THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, - versus - RONIE DE GUZMAN, Appellant. |
G.R.
No. 185843
Present:
Chairperson, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: March 3,
2010 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This resolves the motion for
extinguishment of the criminal action and reconsideration of our Resolution
dated July 20, 2009 filed by appellant Ronie de Guzman.
Appellant was indicted before the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 163, P50,000.00 in each case or a total amount of P100,000.00
as civil indemnity.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed,
in its Decision dated March 27, 2008, appellant’s conviction, but modified it
with an additional award of P50,000.00 for each case, or an aggregate
amount of P100,000.00, as moral damages.
Appellant elevated the case to this
Court on appeal.
In a Resolution dated July 20, 2009, we
dismissed the appeal for failure of appellant to sufficiently show reversible
error in the challenged decision as would warrant the exercise of the Court’s
appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
March 27, 2008 Decision of the CA was affirmed in toto.
In the instant motion, appellant
alleges that he and private complainant contracted marriage on August 19, 2009,
solemnized by Reverend Lucas R. Dangatan of Jeruel Christ-Centered Ministries,
Inc. at the Amazing Grace Christian Ministries, Inc., Bldg. XI-A, Bureau of
Corrections,
In its Comment/Manifestation,[4]
appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, interposed no objection
to the motion, finding the marriage to have been contracted in good faith, and
the motion to be legally in order.
The motion should be granted.
In relation to Article 266-C of the RPC,
Article 89 of the same Code reads –
ART.
89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. – Criminal
liability is totally extinguished:
x x x x
7.
By the
marriage of the offended woman, as provided in
Article 344 of this Code.
Article
344 of the same Code also provides –
ART. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape, and acts of lasciviousness. – x x x.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him. x x x.
On several occasions, we applied
these provisions to marriages contracted between the offender and the offended
party in the crime of rape,[5]
as well as in the crime of abuse of chastity,[6]
to totally extinguish the criminal liability of and the corresponding penalty
that may have been imposed upon those found guilty of the felony. Parenthetically, we would like to mention
here that prior to the case at bar, the last case bearing similar circumstances
was decided by this Court in 1974, or around 36 years ago.
Based on the documents,
including copies of pictures[7]
taken after the ceremony and attached to the motion, we find the marriage
between appellant and private complainant to have been contracted validly,
legally, and in good faith, as an expression of their mutual love for each
other and their desire to establish a family of their own. Given public policy considerations of respect
for the sanctity of marriage and the highest regard for the solidarity of the
family, we must accord appellant the full benefits of Article 89, in relation
to Article 344 and Article 266-C of the RPC.
WHEREFORE, the motion is GRANTED. Appellant Ronie de
Guzman is ABSOLVED of the two (2)
counts of rape against private complainant Juvilyn Velasco, on account of their
subsequent marriage, and is ordered RELEASED
from imprisonment.
Let a copy of this
Resolution be furnished the Bureau of Corrections for appropriate action. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate
Justice |
JOSE CATRAL
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had
been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta per Special Order No. 824 dated February 12, 2010.
[1] Annex “A” to the motion; rollo, p. 35.
[2] Annex “C” to the motion; rollo, p. 37.
[3] ART. 266-C. Effect of Pardon.
– The subsequent valid marriage between
the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage be void ab initio. (Emphasis supplied.)
[4] Rollo, pp. 43-51.
[5] People v. Velasco, G.R. No. L-28081, January 21, 1974, 55 SCRA 217;
People v. Miranda, 57 Phil. 274
(1932); Laceste v.
[6] People v. Mariano, 50 Phil. 587 (1927).
[7] Annex “B” to the motion; rollo, p. 36.