You are on page 1of 2

People vs.

Gallo 315 SCRA 461 (September 29,


1999)

favorable to him. The case is reopened and the


judgment is modified from death to reclusion perpetua.

Facts:
In 1998, an RTC decision found Romeo Gallo guilty of
the crime of qualified rape with the penalty of death.
In 1999- Gallo filed a Motion to Re-Open the Case
seeking modification
of the
death
sentence
to reclusion perpetua in line with the new court rulings
on the attendant circumstances in Sec 11 of RA 7659.
According to People vs. Garcia: the additional
attendant
circumstances
introduced in RA
7659 should be considered as special
qualifying
circumstances distinctly applicable to the crime of
rape
and
if
notpleaded as such, could only be appreciated as gene
ric aggravatingcircumstances. The information filed
against Gallo does not allege his relationship with the
victim Marites Gallo (his daughter), thus it CANNOT be
considered as a qualifying circumstance.
Ruling:
Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law or
the constitution form part of the legal system of
theland and so the doctrine forms part of the penal
statutes and therefore maybe applied retroactively
being favorable to the accused who is not a habitual
criminal, notwithstanding that final sentence has
already been pronounced against him. The doctrine of
People vs. Garcia may be retroactively applied as it is

Doctrine:
Special qualifying circumstances have to be alleged in
the information for it to be appreciated.

People vs. Berana


29, 1999)Facts:

311

SCRA

664

(July

Early morning, 14 yr old Maria Elena Jarcia was


awakened
by
her bro-inlaw, Raul Berana. He pointed a buntot page (long wit
h someprotruding parts and with long and pointed tip)
at her neck and warned her not to make any noise or
else she will be killed. She was made to lie downand
Berana raised her duster and removed her shorts and
underwear. He mashed her breasts and laid on top of
her. He inserted his penis to her vagina and she felt
much pain. He kissed her and made several push and
pull movements and then, Maria Elena felt something
liquid in her organ. After this, Berana sat down and
told Maria Elena not to tell anyone. He then did it
again. Accused claims he was seduced by Elena.
Ruling:
Physical resistance need not be established in rape
cases when intimidation is exercised upon her and she

submits herself against her will to the rapists lust


because of fear for life and personal safety.
Relationship
qualifies
the
crime from
reclusion perpetua to death
under RA
7659.
To effectively prosecute Berana for the crime of rape
committed by a relative by affinity within the 3rd civil
degree, it must be established that:1.he is legally
married to Elenas sister 2.Elena and Beranas wife are
full
or
halfbloodsiblingsProsecution established relationship by th
e testimonies of Elena(saying that he knows Berana
because he is the husband of my sister) and her
mother (saying that he knows Berana because he is
the husband of her daughter, Rosa Jarcia). It based its
conviction on Beranas letter addressing Elenas
parents as mama at papa and his use of the phrase
any inyong manugang, Raul. Since relationship

qualifies the crime of rape, there must be clearer proof


of relationship and in this case, it was not adequately
substantiated. Evidence presented is not sufficient
to dispel doubts about the true relationship. Although
he claims that
Elena initiated
the act,
he never mentioned this on his letters and instead,
unceasingly
asks
for
forgiveness,
admitting
categorically the offense charged.
Doctrine:
Relationship must be proven for it to be appreciated as
a special qualifying circumstance.
Notes: The letters may show remorse for a completely
different thing (likeIm sorry I gave in to
the seduction) and not an apology for rape

You might also like