Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 150 views

    People v. Caralipio

    Uploaded by

    Christian Ignacio
    Iladio Caralipio was convicted of two counts of raping his daughter. He claimed his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed counsel of his choice and the information did not specify the exact dates of the rapes. The court held that while he had the right to counsel, he could not unreasonably delay the trial. It also held that the exact dates were not essential elements of the crime of rape.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Caralipio

    Uploaded by

    Christian Ignacio
    150 views1 page
    Iladio Caralipio was convicted of two counts of raping his daughter. He claimed his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed counsel of his choice and the information did not specify the exact dates of the rapes. The court held that while he had the right to counsel, he could not unreasonably delay the trial. It also held that the exact dates were not essential elements of the crime of rape.

    Original Description:

    People v. CaralipioPeople v. Caralipio

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Iladio Caralipio was convicted of two counts of raping his daughter. He claimed his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed counsel of his choice and the information did not specify the exact dates of the rapes. The court held that while he had the right to counsel, he could not unreasonably delay the trial. It also held that the exact dates were not essential elements of the crime of rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    150 views1 page

    People v. Caralipio

    Uploaded by

    Christian Ignacio
    Iladio Caralipio was convicted of two counts of raping his daughter. He claimed his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed counsel of his choice and the information did not specify the exact dates of the rapes. The court held that while he had the right to counsel, he could not unreasonably delay the trial. It also held that the exact dates were not essential elements of the crime of rape.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    PEOPLE v.

    ILADIO CARALIPIO | November 27, 2002


    FACTS:
    1. Iladio Caralipio was convicted of two (2) counts of qualified rape and imposing upon him the
    penalty of death.
    2. In two separate Informations both dated August 6, 1997, Iladio Caralipio was accused of raping his
    daughter.
    3. The accused denied the accusations against him and claimed that he could not have raped his
    daughter since he was no longer capable of erection as a result of the medications he was taking for
    his tuberculosis.
    a. At the time he was arrested until five months thereafter, he did not fully understand
    the accusations and charges against him since these were not explained to him by his
    counsel. It was also the tenor of his testimony that he was not allowed to have a counsel
    of his own choice in violation of his constitutional rights.
    b. He claims that he was denied his right to avail himself of a counsel of his own choice,
    because the RTC forced him to accept the services of a lawyer from the Public Attorneys
    Office (PAO).
    ISSUE:
    1. W/N Iladio Caralipio’s Constitutional right to competent and independent counsel of his own
    choice was violated?
    2. W/N the failure to allege the exact date of the rape amounted to a violation of his constitutional
    right to be informed of the offense charged against him?
    HELD:
    1. While the Constitution recognizes the right of the accused to competent and independent counsel
    of their own choice, their option to secure the services of a private counsel is not absolute. The
    insistence of herein appellant on acquiring the services of a counsel de parte was merely a strategy
    to prolong the proceedings of the case. As pointed out by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
    the RTC gave him the chance to secure the services of a private counsel, but the continued non-
    appearance of his lawyer unreasonably delayed the prosecution of the case. Verily, the accused
    cannot be allowed to delay the proceedings arbitrarily by his repeated invocation of his right
    to counsel of his own choice. The trial court cannot be held hostage to such unreasonable
    demand. We cannot allow the pace of a criminal prosecution to be entirely dictated by the accused
    to the detriment of the equal right of the State and the offended party to speedy justice.
    2. Appellant points out that the Information in Criminal Case No. 2030 failed to specify the
    approximate time when the alleged rape had been committed. He avers that this failure violated his
    constitutional right to be informed of the offense charged against him. In any case, the general rule
    is that the allegation of the exact time and date of the commission of the crime is not important
    in a prosecution for rape. The precise date when the complainant was sexually abused is not
    an essential element of the offense. Verily, the actual date is normally not required to establish
    the crime itself.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy