This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-02-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The twin requisites of minority of the victim and her relationship with the offender being special qualifying circumstances, which increase the penalty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which only affects the period of the penalty, should be alleged in the information because of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[44] The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure which took effect on December 1, 2000, explicitly mandates that the information must state in ordinary and concise language the qualifying and aggravating circumstances attending an offense. Although the crime of rape in this case was committed before the effectivity of the new rules, it should be applied retroactively, as the same is favorable to an accused.[45] | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The presence of lacerations in the hymen is not necessary to prove rape.[45] The case of People v. Vicente Balora y Delantar[46] explicitly states that - | |||||
|
2000-06-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's argument is without merit. Accused-appellant never asked for a bill of particulars nor moved to quash the informations before he was arraigned. This circumstance alone distinguishes this case from Dichao because in the latter case, the accused moved to quash the information on the ground that it did not allege the date of commission of the crime with some specificity.[14] It is thus too late in the day for accused-appellant to question the form or substance of the informations in these cases.[15] | |||||
|
2000-03-01 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Consistent with prevailing jurisprudence, an indemnity of P75,000.00 is awardable to the victim, the rape sued upon being qualified by circumstances calling for the imposition of the death penalty. [24] Thus, in Criminal Case Nos. R95-017, R95-022, R95-023, R95-024, R95-025 and R95-026, where the imposition of death penalty is warranted, accused-appellant has to pay the victim in each case, P75,000.00 as civil indemnity. In Criminal Case No. R95-018, where the penalty meted is reclusion perpetua, civil indemnity of P50,000.00 is proper. [25] The award of P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape is upheld, the said award being imposable in rape cases without need of proof. [26] | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| This contention is without merit. The perceived discrepancies in the testimony of Bermalyne as to the number of times she was raped are inconsequential. Inconsistencies of this nature can be expected of a young girl whose harrowing experience she is called upon to recall.[12] They tend to buttress, rather than weaken, her credibility, since they indicate that her testimony was not contrived.[13] Indeed, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times and manner they were violated. For this reason, it has been held that the exact date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.[14] What is material is that the commission of the rape by accused-appellant against complainant is sufficiently proven. Discrepancies should refer to significant facts which are crucial to the guilt or innocence of an accused. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of the commission of the crime, are not grounds for acquittal.[15] | |||||