Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. REDANTE SANTOS Y CRUZ

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 182193 2008-11-07	PEOPLE v. FIDEL CANETE VELASCO JR., J.
On the alleged impossibility of inflicting immediate harm on AAA since accused-appellant had no deadly weapon at the time of the rape incidents, we held in People v. Santos that it is common for a young victim of tender age to be fearful in the face of the mildest threat against her life.[21] Although not alleged in the informations, the moral ascendancy of accused-appellant over his victim as her uncle was more than sufficient to cow her into submission, even without use of a deadly weapon.
	GR Nos. 149366-67 2004-05-27	PEOPLE OF PHIILPPINES v. FLORENTINO ESCULTOR CARPIO, J.
Nevertheless, the death penalty is not the correct penalty for the two counts of rape committed by appellant because the two informations in Criminal Case Nos. CEB-BRL-478 and CEB-BRL-479 failed to correctly state appellant's relationship with Jenelyn. To justify the death penalty, the prosecution must specifically allege in the information and prove during the trial the qualifying circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender.[39] The information must jointly allege these qualifying circumstances to afford the accused his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.[40] Sections 8[41] and 9[42] of Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure expressly mandate that the qualifying circumstance should be alleged in the information.
	GR No. 146188 2003-12-11	PEOPLE v. DIONISIO ROTE CARPIO, J.
Nevertheless, the death penalty is not the correct penalty for the rape committed by appellant because the information filed against him failed to state his relationship with Elma Luna. To justify imposing the death penalty, the information must specifically allege the qualifying circumstances of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender, and the prosecution must prove during the trial these attendant circumstances.[17] While the prosecution did prove that appellant was the common-law spouse of Elma Luna's mother, the information failed to allege such fact. The Court has consistently held that where the information merely alleged the minority of the victim but not the fact of relationship with the accused, the latter is liable only for simple rape punishable with reclusion perpetua.[18] This is to comply with the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him.[19]
	GR Nos. 150493-95 2003-10-23	PEOPLE v. CIRILO MACABATA PER CURIAM
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that certain guidelines must be observed in deciding rape cases: (a) Accusing a man of rape is easy, but disproving the accusation is difficult even if the accused be innocent; (b) Since rape usually involves only two (2) persons, the testimony of the complainant must be examined with extreme caution; and, (c) The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit and should not draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[11]
	GR Nos. 138716-19 2003-09-23	PEOPLE v. JOSE PILLAS Y AMORIN SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Carnal knowledge is proven by two details: pain in the victim's genitalia and the findings of the medico-legal officer.[18] Here, Arlyn was certain that appellant penetrated her genitalia because she felt pain every time he inserted his penis therein. Moreover, Dr. Onari's medical findings of laceration and penetration reinforce our conclusion that appellant raped his daughter four times.