CRIM REV Article 14, Craft

Case title: PEOPLE v. QUIÑANOLA G.R. No. 126148

Date: May 5, 1999
DOCTRINE: Craft, fraud or disguise is a species of aggravating circumstance that denotes
intellectual trickery or cunning resorted to by an accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design or
to lure the victim into a trap and to conceal the identity of the accused. The fact that one of the
appellants has pretended to be a member of the New People’s Army does not necessarily imply the use
of craft, fraud or disguise, in the commission of the crime.
FACTS:
- Catalina Carciller, her cousin 15-year-old Rufo Ginto and another male companion named
Richard Diaz, went to attend a dance at around ten o’ clock in the evening of 05 March 1994 in
Sitio Bangag, Tangil, Dumanjug, Cebu. Catalina, born on 09 November 1978,[4] was just then
fifteen (15) years and four (4) months old. She was a student at the Bito-on National Vocational
School at Dumanjug, Cebu.
- About an hour later, they left the party and were soon on their way home. The three
unsuspecting youngsters stopped momentarily to rest at a waiting shed beside the Tangil
Elementary School. Accused Agapito Quianola, a.k.a. Petoy, and accused Eduardo
Escuadro, a.k.a. Botiquil, who were both armed with guns, suddenly turned up.
- Quianola announced that he and Escuadro were members of the New People’s Army
("NPA"). Quianola instructed Escuadro to take care of the male companions of Catalina while he
(Quianola) held the latter at gunpoint.
- Escuadro brought Diaz and Ginto outside the waiting shed area. He ordered the duo to lie face
down on the ground and then urinated at them. While Escuadro was fixing the zipper of his
pants, Diaz and Ginto were able to escape and ran away.
- Meanwhile, Quianola, with his gun pointed at Catalina, forcibly brought her towards the nearby
school.
- When Escuadro showed up, Catalina asked about her two friends. Quianola replied that he had
ordered them to go home. Catalina begged that she herself be allowed to leave.
- Pretending to agree, they walked the path towards the road behind the school. Then,
unsuspectingly, Quianola forced Catalina to sit on the ground. She resisted but Quianola,
pointing his gun at her, warned her that if she would not accede to what he wanted, he would kill
her. Catalina started to cry.
- Quianola told Escuadro to remove her denim pants. Catalina struggled to free herself from
Escuadro's hold but to no avail. Escuadro ultimately succeeded in undressing her. Quianola
unzipped his pants and laid on top of her while Escuadro held her legs. Quianola started to
pump, to push and pull[5] even as Catalina still tried desperately to free herself from him. She felt
his organ "on the lips of (her) genitalia.[6]
- When Quianola had satisfied his lust, Escuadro took his turn by placing himself on top of
Catalina.Catalina could feel the sex organ of Escuadro on the lips of (her) vulva [7] while he made
a push and pull movement. Quianola, who stood by, kept on smoking a cigarette.
- Escuadro and Quianola scampered immediately after Catalina's ordeal. Failing to find her pair
of pants and panty, Catalina was left wearing only her T-shirt and brassieres.
- Catalina just then sat down, not knowing what to do, until she finally started to run home fearing
that she might be followed. Upon reaching home, Catalina went upstairs and, afraid that the
culprits would still come after her, hid herself behind the door. Baffled by Catalina's strange
behavior, her mother and her elder sister took turns in interrogating her. Catalina finally said that
she was raped but she would not reveal the names of the persons who had committed the
dastardly act because of their threat.
- Guillermo Zozobrado learned from his wife, Catalina’s sister, that Catalina had been raped. He
 promptly repaired to the municipal hall of Dumanjug to report the crime. Policemen were
immediately dispatched to the Carcillers residence. Still in a state of shock, Catalina initially kept
mum about it; later, when the police officers returned at daytime, she was able to respond to
questions and to disclose that Petoy, referring to Agapito Quianola, and Botiquil, the other
accused Eduardo Escuadro, were the persons who ravished her.
- The officers later invited her to the police station to identify a suspect whom she positively
identified to be Botiquil or Eduardo Escuadro.
- Dr. Tomas P. Refe, medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") of Region
7, Central Visayas, who conducted the physical examination of Catalina, showed that there was
no evidence of extragenital physical injury noted on the body of the Subject.
- The report concluded that the hymenal orifice, about 1.8 cms. in diameter, was so small as to
preclude complete penetration of an average-size adult penis in erection without producing
laceration.
