People Vs Lapore People Vs Bernabe People Vs Tolentino

Criminal Law: Case # 85
People of the Philippines vs Darwin Bernabe

GR No. 185726, October 16, 2009
Facts of the case:
On May 26, 2005, accused-appellant killed with treachery and evident premeditation on Jan
Michael Olivio with an iron pipe, causing the latter to fall unconscious, in which state said accused
strangled the victim with a G.I wire, directly causing the death of the victim.
Issue:
Whether treachery and cruelty can be used to qualify the killing of the victim to murder.
Ruling:
Yes. The lower courts correctly appreciated treachery, which qualified the killing of Jan
Michael Olivio to murder. The SC also appreciated the presence of the aggravating circumstance of
cruelty as appellant deliberately and inhumanly augmented the suffering of the victim. The test in
appreciating cruelty is whether the accused deliberately and sadistically augmented the wrong by
causing another wrong not necessary for its commission, or inhumanly increasing the victim’s
suffering or outraged or scoffed at his person or corpse.
Accused was found guilty of murder.
Case # 79
People of the Philippines vs Faustino Tolentino
GR No. L-48740, August 5, 1942
Facts of the case:
Appellant pleaded guilty to the charge of theft of seven shirts valued at P14 belonging to one
Cosnic Famora. Being recidivist, he was sentenced in the Court of First Instance to suffer two months
and one day of arresto mayor and to pay civil indemnity. Appellant was further sentenced to suffer an
additional penalty of six years and one day of prision mayor for habitual delinquency.
The trial court sentenced the appellant under paragraph 5 (b) of article 62 of the Revised
Penal Code, as if this were only his fourth and not his fifth conviction. The Solicitor General
recommends the affirmance of that sentence, on the theory that appellant's fourth previous conviction
alleged in the information should be disregarded because the date of his release in connection
therewith was not shown. On the other hand counsel for the appellant, on the basis of the trial court's
implied finding that this is appellant's fourth conviction, contends that appellant should be sentenced
under paragraph 5 ( a) of article 62, as if the present were only his third conviction, on the ground that
the first conviction should be taken circumstance and should be disregarded as an element of
habitual, delinquency.
Issue:
The only question raised by the appellant is the correctness of the additional penalty.
Ruling:
A habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist, and in imposing the principal penalty upon
him the aggravating circumstance of recidivism has to be taken into account. In fixing the penalty
provided by law for the last crime " as required in paragraph 5 ( a) ( b), and ( c) of article 62 of the
Revised Penal Code, the court cannot disregard articles 14 (9) and Revised Penal Code, which
respectively define recidivism as an aggravating circumstance and lay down the rule for the
application of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. For the purpose of fixing the additional
penalty, recidivism cannot be taken as an aggravating circumstance for the reason it is inherent in
habitual delinquency
It results that this is appellant's fifth conviction, and accordingly, he must be sentenced under
paragraph 5 ( c) of article 62 to the additional penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal in its minimum period. This penalty must be imposed in its minimum degree
because of the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
Case # 71
People of the Philippines vs Rodrigo Lapore
GR No. 191197, June 22, 2015
Facts of the case:
On 1 October 1998, when AAA’s parents went to Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, AAA was left
at their house with her older brother, two (2) younger siblings, and accused-appellant Lapore who
was staying at their house as a guest. One evening Lapore went inside AAA’s room and removed
AAA’s panty. Lapore then removed his underwear and inserted his penis into her vagina. AAA cried.
When she tried to shout, Lapore pointed a knife at her neck and threatened to kill her. With his penis
still insider her vagina, Lapore made push and pull movements and then left.
On 20 October 1998, AAA reported her ordeal to her parents. When AAA’s parents confronted
Lapore, he admitted to the rape and promised to marry AAA. After the confrontation, Lapore left.
Three (3) months passed. Lapore failed to return. Thus, AAA and her mother reported the incident to
the Barangay Chairman and to the police. AAA was brought to Dr. Josieveline M. Abiog-Damalerio,
the Municipal Health Officer of Quezon, Palawan, for medical examination. On 23 December 1998,
AAA filed the instant criminal complaint for the crime of rape against Lapore.
Issue:
What is the effect of failure to allege the qualifying circumstance in the information.
Ruling:
With regard to the presence of abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness, minority, and
use of a deadly weapon, we affirm the ruling of the Court of Appeals. Although the prosecution has
duly proved the presence of abuse of confidence and obvious ungratefulness, minority, and use of a
deadly weapon, they may not be appreciated to qualify the crime from simple rape to qualified rape.
Sec. 8 and 9 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provide that for qualifying and aggravating
circumstance to be appreciated, it must be alleged in the complaint or information. This is in line with
the constitutional right of an accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against
him. Even if the prosecution has duly proven the presence of the circumstances, the court cannot
appreciate the same if they were not alleged in the information.
Therefore, as all the elements necessary to sustain a conviction for simple rape are present:
(1) that Lapore had carnal knowledge of AAA; and (2) that said act was accomplished through the
use of force or intimidation, we find Lapore guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of simple
rape.

People Vs Lapore People Vs Bernabe People Vs Tolentino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Lapore People Vs Bernabe People Vs Tolentino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Lapore People Vs Bernabe People Vs Tolentino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law: Case # 85

People of the Philippines vs Darwin Bernabe

You might also like