Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

P E O P L E v s.

A B E L L O
G.R. No. 151952
FACTS
P E O P L E v s. A B E L L
O

 Abello was convicted of one count of rape


by sexual assault and two counts of
sexual abuse under the Child Abuse Law
committed against his step daughter, AAA.

 Abello placed his soft penis inside the mouth


of AAA, with lewd design and by means of
force and intimidation.

 The RTC found Abello guilty under all three


Information.

Abello questions his conviction for sexual


abuse since AAA does not fall under those
protected by RA 7610 (Child Abuse Law).
ISSUE
Whether or not the alternative circumstance of
stepfatherstepdaughter relationship should be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING
NO, the stepfather stepdaughter relationship
between AAA and Abello was not duly proven in
the present case. The prosecution failed to
present the marriage contract between Abello and
AAA’s mother. If the fact of marriage came out in
the evidence at all, it was only via an admission by
Abello of his marriage to AAA’s mother. This
admission is inconclusive. The court is strict on
considering relationship as an aggravating
circumstance because it increases the imposable
penalty, and hence must be proven by competent
evidence.
U S v s. A C E B E D O
G.R. No. 5799
FACTS
• L. W. Berry, auditor of the district of Palo
Leyte investigated the alleged
irregularities commited by the municipal
president in relation to certain
fines and costs imposed by the justice
of the peace of that place.
• He had found out that certain sums due
from the municipal president to the
justice of the peace had not been turned
over to the latter.
• The accused answered that he had left
the matter of the collection of the costs
and fines and the turning over of the
same to his secretary, Crisanto P. Urbina.
• The list of the sums collected aggregated
a total of P50.85.
ISSUE
Whether or not the appellant and his secretary conspired in embezzling
public funds.

RULING
NO, there was no conspiracy between the appellant and his
secretary. No guilty knowledge of the theft committed by the
secretary was shown on the part of the appellant in this case, nor
does it appear that he in any way participated in the fruits of the
crime. If the secretary stole the money in question without the
knowledge or consent of the appellant and without negligence on
his part, then certainly the latter can not be convicted of embezzling
the same money or any part thereof. The evidence completely fails
in showing that any portion of the money in this case came actually
into the hands of the appellant. It fails utterly to establish that he
had any knowledge of the peculations of his secretary.
D A V I D, J R. vs. P E O P L E
G.R. No. 136037
FACTS
• Domingo Datalio was walking alone in an alley from where he live,
he met Severino David and Timoteo Gianan both of whom were
not his acquaintances.
• Severino stabbed him while Timoteo tried to hit him with an adobe
stone, but Domingo kicked him. Wounded, Domingo ran out of the
alley and called for his sister to bring him to the hospital.
• Brought to the MCU hospital, Domingo was transferred to Chinese
General Hospital where he was treated. Per the Medico-Legal
Certificate signed by the resident on duty, he suffered a stab
wound at the lower abdomen which resulted to his death.
• The accused claims that the killing arose from an impulse of self-
defense.
ISSUE
WON the assertion of the accused that he acted from an
impulse of self-defense is valid.

RULING
NO, to invoke self-defense successfully, there must
have been an unlawful and unprovoked attack that
endangered the life of the accused, who was then
forced to inflict the injury or wound upon the assailant
by employing reasonable means to resist the attack.
P E O P L E vs. M O N T E S C A R L O
S
G.R. No. 181084
FACTS
• ABC is a minor and the daughter of appellant, Montescarlos.
Who were both renting a room in a house owned by Tampus.
• Montescarlos and Tampus were both drinking beer and forced
her to drink with them.
• When she became intoxicated she was now very sleepy then she
overheard Tampus requesting her mother, Montesclaros that he
be allowed to have sexual intercourse with her.
• Montesclaros agreed and instructed Tampus to leave as soon as
he was finished.
• She fell asleep and when she woke up she felt pain all over her
body and noticed that blood from her genitals.
ISSUE
WON Ida Montesclaros is guilty as an accomplice in the
rape of ABC.

RULING
YES, The testimony of ABC shows that there was community of
design between Ida and Tampus to commit the rape of ABC. Ida
had knowledge of and assented to Tampus' intention to have
sexual intercourse with her daughter. The evidence shows that the
acts of cooperation by Ida are not indispensable to the
commission of rape by Tampus. First, because it was both Ida and
Tampus who forced ABC to drink beer, and second because
Tampus already had the intention to have sexual intercourse with
ABC and he could have consummated the act even without Ida's
consent.
P E O P L E vs. B I – A Y
G.R. No. 192187
FACTS
• Rodrigo Claro together with his son Baby Boy, were in the
house of his father, Francisco Claro.
• The accused Eliseo Bi-ay, Jr. (Eliseo) and his co-accused,
Jorge Bi-ay and Elex Lingasa went to the house of
Francisco and asked for a coffee.
• Jorge asked the victim to serve the coffee to his
companions, Alex and Eliseo, the latter hacked him and
Alex stabbed the victim at the back inflicting multiple fatal
hack wounds upon the body of the victim which caused his
death.
• Baby Boy witnessed what happened and asked for his
grandfathers help.
ISSUE
Whether or not Eliseo Bi-ay is a principal by
direct participation.

RULING
YES. The court held the Eliseo Bi-ay is a principal
by direct participation. He delivered the first blow
on the victim. He initiated the deadly assault by
hacking the victim on the nape. Considering the
circumstances, the court cannot hold the accused
as a mere accomplice because his active and
direct involvement in the killing was obvious.
P E O P L E vs. A L P A P A P A R A
G.R. No. 180421
FACTS
• Domingo Alpapara, Pedro Alpapara and Aldan Paya were
alleged to have thrown stones at the roof of Gomez
Relorcasa while the latter was having a chat with a friend.
• The three named-accused challenged Gomez to come out
of his house while armed with revolvers stormed into the
victim’s house and subdued him by holding and pinning him
down.
• As the victim was being held, he was then shot at close
range twice, first at the back then at the right temple. Alden
Paya then fired upwards warning those present not to testify
on what transpired.
ISSUE
Whether or not there was conspiracy in the commission
of the crime.

RULING
YES. Based on the actions of the accused, it can be seen that they
were united in purpose and made sure that it was consummated.
Direct proof is not essential in proving that there was conspiracy.
Conspiracy maybe inferred from the acts of the accused before,
during, and after the commission of the crime which undoubt- edly
point to a joint purpose, concert of action, and the same interest.
Case and point, the accused are equally liable for the crime.

Похожие интересы