incident. While scampering away, Tulod heard two (2) more gunshots. On the same day, Tulod gave a
sworn written statementto the police regarding the incident.
At the trial, prosecution witness Wilfredo Dazo, a tricycle driver, recounted that at the time of the commission of
the crime, he was waiting for passengers when suddenly heard a gunshot. Dazo further testified that when he initially
saw Legaspi and Franco, the accused-appellants were at a distance of less than a meter from the Tamaraw. After the
shooting, Legaspi and Franco, walked away, one after the other from the scene of the crime, toward the direction where
Dazo was, as if nothing happened. Pitying the victim, Dazo hid behind a post for three to four seconds and waited in
ambush for Legaspi and Franco. Dazo was shoot by Legaspi twice.
In opposition, the defense interposed alibi and denial to substantiate accused-appellants' claim of innocence.
Legaspi claimed that at the time of the commission of the crime, he was at his father's house to attend the birthday
party of his godson and nephew. Similarly, accused-appellant Emilio Franco raised the twin defenses of alibi and denial.
According to Franco, at 3:45 PM of 28 November 1992, he went to visit his sister Elsa Mislang and play "Pusoy Dos" at 4
PM until past 9 PM, afterwhich Emilio went to sleep and woke up only the following morning of 29 November 1992.
On 05 May 1994, the RTC of Pasay City, in appreciating the presence of conspiracy between Legaspi and Franco,
convicted accused-appellants of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
In the instant appeal, accused-appellant Legaspi and Franco impugns the trial court's guilty verdict. In sum, the
Court is tasked to resolve the following principal issues: 1) Was the special complex crime of robbery with homicide duly
established by the evidence presented by the prosecution? 2) Was the prosecution's evidence sufficient to establish the
guilt of Legaspi and Franco beyond reasonable doubt and convict accused-appellants of the crime charged?

Issue:
Whether or not special complex crime of robbery with homicide duly established by the evidence presented by
the prosecution.
Held.
The evidence adduced and presented by the prosecution established all the elements of the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide. For in the crime of robbery with homicide, the homicide may precede the robbery or
may occur after the robbery, as what is essential is that there is a direct relation, an intimate connection between the
robbery and the killing.
This special complex crime is primarily a crime against property and not against persons, homicide being a mere
incident of the robbery with the latter being the main purpose and object of the criminal.
In the instant case, the records show that the fatal shooting of Carlos Deveza, while it preceded the robbery, was
for the purpose of removing an opposition to the robbery or suppressing evidence thereof. In this specie of offense, the
phrase "by reason" covers homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of another, as long as the
motive of the offender (in killing a person before the robbery) is to deprive the victim of his personal property which is
sought to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition, or to do away with a witness or to defend the
possession of stolen property.
Obviously, the killing of Carlos Deveza and the shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reason of or on
the occasion of the robbery. Thus, the physical injuries sustained by Dazo are deemed absorbed in the crime of robbery
with homicide. Taken in its entirety, the overt acts of accused-appellant Legaspi prove that the lone motive for the killing
of Deveza and the shooting of Dazo was for the purpose of consummating and ensuring the success of the robbery. In
the final analysis, the shooting of Dazo was done in order to defend the possession of the stolen property. It was
therefore an act which tended to insure the successful termination of the robbery and secure to the robber the
possession and enjoyment of the goods taken. Accused-appellants argument that the element of "taking" was not
proved is thus unavailing in the face of Tulods testimony.
 People v. Diego Opero
GR No. L- 48796

Facts:
Liew Soon Ping was found dead by a security guard in Room 314 of the House International Hotel in Ongpin,
Manila. She was seen prostrate on a bed with her face down and both feet and hands tied. The room was ransacked and
personal belongings were thrown all around. The accused admitted that he robbed the victim; and he and his co-
accused assaulted her, tying up her hands and feet, stabbing her, and stuffing her mouth with a piece of “pandesal”.

Issue:
Should Opero be convicted of robbery with homicide?

Held:
Yes. It has been repeatedly held that when direct and intimate connection exists between the robbery and the
killing, regardless of which of the two precedes the other, or whether they are committed at the same time, the crime
committed is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide. It may not avail appellant to contend that the death
was by mere accident for even if it were so, which is not even beyond doubt for the sliding of the pandesal into the
neckline to produce asphyxiation could reasonably have been anticipated, it is a settled doctrine that when death
supervenes by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, it is immaterial that the occurrence of death was by mere
accident. What is important and decisive is that death results by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.

People v. Antonio Reyes

GR No. 153119

Facts:
The victim, Dr. Aurora Lagrada, a 70- year-old spinster, lived alone in her 2- storey house, which was 4-5 meters
away from the house of the accused. Without Aurora’s knowledge, Antonio gained entry into the house of the latter.
Armed with a bolo, he stole one Rolex wristwatch, one gold bracelet, one gold ring with birthstone of Jade, and one
passbook from Lagrada. During the said robbery, Reyes stabbed the victim several times in the different parts of her
body directly causing her death.

Issue:
Is Reyes guilty of robbery with homicide?

Held:
Yes. A homicide is considered as having been committed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery when the
motive of the offender in killing the victim is to deprive the latter of his/her property, to eliminate an obstacle to the
crime, to protect his possession of the loot, to eliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended or to ensure his
escape from the scene of the crime. The accused stated that he barged into the house of the victim to rob her, and that
he stabbed the victim when she was about to shout and because he was drunk. The accused then took the victim’s
money and personal belongings and fled from the scene of the crime.
 PEOPLE vs. BARRA
G.R. No. 198020, July 10, 2013

FACTS:
An information was filed against Appellant Joseph Barra charging him of special complex crime of robbery with
homicide committed against the victim Elmer Lagdaan. On October 9, 2003 at around 9:00 p.m., one witness stated that
he was on his way home when in the light of a bright moon, he saw Barra enter the house of Lagdaan (victim), which
was lit with a lamp, and poked a gun to the victim’s right forehead and demanded money. When the victim stated that
the money was not in his possession, appellant shot him. The victim died due to massive hemorrhage secondary to
gunshot wound. In his defense, Barra (appellant) denied the charges against him arguing that the elements for the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide were not proven particularly the element of taking of personal
property. Appellant also claimed that he was in Batangas City, with his brother Benjamin, visiting his sister when he was
arrested and brought to Camarines Sur.

Crime charged: special complex crime of robbery with homicide (Art. 294, RPC)

RTC: convicted as charged

CA: only found appellant guilty of attempted robbery with homicide (Art. 297, RPC); attempted because no evidence was
presented to establish that accused-appellant took away the victim’s money or any property, for that matter. The killing
was an offshoot of accused appellant’s intent to rob the victim. Accused-appellant was bent on resorting to violent
means to attain his end. Due to the victim’s failure to give his money, the crime of robbery was, however, not
consummated.

ISSUE: Whether or not Barra is guilty of robbery with homicide ?

