People vs barcela digest

Content type

User Generated

Uploaded By

wnlbayvar05

Pages

Rating

People vs. Barcela

GR No. 208760

April 23, 2014

Facts;

One early morning in 2002, while AAA was lying on the floor sleeping, Accused Floro Buban

Barcela(Barcela) lifted her clothes and removed her shorts; that he inserted his penis into her vagina; that he

warned her not to tell the incident to anyone, otherwise, he would kill her.

BBB, who was older than AAA, also suffered the same horrible fate. On November 12, 2004 at

around 3:00 in the morning, while BBB was awakened when Barcela, who was then sleeping next to her,

lifted her skirt, removed her panty and, thereafter inserted his finger into her vagina; and that she suffered

pain during the insertion but could not shout for fear that Barcela would kill her.

The rape incident was reported by the victim’s grandmother and in order to protect herself, AAA

stayed at the “Kanlungan Shelter”.

The RTC found Barcela guilty as charged. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC and ruled that

penile rape committed against AAA and sexual assault against BBB were qualified by the special qualifying

circumstances of minority and relationship between the offender and the offended party.

Issue:

Whether or not the crime committed by the accused Barcela is qualified rape

Ruling:

No, the crime committed is not qualified rape.

To sustain conviction for qualified rape, the following elements must concur: First, the victim is a

female over 12 years but under 18 years of age; second, the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,

guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the

parent of the victim; and the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim either through force, threat or

intimidation; or when she was deprived of reasons or is otherwise unconscious; or by means of fraudulent

machinations or grave abuse of authority.

In this case, the special qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship were likewise not

present. In the case AAA, the prosecution proved that the latter was only 7 years old when the penile rape

was committed in 2002. In the crime of rape, the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship

with the offender is a special qualifying circumstance and raises the penalty to the supreme penalty of death.

However, the aforesaid qualifying circumstance could not be appreciated in this case. AAA was under 12

years old when she was raped in 2002. The prosecution failed to prove the allegation in the information that

Barcela was the stepfather of AAA at the time of the commission of the crime. The best evidence that can be

used in this allegation is a valid marriage contract between Barcela and the mother of the victim. No record

shows that such marriage certificate was submitted in evidence of the prosecution. The qualifying

circumstance was not proved because there was no proof of the allegation that the accused-appellant was

the stepfather of the victim as the evidence shows that there was no valid marriage certificate to prove the

marriage between Barcela and the victim’s mother.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

People vs. Barcela GR No. 208760 April 23, 2014 Facts; One early morning in 2002, while AAA was lying on the floor sleeping, Accused Floro Buban Barcela(Barcela) lifted her clothes and removed her shorts; that he inserted his penis into her vagina; that he warned her not to tell the incident to anyone, otherwise, he would kill her. BBB, who was older than AAA, also suffered the same horrible fate. On November 12, 2004 at around 3:00 in the morning, while BBB was awakened when Barcela, who was then sleeping next to her, lifted her skirt, removed her panty and, thereafter inserted his finger int ...
Purchase document to see full attachment