Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • People Vs Mateo

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    2K views1 page
    Efren Mateo was charged with 10 counts of rape allegedly committed against Imelda Mateo on different dates between October 1995 and August 1996. Imelda testified that each rape occurred when her mother was not at home. Mateo denied the charges. The trial court found Mateo guilty on all 10 counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that while it was required to review cases involving reclusion perpetua, it would first remand the case to the Court of Appeals for an intermediate review before the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. It then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.

    Original Description:

    hehe

    Original Title

    People vs Mateo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Efren Mateo was charged with 10 counts of rape allegedly committed against Imelda Mateo on different dates between October 1995 and August 1996. Imelda testified that each rape occurred when her mother was not at home. Mateo denied the charges. The trial court found Mateo guilty on all 10 counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that while it was required to review cases involving reclusion perpetua, it would first remand the case to the Court of Appeals for an intermediate review before the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. It then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views1 page

    People Vs Mateo

    Uploaded by

    quasideliks
    Efren Mateo was charged with 10 counts of rape allegedly committed against Imelda Mateo on different dates between October 1995 and August 1996. Imelda testified that each rape occurred when her mother was not at home. Mateo denied the charges. The trial court found Mateo guilty on all 10 counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court determined that while it was required to review cases involving reclusion perpetua, it would first remand the case to the Court of Appeals for an intermediate review before the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. It then remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for appropriate action and disposition.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE V MATEO

    People vs. Efren Mateo


    G.R. No. 147678-87 July 7 2004

    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

    You might also like