This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2003-04-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| In the case before us, the age of private complainant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Information alleged that on May 31, 1997, the date of the rape, she was fifteen (15) years old. We agree with appellant that her minority must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the crime itself.[67] Except for the bare, passing testimony of the victim that she was still a minor when the offense charged was committed, no other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to support this fact. Neither her obvious minority nor the absence of any contrary assertion from the defense,[68] or even an admission by the appellant can exempt the prosecution from the requirement of proving it. Here, no certificate of live birth or baptismal certificate or school record[69] was presented before the trial court to prove her age at the time of the crime. | |||||
|
2002-07-31 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| have held that, although hearsay, the testimony of a rape victim as to her age is admissible as evidence of family tradition. But it cannot, by itself alone be considered proof of age beyond reasonable doubt.[51] We note, too, that the testimony of the present victim as to her age at the time of the commission of the crime was not corroborated by her mother or any other close relative. In fact, no other evidence was ever presented -- no certificate of live birth or baptismal certificate or school records[52] to prove the age of the victim at the time of the crime. Her minority must be proved with equal certainty and clarity as the | |||||
|
2002-07-23 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| alleged in the information and established during trial for the court to be able to impose the death penalty.[39] In the cases at bar, the father-daughter relationship between accused-appellant and Jimmalou was alleged in the information and proven in the course of the trial.[40] Jimmalou's minority at the time the crimes were committed was also sufficiently | |||||
|
2002-06-21 |
KAPUNAN, J. |
||||
| When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim. x x x The Court has previously explained that the circumstances of minority and relationship are considered as special qualifying circumstances because they alter the nature of the crime of rape and thus warrant the imposition of the death penalty. These circumstances must be alleged in the information and established during trial for the court to be able to impose the death penalty.[70] It was, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to satisfactorily prove both circumstances of minority and relationship. | |||||