[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
415 views1 page

(CD) People Vs Joya - G.R. No. 79090 - AZapanta

Romeo Joya y Clamosa and Joselito Arbolante y Niviar are accused of raping Maria in her store. According to Maria's testimony, Joya boxed her in the stomach upon entering the store late at night, threatened to kill her, removed her clothes and raped her. Maria noticed Arbolante and another man, Maeng Cervania, standing guard at the door during the assault. Cervania then also raped Maria, followed by Arbolante. The court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of the crime occurring in the victim's dwelling did not apply, as the store where the rape happened was about 15 meters from Maria's house and could not be considered part of her

Uploaded by

Blopper Xhah
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
415 views1 page

(CD) People Vs Joya - G.R. No. 79090 - AZapanta

Romeo Joya y Clamosa and Joselito Arbolante y Niviar are accused of raping Maria in her store. According to Maria's testimony, Joya boxed her in the stomach upon entering the store late at night, threatened to kill her, removed her clothes and raped her. Maria noticed Arbolante and another man, Maeng Cervania, standing guard at the door during the assault. Cervania then also raped Maria, followed by Arbolante. The court ruled that the aggravating circumstance of the crime occurring in the victim's dwelling did not apply, as the store where the rape happened was about 15 meters from Maria's house and could not be considered part of her

Uploaded by

Blopper Xhah
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/ 1

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.

ROMEO JOYA Y
CLAMOSA AND JOSELITO ARBOLANTE Y NIVIAR, ACCUSED, ROMEO JOYA Y
CLAMOSA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 79090
October 01, 1993
REGALADO, J.:
FACTS
Around 9:00 o'clock, upon advice of her neighbor Felicidad Sosa, Maria closed the store and
waited for her mother inside. After some time, she heard a noise/commotion coming from the
direction of their house. Worried for her sister and nephews, as her aunt was also out that day,
Maria left the store and went to their house. There, she found nothing unusual, nor anything to
worry about
As she was told to sleep in the store whenever her mother was out, Maria returned thereat at
about 11:00 o'clock and saw appellant inside. Suddenly and without warning, appellant boxed
Maria on the stomach causing her to sit on the folding bed. He ordered her not to shout and
threatened to kill her. Thereupon, he forced her to lie down on the folding bed, after which, he
removed her shorts and panty. Forthwith, appellant held Maria's hand, put himself on top of her
and tried to insert his private organ into hers. Maria struggled to free herself from appellant who
completely immobilized her hands. She tried to shout for help but no voice came out of her
mouth. She also kicked appellant, but in vain. Appellant eventually succeeded in raping her.
Maria could only cry, while blood oozed out of her private part.
At this point, Maria noticed the presence of Joselito Arbolante and Maeng Cervania at the door
of the store. The two stood as guards at appellant's instruction.
After appellant's sexual onslaught, Maeng Cervania entered the store, held Maria's hands, la(y)
on top of her and also succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her. Thereafter, Joselito
Arbolante replaced Maeng Cervania. The same ghastly sexual violation was repeated. After
Joselito's turn, appellant replayed his horrid sexual assault upon Maria. The devastated girl
quietly suffered the repeated sexual abuse committed against her.
After appellant and the two others were through with their sexual carnage, they left Maria who
could only cry until the following morning of April 29, 1984
ISSUE
Whether or not the victim’s store, fifteen meters near their house, can be considered dwelling to
aggravate the crime? (NO)
RULING
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling cannot be considered in the case at bar. A dwelling
must be a building or structure, exclusively used for rest and comfort. The crime was committed
in a store which was about fifteen meters away from the complainant's house. It is obvious that
the store can not be considered a dwelling, or even a dependency of complainant's home.

You might also like