Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    People Vs Mariano

    Uploaded by

    pat guzman
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court finding Gamelo Mariano y Obusan guilty of raping Socorro Soria, a woman of unsound mind. While the appellant argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by the victim's mother and not father, the Supreme Court found nothing in the law preventing the mother from filing the complaint, even if the father was still living. As both parents jointly exercise parental authority over their children, it is their duty to represent them in actions that could benefit them. Therefore, the mother was permitted to file the complaint for rape, and the lower court properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People Vs Mariano

    Uploaded by

    pat guzman
    1K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court finding Gamelo Mariano y Obusan guilty of raping Socorro Soria, a woman of unsound mind. While the appellant argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by the victim's mother and not father, the Supreme Court found nothing in the law preventing the mother from filing the complaint, even if the father was still living. As both parents jointly exercise parental authority over their children, it is their duty to represent them in actions that could benefit them. Therefore, the mother was permitted to file the complaint for rape, and the lower court properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.

    Original Description:

    G.R. No. L-47437

    Original Title

    People vs Mariano

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court finding Gamelo Mariano y Obusan guilty of raping Socorro Soria, a woman of unsound mind. While the appellant argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by the victim's mother and not father, the Supreme Court found nothing in the law preventing the mother from filing the complaint, even if the father was still living. As both parents jointly exercise parental authority over their children, it is their duty to represent them in actions that could benefit them. Therefore, the mother was permitted to file the complaint for rape, and the lower court properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    People Vs Mariano

    Uploaded by

    pat guzman
    The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court finding Gamelo Mariano y Obusan guilty of raping Socorro Soria, a woman of unsound mind. While the appellant argued the court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint was filed by the victim's mother and not father, the Supreme Court found nothing in the law preventing the mother from filing the complaint, even if the father was still living. As both parents jointly exercise parental authority over their children, it is their duty to represent them in actions that could benefit them. Therefore, the mother was permitted to file the complaint for rape, and the lower court properly exercised jurisdiction over the case.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CRIMPRO RULE 110

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, G.R. No. L-47437


    vs. Date: September 29, 1983
    GAMELO MARIANO y OBUSAN, accused- Ponente: ESCOLIN, J
    appellant.
    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, GAMELO MARIANO y OBUSAN, accused-
    appellant.

    Appeal from the decision of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte, finding Gamelo Mariano y
    Obusan guilty of the crime of rape committed upon a woman of unsound and feeble mind, and sentencing
    him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P 12.000.00
    as moral damages and to pay the costs.
    FACTS
    Case timeline:

    1. Socorro Soria, a demented woman of 24 years, had been confined as a mental patient at the
    National Mental Hospital in Mandaluyong, Manila, since February 26, 1971 up to May 3, 1974 when
    she was transferred to the Don Susano J. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital in Pili, Camarines Sur for
    further treatment. On May 26, 1975, her parents brought her home to Burabod Daet, Camarines Norte,
    to be treated by the appellant, known in the locality as a faith healer or "spiritista"
    2. Shortly after, Mrs. Soria, who was attending to her customers at the rice mill adjacent to her house,
    was informed by her daughter-in-law Elizabeth Albino Soria, that the door of Socorro's room was
    locked. Mrs. Soria proceeded to the room and when she noted that the door was indeed locked from
    inside, she and Elizabeth peeped through a small aperture and saw the appellant on top of Socorro in
    the act of sexual intercourse. Appellant had his pants off, while Socorro was naked from the waist
    down. Mrs. Soria immediately clambered to the top shelf of the cabinet which served as the dividing
    wall between Socorro's room and the sala, and stretching herself across the top of the cabinet, she
    reached out and grabbed the appellant's hair.
    3. When Mrs. Soria confronted him, appellant expressed his willingness to be Socorro's husband and
    promise to construct an annex to his house where he would keep Socorro as his wife.
    4. On September 27, 1976, a verified complaint for rape, signed by Mrs. Maria Soria, was filed against
    appellant before the Municipal Court of Daet, Camarines Norte. On the basis thereof, an information
    was filed before the Court of First Instance of Camarines Norte. He was later on found guilty of the
    crime of rape.

    RESPONDENTs contentions:

    1. Appellant argues that the court a quo did not acquire jurisdiction over the case because the victim's
    mother had no right or authority to file a complaint for rape inasmuch as the father was still
    living. He invokes the following provisions of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court.
    ISSUE/S
    I. WON the mother can file the action for rape. -YES
    RATIO
    While we agree with the appellant's contention that the trial court does not acquire jurisdiction if the
    complaint charging an accused with any of the aforesaid private crimes is not filed by one of the persons
    indicated in said section there is nothing in the context thereof to support the view that the mother cannot
    present the complaint if the father is still living In People vs. Dela Cruz 4, this Court resolved the same legal
    question in this wise:

    Appellant's contention is . . . based on a dubious technicality. If sustained, it might defeat the ends of
    justice. It is not sanctioned by section 4 of Rule 110 nor by article 344 of the Revised Penal Code whose
    provisions do not categorically specify that the father has the preferential right to file the complaint
    for seduction, abduction, rape or abusos deshonestos It is noteworthy that 'the father and mother
    jointly exercise parental authority over their legitimate children who are not emancipated'. It is their
    duty to represent their emancipated children 'in all actions which may redound to their benefit' [Arts. 311
    and 316, Civil Code]. "

    RULING
    DECISION of the lower court is affirmed.
    Notes
    Rape is now a crime against persons and may be prosecuted de officio by virtue of RA 8353
    DIAO
    http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1983/sep1983/gr_l_47437_1983.html

    You might also like