This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-12-15 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Appellant's contention which essentially assails the credibility of the prosecution witnesses' testimony is untenable. It was observed that on the witness stand AAA remained steadfast and never wavered in her testimony. She maintained even on cross-examination that it was appellant who defiled her. The inconsistencies raised by appellant are insignificant matters which are not material ingredients of the crime of rape. We maintain that inconsistencies on minor details do not lessen a victim's credibility; are common and may be expected from an uncoached witness.[19] | |||||
|
2000-03-03 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| However, the use of a weapon serves to increase the penalty.[25] Since the use of a deadly weapon increases the penalty as opposed to a generic aggravating circumstance which only affects the period of the penalty, said fact should be alleged in the information, because of the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[26] Considering that the complaint (which was later converted into the Information) failed to allege the use of a deadly weapon, specifically, that herein accused-appellant was armed with a gun, the penalty to be reckoned with in determining the penalty for rape would be reclusion perpetua, the penalty prescribed for simple rape under Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659. Simple rape is punishable by the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua, which must be applied regardless of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance which may have attended the commission of the deed.[27] Hence, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court is correct. | |||||