This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-09-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence tending to show that AAA was a mental retardate. It is settled that sexual intercourse with a woman who is a mental retardate constitutes statutory rape, which does not require proof that the accused used force or intimidation in having carnal knowledge of the victim for conviction.[57] However, this fact was not alleged in the complaint filed in this case and therefore cannot be the basis for conviction.[58] | |||||
|
2003-06-27 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| We also take note of the fact that while the informations allege that Irma was 13 years old at the time she was raped, her birth certificate reveals that she was only 11 years old at the time, having been born on 29 November 1985. Thus, these cases could have been cases of statutory rape. But, Nelson cannot be convicted of statutory rapes. In People vs. Moreno,[50] reiterated in People v. Capinpin,[51] we ruled that an accused cannot be convicted under paragraphs 2 or 3 of Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code in an information charging him with rape under paragraph 1 (by using force or intimidation) because none of these modes of committing rape (i.e., when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or when the woman is under twelve years of age) were alleged in the information. The rationale for this rule is that "[t]o convict him under either of these statutory provisions is to deprive him of the constitutional right to be informed of the accusation against him." Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused...shall enjoy the right ... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him." | |||||