This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-02-01 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. [Italics supplied.] The information clearly indicates that there is no allegation therein that WILFREDO is the common-law spouse of the victim's mother. In other words, the actual relationship existing between the offender and the offended party was not alleged. We have been steadfast in our pronouncements that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of R. A. No. 7659, the existence of which would mandate the imposition of the death penalty, are in the nature of special qualifying circumstances which must be alleged in the information and if not so alleged cannot be proven as such.[30] Where any of said special qualifying circumstance is proven alone without the concurrent allegation thereof in the information, the constitutional and statutory right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is violated.[31] | |||||
|
2001-01-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on accused-appellant. As held in the case of People v. Ramos,[13] and reiterated in a long line of cases,[14] "the attendant circumstances provided by RA 7659 must be specifically alleged in an information for rape in order that they may properly qualify the crime to the penalty specially prescribed by law."[15] This is based on the fundamental principle that "every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense."[16] Thus we held in the later case of People v. Ilao[17] - | |||||
|
2000-08-31 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| proved as such unless alleged in the information, and even if proved, the death penalty cannot be imposed.[40] Unlike a generic aggravating circumstance which may be proved even if not alleged,[41] a qualifying aggravating cannot be proved as a generic aggravating circumstance if so included among those enumerated in the Code.[42] Thus, to impose the death penalty on the basis of this relationship, which has not been accurately alleged in the information, would violate CESAR's constitutional and statutory right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Obviously, in the | |||||
|
2000-06-16 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| x x x x x x x x x" The above-quoted portion provides, inter alia, that where the victim of the crime of rape is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent of the victim, the death penalty shall be imposed. This is among the seven (7) circumstances enumerated in Section 11, which, as we have held in the case of People vs. Garcia,[16] are considered special qualifying circumstances specifically applicable to the crime of rape. In Garcia, this Court en banc declared that "although the crime is still denominated as rape, such circumstances have changed the nature of simple rape by producing a qualified form thereof punishable by the higher penalty of death. We reiterated this ruling in subsequent en banc cases of People vs. Ramos[17] People vs. Leopoldo Ilao,[18] People vs. Omar Medina,[19] and People vs. Artemio Calayca,[20] with further pronouncement that these seven new attendant circumstances introduced in Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 "partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances and not merely aggravating circumstances," since the said qualifying circumstances are punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death and not reclusion perpetua to death. | |||||
|
2000-03-03 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| However, the use of a weapon serves to increase the penalty.[25] Since the use of a deadly weapon increases the penalty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which only affects the period of the penalty, said fact should be alleged in the information, because of the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[26] Considering that the complaint (which was later converted into the Information) failed to allege the use of a deadly weapon, specifically, that herein accused-appellant was armed with a gun, the penalty to be reckoned with in determining the penalty for rape would be reclusion perpetua, the penalty prescribed for simple rape under Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, which must be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance which may have attended the commission of the deed.[27] Hence, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is correct. | |||||