PEOPLE v RUALES, G.R. No.

149810 August 28, 2003, YNARES-SANTIAGO Facts: This case is an appeal from RTC of General Santos City, Branch 22. Appellant Crispin T. Ruales was charged of statutory rape where complainant, an eight year old, Emalyn A. Lusin was raped by the same on August 27, 1992 in General Santos City. The court rendered judgment where the appellant is found guilty with statutory rape and sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua and indemnity. Hence, this appeal. Issue: Whether the appellant is liable for statutory rape or not. Ruling: After a careful review of the facts and circumstances duly proved in the case at bar, the Supreme Court find that appellant can only be convicted of simple rape, and not statutory rape, because of the failure of the prosecution to prove by independent proof the minority of the victim. Age of the victim is an essential element in the crime of statutory rape and must be indubitably proved by the prosecution. Failure to prove the age of the victim beyond reasonable doubt, appellant cannot be convicted of statutory rape. (People v. Pine, G.R. No. 133441, 29 November 2000, 346 SCRA 383, 394[CASE LAW]). Wherefore, the decision rendered by the RTC of statutory rape be modified to simple rape with penalty of reclusion perpetua and indemnity.

Peoplev. Barrientos, etl al.,G.R. No. 133892 August 12, 2003, VITUG, J Facts: Boy, Imbong, Nene, Moran, Longno, appellants, were charged of robbery with homicide before the RTC of Negros Occidental, Branch 60. On May 23, 1991 at Negros Occidental the above mentioned conspired and killed Danilo Malata, deceased, and stole his motor tricycle which was owned by Erna Tancinco. Issue: Whether or not there was robbery with homicide. Ruling: The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of conviction. The crime of robbery with homicide, penalized under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code, requires proof that (a) the taking of personal property is done through violence or intimidation against persons or force upon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the taking is done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) the commission of homicide (in its generic sense) occurs on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof. (People v. Dinamling, G.R. No. 134605, 12 March 2002[CASE LAW]) There must be an intimate connection between the robbery and the killing but, once shown, it matters not whether both crimes be committed at the same time or one be prior or subsequent to the other.

Lim v. and then shot him inflicting fatal wounds which caused the latter’s death. 1997. No.R.. 22. the victim was not in a position to defend himself. and accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means. That on or about July 3. the victim had no weapon with which to defend himself. C. 14. accused. par. appellant waited for deceased to turn around before shooting him. People. JR. this appeal which is grounded on the lone assignment of error that the lower court gravely erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance of treachery Issue: Whether treachery is present in the murder committed. 2003. petitioner seeks to dissolve the decision of CA affirming RTC’s decision which found petitioner guilty of twelve counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. as testified by witness. Indeed. 1993 before RTC of Quezon City in which allegations that accused issued a check to Robert T. Lu which was consequently dishonored by the bank for Account Closed . No. 148519. methods or forms of the attack employed by him . appellant cannot claim that the shooting was not deliberate. Hence. 2001. G. DAVIDE. with intent to kill and with evident premeditation and treachery.J. In the case at bar. Hence. Alberto Lim. The RTC found the appellant guilty of murder. Branch 27 convicting appellant of murder. Ruling: To justify a finding of treachery. With that gap of time. It held that the killing was aggravated by treachery. deceased. G. There was a lapse of time between the argument and the shooting. 16. G. wilfully.R. Twelve information of violation of PB 22 was filed against Alberto on July 15. WILLIE ALMEDILLA y ARCILLA. Cabical.R. Facts: In a petition for certiorari.[CASE LAW]) What is decisive in treachery is that the execution of the attack made it impossible for the victim to defend himself or retaliate. it is clear that deceased was shot while not in a position to defend himself.( Art. Revised Penal Code. PUNO Facts: This is a case from the decision of RTC of Manila. attacked RUEL BORELA y TAUY. No. People v. 29 May 2003.PEOPLE v. Arcilla. unlawfully and feloniously. decision of RTC AFFIRMED. it must be shown that at the time of the attack. 150590 August 21. 143231 October 26.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful