This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2002-03-12 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Certainly, the identification of accused-appellants by Ivonne Keh, who had ample opportunity to see and imprint their faces in her memory, more than satisfies the judicial mind and conscience. In People v. Candelario[18] we ruled that it is the most natural reaction for victims of crimes to strive to remember the faces of their assailants and the manner in which they committed the crime. Hence, there is no reason for us to disbelieve her testimony or to suspect her motives. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. The question that needs to be resolved is whether the multiplicity of homicides could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. For sometime, this ticklish issue has been the subject of conflicting views by this Court when it held in some cases that the additional rapes/homicides[6] committed on the occasion of robbery would not increase the penalty, while in other cases it ruled that the multiplicity of rapes/ homicides committed could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.[7] But in People v. Regala[8] this Court spoke with finality on the matter - | |||||
|
2000-04-27 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| The Information charges accused-appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with rape. The record shows that the prosecution has established that he committed both robbery and rape with the intent to take personal property of another preceding the rape. Under Art. 294, par. (1), of the Revised Penal Code, "x x x [a]ny person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of persons shall suffer: 1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, x x x when the robbery shall have been accompanied by rape x x x x" Complaining witness Juditha Bautista was raped twice on the occasion of the robbery. In this regard, this Court had declared in some cases that the additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery would not increase the penalty.[13] There were also cases, however, where this Court ruled that the multiplicity of rapes committed could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.[14] Finally, in the recent case of People v. Regala,[15] the Court held that the additional rapes committed should not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance despite a resultant "anomalous situation" wherein robbery with rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes in terms of gravity.[16] The Court realized that there was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for that matter to be considered as aggravating circumstance. It further observed that the enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code which enumerates the mitigating circumstances where analogous circumstances may be considered, hence, the remedy lies with the legislature. Consequently, unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s may be considered aggravating, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. Under this view, the additional rape committed by accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating circumstance. Applying Art. 63, par. (2), of the Revised Penal Code which provides that "(i)n all cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties, the following rules shall be observed in the application thereof x x x x 2. (w)hen there are neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstances in the commission of the deed, the lesser penalty shall be applied," the lower penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on accused-appellant. | |||||
|
2000-04-05 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| There are likewise cases[18] which held that the multiplicity of rapes committed could be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. In People vs. Candelario[19] where three (3) of the four (4) armed men who robbed the victim "alternately raped her twice for each of them", this Court, citing People vs. Obtinalia,[20] ruled that "(T)he characterization of the offense as robbery with rape, however, is not changed simply because there were several rapes committed. The multiplicity of rapes should instead be taken into account in raising the penalty to death." | |||||