Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN SORIA Y GOMEZ

This case has been cited 9 times or more.

	GR No. 217804 2015-09-02	ROLDAN CARRERA v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES VELASCO JR., J.
Clearly then, rape can be committed either through sexual intercourse or by sexual assault.[23] Rape by sexual assault is committed under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 and through any of the means enumerated under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A. The gravamen of rape through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person's genital or anal orifice."[24] It is also called "instrument or object rape" or "gender-free rape."[25]
	GR No. 207815 2015-06-22	PEOPLE v. JOSE SALVADOR VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In both cases either in rape by sexual intercourse or rape by sexual assault, only the fact of penetration need be established under either. It must be stated though that under rape by sexual intercourse, there must be proof that his penis touched the labia of the victim or slid into her female organ, and not merely stroked the external surface thereof, to ensure his conviction.[32]
	GR No. 211002 2015-01-21	RICHARD RICALDE v. PEOPLE LEONEN, J.
In People v. Soria,[86] this court discussed that a victim need not identify what was inserted into his or her genital or anal orifice for the court to find that rape through sexual assault was committed: We find it inconsequential that "AAA" could not specifically identify the particular instrument or object that was inserted into her genital. What is important and relevant is that indeed something was inserted into her vagina. To require "AAA" to identify the instrument or object that was inserted into her vagina would be contrary to the fundamental tenets of due process.[87]
	GR No. 205382 2014-04-02	PEOPLE v. MAURICIO HALLARTE Y MENDOZA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
However, while the Court upholds the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed upon appellant in Criminal Case No. Q-00-93225 for Simple Rape, there is a need to modify the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. Q-00-93226 for Rape by Sexual Assault in view of the failure of the prosecution to satisfactorily prove the age of BBB. While the information[44] alleged that BBB was "8 years of age, a minor," and the parties stipulated[45] on her minority during the pre-trial conference, the same are insufficient evidence of her age which must be proved conclusively and indubitably as the crime itself.[46] As the Court succinctly explained in People v. Soria:[47]
	GR No. 202122 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. BERNABE PAREJA Y CRUZ LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
1. Article 266-A paragraph 1 refers to Rape through sexual intercourse, also known as "organ rape" or "penile rape." [45] The central element in rape through sexual intercourse is carnal knowledge, which must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.[46]
	GR No. 206095 2013-11-25	PEOPLE v. ROBERTO GARCIA Y PADIERNOS MENDOZA, J.
By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. In People v.Soria[16], the Court enumerated the elements of this crime, to wit:(1) That the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
	GR No. 196051 2013-10-02	PEOPLE v. JADE CUAYCONG Y REMONQUILLO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Jurisprudence states that carnal knowledge as an element of rape does not require full penetration since all that is necessary for rape to be consummated is for the penis of the accused to come into contact with the lips of the pudendum of the victim.[21] Moreover, it is equally settled that hymenal rupture, vaginal laceration or genital injury is not indispensable because the same is not an element of the crime of rape.[22]
	GR No. 202868 2013-10-02	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ESPERA Y CUYACOT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Rape by sexual intercourse is a crime committed by a man against a woman. The central element is carnal knowledge and it is perpetrated under any of the circumstances enumerated in subparagraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph 1.[46]
	GR No. 189297 2013-06-03	PEOPLE v. GUILLERMO LOMAQUE BRION, J.
established. Accordingly, appellant should be meted the penalty of prision mayor. Nonetheless, in People v. Bayya,[43] People v. Esperanza,[44] People v. Hermocilla,[45] and the recent case of People v. Soria,[46] the Court held that when 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. Conformably with such ruling, "AAA's" minority may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum of the indeterminate penalty shall be within the full range of the penalty that is one degree lower than prision mayor, that is prision correccional, the range of which shall be from six (6) months and one (1) day to six (6) years. The maximum of the indeterminate penalty however shall be within the maximum period of prision mayor in view of the proven aggravating circumstance of minority. Thus, an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years of prision correccional, as minimum, to twelve (12) years of prision mayor, as maximum, is imposed upon appellant.