This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-06-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Further, even though the Information alleged that AAA was only 14 years of age when she was raped by the appellant, said allegation cannot qualify the crime committed by the appellant from simple rape to rape in its qualified form. It bears emphasis that the age of the victim was not properly proven or established by the prosecution. No birth certificate or baptismal certificate was ever presented to prove the same. As the trial court mentioned in its Decision, citing People v. Veloso,[71] this Court cannot rely solely on the testimony of the victim; not even the testimony of her mother would have sufficed in this regard. The circumstances that qualify a crime should be proved beyond reasonable doubt just as the crime itself. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the minority of the victim was properly proven, still, the appellant cannot be convicted of qualified rape. The twin circumstances of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur to qualify the crime of rape.[72] Both relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to qualify the crime as punishable by death.[73] In this case, it is clear that the appellant was not related to the victim in any way. Thus, it is impossible to convict the appellant of the crime of qualified rape. Hence, the crime committed by the appellant was only simple rape. | |||||
|
2007-12-27 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Courts can not interfere with the discretion of the public prosecutor in evaluating the offense charged.[17] Thus, it cannot dismiss the information on the ground that the evidence upon which the information is based is inadequate. And unless it is shown that the finding of probable cause was made with manifest error, grave abuse of discretion, and prejudice on the part of the public prosecutor, the trial court should respect such determination.[18]Moreover, as correctly held by the CA, accused-appellant could not raise his objections in the Amended Information for the first time on appeal. It is settled that objections to the amendment of an information should be raised at the time the amendment is made;[19] otherwise, defects not seasonably raised are deemed waived.[20] In this case, accused-appellant never questioned the amendment either before or during trial. It is only when he appealed his conviction that he raised his objection. Hence, appellant's objections are already deemed waived. | |||||
|
2003-01-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The Court, however, modifies the trial court's award of damages. First, the trial court failed to award civil indemnity to the victim which is automatically granted upon the finding of rape. Moreover, as the commission of the crime is effectively qualified by circumstances under which the death penalty may be imposed, the appellant is liable to pay civil indemnity in the amount of seventy-five thousand pesos (P75,000.00) for each count of rape. Second, as the prosecution established that the appellant is the father of the victim, we hold that an award of exemplary damages in the amount of twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) in each case is likewise proper.[16] Finally, we affirm the trial court's award of moral damages in the amount of fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) for each count of rape without need of proving the basis thereof.[17] | |||||