This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-07-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Although "AAA's" minority was alleged, the same was not proved during trial; neither was her Birth Certificate submitted in evidence. Her relationship with the appellant was likewise not established. Although the Information alleged that appellant is an uncle of "AAA," such relationship was not proved during trial. Based on appellant's testimony, he was never married to "AAA's" relative. In fact, appellant was merely the live-in partner of the sister of "AAA's" grandmother. As such, the "[appellant]" and the victim cannot be said to be related by affinity within the third civil degree at the time of the commission of the crime."[20] Besides, the Information failed to specifically allege that appellant is a relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree as required by the rules. As such, both the RTC and the CA properly disregarded minority and relationship as qualifying circumstances and correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua.[21] Appellant, however, is not eligible for parole.[22] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| It is well-settled that the rupture of the hymen or vaginal lacerations are not necessary for rape to be consummated. A medical examination is not indispensable in the prosecution of a rape victim. Insofar as the evidentiary weight of the medical examination is concerned, we have already ruled that a medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction in rape. What is important is that the testimony of private complainant about the incident is clear, unequivocal and credible, and this we find here to be the case.[50] Further, well-settled is the rule that prior sexual intercourse which could have resulted in hymenal laceration is not necessary in rape cases for virginity is not an element of rape.[51] Hence, it is of no moment that there is a finding that AAA's hymen was remnant. | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The assertion of appellant that private complainant was a married woman, and was no longer a virgin, will not exculpate him from criminal liability for rape. Well-settled is the rule that in rape cases, virginity of the victim is not an element of rape.[25] | |||||
|
2001-03-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's contention is without merit. It strains credulity for accused-appellant to say that his maltreatment of his daughter and separation from his wife propelled complainant to accuse him of crimes that could possibly cost him his life. Moreover, no woman, especially one who is of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter make herself subject to a public trial if she was not motivated solely by the desire to have the guilty brought to justice.[41] Furthermore, a rape victim's testimony against her father is entitled to greater weight because it is deeply ingrained in our culture to revere and respect our elders. Hence, absent any evidence to show that complainant had an improper motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant, her testimony is deemed credible and trustworthy.[42] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Note further that at arraignment, what was read to appellant to ensure his understanding of the charges was not the complainant's affidavit, but the informations only. By omitting complainant's age in the accusatory portion of the informations, appellant was charged only with simple rape. It would be a denial of due process to convict appellant of qualified rape when the qualifying circumstance of age was not alleged in the informations on which he was arraigned. To hold otherwise would deprive the appellant of his constitutional right to be informed correctly of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[41] Hence, the penalty imposed on appellant should be modified to correspond to the offenses charged, namely, 2 counts of simple rape. Only the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be imposed on him for each count. | |||||