Case Digest (G.R. No. L-40330)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Amado Daniel alias "Amado Ato," G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978, the Supreme Court En Banc, Munoz Palma, J., writing for the Court.The accused-appellant, Amado Daniel, was charged in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Baguio City with rape of Margarita Paleng (the offended party). The complaint alleged rape on or about September 20, 1965 in the offended party's room; the complaint described the victim as 14 years old, but trial evidence established she was born November 20, 1952 (about 12 years and 10 months at the time of the incident). The trial court (Presiding Judge Feliciano Belmonte) found Daniel guilty and on May 30, 1966 sentenced him to terms of reclusion temporal/prision mayor (a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua); the trial court’s motion for reconsideration and new trial was denied.
The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals (Tenth Division). On September 23, 1974 the Court of Appeals found the accused’s guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt but concluded that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not in accordance with law in light of Republic Act No. 4111 (which amended Article 335, Revised Penal Code, prescribing reclusion perpetua for rape and harsher penalties when deadly weapon used). The Court of Appeals therefore refrained from entering judgment on penalty and certified the case to the Supreme Court for appropriate further proceedings under the rule that cases where the imposable penalty is death or life imprisonment are for the Supreme Court’s final determination.
The case was docketed in this Court (certified March 6, 1975). A preliminary jurisdictional question arose whether the Supreme Court could properly act on a Court of Appeals certification that (a) found guilt and made findings of fact but (b) had not itself imposed reclusion perpetua or death; Chief Justice Castro took the view the Supreme Court should only acquire jurisdiction if the Court of Appeals had actually imposed the high penalty, while a majority (including the ponente) disagreed. On the merits the Court reviewed trial testimony, the medico-legal report (showing recent defloration and hymenal lacerations), and the accused’s claim of consensual intercourse and a prior act; the Court affirmed conviction, applied aggravating circumstances and, lacking sufficient votes for death, imposed reclusion perpetua and awarded moral damages.
The mode of review was certification by the Court of Appeals under Rule 124, sec. 12 ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court exercise appellate jurisdiction over a criminal case certified by the Court of Appeals which contains findings of fact and a finding of guilt but in which the Court of Appeals did not itself impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua or death?
- On the merits, was appellant guilty of rape under the circumstances shown, and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)