This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
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. | |||||