13 and 27

People v.
Nuevo
FACTS:
On automatic review is the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Sindangan, Zamboanga del
Norte, Branch 11, finding accused Sanico Nuevo @ Sany guilty of rape and sentencing him to death. in
the evening, on or about the 4th day of December, 1994, in the municipality of Godod, Zamboanga del
Norte, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, moved by lewd and unchaste
design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously succeed in having sexual intercourse with one ROBERTA CIDO, a 20 year old married woman,
against her will and without her consent. ROBERTA CIDO[] recalled that at about 9:00 oclock in the
evening of December 4, 1994, Sanico Nuevo passed by their house and invited her husband Anselmo
Cido, Jr., to a drinking spree at the house of Anselmo, Sr., her father-in-law.[4] She was left at home with
her 10-month-old daughter and her nine-year-old niece Gemma Atis. They slept in the living
room, cum bedroom, the only room in the house.[5] At around 11:00 P.M., appellant surreptitiously
returned and entered their room. She was awakened when appellant held her neck, pinned down her
arms and took off her clothing. While Sanico was removing her panties, she struggled to extricate herself
but to no avail. She was unable to shout because appellant was covering her mouth. While she was lying
on her back, appellant laid on top of her and proceeded to forcibly have sexual intercourse with her, at
the same time pinning her down with a bolo.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the prosecutions evidence suffices for the conviction of rape and the imposition
of the death penalty on him.
RULING:
In the light of the testimony by the victim and her witnesses as well as of those for the defense,
we agree with the trial court that Roberta had sufficiently identified appellant as the person who raped
her, by means of force, violence and intimidation, against her will and without her consent. Appellant is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Although not assigned as an error, it is our view
that the trial court erred in appreciating the qualifying circumstance under par. 3, Section 11, R.A.
7659,[27]concerning the presence of a relative, to justify the imposition of the death penalty. In People
vs. Amadore, we held that the attendance of any of the circumstances under the provisions of Section
11 of Republic Act No. 7659, mandating the death penalty are in the nature of qualifying circumstances
and the absence of proper averment thereof in the complaint will bar the imposition of that extreme
penalty.]The information in this case did not allege the qualifying circumstance, that the rape was
committed in full view of a niece (a relative within the third degree of consanguinity). Because of this
deficiency, appellant was not properly apprised of the extent of the punishment which the charges
against him entailed. Thus, it was an error to consider the foregoing circumstance in the imposition of
the proper penalty on appellant.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is MODIFIED. The appellant is declared GUILTY of the
crime of simple rape beyond reasonable doubt, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
DAAN V. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Daan together with accused Benedicto E. Kuizon, were charged before this Court for three
counts of malversation of public funds. in addition to the charge for malversation, the accused were also
indicted before this Court for three counts of falsification of public document by a public officer or
employee.
In the falsification cases, the accused offered to withdraw their plea of not guilty and substitute
the same with a plea of guilty, provided, the mitigating circumstances of confession or plea of guilt and
voluntary surrender will be appreciated in their favor. In the alternative, if such proposal is not
acceptable, said accused proposed instead to substitute their plea of not guilty to the crime of
falsification of public document by a public officer or employee with a plea of guilty, but to the lesser
crime of falsification of a public document by a private individual. On the other hand, in
the malversation cases, the accused offered to substitute their plea of not guilty thereto with a plea of
guilty, but to the lesser crime of failure of an accountable officer to render accounts.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
his plea bargaining offer.
RULING: In this case, the allegations in the Informations filed against petitioner are
sufficient to hold petitioner liable for the lesser offenses. Thus, in the charge for Falsification of Public
Documents, petitioner may plead guilty to the lesser offense of Falsification by Private Individuals
inasmuch as it does not appear that petitioner took advantage of his official position in allegedly
falsifying the timebook and payroll of the Municipality of Bato, Leyte.
In the same vein, with regard to the crime of Malversation of Public Funds, while
the Informations contain allegations which make out a case for Malversation against petitioner,
nevertheless, absent the element of conversion, theoretically, petitioner may still be held liable for
Failure to Render Account by an Accountable Officer if it is shown that the failure to render account was
in violation of a law or regulation that requires him to render such an accounting within the prescribed
period.
Under the peculiar circumstances of the present case, where gross inequity will result in a
discriminatory dispensation of justice, the Court will not hesitate to intervene in order to equalize the
imbalance.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Sandiganbayan ORDERED to grant petitioner's

Motion to Plea Bargain. Let records of this case be REMANDED to the Sandiganbayan for further
proceedings in accordance with this Decision.

13 and 27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 and 27

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 and 27

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Sandiganbayan ORDERED to grant petitioner's

You might also like