This case has been cited 9 times or more.
|
2008-02-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| With respect to appellant's failure to object on the aforesaid testimony of AAA, we decreed in People v. Pruna,[54] that the failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding the rape victim's age shall not be taken against him. In People v. Tipay[55] and People v. Pecayo, Sr.,[56] we also pronounced that the lack of denial on the part of accused as regards the rape victim's age does not excuse the prosecution from discharging its burden of proving the minority of the rape victim. As the qualifying circumstance of minority alters the nature of the crime of rape and increases the penalty thereof, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[57] | |||||
|
2004-07-07 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Thus, even if the victim's minority is alleged in the information, the prosecution must still prove clearly and adequately that the victim was under eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the rape. There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. Where there is no evidence at all of the minority age of the victim or where the evidence is weak, unreliable and insufficient, the Court is impelled not to impose the death penalty.[54] The failure of the prosecution to present the victim's birth certificate or similarly acceptable proof of her age as a minor bars the accused's conviction for rape in its qualified form.[55] | |||||
|
2002-12-10 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "fn">[28] Also, the proven aggravating circumstance of relationship justifies the grant of exemplary damages consistent with case law.[29] WHEREFORE, the automatically appealed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that appellant is CONVICTED of simple rape only. Thus, the penalty of death is reduced to reclusion perpetua. Appellant is | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| circumstances must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, otherwise, there can be no conviction of the crime in its qualified form.[18] As a qualifying circumstance of the crime of rape, the concurrence of the victim's minority and her relationship to the accused-appellant must be both alleged and proven beyond reasonable doubt.[19] Proof of age of the victim cannot consist merely of her | |||||
|
2002-03-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| a Yes, your Honor. q Do you still insist that your complaint or that rape is true? a Yes, your Honor.[24] Indeed, it takes a certain amount of psychological depravity for a young daughter, even if filled with a desire for revenge, to fabricate a sordid tale of such a serious crime as sexual molestation in the hands of her own father, which could put the latter in jail for the most part of his life, or, worse, put him to death, and expose herself and her family to scandal and shame if the charge is not true.[25] | |||||
|
2002-03-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Second. We agree, however, that accused-appellant should not have been meted the death penalty on the ground that the age of complainant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The information alleged that, on July 26, 1997, the date of the rape, Arlene was 14 years old. In her testimony, Arlene stated that she was 14 years old at the time of the incident. Accused-appellant confirmed this during the presentation of the defense evidence, but Lonelisa Alvarado, complainant's mother, testified that Arlene was born on November 23, 1983, which would mean she was only 13 years old on the date of the commission of the crime. No other evidence was ever presented, such as her certificate of live birth or any other document, to prove Arlene's exact age at the time of the crime. As minority is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by accused-appellant.[40] Since there is doubt as to Arlene's exact age, accused-appellant must be held guilty of simple rape only and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. | |||||
|
2002-03-19 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Third. In view of the reduction of the penalty, the civil indemnity awarded to Arlene should correspondingly be reduced to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.[41] The award of moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 should be upheld in view of the victim's injury inherently concomitant with and necessarily resulting from the odious crime of rape.[42] In addition, exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000.00 should be awarded to complainant in order to deter other fathers with perverse tendencies and aberrant sexual behavior from preying upon their own young daughters.[43] | |||||
|
2001-11-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| To put a man to death based on implications and assumptions, or on his silence regarding allegations against him, could be the height of injustice. As oftenly repeated, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merit, and it cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[46] It is the duty of the prosecution to establish, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that (1) Mariedel was a minor and that appellant is her father, or (2) Mariedel was aged below seven. Failure to discharge this duty on the part of the prosecution bars conviction of the accused for the crime of rape in its qualified form. Absent clear, categorical, unequivocal and indubitable proof of the qualifying circumstance required to convict for qualified rape, appellant must be spared from capital punishment. | |||||
|
2001-09-06 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| This Court has always decreed that the burden to prove the minority age of the victim as of the date of the rape is on the prosecution. As minority age is a qualifying circumstance, it must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[39] There must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused.[40] Where there is no evidence at all of the minority age of the victim or where the evidence was weak and unreliable and insufficient, this Court was impelled not to impose the death penalty.[41] | |||||