This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-07-07 |
YNARES-SATIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the imposable penalty, we agree with appellant that the court a quo erroneously imposed the death penalty in Criminal Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99. In a plethora of cases, we have invariably ruled that in incestuous rape, it is essential that the relationship and minority be conjointly alleged in the information and duly proved. In the cases at bar, although the victim's relationship with appellant is unquestioned, the minority of the victim has not been proved with moral certitude. The Informations in Crim. Cases Nos. 2701-M-99 and 2702-M-99 allege that the victim was 16 years old at the time of the rape incidents, yet the prosecution failed to present the birth certificate of the complainant or any other similar independent evidence to prove the same.[13] The case of People v. Javier succinctly explains the necessity of such proof in this wise:[14] Although the victim's age was not contested by the defense, proof of age of the victim is particularly necessary in this case considering that the victim's age which was then 16 years old is just two years less than the majority age of 18. In this age of modernism, there is hardly any difference between a 16-year old girl and an 18-year old one insofar as physical features and attributes are concerned. A physically developed 16-year old lass may be mistaken for an 18-year old young woman, in the same manner that a frail and young looking 18-year old lady may pass as a 16-year old minor. Thus, it is in this context that independent proof of the actual age of a rape victim becomes vital and essential so as to remove an iota of doubt that the victim is indeed under 18 years of age as to fall under the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Republic Act No. 7659. In a criminal prosecution especially of cases involving the extreme penalty of death, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which an accused is charged must be established by the prosecution in order for said penalty to be upheld. We are thus constrained to hold appellant liable only for simple rape, and to reduce the penalty to the lower indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2003-07-29 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| For, in this case, although the complaint stated the age of the complainant to be twelve years old at the time of the rape, the age of the complainant was not sufficiently established during the trial. The prosecution failed to adduce in evidence complainant's birth certificate or other similar authentic documents such as her baptismal certificate and school records. The prosecution also failed to adduce independent proof to establish complainant's relationship with appellant. Complainant's testimony that she was born on September 25, 1983 and that appellant is her father,[34] even if not refuted by appellant,[35] will not suffice. Proof thereof is critical considering the penalty of death imposed for qualified rape.[36] | |||||