- The accused, in their defense, interposed alibi, ill motive on the part of an "uncle" of the
complainant, and insufficient identification.
- On 01 March 1996, found the two accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
"frustrated rape."
- The trial court ruled that the accused were liable for the crime of frustrated rape with an eye to
extending to the two accused the benefit of the principle that in case of doubt criminal justice
naturally leans in favor of the milder form of penalty[16] but that, because of the existence of at
least six (6) aggravating circumstances,[17] not offset by any mitigating circumstance,[18] the
accused should each be meted the penalty of reclusion perpetua.

ISSUE/S:
- Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of Craft should be appreciated in favor of the
accused.
HELD:
 In the context it is used in the Revised Penal Code, carnal knowledge, unlike its ordinary
connotation of sexual intercourse, does not necessarily require that the vagina be penetrated or
that the hymen be ruptured.[36] The crime of rape is deemed consummated even when the man’s
penis merely enters the labia or lips of the female organ [37] or, as once so said in a case, by
the mere touching of the external genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the sexual act.
[38]
In People vs. Escober,[39] in convicting a father of having raped twice his 11-year-old
daughter, the Court has said:

“While the evidence may not show full penetration on both occasions of rape, the slightest
penetration is enough to consummate the offense. In fact, there was vulva penetration in both
cases. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not belie rape for a broken
hymen is not an essential element of rape; nor does the fact that the victim has remained a
virgin negate the crime. 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, it can be said
that there was penetration, although incomplete, and it was sufficient to prove carnal knowledge
of a child under twelve years of age. A medical examination is not an indispensable element in a
prosecution for rape. The accused may be convicted on the sole basis of complainant’s
testimony, if credible, and the findings of the medico-legal officer do not disprove the
commission of rape. xxx”
 The trial court, in convicting appellants only of frustrated rape, ruled that there was no
"conclusive evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the offended party,[44] in that: (a)
Catalina had admitted that she did not spread her legs and (b) the medico-legal officers findings
 showed she did not sustain any extragenital injuries and her hymenal orifice was so small that
an erect average-size penis would not have completely penetrated it without causing
laceration. It would seem that the trial court failed to consider Catalinas testimony in its entirety.
 The testimony would indicate that Catalina, considering her struggle to free herself,
understandably failed to notice whether her legs were spread apart or close together during her
ordeal. What she did distinctly recall, however, was that Escuadro had kept holding both her
legs when Quianola took her.
 Let it be said once again that, as the Revised Penal Code presently so stands, there is no such
crime as frustrated rape. In People vs. Orita,[47] the Court has explicitly pronounced:

“Clearly, in the crime of rape, from the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of his victim,
he actually attains his purpose and, from that moment also all the essential elements of the
offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left to be done by the offender, because he
has performed the last act necessary to produce the crime. Thus, the felony is consummated. In
a long line of cases (People vs. Oscar, 48 Phil. 527; People vs. Hernandez, 49 Phil. 980; People
vs. Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 666; People vs. Amores, G.R. No. L-
32996, August 21, 1974, 58 SCRA 505), We have set the uniform rule that for the
consummation of rape, perfect penetration is not essential. Any penetration of the female organ
by the male organ is sufficient. Entry of the labia or lips of the female organ, without rupture of
the hymen or laceration of the vagina is sufficient to warrant conviction. Necessarily, rape is
attempted if there is no penetration of the female organ (People vs. Tayaba, 62 Phil. 559;
People vs. Rabadan, et al., 53 Phil. 694; United States vs. Garcia, 9 Phil. 434) because not all
acts of execution was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts. Taking into account the nature, elements and manner of execution of the
crime of rape and jurisprudence on the matter, it is hardly conceivable how the frustrated stage
in rape can ever be committed.”

"Of course, We are aware of our earlier pronouncement in the case of People vs. Eriia, 50 Phil.
998 [1927] where We found the offender guilty of frustrated rape there being no conclusive
evidence of penetration of the genital organ of the offended party. However, it appears that this
is a 'stray' decision inasmuch as it has not been reiterated in Our subsequent
decisions. Likewise, We are aware of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Republic Act No. 2632 (dated September 12, 1960) and Republic Act No. 4111 (dated March 29,
1965) which provides, in its penultimate paragraph, for the penalty of death when the rape is
attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof. We
are of the opinion that this particular provision on frustrated rape is a dead provision. The Eriia
case, supra, might have prompted the law-making body to include the crime of frustrated rape in
the amendments introduced by said laws.[48]
 The Court is not unaware that Republic Act No. 7659, amending Article 335 of the Revised
Penal Code, has retained the provision penalizing with reclusion perpetua to death an accused
who commits homicide by reason or on the occasion of an attempted or frustrated rape. Until
Congress sees it fit to define the term frustrated rape and thereby penalize it, the Court will see
its continued usage in the statute book as being merely a persistent lapse in language.
