This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-06-08 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| With respect to the proper penalty to be imposed, the accused avers that he cannot be sentenced to suffer the death penalty since the qualifying circumstance of minority, that AAA was 12 years and 10 months old in June 1997, was not duly alleged in the Information, in the light of the rulings in People v. Bartolome,[34] People v. Cula,[35] and People v. Liban.[36] His reliance on these cases is misplaced. These cases reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua because the qualifying circumstance of minority was not duly alleged and proven. However, nowhere in the cited decisions does it declare that the exact age, including the number of months must be recited in the Information, otherwise, an accused may not be convicted of qualified rape. More importantly, the facts obtaining in these cases show that although the qualifying circumstances were not duly alleged and established during trial, such inconsistencies did not create reasonable doubt as would reverse a conviction of rape. | |||||
|
2003-11-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| This Court is again tasked to review a case involving the death penalty. Corollarily, the court is once more confronted with the question of whom to believe - the victim or the appellant. The process of ferreting out the truth from the conflicting claims of witnesses becomes even more tedious in rape for it is usually only the accused and the complainant who can normally give decisive testimony in the case. [19] | |||||