HELD:
The SC affirmed the decision of the CA. Barra is guilty of attempted robbery with homicide. Requisites to be
proven by the prosecution for appellant to be convicted of robbery with homicide under Art. 294, are, to wit: 1) the
taking of personal property is committed with violence or intimidation against persons; 2) the property taken belongs to
another; 3) the taking is characterized by intent to gain or animo lucrandi; and 4) by reason of the robbery or on the
occasion thereof, homicide (used in its generic sense) is committed.
Appellant’s intention was to extort money from the victim. By reason of the victim’s refusal to give up his personal
property – his money – to appellant, the victim was shot in the head, causing his death. The element of taking was not
complete, making the crime one of attempted robbery with homicide as opposed to the crime appellant was convicted
in the RTC.
The elements of attempted and frustrated robbery with homicide as defined in Art. 297 of the Revised Penal Code are:
1) there is an attempted or frustrated robbery 2) a homicide is committed In the present case, the crime of robbery
remained unconsummated because the victim refused to give his money to appellant and no personal property was
shown to have been taken.
It was for this reason that the victim was shot. Since the RTC and the Court of Appeals found appellant’s crime to be
aggravated by disregard of dwelling, the Court of Appeals correctly imposed the maximum penalty of reclusion
perpetua.
 PEOPLE VS SUGAN
G.R. No. 192789, March 23, 2011
Facts:
At around 6:45 p.m. of February 8, 1998, Gaga, Saligo, NganoSugan, Nga Ben Latam and one alias Francing, all
armed with guns, entered Fortunato Delos Reyes residence in PurokRoxas 1, Lamsugod, Surallah, South Cotabato, and
declared a hold up. Kamison and CosmeLatam stayed outside and acted as lookouts
Once inside, the armed men ordered Fortunato, his wife Thelma Delos Reyes, and their son Nestor Delos Reyes, to drop
to the floor. The armed men inquired from them where the money and other valuables were hidden; thereafter, they
took cash amounting to P10,000.00, personal belongings worth P5,000.00, and an air gun valued at P2,800.00. Ngano
then brought Nestor outside the house, and shot him.[4]
Reggie Delos Reyes, another son of Fortunato and Thelma, ran to his parents house when he heard the
gunshot. When he arrived, Kamison and Cosme pointed a knife and a gun at him, respectively, and told him not to enter
the house. Reggie then heard Nestor shout that he had been hit. Thereafter, all the seven (7) armed men left. Reggie
rushed Nestor to the hospital, but the latter died due to multiple gunshot wounds.[5]
The prosecution charged the appellants and their companions with the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide before the RTC.[6] Gaga, Saligo and Kamison all pleaded not guilty to the charge upon arraignment. Ngano, Nga
Ben and alias Francing remain at large. Cosme died on July 23, 2000 while under detention.
The RTC, in its Decision of September 25, 2008, found the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of robbery
with homicide committed by a band, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It also ordered
them to pay the victims heirs the amounts of P75,000.00 and P24,000.00 as civil indemnity and burial expenses,
respectively; and P17,800.00 representing the value of the cash and other stolen items.

Issue: Whether or not the CA is correct in sentencing the accused of the crime of robbery with homicide

HELD:
There is robbery with homicide when a homicide is committed either by reason, or on occasion, of the
robbery. To sustain a conviction for robbery with homicide, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the
taking of personal property belonging to another; (2) with intent to gain; (3) with the use of violence or intimidation
against a person; and (4) on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, the crime of homicide, as used in its generic
sense, was committed. A conviction requires certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective of the
malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the robbery. The intent to rob must precede the taking of human life
but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.[7]
In the present case, no doubt exists, based on the appellants and their companions actions that their overriding
intention was to rob Fortunatos house. The following facts are established and undisputed: the armed men entered
Fortunatos house and ordered its occupants to drop to the ground; they asked for the location of the money and other
valuables; they took cash amounting to P10,000.00, personal belongings worth P5,000.00, and an air gun valued
at P2,800.00.
While it was undisputed that only Ngano shot Nestor, the lower courts correctly found the appellants liable for
robbery with homicide. Case law establishes that whenever homicide has been committed by reason of or on the
occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also be held guilty as principals of
robbery with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it appears that they sought to prevent the
killing.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto. The CA held that Fortunato and Thelma positively identified
the appellants as among the persons who robbed their house; Fortunato, in fact, saw Ngano shoot Nestor. Reggie
corroborated their testimonies on material points. The CA disregarded the appellantsdefense of denial due to lack of
corroboration. It, likewise, did not believe their alibi because they failed to prove that it was physically impossible for
them to be at the crime scene.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LOCSIN FABON
G.R. No. 133226
March 16, 2000

FACTS:
In an information file before the Regional Trial of Hilongos, Leyte, accused-appellant Locsin Fabon was charged
with the crime of robbery with homicide accompanied by rape and intentional mutilation at the house of the victim
Bonifacio 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 commited as robbery with homicide and rape.

HELD:
The trail court inaccurately designated the crime committed by accused-appellant as robbery with homicide and
rape. Accused-appellant found guilty of only robbery with homicide, a special complex crime.

RATIO DECIDENDI:
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 accuse-appellant 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.
 ROBBERY WITH RAPE

People v. Taño
GR No. 133872

Facts:
Amy de Guzman was tending a video rental shop owned by her employer and cousin. The accused kept on going
in and out of the shop and on the last time that he went inside, he jumped over the counter where Amy was and seized
the latter, with a knife which he poked at her. Taño dragged her to the kitchen, ordered her to undress and started
raping her.Taño became violent and banged Amy’s head on the wall. Inside the toilet, the accused banged her head on
the toilet bowl several times causing her to lose consciousness. Thereafter,Taño looted the place of valuables.

Issue:
Is Taño guilty of robbery with rape?

Held:
No. The special complex crime of robbery with rape contemplates a situation where the original intent of the
accused was to take, with intent to gain, personal property belonging to another; and rape is committed on the occasion
thereof or as an accompanying crime .Under the circumstances, he cannot be convicted of the special crime of robbery
with rape. Instead, he committed two separate offenses- rape with the use of a deadly weapon and simple robbery with
force and intimidation against persons.

PEOPLE VS GALLO

FACTS:
On October 3, 2001, in the City of Tacloban, Joseph Evangelio y Gallo, Edgar Evangelio y Gallo, Atlano Agaton y
Obico and Noel Malpas y Garcia conspired and armed with a handgun and deadly or bladed weapons forcibly entered he
inhabited house of BBB and took with them personal belongings which amounted to P 336,000.00 or more or less. On
the occasion of the robbery, in the same house, raped AAA, a 17-year old minor against her will and consent while
unconscious after she banged her head on the bathroom floor when she tried to resist and fought back.
ISSUE:
Whether or not all of the accused committed robbery with rape.
HELD:
Yes, to be convicted of robbery with rape, the following elements must concur: (1) the taking of personal
property is committed with violence against persons; (2) the property taken belongs to another; (3) the taking is
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi and (4) robbery is accompanied by rape. In this case, the prosecution
established that appellant and his three co-accused took the pieces of jewelry and valuables of the spouses BBB and CCC
by means of violence and intimidation. They barged into the house of the victims armed with handgun and knives and
tied the hands and feet of the members of the household. BBB was also tied and was struck in the head with a gun.
Intent to gain, as an element of robbery, is an internal act; hence presumed from the unlawful taking of things.
As regard to the last requirement, although the victim did not exactly witness the actual rape because she was
unconscious, circumstantial evidence shows that the victim was raped by the appellant and the other accused. For a
conviction of the crime of robbery with rape to stand, it must be shown that the rape was committed by reason or on
the occasion of a robbery and not the other way around.
This special complex crime is under the Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
 People v. Sultan G.R. No. 132470(2000)

