This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-07-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Preliminarily, we note that the Information makes an erroneous designation of the statute violated and appears to have been drafted with the old rape law in mind even though Republic Act No. 8353 was then already in effect.[29] Nonetheless, the oversight has no detrimental effect on the sufficiency of the Information. There is no significant difference in the treatment of statutory rape of females under the old and new rape laws.[30] The allegations of force and intimidation in the Information are mere superfluities, since they are not constitutive of or elemental to statutory rape. The real nature of the criminal charge cannot be determined from the caption or preamble of the Information or from the mere reference to a particular provision of law alleged to have been violated because they are conclusions of law. On the contrary, it is determined by the actual recital of facts in the complaint or information.[31] Thus, an incorrect caption is not a fatal mistake.[32] | |||||
|
2006-08-30 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| It is quite true that this Court has ruled that objection to the admissibility of evidence, if not made at the time such evidence is offered, shall be deemed waived.[10] However, in all cases where said rule had been applied, the assailed testimonial or object evidence had been duly presented during the course of the trial. | |||||