This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-08-08 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the findings of the RTC, that the "qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship were clearly established by the prosecution in Criminal Case No. 2844-C and it was also properly alleged in the Information,"[30] this Court finds that the same is bereft of basis as the relationship of Amatorio to AAA was, in fact, not alleged in all the five Informations. It is basic that the filiation or kinship with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[31] The failure to accurately allege the relationship between appellant and his victim in the information bars his conviction of rape in its qualified form.[32] Thus, since Amatorio's relationship to AAA was not alleged in the Information, he is thus auspiciously spared from being convicted of qualified rape. | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| The issue of credibility of the victim-witness is best addressed to the reasonable discretion of the trial court. As held by the Court a countless number of times, it is the trial court which has the unique opportunity to observe the witness firsthand and note her demeanor, conduct, and attitude under grueling examination. Hence, on the issue of credibility of witnesses, findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless the lower court overlooked, ignored, misapprehended, or misinterpreted certain facts or circumstances so material such as to affect the outcome of the case.[21] In this instance, the trial court said: x x x In addition thereto, Ma. Jessica related in a clear, straightforward and natural manner how she was raped by accused since she was 11 years old. x x x Ma. Jessica went through all the shame and humiliation of appearing in court in a public trial in order to exact justice for the sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of her own father, the herein accused. In this regard, her testimony is entitled to full faith and credit x x x.[22] There is thus no reason to deviate from the findings of the trial court on the issue of credibility of the victim as a witness. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly held that the date of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime.[11] It is not necessary to state the precise time when the offense was committed except when time is a material ingredient of the offense. In statutory rape, time is not an essential element.[12] What is important is that the information alleges that the victim was a minor under twelve years of age and that the accused had carnal knowledge of her, even if the accused did not use force or intimidation on her or deprived her of reason. | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Fraga,[31] we held that "although the rape of a person under eighteen (18) years of age by the common-law spouse of the victim's mother is punishable by death, this penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant x x x because his relationship was not what was alleged in the information. What was alleged was that he is the stepfather of the complainant." The filiation or kinship with the accused must be alleged in the information as part of the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[32] Therefore, the failure to accurately allege the relationship between appellant and his victim in the information bars his conviction of rape in its qualified form.[33] The appellant, having been referred to as the stepfather of the victim in the information, is thus auspiciously spared from the supreme punishment of death by this technical flaw.[34] | |||||
|
2002-03-12 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We disagree. It has been held that the exact date or time of the commission of rape is not an essential element of the crime.[26] Furthermore, the failure of the prosecution to specify the exact date or time when it was committed did not make the information or complaint defective on its face.[27] On this note, we need only to restate the ruling of this Court in People v. Awing,[28] in which we explained as follows:"Section 11 of Rule 110 of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure is quite clear. It is not necessary that the precise time the act was committed be alleged in the complaint or information, except when "time is a material ingredient of the offense." | |||||