 Each appellant is liable for two counts of consummated rape on account of a clear conspiracy
between them shown by their obvious concerted efforts to perpetrate, one after the other, the
crime. Each of them, therefore, is responsible not only for the rape committed personally by him
but also for the rape committed by the other as well.[49]
 Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, when rape
is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two persons, the crime is punishable
by reclusion perpetua to death. Even while the information has failed to allege the use of a
 deadly weapon in the commission of the rape, appellants can, nonetheless, be held accountable
under that provision since the information has likewise averred that the above-named accused,
referring to the two appellants, have conspiratorially committed the crime.
 Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code,[50] includes among its enumeration of generic aggravating
circumstances the fact that the crime is committed with the aid of armed men or persons who
insure or afford impunity. The fact alone, then, that a malefactor has sported a firearm does
not, by itself, militate to aggravate the crime. As regards appellant Quianola, the aggravating
circumstance of his being a member of the Philippine National Police would have exposed
him to the penalty of death[51] under the amendatory provisions of Article 335 by Republic Act
No. 7659, had this circumstance been properly alleged in the information. The description by the
trial court of appellants as being powerfully, built, brawny and mean-looking as against the short,
slender, easily cowed 15-year-old victim would not here warrant a finding that abuse of
superior strength has aggravated the commission of the crime. The law should be deemed to
have already considered this circumstance in qualifying the crime to its "heinous" character,
rendering, in that context, abuse of superior strength as an inherent element thereof. Neither
may nighttime be considered an aggravating circumstance in the absence of proof of its having
been deliberately sought out by appellants to facilitate the commission of the offense.[52] Craft,
fraud or disguise[53] is a species of aggravating circumstance that denotes intellectual trickery
or cunning resorted to by an accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design or to lure the
victim into a trap and to conceal the identity of the accused. The fact that one of the appellants
has pretended to be a member of the New People’s Army does not necessarily imply the use of
craft, fraud or disguise, in the commission of the crime. Finally, the Court does not subscribe to
the view of the trial court that accused-appellants have employed means which added
ignominy to the natural effects of the crime, particularly in stripp(ing) the victim of her denim
pants and panties and then sending her home in this humiliating and distressing condition.
[54]
There is nothing on record that even remotely suggests that accused-appellants so
deliberately sought to leave Catalina with bottoms bare that she might be left alone in shame
with only her T-shirt and brassieres on.
 The absence of any aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime punishable by two
(2) indivisible penalties, such as reclusion perpetua to death, would justify, even without any
mitigating circumstance, the imposition of the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua.
CRIM REV Article 14, Craft
Case title: PEOPLE v. LOR G.R. No. L-47440-42
Date: September 12, 1984
DOCTRINE: While the aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud (Paragraph 14, Article
14, Revised Penal Code) was not alleged in the information, there is evidence that the same
was employed to facilitate the commission of the crime. To convince the victim that the change
of route during the trip was a necessity, Leonardo Lor told the victims that they had to drop a
P.C. soldier-passenger somewhere near the river bank.
FACTS:
- This is an appeal from the joint decision of the Court of First Instance of Leyte (Branch
VIII) in three rape cases under the following titles and captions: Criminal Case No. B-
495, People of the Philippines vs. Leonardo Lor;Criminal Case No. B-496, People of the
Philippines vs. Alfredo Ruiz; and Criminal Case No. B-497, People of the Philippines vs.
Domingo Ruiz.
- Complainants Victoria Erit, Concepcion Lor and Juanita Lamadura who are all
working as housemaids in the poblacion of Hilongos, Leyte, went to Barrio Concepcion,
Hilongos, Leyte which is seven (7) kilometers away, to see a drama on August 23, 1975,
shown to the public in connection with the celebration of its barrio fiesta.
- After the showing of the drama at about 1 1:00 o'clock that evening, each of the girls,
who were not companions in coming to Barrio Concepcion, looked for a motorcab to
take them back to the Poblacion of Hilongos. It was at this time that the three girls came
to the motorcab driven by Leonardo Lor with two male passengers whom the girls did
not know at that time and who happened to be Alfredo Ruiz and Domingo Ruiz.
