Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR VILLAR

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 131399 2003-10-17	ANGELITA AMPARO GO v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
It is fundamental that upon him who alleges rests the burden of proof;[40] hence, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove her allegations with competent evidence.[41] She cannot simply rely on respondent Malinis' failure to specifically deny her allegations to prove that there was such an illegal proposition. Respondents may not be indicted on mere presumptions.
	GR No. 132714 2001-09-06	PEOPLE v. RENATO LALINGJAMAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Consequently, accused-appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape. It must be remembered in this regard that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.[44] Viewed vis-à-vis the foregoing factual, statutory and jurisprudential scenario, accused can be convicted of simple rape only which is punishable by reclusion perpetua, an indivisible penalty. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, in all cases where the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, said penalty shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.[45]
	GR No. 132065 2001-04-03	PEOPLE v. NORBERTO DEL MUNDO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Notwithstanding the guilt of accused-appellant for the bestial act of incestuous rape, the death penalty cannot be imposed on him. In order to warrant the death penalty, the information must allege the qualifying and modifying circumstance that would justify its imposition. In particular, not only must the information allege the minority of the victim but it must also state the relationship of the offender to the offended party.[21] For purposes of qualified rape under Republic Act No. 7659, the concurrence of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitute one special qualifying circumstance which must both be alleged and proved.[22] In case of failure to specify these qualifying circumstances in the information, the accused cannot be subjected to the death penalty. Otherwise, his constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him will be infringed. The fact that it was proven during trial that the victim was only fifteen years of age, hence a minor, and that accused-appellant was her own biological father does not suffice.
	GR No. 128372 2001-03-12	PEOPLE v. REMEGIO DELA PEÑA Y BAGUIO QUISUMBING, J.
The fact that the rape was committed at the back of appellant's house and not in some distant isolated place does not negate the commission of the rape. Rape can be committed in many different places which may be considered as unlikely or inappropriate, and that the scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of time or place.[21]
	GR No. 126019 2001-03-01	PEOPLE v. MARIO CALDONA Y LLAMAS YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The penalty prescribed for the offense of simple rape, reclusion perpetua, is an indivisible penalty. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code, in all cases in which the law prescribes a single indivisible penalty, said penalty shall be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.[59]
	GR Nos. 135560-61 2001-01-24	PEOPLE v. BONIFACIO SAN AGUSTIN Y ROSLIN QUISUMBING, J.
Allegations of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime are not decisive in a prosecution for rape.[10] First, the precise time of the commission of the rape is not an element of the crime.[11] Second, the precise time or date of the rape has no bearing on its commission.[12] Hence, the exact time the rape was committed is a detail of minor significance.[13]
	GR Nos. 135695-96 2000-10-12	PEOPLE v. TOMAS TUNDAG QUISUMBING, J.
Thus, it can be considered of public knowledge and judicially noticed that the scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded for lust is no respecter of time or place. The offense of rape can and has been committed in places where people congregate, e.g. inside a house where there are occupants, a five (5) meter room with five (5) people inside, or even in the same room which the victim is sharing with the accused's sister.[32]
	GR No. 126114 2000-05-11	PEOPLE v. JIMMY SABREDO Y GARBO QUISUMBING, J.
In sentencing appellant to death, the trial court noted that the victim was his niece, a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree. Section 11 (1) of R.A. No. 7659 imposes the death penalty when the rape victim is under 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. However, R.A. No. 7659 cannot be made to apply in the instant case for two reasons: First, at the time the rape was committed, private complainant was already more than eighteen years of age.[10] Second, the information did not allege that offender and offended party were relatives within the third degree of consanguinity. We have held that the seven circumstances in R.A. No. 7659 which warrant the automatic imposition of the death penalty partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances and as such should be alleged in the information to be appreciated as such.[11] In view of the failure of the information to comply with this requirement, said degree of relation could not be taken into account in considering the penalty to be imposed. For these reasons, the sentence on appellant should only be reclusion perpetua.