Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LORENZO ANDAYA Y FLORES

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 188901 2010-12-15	PEOPLE v. GILBERT CASTRO Y AGUILAR PEREZ, J.
Clearly, "sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape."[12] Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress between the accused and the victim, and the mental retardation of the latter.[13]
	GR No. 188600 2010-07-13	PEOPLE v. MARCOS QUIROS Y SEMBRANO MENDOZA, J.
The Court, thus, sustains the conviction of the accused for the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d)[28] of the Revised Penal Code (RPC)[29] and the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC.[30] The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua, which being a single indivisible penalty, is imposable regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.[31]
	GR No. 186411 2010-07-05	PEOPLE v. ARTURO PALER VELASCO JR., J.
In this provision, carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental retardate is rape.[14] A mental condition of retardation deprives the complainant of that natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood.[15] For this reason, sexual intercourse with one who is intellectually weak to the extent that she is incapable of giving consent to the carnal act already constitutes rape; without requiring proof that the accused used force or intimidation in committing the act.[16] In this circumstance, what needs to be alleged in the information and proven during trial are the facts of appellant's carnal knowledge of the victim, and the victim's mental retardation.
	GR No. 177295 2010-01-06	PEOPLE v. MARLON BARSAGA ABELLA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code provides that the crime of rape is committed by a man having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: (1) through force, threat or intimidation; (2) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (3) by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and (4) when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. In People v. Andaya,[25] it was held that "sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate with the mental age of a child below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape" with or without the attendance of force, threat, or intimidation.
	GR No. 177152 2010-01-06	PEOPLE v. MANUEL BAGOS LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We, thus, sustain the conviction of accused-appellant for the crime of statutory rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d)[32] of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).[33] The penalty of reclusion perpetua was likewise correctly imposed in accordance with Article 266-B of the RPC.[34] The penalty for statutory rape is reclusion perpetua, which being a single indivisible penalty, is imposable regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that may have attended the commission of the deed.[35]
	GR NO. 171314 2007-03-06	PEOPLE v. PATERNO OLIQUINO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
What further destroys the veracity of appellant's contention was his own testimony that it was only in July 1996, when he sent Ortile to BBB in order to tender his offer of marriage or support for AAA and the child.[51] Such belated attempt on appellant's part to appease AAA and BBB betrays his plea of innocence and amounts to nothing but a desperate attempt at evading the consequences of his offense. Not a few number of cases have established that an offer of marriage is considered an implied admission of guilt of the accused.[52]
	GR No. 113518 2000-01-25	PEOPLE v. ESTEBAN ARLEE ALSO KNOWN AS 'BOY ISING' PURISIMA, J.
Being a mentally retarded woman, twenty-six years of age, Analyn is in the same class as a woman deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious when she was raped by accused-appellant. Proof of force and intimidation is not required if the victim is "deprived of reason" or suffering from mental abnormality or deficiency since the same deprives the victim of the natural instinct to resist a bestial assault on her chastity and womanhood. It is well-settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape, which does not require proof that the rapist used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim.[56] Not only that, as testified to by Analyn, the accused-appellant did employ force and intimidation by threatening her with a knife.