Scribd
Upload
379 views2 pages

People Vs Degamo

1) The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Roneto Degamo for raping his neighbor Ellen Vertudazo at knife point in her home in the middle of the night. 2) The Court ruled that allowing the complaint to be amended to include the victim's subsequent insanity after the traumatic rape was merely an amendment of form and did not prejudice the accused. 3) It also found the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly applied given the crime occurred in the victim's home, but not night time as there was no evidence the accused took advantage of the night.

Uploaded by

Tenet Manzano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
379 views2 pages

People Vs Degamo

1) The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Roneto Degamo for raping his neighbor Ellen Vertudazo at knife point in her home in the middle of the night. 2) The Court ruled that allowing the complaint to be amended to include the victim's subsequent insanity after the traumatic rape was merely an amendment of form and did not prejudice the accused. 3) It also found the aggravating circumstance of dwelling was properly applied given the crime occurred in the victim's home, but not night time as there was no evidence the accused took advantage of the night.

Uploaded by

Tenet Manzano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People of the Phil. vs.

Roneto Degamo
G.R. No. 121211 April 30, 2003
Per Curiam

Facts:

- Facts of the case: complainant Ellen Vertudazo and her two children live at Barangay Punta,
Ormoc City. At one point, her brother-in-law (Venancio) came to visit and stayed with the
family. On September 30, 1994, the accused—a neighbor of the complainant—invited Venancio
for a night out. At around 1 am, the complainant heard a person calling her name. Thinking it was
her brother-in-law, she immediately opened the door only to find that it was the accused. He
forced his way inside the house, poked a knife at her neck, made her strip her clothes and
eventually had carnal relations with her. Complainant reported the incident to the barangay and
the police, and submitted herself to a medical check-up on October 3. On October 4, 1994, a
complaint was filed before the TC. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded not guilty.
- Because of trauma of the incident, the complainant suffered from acute and chronic psychosis
that needed medical intervention. Her treatment started on November 8, 1994, and has been
receiving medications to prevent regression.
- On January 17, 1995, before the start of the trial proper, the RTC Branch 12 of Ormoc City
allowed the complaint to be amended to include the allegation that by reason of rape, the
complainant has become insane.
- The RTC found the accused guilty of the crime of rape with use of a deadly weapon, with the
aggravating circumstances of dwelling and night time. As this was punishable by death, an
automatic review of the case was given.

Issues/Held:

Discussion on the Procedural Rules

- SC: Under sec. 14, Rule 110 of the RoC, an amendment after the plea of the accused is allowed
only as to matters of form, provided: (1) leave of court is obtained, (2) such amendment is not
prejudicial to the right of the accused. A substantial amendment is not permitted after the accused
has already been arraigned.
- Substantial amendment = recital of facts constituting the offense charged and determinative of the
jurisdiction of the Court. All other matters are merely amendments in form.
- The following were said to be only amendments in form:
o New allegations which relate only to the penalty that the court might impose
o An amendment which does not charge another offense distinct from that charged in the
original one
o Additional allegations which do not alter the prosecution’s theory so as to surprise the
side of the accused and affect their defense;
o Amendments which do not adversely affect any substantial rights of the accused.
- Test as to whether an amendment is only of form and the accused is not prejudiced: Whether or
not a defense under the information as it originally stood would be equally available after the
amendment is made, and whether or not any evidence which the accused might have would be
equally applicable to the information in one form as in the other.
(if affirmative on both, then the amendment is one of form).
- Amendment in the present case = Amendment in form only (meaning it is allowed).
o Insertion of the complainant’s subsequent insanity  merely raised the penalty
imposable.
o Whatever defense the accused had is still applicable—nothing was changed.
- Also, an amendment of an information to charge a more serious offense is permissible provided
that the basis for it came as a subsequent event.
o Insanity after such trauma may not make itself apparent until after some time.
- Finally, the accused never objected to the amendment in a timely manner. Objections should be
made at the time the amendment is made; otherwise, silence would be interpreted as consent.

Merits of the case

- It is highly unlikely for a married woman who had just moved into the neighborhood to expose
herself and her family to suspicion, morbid curiosity, and malicious imputations only to concoct
stories and to impute a person.
- She also suffered from psychosis after the traumatic event; in light of this, the appellant’s defense
that they were lovers holds no candle.
- Night time should not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance; there is no evidence that
the accused deliberately took advantage of the night time to facilitate in the commission of the
crime. Dwelling, though, was rightly appreciated.
- Art. 63 of RPC: in cases where the law provides a penalty composed of two indivisible penalties,
the presence of an aggravating circumstance warrants the imposition of the greater penalty
(which, in this case, is death).

Judgment Affirmed.

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