Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
People vs. Copro
GR No. L-37599, December 29, 1983
FACTS:
Evelita Herrera, a young girl of 14 years, was vending fish. She was accompanied by a younger brother, Wilfredo Herrera who was about 10 years old. People vs. Copro
On the way they met appellant Florentino Copro who manifested his desire to buy fish and invited Evelita and her brother to go to his (Copro's) house under the coconut groves.
Near a gate known in the place as "trangkahan ni Bining," Copro grabbed Evelita, held her arm and left breast and dragged her towards a Sampaloc tree which was some distance away.
Evelita resisted but just the same, she was forcibly dragged by Copro. People vs. Copro
Wilfredo hurriedly went home and reported the matter to his parents.
Read: Cabanas vs. Pilapil
When the accused succeeded in dragging Evelita to the vicinity of the Sampaloc tree, she lost consciousness. People vs. Copro
Regaining it after some time, she felt pain in her private parts and noticed that her panties was beside her.
Before she could put on her panties Copro, with her fan knife poked at Evelita, ordered her to go with him, otherwise, she would be killed.
He forcibly brought Evelita to Sitio Lakdayan Barrio Calwit. People vs. Copro
They passed the house of one Ildefonso Estrellado who refused to accomodate them that night in his house.
Copro then brought Evelita to the house of one Julio Genton who also refused them shelter.
Evelita was then taken to the house of one Leonito Genton who, with his wife, left the house, leaving behind complainant and accused.
Copro threatened and ordered Evelita to take off her clothes, including her panties and to lie down. People vs. Copro
He then took off his clothes and placed himself on top of Evelita who bit him in his right upper arm.
Copro did not react and, instead, persisted in his evil intent until he succeeded in ravishing the young girl despite her resistance.
The next morning, Copro forcibly brought Evelita to the house of one Tomas Herrera.
Tomas Herrera left the place upon request of Copro to buy cigarettes and wine. People vs. Copro
In the meantime, Copro compelled Evelita to lie down and had carnal knowledge with her again against her will.
When Herrera arrived, appellant drank with him.
Thereafter, Herrera was again asked by Copro to buy cigarettes and as soon as Herrera had left, appellant again took off his clothes and the panties of the complainant who was again ravished against her will. People vs. Copro
On all these occasions when Evelita was carnally assaulted by Copro she suffered pain. Evelita pleaded with Copro to release him with the promise that she will not file any complaint against him. Before acceding to her request, appellant made her write, on his dictation, a letter the contents of which are as follows:
“Copro mahal ko, hintayin mo ako sa may kware bukas ng hapon. Aasahan kong hindi mo ako bibiguin kaya't ako darating at maghihintay sa iyo. May mahalagang bagay tayong pag-uusapan.
Ang iyong mahal, Evelita Herrera”
After the letter was thus written, complainant was released with the threat that if she will file a case against him, he would kill her family by dynamite. People vs. Copro
Tomas Herrera accompanied Evelita to the national road where she took a jeepney with the intention of going to town to report the matter to the police.
On the way, she met her sister Percelita who was in another jeepney and together they went to the municipal building to report the incident.
Their parents were already at the police station looking for her.
The appellant denied sexual violations on the complainant. People vs. Copro
Copro claimed that due to his drunkenness he and Evelita slept in the house of Genton until he was awakened by the complainant.
He alleged that it was complainant who ordered her brother to leave them and, thereafter, tried to prevail upon him to take her as her parents are neglecting her.
He could not accede to her request because he had no time, aside from the fact that he had no money.
Further, it is the submission of appellant that Evelita was his sweetheart for over a year previous to this incident and that he had previous carnal knowledge of Evelita three times before. People vs. Copro
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction on account of the defect of the complaint filed by Dionisio Herrera (Father of Evelita Herrera) for rape. People vs. Copro
HELD:
The Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction. People vs. Copro
Appellant contends it was impossible for him to have abducted complainant at a place which is near the gate leading to his residence.
The Court finds it to be without merit.
Fact is, there is sufficient evidence of abuse upon complainant and the place of commission is immaterial. People vs. Copro
That some did notice the unusual situation complainant was in at the time and did not do anything to help her is understandable.
It is the natural reaction of people who did not want to be involved.
Upon her release, however, she immediately reported the matter to the authorities and to her parents.
These actuations, which are part of the res gestae, command strong probative value considering that it was made by the offended party to the persons who, in cases of this nature, were the most logical ones to seek redress from. People vs. Copro
The fact that complainant did not sustain any injury is no argument that she was not abused.
The truth is, she was not given fist blows; but, she was intimidated and threatened with a knife and that was sufficient for a 14 year old girl not to resist at all.
Rape may be committed even if no force was used; intimidation is sufficient, add this includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening a girl with a knife or pistol. People vs. Copro
Furthermore, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the important consideration Being, not the emission of semen, but penetration.
With respect to the fourth assigned error that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the complaint filed with the municipal court did not state that Dionisio Herrera is the father of Evelita Herrera is not tenable. People vs. Copro
It is well-settled that when the offended party is a minor, the father may file a complaint under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
The father has the custody of the person of the minor and owes to her all the legal obligations of maintenance, care and protection growing out of that relationship. People vs. Copro
Read: Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The omission of relationship in the complaint is, if at all, a formal, not a jurisdictional defect.
READ FULL TEXT
GR No. L-37599, December 29, 1983
FACTS:
Evelita Herrera, a young girl of 14 years, was vending fish. She was accompanied by a younger brother, Wilfredo Herrera who was about 10 years old. People vs. Copro
On the way they met appellant Florentino Copro who manifested his desire to buy fish and invited Evelita and her brother to go to his (Copro's) house under the coconut groves.
Near a gate known in the place as "trangkahan ni Bining," Copro grabbed Evelita, held her arm and left breast and dragged her towards a Sampaloc tree which was some distance away.
Evelita resisted but just the same, she was forcibly dragged by Copro. People vs. Copro
Wilfredo hurriedly went home and reported the matter to his parents.
Read: Cabanas vs. Pilapil
When the accused succeeded in dragging Evelita to the vicinity of the Sampaloc tree, she lost consciousness. People vs. Copro
Regaining it after some time, she felt pain in her private parts and noticed that her panties was beside her.
Before she could put on her panties Copro, with her fan knife poked at Evelita, ordered her to go with him, otherwise, she would be killed.
He forcibly brought Evelita to Sitio Lakdayan Barrio Calwit. People vs. Copro
They passed the house of one Ildefonso Estrellado who refused to accomodate them that night in his house.
Copro then brought Evelita to the house of one Julio Genton who also refused them shelter.
Evelita was then taken to the house of one Leonito Genton who, with his wife, left the house, leaving behind complainant and accused.
Copro threatened and ordered Evelita to take off her clothes, including her panties and to lie down. People vs. Copro
He then took off his clothes and placed himself on top of Evelita who bit him in his right upper arm.
Copro did not react and, instead, persisted in his evil intent until he succeeded in ravishing the young girl despite her resistance.
The next morning, Copro forcibly brought Evelita to the house of one Tomas Herrera.
Tomas Herrera left the place upon request of Copro to buy cigarettes and wine. People vs. Copro
In the meantime, Copro compelled Evelita to lie down and had carnal knowledge with her again against her will.
When Herrera arrived, appellant drank with him.
Thereafter, Herrera was again asked by Copro to buy cigarettes and as soon as Herrera had left, appellant again took off his clothes and the panties of the complainant who was again ravished against her will. People vs. Copro
On all these occasions when Evelita was carnally assaulted by Copro she suffered pain. Evelita pleaded with Copro to release him with the promise that she will not file any complaint against him. Before acceding to her request, appellant made her write, on his dictation, a letter the contents of which are as follows:
“Copro mahal ko, hintayin mo ako sa may kware bukas ng hapon. Aasahan kong hindi mo ako bibiguin kaya't ako darating at maghihintay sa iyo. May mahalagang bagay tayong pag-uusapan.
Ang iyong mahal, Evelita Herrera”
After the letter was thus written, complainant was released with the threat that if she will file a case against him, he would kill her family by dynamite. People vs. Copro
Tomas Herrera accompanied Evelita to the national road where she took a jeepney with the intention of going to town to report the matter to the police.
On the way, she met her sister Percelita who was in another jeepney and together they went to the municipal building to report the incident.
Their parents were already at the police station looking for her.
The appellant denied sexual violations on the complainant. People vs. Copro
Copro claimed that due to his drunkenness he and Evelita slept in the house of Genton until he was awakened by the complainant.
He alleged that it was complainant who ordered her brother to leave them and, thereafter, tried to prevail upon him to take her as her parents are neglecting her.
He could not accede to her request because he had no time, aside from the fact that he had no money.
Further, it is the submission of appellant that Evelita was his sweetheart for over a year previous to this incident and that he had previous carnal knowledge of Evelita three times before. People vs. Copro
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court had jurisdiction on account of the defect of the complaint filed by Dionisio Herrera (Father of Evelita Herrera) for rape. People vs. Copro
HELD:
The Municipal Trial Court has jurisdiction. People vs. Copro
Appellant contends it was impossible for him to have abducted complainant at a place which is near the gate leading to his residence.
The Court finds it to be without merit.
Fact is, there is sufficient evidence of abuse upon complainant and the place of commission is immaterial. People vs. Copro
That some did notice the unusual situation complainant was in at the time and did not do anything to help her is understandable.
It is the natural reaction of people who did not want to be involved.
Upon her release, however, she immediately reported the matter to the authorities and to her parents.
These actuations, which are part of the res gestae, command strong probative value considering that it was made by the offended party to the persons who, in cases of this nature, were the most logical ones to seek redress from. People vs. Copro
The fact that complainant did not sustain any injury is no argument that she was not abused.
The truth is, she was not given fist blows; but, she was intimidated and threatened with a knife and that was sufficient for a 14 year old girl not to resist at all.
Rape may be committed even if no force was used; intimidation is sufficient, add this includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening a girl with a knife or pistol. People vs. Copro
Furthermore, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation of rape, the important consideration Being, not the emission of semen, but penetration.
With respect to the fourth assigned error that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the complaint filed with the municipal court did not state that Dionisio Herrera is the father of Evelita Herrera is not tenable. People vs. Copro
It is well-settled that when the offended party is a minor, the father may file a complaint under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.
The father has the custody of the person of the minor and owes to her all the legal obligations of maintenance, care and protection growing out of that relationship. People vs. Copro
Read: Santos vs. Court of Appeals
The omission of relationship in the complaint is, if at all, a formal, not a jurisdictional defect.
READ FULL TEXT
Comments
Post a Comment