Anda di halaman 1dari 5

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

DOMINADOR GAVARRA Y GARRA defendant-appellant.

YAP, J.:
Accused Dominador Gavarra with the crime of Rape with Murder, alleged to have been committed.
the said accused, by means of violence and intimidation, had sexual intercourse with one Celerina
Lepiten Leyco, an eight year old girl, by forcibly dragging her to an uninhabited place, and after
having sexual intercourse with her against her will, the said accused, with treachery and evident
premeditation, hacked her with a bolo, inflicting upon her injuries which caused her instant death.
The court rendered judgment, finding him guilty of the complex crime of attempted rape with
homicide and sentencing him to "the supreme penalty of death; to indemnify the heirs of the
deceased Celerina Lepiten Leyco in the amount of Twelve Thousand (P12,000.00) Pesos; and to
pay the costs."
This case is before us on automatic review in view of the death penalty imposed by the court.
In regard to the charge for Rape, the Court finds that it is not substantiated by evidence. The
necropsy report (Exh. "A") clearly discounts the possibility of consummated rape; but because of the
confession of accused Dominador Gavarra taken jointly with the testimony of Dr. Adolfo J.
Camposano that the slight congestion could have been caused by an attempt of a male organ to
penetrate the vagina, we conclude that the crime of attempted rape was committed by the accused
on the Victim Celerina Layco.
We hold that the only crime the accused can be found guilty of committing is murder.
It is clear that in killing an 8-year old defenseless girl, he did so with treachery, taking advantage of
his superior strength. He is therefore guilty of murder. In view of the abolition of the death penalty
under Section 19, Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, the penalty that may be imposed for murder is
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. Since in the instant case, no
aggravating or mitigating circumstances have been shown or proven, the penalty that should be
imposed is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. Applying the indeterminate sentence law, the
minimum term to which the accused may be sentenced should be within the range of the penalty
next lower in degree, i.e., reclusion temporal in its medium and minimum period

People vs Masangkay
Said accused confederating together and helping one another assault and stab with a knife
one Ely Verano, hitting the latter on the different parts of the body, thereby inflicting wounds which
caused his death."
Pursuant to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, the imposable penalty should
be reclusion perpetua, as imposed by the Trial Court. However, with the abolition of capital
punishment in the 1987 Constitution, the penalty for Murder is now reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
For purposes of the indeterminate Sentence Law, the range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code for the offense is prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its medium period, or, from ten (10) years and one (1) day to seventeen (17)
years and four (4) months.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

FELICIANO MUOZ, alias "Tony", et al., accused, MARVIN MILLORA, TOMAS TAYABA, alias
"Tamy Tayaba" and JOSE MISLANG, defendants-appellants.
Of the four persons convicted in this case, one has not appealed and thus impliedly accepted
his sentence. The others have questioned their conviction and insist that they are innocent. The
prosecution did not think so, and neither does the Solicitor General now. The brief for the appellee
would affirm the finding of guilt and in fact even increase the penalty
The prosecution presented a bizarre case of arbitrary condemnation and instant punishment
meted out by what appear to be the members of a private army. Eleven persons, most of them
bodyguards of the town mayor, went out in a jeep at the behest of one of them who had complained
of having been victimized by cattle rustlers. Having found their supposed quarry, they proceeded to
execute each one of them in cold blood without further ado and without mercy. One was shot in the
mouth and died instantly as his son and daughter looked on in horror. The second was forced to lie
down on the ground and then shot twice, also in the head, before his terrified wife and son. The
third, who was only sixteen years old, was kicked in the head until he bled before he too had his
brains blown out. To all appearances, the unfortunate victims were only innocent farmers and not the
dangerous criminals they were pronounced to be.
The penalty for murder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death, but this was modified by Article III, Section 19(l) of the 1987 Constitution
providing as follows:
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Conformably, the Court has since February 2, 1987 not imposed the death penalty whenever it was
called for under the said article but instead reduced the same to reclusion perpetua as mandated by
the above provision. The maximum period of the penalty was thus in effect lowered to the medium,
the same period applied, as before, where the offense was not attended by any modifying
circumstance, with the minimum period, i. e.,reclusion temporal maximum, being still applicable in all
other cases. The three-grade scheme of the original penalty, including death, was thus maintained
except that the maximum period was not imposed because of the constitutional prohibition.

People vs Idnay
accused-appellant Rizal Idnay y Batara, entered the restaurant of Nicolas Bautista at Badoc, Ilocos
Norte He met some companions in the restaurant and drank beer with them. Appellant remained up
to about 5:00 to 6:00 o'clock in the afternoon. When people came to the restaurant to drink,
appellant would sit and drink with them. When the drinks were finished, he would order beer and
"pulotan" but would not pay for what he had ordered. Instead, he forced others to pay for the bills.
Noting this, Nicolas Bautista, the restaurant owner talked to him in a nice manner to leave the
restaurant. But since and forcibly took him out. Outside, appellant threatened Bautista with the
words: "You wait, I will come back and kill one among you."
About ten (10) minutes later, from inside the restaurant, Bautista heard the crying of a child and
instructed his son, Benedicto, to look for his five-year old brother, Ronald, as he thought that it was
Ronald who was crying. Before that, Ronald had taken some empty bottles outside the restaurant to
be placed in a case.
Benedicto saw the appellant with his brother, he then approached and upon touching his brothers
breast, he saw blood. He then rushed Ronald to the hospital but was pronounced dead.
the imposable penalty should be reclusion perpetua, as imposed by the Trial Court.
However, with the abolition of capital punishment in the 1987 Constitution, the penalty for Murder is
now reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua. In the absence of any
modifying circumstances, the penalty is imposable in its medium period