This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2010-08-03 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Similar to Tagud, the qualifying circumstance of relationship of BBB to appellant was specifically alleged and proven during the trial. Notably absent in the information, however, is a specific averment of the victim's age at the time the offense against her was committed. Such an omission committed by the prosecutor is fatal in the imposition of the supreme penalty of death against the offender. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the constitutional requirement on due process,[35] specially so if the case involves the imposition of the death penalty in case the accused is convicted. Thus, even if the victim is below eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is her parent, but these facts are not alleged in the information, or if only one (1) is so alleged such as what happened in the instant case, their proof as such by evidence offered during trial cannot sanction the imposition of the death penalty.[36] | |||||
|
2009-09-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Republic Act No. 7659 states that the crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua. However, if the rape was committed with the use of a deadly weapon, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death. Further, the supreme penalty of death shall be imposed if the rape victim was a minor and the offender was her parent, ascendant or relative. Under the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure,[36] which should be given retroactive effect following the rule that statutes governing court proceedings shall be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage, the information must state the qualifying and the aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime for them to be considered in the imposition of the penalty.[37] | |||||
|
2009-04-08 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| Thus, while the informations allege that the rapes were committed on or about the months of February and March 2000, the lack of particularity in time or date does not affect the outcome of the instant case. The allegations as to the dates of commission substantially apprised accused-appellant of the rape charges against him as the elements of rape were in the informations. He, therefore, cannot insist that he was deprived of the right to be informed of the nature of the charges against him.[16] As the appellate court pertinently noted, the conviction of accused-appellant does not depend on the time the rapes were committed but on the credibility of AAA, whom the trial court found to have testified in a clear, straightforward, and consistent manner. Her testimony outweighs accused-appellant's weak defense of alibi. He may be convicted on the sole testimony of the victim, provided that such testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal course of things,[17] a factor which exists in the present case. | |||||
|
2008-04-09 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| The doctrine was reiterated with greater firmness in People v. Salalima[32] and in People v. Lizada.[33] | |||||
|
2004-01-15 |
DAVIDE JR., CJ. |
||||
| The aggravating circumstances of craft and price or reward, even if proved, can neither be considered because they were not specifically alleged in the information. Section 8, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the information specify the aggravating circumstances attending the commission of the crime for it to be considered in the imposition of penalty. This requirement is beneficial to an accused and may, therefore, be given retroactive effect.[36] | |||||
|
2003-09-23 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Anent the award of damages, prevailing jurisprudence requires that moral damages be awarded in the amount of P50,000.00[31] for each count of rape, or a total of P200,000.00, without need of pleading or proof of basis therefor.[32] Here, the trial court awarded only P30,000.00 in each case. | |||||
|
2003-08-06 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We are not swayed by appellant's bare claim. We find no reason to disturb the lower court's finding that Lanie's story is credible. It is inconceivable that she would falsely testify against her own father if the charge were not true. Rape is not an ordinary crime that can easily be manufactured.[32] When a victim says she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the crime was committed. Not a few offenders in rape cases attributed the charges brought against them to family feuds, resentment or revenge, but such alleged motives cannot prevail over the positive and credible testimonies of complainants who remained steadfast throughout the trial.[33] | |||||
|
2003-07-09 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| "SEC. 9. Cause of the accusation. - The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment." The above rules are founded on constitutional and statutory reasons. To impose the death penalty on the basis of a qualifying circumstance that has not been alleged in the information is rightly perceived as being violative of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[23] Although a crime is committed prior to the approval and effectivity of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, its provisions, however, the same being favorable to the accused, may be given retroactive effect to actions pending and undecided at the time of its passage. Additionally, procedural rules are generally retroactive in nature.[24] | |||||
|
2002-01-30 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| "The failure to allege accurately the minority of the victim in the information bars accused-appellant's conviction for rape in its qualified form which is punishable by death. It must be borne in mind that the requirement for complete allegations on the particulars of the indictment is based on the right of the accused to be fully informed of the nature of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare for his defense pursuant to the due process clause of the Constitution." (Emphasis supplied) Also in People vs. Rafael Salalima[30] this Court ruled that:"Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded. Moreover, x x x the minority of the victim and the offender's relationship to the victim must be taken together and constitute only one special qualifying circumstance. Both must be alleged in the complaint or the information and duly proved by the quantum of proof in criminal cases to justify the imposition of the mandatory death penalty. Thus, even if the victim is below eighteen years of age and the offender is her parent or relative, but these facts are not alleged in the information, or that only one is so alleged, their proof as such by evidence offered during the trial cannot sanction the imposition of the penalty." In this case, the qualifying circumstance of relationship was specifically alleged and proven during trial. However, the averment of the victim's minority, though proven during trial, was not accurately pleaded in the Information. Thus, the penalty that could be imposed on appellant is only reclusion perpetua and not the death penalty. | |||||