People Vs Mateo
People Vs Mateo
VITUG, J.:
On 30 October 1996, ten (10) informations, one for each count of rape, allegedly committed on ten different dates -
07 October 1995, 14 December 1995, 05 January 1996, 12 January 1996, 29 February 1996, 08 May 1996, 02 July
1996, 18 July 1996, 16 August 1996 and 28 August 1996 - were filed against appellant EFREN MATEO.
FACTS
1. According to Imelda Mateo, she was born on 11 September 1980 to the spouses Dan Icban and Rosemarie
Capulong. Rosemarie Capulong and appellant started to live together without the benefit of marriage when
private complainant was only two years old. Imelda stayed with her mother and appellant in a house in
Buenavista, Tarlac, and adopted the surname of appellant when she started schooling.
2. Imelda recalled that each time the ten rape incidents occurred her mother, Rosemarie, was not at home. On
07 October 1995, the date of the first rape, Rosemarie went to Bamban and returned home only the next
day. The second rape was said to have occurred on 14 December 1995, while her mother was attending a
seminar for day-care workers. Imelda recalled the third rape to have been committed on 05 January 1996,
the same day her mother resigned from her job and left for Manila. The fourth rape, she said, happened a
week later, on 12 January 1996, when Rosemarie Capulong was attending yet another seminar for day-care
workers. The last rape was committed on 28 August 1996. According to private complainant, she never
reported any of the ten incidents to anybody because the accused had threatened to kill her and her mother
if she were to disclose the matter to anyone.
3. Appellant denied each of the charges.
4. At the conclusion of the trial, the court a quo issued its decision, dated 23 January 2001, finding appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of ten (10) counts of rape - "WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of ten (10) counts of rape and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and to indemnify the complainant the sum of P50,000.00 as actual
damages and P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape."[2]
ISSUE
Whether or not the case should be directly be forwarded to the Supreme Court
HELD
No. Up until now, the Supreme Court has assumed the direct appellate review over all criminal cases in which the
penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (or lower but involving offenses committed on the
same occasion or arising out of the same occurrence that gave rise to the more serious offense for which the penalty
of death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment is imposed).
While the Fundamental Law requires a mandatory review by the Supreme Court of cases where the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment, or death, nowhere, however, has it proscribed an intermediate review. If
only to ensure utmost circumspection before the penalty of death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment is
imposed, the Court now deems it wise and compelling to provide in these cases a review by the Court of Appeals
before the case is elevated to the Supreme Court.
WHEREFORE, the instant case is REMANDED, and all pertinent records thereof ordered to be FORWARDED, to
the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition, consistent with the discussions hereinabove set forth.
No costs.
PACIS