- The driver, Leonardo Lor, allowed the three girls to board the motorcab after informing
them that he was taking passengers to the poblacion.
- Juanita Lamadura got inside the motorcab and occupied a seat by the side of Leonardo
Lor. Concepcion Lor stayed at the vacant seat on the front where Alfredo Ruiz was
already seated. Victoria Erit occupied the vacant seat at the back where Domingo Ruiz
was already seated.
- When they were all seated, Leonardo Lor drove the motorcab towards the Poblacion of
Hilongos but upon reaching the crossing to Barrio Proteccion of Hilongos, Leyte, he
diverted the motorcab towards Barrio Proteccion of Hilongos. Barrio Proteccion is about
three (3) kilometers from Barrio Concepcion.
- When the girls noticed that they were proceeding in a different direction, Victoria Erit
asked Leonardo Lor where they were going. Leonardo Lor answered that he was
proceeding to the river because he would drop the P.C. soldier who was one of the
passengers, at the same time pointing to Alfredo Ruiz. Juanita Lamadura also asked
Leonardo Lor what road they were taking because the road is not the one leading to
the Poblacion. Leonardo Lor told her that there was a P.C. soldier whom he would like
to drop at Barrio Proteccion. Concepcion Lor was angry with Leonardo Lor but
Leonardo Lor told Concepcion Lor that the P.C. was to get off at Barrio Proteccion.
- When the motorcab reached the Salog River in Barrio Proteccion, Leonardo Lor parked
the motorcab by the side of the river along the dried river bed. Then, Alfredo Ruiz,
whom Leonardo Lor pointed to as the P.C. alighted first and pulled Concepcion Lor from
the motorcab. Victoria Erit was pulled from the motorcab by Domingo Ruiz, the brother
 of the alleged P.C., Alfredo Ruiz. Then Juanita Lamadura was pulled by Leonardo
Lor and dragged away from the motorcab.
- Said Brief then continues with a narration of Juanita Lamadura's plight as follows:
After reaching a remote place, Leonardo Lor mashed the breast of Juanita Lamadura
and held her. Juanita struggled until she was able to run a distance of about six (6) arms
length, but she was overtaken by Leonardo Lor. After catching up with her, Leonardo
boxed her stomach. She did not fall on the first blow. It was the second blow that
caused her to fall. She lost consciousness. When she regained consciousness, she had
no more panties. She felt pain all over her body and pain inside her genital organ. She
found her genital organ bleeding. She suffered pain in her genital organ because
Leonardo Lor mounted on her. When she regained consciousness, she found Leonardo
Lor standing where she was lying down. She found her panties on the place where she
fell.
- Juanita Lamadura reported the incident to her landlord. Upon advise by her landlord she
reported the incident to the police department of Hilongos.
- After reporting the matter to the police authorities, the three complainants reported to
Dr. Antonia Ladion, a resident physician of the Hilongos General Hospital for
examination. Dr. Ladion examined Juanita Lamadura, Concepcion Lor and Victoria Erit.
The examination she conducted on Juanita Lamadura on August 26, 1975 was only an
external physical examination because the three girls refused to have an internal
examination.
- The findings in her physical examination on Juanita Lamadura on August 26, 1975 is
shown in a Medical Certificate. Her findings show that she did not find any marks such
as blue marks, no contusions, and no external wounds on her body. It is possible that
since Juanita Lamadura came to the physical examination three (3) days later some
marks could no longer be seen.
- In the internal examination she made on Juanita Lamadura on August 27, 1975, she
issued a medical certificate which is Exhibit "A" in Criminal Case No. B-495. Her
findings are that she found lacerations of the hymen at 11:00 o'clock and 1:00 o'clock.
These lacerations were already healed. The scars were fresh scars.
- Juanita Lamadura is a 15 year old girl who comes from Barrio Tagnate, Hilongos, Leyte
which is around ten (10) kilometers from Barrio Concepcion. Barrio Tagnate is not
accessible by motor vehicle since it is a mountainous area. The means of transportation
is by carabao or horse riding. She has no educational attainment at all and she does not
know how to read and write.
-

ISSUE/S:
- Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud attended the commission
of the crime of rape.
HELD:
 Yes.