Facts: At around nine in the evening, Juditha was on her way home. In passing a dark alley, however, she was
accosted by an assailant (by the name of Sultan) who announced that it was a “hold up” and forced her to come home
with him. Her valuables were taken from her and she was ordered to undress. After which, Sultan ordered her to lie
down and commenced violating her sexually by means of holding her hands above her head and inserting his penis into
her vagina. After the initial coital encounter, he took a short break and proceeded once again with threat and
intimidation to sexually abuse her. He said that he loved her afterwards and offered to elope. In her effort to free herself
from him, she agreed. The next day she told her sister who consequently informed their brother who was a policeman.
He suggested that Juditha pretend to elope so that he could arrest the assailant with the help of his two companions
later on. They were able to do this while Juditha and the accused were inside a bus during heavy traffic. He was tried and
convicted of the special complex crime of robbery with rape. He appeals to the SC.

Issue: Whether or not the testimony of the victim can be considered credible on the basis of the alleged robbery
and rape.

Held: Yes. Regarding the robbery: while there may have been no effort on the part of the victim to retrieve her
personal belongings after the threat had passed, her failure to do so does not necessarily dispute the commission of the
robbery.

Article 293 of the RPC provides that: “Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property
belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or using force upon anything, shall be
guilty of robbery.”

All the necessary elements for the execution and accomplishment of the crime were present: (1) personal property
belonging to another; (2) unlawful taking; (3) intent to gain; and (4) violence or intimidation.

Regarding the rape- the accused alleges that the requisite force/intimidation was not proved and there was some
form of consent because the victim did not put up enough resistance. The court answered that though force may not
have been employed by the assailant, intimidation was vividly present in the fear that it produced within the victim.
With fear instilled in Juditha’s mind, failure to put up resistance does not mean consent so as to make her a willing
participant in the sexual confrontation that transpired.

Article 294, par. 1 of the RPC condemns a person to reclusion perpetua to death when robbery shall have been
committed with rape. In the present case, the victim was raped TWICE but since additional rapes committed do not
count as aggravating circumstances1 (People v. Regala), the court must construe the penal law to be in favor of the
offender. Unless a law is passed providing that additional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered aggravating, this will
always be the case because:

Article 63, par. 2 of the same Code explicitly states that when the law prescribes a penalty composed of two
indivisible penalties, when there are neither mitigating or aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the
lesser penalty shall be applied.
 PEOPLE v. NAAG
GR No. 136394; Feb. 15, 2001

Facts:
On or about the 8th day of January, 1996 at Daraga, Albay, Herson Naag, armed with a screw driver, by means of
violence and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have carnal knowledge of the
complainant Desiree Gollena, against her will, by inflicting upon her with the use of said screw multiple serious physical
injuries, and thereafter said accused, having been fully satisfied of his carnal lust over said Desiree Gollena and believing
her to be dead, with intent of gain, divested and took her personal belongings.

Issue:
Whether the crime committed by Naag is a special complex crime of Robbery with Rape or the two separate
felonies of Robbery and Rape.

Held:
In the special complex crime of robbery with rape, the true intent of the accused must first be determined
because it is his intent that determines the offense he has committed. Facts show that the primary intent of accused
was to rape the victim and not to rob her. The Court in People vs. Dinola, citing the cases of People vs. Canastre
and People vs. Faigano, held:
x x x if the intention of the accused was to rob, but rape was committed even before the asportation, the crime is
robbery with rape. But if the original plan was to rape but the accused after committing the rape also committed the
robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the offense should be viewed as separate and distinct. To be liable for
the complex crime of robbery with rape the intent to take personal property of another must precede the rape.
Moreover, the crime of taking away the property is theft and not robbery because when he took the personal properties
of Desiree, the element of violence and intimidation was no longer present.

Accused is guilty of separate crimes of rape and theft.

 PEOPLE VS EVANGELIO
G.R. No. 181902

Facts:

On October 3, 2001, at 6:30 in the evening, while AAA, a 17-year-old househelper, was cooking in the kitchen of
the house of BBB situated in Tacloban City, four persons, one of whom was armed with a handgun while the other three
with knives, suddenly barged inside the house through the open kitchen door. The four men accosted her, warned her
to keep quiet, and brought her to the living room. There, they herded all the other members of the household whom
they caught and bound their hands and feet, and thereafter, placed masking tapes over their captives eyes. With her
eyes partially covered by the tape, AAA was brought by the appellant inside the comfort room and thereat, appellant
and one of the robbers stripped off AAA's clothes and removed her panty. AAA resisted and fought back but they
slammed her head twice against the concrete wall, causing her to lose consciousness. When she regained her senses,
appellant and the other robbers were already gone, and she found herself lying on the side on the floor of the comfort
room with her feet untied and her hands still tied behind her back. She saw her shorts and panty strewn at her side. She
suffered pain in her knees, head, stomach, and her vagina, which was bleeding. Later on, AAA was freed from the
comfort room by the other occupants of the house, who were earlier freed.

Prosecution witness Evelyn[4] was in the living room when the incident happened. She was tutoring her nieces
when the four men barged inside the house. She testified that she could not be mistaken as to the identity of the
accused Edgar, who was armed with a handgun, because he is a friend of her husband and who used to work for him.
Appellant and accused Noel are also familiar to her because they previously stayed in Sampaguita, Tacloban City, where
she lives. Upon the instruction of accused Edgar, Edelyn was divested of her earrings, bracelet, watch, and ring.
Thereafter, appellant tied her hands and feet, and blindfolded her with masking tape. She was hit on the head with a
firearm, causing a cut and her losing consciousness. When she regained her senses, she found herself in the maids'
room. She heard accused Edgar ask her nieces where their father kept their pieces of jewelry and firearm. When her
nieces told him that the valuables were kept upstairs, accused Edgar brought one of them there.

BBB came home around 7:00 in the evening and when he entered the sliding door facing the garage, he saw the
four accused inside, three of them armed with knives and the other one with a gun. When he entered, he was
immediately accosted and warned to keep quiet. He recognized their faces, particularly the leader of the group, whom
he identified as accused Edgar, who previously worked for him as a laborer in the construction of the extension of his
house. Upon accused Edgar's command, the other three accused, one of whom he identified in open court as appellant,
tied him up. Accused Edgar, then struck him with the gun on his head, causing him to fall face down on the floor with
blood oozing from his left eyebrow. After a while, appellant and the three accused went out of the house, through the
kitchen door, carrying two traveling bags and the jewelry box of his wife.

CCC, the wife of BBB, came home from the office in the early evening of October 3, 2001. Upon arriving thereat,
she tried to open the door but was not able to do so. She then called out the names of her children, but nobody
responded. She peeped through the window screen and saw people inside the house with whom she did not recognize.
One of the accused then poked a gun at her head and told her to come inside, otherwise, he would kill her children. She
ran away from their house, and cried out for help from the neighbors. They called the police. Shortly thereafter, the
policemen arrived. They found the house in complete disarray, the cabinets were forcibly opened, CCC's jewelry box and
her pieces of jewelry stolen, and the members of the household traumatized. An inventory was taken of the stolen
valuables which amounted to PhP336,000.00, more or less. Some of the stolen items were later recovered from the
house of accused Edgar.

