THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JERRY VELASCO Y CABAHUG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Velasco versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Jerry Velasco y Cabahug, a criminal prosecution for rape upon the sworn complaint of Maria Loreto Mas. The case matters for a single, memorable reason: after conviction and while the appeal was pending, the offender married the offended party, and the Supreme Court held that the marriage extinguished the criminal action. It is the cleanest illustration of the rule in the Revised Penal Code that marriage between the rapist and his victim wipes out the crime, and of how that rule operates even at the last stage of review.

Procedural History

The accused was tried in the court of first instance and, in a decision dated July 24, 1957, was convicted of rape. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, ordered to indemnify the offended party in the amount of 3,000 pesos, and ordered to pay the costs. He appealed. After the appellant and the prosecution filed their respective briefs, the case was deemed submitted for decision on September 10, 1968. Before judgment could be rendered, counsel for the appellant, now acting for both the appellant and the complainant, filed a manifestation and motion dated December 15, 1973, praying that the criminal action be terminated and the bail bond cancelled, on the ground that the appellant and the complainant had married on December 22, 1970 before a judge of the Manila Court of First Instance. A certified xerox copy of the marriage contract was attached, and the complainant herself verified the motion, signing as Maria Loreto M. Velasco. The case was thus resolved by the Supreme Court on the papers already submitted.

Facts

Upon the sworn complaint of Maria Loreto Mas, Jerry Velasco y Cabahug was charged with rape. After trial, the court of first instance found him guilty, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to indemnify the offended party in the amount of 3,000 pesos, plus costs. He appealed, and the appeal was submitted for decision in September 1968.

More than two years later, on December 22, 1970, the appellant and the complainant were married before a judge of the Manila Court of First Instance. The marriage contract was duly certified by the assistant local civil registrar of Manila.

In December 1973, counsel for the appellant, now also acting for the complainant, moved to terminate the criminal action and to cancel the bail bond, attaching the certified marriage contract. The complainant verified the motion under oath, signing as Maria Loreto M. Velasco. The Court noted that there was no indication the marriage was entered into in bad faith.

Issues

• Whether or not the marriage of the offender with the offended party after conviction, and while the appeal was pending, extinguished the criminal action for rape.
• Whether or not the criminal case had thereby become moot and academic, warranting dismissal and cancellation of the bail bond.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 4 of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, as applied by the Court, provides:

The marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him.

This is the provision on which the entire resolution turns: it makes the marriage, not the conviction, the decisive event.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the marriage did extinguish the criminal action. It reasoned that under paragraph 4 of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the criminal action for rape, citing Laceste versus Santos. The Court expressly noted that there was no indication the marriage was entered into in bad faith.

On the second issue, the Court held that the criminal case had, as a consequence, become moot and academic. Having lost its subject matter, the prosecution could no longer proceed, and the bail bond for the provisional liberty of the accused had to be cancelled.

Doctrine

Two rules every candidate should be able to write. First, under paragraph 4 of Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the criminal action for rape, or remits the penalty already imposed. Second, this extinguishment operates even after conviction and while the appeal is pending, rendering the case moot and academic; the Court will dismiss the case and cancel the bail bond. The only caveat the Court supplied is bad faith: the rule was applied because there was no indication the marriage was entered into in bad faith.

Disposition

The criminal case was dismissed, and the bail bond for the provisional liberty of accused-appellant Jerry Velasco y Cabahug was ordered cancelled, without costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line: the marriage of the offender with the offended party extinguishes the criminal action for rape, even on appeal after conviction. Examiners use this case to test the effect of marriage under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code and the moot-and-academic doctrine in criminal appeals.