Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 296 views

    Finals CRIM Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kirby Malibiran
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's conviction of Saylan for rape but modified the aggravating circumstance. While the trial court found the position of intercourse (from behind) to be ignominious, the Supreme Court stated this position is commonly used between consenting partners and did not amount to ignominy on its own. The Supreme Court affirmed Sultan's conviction for robbery and rape but held that the additional rape committed was not an aggravating circumstance, as the law does not provide for multiple rapes to be considered aggravating. The Supreme Court affirmed Ladjaalam's conviction for drug maintenance and assault but held that illegal firearm possession was not an aggravating circumstance since homicide was not committed; it can only be

    Copyright:

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

    Finals CRIM Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kirby Malibiran
    296 views4 pages
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's conviction of Saylan for rape but modified the aggravating circumstance. While the trial court found the position of intercourse (from behind) to be ignominious, the Supreme Court stated this position is commonly used between consenting partners and did not amount to ignominy on its own. The Supreme Court affirmed Sultan's conviction for robbery and rape but held that the additional rape committed was not an aggravating circumstance, as the law does not provide for multiple rapes to be considered aggravating. The Supreme Court affirmed Ladjaalam's conviction for drug maintenance and assault but held that illegal firearm possession was not an aggravating circumstance since homicide was not committed; it can only be

    Original Title

    finals CRIM digest.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 affirmed the trial court's conviction of Saylan for rape but modified the aggravating circumstance. While the trial court found the position of intercourse (from behind) to be ignominious, the Supreme Court stated this position is commonly used between consenting partners and did not amount to ignominy on its own. The Supreme Court affirmed Sultan's conviction for robbery and rape but held that the additional rape committed was not an aggravating circumstance, as the law does not provide for multiple rapes to be considered aggravating. The Supreme Court affirmed Ladjaalam's conviction for drug maintenance and assault but held that illegal firearm possession was not an aggravating circumstance since homicide was not committed; it can only be

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    296 views4 pages

    Finals CRIM Digest

    Uploaded by

    Kirby Malibiran
    The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's conviction of Saylan for rape but modified the aggravating circumstance. While the trial court found the position of intercourse (from behind) to be ignominious, the Supreme Court stated this position is commonly used between consenting partners and did not amount to ignominy on its own. The Supreme Court affirmed Sultan's conviction for robbery and rape but held that the additional rape committed was not an aggravating circumstance, as the law does not provide for multiple rapes to be considered aggravating. The Supreme Court affirmed Ladjaalam's conviction for drug maintenance and assault but held that illegal firearm possession was not an aggravating circumstance since homicide was not committed; it can only be

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    1. People v.

    Saylan, L-36941, 29 June 1984, 130 SCRA 159

    Facts: Saylan was accused of rape in the sworn complaint of Eutropia Agno and was found guilty by the
    trial court. That one afternoon on their way home with her daughter and another grade one pupil, the
    accused pulled out a dagger pointing to the victim threatening her. At this point, the accused grabbed
    the victim while still pointing the dagger and dragged her to a creek near a coconut tree. There he forced
    Eutropia to have sexual intercourse with him that went further up to the fifth instance, including one
    where he forced the victim to stand up and then he bent her body downwards with her hands and knees
    resting on the ground. At this point, accused put himself behind the victim and executed the sexual
    intercourse the way dogs do. The accused only let go of the victim when the victim promised to accused
    not to tell her husband what he did to her.

    FACTS NG MASIPAG: January 23 1971 – Eutropia went to the public market to buy food and
    thereafter fetch her five-year old daughter Nilsonita from the store of her mother. The two boarded
    on a public jeepney on their way home. It was almost six thirty in the evening when they alighted at
    Malinas citrus farm, which was the last stop of public vehicles. After walking some distance,
    Eutropia’s group (her daughter and a grade 1 pupil) took the opposite road and was followed by
    Saylan. The appellant was walking side by side with Eutropia when he suddenly pulled out a dagger
    and said “Do not shout Nang, I will kill you!” after which he dragged her towards a creek near a
    coconut tree, 5 meters away from where they left the children whom the appellant also threatened
    and ordered them to stay behind. Saylan instructed Eutropia to remove her panty and to lie down, he
    succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. After the first sexual act, appellant ordered Eutropia
    to stand up which the latter helplessly followed, appellant again inserted his penis into her vagina in
    this position. Not satisfied, he ordered Eutropia to lie down again for a third sexual intercourse. After
    the third intercourse, appellant ordered Eutropia to stand up then he bent her body downwards with
    her hand and knees resting on the ground. Appellant then placed himself behind her, inserted his
    penis into her vagina in the dog’s way of sexual intercourse. After this, appellant still not satisfied,
    ordered Eutropia to lie down again and thereafter had a fifth sexual intercourse with her. Saylan was
    convinced by Eutropia’s words that she would not tell her husband about what happened. The two
    returned to the children and woke them up to continue their walk home. After walking some distance,
    Eutropia saw the house of her friend Ben, she asked him to call her husband as she was feeling very
    bad. When Eutropia woke up between 9pm-10pm, her husband was already there and she told him
    everything. Her husband told her to get a medical examination and thereafter, a rape case was filed
    against the accused, and subsequently convicted and sentenced to death penalty by the trial court.