The following day, AAA was examined by Dr. Angel Cordero, a medico-legal officer of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory at Camp Ruperto Kangleon, Palo, Leyte. Dr. Cordero found that AAA sustained deep
healing lacerations at the 6 o'clock, 9 o'clock, and 3 o'clock positions and shallow healed lacerations at the 1
o'clockand 11 o'clock positions. He concluded that AAA was in a non-virgin state physically and that findings are
compatible with recent loss of virginity and with recent sexual intercourse.
In his defense, appellant denied having committed the crimes charged and interposed alibi as a defense. He claims that
at the time of the incident on October 3, 2001, at about6:30 in the evening, he was sleeping in his house at
Diit, Tacloban City with his mother and sisters. No other witness was presented by the appellant.

Issue:

Whether or not appellant is guilty of the crime

Held:

The Court found accused, JOSEPH EVANGELIO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
ROBBERY WITH RAPE charged under the information and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of DEATH, and pay
actual damages in the amount of Three Hundred Thirty-Six Thousand (P336,000.00) Pesos to spouses BBB and CCC and
moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos; pay civil indemnity to AAA, the amount of Seventy
Five Thousand (P75,000.00) Pesos, and moral damages in the amount of Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos; pay Edelyn
the amount of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos as actual damages and moral damages in the amount of Twenty
Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos; and pay the costs.

Between the categorical statements of the prosecution witness, on one hand, and the bare denial of the
appellant, on the other, the former must perforce prevail. An affirmative testimony is far stronger than a negative
testimony especially when it comes from the mouth of a credible witness. 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. Denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of prosecution witnesses
who were not shown to have any ill-motive to testify against the appellant.

As to the defense of alibi. Aside from the testimony of appellant that he was in Diit, Tacloban City at the time of
the incident, the defense was unable to show that it was physically impossible for appellant to be at the scene of the
crime. Basic is the rule that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove that he was somewhere else when the crime
was committed and that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime. Physical
impossibility refers to the distance between the place where the appellant was when the crime transpired and the place
where it was committed, as well as the facility of access between the two places. Where there is the least chance for the
accused to be present at the crime scene, the defense of alibi must fail. The appellant testified during trial that Diit
is only a one-hour ride away from Tacloban City. Thus, it was not physically impossible for the appellant to be at
the locus criminis at the time of the incident. In addition, positive identification destroys the defense of alibi and renders
it impotent, especially where such identification is credible and categorical.

Further, appellant insists that he was at home at the time of the incident with his mother and sisters. The
defense, however, failed to put them on the witness stand. Neither did they execute any statement under oath to
substantiate appellant's alibi.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. ROGELIO MORENO y REG

FACTS:
At about 12:45 A.M. of 8 January 1999, as Marites was walking along ABC Commercial Complex, Makati, after
her, noticed a man behind her. Suddenly, the man put his arms around her and pointed a fan-knife at her neck. MARITES
noticed the tattoos in his arms and recognized him to be ROGELIO. ROGELIO dragged MARITES and at the same time
ordered her to follow him to the side of ABC Complex. ROGELIO grabbed MARITES’s long-sleeved shirt, unbuttoned it,
and pushed her to the vacant space behind the car then parked on the side of ABC Complex. He again pointed his knife
at her throat and pulled down her pants. ROGELIO ordered MARITES to open her legs apart or else he would kill her.
MARITES was forced to obey him. ROGELIO then went on top of her with his right hand holding her throat, inserted his
sexual organ into hers, and kept on pumping. After he was through, ROGELIO went again on top of MARITES and
ordered her to put his organ inside her vagina but she refused. ROGELIO forthwith put on his shorts and snatched the
shoulder bag of MARITES, which contained her ATM card, ₱200 cash, a small Bible, coupons of Burger Machine and T-
shirt with Burger Machine markings. He then ran away towards the direction of the other side of EDSA.
The trial ourt finds accused Rogelio Moreno y Reg, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the special
complex crime of robbery with rape and sentenced to death.

ISSUE:
Should the accused be sentenced to the special complex crime of robbery with rape?

HELD:
NO, instead, of the separate crimes of rape and theft. The special complex crime of robbery with rape defined in
Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, employs the clause "when
the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape." In other words, to be liable for such crime, the offender must have
the intent to take the personal property of another under circumstances that makes the taking one of robbery, and such
intent must precede the rape. If the original plan was to commit rape, but the accused after committing the rape also
committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery should be viewed as a separate and distinct
crime. Clearly then, the taking of personal property was not the original evil plan of ROGELIO. It was an afterthought
following the rape.
 KIDNAPPING WITH MURDER OR HOMICIDE
People of the Philippines vs Benedicto Ramos y Binuya
G.R. No. 118570, 1998

Facts:
On 13 July 1994, at about six-thirty in the morning, an American pastor named Malcolm Bradshaw was driving
his car along EDSA to take his daughter Michelle to school. At the bus stop he saw a woman, later identified as the victim
Alicia Abanilla, struggling to break away from the arms of a man known later to be accused-appellant Benedicto Ramos y
Binuya. Realizing that the woman was in deep trouble, Bradshaw stopped his car and Abanilla grabbed the opportunity
and ran towards Bradshaw's car and hopped in at the back seat. Unfortunately for her, Ramos caught up with her and
squeezed himself into the same car.
Ramos, armed with a gun, threatened Bradshaw to follow the directions ordered by him which the latter
obeyed. Upon reaching Katipunan Avenue, Ramos told Bradshaw to stop where he got off and pulled Alicia out of the
car. Soon after, Bradshaw discovered the receipt dropped by Abanilla beside Michelle which contained her name and
residence telephone number. He called the number in the receipt and told Abanilla’s family that she was being held
hostage by a man who was demanding ransom for her release. Ramos was able to extort a ranson from Abadila’s
manager in MERALCO. However, in desperate effort to free herself, Alicia jumped out of the cab but unfortunately her
blouse was caught in the process. As a consequence, she was dragged by the vehicle. Ramos suddenly stopped the taxi,
and as Alicia attempted to rise, he aimed his gun at the back and fired at her twice, hitting her just above her nape which
causes her death.
Thereafter an information was filed against Benedicto Ramos y Binuya charging him with the complex crime of
kidnapping for ransom with murder, to which he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court a quo convicted Ramos of two
(2) separate crimes — kidnapping for ransom and murder — sentencing him to suffer the supreme penalty of DEATH in
each case and to indemnify the heirs of the victim instead of the complex crime charged in the Information.
In this petition, accused-appellant imputes to the trial court in finding him guilty of the crimes of kidnapping for
ransom and murder.

Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Ramos of two (2) separate crimes — kidnapping for ransom
and murder. and Whether or not Ramos is guilty of a special complex of Kidnapping for ransom with murder.

