PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOSE BRONIOLA @ "ASOT"
G.R. No. 211027 June 29, 2015
Facts:
AAA, a Grade VI pupil, left her house for school in the morning of February 28, 2000. She did not return home that day. Her lifeless body was found on February 29, 2000 in a grassy lot near an uninhabited farm hut at Cotabato. The accused, armed with a bolo (Lagaraw), had a carnal knowledge with [AAA], minor, 13 years old, against her will, that after the occasion, accused with intent to kill, attack, assault, hack and use physical violence to the victim, thus inflicting upon her hack wounds on the different parts of her body, which is the direct and proximate cause of her death.
G.R. No. 211027 June 29, 2015
Facts:
AAA, a Grade VI pupil, left her house for school in the morning of February 28, 2000. She did not return home that day. Her lifeless body was found on February 29, 2000 in a grassy lot near an uninhabited farm hut at Cotabato. The accused, armed with a bolo (Lagaraw), had a carnal knowledge with [AAA], minor, 13 years old, against her will, that after the occasion, accused with intent to kill, attack, assault, hack and use physical violence to the victim, thus inflicting upon her hack wounds on the different parts of her body, which is the direct and proximate cause of her death.
Issue:
Whether or not, Abag, the accused, is guilty of rape with homicide
Ruling:
The felony of rape with homicide is a special complex crime that is, two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. In rape with homicide, the following elements must concur:
(1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and
(3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed the woman.
Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. As the Court held in People v. Pascua: It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, the Court has held that the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally not witnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for herself. It becomes even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.
Section 4, Rule 133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth the requirements of circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for conviction, viz:
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
As regards the penalty imposed, R.A. No. 8353 provides:
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
ART. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
Whether or not, Abag, the accused, is guilty of rape with homicide
The felony of rape with homicide is a special complex crime that is, two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible and unique offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. In rape with homicide, the following elements must concur:
(1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and
(3) by reason or on occasion of such carnal knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, the appellant killed the woman.
Direct evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. As the Court held in People v. Pascua: It is settled that in the special complex crime of rape with homicide, both the rape and the homicide must be established beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard, the Court has held that the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is generally not witnessed and very often only the victim is left to testify for herself. It becomes even more difficult when the complex crime of rape with homicide is committed because the victim could no longer testify. Thus, in crimes of rape with homicide, as here, resort to circumstantial evidence is usually unavoidable.
Circumstantial evidence consists of proof of collateral facts and circumstances from which the existence of the main fact may be inferred according to reason and common experience.
Section 4, Rule 133, of the Revised Rules of Evidence, as amended, sets forth the requirements of circumstantial evidence that is sufficient for conviction, viz:
SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. – Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if:
(a) There is more than one circumstance;
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
As regards the penalty imposed, R.A. No. 8353 provides:
ART. 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed. – Rape is committed –
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
ART. 266-B. Penalties. – Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
On the other hand, Section 2 of R.A. No. 9346 or "An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of
Death Penalty in the Philippines" provides:
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Furthermore, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides, "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."
(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.
Furthermore, Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346 provides, "[p]ersons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended."
(SOURCE: PALS 2016, Prepared by: Dean Gemy Lito L. Festin and the students of Polytechnic University of the Philippines)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment