Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 242 views

    Case 2 - People v. Atop (Pu)

    Uploaded by

    bianca
    This case involves Alejandro Atop who was accused of raping his common-law wife's niece, Regina, on multiple occasions from 1991 to 1994. Atop was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and sentenced to death and reclusion perpetua. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11 of RA 7659, which allows for the death penalty if the offender is a relative of the victim, Atop as the common-law husband of the grandmother did not fall under the specified relationships. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed and the sentence was modified to 3 terms of reclusion perpetua instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Case 2 - People v. Atop (Pu)

    Uploaded by

    bianca
    242 views2 pages
    This case involves Alejandro Atop who was accused of raping his common-law wife's niece, Regina, on multiple occasions from 1991 to 1994. Atop was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and sentenced to death and reclusion perpetua. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11 of RA 7659, which allows for the death penalty if the offender is a relative of the victim, Atop as the common-law husband of the grandmother did not fall under the specified relationships. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed and the sentence was modified to 3 terms of reclusion perpetua instead.

    Original Title

    Case 2_ People v. Atop (Pu).docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves Alejandro Atop who was accused of raping his common-law wife's niece, Regina, on multiple occasions from 1991 to 1994. Atop was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and sentenced to death and reclusion perpetua. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11 of RA 7659, which allows for the death penalty if the offender is a relative of the victim, Atop as the common-law husband of the grandmother did not fall under the specified relationships. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed and the sentence was modified to 3 terms of reclusion perpetua instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    242 views2 pages

    Case 2 - People v. Atop (Pu)

    Uploaded by

    bianca
    This case involves Alejandro Atop who was accused of raping his common-law wife's niece, Regina, on multiple occasions from 1991 to 1994. Atop was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and sentenced to death and reclusion perpetua. However, the Supreme Court ruled that under Section 11 of RA 7659, which allows for the death penalty if the offender is a relative of the victim, Atop as the common-law husband of the grandmother did not fall under the specified relationships. Therefore, the death penalty could not be imposed and the sentence was modified to 3 terms of reclusion perpetua instead.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    PEOPLE v ATOP (Pu) the two nieces kicked him so he stopped.

    PETIONER/s: People of the Philippines ● In January 1995: She forgot she had no classes so she
    RESPONDENT/s: Alejandro Atop “Ali” went to her other grandfather’s house (Lolo Geva)
    G.R. 124303-05 | Feb. 10, 1998 | J. Panganiban | Penal when the accused came and tried to force her to go
    Statutes home. He kept on pulling her until they reached a
    waiting shed where the accused smashed her to the
    DOCTRINE/RELATED STATUTES: Penal statutes are strictly concrete wall. This explained all the bruises and
    construed against the State and liberally construed in favor of abrasions in her body upon medical examination.
    the accused ● She only reported such incidents in January 1995
    because she was afraid Atop will kill her. She did not
    FACTS: exactly tell the truth (in her sworn statement, she only
    ● The accused, Alejandro “Ali” Atop is the common law said that a finger was inserted) at first because Atop
    husband of the victim’s grandmother, Trinidad Mejos. was still not apprehended (he was hiding). When finally
    (A manghihilot) he was arrested, she requested the fiscal to re-
    It started sometime in 1991 when Regina was 10 years investigate and then told them what was really done to
    old, the accused started having lustful desires on her her.
    and inserted his finger into her vagina. She told her
    grandmother about this but she did not believe her ● Version of Atop: He testified he personally knew
    and told her it was just a “manifestation of fatherly Regina because she was their adopted child and the
    concern” reason why Regina filed a case against because she was
    ● The 1st time she was raped, Regina was then 12 years coached by her aunts who wanted him and Trinidad to
    old and her grandmother was away attending to a separate.
    delivery. She was called by the accused, when he ● He was found guilty of 3 counts of rape and was
    suddenly rushed towards her, removed her pants and sentenced to 2 terms of reclusion perpetua and
    inserted his male organ into her vagina. She was not death. In the other rape incident (Dec. 31, 1994), he
    able to defend herself because at that time the was found not guilty for insufficiency of evidence.
    accused was gagging her and carrying a knife. This
    happened again sometime in 1993 (2nd rape) and STATCON ISSUE: Whether the common-law husband of the
    1994 (3rd rape). Every time, she told her grandmother girl’s grandmother is included in the provisions of Sec. 11 RA
    but Trinidad wouldn’t believe her. 7659.
    ● On Dec. 31, 1994 (4th rape): She was molested in the
    presence of her aunt and Atop’s two nieces. Regina and HELD: NO.
    PENALTIES IMPOSABLE: (since no common-law husband of
    Sec. 11 of RA 7659, which amended Art. 335 of the RPC, grandmother present in provision)
    provides that the death penalty for rape may be imposed if - The 3rd rape incident occured after the effectivity of RA
    the “offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, 7659 which imposed penalty on heinous crimes. Under this,
    relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree, the penalty for rape with the use of a deadly weapon is
    or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim” (no reclusion perpetua to death.
    common-law husband of grandmother) - Since there was no modifying circumstance, and the
    It is a basic rule in statutory construction that penal statutes attendant relationships enumerated under Sec. 11 of RA 7659
    are to be liberally construed in favor of the accused. Courts is not applicable. The penalty imposable is reclusion perpetua,
    must not bring cases within the provisions of the law which and NOT DEATH.
    are not clearly embraced by it. No act can be pronounced
    criminal which is not clearly within the terms of a statute can WHEREFORE, Decision appealed is AFFIRMED, with
    be brought within them. MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appelant shall not suffer the penalty
    of DEATH but shall serve 3 terms of reclusion perpetua.

    You might also like