Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 374 views

    119 - People Vs Berana

    Uploaded by

    June Karla Lopez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the relationship between the accused, Raul Berana, and the victim, 14-year old Maria Elena Jarcia, was not adequately proven to warrant imposing the death penalty. Berana was convicted of raping Jarcia. The trial court imposed the death penalty based on Berana being Jarcia's brother-in-law. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented - the victim and her mother's testimonies and Berana's letters referring to Jarcia's parents - was not sufficient to conclusively prove the relationship given the stakes, and overturned the death penalty. The relationship must be proven more stringently when it aggravates the crime from reclusion perpetua

    Copyright:

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

    119 - People Vs Berana

    Uploaded by

    June Karla Lopez
    374 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that the relationship between the accused, Raul Berana, and the victim, 14-year old Maria Elena Jarcia, was not adequately proven to warrant imposing the death penalty. Berana was convicted of raping Jarcia. The trial court imposed the death penalty based on Berana being Jarcia's brother-in-law. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented - the victim and her mother's testimonies and Berana's letters referring to Jarcia's parents - was not sufficient to conclusively prove the relationship given the stakes, and overturned the death penalty. The relationship must be proven more stringently when it aggravates the crime from reclusion perpetua

    Original Title

    119_People vs Berana.docx

    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 ruled that the relationship between the accused, Raul Berana, and the victim, 14-year old Maria Elena Jarcia, was not adequately proven to warrant imposing the death penalty. Berana was convicted of raping Jarcia. The trial court imposed the death penalty based on Berana being Jarcia's brother-in-law. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented - the victim and her mother's testimonies and Berana's letters referring to Jarcia's parents - was not sufficient to conclusively prove the relationship given the stakes, and overturned the death penalty. The relationship must be proven more stringently when it aggravates the crime from reclusion perpetua

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    374 views1 page

    119 - People Vs Berana

    Uploaded by

    June Karla Lopez
    The Supreme Court ruled that the relationship between the accused, Raul Berana, and the victim, 14-year old Maria Elena Jarcia, was not adequately proven to warrant imposing the death penalty. Berana was convicted of raping Jarcia. The trial court imposed the death penalty based on Berana being Jarcia's brother-in-law. However, the Supreme Court found the evidence presented - the victim and her mother's testimonies and Berana's letters referring to Jarcia's parents - was not sufficient to conclusively prove the relationship given the stakes, and overturned the death penalty. The relationship must be proven more stringently when it aggravates the crime from reclusion perpetua

    Copyright:

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

    LOPEZ, JUNE KARLA P.

    17-4067
    Case No. 119

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. RAUL BERANA y GUEVARRA


    G.R. No. 123544. July 29, 1999
    Romero, J.;

    Facts:
    On June 2, 1994 at around 2:00 o'clock in the morning, 14-year old Maria Elena
    Jarcia was sleeping with her four-year old niece in one of the two rooms in a house her
    family was renting when she was awakened by her brother-in-law, herein accused-
    appellant. Complainant recognized him because light was filtering in from a nearby
    window. Berana pointed a "buntot page" at her neck and warned her not to make any noise,
    otherwise she would be killed. The terrified girl was made to lie down while accused-
    appellant raised her duster and proceeded to remove her shorts and her underwear, after
    which he mashed her breast and lay on top of her. The helpless girl was again threatened
    not to make any noise otherwise he would kill her. Complainant tried to cover her breasts
    with her arms but accused-appellant pushed her arms aside. As he inserted his organ into
    her womanhood, Elena felt excruciating pain. He began kissing her and made several push
    and pull movements, after which, the victim felt something liquid in her organ. Accused-
    appellant sat down and warned her not to talk to anyone about the incident.

    The trial court finds accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
    of rape and imposed death penalty on the ground of the relation of the accused to the victim.

    Issue: Whether or not the relationship between the accused and the complainant should
    properly aggravate the crime of rape.

    Ruling: No.
    Under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the
    death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed, among others, with the
    following attendant circumstance: “When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age
    and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or
    affinity within the third civil degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim.”

    However, considering that the relationship of accused-appellant to complainant


    qualifies the crime of rape punishable by reclusion perpetua to rape punishable by death,
    it is but proper that a more stringent proof of relationship between the offender and the
    offended party must be established by the prosecution. The relationship of accused-
    appellant and the complainant, is not adequately substantiated since it is merely based on
    testimony of the complainant, her mother's testimony and the accused-appellant's use of
    the words, "mama at papa" in his letters. Needless to say, the evidence presented are not
    sufficient to dispel doubts about the true relationship of accused-appellant and the
    complainant, to the benefit of which the accused is entitled. Where the life of an accused-
    appellant hangs in the balance, a more exacting proof must be adduced.

    You might also like