Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. EMINIANO BARCELA Y MEDINA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 192232 2014-12-10	PEOPLE v. JOSE ESTALIN PRODENCIADO DEL CASTILLO, J.
Here, the Information for the second rape subject of Criminal Case No. 3209-M-2000 alleges that the rape was committed by appellant upon his own minor daughter "AAA," who was then 10 years old. These were eventually proved during trial. Thus, it was correct for the trial court to hold Prodenciado liable for rape under Article 335(3) of the RPC, albeit with the modification that it is qualified by the attendant circumstances of minority and relationship[48] which, as mentioned, were sufficiently alleged in the Information and ultimately proved by the prosecution in the course of the proceedings below. Accordingly, and in view of RA 9346,[49] we impose upon appellant the penalty of reclusion perpetua, in lieu of the death penalty, without eligibility for parole.
	GR No. 190863 2014-11-19	PEOPLE v. RAUL SATO DEL CASTILLO, J.
To support his bid for acquittal, appellant banks on the alleged improbabilities of "AAA's" claim of rape. However, the Court finds that the said improbabilities have all been amply discussed and correctly passed upon by the CA in its assailed Decision such that it is not minded to discuss them all over again. Besides, the improbabilities pointed out by appellant are inconsequential matters that do not bear upon the elements of the crime of rape. As such, they cannot be used as grounds for his acquittal.[19]
	GR No. 199096 2014-06-02	PEOPLE v. FRED TRAIGO BRION, J.
We point out in Criminal Case No. 133722 that AAA was only ten (10) years old when the appellant raped her in September 2004. The minority of the victim and her relationship to the appellant, however, raised the crime from statutory rape to qualified rape. Simply put, qualified rape is statutory rape in its qualified form.[9] Accordingly, we sentence the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole; and increase the awarded moral damages from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00 to conform to prevailing jurisprudence on qualified rape cases.[10]
	GR No. 201861 2014-06-02	PEOPLE v. VALENTIN SABAL Y PARBA BRION, J.
We modify the crime committed by the appellant in Criminal Case Nos. 13103-03 and 13104-03 from statutory rape to qualified rape. The presented evidence[10] showed that AAA and BBB were ten (10) and seven (7) years old, respectively, when the appellant raped them on May 2, 2003. The evidence also established that the appellant was the brother of the victims' father. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the death penalty shall be imposed when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. The minority of the victims and their relationship to the appellant in the present case raised the crime from statutory rape to qualified rape.[11] Since the death penalty cannot be imposed in view of Republic Act No. 9346 (An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of the Death Penalty in the Philippines), the CA correctly sentenced the appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole for each count.