This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2001-03-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| However, the lower court erred in imposing the death penalty. In People v. Ramos[20] the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, being special qualifying circumstances should be alleged in the information, otherwise, the death penalty cannot be imposed. In the case at bar, although the prosecution did prove complainant's minority and relationship to accused-appellant, it failed to implead both minority and relationship in the four (4) Informations filed against accused-appellant. It is not enough that the relationship was subsequently proved during the trial. Both relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to qualify the crime as punishable by death. To hold otherwise would deny accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.[21] Thus, he can only be convicted of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2001-02-28 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| When 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 x x x x In People v. Ramos[14] this provision was interpreted to mean that for death to be imposable the concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender being a special qualifying circumstance should be specifically alleged in the Information. In the case at bar, although the Information did properly allege the complainant's minority, it failed to specify the relationship between the complainant and accused-appellant. It is not enough that the relationship was subsequently proved during the trial. Both relationship and minority must be alleged in the Information to qualify the crime as punishable by death. To hold otherwise would lead to a denial of accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him.[15] Thus, for this oversight, accused-appellant can only be convicted of simple rape, punishable by reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2001-02-07 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We, however, agree with accused-appellant that the failure of the prosecution to allege in the Complaint the special qualifying circumstance of relationship between him and the victim will not allow the imposition of the death penalty. Under Sec. 11 of RA 7659, the death penalty shall be imposed for the crime of rape 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. These circumstances are in the nature of qualifying circumstances that must be jointly alleged in the complaint or information. People v. Ramos[11] provides the rationale for the rule - | |||||
|
2001-01-31 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| However, the trial court erred in imposing the death penalty on accused-appellant. As held in the case of People v. Ramos,[13] and reiterated in a long line of cases,[14] "the attendant circumstances provided by RA 7659 must be specifically alleged in an information for rape in order that they may properly qualify the crime to the penalty specially prescribed by law."[15] This is based on the fundamental principle that "every element of which the offense is composed must be alleged in the complaint or information. The main purpose of requiring the various elements of a crime to be set out in an information is to enable the accused to suitably prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense."[16] Thus we held in the later case of People v. Ilao[17] - | |||||
|
2000-08-14 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| that the private complainant was a minor or under eighteen (18) years of age at the time when each of the crimes of rape was committed against her. In the cases of People vs. Garcia,[44] People vs. Ramos[45] and People vs. Medina,[46] this Court declared that the attendant circumstances enumerated in Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances since the same are punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death and not reclusion perpetua to death. It has been the rule that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances. Despite the absence of allegation in each of the criminal complaints in these cases that the private complainant was a minor or under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of each of the crimes of rape, the trial court erroneously imposed on the appellant the indivisible penalty of death in violation of his right under Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. Consequently, the appellant can be held liable for three (3) counts of simple rape only and for which the impossible penalty is reclusion perpetua. In line with prevailing jurisprudence,[47] the civil indemnity ex delicto due the victim shall be in the amount of P50,000.00 in addition to moral damages of P50,000.00 for each count of simple rape and without need of pleading or proof of the | |||||
|
2000-06-29 |
DE LEON, JR., J. |
||||
| In the cases of People vs. Garcia,[34] People vs. Ramos[35] and People vs. Medina,[36] this Court declared that the aforequoted seven (7) attendant circumstances enumerated in Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances since the same are punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death and not reclusion perpetua to death. It has been the rule that qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating circumstances. Despite the absence of allegation in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-005 to 08 that appellants Benido Alcartado and Rodolfo Alcartado are the step-grandfather and the step-father of the victim, respectively, the trial court nevertheless, imposed on the appellants the death penalty in violation of their right under Article III, Section 14 of the 1987 Constitution to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them. Consequently, the appellants can be held liable for two (2) counts each of the crime of simple rape only. | |||||
|
2000-06-16 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| x x x x x x x x x" The above-quoted portion provides, inter alia, that where the victim of the crime of rape is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent of the victim, the death penalty shall be imposed. This is among the seven (7) circumstances enumerated in Section 11, which, as we have held in the case of People vs. Garcia,[16] are considered special qualifying circumstances specifically applicable to the crime of rape. In Garcia, this Court en banc declared that "although the crime is still denominated as rape, such circumstances have changed the nature of simple rape by producing a qualified form thereof punishable by the higher penalty of death. We reiterated this ruling in subsequent en banc cases of People vs. Ramos[17] People vs. Leopoldo Ilao,[18] People vs. Omar Medina,[19] and People vs. Artemio Calayca,[20] with further pronouncement that these seven new attendant circumstances introduced in Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659 "partake of the nature of qualifying circumstances and not merely aggravating circumstances," since the said qualifying circumstances are punishable by the single indivisible penalty of death and not reclusion perpetua to death. | |||||
|
2000-04-05 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| These seven attendant circumstances, 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. No. 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.[32] | |||||
|
2000-01-20 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| We have already emphasized in the case of People vs. Ramos[32] that to effectively prosecute an accused for the crime of qualified rape, the elements of minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender must concur. Failure to allege the age of the victim and her relationship to offender in an information for rape is a bar to the imposition of death penalty since age and relationship in this particular form of rape is qualifying and not merely aggravating. The death penalty cannot be imposed when the qualifying circumstances are not alleged in the information for it would be violative of accused-appellant's constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the cause of accusation against him. | |||||