This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The failure of the prosecution to prove the exact dates of the commission of the crimes charged is immaterial and would not warrant the reversal of accused-appellant's conviction. The exact time of the commission of the crime of rape is not a material ingredient of the said crime and it is sufficient if the acts complained of are alleged to have taken place as near to the actual date at which the offenses are committed as the information or complaint will permit.[30] The gravamen of the crime of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation against her will or without her consent.[31] As the exact date of the commission of the rape is not the essence of the crime and it is sufficient to allege in the information a date as near to the actual date of the offense as the circumstances allow, the dates of the rapes committed by the accused-appellant need not be proven exactly as alleged in the criminal informations. | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| We also reiterate that existing rulings on rape do not require complete or full penetration of the victim's private organ. Neither is the rupture of the hymen necessary. Even the briefest of contacts, without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape.[56] | |||||
|
2001-11-29 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| All told, the guilt of the accused has been clearly established beyond reasonable doubt. However, the death penalty was erroneously imposed for, as correctly argued by the accused and sustained by the Solicitor General, the qualifying circumstance of relationship has not been properly alleged in the Information. It appears that while the accused was the common-law spouse of Michelle's mother, Michelle was referred to in the Information as his "step-daughter." A step-daughter is defined as the daughter of one of the spouses by a former marriage. We have consistently ruled that any of the circumstances under Sec. 11 of RA 7659 the attendance of which mandates the penalty of death, is in the nature of qualifying circumstances which cannot be proved as such unless alleged in the Information.[17] Evidently, the technical flaw committed by the prosecution spared the accused from the gallows of death and it constrains us to reduce the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua.[18] | |||||