Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROGELIO LAYUGAN Y FURUC

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 186460 2009-12-04	PEOPLE v. GUALBERTO CINCO Y SOYOSA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, was the law pertinent to the rapes committed on 1 November 1998 and in the latter part of November 1998. The law states that the death penalty shall be imposed if the rape victim is a minor, and the offender is the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.[24] The qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be alleged in the complaint or information and proved during the trial to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[25]
	GR No. 179277 2008-06-18	PEOPLE v. REMON COJA Y SIMEON TINGA, J,
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[19] Consequently, for the charge of rape to prosper, the prosecution must prove that (1) the accused had carnal knowledge of the complainant; and, (2) that the same was accomplished through force or intimidation.[20]
	GR No. 177150 2007-11-22	PEOPLE v. WILLIAM CHING CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659, was the law applicable in the year 1996, the time the first rape was committed. On the other hand, Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, was the law pertinent to the two rapes committed in May 1998. Both laws state that the death penalty shall be imposed if the rape victim is a minor and the offender is a parent. The qualifying circumstances of minority of the victim and the latter's relationship with the offender must be alleged in the complaint or information and proved during the trial to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.[34]
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacle to deter the commission of rape.[33] There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.[34] There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[35] As testified to by the private complainant, her brother and two sisters were sleeping soundly and were not awakened by the commotion[36] She further said that when the rape was perpetrated on 5 January 1997, her mother was in the sala downstairs sleeping while her father proceeded upstairs to commit the dastardly act on her.[37] With her brother and sisters sleeping soundly, and her mother sleeping downstairs (during the rape committed on 5 January 1997), appellant had all the opportunity to carry out, which he did, his dissolute plan.
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
It has been oft said that lust is no respecter of time or place. Neither the crampness of the room, nor the presence of other people therein, nor the high risk of being caught, has been held sufficient and effective obstacles to deter the commission of rape.[36] There have been too many instances when rape was committed under circumstances as indiscreet and audacious as a room full of family members sleeping side by side.[37] There is no rule that a woman can only be raped in seclusion.[38] In the case at bar, inasmuch as the house where private complainant and appellant lived had an upper and a lower portion, the partition separating these portions made it easier for appellant to perpetrate and to conceal the salacious act.