Você está na página 1de 1

GR No.

185716, Sep 29, 2010


PEOPLE v. MIGUELITO MALANA Y LARDISABAY

FACTS:
MIGUELITO MALANA y LARDISABAY, accused-appellant, was charged with two (2) counts of qualified rape,
penalized under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan,
Branch 13. Accused of raping his own 12-year-old daughter on separate instances, accused-appellant was instead
convicted of simple rape by the trial court in both criminal cases, sentencing him with the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
On automatic review, the RTC Decision[1] was affirmed, with modification, by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE:
Is the conviction of the defendant of simple rape correct?

HELD:
YES. The twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify
the crime of rape. In the instant case, only relationship was duly alleged and proved. Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure now provide that aggravating as well as qualifying circumstances must be alleged in
the information and proven during trial, otherwise they cannot be considered against the accused. Thus, the same
cannot be used to impose the higher penalty of capital punishment on accused-appellant. Thus, accused-appellant
should be convicted of simple rape only and sentenced accordingly to reclusion perpetua in each case.

GR No. 106283, Jun 01, 1995


PEOPLE v. RICHARD VALLENA

FACTS:
Richard Vallena alias "Boboy" was charged with rape in an Information filed with the Regional Trial Court of Irosin,
Sorsogon, alleging that at about eight o'clock in the evening of 16 June 1986, with the use of a sharp bladed instrument
to threaten Gemma Gadbilao, he had carnal knowledge of her against her will. The trial court found the testimony of the
offended party credible, convicted Vallena as charged, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay Gemma
Gadbilao P30,000.00 as moral damages.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the mistress theory can be used as a defense of the accused.

HELD:
NO. Accused claims that the truth of the matter is that she was his mistress and that their sexual encounters
were with their mutual consent and spontaneous participation. The Court is not persuaded with his "mistress theory"
which we find a mere concoction in order to exculpate him from criminal liability. Except as to his uncorroborated and
self-serving testimony, accused-appellant was never able to prove that she was indeed his mistress. The allegation on
such relationship is not lightly accepted. Furthermore, if she had voluntarily consented to have sex with him her most
natural reaction would have been to conceal it or keep silent as this would bring disgrace to her honor and reputation as
well as to her family.

Você também pode gostar