This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2012-03-14 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We next deal with the characterization of the crime as forcible abduction with rape. The principal objective of Sabadlab and his two cohorts in abducting AAA from Dapitan Street and in bringing her to another place was to rape and ravish her. This objective became evident from the successive acts of Sabadlab immediately after she had alighted from the car in completely undressing her as to expose her whole body (except the eyes due to the blindfold), in kissing her body from the neck down, and in having carnal knowledge of her (in that order). Although forcible abduction was seemingly committed,[17] we cannot hold him guilty of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape when the objective of the abduction was to commit the rape. Under the circumstances, the rape absorbed the forcible abduction.[18] | |||||
|
2009-06-16 |
PUNO, C.J. |
||||
| In Garces v. People,[89] People v. Flores,[90] People v. Barbosa,[91] People v. Ragundiaz,[92] People v. Bato,[93] and People v. Garalde,[94] the accomplice was held to be solidarity liable with the principal for only one-half (1/2) of the amount adjudged as civil indemnity. In Garces, the accomplice was held solidarity liable for half of the civil indemnity ex delicto but was made to pay the moral damages of P50,000.00 separately from the principal. In Flores, Ragundiaz, Bato, and Garalde, the accomplice was held solidarily liable for half of the combined amounts of the civil indemnity ex delicto and moral damages. In Ragundiaz, the accomplice was also made solidarily liable with the principal for half of the actual damages, and in Garalde the accomplice was also held solidarily liable with the principal for half of the exemplary damages, aside from the civil and moral damages. | |||||
|
2008-11-14 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court finds Talan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape. Forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of rape if the real objective of the accused is to rape the victim.[8] Based on the records, the real objective of Talan was to rape AAA when he brought her to the place with banana trees and to Santa Elena, Camarines Norte. | |||||
|
2007-11-28 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Despite appellant's assignment of errors, this Court, nonetheless, resolved to review not only the penalty imposed on the appellant but also his very conviction pursuant to the doctrine that an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review.[11] After a meticulous review of the records, this Court upholds the conviction of the appellant. | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| When either one of the qualifying circumstances of relationship and minority is omitted or lacking, that which is pleaded in the Information and proved by the evidence may be considered as an aggravating circumstance. In the instant case, relationship may thus be considered as an aggravating circumstance. However, it may not serve to raise the penalty because in simple rape, the imposable penalty is reclusion perpetua which is single and indivisible.[44] | |||||