Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 376 views

    People vs. Singil

    Uploaded by

    Dwight Anthony Yu
    The appellant appealed his conviction of raping his daughter in September 1983. He argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the criminal complaint filed in February 1989 accused him of raping the daughter in November 1984, not September 1983. However, the court found an earlier "sinumpaang salaysay" or sworn statement filed in January 1989 did accuse the appellant of raping the daughter in September 1983. While this statement was not formally sworn to, it provided sufficient notice to commence prosecution for the September 1983 rape along with the formal complaint. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement was satisfied and the conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Singil

    Uploaded by

    Dwight Anthony Yu
    376 views1 page
    The appellant appealed his conviction of raping his daughter in September 1983. He argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the criminal complaint filed in February 1989 accused him of raping the daughter in November 1984, not September 1983. However, the court found an earlier "sinumpaang salaysay" or sworn statement filed in January 1989 did accuse the appellant of raping the daughter in September 1983. While this statement was not formally sworn to, it provided sufficient notice to commence prosecution for the September 1983 rape along with the formal complaint. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement was satisfied and the conviction was upheld.

    Original Title

    10. People vs. Singil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The appellant appealed his conviction of raping his daughter in September 1983. He argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the criminal complaint filed in February 1989 accused him of raping the daughter in November 1984, not September 1983. However, the court found an earlier "sinumpaang salaysay" or sworn statement filed in January 1989 did accuse the appellant of raping the daughter in September 1983. While this statement was not formally sworn to, it provided sufficient notice to commence prosecution for the September 1983 rape along with the formal complaint. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement was satisfied and the conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

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

    People vs. Singil

    Uploaded by

    Dwight Anthony Yu
    The appellant appealed his conviction of raping his daughter in September 1983. He argued the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the criminal complaint filed in February 1989 accused him of raping the daughter in November 1984, not September 1983. However, the court found an earlier "sinumpaang salaysay" or sworn statement filed in January 1989 did accuse the appellant of raping the daughter in September 1983. While this statement was not formally sworn to, it provided sufficient notice to commence prosecution for the September 1983 rape along with the formal complaint. Therefore, the jurisdictional requirement was satisfied and the conviction was upheld.

    Copyright:

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

    10.People v.

    Sangil, 208 SCRA 696 (1992)


    FACTS: This is an appeal from the decision dated September 28, 1989, of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
    Bulacan, Branch 15, convicting the appellant of the crime of rape.

    The victim-complainant Joselyn Sangil, a 19-year old lass testified that one midnight of September, 1983 (she
    was only 13 years old then), she was awaken by hands taking off her panty. She saw that it was her father
    removing her panty. She tried to push her father away but her father was strong besides he threatened her
    that he (father-accused) will kill her if she (witness-victim) will not submit to his advances. Her father-accused
    was able to deflower her because of his threat. Even though they were all sleeping in the same room (with her
    parents and brothers and sisters), she could not shout for help because of fear.

    During the confrontation with her sisters and mother. Araceli and Lourdes also confessed that they also have
    been raped by the accused, and it was then when they decided to file a complaint against their father. the
    Court finds the accused Felipe Sangil y Velisario guilty by proof beyond reasonable doubt and in accordance
    with Art. 335 Revised Penal Code

    In due time, the accused appealed to this Court, assailing only the jurisdiction of the trial court but none of its
    findings on the criminal liability of the accused. The lone assignment of error alleges that:

    The accused alleged that the trial court erred in hearing and deciding this case when it never acquired
    jurisdiction over the same due to the lack of a proper complaint from the offended party charging accused-
    appellant of rape on September 1983. Since the criminal complaint which Joselin signed on February 2, 1989
    accused her father of having raped her in November 1984, the defense contends that he could not be
    prosecuted for, and the trial court had no jurisdiction to convict him of having raped his daughter
    in September 1983, as alleged in the information.

    ISSUE: Whether or not jurisdictional requirement that a prosecution for rape should be commenced by a
    complaint of the aggrieved party, by her parents, grandparents or guardian, pursuant to Sec. 5, Par. 3 of Rule
    110 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, was satisfied in this case.

    RULING: Yes, The information was based on the first complaint which Joselin lodged with the Municipal Police
    of Calumpit, Bulacan, and which is contained in her Sinumpaang Salaysay dated January 27, 1989. In that
    "sworn" statement (it was not actually sworn to before the Municipal Judge although the proper jurat was
    typewritten at the bottom of the "salaysay") she categorically stated in Tagalog, that she was raped twice by
    her father - the first time in September 1983 and the second time in November 1984. The phrase "complaint
    filed by the offended party" as used in Section 5, Rule 110 should be given a liberal or loose interpretation
    meaning a "charge, allegation, grievance, accusation or denunciation" (p. 158, West's Legal Thesaurus
    Dictionary) - rather than a strict legal construction, for more often than not the offended party who files it is
    unschooled in the law. The purpose of the complaint in Section 5, Rule 110, is merely to initiate or commence
    the prosecution of the accused. The victim's "sinumpaang salaysay" which was prepared in the vernacular and
    the "complaint" in English, which must have been prepared for her by someone else, complement each other,
    when read together, and satisfy the legal definition of a "complaint" as "a sworn statement charging a person
    with an offense, subscribed by the offended party x x x" (Sec. 3, Rule 110, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure).
    The Court is not inclined to disregard her salaysay (complaint) for mere lack of an oath for that would amount
    to suppressing her anguished cry for redress.

    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