This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, this Court has always been guided by three (3) well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation for rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[16] Accordingly, the primordial consideration in a determination concerning the crime of rape is the credibility of complainant's testimony.[17] | |||||
|
2001-11-16 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| All told, we are morally convinced that appellant is guilty of raping Evelyn. However, we are unable to agree with the imposition of the death penalty. As stated in appellant's brief, the trial court erred in appreciating the relationship between appellant and complainant as a basis for the imposition of the death penalty. Said relationship was not alleged in the information. In order to warrant the death penalty, the information must allege the qualifying and modifying circumstance that would justify its imposition. Not only must the information allege the minority of the victim but it must also state the relationship of the offender to the offended party.[15] Otherwise, there would be a gross violation of the appellant's constitutional right to due process, because he was not properly informed of the accusation against him. | |||||