Held:
Considering the evidence extant on record, this court agrees with the trial court that victim Alicia Abanilla was
indeed kidnapped for ransom and then murdered by accused-appellant. But the kidnapping for ransom and murder
should not be treated as separate crimes for which two (2) death penalties must as a consequence be imposed. Instead,
under Art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 7659, accused-appellant should be convicted of the
special complex crime of Kidnapping for ransom with murder and impose upon him the maximum penalty of death.
Prior to 31 December 1993, the date of effectivity of RA No. 7659, the rule was that where the kidnapped victim
was subsequently killed by his abductor, the crime committed would either be a complex crime of kidnapping with
murder under Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code, or two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping and murder.
However, RA No. 7659 amended Art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code by adding thereto a last paragraph which
provides - When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
 This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of "special complex crime" of kidnapping with
murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing
of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the accused and those where the killing of the victim was not
deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought. Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is
killed in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as
separate crimes, but shall be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by
RA No. 7659.
Obviously, the instant case falls within the purview of the aforequoted provision of Art. 267, as amended.
Therefore accused-appellant Benedicto Ramos y Binuya is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex
crime of kidnapping for ransom with murder under art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 7659, and
is accordingly sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of death.
 RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
People of the Philippines vs. Jose Broniola alias “asot”
G.R. No. 211027, June 29, 2015,

Facts:
On February 28, 2000, at around 5:30 in the afternoon, Alfredo Abag, a resident of Sitio Kabanatian, Bgy.
Tumanding, was on his way home bringing some "Taiwan" fish to sell when he met the appellant at a shortcut road
passable only to people and animals. He noticed that appellant had scratches on his face and his hand was holding a
lagaraw (bolo) with blood on it. Appellant asked for the price of the fish but he did not buy and just left. From what he
had observed, appellant was restless and uneasy.
Meanwhile, AAA’s father, BBB, reported to the barangay authorities that his daughter was missing. In the
morning of February 29, 2000 they found her already dead, lying on a grassy area near a farm hut owned by Jhonefer Q.
Darantianao. AAA’s body bore several hack wounds, blood oozed from her mouth, her one hand and one finger were cut
off. He knows appellant because they are neighbors. Their families had a rift because appellant’s father was killed by his
son-in-law, Lito Miguel. Result of the medical examination conducted on AAA revealed that her body bore several hack
wounds.
Based on the narration of Alfredo, Jose was charged with Rape with Homicide under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8353, Article 266-A, in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. In his defense, Jose denied liability, averring
that he was farming a plot adjacent to his house on the morning of February 28, 2000; when he finished his chore, he
stayed at the house and did not leave it. He also denied meeting Alfredo. He does not know Alfredo, AAA or BBB. It
was only when BBB testified at the hearing that he learned he was the brother in law of Lito Miguel, who had become
his friend at the detention center.
After trial, the RTC relied on the testimony of Alfredo, which it found straightforward, categorical, and
convincing. Jose’s defense of denial and alibi failed to convince as he was not able to prove that it was impossible for
him to be present at the crime scene and to rebut the prosecution evidence proving that he raped and killed AAA. The
CA affirmed the RTC findings, hence Jose appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not Jose’s conviction for Rape with Homicide should be affirmed.

Held:
The appeal is without merit. Appellant was charged and convicted of rape with homicide. The felony of rape
with homicide is a special complex crime that is, two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and
unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse.⁠
In rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on
occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed a woman.⁠
In this case, nobody witnessed the actual rape and killing of AAA. Appellant, however, may still be proven as the
culprit despite the absence of eyewitnesses. Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an
accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing
circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.⁠
As we held in People v. Pascual⁠: It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the
rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, we have held that the crime of
rape is difficult to prove because it is generally unwitnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for herself. It
becomes even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no
longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.⁠
The RTC and CA found the following circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution as sufficient for the
conviction of appellant and this court concur with the CA and RTC. We are satisfied that the evidence adduced against
appellant constitutes an unbroken chain leading to the one fair and reasonable conclusion that appellant was the
perpetrator of the crime. It is doctrinal that the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal law does not
mean such a degree of proof as to exclude the possibility of error and produce absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is
required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. This was adequately established in
the case at bar.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDMUNDO OLANO VILLAFLORES
(G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 365)

FACTS:
On July 2, 1999, Marita was last seen by her mother Julia be playing at the rear of their residence. Whenher
mother noticed that she was missing, she called her husband who rushed home to find theirdaughter. At 6:00AM of July
3, 1999, they found Marita’s lifeless body covered with blue and yellowsack five houses away from their home. The
result of the post-mortem examination showed that thechild was raped and the cause of death is asphyxia by
strangulation. Upon police investigation, two witnessespointedVillaflores as the culprit. Both of them narrated that at
about 10:00AM of July 2, 1999, they sawVillaflores leading Marita by the hand. At noon, the three used shabu for a
while, but the witnesses didnot see Marita in the vicinity of Villaflores’ house. It was only about 3:00PM that they heard
the cries of achild. At about 7:00PM, both witnesses saw Batman carrying a yellow sack which appears heavy, thesame
sack they saw while they were still inside the house of Batman. The wife of the accused alsogave a supporting testimony
that on the night of July 2, 1999, she saw his husband place some sacksunder their house and when she went closer, she
saw a protruding elbow inside the sack. When sheconfrontedhis husband who was on drugs, Villaflores saidit
was nothing. Based on thesecircumstances, the RTC convicted Villaflores for the crime of rape with homicide, holding
that circumstantialevidence led to no other conclusion but that his guilt was shown beyond reasonable doubt. The
Courtof Appeals also affirmed the conviction.The accused appealed and argued that both RTC and CA erred in convicting
him of a composite crime of rape with homicide through circumstantial evidence.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused can be convicted of the composite crime of rape with homicide through
circumstantial evidence

HELD:
YES. The felony of rape with homicide is a composite crime. A composite crime, also known as a special complex
crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the
product of a single criminal impulse. It is a specific crime with a specific penalty provided by law, and differs from a
compound or complex crime under Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code, which states:“When a single act constitutes
two or more grave or less grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty
for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.”As with all criminal
prosecutions, the State carried the burden of proving all the elements of rape and homicide beyond reasonable doubt in
order to warrant the conviction of Villaflores for the rape with homicide charged in the information. The State must thus
prove the concurrence of the following facts, namely: (a) that Villaflores had carnal knowledge of Marita; (b) that he
consummated the carnal knowledge without the consent of Marita; and (c) that he killed Marita by reason of the
rape.Under Article 266-A, rape is always committed when the accused has carnal knowledge of a female under
12 years of age. The crime is commonly called statutory rape, because a female of that age is deemed incapable of giving
consent to the carnal knowledge. Marita’s Certificate of Live Birth disclosed that she was born on October 29, 1994,
indicating her age to be only four years and eight months at the time of the commission of the crime on July 2, 1999. As
such, carnal knowledge of her by Villaflores would constitute statutory rape.The crime becomes a composite crime of
rape withhomicide when it was made on the occasion of the rape, which refers to a killing that occursimmediately
before or after, or during the commission itself of the attempted or consummated rape,for as long as the killing is lined
to rape.
 People v. Narzabal y Castelo
GR No. 174066

Facts:
On March 2, 2002, at around 8pm, AAA asked permission from her mother, BBB, to watch a tv program at the
house of their neighbor, Concepcion, located next to that of the accused. Not having returned by 10pm, AAA was
fetched by her mother from the house of Concepcion, but she was not there. On her way back, BBB, heard AAA scream
aloud twice, then muffled cry. BBB, with the help of barangay officials, proceeded to the house of the accused where
they saw the lifeless body of AAA lying on the floor, half–naked from waist down, with blood stains between her legs
and blood oozing from her ears and nostrils. The autopsy revealed that she was raped.
Issue:
Is the accused guilty of the special complex crime of rape with homicide?
Held:
Yes. In a special complex crime of rape with homicide, the following elements must concur: 1.) the accused had
carnal knowledge of a woman; 2.) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat, or
intimidation; 3.)by reason of or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat, or intimidation, the
accused killed a woman.In this case, the prosecution convincingly established the criminal liability of the accused
through circumstantial evidence, which was credible and sufficient and led to the inescapable conclusion that he
committed the complex crime of rape with homicide.

