This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2010-08-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The information in this case alleged that accused-appellant, who is the step-father of XYZ, succeeded in having carnal knowledge of the latter, who was then thirteen (13) years of age. The birth certificate of XYZ presented during the trial clearly established that she was below 18 years old when the rape was committed on 4 February 1998. The records, however, revealed that accused-appellant and AAA were not legally married but were merely engaged in a common-law relationship. Legally speaking, the term "stepparent" refers to "an accused who is legally married to one of the parents of the victim."[8] Although a common-law husband is subject to the punishment of death, if he commits rape against his wife's daughter, nevertheless, the death penalty cannot be imposed on accused-appellant because the relationship alleged in the information in Criminal Case No. 13546 is different with that which was actually proven. As such, accused-appellant should be sentenced with the lesser penalty of reclusion perpetua. This is in all fours with our rulings in People v. Begino,[9] People v. Santos,[10] People v. Victor,[11] and People v. Ramirez.[12] As we stated in Ramirez, | |||||
|
2009-09-30 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| For an accused to be convicted of acts of lasciviousness under the foregoing provision, the prosecution is burdened to prove the confluence of the following essential elements: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age.[12] | |||||
|
2009-02-18 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In addition, we also award exemplary damages in the amount of P25,000. The award of exemplary damages is justified under Article 2229 of the Civil Code to set a public example and serve as deterrent against elders who abuse and corrupt the youth.[78] The commission of the crime in AAA's grandmother's dwelling, although not alleged in the Information (as now required by Sections 8 and 9, Rule 110 of the 2000 Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure[79]), was duly proven and can also serve as basis for the award of exemplary damages under Article 2230 of the Civil Code as we ruled in People v. Blancaflor[80] and People v. Catubig.[81] We held in Catubig that the retroactive application of procedural rules cannot adversely affect the rights of the private offended party that have become vested prior to its effectivity.[82] We reiterated this doctrine in People v. Victor[83] and People v. Legaspi.[84] | |||||
|
2005-04-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The term "lewd" is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene;[12] it is characterized by or intended to excite crude sexual desire.[13] That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.[14] What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition. As early as U.S. v. Gomez[15] we had already lamented that It would be somewhat difficult to lay down any rule specifically establishing just what conduct makes one amenable to the provisions of article 439[16] of the Penal Code. What constitutes lewd or lascivious conduct must be determined from the circumstances of each case. It may be quite easy to determine in a particular case that certain acts are lewd and lascivious, and it may be extremely difficult in another case to say just where the line of demarcation lies between such conduct and the amorous advances of an ardent lover. In herein case, petitioner argues that lewd design cannot be inferred from his conduct firstly because the alleged act occurred at around seven o'clock in the morning, in a street very near the school where people abound, thus, he could not have been prompted by lewd design as his hand merely slipped and accidentally touched Kristine Joy's breast. Furthermore, he could not have been motivated by lewd design as the breast of an eight year old is still very much undeveloped, which means to say there was nothing to entice him in the first place. Finally, assuming that he indeed intentionally touch Kristine Joy's breast, it was merely to satisfy a silly whim following a Court of Appeals ruling.[17] | |||||
|
2004-02-06 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The twin requisites of minority of the victim and her filiation with the appellant or the fact that the appellant was the common-law husband of Teodora, Norelyn's mother, must be alleged in the Information as mandated by Section 8, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and proved by the prosecution.[19] Although the crimes were committed before the effectivity of the new Rule, it should be applied retroactively, as the same is favorable to the appellant.[20] | |||||
|
2003-07-31 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| It has been held that "the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or the preamble of the information nor from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated . . . but from the actual recital of the facts as alleged in the body of the information. In this case the information upon which the appellant was arraigned does not state in the specification of the acts constitutive of the offense that he is charged as the live-in partner of the mother of the alleged victim. This insufficiency prevents a judgment of conviction for qualified rape and thus, the death penalty cannot be imposed. (People v. Bali-balita; citation omitted; emphasis and underscoring supplied)[50] As for the special qualifying circumstance of Monaliza's relationship with appellant, the prosecution failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. The complaint alleged that he is the father of Monaliza. Monaliza testified that appellant is her father.[51] And appellant admitted during the pre-trial[52] and the trial[53] that he is Monaliza's father. The bare testimony of the complainant and the admission of the accused as to their relationship do not suffice, however, [54] for an accused cannot be condemned to suffer the supreme penalty of death on the basis of stipulations or his own admissions.[55] This strict rule is warranted by the seriousness of the penalty of death. The fact that appellant is the father of Monaliza must be sufficiently established by competent and independent evidence.[56] This the prosecution failed to discharge. | |||||
|
2003-02-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| A stepdaughter is a daughter of one's spouse by a previous marriage. A stepfather-stepdaughter relationship presupposes a valid marriage between the mother of complainant and appellant.[18] The failure to allege the relationship between appellant and the complainant in the information bars the former's conviction of rape in its qualified form.[19] | |||||