Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROMAR TEODORO Y VALLEJO

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	GR No. 194833 2014-07-02	PEOPLE v. PORFERIO BALINO PEREZ, J.
This Court has likewise repeatedly held that the date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime. It is not necessary to state the precise time when the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. In statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the victim was a minor below twelve years of age at the time of the commission of the offense.[20] Therefore, given the victim's established date of birth on the basis of the evidence adduced, she was definitely short of 12 years of age when the crime of rape was committed against her.
	GR No. 196228 2014-06-04	PEOPLE v. RENATO BESMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Basic in the prosecution of statutory rape is that there must be concurrence of the following elements: (1) the victim is a female under 12 years of age or is demented; and (2) the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim.[25] Thus, to successfully convict an accused for said crime, it is imperative for the prosecution to prove that the age of the woman is under 12 years and carnal knowledge took place.[26]
	GR No. 201861 2014-06-02	PEOPLE v. VALENTIN SABAL Y PARBA BRION, J.
Sexual congress with a girl under 12 years old is always rape.[4] In this type of rape, force and intimidation are immaterial; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.[5] The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern evil from good.[6]
	GR No. 199226 2014-01-15	PEOPLE v. ROEL VERGARA Y CLAVERO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In People v. Teodoro,[22] the Court clearly explained the elements of statutory rape committed under Article 266-A(1)(d): Rape under paragraph 3 of this article is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape. What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. (Citations omitted.)
	GR No. 188851 2011-10-19	PEOPLE v. MARCIANO DOLLANO PERALTA, J.
Rape under paragraph 3 of the above-mentioned article is termed statutory rape as it departs from the usual modes of committing rape.[63] What the law punishes is carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years of age. Thus, the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years.[64] As clearly shown in the narration of facts above, the prosecution was able to establish that appellant succeeded in having carnal knowledge with AAA in 1995, or three months after the death of her mother. The incident was repeated in 1997. AAA's testimony was corroborated by the medical findings of the MHO.[65] It was also established through AAA's birth certificate that she was born on September 10, 1987.[66] Thus, at the time of the commission of the first rape incident in 1995, AAA was only eight (8) years old; and at the time of the second rape incident in 1997, she was only 10 years old. Statutory rape was, therefore, committed in 1995 and 1997.
	GR No. 182917 2011-06-08	PEOPLE v. BENJAMIN PADILLA Y UNTALAN LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In the prosecution of statutory rape cases, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place. The law presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of her own on account of her tender years; the child's consent is immaterial because of her presumed incapacity to discern good from evil. [33]
	GR No. 189294 2011-02-21	PEOPLE v. HERMINIANO MARZAN Y OLONAN BRION, J.
We duly considered the appellant's defense of denial a defense that is inherently weak unless supported by other evidence.[16] Denial is negative and self-serving and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight over the testimony of a credible witness who positively testified that the appellant was at the locus criminis and was the last person seen with the victim.[17] Significantly, the appellant failed to support his denial by any supporting evidence. The RTC correctly appreciated treachery as a qualifying circumstance since a child, by reason of tender years, could not significantly defend himself against the strangulation that he was subjected to.[18] Beyond reasonable doubt, the presented evidence, collectively considered, point to no other conclusion than the appellant's guilt of the crime of murder. Since neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances attended the commission of the crime, the penalty of reclusion perpetua was properly imposed.
	GR No. 187742 2010-04-20	PEOPLE v. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA VELASCO JR., J.
People v. Teodoro[9] explains that statutory rape departs from the usual modes of committing rape: What the law punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations; the only subject of inquiry is the age of the woman and whether carnal knowledge took place.