Anda di halaman 1dari 6

People vs. Ocaya [No.

L-47448 May 17, 1978] Facts: The Office of the Provincial Fiscal filed an information in the court of Hon. Ocaya charging Esterlina Marapao, Letitia Marapao, and Diosdado Marapao of the crime of serious physical injuries. Records show that neither the arraignment nor the trial was made on merit and no warrants of arrest were issued. Instead, the respondent judge held that the respondents should be charged of either slight or less serious physical injuries only. This is so, even if the affidavitsshow that Lolita Ares, the victim, was incapacitated for more than 30 days and a scar was left on her face, deforming it. Hon. Ocaya, motu proprio, ordered the dismissal of the case since the crime or slight or less physical injuries is not within the jurisdiction of the court. The fiscals motion for reconsideration was denied by Hon. Ocaya. Accordingly, the respondent judge evaluated the case without hearing the parties nor the witnesses, nor having received their evidence, as well as ruling against the deformity on the basis of themedical certificate. The Provincial Fiscal then filed the petition at bar for the nullification of Hon. Ocayas orders. Issue: Whether Hon. Ocaya acted with grave abuse of discretion for dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. Held: The orders of the respondent judge was held NULL & VOID. The jurisdiction of the court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the information or criminal complaint, and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial, nor the trial judges personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits without hearing the parties and their witnesses. Moreover, once jurisdiction has attached to the person and subject-matter, the subsequent happening of events, though it may have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not divest the court of jurisdiction already attached.

People v. Hon. Emeterio Ocaya G.R. No. L-47448; May 17, 1978 Teehankee, J. Facts: On or about the 23rd day of July, 1977, in Don Carlos, Bukidnon, Philippines accused Esterlina Marapao, Leticia Marapao, and Diosdado Marapao, attacked and assaulted one Mrs. LOLITA ARES, a mother who was then still on the twelfth (12th) day from her child delivery, wrestling her to the ground and thereafter throwing and hitting her with a fist-size stone at the face, which injury considerably deforms her face, and further causing upon said Mrs. LOLITA ARES to suffer a relapse (nabughat in the local dialect) arising from her weak constitution due to her recent child delivery, which relapse incapacitated her from performing her customary labor for a period of more than thirty days. The records do not show that arraignment or trial on the merits has been held, much less that warrants for the arrest of the accused had been issued. Instead, after "scanning the records of (the) case", respondent judge motu proprio ordered the dismissal of the case "as the crime of slight or less physical injury is not within the jurisdiction of the court".

The fiscal's motion for reconsideration proved futile with respondent judge. Issue: Whether or not respondent judge committed a grave abuse of discretion in dismissing teh case for alleged lack of jurisdiction. Held: Yes. It is elemental that the jurisdiction of a court in criminal cases is determined by the allegations of the information or criminal complaint and not by the result of the evidence presented at the trial,' much less by the trial judge's personal appraisal of the affidavits and exhibits attached by the fiscal to the record of the case without hearing the parties and their witnesses nor receiving their evidence at a proper trial. It is equally elementary that the mere fact that evidence presented at the trial would indicate that a lesser offense outside the trial, court's jurisdiction was committed does not deprive the trial court of its jurisdiction which had vested in it under the allegations of the information as filed since "(once) the jurisdiction attaches to the person and subject matter of the litigation, the subsequent happening of events, although they are of such a character as would have prevented jurisdiction from attaching in the first instance, will not operate to oust jurisdiction already attached. Respondent judge's actions and premature and baseless declaration that the victim's declaration as to the period of her incapacity is "self-serving" raise serious doubts as to whether the State and the offended party may expect a fair and impartial hearing and determination of the case from him, since seemingly with his erroneous pre-conceptions and predilections, he has adversely prejudged their case as one merely of slight or less serious physical injuries. The case below should therefore be transferred to another court presided by another judge.

People v. Virgilio Bernabe G.R. No. 141811; November 21, 2001 Melo, J. Facts: On October 29, 1998, around 1:30 o' clock in the morning, Maria Esnelia Bernabe was sleeping with her sister in a room of their house located at No. 1919-D Leveriza St., Pasay City, when her father (herein appellant) came home 'bangag' or very drunk. Appellant entered said room, approached Maria Esnelia and started kissing her nape as well as other parts of her body. Then, appellant removed her panty and inserted his penis into her vagina. She resisted by pushing him but to no avail. Appellant succeeded in satisfying his beastly desires on his own daughter just like what happened in the previous years starting 1994. At 2:00 o'clock in the morning of the same day, she was accompanied by her aunts to the Pasay City police headquarters, where she lodged a complaint for rape against appellant and executed a sworn statement. At 4:00 o'clock in the morning, policemen came to Maria Esnelia's house and arrested appellant. The trial court found accused guilty and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of death. Issue: Whether or not the trial court erred in sentencing the accused to suffer the penalty of death. Held: Yes. Before the death penalty can be properly imposed for the crime of rape in accordance with Republic Act No. 7659, an allegation of the complainant's age as well as filial relationship with the accused is essential. Both minority and actual relationship between the parties must be alleged and proved, otherwise, barred is any conviction for rape in its qualified form. In the case at bar, while the Information alleged both the minority of the victim and her relationship with appellant, the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age when it presented only the baptismal certificate of Maria Esnelia and not her birth certificate. It is elementary that a baptismal certificate only proves the fact of baptism but not the circumstances of birth. Without essential proof on the matter of the date of birth of complainant, or other convincing evidence in the absence thereof, we cannot rule with certainty whether Maria Esnelia was indeed a minor at the time of the commission of the crime, especially so because she does not appear to be obviously a minor, as she allegedly was already 17 years old at the time of the assault. Verily, with our young girls now looking, acting, and dressing up more maturely, one would be hard put to conclude with any measure of certainty, that a budding lass is 13 or 18 years of age.

