Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. AVELINO SUBESA Y MOSCARDON

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
On the other hand, the cases of People v. Sanico,[76] People v. Banzuela,[77] Pielago v. People,[78] People v. Rayon, Sr.,[79] People v. Subesa,[80] People v. Anguac,[81] and Los Baños v. Pedro,[82] which were likewise cited by Justice Carpio, involve the issue that an Information only need to allege the ultimate facts, and not the specificity of the allegations contained in the information as to allow the accused to prepare for trial and make an intelligent plea.[83]
	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Ultimate facts has also been defined as the principal, determinative, and constitutive facts on whose existence the cause of action rests;[30] they are also the essential and determining facts on which the court's conclusion rests and without which the judgment would lack support in essential particulars.[31]
	GR No. 200597 2014-02-19	EMILIO RAGA Y CASIKAT v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Nonetheless, while this Court also upholds petitioner's conviction, we modify the penalty imposed on petitioner, particularly the maximum term. In the case at bar, the circumstances of minority and relationship were alleged and duly proven during trial. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for rape by sexual assault is reclusion temporal when any of the aggravating or qualifying circumstances is mentioned in said Article is present. Thus applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be properly imposed under the Revised Penal Code. Other than the circumstances of minority and relationship that raised the penalty to reclusion temporal, no other aggravating circumstance was alleged and proven. Thus, the penalty imposed shall be imposed in its medium period or, from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months.[13] The minimum of the indeterminate sentence should be within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the Code which is prision mayor or six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Therefore, the trial court correctly set the minimum of the indeterminate sentence to twelve (12) years. As to the maximum period, however, the trial court set it to 20 years of reclusion temporal which is beyond the limit of seventeen (17) years and four (4) months. Thus, we deem as proper the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for each count of sexual assault.
	GR No. 202842 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO GALAGAR REYES, J.
Accordingly, the civil indemnity should be reduced to P50,000.00. Likewise, moral damages should only be P50,000.00. In line with recent jurisprudence on the matter, the accused-appellant is not eligible for parole considering the penalty imposed upon him;[25] and that the amounts awarded to the victim shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, to earn from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid.[26]
	GR No. 202020 2013-03-13	MIKE ALVIN PIELAGO Y ROS v. PEOPLE REYES, J.
On February 1, 2012, the CA rendered a Decision[13] affirming in toto the RTC's decision. The appellate court explained that despite the fact that the Information charged the crime of acts of lasciviousness, the established factual circumstances therein constitutes the elements of rape penalized under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code such as: (1) that the offender inserted his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice or inserted any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person; and (2) that the same was done to a child below 12 years of age.[14] Citing the case of Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong v. People,[15] the CA emphasized that it is not the nomenclature of the offense that determines the crime in the Information but the recital of facts of the commission of the offense. The determination by the prosecutor who signs the Information is merely an opinion which is not binding on the court.[16] The CA, moreover, agreed with the RTC in brushing aside the bare self-serving denial of Pielago. He also failed to adduce any evidence to support his claim that AAA was coached by her mother on what she should testify in court. Finding support in current jurisprudence,[17] the CA aptly stated that an accused may be convicted solely on the testimony of the victim so long as it is credible, convincing and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[18] Lastly, the CA concurred with the RTC's cognizance of the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender there being no warrant of arrest issued against Pielago. Thus, it decreed, in this wise:
	GR No. 182457 2013-01-30	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ASPREC LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Time and again, the Court has held that, in rape cases, the accused may be convicted solely on the basis of the testimony of the victim that is credible, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things.[18]