People vs.
Gallo 315 SCRA 461 (September 29, 1999) Doctrine:
Facts:
In 1998, an RTC decision found Romeo Gallo guilty of the crime
of qualified rape with the penalty of death. In 1999- Gallo filed a
Motion to Re-Open the Case seeking modification of the death
sentence to reclusion perpetua in line with the new court rulings on
the attendant circumstances in Sec 11 of RA 7659. According to
People vs. Garcia: the additional attendant circumstances
introduced in RA 7659 should be considered as special qualifying
circumstances distinctly applicable to the crime of rape and if
notpleaded as such, could only be appreciated as generic aggravatin
gcircumstances. The information filed against Gallo does
not allege his relationship with the victim Marites Gallo (his
daughter), thus it CANNOT be considered as a qualifying
circumstance.
Ruling:
Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the law or the
constitution form part of the legal system of theland and so the
doctrine forms part of the penal statutes and therefore maybe
applied retroactively being favorable to the accused who is not a
habitual criminal, notwithstanding that final sentence has already
been pronounced against him. The doctrine of People vs. Garcia
may be retroactively applied as it is favorable to him. The case is
reopened and the judgment is modified from death to reclusion
perpetua.
Special qualifying circumstances have to be alleged in the
information for it to be appreciated.
People vs. Berana 311 SCRA 664 (July 29, 1999)Facts:
Early morning, 14 yr old Maria Elena Jarcia was awakened by
her bro-in-
law, Raul Berana. He pointed a “buntot page” (long with someprotr
uding parts and with long and pointed tip) at her neck and warned
her not to make any noise or else she will be killed. She was made
to lie downand Berana raised her duster and removed her shorts
and underwear. He mashed her breasts and laid on top of her. He
inserted his penis to her vagina and she felt much pain. He kissed
her and made several push and pull movements and then, Maria
Elena felt something liquid in her organ. After this, Berana sat down
and told Maria Elena not to tell anyone. He then did it again.
Accused claims he was seduced by Elena.
Ruling:
Physical resistance need not be established in rape cases
when intimidation is exercised upon her and she submits herself
against her will to the rapist’s lust because of fear for life and
personal safety. Relationship qualifies the crime from
reclusion perpetua to death under RA 7659. To effectively
prosecute Berana for the crime of rape committed by a relative by
affinity within the 3rd civil degree, it must be established that:1.he
is legally married to Elena’s sister 2.Elena and Berana’s wife are full
or half-
bloodsiblingsProsecution established relationship by the testimonie
s of Elena(saying that he knows Berana because he is the husband
of my sister) and her mother (saying that he knows Berana because
he is the husband of her daughter, Rosa Jarcia). It based its
conviction on Berana’s letter addressing Elena’s parents as “mama
at papa” and his use of the phrase “any inyong manugang, Raul”.
Since relationship qualifies the crime of rape, there must be clearer
proof of relationship and in this case, it was not adequately
substantiated. Evidence presented is not sufficient to dispel doubts
about the true relationship. Although he claims that Elena initiated
the act, he never mentioned this on his letters and instead,
unceasingly asks for forgiveness, admitting categorically the offense
charged.

Doctrine:

Relationship must be proven for it to be appreciated as a special

qualifying circumstance.

Notes: The letters may show remorse for a completely different

thing (like“I’m sorry I gave in to the seduction”) and not an apology
for rape