    Issue: Whether or not crime of rape was attended by aggravating circumstances of ignominy.

    Held: Yes. The trial court held that there was ignominy because the appellant used not only the
    missionary position, i.e. male superior female inferior, but also "The same position as dogs do" i.e., entry
    from behind. The appellant claims there was no ignominy because "The studies of many experts in the
    matter have shown that this 'position' is not novel and has repeatedly and often been resorted to by
    couples in the act of copulation. This may well be if the sexual act is performed by consenting partners
    but not otherwise.
    People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 132470, 27 April 2000, 331 SCRA 216

    Facts: On June 2, 1997, around 9:00 in the evening, Juditha Bautista was on her way home from visiting her cousin
    when she was accosted by the accused Fernando Sultan. Fernando pointed a sharp instrument at her neck and told
    her that this was a hold-up. Fearing for her life, she let him grab and bring her to his house. Through intimidation and
    her fear for her life, she was robbed and twice raped. After the second rape, he told her he loved her and in her effort
    to release herself, she “agreed” to elope with him. Convinced, Fernando let her go home to get her things. She then
    went to her cousin, Antonette and narrated everything that happened. Antonette then called her brother SPO1
    Bautista who advised Juditha to continue with the elopement so that he and his companions could stage an arrest.
    This went successful and Fernando was apprehended. On June 5, 1997, Fernando was charged with the complex
    crime of robbery and rape but he merely brushed this aside as simply sex between consenting adults.

    Issue: Whether or not the additional rape committed by the accused is considered as an aggravating circumstance.

    Held: No. The record shows that the prosecution has established that he committed both robbery and rape with the
    intent to take personal property of another preceding the rape.

    Complaining witness Bautista was raped twice on the occasion of the robbery. In the recent case of People v. Regala,
    the Court held that the additional rapes committed should not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance despite
    a resultant "anomalous situation" wherein robbery with rape would be on the same level as robbery with multiple
    rapes in terms of gravity. The Court realized that there was no law providing for the additional rape/s or homicide/s for
    that matter to be considered as aggravating circumstance. It further observed that the enumeration of aggravating
    circumstances under Art. 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive, unlike in Art. 13 of the same Code which
    enumerates the mitigating circumstances where analogous circumstances may be considered, hence, the remedy
    lies with the legislature. Consequently, unless and until a law is passed providing that the additional rape/s or
    homicide/s may be considered aggravating, the Court must construe the penal law in favor of the offender. Under this
    view, the additional rape committed by accused-appellant is not considered an aggravating circumstance.

    People v. Ladjaalam, G.R. Nos. 136149-51, 19 September 2000

    FACTS: The trial court found the appellant guilty of maintaining a drug den, an offense for which was
    sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Appellant’s guilt was established by a witness, who himself had used
    the extension house of appellant as a drug den on several occasions, including the time of the raid. The
    former’s testimony was corroborated by all the raiding police officers who testified before the court.
    That appellant did not deny ownership of the house and its extension lent credence to the prosecution’s
    story. The trial court also convicted appellant of direct assault with multiple counts of attempted
    homicide. Aside from finding appellant guilty of direct assault with multiple attempted homicide, the
    trial court convicted him also of the separate offense of illegal possession of firearms under PD 1866, as
    amended by RA 8294, and sentenced him to 6 years of prision correccional to 8 years of prision mayor.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
    circumstance.

    HELD: No. The appealed Decision was affirmed with modifications. Appellant is found guilty only of two
    offenses which are direct assault and multiple attempted homicide with the use of a weapon and
    maintaining a drug den. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any person who shall unlawfully
    possess any firearm or ammunition shall be penalized, “unless no other crime was committed”.
    Furthermore, if homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
    unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance. Since the crime committed was
    direct assault and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearms cannot be deemed an
    aggravating circumstance.

    The accused can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that “no other crime was
    committed by the person arrested.” If the intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only
    to homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the third paragraph. Verily, where
    the law does not distinguish, neither should the courts.

    You might also like