Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
FACTS:
On or about of March 1997, accused
Roberto Remiendo y Siblawan, did then
and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have carnal knowledge of
AAA, a girl below 12 years of age. The
same thing happened on the month of
May of the same year.
The complainant was a minor below
12 years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense, having been
born on February 16, 1986. Sometime in
March 1997, AAA was sexually abused in
her house by the accused. In May 1197,
AAA was again sexually abused by the
accused which took place in the house of
the latter.
Dr. Ronald R. Bandonilli, Medico-Legal
Officer,
physically
examined
the
complainant on January 2, 1998. He
testified that AAA, upon examination of
her genital area, found old lacerations of
the hymen, which meant that her hymen
was altered by a hard rigid instrument.
The lacerations were done more than
three
(3)
months
prior
to
the
examination. He also noted that the
vagina walls were lax and the ridges
inside were smothered.
Dr. Elsie I. Caducoy, a psychiatrist,
conducted an examination of the mental
condition of the complainant. The result
showed that AAA is suffering from
psychosis and organicity.
Having
psychosis meant that her brain is
afflicted with a disease. Organicity, on
the other hand, means that AAA suffers
from a cloud of memory, upward rolling
of the eyeballs, stiffening of the
extremities, loss of consciousness and
epileptic seizures, in which her psychosis
occurs after having a seizure.
The
psychiatrist also opined that during the
rape, she did not have a seizure because
if she had, she would not have
appellants
agricultural
facility.
confinement
in
an
camp or other training
PEOPLE vs BAYOTAS
G.R. No. 102007
September 2, 1994
ROMERO, J.:
By: Michelle Alaba
Facts: Rogelio Bayotas was charged and
eventually convicted with rape by the
trial court. Pending appeal of his
conviction, Bayotas died due to cardiac
arrest. The Supreme Court dismissed the
criminal aspect of the appeal. However,
it required the Solicitor General (SG) to
file its comment with regard to Bayotas'
civil liability arising from his commission
of the offense charged. The SG said that
the death of Rogelio did not extinguish
his civil liability as a result of his
commission of the offense charged.
Issue: Whether or not the death of the
Rogelio pending appeal of his conviction
extinguishes his civil liability
Held:
Yes,
the
civil
liability
is
extinguished.
Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that by death of the convict
personal liabilities are extinguished, as to
pecuniary penalties liability therefore is
extinguished only when the death of the
offender occurs before final judgment.
HELD:
quasi
offenses
already
Held:
Pursuant to Article 90 of the Revised
Penal
Code,
reckless
imprudence
resulting in slight physical injuries, being
a light felony, prescribes in two
months. On the other hand, reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to
property in the amount of P8,542.00,
being a less grave felony whose penalty
is arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods, prescribes in five years.
To resolve the issue of whether
these quasi offenses
have
already
prescribed, it is necessary to determine
whether the filing of the complaint with
the fiscals office three days after the
incident in question tolled the running of
the prescriptive period.
Article 91 of the Revised Penal Code
provides:
ART. 91. Computation of prescription of
offenses. -- The period of prescription
shall commence to run from the day on
which the crime is discovered by the
offended party, the authorities, or their
agents, and shall be interrupted by the
filing of the complaint or information,
and shall commence to run again when
such proceedings terminate without the
accused being convicted or acquitted, or
are unjustifiably stopped by any reason
not imputable to him.
Thus, the prescriptive period for the
quasi
offenses
in
question
was
interrupted by the filing of the complaint
with the fiscals office three days after the
vehicular mishap and remained tolled
pending the termination of this case. We
cannot, therefore, uphold petitioners
defense of prescription of the offenses
charged in the information in this case.
Cabral v. Puno
PEOPLE v. MANEJA
G.R. No. L-47684
June 10, 1941
Moran, J.:
By: Gridlin Matilac
FACTS:
Dionisio Maneja was charged of false
testimony. He did such act on 1933. The
case he testifed to became final in 1938.
Maneja contends that his offense has
prescribed.
ISSUE:
Whether the crime has prescribed.
RULING:
The
SC
ruled
that
the
period
of prescripton shall start from the day
the crime was discovered by the
offended party, the authorities or their
agents. With false testimony, it is not
an actionable offense until the case is
decided. For one to be judged of falsely
testifying, there should a decision on the
case he testified to. In short, there is
no prescription present yet.The SC
reversed the dismissal and remanded it
to the court of origin