This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2009-09-30 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As to AAA's relationship with appellant, the Court agrees that the prosecution was able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The Information alleged that appellant is the father of AAA. Appellant, in turn, admitted during trial that AAA is her daughter.[46] Under prevailing jurisprudence, admission in open court of relationship has been held to be sufficient and, hence, conclusive to prove relationship with the victim.[47] | |||||
|
2009-09-04 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| On the legality of petitioners' arrest, the Court finds that, indeed, they are barred from assailing the same for failure to take issue thereon before their arraignment. Objections to the legality of an arrest must be made prior to the entry of plea at arraignment; otherwise, they are considered waived.[23] An accused may also be estopped from assailing the legality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashal of the Information against him before his arraignment.[24] | |||||
|
2007-10-10 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| In the more recent case of People v. Biyoc,[43] this Court did not appreciate minority as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape for failure of the prosecution to adequately prove that the victim was only 11 years old when she was raped. We observed:From the accusatory portion of the information quoted . . . AAA was alleged to be 11 years old at the time of the alleged rape. The certificate of live birth or similar authentic documents were not presented. There is no showing that the prosecution claimed that the said documents had been lost, destroyed or were otherwise unavailable, hence, CCC's testifying on AAA's age does not suffice to prove that AAA was below the age of 12. | |||||