 WE note that at the time of the taking of her testimony, Juanita Lamadura was only 15
years old. She was unlettered. It is inconceivable how she could have concocted a story
of rape with such convincing details unless she had been the victim of such a detestable
assault.
 Juanita Lamadura is a simple provincial lass doing the menial tasks of a housemaid.
Her own provincial sentiments proscribe exposing herself to the shame and humiliation
of being publicly known as a rape victim, unless she in fact was. She braved the
consequences of such exposure.
 As correctly observed by the lower court, the three accused knew one another
and were friends. If Leonardo did not participate in the commission of any criminal
design, but admittedly was only present when his two companions were perpetrating
their own criminal designs, how is it that he did not show any effort to prevent the crime
against two of the complainants taking place a short distance away from him. That he
was an active participant in a criminal design is borne by the fact that he was driving the
motor cab on which the other accused and the three victims rode. He directed the
course of the trip. He actively represented one of his companions as a P.C. soldier.
He conferred with the two other accused before taking the three victims in his motor
cab. He participated in the deception that culminated in his own forcible defloration of
the helpless Juanita Lamadura.
 The information filed against Leonardo Lor alleges as aggravating circumstances
nighttime, use of motor vehicle and taking advantage or abuse of superior strength.
 The general rule is that the aggravating circumstance must have been purposely sought
by the offender to facilitate the commission of the offense.
 There is no showing that the offender, Leonardo Lor, purposely and deliberately sought
nighttime to perpetrate and facilitate the commission of his criminal design.
 WE find that the use of motor vehicle was deliberately sought to facilitate the
commission of the crime. Leonardo Lor did not immediately take the victims into the
motor cab when the latter hailed it. Instead, he conferred with his two male companions,
the present co-accused. It was only after their brief conference that Leonardo Lor
agreed to take the victims in the motor cab. At this time, the criminal design of all the
three accused to sexually assault the three girls, began to be evident. Henceforth,
Leonardo Lor was to take the three girls in the motor cab; and unknown to said victims,
he was to take them and his co-accused to a secluded place by the river bank; there, he
and his co-accused were to drag their respective partners to separate places to
consummate the rape. Clearly, said motor cab was used to facilitate the commission of
the rape and aggravated the crime.
 For superior strength to aggravate a crime, it must be clearly shown that there was
deliberate intent to take advantage of the same (People vs. Bello, No. L-18792,
February 28,1964, 10 SCRA 298). There must also be notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor (People vs. Cabiling, No. L-38091, December 17,
1976, 74 SCRA 285). No such showing appears in the present case. The fact that the
victim was only 14 years old at the time of the assault while the aggressor was 23 years
of age does not reflect notoriety of inequalities in strength. In People vs. Parayno (No.
L- 24804, July 5, 1968, 24 SCRA 3), abuse of superior strength was not considered
despite the fact that the accused was 61 years old while the victim was only 9 years old.
 While the aggravating circumstance of craft or fraud (Paragraph 14, Article 14,
Revised Penal Code) was not alleged in the information, there is evidence that the
same was employed to facilitate the commission of the crime. To convince the victim
that the change of route during the trip was a necessity, Leonardo Lor told the victims
that they had to drop a P.C. soldier-passenger somewhere near the river bank.
 Finally, the nearest house to the river bank, site of the crime, was about 300 to
450 meters away. This qualifies the place as uninhabited. A place where there are
no people or any number of houses within a perimeter of less than 200 meters is
uninhabited (Fundamentals of Criminal Law Review by Gregorio, p. 66, citing Decision
Supreme Court of Spain, July 9, 1894). The fact that Leonardo Lor, together with his co-
accused deliberately brought the three victims to the said river bank, is proof that said
uninhabited place was purposely sought for the commission of the crane charged. While
uninhabited place is not aggravating when there is no showing that accused selected
the place of commission of the crime (People vs. Capillas, No. L-27177, October 23,
1981, 108 SCRA 173), said aggravating circumstance is present in the instant case,
where there was a deliberate selection of an isolated place for the perpetration of the
crime (People vs. Ong, No. L-37908, October 23, 1981, 108 SCRA 267).
 Wherefore, finding Leonardo Lor (in criminal case no. B-495) guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of rape aggravated by fraud or craft, the use of motor vehicle, and
uninhabited place, he is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua, and ordered to
indemnify Juanita Lamadura in the sum of thirty thousand (p30,000.00) pesos, without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He is hereby further ordered to
acknowledge and support the child should the offended party have given birth to one by
reason of the of offense, and to pay the costs.