PEOPLE VS OLANO
FACTS:
Marita’s life was snuffed out by strangulation on July 2, 1999, she was only four years and eight months old. She
was playing at the rear of their residence in Bagong Silang when her mother noticed her missing from home. Julia, her
mother, called her husband Manito and they went to find her. The next day, they found Marita’s lifeless body with a
blue and yellow sack inside the comfort room of an abandoned house, her face was black and blue, and bloody. She had
been tortured and strangled to death. The investigation led to Edmundo Villaflores y Olano as the culprit. The RTC of
Caloocan City charged him the rape with homicide.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Villaflores is guilty of rape with homicide.

HELD:
Yes, the felony of rape with homicide is a composite crime. A composite crime also known as a special complex
crime, is composed of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the
product of a single criminal impulse.
As to the rape, Marita was found to have suffered deep fresh hymenal lacerations, injuries that Dr. Jose
Marquez attributed to the insertion of a blunt object like a human penis and medical result shows that indeed it was a
penis.
As to the homicide, her death was shown to be caused by strangulation with a rape, and the time of death was
determined by the medico-legal findings was consistent with the recollection of Solidum seeing Villaflores going towards
the abandoned house at around 7PM carrying the yellow sack that was found to cover Marita’s head.
The following facts, were therefore proven: (a) that Villaflores had carnal knowledge of Marita, (b) that he
consummated the carnal knowledge without the consent of Marita; and (c) that he killed Marita by reason of rape. The
indivisibility of the homicide and rape is clear and admits of no doubt.
The court affirmed finding and pronouncing Edmundo Villaflores y Olano guilty of rape with homicide.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. VICENTE VALLA
G.R. No. 111285
January 24, 2000
FACTS:
On appeal is the Quezon Regional Trial Court’s decisions dated March 29, 1993 convicting Valla of the crime of
rape with homicide. Pines, a twelve-year old girl, was passing by a rice field near the road when she heard a voice
coming from the direction of the forested area. They finally found Dyesebel. Her body was found near the river with her
neck blackened and her vagina bloodied. Allarey and his companions immediately confronted appellant who, out of
remorse, admitted that he raped and killed. The trial court found Valla guilty of the crime of "rape with homicide."
Hence, the present appeal.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the trial court correctly convicted the appellant of the special complex crime of "rape with
homicide".

HELD:
The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of the special complex crime of "rape with homicide".

RATIO DECIDENDI:
The trial court correctly convicted appellant of the special complex crime of "rape with homicide," and not "rape with
murder" as designated in the Information, since "homicide" is herein taken in its generic sense. The aggravating
circumstance of ignominy under Article 14, No. 17 of the Revised Penal Code should be appreciated considering that the
medicolegal officer testified that the pubic area of the victim bore blisters brought about by a contact with a lighted
cigarette.

People vs. Hipona

G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010
Facts:
AAA was found dead on the morning of June 12, 2000 in her house. She was raped; physically man handled and
strangled which eventually led to her death. AAA’s necklace with two heart bearing her initials and hangbag were
missing. Who is the aunt of the accused Michael Hipona. Appellant was frequently visiting AAA prior to her death,
hence, the familiarity with the layout of the house, admitted to his relative and the media he was present during the
commission of the crime, and only acted as a look out, and was in possession of AAA’s necklace at the time he was
arrested, extrajudically confessed to the radio reporter that he committed the crime due to his peers and poverty.
Appellant also refused to present evidence on his behalf. Trial court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape
with Homicide and Robbery and to duffer penalty of death by lethal injection.
Issue: Whether or not the appellant guilty of a special complex of Rape with homicide and robbery
Held:
The decision of lower court was affirmed but modified the penalty imposed of reclusion perpetua. For
circumstantial evidence to suffice to convict an accused, there is more than one circumstance, facts from which the
interference are derived are proven and the combination of all the circumstances is as to produce a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt. He had the opportunity to clarify his answer to the interview during the trial but he opted not to take
the witness stand. Robbery was the main intent of appellant and AAA death resulted by reason or occasion of. It is not
essential in finding that rape was committed, the important consideration being not the semen but the penetration of
the female genitalia by the male organ
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CONRADO RAMIN LAOG
(G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011, 658 SCRA 654)

FACTS:
Appellant ConradoLaog was charged with murder before RTC Branch 11 of Malolos, Bulacan. He was likewise
charged before the same court with the crime of rape of AAA. When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty to both
charges. The two cases were then tried jointly because they arose from the same incident. The prosecution presented
AAA as its principal witness, the rape victim who was 19 years old at the time of the incident. AAA testified that at
around 6 o’clock in the evening of June 6, 2000, she and her friend, Jennifer Patawaran-Rosal, were walking along the
rice paddies on their way to apply for work at a canteen near the National Highway. Suddenly, appellant, who was
holding an ice pick and a lead pipe, waylaid them and forcibly brought them to a grassy area at the back of a concrete
wall. Without warning, appellant struck AAA in the head with the lead pipe causing her to feel dizzy and to fall
down.When Jennifer saw this, she cried out for help but appellant also hit her on the head with the lead pipe, knocking
her down. Appellant stabbed Jennifer several times with the ice pick and thereafter covered her body with thick
grass.Appellant then turned to AAA. He hit her in the head several times more with the lead pipe and stabbed her on the
face. While she was in such a defenseless position, appellant pulled down her jogging pants, removed her panty, and
pulled up her blouse and bra. He then went on top of her, sucked her breasts and inserted his penis into her vagina.
After raping her, appellant also covered her with grass. At that point, AAA passed out. When she regained
consciousness, it was nighttime and raining hard. She crawled until she reached her uncle’s farm at daybreak on June 8,
2000.When she saw him, she waved at him for help. Her uncle, BBB, and a certain Nano then brought her
to Carpa Hospital in Baliuag, Bulacan where she stayed for more than three weeks. She later learned that Jennifer had
died.
Appellant, on the other hand, denied the charges against him. Appellant testified that he was at home cooking
dinner around the time the crimes were committed. With him were his childrenand his nephew. At around 7 o’clock, he
was arrested by the police officers of San Rafael, Bulacan. He learned that his wife had reported him to the police after
he went wild that same night and struck with a lead pipe a man whom he saw talking to his wife inside their
house. When he was already incarcerated, he learned that he was being charged with murder and rape.
After trial, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision] on June 30, 2003 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of both crimes.

ISSUE:
Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes charged despite failure of the prosecution to prove hisguilt
beyond reasonable doubt

HELD:
It must be underscored that the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim’s testimony and
not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a
prosecution for rape; the victim’s testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict. Thus, the medical examination of
the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for
conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear,
unequivocal and credible.
The SC concurred with the RTC’s conclusion that appellant indeed was the one who raped AAA and killed
Jennifer but found that appellant should not have been convicted of the separate crimes of murder and rape. The facts
alleged and proven clearly show that the crime committed by appellant is rape with homicide, a special complex crime
provided under Article 266-B, Paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by RA No. 8353. Considering that the
prosecution was able to prove both the rape of AAA and the killing of Jennifer both perpetrated by appellant, he is liable
for rape with homicide under the aforesaid provision.
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION WITH HOMICIDE
OR RAPE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FRANCISCO JUAN LARRAÑAGA
G.R. Nos. 138874-75
January 31, 2006

Facts:
On the night of July 16, 1997, victims Marijoy and Jacqueline Chiong failed to come home on the expected time.
Two days after, a young woman was found dead at the foot of a cliff. Her pants were torn, her face and neck were
covered with masking tape and attached to her left wrist was a handcuff. The woman was identified as Marijoy.
After almost ten months, accused Davidson Rusia surfaced and admitted before the police having participated in
the abduction of the sisters. He identified appellants Francisco Juan Larrañaga, Josman Aznar, Rowen Adlawan, Alberto
Caño, Ariel Balansag, James Anthony Uy, and James Andrew Uy as co-perpetrators in the crime. Rusia claims before the
trial court: That at 10:30 in the evening of July 16, 1997, he met Rowen and Josman and told him to ride with them in a
white car. Following them were Larrañaga, James Anthony and James Andrew who were in a red car. Josman stopped
the white car in front of the waiting shed where the sisters Marijoy and Jacqueline were standing and forced them to
ride the car. Rusia taped their mouths while Rowen handcuffed them jointly. After stopping by a safe house, the group
thereafter headed to the South Bus Terminal where they met Alberto and Ariel, and hired the white van driven by the
former. They travelled towards south of Cebu City, leaving the red car at the South Bus Terminal. After parking their
vehicles near a precipice, they started to rape Marijoy inside the vehicle, and thereafter raped Jaqueline. Josman
instructed Rowen and Ariel to bring Marijoy to the cliff and push her into the ravine.
The claims of Rusia were supported by other witnesses. He was discharged as an accused and became a state
witness. Still, the body of Jacqueline was never found. The trial court found the other appellants guilty of two crimes of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention and sentence death of them to suffer the penalties of two (2) reclusion
perpetua. While, Aznar, Adlawan, Balansag and Caño, on the other hand, questioned Rusia’s testimony for being
incredible, inconsistent, and unworthy of belief.

Issue:
Whether or not the Trial Court erred in convicting the appellants guilty of two crimes of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalties of two (2) reclusiones perpetua.

Held:
Yes. The rule is that when the law provides a single penalty for two or more component offenses, the resulting
crime is called a special complex crime. Some of the special complex crimes under the Revised Penal Code are (1)
robbery with homicide, (2) robbery with rape, (3) kidnapping with serious physical injuries, (4) kidnapping with murder
or homicide, and (5) rape with homicide. In a special complex crime, the prosecution must necessarily prove each of the
component offenses with the same precision that would be necessary if they were made the subject of separate
complaints.
R.A. No. 7659 amended Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code by adding thereto this provision: "that in the
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention, when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or
is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed; and that this provision
gives rise to a special complex crime. Thus, the resulting crime will change from complex crime to special complex crime.
In the cases at bar, particularly Criminal Case number CBU-45303, the Information specifically alleges that the
victim Marijoy was raped "on the occasion and in connection" with her detention and was killed "subsequent thereto
and on the occasion thereof." Considering that the prosecution was able to prove each of the component offenses,
appellants should be convicted of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide
and rape. In the present case, the victims were raped and subjected to dehumanizing acts. Thus, the Court held that all
the appellants were guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape in the case where Marijoy is the victim; and simple kidnapping and serious illegal detention in the case of
Jacqueline.
People v. Mirandilla
GR No. 186417
Facts:
On December 2,2000,specifically on the eve of the fiesta in Brgy. San Francisco, Legazpi City, AAA was grabbed
by the accused Felipe Mirandilla Jr. with a knife pointed at her, and brought her to the Gallera de Legazpi in Rawis where
she was raped. On the following night, the accused pointing a gun at AAA, forced his penis inside her mouth. The
accused brought her to another place where she was again raped in a nipa hut. Felipe and his gang repeatedly detained
her at daytime, moved her back and forth from one place to another, and allegedly raped her 27 times.
Issue: Is Mirandilla guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape?
Held:
Yes. AAA was able to prove each element of rape committed under Art.266-A, par.1(a) of the Revised Penal
Code. Likewise, kidnapping and serious illegal detention were proved. The provision of the law that when the victim is
raped while in detention the maximum penalty shall be imposed gives rise to a special complex crime. Notably,
however, no matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the
resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. It having been established that Mirandilla’s act was kidnapping and
serious illegal detention and on the occasion thereof, he raped AAA several times, he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape.

PEOPLE VS CABILLO
FACTS:
On May 7, 2002, in the municipality of Rosales, Pangasinan, Fernando Galaguas Fernandez and Alberto Anticamara y
Cabillo kidnapped Sulpacio Abad and AAA, both employees of Estrella Compound for 27 days. In the course of the
kidnapping, Sulpacio was killed and buried in Brgy. Carmen and AAA was raped for several times by Fernandez. AAA was
then able to escape and immediately reported the incident to the police authorities.

ISSUE:
Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty of kidnapping and serious illegal detention

HELD:
Yes, the court finds the appellant Fernando guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape defined and penalized under Art. 267 of the RPC. The elements of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention are: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another or deprives the latter of his
liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal and (4) the commission of the offense, any of the following
circumstances is present: (a) kidnapping/detention lasts for more than 3 days or (b) is committed by simulating public
authority or (c)) any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the kidnapped or (d) the person kidnapped/detained is a
minor, female or public officer. The crime of kidnapping was proven beyond reasonable doubt when both of the accused
forcibly took AAA away and held her captive against her will. The crime of rape was also established when Fernando
succeed in having carnal knowledge of AAA through the use if threat and intimidation.
Thus, the court held that the appellant Fernando Calaguas Fernandez is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
 Madsali v. People
G.R. No. 179570, February 10, 2010

FACTS:
In an Information dated March 17, 1995, SajironLajim and MaronLajim were charged with the crime of
abduction with rape after conspiring together by means of force, threat, violence and intimidation, while armed with a
bladed weapon known as “badong”, take and carry away a 16-year old girl against her will and consent, brought her to
the forest, and Sajironhad carnal knowledge with her while Maron, the father or Sajiron, acted as lookout on the
occasion of said rape. In an amended Information dated August 28, 1995, EgapMadsali and Sajiron were charged with
the crime of serious illegal detention after they subsequently took and detained the 16-year old girl in the house of
Madsali, resulting to her not being able to go home to her mother for a period of more than five months. The mother
came to get the girl but Madsali refused and threatened to kill the girl if the mother reported to the authorities. The girl
and Sajiron were soon married without the presence of the girl’s parents. She contended that she was only forced to
marry Sajiron and that she was sexually abused by Sajiron twice every night after their marriage. RTC found the accused
persons guilty of their respective charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC ruling. The accused contested the fact
that the CA did not give weight to the fact that there was a 5-month inaction by the girl’s mother in reporting such
incident and that the appellant court did not consider the testimony of the father.

