ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 127026-27. December 12, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. ARMANDO ALICANTE y DAVID

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 12 2000.

G.R. No.127026-27 (People of the Philippines vs. Armando Alicante y David.)

Accused-appellant seeks a reconsideration of the Decision of this Court finding him guilty of raping his minor daughter Richelle Alicante and sentencing him to death. Accused-appellant rests his motion for reconsideration on the following grounds:

1. That the Decision failed to consider prevailing jurisprudence on the requirement of an offer of testimonial and documentary evidence.

2. That the Decision in question failed to properly interpret the "Salaysay ng Pag-uurong ng Demanda dated July 11, 1995" as an express pardon.

3. That the Decision in question, while acknowledging that the filing of thirteen out of the fifteen informations was baseless, erred in holding that such defect was not fatal to the prosecution.

4. That the Decision in question failed to consider evidence that the filing of the charges in this case were motivated by malice. ¹ Rollo , pp. 580-581.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its comment on the motion for reconsideration.

We find the motion for reconsideration to be without merit.

As pointed out by the OSG, the arguments raided in the motion for reconsideration are but a rehash of the arguments raised in the appeal and is therefore pro forma and merits outright dismissal. ² Id ., at 600.The Court has dealt squarely with and discussed extensively in the questioned Decision the first three grounds in this motion for reconsideration and we do not find any cogent reason to reverse our ruling.

Anent the fourth ground for reconsideration, accused-appellant now raises for the first time the argument that the victim's mother Pacita Alicante was having an illicit love affair with a man named Bangkil and insinuates that it was probably Bangkil who raped and impregnated Richelle. Accused-appellant submits that both mother and daughter resented him and probably wanted him out of their lives thus concocting the tale of rape. We have painstakingly again gone through the records of this case and are of the conclusion that accused-appellant's claim are but mere conjectures and not supported by the evidence at hand. Moreover, we simply find contrary to human nature the claim of accused-appellant that his daughter would charge him of rape when in fact it was another man, the lover of her mother at that, who was the actual perpetrator of the crime.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court resolved to DENY the motion for reconsideration.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE