This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-07-30 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| Rape is qualified and punished with death when committed by the victim's parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or by the common-law spouse of the victim's parent.[10] However, an accused cannot be found guilty of qualified rape unless the information alleges the circumstances of the victim's over 12 years but under 18 years of age and her relationship with him. The reason is that such circumstances alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty; hence, they are special qualifying circumstances.[11] As such, both the age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be specifically alleged in the information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during the trial; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.[12] | |||||
|
2010-09-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The appellate court is correct in not appreciating the special qualifying circumstance of relationship that would make the crime qualified statutory rape. The allegation that AAA is appellant's sister-in-law is not specific enough to satisfy the special qualifying circumstance of relationship. It bears stressing that if the offender is merely a relation - not a parent, ascendant, step-parent, or guardian or common law spouse of the mother of the victim - it must be alleged in the information that he is a relative by consanguinity or affinity, as the case may be, within the third civil degree. In the Information in this case that relationship by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree was not alleged.[42] As a consequence thereof, appellant can only be held liable for simple statutory rape, which is punishable by reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2009-03-20 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Under Article 266-B, paragraph 1, the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a "parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or the common law spouse of the parent of the victim." This Court has ruled that the circumstances that qualify a crime should be alleged and proved beyond reasonable doubt as the crime itself. These attendant circumstances alter the nature of the crime of rape and increase the penalty. As such, they are in the nature of qualifying circumstances.[14] The age of the victim and her relationship with the offender must be both alleged in the information and proven during the trial, otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.[15] | |||||
|
2001-11-27 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| While this Court affirms the finding of the lower court that the accused-appellant is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having raped both Benita and Jennifer, it cannot affirm the imposition of the penalty of death in either case because the relationship between accused-appellant to the victims, i.e., that he was their uncle and therefore a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree, was not alleged in either of the two complaints.[86] The relationship between accused-appellant and each of the two victims should have been specifically alleged in the criminal complaints for rape before the trial court imposed the death penalty upon accused-appellant. The reason behind this requirement was explained in People vs. Antonio Ferolino,[87] thus:These seven attendant circumstances [ mentioned in Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. No. 7659[88]], given that they alter the nature of the crime of rape and thus increase the degree of the penalty, are in the nature of qualifying circumstances. Plainly, these attendant circumstances added by R.A. 7659 are not ordinary aggravating circumstances, which merely increase the period of the penalty. These are special qualifying circumstances which must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed. | |||||
|
2001-02-15 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| In People v. Campos[12] where the victims were only ten (10) and eleven (11) years old when they testified before the trial court, this Court held that at such tender age they were still unfamiliar with and naive in the ways of the world that it was quite unbelievable that they could fabricate such a sordid story of personal defloration;[13] besides, the defense failed to impute any ill motive on the part of the victims to file serious charges of rape against the accused.[14] The same holds true in the present case. What Mercelinda and Angelica testified to was the plain and simple truth. | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Plainly, these attendant circumstances added by R.A. 7659 are not ordinary aggravating circumstances, which merely increase the period of the penalty. These are special qualifying circumstances which must be specifically pleaded or alleged with certainty in the information; otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed.[31] This Court has ruled in a long line of cases that the circumstances under the amendatory provisions of Section 11 of Republic Act 7659, the attendance of any of which mandates the single indivisible penalty of death are in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot | |||||