People vs Jaime Jose
y Gomez, et al.
G.R. No. L-28232
February 6, 1971
G.R. No. L-28232
February 6, 1971
Case Digest of Criminal Cases
Digested Cases
Facts:
On June 26, 1967, four (4) principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., alias “Boy”, Eduardo Aquino Alias “Eddie” and Rogelio Cañal; together with Wong Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon and Jessie Guion as accomplices, conspired together, confederated with and mutually helped one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena “Maggie” de la Riva, 25 years old and single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.
Wherefore, the court finds that the accomplices Pueng, Guanzon and Guion, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against them, the Motion to Dismiss filed for and in their behalf is hereby granted, and the case dismissed against them.
(Facts of this case are too descriptive. I’d rather not include much details on the scene of the crime to protect the complainant’s repute).
Issue:
(a) What kind of rape was committed?
Held:
Undoubtedly, rape is that which is punishable by the penalty reclusion perpetua to death, under paragraph 3, Article 335, as amended by Republic Act 4111 which took effect on June 20, 1964. Under the law, rape is committed by having canal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) by using force and intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason and otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the rape is committed the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the crimes committed, and the latter is the more serious; hence, pursuant to the provision of Art 48 of the RPC, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period. Consequently, the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this regard, there is hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating circumstances, for the same would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed.
However, said crime as attended with the following aggravating circumstances: (a) nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes; (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another; (c) ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complaint to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for ten minutes before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating; and (d) the use of motor vehicle.
Of the three principal-appellants (Jose, Aquino and Cañal), none of them may claim aggravating circumstances has been offset by the mitigating circumstance. Appellant Pineda should, however, be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a factor which does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining.
Insofar as the car used in the commission of the crime is concerned, the order of the court a quo for its confiscation is hereby set aside; and whoever is in custody thereof is hereby ordered to deliver its possession to intervenor Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation in accordance with the judgment of the First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 69993 thereof.
Before the actual promulgation of the decision, the Court received a formal manifestation on the part of the Solicitor general to the effect that Rogelio Cañal, one of the herein appellants, died in prison on December 28, 1970. As a result, the case is dismissed as to him alone, and only insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, with one-fourth (1/4) of the costs declared de officio.
Wherefore, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: Jaime G. Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Eduardo P. Aquino are pronounced GUILTY of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each and every one of them likewise convicted of three (3) of the crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby sentenced to four (4) death penalties; all of them shall jointly and severally, indemnify the complainant of the sum of P10,000.00 in each of the four crimes, or a total of 40,000.00; and each shall pay one-fourth of the costs.
Digested Cases
Facts:
On June 26, 1967, four (4) principal-accused Jaime Jose, Basilio Pineda Jr., alias “Boy”, Eduardo Aquino Alias “Eddie” and Rogelio Cañal; together with Wong Lay Pueng, Silverio Guanzon and Jessie Guion as accomplices, conspired together, confederated with and mutually helped one another, then and there, to willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd design to forcibly abduct Magdalena “Maggie” de la Riva, 25 years old and single, a movie actress by profession at the time of the incident, where the four principal accused, by means of force and intimidation using a deadly weapon, have carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will, and brought her to the Swanky Hotel in Pasay City, and hence committed the crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape.
Wherefore, the court finds that the accomplices Pueng, Guanzon and Guion, on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against them, the Motion to Dismiss filed for and in their behalf is hereby granted, and the case dismissed against them.
(Facts of this case are too descriptive. I’d rather not include much details on the scene of the crime to protect the complainant’s repute).
Issue:
(a) What kind of rape was committed?
Held:
Undoubtedly, rape is that which is punishable by the penalty reclusion perpetua to death, under paragraph 3, Article 335, as amended by Republic Act 4111 which took effect on June 20, 1964. Under the law, rape is committed by having canal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) by using force and intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason and otherwise unconscious; and (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present. The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. Whenever the rape is committed the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
As regards, therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, the first of the crimes committed, and the latter is the more serious; hence, pursuant to the provision of Art 48 of the RPC, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in its maximum period. Consequently, the appellants should suffer the extreme penalty of death. In this regard, there is hardly any necessity to consider the attendance of aggravating circumstances, for the same would not alter the nature of the penalty to be imposed.
However, said crime as attended with the following aggravating circumstances: (a) nighttime, appellants having purposely sought such circumstance to facilitate the commission of these crimes; (b) abuse of superior strength, the crime having been committed by the four appellants in conspiracy with one another; (c) ignominy, since the appellants in ordering the complaint to exhibit to them her complete nakedness for ten minutes before raping her, brought about a circumstance which tended to make the effects of the crime more humiliating; and (d) the use of motor vehicle.
Of the three principal-appellants (Jose, Aquino and Cañal), none of them may claim aggravating circumstances has been offset by the mitigating circumstance. Appellant Pineda should, however, be credited with the mitigating circumstance of voluntary plea of guilty, a factor which does not in the least affect the nature of the proper penalties to be imposed, for the reason that there would still be three aggravating circumstances remaining.
Insofar as the car used in the commission of the crime is concerned, the order of the court a quo for its confiscation is hereby set aside; and whoever is in custody thereof is hereby ordered to deliver its possession to intervenor Filipinas Investment & Finance Corporation in accordance with the judgment of the First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 69993 thereof.
Before the actual promulgation of the decision, the Court received a formal manifestation on the part of the Solicitor general to the effect that Rogelio Cañal, one of the herein appellants, died in prison on December 28, 1970. As a result, the case is dismissed as to him alone, and only insofar as his criminal liability is concerned, with one-fourth (1/4) of the costs declared de officio.
Wherefore, the judgment under review is hereby modified as follows: Jaime G. Jose, Basilio Pineda, Jr., and Eduardo P. Aquino are pronounced GUILTY of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, and each and every one of them likewise convicted of three (3) of the crimes of rape. As a consequence thereof, each of them is hereby sentenced to four (4) death penalties; all of them shall jointly and severally, indemnify the complainant of the sum of P10,000.00 in each of the four crimes, or a total of 40,000.00; and each shall pay one-fourth of the costs.
