You are on page 1of 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPPINES vs.

ROBERTO QUIACHON
G.R. No. 170236 August 31, 2006
Justice Callejo, Sr.
FACTS:
Appellant Roberto Quiachon was charged with the crime of qualified rape. On or about May
12, 21, the accused, by means of force and intimidation had se!ual intercourse with one Rowena
Quiachon, his daughter, " years old, a deaf#mute minor. Rowel recounted that on the night of May
12, 21, Rowel saw his father on top of his sister Rowena and they were co$ered by a blan%et or
&%umot.& 'is father(s buttoc%s were mo$ing up and down, and Rowel could hear Rowena crying. 'e
could not do anything because he was afraid of their father. Rowel remained in the room but the
following morning, he told his aunt, )armelita Mateo about what he had witnessed. *ogether,
)armelita and Rowel went to the police to report what had transpired.
*he Regional *rial )ourt found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
qualified rape defined and penali+ed under Articles 2,,#A and - of the Re$ised .enal )ode. *he
court imposed death penalty against the accused. *he defense argued that the benefits of RA /01,
should be e!tended to the accused.
ISSUE:
2hether the appellant can benefit from R.A. /01, which abolished the death penalty law.
HELD:
Yes. 3n $iew of the enactment of Republic Act 4R.A.5 6o. /01, on 7une 21, 2, prohibiting
the imposition of the death penalty, the penalty to be meted on appellant is reclusion perpetua in
accordance with 8ection 2 thereof which reads9
8:)*3O6 2. 3n lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed9
4a5 the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law
$iolated ma%es use of the nomenclature of the penalties
of the Re$ised .enal )ode; or
4b5 the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law $iolated does
not ma%e use of the nomenclature of the penalties of the
Re$ised .enal )ode.
*he aforequoted pro$ision of R.A. 6o. /01, is applicable in this case pursuant to the
principle in criminal law, fa$orabilia sunt amplianda adiosa restrigenda. .enal laws which are
fa$orable to accused are gi$en retroacti$e effect. *his principle is embodied under Article 22 of the
Re$ised .enal )ode, which pro$ides as follows9 Retroacti$e effect of penal laws. < .enal laws shall
ha$e a retroacti$e effect insofar as they fa$or the persons guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual
criminal, as this term is defined in Rule = of Article ,2 of this )ode, although at the time of the
publication of such laws, a final sentence has been pronounced and the con$ict is ser$ing the same.
'owe$er, appellant is not eligible for parole because 8ection 0 of R.A. 6o. /01, pro$ides
that &persons con$icted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be
reduced to reclusion perpetua by reason of the law, shall not be eligible for parole.&
Copyright: San Beda College of Law Bar Operations