Creim Digest

8/17/2019 Creim Digest

1/5

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VIRGILIO RIMORIN,EDRITO

CASTILLO and GLENN GARCIA, accused, VIRGILIO RIMORIN, accused-appellant .

G.R. No. 124309. May 1, 2000

Fa!"#$

On April 16, 1981, Peter Lim and Louie Gonzales were taken at gunpoint from their

homes b !l "illon and appellant "imorin# Later that same da, $apoleon Osoteo was likewise

pi%ked up from his house b "imorin# &n 'aranga (en%eslao, )aba, La *nion the were met b

)astillo, Gar%ia, and +anilo Ananias, %ousins of appellant# Osoteo was told to alight while Lim

and Gonzales were brought down from the eep# -he group pro%eeded to forested mountain,

stopping at a spot where two mango trees stood# A pit had been dug in the area# Lim and

Gonzales were made to sit under a tree# Appellant then stru%k them both in the head with a pie%e

of wood# "illon also stru%k the .i%tims with the blunt edge of a bolo# "illon then ordered

appellant, )astillo, Gar%ia, and Ananias to dump the bodies into the pit# Afterwards, appellantwent down the pit and stabbed the two bodies# After he %limbed out, firewood was pla%ed o.er

the bodies and gasoline was poured o.er the pile# Appellant also wanted to stab Osoteo but

"illon pre.ailed upon him not to# -he latter warned Osoteo not to report the matter to the poli%e

lest he meet the same fate as Lim and Gonzales# "illon set the pile on fire, whi%h burned until

around earl afternoon# -he families of Lim and Gonzales did not report the abdu%tion of their

kin to the authorities out of fear# -he %rime went undis%o.ered until O%tober 1991 then the

learned that "illon died so the went to poli%e and reported the e.ent in )aba# )astillo and

Ananias were apprehended thereafter# Appellant was %on.i%ted after trial# /is %o0a%%used !drito

)astillo was a%uitted sin%e, from the re%ords, the trial %ourt belie.ed that he was not a

parti%ipant either in the kidnapping or the killing, and that he was threatened with death to keep

silent# -he other %o0a%%used, Glenn Gar%ia, has remained at large#

I##%&$

(hether or not the trial %ourt erred in %on.i%ting appellant "imorin for two %ounts of kidnapping

with murder despite the la%k of e.iden%e to establish his guilt beond reasonable doubt#

R%'(n)$

Osoteo2s fear of "illon %onstrained him for ten ears from re.ealing the %rime and identifing the

perpetrators to the authorities is understandable# -he dela should not in an wa taint his%redibilit# &t should in fa%t foster %reden%e in his re.elation, %onsidering that after ten ears he

did not ha.e to %ome out to testif if there was no grain of truth in it# -he )ourt agree with the

3oli%itor General2s obser.ation that Osoteo %ould not ha.e led the authorities to the s%ene of the

%rime were he not a%tuall present as eewitness when the %rime was %ommitted# Appellant2s

bare denials ob.iousl %annot pre.ail o.er the positi.e identifi%ation made b said eewitness#

-he )ourt found that the trial %ourt %orre%tl %on.i%ted appellant of the %rime of kidnapping with


2/5

murder# -he offenses were %ommitted on April 16, 1981, prior to the effe%ti.it of "#A# $o#

4659 on +e%ember 1, 199# &n this instan%e, it is e.ident that the purpose of appellant and his

%ompanions when the kidnapped the .i%tims was to kill them# /en%e, there were two %ounts of

the %omple7 %rime of kidnapping with murder#

-he information alleged that ea%h killing was ualified b e.ident premeditation and trea%her#&n trea%her, the mode of atta%k must be %ons%iousl adopted# -his means that the a%%used must

make some preparation to kill the de%eased in su%h a manner as to insure the e7e%ution of the

%rime or to make it impossible or diffi%ult for the person atta%ked to defend himself or retaliate#

!ewitness Osoteo said the .i%tims2 hands were tied behind their ba%ks when appellant killed

them, disabling the .i%tims from defending themsel.es# /en%e, trea%her was suffi%ientl

established but e.ident premeditation was not established b the prose%ution#

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CESAR LACANIETA a'(a#

*+oy A'o)*, ERR- +ALLENAS a'(a# *Ma'on Ma/%&* and Ca'("o Gaad, accused.

ERR- +ALLENAS, accused-appellant.

G.R. No. 124299. A(' 12, 2000

Fa!"#$

)onsor%ia -ao )onsor%ia %laims that her daughter, 190ear0old (&L:A -A;O (&L:A was

abdu%ted at gunpoint on :ar%h our persons were suspe%ted as

perpetrators of the %rime? @!""; 'ALL!$A3 'ALL!$A3 alias :A"LO$ :A"*!B,

)!3A" LA)A$&!-A LA)A$&!-A alias 'O; ALOG, AL'!"-O 3ALCA+O"

3ALCA+O" and )A"L&-O GA:A+ GA:A+# 3ALCA+O" was shot dead during the

poli%e in.estigation and GA:A+ was also shot dead after the re0in.estigation %ondu%ted b the

Offi%e of the Pro.in%ial >is%al of 3an @ose, Antiue# -hen the abo.e information was amended