ISSUE/S:
1. Whether or not the 5-month inaction of the complainants corroborates the testimony of the girl that she was
illegally detained
2. Whether or not the first criminal charge filed is correct

HELD:
1. YES. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. The threats made
to the family of the victim were a valid reason for inaction. The testimony of the victim and the Imam was given more
importance since the father’s allegations were controverted by the fact of his long absence during the incident and
sudden appearance during the trial.
2. NO. The first criminal charge filed is incorrect. Sajiron and Maron are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special
complex crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with rape, while Sajiron and EgapMadsaliis guilty of serious
illegal detention. Even if the Information does not allege the terms “kidnap” or “detain”, they employed the word “to
take away” which connotes kidnapping. For there to be kidnapping, it is enough that the victim is restrained from going
home. The crime of rape was also proven beyond reasonable doubt in this case. Sajiron succeeded in having carnal
knowledge with the girl through the use of force and intimidation. The last paragraph of Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code provides that if the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped or subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. In People vs. Larranaga, the Court explained that this
provision gives rise to a special complex crime: “Where the law provides a single penalty for two or more component
offenses, the resulting crime is called a special complex crime… In a special complex crime, the prosecution must
necessarily prove each of the component offenses with the same precision that would be necessary if they were made the
subject of separate complaints.”
 KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE
G.R. No. 208410, October 19, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARY JOY CILOT Y MARIANO AND ORLANDO BRIGOLE Y
APON, Accused-Appellants.

Facts:
AAA, then seventeen (17) years old, was employed as a sales lady at a drug store in PPP City. She first met Mary
Joy when the latter went to the drug store on 7 December 2006 and introduced herself as a relative of AAA. Mary Joy
promised AAA an overseas work for a fee. Thus, AAA gave Mary Joy a total of P1,500.00. On 28 December 2006 at
around 6:00a.m., AAA went for a jog. When she passed by the house of Mary Joy, the latter suddenly grabbed her and
forced her to enter the house. Thereat, Mary Joy took AAA's cellular phone and sent a message to AAA's female
employer that she left the store because the former's husband had been abusing her. Mary Joy threatened AAA with a
gun and a grenade if AAA would try to escape. AAA was detained from 26 December 2006 until 9 January 2007. On 8
January 2007 at around 11:00 p.m., AAA was awakened by Mary Joy's live-in partner, Orlando. Orlando kicked AAA and
dragged her into the bed that he and Mary Joy shared. Orlando forced AAA to lie down. Mary Joy held AAA's breast,
removed her bra, and inserted her finger into AAA's vagina. Thereafter, Orlando inserted his penis twice into AAA's
vagina. AAA was crying and at the same time trying to resist the couple's advances but to no avail on the following day,
Mary Joy brought AAA to a mall in Bicutan to meet with AAA's relatives regarding AAA's alleged debt to Mary Joy. When
they were met by AAA's aunt, uncle and sister, they took AAA from Mary Joy and brought her to
a police station to report the incident. Appellants were arrested at their house.7

Issues: whether appellants have been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape.

Ruling:
An information charging a special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, as in this case, should include that
which alleges the commission of kidnapping qualified by extortion of ransom and that which alleges rape on the same
occasion. Considering that the existing Informations do not contain the essential and material ingredients for the
commission of kidnapping with rape, appellants cannot be convicted for that special complex crime. Appellants can only
be convicted of the separate offenses of kidnapping and rape, both of which were duly proven.
The absence of fresh lacerations in AAA's hymen does not negate sexual intercourse and does not prove that she was
not raped. A freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape. Healed lacerations do not negate rape. In fact,
rupture of the hymen is not essential. In rape, complete or full penetration of the complainant's private part is not
necessary. Neither is the rupture of the hymen essential. What is fundamental is that the entrance, or at least the
introduction of the male organ into the labia of the pudendum, is proved, as in the case at bar. Verily, the mere
introduction of the male organ into the labia majora at the victim's genitalia, and not the full penetration of the
complainant's private part, consummates the crime. Hence, the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora
or the labia minora of the pudendum of the victim's genitalia constitutes consummated rape. In other words, the
successful penetration by the rapist of the female's genital organ is not indispensable. Penile invasion necessarily entails
contact with the labia and even the briefest of contacts without laceration of the hymen is deemed to be rape.
Principles: the "touching" or "entry" of the penis into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the
victim's genitalia constitutes consummated rape. In other words, the successful penetration by the rapist of the female's
genital organ is not indispensable. Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia and even the briefest of
contacts without laceration of the hymen is deemed to be rape.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. FELIPE MIRANDILLA, JR.
(G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 761)

FACTS:
On December 2, 2000, on the eve of the barangay fiesta, AAA was grabbed with a knife pointed at her by Felipe
Mirandilla and was brought to Gallera de Legazpi where she was raped. The morning after, on the same house,
Mirandilla pointed a gun at AAA and then forced his penis inside AAA’s mouth. Mirandilla then drove to Bagtong,
Legazpi, along with AAA, where he reached a nipa hut. There he threw AAA inside and raped her again. The following
evening, AAA suffered the same fate. Mirandilla and his gang detained her at daytime, and moved her back and forth
from one place to another where she was raped allegedly 27 times. One afternoon, AAA was able to escape and ran to a
house of a certain Evelyn Guevarra who brought her to the police station, on January 11, 2001. Mirandilla’s contention
was that he and AAA were lovers/live-in partners and that they eloped. He said that the sexual encounters were
consensual.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Mirandilla is guilty of the special complex crime of kidnapping and illegal detention with rape

HELD:
YES. Mirandilla admitted in open court to have had sexual encounters with AAA, which happened almost nightly
during their cohabitation. He contended that they were live-in partners, entangled in a whirlwind romance, where they
expressed intimacy in countless passionate sex, which headed ironically to separation mainly because of AAA’s alleged
intentional abortion of their first child, which he found hard to forgive as it was, for him, was betrayal in its gravest form.
In stark contrast to Mirandilla’s tale of a love affair is AAA’s claim of her horrific ordeal and her flight to freedom after 39
days in captivity, during which she was raped by Mirandilla 27 times. Notably, however, no matter how many rapes had
been committed in the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with
rape. This is because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact RA No. 7659 punishes
these acts with only one single penalty. In a way, RA No. 7659 depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter
how many times the victim was raped, like in the present case, there is only one crime committed, and that is the special
complex crime of kidnapping with rape.