This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2002-09-27 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "fn">[15] Thus, in order that the circumstances of minority and relationship may be appreciated, both must be specifically alleged in the information and duly proven during trial, with equal certainty as the crime itself.[16] Indeed, in the present case, the Information did not allege the qualifying circumstances that the victim was below eighteen (18) years old when the offense was committed, and that the offender was her father. Hence, in no way can appellant be convicted of qualified rape, | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| 'penetration' or 'introduction' of appellant's penis into the labia of the pudendum of Maryann's vagina. Her clarifying declaration that the white substance…came out from her vagina after he inserted his penis clearly evinces that he ejaculated inside her vagina."[31] Besides, in assessing the testimony of complainant, it would be unfair to apply the standards used for adults.[32] It should be viewed as a narration of a child who barely understands sex and sexuality.[33] It is in the context of | |||||
|
2002-04-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Article 266-B, paragraph (1), of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 8353, provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age, and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. While the age of the victim was alleged in the information and proven at the trial, the qualifying circumstance of relationship was not established by the prosecution. As stated in the information, accused-appellant was indicted for rape as the "common-law husband of Cresencia Olimpo, the adoptive mother of herein complainant." The records show that the complainant was registered in the Civil Registrar of Villasis, Pangasinan, as the child of Cresencia Olimpo and accused-appellant Faustino Dulay. The records likewise reflect that complainant grew up under the care of accused-appellant and his common-law spouse, Gloria Olimpo. Though there was no categorical declaration to this effect, it appears from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and that of accused-appellant that Gloria Olimpo is the same Cresencia Olimpo registered as the mother of the complainant. However, regardless of their identity and their relationship with accused-appellant, the penalty imposed by the trial court will not be affected. This is because neither Gloria nor Cresencia is the biological or the legally adoptive mother of the complainant. Consequently, accused-appellant will not fall under "common-law spouse of the parent of the victim." Failing to establish the aggravating circumstance of relationship, accused-appellant was correctly convicted of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.[19] | |||||