Case Digest on PEOPLE v. CASTANITO GANO G.R. No. 134373 February 28, 2001 Accused was convicted of the crime of robbery with homicide, and sentenced to the penalty of death. The core issue now before us is whether the three (3) killings should be appreciated as separate aggravating circumstances to warrant the imposition of the penalty of death. HELD: The SC found the accused guilty of robbery with homicide, but imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua. It should be noted that there is no law providing that the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances. It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an anomalous situation where from the standpoint of the gravity of the offens e, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the statute. case digests, case digests of supreme court decisions, case digests Philippines, mobile phone deals, laptop computers, gadgets, free legal opinion, online jobs, best law firms in Mindanao

People v. Castanito Gano G.R. No. 134373; February 28, 2001 Bellosillo, J. Facts: Castanito Gano a.k.a. Allan Perez, a former employee of Ponciano Salen in the latters bakery. The former was tagged as the culprit in the "massacre" of his family. Ponciano Salen, Anicia Salen, and their daughter Conchita were brutally murdered. Issue: Whether or not the aggravating circumstance of dwelling should be appreciated as to warrant the imposition of the penalty of death. Held: No. Secs. 8 and 9 of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. Sec. 8. Designation of the offense. - The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. Sec. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in the terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. Pursuant to the aforequoted amended provisions, the Rules now require that the information or complaint allege not only the qualifying but the aggravating circumstances as well, otherwise, the same cannot be properly appreciated. Guided by the consecrated rule that when a penal statute, substantive and remedial or procedural, is favorable to the accused, the courts shall give it a retroactive application and so we must in this case as the Information does not allege dwelling as an aggravating circumstance.

People v. Sanico Nuevo G.R. No. 132169; October 26, 2001 Quisumbing, J. Facts: Roberta Cido recalled that at about 9:00 oclock in the evening of December 4, 1994, Sanico Nuevo passed by their house and invited her husband Anselmo Cido, Jr., to a drinking spree at the house of Anselmo, Sr., her father-in-law. She was left at home with her 10-month-old daughter and her nineyear-old niece. At around 11:00 P.M., appellant surreptitiously returned and entered their room. She was awakened when appellant held her neck, pinned down her arms and took off her clothing.. While she was lying on her back, appellant laid on top of her and proceeded to forcibly have sexual intercourse with her, at the same time pinning her down with a bolo. As this was happening her niece Gemma, who was present, witnessed what was being done to her. He thereafter left the house. Although Roberta testified on cross-examination, that she did not see him because it was very dark that night, she identified him through his voice. She was certain it was he because she was very familiar with appellants voice. Not only have they been neighbors since childhood, she also heard the appellant when he invited her husband earlier that evening, and when he warned her and her niece not to tell anyone what happened. The Trial Court ruled in favor of Plaintiff Cido. Issue: Whether or not the appellant was sufficiently identified by hte offended party based only on her regnition of hte sound of his voice. Held: Yes.Once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. In a number of cases, we ruled that the sound of the voice of a person is an acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused knew each other personally and closely for a number of years.. Appellant did not deny that he and Roberta had known each other since childhood and that appellant and Robertas husband were "barkada."It is not impossible then that complainant could immediately recognize appellant through his voice alone. In addition, appellants face was very near the victim such that the victim could not have misidentified him, even only by voice recognition. Considering the circumstances in this case, in the light of the testimony by the victim and her witnesses as well as of those for the defense, the trial court correctly concluded that Roberta had sufficiently identified appellant as the person who raped her, by means of force, violence and intimidation, against her will and without her consent. Appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

People v. Eduardo Yaoto G.R. No. 136317-18; Novmeber 22, 2001 Ynares-Santiago, J. Facts: At 3:00 in the afternoon of June 2, 1997, seventeen-year old Angeline Yaoto and her father, herein accused-appellant Eduardo Yaoto, were the only persons left in the house of Angelina's grandmother. Accused-appellant suddenly hit Angeline with a belt, then tied her hands to the sofa with a piece of rope, removed her shorts, panties, blouse and bra. When Angeline was completely naked, accused-appellant had sexual intercourse with her. Angeline's resistance proved futile as accused-appellant easily overpowered her. At 10:00 in the morning of June 7, 1997, Angeline was sleeping in the sala when accused-appellant lay down beside her, touched her thighs and whispered his intention to have sexual intercourse with her again. Just like the first time, he mauled her but this time, he tied her feet when she refused. When accused-appellant fell asleep after the intercourse, Angeline seized the opportunity to escape. She proceeded to the Valenzuela Police Station, where she narrated her ordeal at the hands of her father, causing the police authorities to apprehend accused-appellant. The trial court rendered a decision finding the accused guilty beyong reasonable doubt of the crime of rape.He was sentenced the penalty of death. Issue: Whether or not the penalty of death is proper in the case at bar. Held: No.While the qualifying circumstance of minority was alleged in the two Informations, accusedappellant's relationship with Angeline was not. The failure to allege in the information the relationship of the victim to the offender concurrently with the minority of the victim bars accusedappellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form. The requisite for the 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 adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution.