Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

PEOPLE V PASCUA GR 151858 NOVEMBER 27, 2003 FACTS: On August 2000, Alma Agapay, a 22-year old mental retardate,

was on the railroad tracks near their house when Pascua approached her and said, I dont know you but I know your mother. He then pulled Alma and brought her inside an old abandoned train car. He tied her hands above her head and made her lie down on the floor covered with a flattened carton box. He removed her dress and panties, after which he also undressed. While holding a knife with his right hand, he kissed her then inserted his penis into her vagina, causing it to bleed. Alma felt pain. She shouted and tried to fight back but her efforts were in vain since she could not move her right arm due to a stroke she suffered before. After raping her three or four times, appellant threatened to kill her and her mother if she would tell anybody what happened. A month later, Almas mother, Trinidad Agapay, noticed that her daughter was behaving strangely. When she asked her what was wrong, the latter confessed that she had been raped by appellant. Trinidad brought Alma to the police authorities where they filed a complaint for rape against appellant. Alma was thereafter brought to Dr. Ma. Arlene Bicomong Cuervas, a physician at the San Pablo City District Hospital. However, Dr. Cuervas only conducted a partial medical examination on Alma because she refused to undergo internal examination since it was painful. Dr. Cuervas found that Alma sustained hematoma on the hypogastric area measuring about 6 x 3 cm. The TC find the guilt of the appellant for the crime of rape. ISSUE: W/n the trial court gravely erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the crime of rape despite failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt HELD: Case law has it that a freshly lacerated hymen is not an essential element of rape. Mere touching, no matter how slight of the labia or lips of the female organ by the male genitalia even without rapture or laceration of the hymen is sufficient to consummate rape. We have consistently held that a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to a prosecution for rape. It is merely corroborative in character and not indispensable. The accused may be convicted even solely on the basis of her testimony if credible, natural, convincing and consistent with human nature and the course of things. Moreover, appellant cannot point to any motive as to why Alma would file a complaint for rape against him. In the absence of any evidence to show that the witness was actuated by any improper motive, his identification of the appellant as the author of the crime shall be given full faith and credit. [16] Rape is punishable by reclusion perpetua, pursuant to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code. The mental condition of the victim cannot be appreciated to aggravate the crime and to warrant the death penalty. Under Article 266 (10) of the Revised Penal Code, the rape shall be qualified when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime. Being in the nature of a qualifying circumstance, this should be specifically alleged in the Information. The allegation therein of the mental disability of the victim is insufficient. What should be alleged is the knowledge by the offender of such mental disability.[17] Thus, appellant can only be convicted of simple rape.

PEOPLE V ANTIVOLA GR 139236 FEBRUARY 3, 2004 FACTS: On December 4, 1997, Rachel, together with three other children, were playing outside. Rachel saw the appellant Rodel (Bungi) Antivola feeding the fishes in the nearby fishpond.He approached Rachel and asked her to go with him inside his house, telling her that they would play another game. While inside Bungis house, he removed Rachels shorts and touched her private parts. He brought out his penis and forcefully inserted it to Rachels private part. He instructed her not to tell to anyone. Her mother accoimpanied Rachel in taking a bath and he noticed a reddish discoloration on her private part and asked her daughter who did that, Rachel pointed to Bungi as one who defiled her. They reported it to the police officers and Rachel was examined by Dr. Aves. Dr. Aves explained that the fresh lacerations on Rachels hymen could have been caused by manipulation of the organ or penetration of whatsoever. The TC convicted him of rape in its qualified form and sentenced him to suffer death penatly. ISSUE: W/n the lower court erred in convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape defined and penalized under atrs. 266-a and 266-b of republic act 8353, amending art. 335 of the revised penal code in relation to republic act no. 7610 despite failure on the part of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyound reasoble doubt. HELD: Rachels testimony says it all. It is marked by spontaneity, honesty and sincerity. When a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed.[38] Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. [39] In rape cases, the testimony of the victim alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict the accused of the crime. The medical certificate is presented merely to corroborate the victims declaration that she was sexually molested. In fact, what is more telling in the medical findings proffered in evidence by the prosecution is the presence of hymenal lacerations in different positions in the victims genitalia which is the best physical evidence of her forcible defloration. At the time of the rape, Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, which repealed Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and classified rape as a crime against persons, was already effective. The new provisions on rape, provided under Articles 266-A and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, state as follows: Article 266-A. Rape; When And How Committed. Rape is committed 1) a) b) c) d) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the circumstances: Through force, threat, or intimidation; When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; and When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

... Article 266-B. Penalties. Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. ... The death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances: ...

5)

When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;

In the present case, no birth certificate or any similar authentic document was presented and offered in evidence to prove Rachels age. The only evidence of the victims age is her testimony[57] and that of her mothers (Sally de Guzmans) Simumpaang Salaysay,[58] which was adopted as part of the latters direct testimony, [59] attesting to the fact that her five-year-old daughter was raped. Sallys testimony regarding Rachels age was insufficient, since Rachel was alleged to be already five years old at the time of the rape, and what is sought to be proved is that she was then less than seven years old. Her testimony will suffice only if it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused. There is no such express and clear declaration and admission of the appellant that Rachel was less than seven years old when he raped her. Moreover, the trial court made no finding as to the victims age. It must be stressed that the severity of death penalty, especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.[60] Accordingly, in the absence of sufficient proof of Rachels minority, the appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to suffer the death penalty.

PEOPLE V REYES GR 178300 MARCH 17, 2009 FACTS: On July16, 1999, the Yao Family went to their poulty farm in Bulacan. When Yao San alighted from the van to open the gate, a group of men approched him and poked a gun to him and dragged him inside the van. The blindfolded them and they took over the van and went to other route. When the van stopped, the kidnappers instructed Yao San to produce 5M for them to spare the lives of his family members and then left Yao San and other memebers were left in the van. He went back to the farm and sought for help. On the next day, the kidnappers cannot reached Yao San and the 2 of the kidnappers accompanied Abagatnan and Robert to look for Yao San and left her in the farm for her to remind the money that they were asking. The kidnappers were able to reached him through celphone and instructed him to pay 5M and bring the money to the Usan dumpsite in QC. Yao San arrived at the designated place but none of the kidnappers showed up. On July 23, 1999, the corpses of Yao Sans wife and his wife were found at the La Mesa Dam QC, both died of asphyxia by strangultion. On July 26, 1999, one of the kidnappers, surrendered in the police and he was assisted by a lawyer in his extrajudicial confession. Arnaldo identified hi co-participants in the incident. Then the police officers arrested the said accused. The RTC and CA found the guilt of the accused and convicted for special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide . ISSUE: W/N the TC erred in finding a conspiracy between the appellants HELD: Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused. When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part as to complete the crime, with a view to the attainment of the same object, conspiracy exists. Their extra-judicial confessions also detailed the particular role/participation played by each of appellants and their cohorts in the kidnapping of the family. Clearly, the foregoing individual acts of appellants and their cohorts demonstrated their unity of purpose and design in kidnapping the Yao family for the purpose of extorting ransom. Nevertheless, even without the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores, evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a finding of culpability of appellant Reyes. As earlier found, Abagatnan, Robert and Yao positively identified appellant Reyes as one of their kidnappers. They specifically testified that during the incident, appellant Reyes (1) approached and pointed a gun at Yao San and dragged the latter inside the van; and (2) accompanied Abagatnan and Robert in going to the poultry farm to search for and remind Yao San about the ransom demanded. The RTC, Court of Appeals and this Court found such testimonies credible. Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping is committed with the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. All of the foregoing elements were duly establish by the testimonial and documentary evidences for the prosecution in the case at bar. First, appellants and their cohorts are private individuals. Second, appellants and their cohorts kidnapped the Yao family by taking control of their van and detaining them in a secluded place. Third, the Yao family was taken against their will. And fourth, threats to kill were made and the kidnap victims include females.

PEOPLE V REYES GR 178300 MARCH 17, 2009 FACTS: On July16, 1999, the Yao Family went to their poulty farm in Bulacan. When Yao San alighted from the van to open the gate, a group of men approched him and poked a gun to him and dragged him inside the van. The blindfolded them and they took over the van and went to other route. When the van stopped, the kidnappers instructed Yao San to produce 5M for them to spare the lives of his family members and then left Yao San and other memebers were left in the van. He went back to the farm and sought for help. On the next day, the kidnappers cannot reached Yao San and the 2 of the kidnappers accompanied Abagatnan and Robert to look for Yao San and left her in the farm for her to remind the money that they were asking. The kidnappers were able to reached him through celphone and instructed him to pay 5M and bring the money to the Usan dumpsite in QC. Yao San arrived at the designated place but none of the kidnappers showed up. On July 23, 1999, the corpses of Yao Sans wife and his wife were found at the La Mesa Dam QC, both died of asphyxia by strangultion. On July 26, 1999, one of the kidnappers, surrendered in the police and he was assisted by a lawyer in his extrajudicial confession. Arnaldo identified hi co-participants in the incident. Then the police officers arrested the said accused. The RTC and CA found the guilt of the accused and convicted for special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide . ISSUE: W/N the TC erred in finding a conspiracy between the appellants HELD: Under Article 8 of the Revised Penal Code, there is conspiracy when two or more persons agree to commit a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy presupposes unity of purpose and unity in the execution of the unlawful objective among the accused. When the accused by their acts aimed at the same object, one performing one part and the other performing another part as to complete the crime, with a view to the attainment of the same object, conspiracy exists. Their extra-judicial confessions also detailed the particular role/participation played by each of appellants and their cohorts in the kidnapping of the family. Clearly, the foregoing individual acts of appellants and their cohorts demonstrated their unity of purpose and design in kidnapping the Yao family for the purpose of extorting ransom. Nevertheless, even without the extra-judicial confessions of appellants Arnaldo and Flores, evidence on record is sufficient to sustain a finding of culpability of appellant Reyes. As earlier found, Abagatnan, Robert and Yao positively identified appellant Reyes as one of their kidnappers. They specifically testified that during the incident, appellant Reyes (1) approached and pointed a gun at Yao San and dragged the latter inside the van; and (2) accompanied Abagatnan and Robert in going to the poultry farm to search for and remind Yao San about the ransom demanded. The RTC, Court of Appeals and this Court found such testimonies credible. Under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, the crime of kidnapping is committed with the concurrence of the following elements: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a) the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days; (b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are made; or (d) the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer. All of the foregoing elements were duly establish by the testimonial and documentary evidences for the prosecution in the case at bar. First, appellants and their cohorts are private individuals. Second, appellants and their cohorts kidnapped the Yao family by taking control of their van and detaining them in a secluded place. Third, the Yao family was taken against their will. And fourth, threats to kill were made and the kidnap victims include females.