Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1929 > August 1929 Decisions > G.R. No. 31075 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO APIADO

053 Phil 325:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 31075. August 12, 1929.]

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TELESFORO APIADO, Defendant-Appellant.

Salvador E. Imperial for Appellant.

Attorney-General Jaranilla for Appellee.

SYLLABUS


1. CRIMINAL LAW; RAPE WITH SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES; PENALTY. — It is a well-established doctrine of law, according to both the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Spain and that of this jurisdiction, that when in the commission of the crime of rape, there should result homicide, or serious or less serious physical injuries, pursuant to article 89 of the Penal Code the penalty corresponding to the more serious crime shall be imposed on the offender in its maximum degree. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of March 23, 1885, February 18, 1889, March 31, 1891, April 29, 1897, and February 22, 1902; U. S. v. Andaya, 34 Phil., 690.) However, said article of the Penal Code is not applicable to the case at bar, which is for rape with slight physical injuries, and said legal provision must be strictly interpreted.

2. ID.; ID.; ID. — It is clear that when a person is found guilty of two or more felonies or misdemeanors, all the penalties corresponding to the several violations of law should be imposed, the same to be simultaneously served, if possible, according to the nature and effects of such penalties (article 87, Penal Code). But in the case at bar, taking into account the nature of the injuries caused to the girl’s genital organ by the violence with which the act was consummated, which injuries were a necessary consequence of the rape, the facts constituting the misdemeanor of slight physical injuries are so obviously inherent in the rape, that no additional penalty for said misdemeanor should be imposed upon the defendant.


D E C I S I O N


VILLAMOR, J.:


The appellant was sentenced to sixteen years reclusion temporal with the accessories of law, by the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija for the crime of rape with slight physical injuries; to endow the offended party, Pantaleona Nool, in the sum of P200, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, considering the gravity of the principal penalty; to support the offspring if any, and to pay the costs; ordering that in serving the sentence, one-half the time during which the defendant has been confined preventively shall be deducted therefrom.

From this sentence, the defendant appealed.

The fact which the trial court found in its judgment, and which this court finds as clearly proved in the proceedings, is, briefly, that the defendant violated the offended party, aged fifteen, against her will and through violence and intimidation on the night of the incident, which act produced slight physical injuries which were cured in five days without medical assistance, and without preventing her from following her customary occupation; the injuries referred to consisting in the inflammation of the upper lips of the girl’s genital organ, a part of her vagina, and the rupture of the hymen.

No modifying circumstance was present in the commission of the crime.

Counsel for the defendant in this instance, after examining the record and conferring with the defendant, states that he finds no sufficient ground for an assignment of error, and limits himself to a petition that the penalty imposed be reduced to fourteen years, eight months and one day reclusion temporal, in view of the defendant’s lack of education.

The Attorney-General agrees with the qualification of the crime charged and with the penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium degree, there being no modifying circumstance in the commission of the crime of rape, but he recommends that, in addition to the penalty for the crime of rape in accordance with article 438 of the Penal Code, the penalty of arresto for not less than five and not more than fifteen days and censure, be imposed upon the defendant, in accordance with article 588 of said Code.

It is a well-established doctrine of law, according to both the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Spain and that of this court that, when in the commission of the crime of rape, there should result homicide, or serious or less serious physical injuries, pursuant to the provisions of article 89 of the Penal Code the penalty corresponding to the more serious crime shall be imposed on the offender in its maximum degree. (Decisions of the Supreme Court of Spain of March 23, 1885, February 18, 1889, March 31, 1891, April 29, 1897, and February 22, 1902; and U. S. v. Andaya, 34 Phil., 690.) However, said article of the Penal Code is not applicable to the case at bar, of rape with slight physical injuries, for this legal provision must be strictly interpreted. It is clear that when a person is found guilty of two or more felonies or misdemeanors, all the penalties corresponding to the several violations of law should be imposed, the same to be simultaneously served, if possible, according to the nature and effects of such penalties (article 87, Penal Code). But in this case, taking into account the nature of the injuries caused to the girl’s genital organ by the violence with which the act was consummated, which injuries were constituting the misdemeanor of slight physical injuries are a necessary consequence of the rape, we believe the facts so obviously inherent in the rape, that no additional penalty for such misdemeanor should be imposed upon the defendant.

Wherefore, the sentence appealed from, being in conformity with law, must be, as it is hereby, affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Johnson, Street, Johns, Romualdez and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.

