Title: People vs Leuterio Name of Digester: Fred Bucu

G.R. No 146458 Date: January 20, 2003 Ponente:

Subject / Syllabus Topic: PROSPECTIVITY

Petitioner: People of The Philippines Respondent: Capt. Marcial

Llanto y Leuterio
Doctrine (if applicable):

Recit Summary: Cristy Balisi was raped and threatened by his uncle Marcial Llanto y Leuterio in
November 12, 1999. The next day, she went to her aunt Dolores Balisti and told her what happened. She
was brought to the NBI to fill a complaint sheet and get examined by a doctor. The doctor said her
hymen was still intact but argued that even after penetration, hymens can still be intact. Cristy said she
had been raped by Balisi many times. The court had decided that the death penalty must be meted out to
the accused. The higher court had decided to modify the decision saying that reclusion perpetua is the
rightful penalty. After the rape was done in 1999, the Revise Rules of Criminal Court took effect on
December 2000 which required both qualifying and aggravating circumstance to be alleged in the
information. This reduction of the level of penalty, regardless of the 1-year gap, was possible due to Art.
22 of the RPC allowing penal laws to have retroactive effect as they favorable the person guilty of felony.
Meaning that since Cristy and Leuterio’s relationship was not specified in Art. 266-b, death penalty
cannot be applied anymore to the accused. Accused was still made to a total of 100,000 php for civil
indemnity and moral damages.
Facts:
 Cristy Balisi was born in 1986. In 1995, she was taken care of accused, Capt. Marcial Llanto y
Leuterio, and his wife Felicitas Balisi Llanto, the sister of Cristy’s mother. They lived in Clark
Airbase, then in Cebu, and transferred in Pasay City. On November 12, 1999, she was raped and
threatened with a knife by Leuterio. According to Cristy, she had already been violated by the
accused 3 times a week when they lived in Cebu. The next day, November 13, 1999, Cristy went
to Dolores Balisi, sister of the accused’s wife, who brought Cristy to the NBI where she executed
a sworn statement and filled out a complaint sheet. She was examined by Dr. Annabelle and
found that her hymen was still intact. The accused stated that Cristy often stole money and was
actually conspiring and corroborating with her Mother, Gertrudes Tullawan to try and extort his
500,000 php retirement benefits. The trial court dismissed the accused’s testimonies and deemed
that a rape did happen as opposed to what the accused was saying on the grounds that a
woman’s hymen can still be intact after penetration if the hymen is tall, thick, and elastic. The
trial court upheld the version of the prosecution and sentenced the accused to the supreme
penalty of death. Hence, the case before us on automatic review.

Issue/s: Ruling:
- W/N the supreme penalty of death is the rightful penalty - Affirmed the trial court with
the MODIFICATION that the
accused-appellant is found guilty
of the crim of simple rape and
sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, paying the
victim a total of 100,000 php for
civil indemnity and moral
damages.
Holding:
No. The trial court erred when it meted out to the accused the supreme penalty of death under Article
266- B of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the death penalty shall be imposed when “the
victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, a step-parent, guardian,
relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of
the parent victim.”

The last rape was done on November 12, 1999 when Cristy was 12 years old by his uncle Leuterio.

The Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which took effect on December 1, 2000, require BOTH
qualifying and aggravating circumstances to be alleged in the information. (Sec. 8 & Sec. 9)

While the rape in the case at bar was committed on November 12, 1999, the court shall give retroactive
application to Secs. 8 & 9 (requiring both qualifying and aggravating circumstances), as they are favorable
to the accused (Art. 22- Retroactive effect of Penal Laws)

The allegation that the accused is the “uncle” of the victim and the latter is his “niece” is not SPECIFIC
ENOUGH to satisfy the special QUALIFYING circumstance of relationship under Art. 266-B.

The prosecution failed to corroborate Cristy’s testimony that the accused is her uncle, being the husband
of her father’s sister. Consequently, because of the defect in the information, the accused can only be
held liable for simple rape.

Separate Opinions:

Notes: Since Cristy’s uncle, Leuterio, is just her father’s sister’s husband, their relationship was not
specified in the QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE under Art. 266-B. Since this qualifying circumstance
is needed to convict Leuterio of rape with the death penalty, but the above statement hindered it so, his
sentence was reduced to life imprisonment. Even if the rape was done in 1999 and the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure (requiring BOTH qualifying & aggravating circumstance under Art. 266-B) took
effect on the year 2000, Article 22 of the RPC allows penal laws to have retroactive application as they are
favorable to the accused.