D-hat on or about the


3/5

R%'(n)$

-he )ourt is %on.in%ed that the trial %ourt did not err in %on%luding that 'ALL!$A3 is guilt

beond reasonable doubt of the for%ible abdu%tion and rape of (&L:A# &n asserting his

inno%en%e, 'ALL!$A3 foists the defense of alibi, a defense that has long been %onsidered as

intrinsi%all the weakest of all defenses# 'asi% is the rule that the defense of alibi should beree%ted when the identit of the a%%used has been suffi%ientl and positi.el established b

eewitnesses to the %rime be%ause alibi %annot pre.ail o.er the positi.e identifi%ation of the

a%%used b the prose%ution witnesses# &n this %ase, )onsor%ia, the mother of (&L:A, positi.el

identified 'ALL!$A3 as the person who went to her house and abdu%ted her daughter at

gunpoint that fateful night# :oreo.er, the testimon of >loren%io fortifies the theor of the

prose%ution that after the abdu%tion of (&L:A, 'ALL!$A3 together with LA)A$&!-A,

3ALCA+O" and GA:A+ raped and stabbed (&L:A# A%%ording to >loren%io, he was passing

through the street of 'aranga )atmon, 3ibalom, antiue when he saw E'o AlogE

LA)A$&!-A ling on top of (&L:A# -he hands of (&L:A were then held down b

'ALL!$A3 and 3ALCA+O"# 3urprised b the presen%e of >loren%io, LA)A$&!-A stood upand told the former that the were ust ha.ing a Ehapp0happE# -he )ourt agree with the trial

%ourt that based on the e.iden%e, it %ould readil be %on%luded that the perpetrators stabbed

(&L:A se.eral times after the %ommission of the rape#

'ALL!$A3 %ommitted the %rime of for%ible abdu%tion with rape punished under Arti%le 5 of

the "e.ised Penal )ode in relation to Arti%le F< and F8 of the same )ode# -he two elements of

for%ible abdu%tion are 1 the taking of a woman against her will and


4/5

G.R. No. 132053. Ma!6 31, 2000

Fa!"#$

Lazel was wat%hing a dan%e at 'rg# 656, Bone 69, :aestranza )ompound, &ntramuros, :anila,

the a%%used seized her hands from behind# /e gagged her mouth with a towel and pushed her toward his house# (ith a bolo, he drew her to a nearb %o%onut tree# /e tied a towel on her head,

raised her hands and bound them to the trunk# -he a%%used approa%hed her and dealt her another

blow# Again, she fainted# (hen she re.i.ed, the a%%used sli%ed her left leg with his bolo# At this

point, Lazel realized that her pant had been taken off# /er pri.ate part a%hed# @le7

-he a%%used threatened to put her in a sa%k and throw her at the ri.er# /e left, purportedl to get

the sa%k while Lazel remained tied to the tree# >rightened b his threat, Lazel began tugging her

hands# 3he su%%eeded freeing both hands# -hen she ran to their home# /er sister and mother

noti%ed the wounds in their legs e.en her %lassmates but be%ause of her fear she said that she

slipped on the floor# -he a%%used2s %ommon0law wife, Amelia ;umang, .isited Lazel2s mother and dis%losed that the a%%used had raped his daughter# 3he re.ealed the whereabouts of the

a%%used whi%h the reported to the poli%e# -he trial %ourt %on.i%ted the a%%used#

I##%&$

(hether or not the %ourt a uo gra.el erred in %on.i%ting a%%used0appellant of for%ible

abdu%tion with rape#

R%'(n)$

-he appeal is partl meritorious# -he e.iden%e proferred is inadeuate to pro.e she was raped#!.iden%e of %arnal knowledge is ne%essar in rape# Lazel entertained the belief that she was

raped be%ause when she regained %ons%iousness, she felt pain all o.er her bod and her pri.ate

part# -he trial %ourt found that Lazel was se7uall abused be%ause of her belief # "emo.al of

underwear, a reddening hmen, an a%hing pri.ate part and blood on the underwear do not pro.e

%arnal knowledge# -he remo.al of the .i%tim2s underwear is at most a preparation to engage in

se7ual inter%ourse# -he reddening hmen %ould ha.e been %aused b a male se7 organ but that is

ust a possibilit# &n the %ase at bar, %onsidering the age of the .i%tim and the %ondition of her

hmen, there should be la%eration if there was penetration b an adult male se7 organ# -he

a%hing pri.ate part %ould well be part of the o.er0all effe%t of her beating# -he blood on the pant

dis%o.ered b Lazel after she woke up %ould ha.e %ome from the wound infli%ted on her leg# &t iseas to spe%ulate that Lazel was raped# 'ut in %riminal %ases, spe%ulation and probabilities

%annot take the pla%e of proof reuired to establish the guilt of the a%%used beond reasonable

doubt# 3uspi%ion, no matter how strong, must not swa udgment# /owe.er, the prose%ution

pro.ed the %rime of for%ible abdu%tion# &t established that a%%used0appellant took Lazel against

her will and with lewd designs# -he word ElewdE is defined as obs%ene, lustful, inde%ent,

las%i.ious, le%herous# &t signifies that form of immoralit whi%h has relation to moral impurit


5/5

or that whi%h is %arried on in a wanton manner# -he medi%o0legal finding and Lazel2s testimon,

although insuffi%ient to pro.e rape, buttress the %on%lusion that a%%used0appellant had lewd

designs when he abdu%ted Lazel#

Arti%le F< of the "e.ised Penal )ode defines and punishes for%ible abdu%tion# &t pro.ides?

Art# F

Documents

Creim Digest