Separate Opinions


AVANCEÑA, C.J., dissenting:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

I think he should also be sentenced for slight physical injuries.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1929 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 31342 August 3, 1929 - VICENTE ONG CHIONGCHI v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF ORIENTAL NEGROS

    053 Phil 264

  • G.R. No. 30532 August 5, 1929 - GODOFREDO MENDOZA v. TEODORO MENDIOLA ET AL.

    053 Phil 267

  • G.R. No. 31251 August 6, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAGUIA DE TAGA

    053 Phil 273

  • G.R. No. 31255 August 7, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAIAS GEYROSAGA

    053 Phil 278

  • G.R. No. 30724 August 8, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO DUCUSIN

    053 Phil 280

  • G.R. No. 31070 August 8, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLES E. T. WADE

    053 Phil 292

  • G.R. Nos. 30486 & 30487 August 9, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUIS MAALIHAN

    053 Phil 295

  • G.R. No. 31814 August 9, 1929 - FELIX ARAMBULO v. THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF LAGUNA ET AL.,

    053 Phil 302

  • G.R. No. 29412 August 10, 1929 - VICTORIANO OMBALINO v. FELIPA SALDARIAGA ET AL.

    053 Phil 306

  • G.R. No. 30840 August 10, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANIEL RIVERA

    053 Phil 308

  • G.R. No. 30427 August 12, 1929 - HARRY MARTIN v. AGUSAN COCONUT CO.

    053 Phil 311

  • G.R. No. 30686 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN MONTES ET AL.

    053 Phil 323

  • G.R. No. 31075 August 12, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TELESFORO APIADO

    053 Phil 325

  • G.R. No. 31680 August 14, 1929 - DIONISIO SAN PABLO v. FRANCISCO ENAGE

    053 Phil 328

  • G.R. No. 30366 August 15, 1929 - SOCORRO SANCHEZ DE STRONG v. WILLIAM BEISHIR

    053 Phil 331

  • G.R. No. 31025 August 15, 1929 - FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ ET AL. v. JUAN CARPIO

    053 Phil 334

  • G.R. No. 30745 August 20, 1929 - J. V. HOUSE v. JUAN POSADAS

    053 Phil 338

  • G.R. No. 31024 August 22, 1929 - RICARDO DE MESA v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

    053 Phil 342

  • G.R. No. 29780 August 23, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. ASIA LUMBER CO.

    053 Phil 346

  • G.R. No. 30234 August 23, 1929 - CLARO VILLAROSA ET AL. v. ULDARICO VILLAMOR

    053 Phil 350

  • G.R. No. 30240 August 23, 1929 - AQUILINA TACAS ET AL. v. EVARISTO TOBON

    053 Phil 356

  • G.R. No. 31101 August 23, 1929 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO DURANTE

    053 Phil 363

  • G.R. No. 30495 August 24, 1929 - ERLANGER & GALINGER v. JUAN POSADAS

    053 Phil 372

  • G.R. No. 30279 August 26, 1929 - MAXIMO GUILLENA v. CANDELARIO BORJA

    053 Phil 379

  • G.R. No. 31273 August 26, 1929 - CORNELIO ALBA v. FORTUNATO ACUÑA ET AL.,

    053 Phil 380

  • G.R. No. 31636 August 26, 1929 - SATURNINO GALLARDO v. ELIAS ALDANA

    053 Phil 388

  • G.R. No. 30783 August 27, 1929 - JUAN B. ALEGRE v. INSULAR COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

    053 Phil 394

  • G.R. No. 31123 August 27, 1929 - PHIL. GUARANTY CO. v. CARMEN BELANDO

    053 Phil 410

  • G.R. No. 30421 August 28, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. AGUSTIN JAVIER

    053 Phil 415

  • G.R. No. 30668 August 28, 1929 - SABAS BUSTAMANTE ET AL. v. JOSE M. RATO Y TUASON ET AL.

    053 Phil 418

  • G.R. No. 30829 August 28, 1929 - GOV’T. OF THE PHIL. v. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE ET AL.

    053 Phil 423

  • G.R. No. 31120 August 28, 1929 - JESUSA LACSON DE ARROYO v. VISAYAN GENERAL SUPPLY CO.

    053 Phil 432

  • G.R. No. 31137 August 30, 1929 - CING HONG SO v. TAN BOON KONG ET AL.

    053 Phil 437

  • G.R. No. 30246 August 31, 1929 - AGRIPINO DE OCAMPO ET AL. v. JUAN ZAPORTEZA ET AL.

    053 Phil 442